EVE Search - Zulupark proposed fix to AF.... WTF?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Zulupark proposed fix to AF.... WTF?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Lubomir Penev interimo	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:41:00 - [1] AFAIK they didn't really write it anywhere but what he said on EVE TV is downright frightening (other stuff is pretty good BTW, I especially liked the pretty elegant solution against nano BS that keep inties and Vaga fast). Hear it here : http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1403442462/bclid1422261081/bctid1449613886 Basically the intended fix for assault frigates is web immunity. This is wrong for many reasons, it seems that CCP didn't learn the lesson of the immunity to tackling of supercaps. Immunity to a game mechanic is just bad. But anyway, to the point of assault frigates... Didn't anyone at CCP notice that their existing bonus lend them to usage out of web range? (Well all but Vengeance actually) Enyo : optimal bonus Harpy : double optimal bonus Hawk : missile speed bonus Ishkur : optimal bonus Jaguar : optimal bonus Retribution : optimal bonus Wolf : falloff bonus (yeah wolf is an auto boat, thrasher does arty better) So I'm afraid that they will not only add web immunity or resistance but also drastically change the ships in some close range web immune thing, that will still die horribly to anything with an energy neutralizer. The rules of frigate survival are pretty simple, stay out of web and neut range or you'll die horribly. Why change that paradigm? Just let AF use their range bonus by giving them enough speed not to be caught by a garden variety Thorax! AF even in their sorry state have roles and lovers. CCP, please, just fix their mass (as in, give them mass of their T1 hull), then give it two month and reassess situation. Keep It Simple (Stupid), sound engineering practice that you are about to violate (again). Assault cruisers come lighter than their T1 hull but their frig sized sibling end up actually slower than many cruisers, isn't it wrong? Some say lighter AF would compete with interceptors. Yeah there will be a bit of overlapping, like between HAC and BC in the anti cruiser role. Is that wrong? They won't compete with interceptor on speed, nor will have the cap to perma run MWD and scram when speed fit, so the interceptor role of a speed tanking tackler is not in danger. The blasteranis is about the only one that would be affected likely. Let the AF be frig sized damage dealer giving them survivability by actually being able to outrun cruisers. I'm afraid it will actually feel a bit like a semi-coherent wall of text but I have a very bad feeling about what is about to happen. -- Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP!
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:46:00 - [2] I'd have to agree with the OP. I don't think AFs need web immunity, they just need to be slower than Interceptors and faster than T2 Destroyers.
Infinitynexus Astrodynamic Innovations	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:47:00 - [3] Edited by: Infinitynexus on 10/03/2008 23:47:42 I fly AFs and web immunity is a little excessive, id be happy with even a 30 or 50% immunity, no more, really. optimal bonus on ishkur? cmon, drone dmg bonus, ty :P
Elesaar Caldari Dark Nexxus	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:48:00 - [4] /signed
Liang Nuren Black Sea Industries Insurgency	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:50:00 - [5] Oh god, my jag is going to be UBER. -Liang -- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance.
Lubomir Penev interimo	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:52:00 - [6] Edited by: Lubomir Penev on 10/03/2008 23:53:36 Originally by: Infinitynexus Edited by: Infinitynexus on 10/03/2008 23:47:42 I fly AFs and web immunity is a little excessive, id be happy with even a 30 or 50% immunity, no more, really. optimal bonus on ishkur? cmon, drone dmg bonus, ty :P The optimal bonus it got now it quite nice to repel Crows that outrun your drones anyway . Ishkur is like a baby Eos that doesn't get damage bonus either, I quite like it as it is. -- Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP!
Jmanis Catharg Caldari Stickler inc	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:52:00 - [7] Let them fit heavy missiles :)
Takeshi Yamato	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:53:00 - [8] I don't think AFs are meant to be speedy. In my eyes they look like they're supposed to be 'heavy tacklers' if you can call a frigate that, and battleship escort that doesn't pop instantly like a destroyer would. Heavy tackler in the sense of being capable of holding both a web and scrambler on it for a good amount of time, but relying on a faster ship to actually do the initial webbing and scrambling. Web immunity (as in not being affected by webs at all) is a very tricky idea, I agree. It would make them nearly or completely invulnerable to a good number of ships unless neuted. Web resistance seems more appropriate.
Nether Haze	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:54:00 - [9] That is true, no need for web immunity when youre orbiting with rails and drones :P
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:55:00 - [10] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 10/03/2008 23:56:31 AFs have a wonderfully diverse array of purposes depending on which ship you're using. They definitely have racially distinct strengths and weaknesses, much more so than do the other T2 frigates classes. The lack of homogenization in AFs is a great thing. That actually doesn't have a lot to do with the OPs post per se I just thought I'd establish my fandom of this ship class. (edit: the issue of speed for AFs doesn't have to be a class-defining aspect, and I think their speeds are all pretty good as-is, although I haven't ever flown the Amarr AFs so I can't really speak for those.) Web immunity however, in my opinion, would be giving these ships a tremendously unfair advantage against cruisers and BCs if the cruisers/BCs are fitted with long-range weapons. Webs are the best defense against AFs regardless of what ship you're in, since the AFs can otherwise tank damage long enough to get out of warp range if the fight goes bad for them (although big drone users are also an effective counter to AFs.) If AFs gain immunity from webs then opponents will have to hope they can NOS/Neut the AFs to the point where they can't even fire their weapons (Wolf/Jag exempted), and keeping up this form of defense is only effective in the long run if you've got cap boosters since the NOS will eventually be unable to replenish the cap needed to run a Neut cycle. Web immunity for AFs wouldn't be the worst change ever made, but I think that balance issues would need to be tested extensively before the change was added to the Tranq server.

Liang Nuren Black Sea Industries Insurgency	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:55:00 - [11] Originally by: Takeshi Yamato Web resistance seems more appropriate. Oh no you don't. I'm now officially in love. -Liang -- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance.
Nether Haze	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:58:00 - [12] Did they even think of like a nano wolf or nano jaguar? web immunity? cmon, noone will catch that.
Guillame Herschel Gallente The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:01:00 - [13] I can think of a bonus for AFs that will work a whole lot better than web immunity, and it makes about as much sense as web immunity. Simply make AFs emit a mini-doomsday blast when they blow up. Gawddammit, that was frakking easy. I didn't even have to move to frakking Iceland. *-- The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then. --*
Pantaloon McPants	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:02:00 - [14] AFs need a role atm they are lost. Maybe make them interdictor/ceptor killers, increase there speed/tracking but give them a penalty to tackling, or is that what destroyers are for? If thats the case then maybe they should just be removed from the game?
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:03:00 - [15] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 11/03/2008 00:03:35 Originally by: Nether Haze Did they even think of like a nano wolf or nano jaguar? web immunity? cmon, noone will catch that. I don't think these ships can keep up their MWD speed AND continuously run their own EW though. The MWD would probably shut off at some point well before they deal enough damage to kill anything that can't lock and web them within five or six seconds. Originally by: Pantaloon McPants AFs need a role atm they are lost. Maybe make them interdictor/ceptor killers, increase there speed/tracking but give them a penalty to tackling, or is that what destroyers are for? If thats the case then maybe they should just be removed from the game? NO. AFs have the most modular role of any frigate-sized ship. Giving them a single role that all eight AFs are geared towards is the wrong way to fix them.
Lubomir Penev interimo	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:04:00 - [16] Edited by: Lubomir Penev on 11/03/2008 00:05:03 Originally by: Takeshi Yamato I don't think AFs are meant to be speedy. In my eyes they look like they're supposed to be 'heavy tacklers' if you can call a frigate that, and battleship escort that doesn't pop instantly like a destroyer would. Heavy tackler in the sense of being capable of holding both a web and scrambler on it for a good amount of time, but relying on a faster ship to actually do the initial webbing and scrambling. Don't get me wrong, I don't want them speedy. I want say a mwd fitted Enyo to be able to maintain range on a MWD Thorax. Right now, with my skills, both ships being unplated and without speed mod I do 1535m/s in a Thorax and 1512m/s in an Enyo. Both having fitted a T2 MWD of the right size. As a comparaison, in an Incursus (base hull of the Enyo) with a T1 unnamed MWD (would be pretty stupid to put a T2 on an Incursus) i do 2484m/s. I'd want the Enyo to be able to do at least 2200m/s so it got a chance to control range (and it will still have a very hard time with the Thorax drones). As a comparison I'd do 1842m/s in a Deimos (to the 1535m/s in Thorax, same mwd fitted). How come HAC slightly faster than base cruiser and AF much more slower? -- Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP!
Takeshi Yamato	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:07:00 - [17] Originally by: Lubomir Penev Edited by: Lubomir Penev on 11/03/2008 00:05:03 Originally by: Takeshi Yamato I don't think AFs are meant to be speedy. In my eyes they look like they're supposed to be 'heavy tacklers' if you can call a frigate that, and battleship escort that doesn't pop instantly like a destroyer would. Heavy tackler in the sense of being capable of holding both a web and scrambler on it for a good amount of time, but relying on a faster ship to actually do the initial webbing and scrambling. Don't get me wrong, I don't want them speedy. I want say a mwd fitted Enyo to be able to maintain range on a MWD Thorax. Right now, with my skills, both ships being unplated and without speed mod I do 1535m/s in a Thorax and 1512m/s in an Enyo. Both having fitted a T2 MWD of the right size. As a comparaison, in an Incursus (base hull of the Enyo) with a T1 unnamed MWD (would be pretty stupid to put a T2 on an Incursus) i do 2484m/s. I'd want the Enyo to be able to do at least 2200m/s so it got a chance to control range (and it will still have a very hard time with the Thorax drones). As a comparison I'd do 1842m/s in a Deimos (to the 1535m/s in Thorax, same mwd fitted). How come HAC slightly faster than base cruiser and AF much more slower? I see what you're saying. Yes I also think they should be faster.
Liang Nuren Black Sea Industries Insurgency	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:07:00 - [18] Originally by: Lubomir Penev How come HAC slightly faster than base cruiser and AF much more slower? You're totally right. AF's should get a mass reduction and web immunity. -Liang -- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance.
Guillame Herschel Gallente The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:08:00 - [19] Originally by: Lubomir Penev How come HAC slightly faster than base cruiser and AF much more slower? Because there is no cruiser-sized interceptor that a speedy HAC would make pointless, like speedy AFs would make Interceptors pointless. As far as I can tell, the sole reason AFs have such high mass is so they can't be a sturdier substitute for an inty. *-- The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then. --*
Munen	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:11:00 - [20] I was hoping for this bonus to be given to destroyers and even then not complete immunity. That said I think this is something that should be seen on the test server to see if it fixes peoples' complaints about these ships.

Lubomir Penev interimo	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:15:00 - [21] Originally by: Guillame Herschel Originally by: Lubomir Penev How come HAC slightly faster than base cruiser and AF much more slower? Because there is no cruiser-sized interceptor that a speedy HAC would make pointless, like speedy AFs would make Interceptors pointless. As far as I can tell, the sole reason AFs have such high mass is so they can't be a sturdier substitute for an inty. I don't see any way even if you make an Enyo as light as an Incursus to make it remotely as fast as an Ares. Same MWD, same number or rig slot, same number of low slots, more mass, less base speed. It just won't compete. Speed tanking starts at 5000m/s and start to really viable at 6000+ when drones have a hard time following you. Maybe the Jaguar would be able to get about there, but fully nanoed it would not run mwd and disruptor. So again not a competition for inties. -- Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP!
Suitonia Gallente interimo	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:16:00 - [22] AF's don't need do to anything special. They just need the mass of their t1 hulls so they can outpace t1 cruisers. I'll start using the Ishkur again when my vexor doesn't align faster, move faster under MWD, outdamage, and have similar EHP or tank a similar amount of dps. Giving it the speed/mass of an incursus would make it a great ship for raiding enemy space. See: Assault. Another example would be that the Harpy. A web bonus doesn't help the snipe harpy much, as opposed to mass which would help it much more, as it could move to different bookmarks quicker and put itself into snipe positions faster. As well as better suited to sniping in enemy space when you need move between systems quickly. Changing the mass requires no special tools on CCP's end too, they just need to modify the attributes of the AF's to their base hulls mass. Would be nice and easy to implement, and if any are out of balance their mass can be modified a lot more easier. I also fear web immunity/resistance goes a bit down the stealth bomber road, its very hard to find the middle ground between it being broken or not effective. --- I've always wondered about those Vagabond pilots...
Taters Minmatar Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:22:00 - [23] Give them a role bonus to assigned fighter damage/tracking
Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:35:00 - [24] Every time I think of a web-immune Vengeance spewing fiery death in a 500m orbit, I can't help but grin.
Lubomir Penev interimo	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:43:00 - [25] Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad Every time I think of a web-immune Vengeance spewing fiery death in a 500m orbit, I can't help but grin. Every time I think or a 8000m/s, 22km orbiting, torp spewing, cap sucking Typhoon I can't help but grin. Oh well it was nerfed, for good reasons, because it was bad for the game. The same way a web immune anything is bad. Don't get me wrong, I have AF5 and will abuse it to the last degree if CCP actually proceed. But I'd rather play a balanced game. -- Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP!
Grim Vandal Caldari Burn Proof	Posted - 2008.03.11 00:54:00 - [26] Imho, FIX the afterburner module and give the assault frigate some bonus if you fit and afterburner but NOT a microwarpdrive. How can you fix the afterburner you ask? Give it web resistance. Greetings Grim
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.11 01:08:00 - [27] Originally by: Grim Vandal Imho, FIX the afterburner module and give the assault frigate some bonus if you fit and afterburner but NOT a microwarpdrive. How can you fix the afterburner you ask? Give it web resistance. This... well.. no, almost. Afterburners could be made viable in pvp by makeing them closer in speed boost to mwds. Though that would probaley be overpowered on most ships, what i'd like to see is the AF's haveing a mass reduction, and getting a bonus to afterburner speed, small sig radius + near mwd speed + tank = heavy tackler. That would be awesome. - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Saint Lazarus DROW Org Brotherhood of the Spider	Posted - 2008.03.11 01:31:00 - [28] If AF's had web immunity I would fly nothing else......ever ^^ Too easy to abuse though some much better suggestions in thread already, the best and most obvious being just reduce the crazy high mass already Please resize signature to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Del Narveux Dukes of Hazard	Posted - 2008.03.11 01:36:00 - [29] Originally by: Lubomir Penev Basically the intended fix for assault frigates is web immunity. Honestly, what the ****? Aside from the fact that immunity=bad, it does nothing to address the actual problem with AFs, which is that their purpose is vague at best. Inties are fast and good at tackling, EAFs scram and jam and spam, bombers are alpha-strike ownage, AFs are...??? Good tank okay, but slow enough that you get about as much cowbell out of a t1 cruiser. But then again CCP does love trying to fix the symptoms and not the disease, so I'm not surprised. _________________ [IMAGE REMOVED] -- aka Cpt Bogus -- Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.11 02:15:00 - [30] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Lubomir Penev How come HAC slightly faster than base cruiser and AF much more slower? You're totally right. AF's should get a mass reduction and web immunity. -Liang oh that's so evil. I remember when I proposed this change for the first time (yes blame me maybe), and I said it would only be relatively balanced if the mass AND agility of the ships would remain the same, because let's be honest: they are too fat, and move like a brick. so you give web immunity to a ship that is fat and moves like a brick, and what happens? it's still fat and moves like a brick, but at least it maintains such thing, while being able to operate at ranges that no other frigate could approach. still I would wait and see instead killing the idea on the spot before testing. give it some time I say. --- Trinity Nova Mercenary Services Web Site - Nominated for the 2008 E-ON Magazine Awards



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: 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.