Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Bent Barrel
HP Galactic Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 07:17:00 -
[811] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:They'd still remain slower than cruisers, and therefore useless for most cases, and overpowered in the rest.
Just a simple Q. How is the cruiser going to be faster with a scrambler on him ? I mean you cannot go fast without a working MWD.
Overall I like the changes, because I'll profit on the inflated AF prices and my Ishkur use will not be affected by them in any way. Other than that, the MWD bonus just adds a requirement to use a module that heavily taxes an already vulnerable frigate capacitor.
Add a cap penalty reduction to the MWD bonus and I am completely fine with the changes. |
J Random
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 07:24:00 -
[812] - Quote
Not reading all 41 pages but have to say I don't like this. Nobody is flying inti's or destroyers as is and this will render them both even more irrelevant. Trying to figure out the logic here other than CCP's continual race to the bottom by nerfing the large ships and introducing smaller cheaper ships that can dps parity them. I don't need dust or rainbow six in space.
How about instead of bumping the AF"s you get the destroyers figured out (maybe a new T2) or fix th inti's.
PS: Also this is going to completely screw up the AF v. pirate balance. Right now they are pretty much equiv (or in some cases the pirates outperform) but this is balanced by the pirate cost. AF's are cheap throw away ships and this change is going to allow them severly out perform the pirates without having the cost to balance it. |
Tore Smith
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 12:02:00 -
[813] - Quote
i like the changes themselfs. but i have to agree to the poster above me, pirate and faction frigs will be as useless as they were a year ago. and that makes me sad.
|
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
77
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 12:15:00 -
[814] - Quote
J Random wrote:Not reading all 41 pages but have to say I don't like this. Nobody is flying inti's or destroyers as is and this will render them both even more irrelevant. Trying to figure out the logic here other than CCP's continual race to the bottom by nerfing the large ships and introducing smaller cheaper ships that can dps parity them. I don't need dust or rainbow six in space.
How about instead of bumping the AF"s you get the destroyers figured out (maybe a new T2) or fix th inti's.
PS: Also this is going to completely screw up the AF v. pirate balance. Right now they are pretty much equiv (or in some cases the pirates outperform) but this is balanced by the pirate cost. AF's are cheap throw away ships and this change is going to allow them severly out perform the pirates without having the cost to balance it.
People fly inties. People aren't flying destroyers much because they exist to **** on frigates and...frigates aren't all that common in all areas. They've always been pretty specialized and rare.
Pirate/faction frigates were described in the initial rebalance as intended to be somewhere inbetween interceptors and AFs. And they do that. The daredevil MWDs at 3.9 km/s. The Succubus and Worm, while slow by pirate faction frig standards, move along at 2.6 km/s which is still faster than most AFs - and they align in 3.4/3.6 seconds for the worm/succubus, which is better than a lot of AFs. The story is the same with the empire faction frigs. Comet is 3.5 km/s with 3s align time.
The fastest AF is the Jag, which moves at 2.7km/s with MWD and aligns in 4.2 seconds. |
Zaine Maltis
Innsmouth Enterprises
28
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 12:24:00 -
[815] - Quote
J Random wrote: Nobody is flying inti's or destroyers as is and this will render them both even more irrelevant.
That really doesn't seem true based on the low sec jaunts I've been on. Lots of destroyers post Crucible patch.
Innsmouth Enterprises
|
Sahara Wildcat
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
87
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 13:20:00 -
[816] - Quote
Add the Jaguar has: +200 shield hp +10 CPU |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
45
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 14:28:00 -
[817] - Quote
So... eight days until these changes are set to go live - will there be any responses to player feedback? |
Kalaratiri
Teraa Matar
93
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 15:06:00 -
[818] - Quote
Bent Barrel wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote:They'd still remain slower than cruisers, and therefore useless for most cases, and overpowered in the rest. Just a simple Q. How is the cruiser going to be faster with a scrambler on him ? I mean you cannot go fast without a working MWD.
The problem here is getting the scram on the cruiser. For example, a rupture with an mwd and a plate will be doing about 1200m/s depending on skills. In comparison, a Jaguar, the fastest AF, does a little over 1000m/s with a t2 afterburner. Unless the Jag lands right on top of the rupture, he will have to chase it, and while it's not impossible for him to get the scram, the rupture pilot will have plenty of opportunity to string him out and tear him to pieces.
So, while the Jaguar may well be able to get a scram on the rupture if he lands nearby, starting at any range outside of scram range, things will go badly for the Jag pilot. Things aren't exactly easy for him even if he does get the point. Most armor ruptures have a web, and one or two small neuts. You see the problem |
Ovella
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 15:29:00 -
[819] - Quote
So, goons simply want make new HACs out of AFs to get cheap counter to nasty arty mael fleets... could just have written so in the OP. |
Kalaratiri
Teraa Matar
93
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 15:39:00 -
[820] - Quote
Ovella wrote:So, goons simply want make new HACs out of AFs to get cheap counter to nasty arty mael fleets... could just have written so in the OP.
Goons fly Arty mael fleets more than anyone else. |
|
Dani Lizardov
Rise of Tangra The G0dfathers
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 16:14:00 -
[821] - Quote
41 page lol and still noone have proposed a viable AF role in this game :)
- interseptors, they are not ... the closest friget that got the ceptor was the Dramiel but it got neft - Whit MWD it can catch Cursers and BC but will get raped very fast... Whit AB it can not reach them... So will exclude the heavy tackler roles as the *wet dream that will never gonna happend. -A friget whit Curser's DPS ... well it turns out we have destroyers for that
Any other sugestions? O right! The solo PVP ship, that hunts for frigets and crusers, but can't catch them It will get some slots and grid fixed :) and what? I wont fly it again thanks...
CCP you are waisting resorces! You are afraid that something might get OVERPOWERED ... well look at what you have done whit the new tier 3 BC :) Peaople are having a blast whit them.
I will repeat my post: Sugestion: Remove the AF from the game or change them for good, even that means that they will become overpowered.
What is next? HACs ... are we looking forward for another 41 pages of "overpowered sugestions" that will make the game more fun?!
And to the CSM you have compleatly lost me here? 41 page saying you they want AB bonus and yet you continue to ignore what people want?
Have a nice day of more head bashing |
Axel Greye
Nova Ardour
48
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 16:41:00 -
[822] - Quote
hay gaiz i kno how to fix assault frigs. giv them cruiser sized weapons. |
WisdomLikeSilence
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
82
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 16:46:00 -
[823] - Quote
What are assault frigs supposed to be FOR exactly? |
Dani Lizardov
Rise of Tangra The G0dfathers
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 16:48:00 -
[824] - Quote
WisdomLikeSilence wrote:What are assault frigs supposed to be FOR exactly?
A well known Skill points hole I will say |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
77
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 17:06:00 -
[825] - Quote
Quote:What are assault frigs supposed to be FOR exactly?
Er, frigate-sized combat ships?
What are HACs for? |
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
18
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 17:07:00 -
[826] - Quote
AFs have one role already - they excel as low-sec pirate vessels, so keep that in mind when proposing some ingenious "fix all role bonuses". In my opinion, no role bonus is needed and if you really insist on having one, it should be something which improve AFs survivability during fleet fights. Nothing exotic, please... |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
770
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 17:19:00 -
[827] - Quote
WisdomLikeSilence wrote:What are assault frigs supposed to be FOR exactly?
I've always seen them as tough, frigate-sized ships designed for engaging larger targets. For example - the Wolf is slow, and has poor tracking compared to a rifter. It makes a mediocre dogfighter and has weaknesses when used for this purpose, but when orbiting a Battleship at 1000m, it can dodge large turret fire nicely while providing full DPS despite the tracking since you are point blank range.
This is just how I've seen them though, based on their bonuses, drawbacks, etc compared to Destroyers and frigates. CCP may have had something different in mind... |
Captain Nares
O3 Corporation
27
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 17:26:00 -
[828] - Quote
New AF's: a bit OP and still useless
Sure FW guys will use them. But they already use them now.
Sure this is an improvement. But not a successs
|
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
129
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 17:39:00 -
[829] - Quote
If all else fails, it's always possible to give AFs a unique role that no other ship can fill.
Some possibilities:
1) Armor Breaker and Shield Breaker modules: reduce the target's armor and shield resistances by a small amount. Can only be fitted by AFs. Uses a highslot, 8 km range. 2) Anti-logistic module: reduces the effectiveness of the target's remote rep and shield transfer modules. Can only be fitted by AFs. Uses a highslot. 20 km range.
These are both things that gangs of a certain size would want to have. There's not even any need to reduce AF combat capabilities because these modules would only start to become useful in gangs with at least several people.
That said I'm not convinced that this would be needed. If the SiSi incarnation of AFs fails on Tranquility, then it would be worth considering. |
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
18
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 17:44:00 -
[830] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:If all else fails, it's always possible to give AFs a unique role that no other ship can fill.
Some possibilities:
1) Armor Breaker and Shield Breaker modules: reduce the target's armor and shield resistances by a small amount. Can only be fitted by AFs. Uses a highslot, 8 km range. 2) Anti-logistic module: reduces the effectiveness of the target's remote rep and shield transfer modules. Can only be fitted by AFs. Uses a highslot. 20 km range.
These are both things that gangs of a certain size would want to have. There's not even any need to reduce AF combat capabilities because these modules would only start to become useful in gangs with at least several people.
That said I'm not convinced that this would be needed. If the SiSi incarnation of AFs fails on Tranquility, then it would be worth considering.
Yes Takeshi, AFs just need one more reason to be primared during fleet fights. So again guys, NO exotics here.. |
|
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 17:54:00 -
[831] - Quote
Bent Barrel wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote:They'd still remain slower than cruisers, and therefore useless for most cases, and overpowered in the rest. Just a simple Q. How is the cruiser going to be faster with a scrambler on him ? I mean you cannot go fast without a working MWD. Overall I like the changes, because I'll profit on the inflated AF prices and my Ishkur use will not be affected by them in any way. Other than that, the MWD bonus just adds a requirement to use a module that heavily taxes an already vulnerable frigate capacitor. Add a cap penalty reduction to the MWD bonus and I am completely fine with the changes. The fits that were posted were MWD fit with only a scram, & injector with no web. Any cruiser that has a web/scram against that AF is faster. And for the MWD bonus, nobody is being forced to fit an AB. The Empire folk will continue to fit ABs to their setups, but AFs will now be usable outside the padded cell that is low-sec.
@Kahega / J Random The Navy ships are lesser than T2, and the Pirate ships need some balancing. The Worm/Cruor specifically are much weaker than their Pirate counterparts and need some tweaking no matter what happens with the AFs. The other Pirate ships are still very capable and depending on the matchup, can kill some of the AFs.
Ovella wrote:So, goons simply want make new HACs out of AFs to get cheap counter to nasty arty mael fleets... could just have written so in the OP. Don't group me into those folks. I don't speak for anyone/anything Goon related. I'm as much of a Goon as you are
WisdomLikeSilence wrote:What are assault frigs supposed to be FOR exactly? Big-Game hunting
Dani Lizardov wrote:What is next? HACs ... are we looking forward for another 41 pages of "overpowered sugestions" that will make the game more fun?! .... And to the CSM you have compleatly lost me here? 41 page saying you they want AB bonus and yet you continue to ignore what people want? HACs are actually good ships that are widely used. And nobody is ignoring the pleas for the AB bonus. That was tried and it failed miserably as an overpowered mechanic. Perhaps you should take a lesson on EVE history, or at the very least read this thread.
CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Norris Packard
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:17:00 -
[832] - Quote
I feel that giving them the role bonus is out place, AFs are smaller HACs and should be basic better combat frigates like HACs are basic better combat cruisers. They all needed their 4th bonus, slot reworks and fitting fixes but feel that the role bonus is a step too far. Nice that they are more survivable with a MWD on but maybe a slight mass and sig reduction were all they need rather than a role bonus.
Amarr: - Retribution; 4H/2M/6L might be an interesting and unique slot layout for the ship and no-one seems to have said it yet. Amarr should have the most lows on one of their ships at least. Also 5% tracking boost WTF??? every other ship in the game gets 7.5% did you not learn from that last time when you decided in needed to be increased?
- Vengeance; 4H/3M/5L would be a better layout for this ship. Also the bonus "5% bonus to Capacitor Recharge Rate per level" should be changed to something useful like the very Khanid bonus of "10% bonus to armor hitpoints." Also going with frigate size ROF bonuses were a huge issue with server lag back in the day why go back to that rather than a straight up DPS bonus? (I know it gets a bit more DPS with ROF but with added tanking of HP bonus that would need to be toned back a bit)
Gallente: - Enyo; 5H/3M/4L seems fine, wouldn't mind a 4H/3M/5L layout but not complaining. Enyo's Optimal bonus should be switched to a falloff bonus. Makes more sense with blaster boats for falloff
- Ishkur; 4H/3M/4L is pretty amazing and scary, Rather than a drone bonus to just drone HP why not do something like active reps (a very Gallente bonus) or like someone else stated a bandwidth increase per level.
Caldari: - Hawk; where are you finding the fittings for the added slots? Also booster bonus has always been out of place on it should be a straight up 5% Shield Resistance bonus and that bonus would help both active tankers and buffer tankers rather than the just active bonus now.
- Harpy; looks nice don't fly them so not sure about the fitting issues but bonuses seem like they should work well together.
Minmitar: - Jaguar; 4H/4M/4L is amazing! Still needs to be the falloff bonused ship. Feel like the Jaguar should have a 4th turret
- Wolf; 5H/2M/5L Artillery beast needs the Optimal bonus not falloff.
I feel like the Amarr ones are still trailing behind the others and noticed I wrote quite a bit more on them... |
m0cking bird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
90
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:33:00 -
[833] - Quote
Very glad other pilots have returned to this discussion and are making their opinions known. +1
I also believe assault frigates do not need a role bonus. How that idea became popular is a p funny story. Has alot to do with Interceptors role bonus. Not really against it though.
-proxyyyy |
Norris Packard
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:42:00 -
[834] - Quote
m0cking bird wrote:Very glad other pilots have returned to this discussion and are making their opinions known. +1
I also believe assault frigates do not need a role bonus. How that idea became popular is a p funny story. Has alot to do with Interceptors role bonus. Not really against it though.
-proxyyyy
Feel that they are trying to encroach too much on interceptor territory with that role bonus. |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
78
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:43:00 -
[835] - Quote
The role bonus does two things.
a) Lets MWD-fit AFs get in close to things that might otherwise kill/do serious damage on the approach.
b) Allows skirmish-fit frigates (harpy, etc.) to survive at 20km where they otherwise would be shot to death in seconds by anything with barrage or scorch.
I think these are appropriate buffs to AFs. They're not really unbalancing; hell, they don't even provide incentive to use MWDs on fits that didn't use them already. Ships that use ABs will still use ABs.
Interceptors exist to be extremely fast tackle. They are so because they get bonuses to warp disruptors and have ridiculous speed/agility. Giving AFs the ability to survive at 20km is not encroaching on interceptors. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
771
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:44:00 -
[836] - Quote
So, IGÇÖll be perfectly honest and say I havenGÇÖt read the whole thread yet. I plan to do this tonight when I have more time. But looking at the bonuses, I want share my initial reaction:
AFGÇÖs should have a role distinct from tackle GÇô right now it seems CCP is trying to make them a GÇ£tank and holdGÇ¥ alternative to GÇ£speed tank and holdGÇ¥ interceptors GÇô the MWD bonus just screams of trying to force them into a tackle role, which is a shame.
The extra tracking speed leaves them bordering on OP, in my opinion. I think AFGÇÖs should fill a role of being ABLE to tackle a larger target (but still not as well as an Inty) but primarily be built around providing a heavy DPS role, same as HACGÇÖs. The problem with the tracking boost as I see it as these than become FOTM along with new destroyers, leaving new weak points in the form of pirate and faction frigs.
AFGÇÖs should not be a one-size fits-all megafrigate. I fear thatGÇÖs what they are headed towards. I always liked the lack of tracking because they made them sub-par for dogfighting and I think that frig-to-frig combat is still an area where Pirate and Faction frigs should really shine. Rock-paper-scissors and all that stuff. I think with AFGÇÖs you should have to know how to fly to get that DPS to apply GÇô it should only melt frigates when youGÇÖre watching transversal and hitting that sweet spot, an Interceptor or Dramiel whoGÇÖs managed to spiral in should be able to snag you and mitigate some damage without melting if heGÇÖs made a solid approach.
Whoever mentioned big-game hunting, this is spot on IMHO. An AF should be the perfect ship for pilots who want to prove what can be soloed in a frigate-sized ship GÇô whether its PvE or PvP, AFGÇÖs should be able to engage a RANGE of target sizes and strengths while still being not the strongest in a direct frig-to-frig situation.
TL:DR In an ideal world (and this is completely my subjective opinion) I think IntyGÇÖs should be the MWD-bonused supertackle, AFGÇÖs should be a slow(er), lower tracking, tankier-than-normal frigate capable of putting out MASSIVE damage when flown carefully, but can still fall prey to the faction frigates, who should be the ultimate frig-on-frig choice for ace dogfighters.
IGÇÖm sure IGÇÖve repeated the feedback of others who have said the same thing, or possibly offered up ideas already shot down by people with better reasons than I have atm, but thatGÇÖs just my thoughts for now till I catch up on all the shop talk here.
|
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:47:00 -
[837] - Quote
Norris Packard wrote:I feel that giving them the role bonus is out place, AFs are smaller HACs and should be basic better combat frigates like HACs are basic better combat cruisers. They all needed their 4th bonus, slot reworks and fitting fixes but feel that the role bonus is a step too far. Nice that they are more survivable with a MWD on but maybe a slight mass and sig reduction were all they need rather than a role bonus. A mass reduction with the changes would have been more threatening to other classes than the mwd-sig would be.
Norris Packard wrote:Amarr: - Retribution; 4H/2M/6L might be an interesting and unique slot layout for the ship and no-one seems to have said it yet. Amarr should have the most lows on one of their ships at least. Also 5% tracking boost WTF??? every other ship in the game gets 7.5% did you not learn from that last time when you decided in needed to be increased?
- Vengeance; 4H/3M/5L would be a better layout for this ship. Also the bonus "5% bonus to Capacitor Recharge Rate per level" should be changed to something useful like the very Khanid bonus of "10% bonus to armor hitpoints." Also going with frigate size ROF bonuses were a huge issue with server lag back in the day why go back to that rather than a straight up DPS bonus? (I know it gets a bit more DPS with ROF but with added tanking of HP bonus that would need to be toned back a bit) The Retribution would become useless for anything other than fighting frigates. No potential for cap warfare to save itself from neuts and waay too many lows for a ship that already tanks a significant amount. And if I had to choose more damage or more tracking, I'd take damage over tracking every time. For a tanky turret ship it's fairly low..
The Vengeance with 5 lows would be incredibly overpowered, moreso than those wanting to have 4 mids. The 5% cap recharge is a great bonus, and it is a Khanid bonus (Sacrilege). The ROF issues you speak of went the way of the dinosaur, which is why the Destroyers no longer have the 25% ROF penalty.
Norris Packard wrote:Gallente: - Enyo; 5H/3M/4L seems fine, wouldn't mind a 4H/3M/5L layout but not complaining. Enyo's Optimal bonus should be switched to a falloff bonus. Makes more sense with blaster boats for falloff
- Ishkur; 4H/3M/4L is pretty amazing and scary, Rather than a drone bonus to just drone HP why not do something like active reps (a very Gallente bonus) or like someone else stated a bandwidth increase per level. The Ishkur is barely cap stable to begin with, and putting an injector on it cripples your engagement ability. Giving it a active tanking bonus is not only a foolish idea, but utilizing it to its full advantage would have very little appeal in light of the downsides. The drone HP bonus is quite useful and keeps it competitive against the new, better damaging AFs.
The Enyo is pretty good, and the optimal bonus (while not very Gallente) is keeping it in balance. With the new changes to Null, the Enyo would have better damage/range ratio than a Wolf. The Daredevil gets to enjoy it instead. The Enyo gets some great range with Null & the optimal bonus, so it's not to be overlooked.
Norris Packard wrote:Caldari: - Hawk; where are you finding the fittings for the added slots? Also booster bonus has always been out of place on it should be a straight up 5% Shield Resistance bonus and that bonus would help both active tankers and buffer tankers rather than the just active bonus now.
- Harpy; looks nice don't fly them so not sure about the fitting issues but bonuses seem like they should work well together.
5mids + 5% resist bonus, bad idea. Ask anyone who has been testing the Hawk, you can fit the Hawk just fine
Norris Packard wrote:Minmitar: - Jaguar; 4H/4M/4L is amazing! Still needs to be the falloff bonused ship. Feel like the Jaguar should have a 4th turret
- Wolf; 5H/2M/5L Artillery beast needs the Optimal bonus not falloff. Jag is terrible, needs more fitting and base shields. The Wolf is golden, and the falloff is what makes it so. Everyone on this forum prefers it over optimal, and with good reason.
CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
130
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 18:56:00 -
[838] - Quote
Norris Packard wrote:Amarr: - Retribution; 4H/2M/6L might be an interesting and unique slot layout for the ship and no-one seems to have said it yet. Amarr should have the most lows on one of their ships at least. Also 5% tracking boost WTF??? every other ship in the game gets 7.5% did you not learn from that last time when you decided in needed to be increased?
A 6 low slot Retri seems like an arbitrary change. What are you trying to do with the ship? If you wanted to make it a fearsome frigate killer, -1 low +1 mid would achieve that perfectly fine (and actually warrant an armor reduction given how powerful a Retribution with a web is).
I agree that it does need *something* more in the current state, but losing its utility high while gaining more EHP (or speed) is not what's needed.
Quote:- Vengeance; 4H/3M/5L would be a better layout for this ship. Also the bonus "5% bonus to Capacitor Recharge Rate per level" should be changed to something useful like the very Khanid bonus of "10% bonus to armor hitpoints." Also going with frigate size ROF bonuses were a huge issue with server lag back in the day why go back to that rather than a straight up DPS bonus? (I know it gets a bit more DPS with ROF but with added tanking of HP bonus that would need to be toned back a bit)
I can tell you haven't flown this ship on SiSi against other AFs. It really does not need any boosts, let alone 50% more armor (on a ship with 5% armor resistances to begin with). Unlike the Retribution it's well suited to engage bigger targets and needs a small nos to combat neuts. Your suggestion creates an overpowered frigate-eating monster that's still somehow worse against bigger targets where AFs actually needed help. Bad. |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
46
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 19:15:00 -
[839] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Retribution ... does need *something* more in the current state, but losing its utility high while gaining more EHP (or speed) is not what's needed. To be fair, the current retri is quite good at killing other (non-Minmatar) AFs as is. A little more tracking would make it better at popping drones, for sure, but its real issue with engaging bigger ships is its cap dependence (IME it's quite vulnerable to neuting even with a small nos). Maybe a bigger base capacitor with unchanged regen time?
|
Krzdr
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 19:17:00 -
[840] - Quote
Gempei wrote: For all ship: AB bonus not mwd bonus
Proposed change plus this. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |