EVE Search - asy it ain't so! another Afrig thread.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

asy it ain't so! another Afrig thread.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
me bored	Posted - 2007.12.15 18:49:00 - [31] Edited by: me bored on 15/12/2007 19:04:27 I can't wait to see them buffed if you're right about next patch. I'm an ex AF specialist and couldn't fly anything else for almost 2 years. It was a sad day when I was forced to train for something bigger and It'd be great to be able to pvp in them competitively again. Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Altterra The reason the Enyo sucks in because it lacks the third midslot to do anything on it's own, remove the 5th useless highslot and put it in mid. the reason I maintained the enyo as it is is that the Afrigs could go for an anti-support support role, more specifically, anti-Ewar support role, being ships that are impossible to web and damn hard to jam, meaning leave the tackling for the tacklers. frigs already have good anti-frig options (damage inties), good taclking options (tackling inties) and good Ewar support (EAS), why not having a ship that excels in damage dealing and sweeping out other Ewar ships? The enyo does not suck. In fact it's probably the most powerful af. Anti-ewar sounds like a silly idea to me as you aren't going to be putting any hurt on scorps and rooks with frig damage. I think they should retain their original role as anti-tackler ships and specialized frig / inty killers.
Drek Grapper Minmatar	Posted - 2007.12.15 19:10:00 - [32] Originally by: Altterra The reason the Enyo sucks in because it lacks the third midslot to do anything on it's own, remove the 5th useless highslot and put it in mid. Ditto for the Wolf. I would love that change. ------------------------------------------------ 'The thing always happens that you really believe in... and the belief in a thing makes it happen' - Frank Loyd Wright
me bored	Posted - 2007.12.15 19:18:00 - [33] Originally by: Drek Grapper Originally by: Altterra The reason the Enyo sucks in because it lacks the third midslot to do anything on it's own, remove the 5th useless highslot and put it in mid. Ditto for the Wolf. I would love that change. That would be ridiculous. They don't need 3 mids to 1 volley intys. Each AF is a very specialized ship and they're pretty well balanced amongst themselves. It's just that they've been left in the dust by current game trends. They need to be bought up to speed a bit not given some wild slot rearrangement that butchers their role and flavour.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.15 20:25:00 - [34] Edited by: Grimpak on 15/12/2007 20:27:57 Originally by: me bored Edited by: me bored on 15/12/2007 19:41:08 I don't think a complete overhaul or anything radical is warranted. Instead we should look at their actual issues and why they're weak in the first place. Originally the af had 2 roles, to be able to quickly lock and kill tacklers with their frig guns and to have the firepower and tank of a cruiser in a much smaller and more monbile package. They're currently failing in both roles. The widespread popularity of nano setups negates their ability to effectively kill intys and the hp buffs widened the gap between AFs and cruisers so much that AFs are no able longer to compete. So bearing these issues in mind what can be done to fix them and bring them up to speed with the rest of the game? well, making them fast and shave off their mass would make inties obsolete, at least the dog-fighting ones, because of the natural resists that AF's have. firepower-wise, they aren't better than cruiser-level, and some are only as good as T1 frigs (hawk vs kestrel for example) AF's previous roles of anti-frigates can be totally overshadowed by better and cheaper options (destroyers are nice and cheap anti-frig options, don't let anyone tell otherwise, nevermind interdictors...), and they can't quickly lock inties down due to the fact that they are actually fat and slow, for a frigate. so yes, you are right. in shadow of this, I thought "anti-frig roles already have good ships, why not create a new role instead?" and the anti-Ewar role came up. wich brigs to the next poster... Originally by: Nian Banks Webber Immunity? Where do people come up with this moronic idea? Noone seriously suggested Webber Immunity. What was suggested was a Webber Resistance, a % resistance to webbers to lessen the effect. Basically anything from 20-50% resistance. It means that if your webbed by two webbers you will stop but if your hit by one you can keep doing your thing. Now for Interceptors, its not an issue, they fly way out of web range now thanks to their buff. But for AF's they are close range fighters, they need a resistance to survive. The next important thing is to allow AF's to tank, the best way to do this is to give them a bonus to Afterburners, If you use an AB instead of a MWD then you keep your small signature, you use less cap and have long activation times, plus you have no cap penalty. Hence a AB velocity boost is key. The last thing you do is add the resist bonus to the ship as a native t2 resist and put in the webber resist to it, then the AB bonus as a role bonus. Done and sweet. actually I seriously proposed a web immunity role bonus a few moons back, when the inty changes were first known. and I still believe that such bonus could balance the fact that the Afrigs are actually slow and not that agile. even the jaguar isn't that fast. however it could make them totally overpowered in some cases, yes. So I started to think a bit more and came up with a good role bonus on pair with this "anti-ewar" role, wich is a blanket 75% resistance to all kinds of Ewar, together with a 50% boost on sensor strength. This would make them perfect anti-Ewar ships, coupled together with the fact that all Ewar that you hit on them will only have 25% effectiveness. watch and weep while you hit that frigate with webs and you manage to slow her down to only more than 50% of their previous speed, or you try and try again to jam the ship, or you try to damp the ship and you see that you cannot low her locking range that much afterall. it leaves CERTAIN aspects of some ships aside however. for example, the hawk, as is setup becomes bane to EAS ships, but not that much vs a recon ship or you could use a b-enyo to pretty much wtfpwn that rook, or a couple of retris and wolfs to wtfpwn that scorpion. I also tried not to tie the Afrigs to a module like the thorax/deimos are aswell. I believe that it kills some of the multi-purpose background that the frigates have. --- planetary interaction idea!
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.15 20:42:00 - [35] Edited by: Grimpak on 15/12/2007 20:43:49 Originally by: Flurren stuff indeed you raise some points there, but keep in mind that I tried not to deviate outside of what they are capable of now. as you can see, the proposed bonuses go arround the fact that the ishkur is a mini-ishtar (as it is today), the enyo can both deal good damage in rail or blaster mode (as it is today), the hawk is a shield tanked mini-cerberus (as it tries to be atm, but fails tbh), the harpy is a mini-eagle (as it is today), the wolf becomes a better hard-hitting artillery boat (as it is more usual to find today), the jaguar becomes a mini-vagabond (as it is today), the vengeance becomes a better hard-nugget that spews rockets (as it is today), and the retri becomes a improved friggin' mobile laser platform with craploads of lows, but not that much flexibility (as it is today) in regard to the specific issues, I couldn't find better bonuses that wouldn't unbalance the gallente ships that much. sure you could give them an AB boost bonus, but as I said, it ties the ship too much to a module, a thing that I don't want to see besides the thorax/deimos hulls. And tbh, even the minmatar HAC's have to deal with 2 resistance holes in the armor. sure the vaga isn't that much affected, considering that it is more shield tank than armor, but the muninn here (a ship that I try to mirror in the wolf), has to deal with such weaknesses. As for the fact that the retribution continues with a midslot. Well, the wolf and enyo already have a similar slot setup (5-2-4, with 4 turrets and 1 launcher), and I wanted to make something diferent, so why not a ship that focuses itself in dishing and sustaining punishment, disregarding flexibility? The ship description itself describes the ship as a ship with "hard hitting lasers and solid armor, with little to no space to electronics" or smth like that. So, the retribution is still amarr, and, at the same time, different from the rest of the ships in it's class. --- planetary interaction idea!
Flurren	Posted - 2007.12.15 22:44:00 - [36] You still havent really explained why the enyo should do good damage in blaster or rail mode yet the wolf which currently is almost exactly the same ship in many respects should be confined to artillery. Or why the wolf should have 2 huge resistance holes and mediocre thermal with all almost its added resistance concentrated on the least common type of damage in pvp. The fact that its the same as the muninn (which is also seen as sub-par) seems like a weak reason for making it a bad ship to me. The jaguar of today actually has bonuses more suited to artillery which neither it, or especially the wolf with its gimped cpu can actually fit with a respectable setup. Currently its only similarity to the vagabond is that its the fastest ship in its class and yet still slower than some t1 cruisers. With the vengeance i see where you're comming from but at the same time struggle to see the point of a frigate which is easier to kill than a cruiser even with all the bonuses it recieves in a dps role where it does less damage than said cruiser. If you want AFs to be anti-support they need some means of catching their intended prey and they need to be able to avoid fire that bigger ships could not or else there is simply no point in them. If you want AFs to be small, hard to hit dps then you need to give them the means to do such dps and the survivability to justify their difference from cruisers. When i said to give the AFs a 50% AB boost and 40% web reduction i was talking about having it as an added role bonus on all of them. Without this bonus if they try to orbit close they will be webbed and destroyed due to their sub-cruiser tanks and if they try to outrange things they will either be run down and destroyed or will simply not be able to move fast enough to avoid the tracking of medium guns. Therefore they will be as they are atm which is a slightly upgraded t1 frigate that costs a hell of alot more and doesnt have any particular role. Having them tied to a mod is perfectly acceptable as covert ops ships are tied to their cloak or interceptors are tied to their scramblers or a hundred other different examples. Trying to keep the ships the way they are atm seems to me to be silly when the way they are is arguably broken. Personally id like to see them upgraded to do the dps of a t1 cruiser with tanks about half as good and partial web immunity and AB bonuses as ive mentioned to give them a different means of survival to a cruiser.
Flurren	Posted - 2007.12.15 22:58:00 - [37] This idea just occurred to me. If theyre escort ships, it seems to me they need to be a hard counter to interceptors (even though this role seems to have just been taken by the new EW frigates and was already somewhat impinged on by recons anyway :/) . Anyway Bearing this in mind, they could have something like 100% increased tracking vs ships with a warp disruptor active with the explanation that theyre specially engineered to lock onto the signal one generates. Just a passing thought anyway.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.15 23:02:00 - [38] Originally by: Flurren stuff point taken. about the enyo, he atm still works fine in blaster mode and in rail mode, altho it is not that optimal in both. the wolf also works fine in both AC and howie modes, however it is mostly seen in howie mode due to the alpha-strike that the ship possesses. as for the resistances holes, it as I said above, but I'll try to explain in a more clearer way: Assault resists are based on the racial enemy of the race's ship. Gallente get improved resists to kinetic and therm, pushing more to kinetic due to the fact that caldari have most weapon bonuses either geared to improve kinetic missile damage, or rail sniping. caldari get relatively the same resists, altho more biased to thermal, due to the fact that gallente are hybrids + thermal drones. Amarr having the racial enemy minmatar, have improved resists to kinetic and explosive, because, even considering the fact that minmatar have certain flexibility in damage types, they are predominantly kinetic and explosive. as for the minmatars, having as racial enemies the minmatar, have improved tanks vs lasers, IE, better resists on thermal and EM. this of course means that, while caldari and gallente have relatively balanced "assault resists" with only one hole in either shield or armor, amarr and minmatar have 2 holes in shield and armor respectively. To amarr this is not that worrysome due to the fact that they are armor tanking only, meaning that they end up with a fairly high % of natural thermal resistance on armor. To minmatar however this is not true, since they have shield tanking ships and armor tanking ships alike. to ships with "assault resists" this ends up in a discrepancy where shield tanking only needs to have a kinetic hardener to put all 4 resistances in an average point, but totally screws up armor tanking since it increases resists on 2 already high resistances. so the way to fix the 2 resistance holes in the wolf would mean to also fix the resistances holes in the hyena, huginn, muninn, jaguar and vagabond since all these ships have "assault like" resistances, or making the muninn and wolf, shield tanking ships, but cutting in the lows and adding in the meds. --- planetary interaction idea!
Dienekes IV	Posted - 2007.12.15 23:17:00 - [39] Assault frigates are (were) in a natural anti-tackler/inty role in defense of larger ships. They should be balanced to fill that roll once again. ie, webber range bonus This is the height of obviousness.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.15 23:18:00 - [40] Originally by: Dienekes IV Assault frigates are (were) in a natural anti-tackler/inty role in defense of larger ships. They should be balanced to fill that roll once again. ie, webber range bonus This is the height of obviousness. but then comes the argument where the hyena and the huginn/rapier get pretty much obsolete by a ship that can do some damage and have some semblance of tank. that is, if they go by the web range bonus. --- planetary interaction idea!
Dienekes IV	Posted - 2007.12.15 23:24:00 - [41] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Dienekes IV Assault frigates are (were) in a natural anti-tackler/inty role in defense of larger ships. They should be balanced to fill that roll once again. ie, webber range bonus This is the height of obviousness. but then comes the argument where the hyena and the huginn/rapier get pretty much obsolete by a ship that can do some damage and have some semblance of tank. that is, if they go by the web range bonus. Fine. The playability of an existing ship class should take precedent over newer designs, especially when they are questionable.
Flurren	Posted - 2007.12.15 23:36:00 - [42] Lol i already showed i understand where the current t2 and base t1 armor resists come from. I just think its ******** reasoning and should be culled with extreme prejudice. But then people are happy screwing minnie ships because, omgz we haz teh vagabond! :O. They could easily have made it 75% therm and 50% EM which would be far more acceptable and still fit with what ill loosely call the "lore". Web idea is stupid. Obsoletes the hyena.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.15 23:43:00 - [43] Originally by: Flurren Lol i already showed i understand where the current t2 and base t1 armor resists come from. I just think its ****** reasoning and should be culled with extreme prejudice. But then people are happy screwing minnie ships because, omgz we haz teh vagabond! :O. They could easily have made it 75% therm and 50% EM which would be far more acceptable and still fit with what ill loosely call the "lore". it is ****** reasoning yes, but I do see where are getting to. what can I say? minmatar always had that "underdog" thing. that's why they are usually considered EVE in hard way, since they usally need more lvl5 skills in more areas than the other races. --- planetary interaction idea!
Flurren	Posted - 2007.12.15 23:48:00 - [44] Its a shame skills wont fill those gaping resistance holes.
Cornette Gallente Mercenaries of Andosia Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2007.12.15 23:59:00 - [45] Some people in a earlier thread about A-frigs suggested they get a Rolebonus 120% to Afterburners. That in combination with a mass reduction would make them really fast without overpowering them. In my opinion a much better bonus then a web-immunity one. Reason why is because people will otherwise fit mwd on them and make them miniature vagabonds. If CCP in the future overhaul webs so they affect a target by the signature of its mass then that itself would become a indirect boost to a-frigs or any ship using an AB. A weber would work as intended on a mwd ship but have a reduced effect on a a-frig not stopping it completely dead it the tracks. For that to happen you would need to have at least 2 webs fitted or bring friends with you. As for a fourth bonus, my favorite AF is the Ishkur. Why not give it a 5% drone velocity bonus per level, so it can chase off/kill hostile interceptors? Would suit it perfectly when escorting bigger ships. I also sometime fly the Jaguar. Grimpaks proposed 5% velocity bonus per level... me like it ^^ //Cornette
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.16 00:06:00 - [46] Originally by: Cornette As for a fourth bonus, my favorite AF is the Ishkur. Why not give it a 5% drone velocity bonus per level, so it can chase off/kill hostile interceptors? Would suit it perfectly when escorting bigger ships. well I did said a 5% bonus to light drone damage and hp and a 5% light drone velocity bonus per level and yes Flurren, but then comes the great counter-argument that that skill might improve minmatar ship tanks, but overpower the rest, and we would go back to the "minmatar sux" thing and people would complain even more about omni-tanks and... ..well, as you see it's a can of worms, king-size --- planetary interaction idea!
Flurren	Posted - 2007.12.16 00:19:00 - [47] Edited by: Flurren on 16/12/2007 00:19:49 How does switching the minnie bonuses to 75% therm and 50% EM overpower other races ships? If you're referring to the idea that they change them all to 25% to each resist then no, this would make all t2 ships bonused in virtually the same way therefore minnie tanks only weakness would be as a product of their slightly worse cap on some ships and the 10% base t1 armor EM resistance bonus. That would be 25% resist added to each armor and shield resistance while removing the bonuses already in place just to be clear. The arguement that this would standardise ships too much would be valid if it were currently balanced, which it isnt.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.16 00:30:00 - [48] Originally by: Flurren Edited by: Flurren on 16/12/2007 00:19:49 How does switching the minnie bonuses to 75% therm and 50% EM overpower other races ships? If you're referring to the idea that they change them all to 25% to each resist then no, this would make all t2 ships bonused in virtually the same way therefore minnie tanks only weakness would be as a product of their slightly worse cap on some ships and the 10% base t1 armor EM resistance bonus. That would be 25% resist added to each armor and shield resistance while removing the bonuses already in place just to be clear. The arguement that this would standardise ships too much would be valid if it were currently balanced, which it isnt. not that, the skill thing --- planetary interaction idea!
Flurren	Posted - 2007.12.16 00:56:00 - [49] That was just stating the fact that you cant compensate for t2 minnie armor tankers innate weakness with skills at V as you put it. While this post is about AFs i feel its important to mention that one of the main problems with this wolf is this base problem with minnie t2 ships (and indeed a slight annoyance with the 10% bonus to t1 EM aswell).
pyr8t Gods of War	Posted - 2007.12.16 02:39:00 - [50] Show me where it is said Assault Frigates will be changed in the next patch. I am unaware of any official statements regarding this. And without an official statement this is all just wishful thinking.
Ron Lycan	Posted - 2007.12.16 03:27:00 - [51] 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.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.16 09:27:00 - [52] Edited by: Grimpak on 16/12/2007 09:28:56 Originally by: Flurren That was just stating the fact that you cant compensate for t2 minnie armor tankers innate weakness with skills at V as you put it. While this post is about AFs i feel its important to mention that one of the main problems with this wolf is this base problem with minnie t2 ships (and indeed a slight annoyance with the 10% bonus to t1 EM aswell). I missunderstanded it, cuz I thought you were saying that there should be a skill that could improve natural resistance of the ships. Originally by: pyr8t Show me where it is said Assault Frigates will be changed in the next patch. I am unaware of any official statements regarding this. And without an official statement this is all just wishful thinking. Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 14/12/2007 13:28:51 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 14/12/2007 13:08:19 Devs almost only ever refered to a so called "boost patch" aka Trinity 1.1 which will come out somewhere early next year. That is for solutions of amarr issues, role of assault frigates and mostly all the other stuff that was asked. Of course nothing more specific, just the usual vague hints. So the main conclusion after 1 hour of dev talk is: "yes, all your questions we are onto it and will fix it with next patch mostly..". Not that they ever promised too much in the past. ^^ And again, I really adore Eve and like CCP, but don't do so much promises when you cannot fulfill the expectations. Or saying the truth like: "Yeah, we are aware of missing roles of assault frigates but so far we have other more urgent problems and don't know when we have time to adress this.". It makes yourself untrustworthy. --- planetary interaction idea!
Nemain Amarr Eye of the Dragon	Posted - 2007.12.16 11:09:00 - [53] Edited by: Nemain on 16/12/2007 11:10:02 Personally i'd like to see a 5% reduction in mass for the vengence (to make it about the same as a wolf) just give it that little extra speed while getting into range, seeing as it's rockets only damage bonus makes it the only forced short range AS (if it wants to keep it's damage bonus that is)
Florio Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.12.16 11:32:00 - [54] They need some sort of speed boost otherwise they will keep on dying and remain unpopular. Bonus to AB speed is my preference. I like the OP's other suggestions, including the anti-ewar idea. But I would recommend that any changes should be made gradually.
Karandor Minmatar Wildlands Heavy Technologies FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.12.16 12:38:00 - [55] the anti-ewar idea is brilliant. I love flying a jaguar and would be very happy if it became useful again. Don't ***** about having to train a lot of skills until you fly minmatar.
me bored	Posted - 2007.12.16 15:17:00 - [56] Edited by: me bored on 16/12/2007 15:25:37 Originally by: Grimpak AF's previous roles of anti-frigates can be totally overshadowed by better and cheaper options Precisely why they should be buffed back to the ideal choice for that role. Originally by: Grimpak destroyers are nice and cheap anti-frig options, don't let anyone tell otherwise, nevermind interdictors... They lack the survivability of AFs and aren't that much cheaper once you put a rack of t2 guns on them. They aren't a better choice at all. Originally by: Grimpack they can't quickly lock inties down due to the fact that they are actually fat and slow I was referring to their high scan resolution. Originally by: Grimpak Edited by: Grimpak on 16/12/2007 09:28:56 Originally by: Flurren That was just stating the fact that you cant compensate for t2 minnie armor tankers innate weakness with skills at V as you put it. While this post is about AFs i feel its important to mention that one of the main problems with this wolf is this base problem with minnie t2 ships (and indeed a slight annoyance with the 10% bonus to t1 EM aswell). I missunderstanded it, cuz I thought you were saying that there should be a skill that could improve natural resistance of the ships. Originally by: pyr8t Show me where it is said Assault Frigates will be changed in the next patch. I am unaware of any official statements regarding this. And without an official statement this is all just wishful thinking. Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 14/12/2007 13:28:51 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 14/12/2007 13:08:19 Devs almost only ever refered to a so called "boost patch" aka Trinity 1.1 which will come out somewhere early next year. That is for solutions of amarr issues, role of assault frigates and mostly all the other stuff that was asked. Of course nothing more specific, just the usual vague hints. So the main conclusion after 1 hour of dev talk is: "yes, all your questions we are onto it and will fix it with next patch mostly..". Not that they ever promised too much in the past. ^^ And again, I really adore Eve and like CCP, but don't do so much promises when you cannot fulfill the expectations. Or saying the truth like: "Yeah, we are aware of missing roles of assault frigates but so far we have other more urgent problems and don't know when we have time to adress this.". It makes yourself untrustworthy. Random nobody #3452 isn't a valid source of information. I still don't see the benefit of giving them ewar immunity. Ecm boats make up a very small percentage of ships flown. Being hard to jam is hardly a valid role and trinity made sensor damps useless. They still wouldn't pose a threat to ewar ships anyway so what's the point of it? Giving them web immunity would make them immune to tackling and would be horridly overpowered. Why should a 6m frig be next to invincible against anything that has to track? I guarantee you that I'd be soling abaddons and megas in my wolf if that change went live.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.16 15:19:00 - [57] Originally by: Reto this would encourage flying these ships. but i still have this feeling about balance. some of those ships could tank better than cruiser combined with their small sig and web imunnity this would make them nearly indestructible for ships with med guns. The only AF with a significant tank is the Vengeance, which requires rigs for it, and will still pop to a cruiser pilot who knows his stuff. With the present speed & agility and a good tank for the rest of the AFs they'd still be very very killable by cruiser pilots who know their stuff. The ones which don't should die anyway. At any rate, though, new Jaguar still has a problem of, well, terrible agility. A destroyer is more agile then the thing, which does kindof, well, suck. Rifters!
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.16 15:20:00 - [58] Originally by: me bored Giving them web immunity would make them immune to tackling and would be horridly overpowered. Why should a 6m frig be next to invincible against anything that has to track? I guarantee you that I'd be soling abaddons and megas in my wolf if that change went live. If you give them a, say, 25-50% web immunity, they won't be overpowered in any way, shape or form. However, sitting there in a cruiser and just hitting web, F1-F6 won't work so well anymore. Rifters!
ElCoCo KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.16 15:48:00 - [59] I like the partial web immunity idea, as long as everything else remains as it is now. Also, instead of that, how about a hefty bonus to afterburner speed? Not mwd, but afterburner... think about it. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. ... - Cortes honestly now... the sig is 25k :S
Flurren	Posted - 2007.12.16 16:44:00 - [60] Edited by: Flurren on 16/12/2007 16:45:02 Originally by: me bored They lack the survivability of AFs and aren't that much cheaper once you put a rack of t2 guns on them. They aren't a better choice at all. Destroyers do more dps, have comparable effective hp and have longer range with long range weapons as well as better tracking. The cost of t2 small guns is a joke so i suspect you dont really even fly these ships if you dont know that. Originally by: me bored Giving them web immunity would make them immune to tackling and would be horridly overpowered. Why should a 6m frig be next to invincible against anything that has to track? I guarantee you that I'd be soling abaddons and megas in my wolf if that change went live. It wouldnt be full web immunity and they would still be slow while webbed and vulnerable to snipers and anti frig ships. A properly fitted wolf at the very most can get to around 200 dps with a terrible tank (5k effective hp against barrage ammo and no rep ability) and all skills at V. If your battleship cant tank that then i pity you. I also love how whenever someone quotes a price its always the lowest possible figure you've ever seen just to make your point. The anti frigate role is already heavily overshadowed by alot of other ship choices (combat intys, destroyers, t1 cruisers). Its going to be hard to think of a solution thats different to all of these but still offers some advantages. However ill reiterate my favourite idea so far:- 50% AB and 40% web resistance role bonus. 4 or 5 turrets for every AF with the number depending on amount of low+med slots and amount of drones. At least 3 mids for each AF (changing the current slot layouts). This isn't completely necessary however. 4th real bonus on all ships. Increased fitting on a lot of the ships so they can fit a respectable full t2 layout. Some sort of fix for the wolfs current armor resistances and switch the minnie ships range bonuses back to how they were.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.