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) |
Ramadawn
Quantum Cats Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 21:03:00 -
[901] - Quote
I wonder if the new harpy if fitted with 2 med shield ext will be able to tank gate guns? |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
60
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 22:05:00 -
[902] - Quote
Ramadawn wrote:I wonder if the new harpy if fitted with 2 med shield ext will be able to tank gate guns?
|
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 22:11:00 -
[903] - Quote
@Ramadawn
Quote:Each sentry gun fires every 1.75 seconds and deals 56 EM, 56 Explosive, 98 Kinetic, and 98 Thermal damage per hit. Ignoring resists, this equates to 308 volley damage and 176 DPS per sentry gun. Additionally, sentry guns are unaffected by transversal and sig radius and are therefore particularly deadly to frigates. Unlikely, at least not in any relevant capacity. It would take less time, and would be more effective to use, a Moa.
@Stukkler I'm not saying your (low-sec) opinion doesn't matter. Fact of the matter is that many (not all) of those who live in Low-Sec/Empire lack the big picture when trying to account for the rest of Eve (where the majority of pvp occurs). This is demonstrated by the large number of requests for game breaking changes such as AB speed, or other Empire-specific suggestions, which seem to stem from Empire players.
T2 frigates are superior to T1 frigates. In their respective roles, a T2 frigate will always outperform their T1 counterpart when fit for a certain role. AFs particular role involves hunting and killing larger targets (Cruisers), not frigates. When fit to meet a similar goal, the T1 frigate will always fail to stack up. Conversely, the T1 frigates can perform some tasks better than AFs (ie: ewar).
Why does anyone fly a T1 Cruiser over a T2 Cruiser? Why should anyone fly a T1 Frigate over a T2 Frigate? With costs aside, they shouldn't. T2 ships are something people look forward to flying, they are the natural progression from the ships that they spent tons of hours learning to use and skilling to fly. T2 ships are what the rich and skilled can afford to fly. You can't begin to argue that something that requires a significantly larger investment (both isk/skill/time) should be only *marginally* better.
For reference: T1 Cruisers are ~5m, T2 Cruisers are ~110m (to start). T1 Frigates/Destroyers peak at ~800k, the cheapest of the T2 frigates (Interceptors) start at ~12m, with most AFs being a little over 20m. CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
778
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 22:38:00 -
[904] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote: @Stukkler I'm not saying your (low-sec) opinion doesn't matter. Fact of the matter is that many (not all) of those who live in Low-Sec/Empire lack the big picture when trying to account for the rest of Eve (where the majority of pvp occurs). This is demonstrated by the large number of requests for game breaking changes such as AB speed, or other Empire-specific suggestions, which seem to stem from Empire players.
While the majority of PvP occurs in nullsec, the majority of subcap warfare I would argue takes place in lowsec. Lowsec is where those that specifically choose to avoid the broken nature of cap warfare live and look for fights. Lowsec is the home of the pirate alliances - those that make a living off mastering small-scale warfare. Lowsec is home to Faction Warfare - a dead "feature" but an active community of PvPers who have stuck together, fighting each other every day and honing their skills, living for the fight.
There might be some raw numbers that tip the scale in nullsec's favor, but I think your average lowsec PvPer is far more experienced with the nuances of ship-to-ship fighting than those in nullsec, who may be more accustomed to large fleets that are FC-dependent. Lowsec gangs are more like wolf-packs, where every wolf is an alpha who may need to take charge of the gang once he tackles something.
The old pattern of players being "born" in Empire but ineviteably drifting to "endgame" nullsec no longer applies to much of EvE, many of us have made lowsec our home and have no intention of moving to nullsec, mainly because we prefer this kind of small-gang warfare over the boredom of going through a BS or carrier primary list in alphabetical order, playing grid-fu, etc.
I think its more the divisive language you are using Prometheus, than the points you are making. The MWD bonus is sound, it helps the AF in its job as a *heavy* tackle, because you rightfully point out that interceptors are NOT designed for extended survival in web/scram range, and AF's are poised to fill this hole quite well.
However, all the other cumulative bonuses do indeed push AF's to the top of the new food chain. The one balancing factor they had - lack of tracking - is now gone. They DID serve their purpose as heavy tacklers, but other frigates still had advantages in a dogfight. Sadly, now they do not.
I support the MWD bonus, and tank bonuses, even the slot bonuses if we must (though whoever says you need a tackle mod on a Retribution is full of **** - I've known far too many pilots who have gotten solo kills in them, believe it or not).
What I think is broken is the tracking. Other frigates should maintain *SOME* small balancing edge over the AF's, and AF's currently have tracking that is perfectly capable of applying DPS to larger targets as designed.
AF's don't need to be the ultimate frig-killers. We have destroyers, and the combat interceptors for that. I agree with Stukkler that the sum total of these bonuses imbalances lowsec warfare in a way that nullsec players might not be sensitive to. We can boost their tank and speed without making them the new God-mode in frig-to-frig combat.
My guess though is that as close as we are to Jan 24, all this talk is more or less pointless - if CCP were going to change or pare back the boosts, they would have stepped in and said so by now. I take their silence to mean this is what we have to accept whether we all like it or not. |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
61
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 23:18:00 -
[905] - Quote
There seem to be a lot of people who dumped nice sums of cash into faction/pirate frigates who are mad they do not have an iWIN button against AF's any longer.
If AF are so wonderous in the frig- fight game then at least there are 2x more options than Dram/DD/Slicer/Hookbill.
I hate creep, and these changes are creep for sure, but people would be all [:shootastatue:] if they only gave AF the MWD bonus (which is a good bonus). |
Zarnak Wulf
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
211
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 23:22:00 -
[906] - Quote
Once you get out of the niche of low-sec, frigate combat is really on life support. And there are many reasons for that. Some are economic and related to isk generation. People have created high-sec alts to run Incursions and don't rat in null. . Botting is prevalent throughout nullsec as well. If you enter the system the ship automatically warps to a safe spot and cloaks. Both of those factors make it hard for small roaming bands to go out and catch ratters like the old days. And consequently - the need for the hero tackle is gone too.
Other factors are through buffs. Pulse lasers and AC are currently very popular. Both just about always use Tracking Enhancers. Both had their tracking buffed at some point in time. And both murder even small interceptors trying to tackle from that 25km - 30km range. Most fits have nuets for scram range combat. That makes it tremendously hard to get under a HAC or BC guns and apply a tackle. Blasters, which are slowly coming back, just got a 20% tracking buff too. You are damned at range. You are damned up close.
So let's talk about Interceptors. They have half the raw hit points of AF. They have none of the T2 resists. They're fast - but not fast enough to evade incoming fire. Hence the popularity of the Dramiel which was much faster then them with more EHP and firepower as well. Soooooo - Give interceptors 75% of the AF's hit points. Give them T2 resists. Increase their speed with a MWD by about 500m/s. Go ship to ship and adjust fittings as needed. I'm looking at you Raptor. A little more sexy now, right?
Now what would have happened if CCP Tallest had come out and started an interceptor buff first? We'd have many of the same faces yelling that low-sec combat would be unbalanced. Many would be angry that AF and EAF hadn't been looked at first. Many would decry a nullsec buff at lowsec expense.
The game has to change. We can't be so attached to our current low-sec lifestyle that everything is opposed on general principal. Some bitterly opposed the proposed booster changes. They got them put on hold. Maybe they were right. Maybe they were wrong. But I guarantee you it's on the back burner for 2+ years now. Lowsec is 8% of the game's population. Are you happy with that? I'm not.
|
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
61
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 23:35:00 -
[907] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote: Some bitterly opposed the proposed booster changes. They got them put on hold. Maybe they were right. Maybe they were wrong. But I guarantee you it's on the back burner for 2+ years now.
Is this like "Don't oppose Mitt Romney because if he doesnt get the GOP nomination then Obama will have 4 more years in office!" |
Zarnak Wulf
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
211
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 23:40:00 -
[908] - Quote
It's more 'just say no' Republicans. But bringing up politics is bad form. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
779
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 00:06:00 -
[909] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote: Now what would have happened if CCP Tallest had come out and started an interceptor buff first? We'd have many of the same faces yelling that low-sec combat would be unbalanced. Many would be angry that AF and EAF hadn't been looked at first. Many would decry a nullsec buff at lowsec expense.
The game has to change. We can't be so attached to our current low-sec lifestyle that everything is opposed on general principal. Some bitterly opposed the proposed booster changes. They got them put on hold. Maybe they were right. Maybe they were wrong. But I guarantee you it's on the back burner for 2+ years now. Lowsec is 8% of the game's population. Are you happy with that? I'm not.
Well said, Zarnak. (Though I was neither yelling, whining, nor opposing these changes based on "general principle"). I think most of the package is good, I was simply voicing my opinion on one aspect of the change, I've always liked the fact that the tracking was traded for maximum DPS on the AF's, because it means they could ONLY pwn in frig-to-frig if the pilot knew what he was doing and flew manually, reducing transversal, or picked the right orbit distance and speed. I agree with those that say this now makes the ship excessively easy to fly and a no-brainer as for as a solo roaming frig compared to categories of ship.
All that said, you're right, balancing is ultimately a giant game of whack-a-mole. We all have our individual wishes for the ship, and likes / dislikes, but reality is that by the end of summer, we will have adjusted and found a new ship (probably interceptors or faction frigs) that we feel is sad and neglected. The problem lies more in how long it took to get here - I don't care if there's always a FOTM as long as it doesnt become a FOTY. Constant change at least keeps bodies (and brains) in motion.
I certainly have no desire to protect the status quo in low-sec. It desperately needs attention, as it has been and could potentially host a lot more of small scale, elite subcap PvP (the kind you see in Alliance tournaments) as well as piracy, illegal goods manufacturing, smuggling, FW, etc. All of these activities could be just as "endgame" as nullsec, just designed to appeal to those with different tastes, and those who want cutting edge PvP without the responsibility and hassle of a moving alliance and soveriegnty stuff to keep up with.
I'm sure you are referencing my opposition to the booster changes, at least those were less of a case of "FOTM Fear" (their quality was more or less unchanged if you had trained skills) and more about CCP not thinking about the fact the changes would have economically completely contradicted their own stated goal of getting more people to use them.
I was curious about the source of your statistic? Is there a comprehensive demographics report somewhere? I'd love to see more. I'm not arguing with it, 8% doesn't surprise me, its just a shame. That is exactly why I think we need to see MORE development of lowsec gameplay, not less because by now people have (rightfully) left for more interesting areas of the game. |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
61
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 00:13:00 -
[910] - Quote
8% is a dodgy statistic that came from one of the last QENs.
another dodgy statistic: low sec accounts for ~25% of all PvP related ship explosions (from the "you guys like blowing stuff up" dev blog). |
|
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
20
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 00:15:00 -
[911] - Quote
@ Zarnak
I dont think many oppose the changes for the sake of conservatism or just fear of change.
I believe problem is somewhere else. Many players keep demanding some sort of role for AFs. In my opinion thats complete nonsense - the poupose of AFs is pretty simple - to deal damage, nothing really fancy is needed. And actually AFs found their role in low-sec as a pirate ships. Why? Because they can do more or less the same things Cruiser can but they are more nimble and almost gate camp proof (in low sec).
You are trying to artificaly find them some place out of the low sec niche. Iam afraid such efforts are doom to failure. In comparison to Cruisers AFs will be always really difficult to fly, expensive, and next to useless in fleet fights. But in my opinion those are no faults of the concept. AFs has a niche to fill in and they do it quite nicely already. By buffing them you can acomplish two things. First, if you buff them only a little, they still would not be viable out of low sec. If you buff them enough to be important addition to 0.0 fleets, dont even try to imagine what the experienced low sec pilots would be able to accomplish with them
Conclusion Bonuses created solely to give AFs a "role" are absolutely terrible idea, other bonuses like the proposed MWD sig reduction are ofc viable but i still dont think they will make the difference. AFs will most probably remain the tool for a limited number of enthusiastic, largely low sec based pilots. Which is perfectly fine, if you ask me. |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
61
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 00:21:00 -
[912] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:It's more 'just say no' Republicans. But bringing up politics is bad form.
lol yeah it is bad form but I just recieved a robo-call to that effect while I was reading your post. My point is that it makes great rhetoric and pretty crappy logic all at the same time.
As for boosting inty speed I dont see it making a huge difference in the number of inties that are employed tbh. The decline in interceptor use is way more complicated than tracking buffs and ratters getting smarter (they dont all have to be bots). And many of the reasons have nothing to do with how fast they are or are not, so moar speed doesnt necessarily help.
We should save this for a BUFF INTERCEPTOR!!!1111 thread though. |
Zarnak Wulf
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
211
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 00:26:00 -
[913] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:8% is a dodgy statistic that came from one of the last QENs.
another dodgy statistic: low sec accounts for ~25% of all PvP related ship explosions (from the "you guys like blowing stuff up" dev blog).
This was the source yes. And my underlying point is that all small ships could do with a boost. That's it really. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
779
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 00:29:00 -
[914] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:8% is a dodgy statistic that came from one of the last QENs.
another dodgy statistic: low sec accounts for ~25% of all PvP related ship explosions (from the "you guys like blowing stuff up" dev blog).
Now 8% of the population getting 25% of the PvP kills, THAT sounds about right to me, based on the type of PvP-er and level of aggressive behavior that I see in lowsec. But to be fair, I live next to Amamake, which is a bit of a hotspot.
But regardless of the accuracy of statistics or not, we should all be arguing about the mechanics changes on their own merit, not trying to sift out whether the person's comments are valid because they live and play in one section of the game or another. All three areas of the game have major issues breaking core mechanics, so carebears end up in nullsec, and PvPers come to gank in highsec, its all one big cesspool now.
It shouldn't matter where someone's coming from if they have a good / bad argument.
People spend far more time worrying about the group someone belongs to, and making assumptions about bias that may or may not be behind a statement, than we do actually listening to what each other has to say. This whole low vs high, null vs low, high vs null stuff is really counterproductive in the end.
Statements like "all these players are from ______ so we all know what they are after" or "all these complainers are mad because they have invested isk in _______" keep making me facepalm. They are usually inaccurate, and often say more about the person using them than they do about subject at hand. |
Stukkler Tian
Space Hobos LLC.
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 02:03:00 -
[915] - Quote
Edit: Alex and Hans are saying what im trying to say much better than i can myself so im gonna go ahead and remove this wallotext |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
135
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 08:21:00 -
[916] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:So let's talk about Interceptors. They have half the raw hit points of AF. They have none of the T2 resists. They're fast - but not fast enough to evade incoming fire. Hence the popularity of the Dramiel which was much faster then them with more EHP and firepower as well. Soooooo - Give interceptors 75% of the AF's hit points. Give them T2 resists. Increase their speed with a MWD by about 500m/s. Go ship to ship and adjust fittings as needed. I'm looking at you Raptor. A little more sexy now, right?
My take on interceptors:
1) T2 resists: yes, more hitpoints: yes. 2) What they really need is higher base locking range. Current values are not adequate given their speed and the possible range on warp disruptors. 3) Tackler intys are really good at holding a point with a warp disruptor but not good with a scrambler. Let's make them better with a scrambler: the 5% bonus to warp disruptor and scrambler optimal is split into a 5% warp disruptor optimal and +15% warp scrambler optimal bonus. That gives us the following optimals for a Warp Scrambler II Max skills: 15750. Too close to overloaded web range to be safe, but still a nice improvement as it's clearly out of regular scram range. Max skills+overloaded: 18900. Max skills+maxed T2 gang link: 22881 Max skills+maxed T2 gang link+overloaded: 27457. 4) More fitting on combat interceptors. I don't want combat interceptors to tread on AF territory though like the Taranis has done for years. A proper distinction of roles should be maintained. |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
51
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:57:00 -
[917] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:3) Tackler intys are really good at holding a point with a warp disruptor but not good with a scrambler. Let's make them better with a scrambler: the 5% bonus to warp disruptor and scrambler optimal is split into a 5% warp disruptor optimal and +15% warp scrambler optimal bonus. That gives us the following optimals for a Warp Scrambler II Max skills: 15750. Too close to overloaded web range to be safe, but still a nice improvement as it's clearly out of regular scram range. Max skills+overloaded: 18900. Max skills+maxed T2 gang link: 22881 Max skills+maxed T2 gang link+overloaded: 27457. This would basically kill off soloing in anything bigger than a frigate and make attacking tackle inties off a gang a *very* dicey proposition in another frigate (miss your first slingshot and congrats! you're dead in the water with hostiles inbound!) |
Bent Barrel
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:31:00 -
[918] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:So let's talk about Interceptors. They have half the raw hit points of AF. They have none of the T2 resists. They're fast - but not fast enough to evade incoming fire. Hence the popularity of the Dramiel which was much faster then them with more EHP and firepower as well. Soooooo - Give interceptors 75% of the AF's hit points. Give them T2 resists. Increase their speed with a MWD by about 500m/s. Go ship to ship and adjust fittings as needed. I'm looking at you Raptor. A little more sexy now, right? My take on interceptors: 1) T2 resists: yes, more hitpoints: yes. 2) What they really need is higher base locking range. Current values are not adequate given their speed and the possible range on warp disruptors. 3) Tackler intys are really good at holding a point with a warp disruptor but not good with a scrambler. Let's make them better with a scrambler: the 5% bonus to warp disruptor and scrambler optimal is split into a 5% warp disruptor optimal and +15% warp scrambler optimal bonus. That gives us the following optimals for a Warp Scrambler II Max skills: 15750. Too close to overloaded web range to be safe, but still a nice improvement as it's clearly out of regular scram range. Max skills+overloaded: 18900. Max skills+maxed T2 gang link: 22881 Max skills+maxed T2 gang link+overloaded: 27457. 4) More fitting on combat interceptors. I don't want combat interceptors to tread on AF territory though like the Taranis has done for years. A proper distinction of roles should be maintained.
I'd keep the current split but repurpose the combat inties. Current tackle inties are fine far what they do (ok some lock range buf would help).
Give the combat inties close range survival bonuses and scram bonuses. |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
135
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:43:00 -
[919] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:This would basically kill off soloing in anything bigger than a frigate and make attacking tackle inties off a gang a *very* dicey proposition in another frigate (miss your first slingshot and congrats! you're dead in the water with hostiles inbound!)
I understand your concerns. I have to agree somewhat as well, it's a very strong bonus. Let me explain the reasoning behind it though.
The current usefulness of interceptors is limited. Great for getting to their target quick and holding a long point on someone but not much else. I think everybody will agree that they're underused despite being good in their niche.
If you were to make them sturdier to the point where they can go into web range and survive for some time, they would become too similar to AFs.
If you were to increase the optimal on their warp disruptors they would become too similar (or even surpass) the Keres. That is unless damps suddenly become useful and good.
If you were to increase their web range, they would become too similar to the Hyena.
So what approach can be taken to make them more useful? That's how I came to warp scrambler range bonus because I don't think that generic buffs (more hitpoints, speed, targeting range, maybe a slot, etc) would change the situation.
Maybe you have better ideas that you want to share? |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
103
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 12:14:00 -
[920] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:8% is a dodgy statistic that came from one of the last QENs.
another dodgy statistic: low sec accounts for ~25% of all PvP related ship explosions (from the "you guys like blowing stuff up" dev blog).
Another dodgy statistic: FW "militias alliances" alone would occupy three of the top 10 alliances in kills according to eve-kill.net. Add in RvB and now you have half of the "Top 10" alliances in kills not in 0.0.
Heavens forbid that the community that uses assault frigs the most comment on what they think will occur when assault frigs are buffed.
Did the one CSM guy who posts here ever consider that HIS perspective is limited, and that he doesn't see the big picture? Perhaps he ought to really listen to everybody here before grinding his axe so hard. |
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
255
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:18:00 -
[921] - Quote
minutes wrote:CCP noted that new ships with new roles drives gameplay more than the existing system where one hull type does everything... Made in reference to possibility of a new anti super-capital ship but applicable everywhere else as well .. so why does AF's get Destroyer level anti-frig power (tracking/range), Interceptor MWD sig bonus and Cruiser+ tank/damage? Perhaps we should include some eWar bonuses on top and scrap all the other light hulls to really make intentions clear
My final take; Back to drawing-board and don't even mention any sort of bonus before this pesky question has been answered: What is their role? |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
63
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:45:00 -
[922] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: we're not looking into creating an uber-balanced utopia ala Starcraft II that, once achieved, we can then walk away from. Rather, we want to achieve a more chaotic environment where 'best' fittings change rapidly and the value of items (modules, rigs, ships) is relative based on the current metagame rather than fixed in eternity.
Just gonna leave this here. |
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:56:00 -
[923] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote: My final take; Back to drawing-board and don't even mention any sort of bonus before this pesky question has been answered: What is their role?
Nope, you are wrong about that. The least thing AFs need is to further limit their usage by restricting them to fulfil some so called "role". Their role already exists and it is to deal damage. Or are you implying that Cruisers need a special role as well? What about Battleships or Battlecruisers even? I know BCs were actually supposed to provide bonuses to fleet, but who is actually using them for that?
On one side, some of you guys keep saying that AFs are ignored by majority of Eve players because AFs lack the some defined "role" to fulfil, but do you understand that if you give them one, you are only restricting the field AFs are usable in? Which inevitably means, AFs will actually become even less popular? For example what advantage would actually have an AF with medium sized guns over the actual Cruiser?? |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
63
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 16:03:00 -
[924] - Quote
What advantage does a Tornado/oracle/talos/naga have over.....
Except in this case it would be compounded. |
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 16:12:00 -
[925] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:What advantage does a Tornado/oracle/talos/naga have over.....
Except in this case it would be compounded.
Those are ships of the same class, AFs are still frigates - they would not have option of fitting Cruiser sized modules (other than those medium guns) and therefore would not be able to kill any Cruiser fast enough. You will basically end up with AFs of roughly Cruiser firepower but with much weaker tanks. Besides without small guns Drones would simply obliterate them. But that was just an example, i dont wish to elaborate on this idea any longer... |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
256
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 16:18:00 -
[926] - Quote
Alex Medvedov wrote:Their role already exists and it is to deal damage.... Then why even discuss the merits of a MWD sig reduction as it does not facilitate said role and tracking also does nothing for damage except against a few AB frigs (the only thing in game that can tracking tank small guns to begin with).
If they are to be mini-HACs then design them as such, don't start mixing in destroyer and interceptor traits just because some noob (/me waves to null) might need it the one time per week he flies the damn things.
But of course, that is where the problem lies .. they CAN'T be mini-HACs because they do not have the base EHP and medium tracking is high enough to insta-gib them even if they did.
Which brings me back to: What is their role?
|
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
63
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 16:26:00 -
[927] - Quote
I am pretty sure that if you blow up 15km from a cruiser the damage you inflicted is much smaller than the damage you *would* have inflicted if you had gotten under 4km on that cruiser.
|
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 16:33:00 -
[928] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Alex Medvedov wrote:Their role already exists and it is to deal damage.... Then why even discuss the merits of a MWD sig reduction as it does not facilitate said role and tracking also does nothing for damage except against a few AB frigs (the only thing in game that can tracking tank small guns to begin with). If they are to be mini-HACs then design them as such, don't start mixing in destroyer and interceptor traits just because some noob (/me waves to null) might need it the one time per week he flies the damn things. But of course, that is where the problem lies .. they CAN'T be mini-HACs because they do not have the base EHP and medium tracking is high enough to insta-gib them even if they did. Which brings me back to: What is their role?
Well you need to be able to survive first to deal some damage, but you are right MWD bonus is not something that would change AFs effectivness dramaticaly. So as far as iam concerned it can go away. But said bonus doesnt limit usability of AFs at least. In contrast to some other "role bonuses" proposed. You are absolutely wrong about tracking bonus - to survive AFs need to orbit its target fast, and to be able to dispose of its drones, and to be able to hit a Cruiser with the most damging ammo available e.g. Hails effectivelly. Thats why the tracking bonus is nessessary. Sure they cannot be mini HACs, they are something else, and they are quite good in that already. |
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 16:36:00 -
[929] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:I am pretty sure that if you blow up 15km from a cruiser the damage you inflicted is much smaller than the damage you *would* have inflicted if you had gotten under 4km on that cruiser. And what about neuts, ECMs, webs and other stuff which is quite of an isse to AFs right now? I will guarantee to you that no AF would survive an engagement with Rupture, not speaking about Droneboats like a Vexor |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
63
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 17:32:00 -
[930] - Quote
nuets, ecm, and bonused drones will always be the bane of AF. Funny, they are also the bane of all other hulls when attacking 1+class up. A nuet domi will roflstomp a solo cane that doesnt leave or gets pinned.
More importantly, Hirana complained that sig bloom bonuses had nothing to do with damage. I was not claiming that MWD makes them uber cruiser-fighting machines. But it does give them a better chance to get in range than without the bonus. All of this is short sighted though because the most significant impact the bloom bonus comes when burning back to gates or out of bubbles.
Does this help the majority of current AF pilots? no. That is because most of the current AF pilots exist in a realm without bubbles and (generally) ****** camps not because it is a terribad bonus. |
|
|
|
|
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 |