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

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)
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:42:00 - [91] The OP should probably clarify that Zulupark talked about web resistance, not web immunity. There's a big difference. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.1
Rik Rels Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:45:00 - [92] Oh... Well yeah that definately lessens the shock value of the OPs post if he misworded what he read. Resistance has potential.
Frug Repo Industries R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:47:00 - [93] What's funny is that there's two contradicting arguments against this. First is that "web immunity" which was actually resistance according to zulupark, not immunity, is pointless because AF's stay out of web range already. The other is that it would be too powerful, which is also silly because if that's the case you can just -reduce- their resistance. Web resistant AFs, sign me up. Also, to the OP: Giving them more speed is silly. That's what interceptors do. Or do you just want bigger, better interceptors? - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:49:00 - [94] I'm not so sure about web resistance.. I agree these ships need some kind of change but I'd rather give them a good role instead of a random bonus. And changes like this can easily mess up balance throughout the entire game again. However if it does go through I don't want them to be able to use a web themselves then, otherwise it would get ridiculous and just too game-affecting.
Lubomir Penev interimo	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:50:00 - [95] Originally by: Rik Rels Oh... Well yeah that definately lessens the shock value of the OPs post if he misworded what he read. Resistance has potential. It was a TV interview, it was short and imprecise, and it's not like CCP never granted web immunity before. Web resistance is a new one. And I edited the OP. -- Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP!
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:00:00 - [96] Originally by: Frug What's funny is that there's two contradicting arguments against this. First is that "web immunity" which was actually resistance according to zulupark, not immunity, is pointless because AF's stay out of web range already. The other is that it would be too powerful, which is also silly because if that's the case you can just -reduce- their resistance. Web resistant AFs, sign me up. Also, to the OP: Giving them more speed is silly. That's what interceptors do. Or do you just want bigger, better interceptors? I think they could stand with a bit more speed, something along the lines of a 25% mass reduction so they can hit around 2KM/s. Fast enough to avoid cruiser weapons, but slow enough to be outrun by any interceptor. My personal favorite assault frigate form: Frigate Bonus: +100% to Hybrid/Projectile/Laser Damage +300% to Hybrid/Projectile/Laser Signature Resolution Role bonus: 50% Reduction to the effectiveness of enemy stasis webifying effects Assault Frigate Bonuses: +5% Bonus to Hybrid/Projectile/Laser Damage +10% Bonus to Hybrid/Projectile/Laser Falloff/Optimal per level ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.1
RossP Zoyka	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:06:00 - [97] Fools!!! The fix would be web immunity only so long as their sig radius is below a certain number....a number that can only be exceeded by using a Microwarpdrive or way oversized passive shield modules. You use the Micro to get into range, shut it off and heavy tackle like a fool flying like 250m/s. Or you fit an AB and hope you can somehow get into range on the nano everything else that exists in the game.
Ki Tarra Caldari Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:06:00 - [98] My own thoughts on the AF issue, is that it would be best to start simple: give the AF's mass, speed and agility equiv to their T1 variations. It is not a big change, but would fix a major handicap of the current AF's. I also think that web resistance could be interesting. Looking at how a 50% resistance (either 10% per level or a flat 50%) would affect webbing against an AF with stacking pentalities on webs T2 webs would peak at about 80% effect with 4+ webs. That would drop a 5000 m/s AF to 1000 m/s. With a 25% resistance a 5000 m/s AF could be webbed down to about 300 m/s. Without a stacking penalty on webs, an AF could be easily overwelmed by numbers regardless of the resistance. With a stacking penalty, care must be taken to ensure that AF's do not become overpowered. I don't have the PvP experience to form a strong opinion on how balance should be achieved, but I do find this to be an interesting discussion.
SpankMeElmo Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:07:00 - [99] Under the heading of "something completely different": Why not add a built-in gang mod that affects only the AFs in the gang? Something (non-trivial) that adds some punch to the "wolfpack" theme. lol - baby titans
darkmancer	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:46:00 - [100] From a personal POV i'd prefer the afterburner bouns that somebody else had mentioned (+50% ab speed per level?) From caldari ships perspective, a web bonus isn't too fantastic as your already meant to be outside of web range, add into that they're the slowest ships in the range and get the least benifit. Still at least it's an intersting bonus, af's would be useful again, even if Caldari did get shaffed. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2008.03.12 01:32:00 - [101] I have to side with most of the posters saying "reduce AF mass" and/or maybe give them the same base speed as the Tech I hull they're based on. Most of the handling problems of an AF can be attributed directly to having 180% the mass of their "parent" ship class. And the biggest (but by no means only) effect of this mass is the drastic reduction of speed boost granted by afterburners and MWDs. Sluggish turning rate I don't mind so much, because these are basicly "heavy" frigates. Unfortunately, their speed issue is further aggravated by the fact that most AFs have a base speed only marginally faster than Tech I cruisers with a comperable number of low slots. I fly an Ishkur. It's a neat, quirky ship and I love the idea behind it. I can't help but want to like the ship itself. But the fact is I can get comperable speed, better agility, better firepower, and probbably more overal surviability out of my Thorax with the same number and types of speed mods in the lows. I've also seen a fair number of people shoot down making AFs faster on the grounds it'll intrude on the sacred ground of an interceptor's high speed tackle capability. Personally, I think that's a lot of hogwash, because as long as the base mass remains higher and base speed lower you're not going to get an AF up to interceptor speeds no matter how much ISK you pour into it. AF speed relative to Interdictors might be a concern, however, that's a subject I don't have knowledge to comment on.
Matrixcvd Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.12 02:14:00 - [102] i still think a resistance per level is too much, i think immunity to a number of webbers would be the way to go. Get it so the average AF speed is below inty and above cruiser/destroyer and you are all set. Just allow it to be immune to 1 webber per level, for AFs only treat it like warp scram/stab instead of percentages... This means there needs to be frigate coordination to kill it, making the AF the dominating force in a friggy battle.
Koryvarn	Posted - 2008.03.12 02:21:00 - [103] Reduce their mass by 25% or so, maybe a bit more speed. Then... give them a role bonus that lets a retri or vengeance (never flown the others, adjust appropiately) reach 2000ms with a tech 2 Afterburner. Without the massive target painting of a mwd, and the faster speed, they should be harder to hit. A bit of resistance to webs could also be good. They should be the close range dogfighters. Instead they're lambs for the slaughter in most cases.
Havohej	Posted - 2008.03.13 04:20:00 - [104] tbh, I didn't read the whole thread, just the OP and a couple of the early replies... and I didn't go to the link to see/hear what zulupark said... I just wanna post in support of a logical, well-reasoned AF boost, 'cause frankly... well... I love AFs. I love Frigates. I love Rifters, and Claws, and Stilettos, and gosh darnit, look at my sig - I love Wolfs. I just wish Wolfs (and AFs in general) weren't so pooh-pooh'd... but in the meantime, I'll continue trying to squeeze as much fun as possible out of my failure of a ship, knowing all the while that I'd get better speed, greater effective HP, and more dps out of a Stabber... I just like frigates moar. dey maek me happie. u can haz fix AF now plx? Oh, one thing though - if given web immunity, I think a Wolf with hail s ammo would be the next big forum whine. Prolly a bad idea unless, as someone suggested on page 1 of this thread, such 'immunity' were only partial. Originally by: Lubomir Penev 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. I R AF LUVR \o/
Arturus Vex	Posted - 2008.03.13 05:06:00 - [105] Why don't we just boost up their resists more and give them more HP (and more firepower). They have the small sig and it is possible with certain setups to MWD into range and double web/scramble (and turn off the mwd). I'd like to see 2 classes within assault frigates. 1.) Close range gank. Small sig, web bonus (webs reduce enemy speed by extra %), possible AB bonus (100-200%!), and lots of ROF and damage increases. Cruiser sized tank. (maybe even a scrambler bonus, but not a disruptor bonus). 2.) Sniper, Small sig, decent resists/HP, fast. stays out of web range. Range bonuses, long locking range. not meant for tackling. High agility ship, but no disruptor bonus and not as fast as an inty.
Julius Romanus	Posted - 2008.03.13 05:23:00 - [106] Originally by: Auron Shadowbane Originally by: Maaku The problem with buffing assault frigates: Add speed and they crowd interceptors. Add gank and they crowd destroyers. Add tank and they crowd cruisers. It seems that AFs are meant to occupy a space between those three other ship classes, but that space may not actually exist, and finding a role for AFs may just simply involve doing something completely different. Something Completely Different: Bonuses for AFs based on the number of other AFs in the same gang/squad and on the same grid. Make them the ultimate wolfpack ship. Mediocre solo, but get ten of them together and they become positively scary. It's not unreasonable in gameworld terms...the ships have special technology that allows them to automatically interoperate and coordinate and allowing the whole to become greater than the sum of its parts. Not sure how hard it would be to implement. An idle thought I just had, likely will be shot down quickly. I really like the final idea but I tihnk the reasoning on top is very flawed. saying a t2 ship isnt allowed to outclass a t1 ship is stupid. hacs outgank, outtank and outrun t1 cruiser (if you take the right one for the job) and recons out-ew them. what cruisers have is cheapness and coming from that adaptability. what I would love to see to fix AF is in-line-ishness of agility & mass as well as more gank. add to that an afterburner fix (who uses them anyway? they cant compete with mwd outside of deadspace) that gives the afterburner itself an inert web-resistance (40% for t1 and 55% for t2 would make them a primarily COUNTER to web instead of a speed mod) and you have a nice frig which can orbit at 1-1.5kms and still goes its 500ms when webbed while doing good damage. together with the allready implemented afterburner skills you ca quite nicely operate even when neuted. for 4th bonus they might get a racials tanking/ganking bonus. like capcaitor/armor resist for amar. shield amounth/recharge caldari. rof/damage for minmatar (just dont give em speed! and yay for tripple damage bonus wolf) and something droney/blasterey for gallente. I want to endorse this "give ab's a bit of web immunity" idea. AB's need a boost badly. Af's need a boost badly.
Sileam	Posted - 2008.03.13 07:38:00 - [107] Edited by: Sileam on 13/03/2008 07:39:03 Web resistance/immunity would be something unique enough to make ppl fly AFs. Right now they lack the role in the world of EVE, with such innovation Assault Ships could do what is their name - assault fearlessly with hope for not getting pop'ed in first seconds and an option for possible run-away when things start to go wrong. They will be still different than inty, more for a gank than tacling. Boosting afterburners is nice idea too... who uses them outside the missions?
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2008.03.13 07:55:00 - [108] Agreed. Afterburners could use a boost. Would be nice to have an alternative to the omnipresent MWD in pvp.
Alex Medvedov	Posted - 2008.03.17 16:39:00 - [109] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Oh hi guys! What's going on in this thread? Anyway, I just wanted to clear a few things up: 1. This is purely a speculative idea we had, and one of a few to "fix" Assault Ships 2. I said web resistance, not immunity 2a. That could mean 10% resistance per skill level 2b. That could mean flat role bonus to all AF's Mostly though it means that it's a speculative idea and nowhere near implemented. You may continue speculations now Hello Zulupark, iam really glad to hear some purely sceculative ideas about AFs at least we have something to think of I am one of great AF funs - for about a year i was flying almost nothing else, but I am not sure, if giving only flat role bonus is the thing which would save AFs web resistance is nice idea but solves nothing if it wouldnt be accompanied by some other changes. 1) Tanking abilities of AFs are too weak - every cruiser is able to kill you with t2 drones before you would be able to brake his tank and iam not talking about drone boats like Vexor or Arbitrator, but why the hell should be ruptures drone able to shratter you in no time... 2) Accelaration - why even a cruiser is able to accelerate faster than AF 3) Aligning times - hmm why someting so bulky still call itself a frigate I dont want to make some insane uber ships from AFs, i completly agree with leaving them vulnerable to drone boats, capacitor warfare, HACs and i know AFs will be never good in larger fleet fights but i want to be able to engage intelligently fitted cruiser in my AF at least with hope about wining And secondly, please dont make Afs as single pourpose ships with preciselly defined role. Thank you in advance for any form of reply Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
ry ry	Posted - 2008.03.17 16:42:00 - [110] i think AFs should DPS monster, do-or-die killing machines - i'd happily swop the t2 resists for some HUGE damage bonuses. they could probably do with being a bit more nippy too. perhaps a bonus to Afterburner multiplier? Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Kagura Nikon Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.	Posted - 2008.03.17 16:47:00 - [111] Not only I think web resistance is good. But i think ALL AFETRBURNERS should add 50% web resitance. That woudl solve most of the nanofagotry, since using AB would be better most of the time. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Corstaad Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.03.17 18:12:00 - [112] They'll give it some lame role bonus that does nothing for the ships. Then they'll forget about the missing bonus like the lol tracking bonus people don't need on rifter type of ships. BS's will still fly faster, agility and mass is means nothing really. People that don't fly these things are the ones forum-whoring about there needed role. Fix the base ship and reverse any changes you made because people where tanking complexs in these.
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.17 18:53:00 - [113] Frigates, at less than 10km, what is this madness? Next you'll be suggesting that fitting close range frigate weapons should be viable for general use. DO EEEEET! Try it out on SiSi see how it goes and tweak it from there. If it were up to me I'd fix the stats on the AF's and add a degree of web resistance (to be tweaked via testing) to afterburners since that would fix two problems. Still anything that makes close range frigates, even just one class of them, a non-comedy-suicide option is good by me.
Verone Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.03.17 19:39:00 - [114] Originally by: Tarminic The OP should probably clarify that Zulupark talked about web resistance, not web immunity. There's a big difference. I was literally stood off camera FIFTEEN FEET FROM HIM when he was talking about this, and yes you're right. He said RESISTANCE TO THE EFFECT OF STATIS WEBIFIERS not immunity. He also said that it was a possiblity, and was not something that was set in stone yet as they're looking at other ways to change them for the better. Yet again the crowd of whiners take a suggestion a Dev makes for gospel, blow it out of proportion and cause a turdstorm on the forums for no real reason. Seriously guys, LISTEN to what people say rather than jumping to conclusions. >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW - EVE FICTION <<<
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.03.17 19:46:00 - [115] Originally by: Verone Seriously guys, LISTEN to what people say rather than jumping to conclusions. Now wheres the drama in that?
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.03.17 19:51:00 - [116] Edited by: Haniblecter Teg on 17/03/2008 19:53:16 To teh OP, Wolf is NOT an auto boat, jag is punk. I like the idea proposed a while ago by someone else: Give AF's some form of formation bonus: bonus to speed damage tanking when they're in the same gang as only AF's, or a wing made up of solely AF's--and certain nubmers--get some nifty bonuses. May make them a bit specialized, but hey, frigs are only raelly for tackling so far, diong something creative and specizlized would be neat. ----------------- Friends Forever
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.17 19:54:00 - [117] People in this thread should remember 1 thing: All of Zulupark's suggestions involve boosting some aspect of AF. Be very thankful that the AF boost is not going to be like Amarr boost. At least we aren't getting other ships nerfed to make AF look better. That is important point. Even if you don't get the kind of boost that you want for AF, something is better than nothing. And hey, no nerf.
Nathanial Victor Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.03.17 19:56:00 - [118] how about this? Role bonus: 100% web immunity when no microwarp drive fitted. ? "one more spam thread will get you a warning. - Thanks Hutch. " isn't a warning of a warning a warning? or just a warning of a warning? didnt he just get 'the warning'? my head hurts
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2008.03.17 20:12:00 - [119] Originally by: What Verone Says... I was literally stood off camera FIFTEEN FEET FROM HIM when he was talking about this, and yes you're right. He said RESISTANCE TO THE EFFECT OF STATIS WEBIFIERS not immunity. He also said that it was a possiblity, and was not something that was set in stone yet as they're looking at other ways to change them for the better. Yet again the crowd of whiners take a suggestion a Dev makes for gospel, blow it out of proportion and cause a turdstorm on the forums for no real reason. Originally by: What The Forumites Hear... ...literally...he said...immunity...set in stone OMG VERONE CONFIRMS 175% WEB IMMUNITY SET IN STONE BY CCP Quote: Seriously guys, LISTEN to what people say rather than jumping to conclusions. Haha, fat chance. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Ishina Fel Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.03.17 20:31:00 - [120] Edited by: Ishina Fel on 17/03/2008 20:31:56 Dear Zulupark, Please consider: - Integrate the resistance bonus into base stats, as with HACs - Add a 25%/level speed boost bonus to afterburners as the new fourth bonus - Add the aforementioned 50% web resistance bonus as a role bonus In the end, you get a ship that can actually use an afterburner effectively. This is currently not that case for any ship in the game. Afterburners are borderline useless, and only borderline so because MWDs don't work in deadspace areas. An assault frigate modified as above could achieve the following: - Will go reasonably fast (roughly half MWD speed, meaning around 750m/s) for very little cap cost, without turning into a nano-able heavy interceptor wannabe - Will roughly match the speed of a MWD user while webbed, therefore being more survivable inside web range than MWD users (smaller sig radius) and clearly illustrating the successful creation of a unique role through the new role bonus - Ability to 'make do' with an afterburner in PvP will lead to more cap and more free fitting room, allowing for a strong and better sustained module loadout, which illustrates the "assault" in "assault ship" - An afterburner focus will continue to make these ships good choices for alternative mission running, even in missions where enemies attempt to apply webs. Many people enjoy the challenge of flying higher ranked missions in assault frigates already, and this would provide them with an even more suitable vessel. (this will be crossposted into the suggestions forum as well) Bored during Downtime? Why not try Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN!

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.