| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ron Lycan
   |
Posted - 2007.12.16 03:27:00 -
[1]
For starters. I like the ideas and such your giving and agree with an ammount of what your suggesting.
- The Webber Immunity (or alteast a resistence is good too) for role bonus is a plus. These ships cannot match great speeds at all in their current state and are instantly floating garbage if they get webbed. Killing up close combat and kiting.
The Ishkur you came up with is a nice idea. Using lights as a means of defense and offense and can be used to chase off inty's that are closing in nearby.
The Enyo.
I'm afriad of the fact that if everyship is just too fast for it and gets kited too much, people are going to be forced to fit rails since they'll never get into blaster ranges...
Thats something I don't want to see. I believe 110% in Blasters. And have been strongly against the Enyo having to fit rails in the first place.
The harpy looks nice on paper. I don't fly caldari AF's though so I'm not going to comment much on it.
The hawk on the other hand. From an outsider's point of view I can see where your getting at. It can use a boost.
I wouldn't know where to place the bonus's but what if it had an Explosion velocity bonus for its missiles to counter-act high speed interceptors? Not to WTFBBQ them but to be a means of point defense. No range bonu's but I'm tossing the idea in there.
Hawk uses both light standards and rockets depending what they want to fit for. As I don't want to play with the bonu's. Its an idea.
The Vengeance looks a bit better now with the bonus suggestions. I tend to avoid it as I'm not quite specilized in Rockets and missiles from when they changed it from turrets to missiles.
The Retribution I'm all for being a turret platform.
I'm not a fan of Beam setups, and balancing this ship is a toughy as Beams and Pulses fall under different classes of playstyle. The optimal is nice, but the ranges can differ.
The Jag and Wolf. I simply cannot do much to comment here except as I said with the enyo. Kite so well with webber immunity, close range just won't have a chance if they don't have some way of a range bonus.
I'm opt for the enyo keeping its missle hardpoint if the damage was also given to its single launcher but thats a different approach to the ships.
The Afterburner boost is a great idea I like. If the web resistence (or Immunity) is implented but doesn't get a bonus to afterburner.
It is by second nature that pod pilots will fit MWD's on close range fits and probably the same on long rangers to kite away from them. Thus gimping the setups further into submission.
I want the ships to be encouraged to be flown. I'm all for that.
We just have to becareful what we wish for.
|
Ron Lycan
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 00:19:00 -
[2]
Thank you for derailing the thread.
Everything here ofcourse must be done gradually. We are all well aware of the minmatar resist holes.
If anything, it can be addressed Later once All the Assault frigates can be useful again.
So cut it out for the time being.
On topic though.
I think what we can agree fully and partially on are that these outlooks for assisting Assault frigates are what most want to see at the least.
- 4th bonus for T2 resists to be made innate and replaced with a proper ship bonus.
- At the very least for a change. Partial Stasis Webber Resist made as role bonus for all Assault frigates. As long as if the current Assault retain their Current speed before all these changes are made so they aren't speed demons with tanks that compete with interceptor grounds.
- Partially: Afterburner's use to be boosted and probably so for in Favor of Assault frigates to in Addition to be added to Role bonus.
I still think the Enyo should be optimal for Blasters, Not both weapon systems.
Would also be neat to see some more use of other less used modules like Smart bombs and ECM bursts.
|
Ron Lycan
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 15:48:00 -
[3]
Lol, Whoever said I was going for "anti-frig" role must have misunderstood.
Anti-EWar or even Anti-Larger Ships.
I'm game for either.
|
Ron Lycan
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 04:45:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Ron Lycan on 19/12/2007 04:47:47
The problem with that is.
If Assault frigates were made to house medium size cruiser weapons but be smaller, then there wouldn't be much point to training for Heavy Assault Cruisers would there?
EDIT: (ADDING)
And really, there isn't too much you can do to deal with T1 Frigs as almost no matter what changes we could do, the Assault frigates will rip T1 Frigates a new rear hole.
They will be still faster then the Assault frigates anyway.
Just stay from them as they'll still be a bit slower.
|
Ron Lycan
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 16:15:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Knoppaz
Originally by: Ron Lycan
Edited by: Ron Lycan on 19/12/2007 04:47:47
The problem with that is.
If Assault frigates were made to house medium size cruiser weapons but be smaller, then there wouldn't be much point to training for Heavy Assault Cruisers would there?
EDIT: (ADDING)
And really, there isn't too much you can do to deal with T1 Frigs as almost no matter what changes we could do, the Assault frigates will rip T1 Frigates a new rear hole.
They will be still faster then the Assault frigates anyway.
Just stay from them as they'll still be a bit slower.
Even then HACs most likely still have higher DPS and a better tank.
Even so. The same can be achieved with T2 Small weapons for Anti-Cruiser or even anti-bigger then the Assault frigate.
Puttting them to use medium cruiser weapons will only promote higher weapon prices on the already expensive cruiser sizes and leave the T2 smaller ones left with almost zero to hardly used weapon systems.
I don't believe putting cruiser weapons on Assault frigates is the choice. But the idea of the role of anti-cruiser etc etc is very much appreciated I am sure.
|
| |
|