| 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 |
|
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Abyss Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 02:50:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Vyktor Abyss on 11/03/2008 03:00:42
Sorry but I disagree with the OP and to say I like the web immunity idea.
I personally quite like the slower feel of AFs. With the great resists and such awesome tanks, cap recharge etc for frigates especially thanks to the smaller sig radius, I think having them a bit slower than other frigates/destroyers is a fair exchange.
Webbing immunity will make these ships awesome tacklers in terms of packing more of a punch, and being able to take more pain than the interceptors but keeping them relatively slow retains the role of interceptors as the kings of tackle in most situations.
Not to mention the previously underpowered close range weapons fits of the AFs that are sadly nullified (often being out of range) by 1 webifier.
Perhaps making them unable to fit webifiers would be a way of "balancing" this wonderful ability, but I guess proper testing has to occur before any serious decisions can be made about the AFs and their future.
Edit: Oh, I also wanted but forgot to add that yes it is wrong that HACs are lighter hull bases than the T1 cruiser varients. The HACs should be slower than the T1 cruisers IMHO since they are "heavier" armoured etc. Its a sad state of affairs when HACs are so imbalanced due to nano-ing that nano-HACs seem to be the easy choice of the 'Average' PVPer these days. Yes I know the modules cause the problems too.
ABVSS are recruiting...... Veeeeery Slowly!! Hehe!! |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:02:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
I personally quite like the slower feel of AFs. With the great resists and such awesome tanks, cap recharge etc for frigates especially thanks to the smaller sig radius, I think having them a bit slower than other frigates/destroyers is a fair exchange.
LOL @ awesome tanks/cap recharge/etc for frigates ;)
Seriously, buy a cruiser sometime and you'll understand what we're trying to tell you. The bloody things are marginally faster then AFs. Which is so balanced given their awesome DPS, tanks over three time the size and so on.
AFs first and foremost need to stop handling like flying bricks.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:09:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
AFs first and foremost need to stop handling like flying bricks.
do that and the web immunity is stupid and unbalanced in the Afrigs.
they remain as it is, and the web immunity is the only thing between them and a smoking wreck.
---
Trinity Nova Mercenary Services Web Site - Nominated for the 2008 E-ON Magazine Awards |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:13:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Cpt Branko
AFs first and foremost need to stop handling like flying bricks.
do that and the web immunity is stupid and unbalanced in the Afrigs.
they remain as it is, and the web immunity is the only thing between them and a smoking wreck.
Yeah, it would, but the web immunity is just lol.
Ah, well. If they put it in, I'll have fun while it lasts 
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Liang Nuren
Black Sea Industries
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:14:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Cpt Branko
AFs first and foremost need to stop handling like flying bricks.
do that and the web immunity is stupid and unbalanced in the Afrigs.
they remain as it is, and the web immunity is the only thing between them and a smoking wreck.
Yeah, exactly... except Afrigs should be made much lighter too. Also, I would like a second resist or damage bonus :)
I'm thinking:
Jaguar
Minmatar Frigate Skill Bonus: 5% Small Projectile damage bonus, 5% to Small Projectile rate of fire
Assault Ships Skill Bonus: 10% Small Projectile Turret falloff and 5% projectile damage per level.
Role bonus: Web immunity
And the weight of a Vigil plx.
-Liang
--
Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance. |
Julius Romanus
Blood Corsair's
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:17:00 -
[36]
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.
Considering its the same dps as my malediction i'm not overly excited. But yeah af's are going to be funny with web immunity. Not exactly the good kind though.
|
Phrixus Zephyr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:17:00 -
[37]
The problem is AFs are too slow, so even 50% immunity isn't really enough.
Total immunity means you'll have loads of Jag's flying around kicking people in the nuts.
Speed increase and 50-75% depending on balance i think.
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Abyss Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:30:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Vyktor Abyss on 11/03/2008 03:32:04
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
I personally quite like the slower feel of AFs. With the great resists and such awesome tanks, cap recharge etc for frigates especially thanks to the smaller sig radius, I think having them a bit slower than other frigates/destroyers is a fair exchange.
LOL @ awesome tanks/cap recharge/etc for frigates ;)
Seriously, buy a cruiser sometime and you'll understand what we're trying to tell you. The bloody things are marginally faster then AFs. Which is so balanced given their awesome DPS, tanks over three time the size and so on.
AFs first and foremost need to stop handling like flying bricks.
Try using (or remember using if your old enough) that same cruiser to tank a 4/10 complex, or tanking a couple of stealth bombers while closing to range with (Lordy me... I must be CRAZY) - an AB!, but oh wait you conveniently forget the sig radius which is the essence of its great tank.
My opinion is that with web immunity most close range fit AFs like the blaster Ishkur or Vengence would kill, or at least give a close fight to most T1 cruisers that don't have smartbombs or neuts fitted, which considering their relative costs and insurance payouts would make AFs much more worthwhile to fly compared to the T1 cruiser considering the extra price/reduced loss payout.
Oh and heaven forbid cruisers might actually get creative and have to start fitting neuts and smartbombs to counter something instead of the "one module to rule them all" webifier.
ABVSS are recruiting...... Veeeeery Slowly!! Hehe!! |
Sothstar
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 03:46:00 -
[39]
I like the idea of making the Afterburner a more useful module by giving the AF a bonus to it. Combine that with a web resistance and i think you have a solid ship, it prevents the minmatar AF's from being overly powered with a web resistance as they already travel fast enough, and it then allows short range AF's (Somebody think of us amarr folk =/ ) like the vengeance to be effective, allowing it to deal damage, run an afterburner to reduce damage by a good amount, and then not have to pack the low slots with speed modules, allowing a nice tank to hold for a good amount of time.
I would love to see a vengeance with tech 2 pulse lasers orbiting at 7km and blasting for some dps instead of the current state of affairs which is: afterburn within range (cant afford cap loss of mwd) and then go yay now i can do some dps, active modules, hit a nice optimal and then be web and die as fast as a ceptor.
|
Lrd Byron
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 05:08:00 -
[40]
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?
Someone suggested they be made into an anti battleship role and I sort of agree. Destroyers are the anti frigate supposedly and it might be neat to have a david vs goliath kind of thing. Maybe give them a massive boost to DPS with a penalty to the sig resolution/explosion radius?
|
|
|
Endel
Minmatar
Mortis Angelus
The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 05:46:00 -
[41]
Please, no web immunity.
Make them resistant if you have to mess with webs at all, but not immune.
Don't render Minmatar recons useless :(
|
Orrelious
Minmatar
The Umbrella Union Fleet
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 06:10:00 -
[42]
Linkage
If you actually watch the Zulupark interview, he says that the proposed idea is 'resistance to web effects' which does not imply immunity. He also states that they can't do it due to resource constraints and finishes by saying that they have AF's on the backburner because they don't want to change anything until they can test the web resistance idea.
|
Wrayeth
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 06:34:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 11/03/2008 06:34:44
I agree with the "WTF" posters. If this happens, I guess I'll never get to fly a battleship again. After all, a BS won't be able to do jack to that lone assault frig orbiting at 500m and webbing it once the AF kills its drones. It's already hard enough to justify flying a battleship as-is given the current state of EVE (nano gangs, et al.). Dammit, I miss being able to fly my maelstrom, raven, and tempest (not to mention my mach).
Ugh. I seriously hope this doesn't happen. Find another role for AF, please.
-Wrayeth
n00b Extraordinaire
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Liang Nuren
Black Sea Industries
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 06:37:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Orrelious
Linkage
If you actually watch the Zulupark interview, he says that the proposed idea is 'resistance to web effects' which does not imply immunity. He also states that they can't do it due to resource constraints and finishes by saying that they have AF's on the backburner because they don't want to change anything until they can test the web resistance idea.
Yeah, I just actually watched it (got home from work).
-Liang
--
Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance. |
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 06:56:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Lrd Byron
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?
Someone suggested they be made into an anti battleship role and I sort of agree. Destroyers are the anti frigate supposedly and it might be neat to have a david vs goliath kind of thing. Maybe give them a massive boost to DPS with a penalty to the sig resolution/explosion radius?
there is at least 1 good solution and 2 ok solutions to counter frigates: the killer interceptors, and the destroyers/bombers/interdictors.
we don't need more anti-frigate platforms. what we need is small anti-big ship platforms, and that's the role that Afrigs should have. (or anti-Ewar, imho)
---
Trinity Nova Mercenary Services Web Site - Nominated for the 2008 E-ON Magazine Awards |
Wrayeth
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 07:07:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Grimpak
what we need is small anti-big ship platforms, and that's the role that Afrigs should have.
I disagree. Smaller ships already have the ability to screw over larger ships - just look at nano HACs and the long-range tackling interceptors (the ones that can tackle from beyond neutralizer range).
Quote:
(or anti-Ewar, imho)
This, I could get behind. It even makes sense, as E-war ships have little tank to speak of, so even a TQ version assault frig could do one in assuming it didn't get jammed to hell. Add in a high sensor strength, lock range, and scan resolution and you've got your anti-E-warfare frigate.
-Wrayeth
n00b Extraordinaire
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Polonium 210
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 07:17:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Polonium 210 on 11/03/2008 07:17:18
Highher sensor strenght, on par with covop frigates; 20-30% to speed; 100% to cap recharge; and bonus to ECM burst strength;)
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Heavily Utilized Mechanic Mayhem
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 08:15:00 -
[48]
Im just a noob who learned to fly assault ships not long ago, but I dont want web immunity to happen. This is because conceptually Id rather fly a battleship than have even more anti-BS stuff introduced into the game. Unfortunately developers in any game never seem to mirror my hopes. There must be some other way to improve assault frigs.
|
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 08:24:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Wrayeth
Quote:
(or anti-Ewar, imho)
This, I could get behind. It even makes sense, as E-war ships have little tank to speak of, so even a TQ version assault frig could do one in assuming it didn't get jammed to hell. Add in a high sensor strength, lock range, and scan resolution and you've got your anti-E-warfare frigate.
This I like.
Not being able to be webbed would make me exploit the blaster harpy and other ships so much that I would feel bad.
------------
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
It's great being a puppetmaster 
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 08:34:00 -
[50]
Web immunity is BAD idea. Its almost like bringing stababond back (tho you cant web it).
Think abt gistii jaguar: 3km/s (with snakes a lot more) and only counter is curse... that is unless jag doesnt decide to burn back to gate which you cant stop anyways (no web?).
|
|
|
Lubomir Penev
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 08:44:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
Edited by: Vyktor Abyss on 11/03/2008 03:00:42
Sorry but I disagree with the OP and to say I like the web immunity idea.
Web range is neut range. Even if you are immune to the first the second one will render you unfunctional. A medium neut will insta zap the cap of an AF and if AF start to be unkillable by bigger ships you can bet they'll be carried even more.
--
Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP! |
Ealthor
Amarr
Veyr
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 08:59:00 -
[52]
He did say web resistance, not web immunity.
I honestly can't see a 50% reduction in the effectiveness of applied webs (with AF 5) being game breaking; besides, they don't have the ability to implement it yet.
|
|
CCP Zulupark
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 09:27:00 -
[53]
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
|
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 09:37:00 -
[54]
Also, if you have any new ideas for possible AF roles, post them in this thread.
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Silas Beit
Joyriders
INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 09:38:00 -
[55]
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
speculations make for good discussions! 
http://www.save-evetv.com/ - http://spydrwear.spreadshirt.net |
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 09:38:00 -
[56]
That idea actually from community members in the development forum originally.
Um.
How likely would anyone be to fit their AF with the ranges versions of the weapons at the expense of damage?
Doesn't seem wildly plausible.
EVE RELATED CONTENT |
Lubomir Penev
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 09:38:00 -
[57]
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
We got hold of him, don't let him go!
OK this is less frightening with numbers thrown in, now would you care to address my second point being that current AF bonus seems to dedicate them to operate out of webrange?
So, wouldn't it be better to give them a bonus useful outside of webrange? And what about giving them the mean to stay out of web range, aka more speed?
Or do you plan a complete overhaul of AFs and not weaking them into usefulness?
--
Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP! |
Azirapheal
Amarr
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 09:39:00 -
[58]
i like the fact that my 100km pod whipping harpy gets ignored on ops :)
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente
The Blackguard Wolves
Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 10:03:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Arana Tellen on 11/03/2008 10:04:45
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
Make it an AF bonus and move one of the others to the frigate resistance bit, make the resistances built in AND give it a role bonus.
Web bonus is good enough you will WANT AF V, make the role bonus something decent because even with 50% resistance half of a poor velocity is a very poor velocity, maybe give them frigate like mass too so they can go a bit faster or an afterburner role bonus.
Giving it a web resistance means it really needs to be able to survive a single web, at max skills 2 should be survivable JUST and 3 should always mean death really.
---------------------------------
Oh noes!
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
*moderated - mother abuse - Mitnal*
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 10:13:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 11/03/2008 10:17:16
Disagree with the OP, web immunity sounds like a great idea. They are still slow, fat bricks (for a frigate), but now they would be pretty much impossible to totally slow down. Different paradigm from inties, and different paradigms are good.
Could very well work. Me likes.
Added: since it's almost certainly not going to be a total immunity, something like slight mass reduction plus maybe 10% web effect reduction per AF level would do the trick. Make AFs a small bit faster, and let them still keep up some speed while webbed.
|
|
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 10:21:00 -
[61]
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 11/03/2008 10:24:50
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 11/03/2008 10:21:41
Web immunity...bleah.
How bout something a little more creative and less immersion killing?
"Oh...btw...the new paint on your hull magically allows the web to slide off you without effect".
Snore....back to the drawing board please. Surely the devs can do better than the dreaded "Cloak of Haste" .
**Edit**If this web immunity thing goes through...at least change the name as I fail to see how "Boots of Speed" remotely make these ships worthy of the name "Assault".
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way"
General George Patton USA
|
Plave Okice
Gallente
Red.
Red Republic
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 10:25:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Saint Lazarus
If AF's had web immunity I would fly nothing else......ever ^^
This ^
I'll train assault frigate V too.
Red CEORed Vs Blue |
Arana Tellen
Gallente
The Blackguard Wolves
Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 10:27:00 -
[63]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 11/03/2008 10:24:50
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 11/03/2008 10:21:41
Web immunity...bleah.
How bout something a little more creative and less immersion killing?
"Oh...btw...the new paint on your hull magically allows the web to slide off you without effect".
Snore....back to the drawing board please. Surely the devs can do better than the dreaded "Cloak of Haste" .
**Edit**If this web immunity thing goes through...at least change the name as I fail to see how "Boots of Speed" remotely make these ships worthy of the name "Assault".
If Eve ever lets RP get too much in the way of propper game balance, it dies.
---------------------------------
Oh noes!
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
*moderated - mother abuse - Mitnal*
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 10:36:00 -
[64]
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
How bout something a little more creative and less immersion killing?
Well, if you want to go the "realism" route (which isn't that easy in EVE, since EVE physics have very little to do with the real thing :), consider this: webs are ewar effects; it's not like there is a physical "web" holding the ship in place, it's some localized force field thingy.
So having a specific ship class be resistant to that is not a big deal, it's just the same thing as some ships being extremely resistant to jamming due to high sensor str.
|
RuleoftheBone
Minmatar
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 10:43:00 -
[65]
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 11/03/2008 10:45:13
Originally by: Arana Tellen
Originally by: RuleoftheBone
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 11/03/2008 10:24:50
Edited by: RuleoftheBone on 11/03/2008 10:21:41
Web immunity...bleah.
How bout something a little more creative and less immersion killing?
"Oh...btw...the new paint on your hull magically allows the web to slide off you without effect".
Snore....back to the drawing board please. Surely the devs can do better than the dreaded "Cloak of Haste" .
**Edit**If this web immunity thing goes through...at least change the name as I fail to see how "Boots of Speed" remotely make these ships worthy of the name "Assault".
If Eve ever lets RP get too much in the way of propper game balance, it dies.
I don't care about RP much beyond immersion.
The trouble is in the name. ASSAULT frigate should mean the ability to provide sustained violent firepower at the point of attack with some reasonable chance of survival. Giving some magical web-resist changes the hull to something else entirely.
And even with the staggered web resist based on AF level as suggested by CCP any competent Huginn/Rapier pilot should still have no major issue knocking one down.
Don't get me wrong...I'd love to fly my Jaguar more often and I'd even buy a new Wolf if these ships could actually assault something beyond frigs/crap-fit/crap-piloted T1 cruisers.
Its a hull class begging for a role. And I'm pretty sure fitting 3x720 T2's and an HML on a Wolf would be a LOT of fun with a bit more speed and less mass. With of course similar revisions across racial lines. Global web immunity across the class is boring and a cop-out IMO.
I'm sure you clever CCP folks will come up with something though.
"Lead Me..Follow Me..Or get the **** out of my way"
General George Patton USA
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
Sex Panthers
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 11:04:00 -
[66]
AF buffs: reduce mass to T1 frig levels, increase damage bonuses from 5% (nominally) to 7.5% per level, remove fake 4th bonus of resists per level and build that into the base ship stats. Add in 10% web resistance per level, add in 10% sig reduction per level.
Do all of the above, and you have some kick ass frigs. They'll still be slow, but they'd be able to tangle with cruisers, and perform better vs. interceptors.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 11:08:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/03/2008 11:15:19
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/03/2008 11:12:36
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/03/2008 11:09:43
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
Originally by: Cpt Branko
LOL @ awesome tanks/cap recharge/etc for frigates ;)
Seriously, buy a cruiser sometime and you'll understand what we're trying to tell you. The bloody things are marginally faster then AFs. Which is so balanced given their awesome DPS, tanks over three time the size and so on.
AFs first and foremost need to stop handling like flying bricks.
Try using (or remember using if your old enough) that same cruiser to tank a 4/10 complex, or tanking a couple of stealth bombers while closing to range with (Lordy me... I must be CRAZY) - an AB!, but oh wait you conveniently forget the sig radius which is the essence of its great tank.
PvE tank, therefore moot.
NPCs don't web, track horribly and don't fly smart. Real people web you, make you stay at 1-2km range w/out transversal and pop you. Even a rigged-out, etc, etc AB Vengeance won't tank a decently skilled/fit cruiser.
At any rate, cruisers have commonly 800/1600 plate fits + resist gear + damage control. Nothing the AF can do can even remotely match the endurance this gives them.
If you tanked a couple of stealth bombers, I LOL at them. I mean, OK, I've killed some stealth bombers in a AB rifter, but only because they sucked and engaged at <15km range.
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
My opinion is that with web immunity most close range fit AFs like the blaster Ishkur or Vengence would kill, or at least give a close fight to most T1 cruisers that don't have smartbombs or neuts fitted, which considering their relative costs and insurance payouts would make AFs much more worthwhile to fly compared to the T1 cruiser considering the extra price/reduced loss payout.
I'd sooner see the ships fixed, but if they can't be bothered to do that and decided to just give them reduced webbing/web immunity, well, it is a major boost.
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
AF buffs: reduce mass to T1 frig levels, increase damage bonuses from 5% (nominally) to 7.5% per level, remove fake 4th bonus of resists per level and build that into the base ship stats. Add in 10% web resistance per level, add in 10% sig reduction per level.
Do all of the above, and you have some kick ass frigs. They'll still be slow, but they'd be able to tangle with cruisers, and perform better vs. interceptors.
Awesome ideas, but the sig reduction might be too much really, you already have interceptors for that.
A number of these ships also needs more fittings. Hawk needs a general fix, it's just a piece of crap.
The fix needs to be bigger then web resist. Web resist is slapping a (very powerful) band aid over ships which are essentially broken. It would make some of the AFs awesome, and some of them (think about the Hawk for instance) would still be a steaming piece of crap.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Ephemeron
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 11:46:00 -
[68]
Web immunity would definitely be a bad idea.
Web resistence around 50% is fairly balanced. Considering the currently useless state of AF, giving them this power won't make them overpowered.
The words "web immunity" should be avoided, as that immidiately gives people wrong impression.
They certainly not going to get any warp scrambler immunity. Comparing them to supercaps of old days is silly.
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 11:57:00 -
[69]
i like the idea of them being somewhat imune to webs, but at the same time i would love to see them not being able to field a mwd then, just give them a slight bonus to ab speed perhaps
|
Zara Torbe
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 12:01:00 -
[70]
Ishkur = my favourit ship, ever!
Boost:
Acceleration/Agility - reduce mass ?
|
|
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente
The Blackguard Wolves
Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 12:01:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Web immunity would definitely be a bad idea.
Web resistence around 50% is fairly balanced. Considering the currently useless state of AF, giving them this power won't make them overpowered.
The words "web immunity" should be avoided, as that immidiately gives people wrong impression.
They certainly not going to get any warp scrambler immunity. Comparing them to supercaps of old days is silly.
As usual other people used that work, not Zulupark and people run off blaming him. I agree with you that immunity should be avoided, but the web resistance still needs to go hand in hand with other changes (minor tweaks).
Also to an above poster the ability to assault is the ability to orbit close, deal high damage and keep enough velocity to avoid fire from larger guns.
AT THE SAME TIME, I think EVERYONE wants to avoid AFs MWDing everywhere are being untouchable, to this effect an AB bonus of some kind would help, avoiding putting a penalty on MWDs specifically.
---------------------------------
Oh noes!
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
*moderated - mother abuse - Mitnal*
|
Mihailo Great
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 12:50:00 -
[72]
Not signed, disagree.
We have enough speed boats, this new thing is interesting and will not overpower assault frigates, but will make them more useful than they are currently.
Your problem is you expected assault frigates to be super awesome after the "fix".
Web immunity is good enough for most of us pvp'ers.
|
Maaku
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 12:55:00 -
[73]
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.
|
Jack Jombardo
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 12:57:00 -
[74]
Just some points that I don't understand about AFs.
My punisher is a very nice ship and fun to fly.
I trained lot of points to get it's big brothers (Vengeance/Retribution).
I got:
- better resitences, realy nice :)
- a little more armor, nice too
- a little more damage from the Retribution but a horible slot layout (one med?? "util"-high for a sniper ship?)
- very low damage but great slot layout for the Vengeance (no missile bonus, just rockets?)
- a handling like a sitting duck from both :(
I just can fly the Amarrian Assaults and I love the Vengeance. Realy competent little spaceboot. But after investing so many points I don't understand why I got penelized with the heavy mass and low aggility :(.
Even with it's compareble low damage the Vengeance is very very nice and OK except it's "duckyness".
Retribution real needs it's "util-high" moved to a med (same for the Amarrian destroyer btw, one low to one med) please.
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 13:11:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Jack Jombardo
I just can fly the Amarrian Assaults and I love the Vengeance. Realy competent little spaceboot. But after investing so many points I don't understand why I got penelized with the heavy mass and low aggility :(.
I don't get it either.
I mean, HACs are in no way penalized like this. No T2 variant is, just Assault Ships.
The worst thing is, one of the selling points of T1 frigates is the ability to dodge camps with the preety superb agility they have, and AFs not having that is just a horrible thing for people who like to roam/solo in small ships.
Originally by: Jack Jombardo
Even with it's compareble low damage the Vengeance is very very nice and OK except it's "duckyness".
Retribution real needs it's "util-high" moved to a med (same for the Amarrian destroyer btw, one low to one med) please.
Retribution definitely needs a second midslot. Although, all the two-midslot AFs are rather annoying - they have the same amount of mids/lows as T1 frigs. And most of them have horrible fitting (I know both the Wolf and the Enyo are completely horrible in this respect).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 13:17:00 -
[76]
I have bashed Zulupark for so long, so this bud is for you! I like your idea, surprise surprise. But i hope you are writing down some other tweeks to the concept.
1. Flat out web immunity, would be overpowered, maybe. You first get the idea of huge gangs of AFs flying around as a way of saying uber pwnage swarm.
2. 10% Web immunity, would be underpowered.
3. Using a bonus to velocity only for ABs on AFs and Web resistance higher than 10%, which was suggested earlier, a good idea.
4. My idea, what if you were to make webbifier response on AF's like warp scramble points, say for each AF level above AF 1 gets immunity to 1 web locked on to it, so at level 4 you would need to get webbed by 3 ships. This means, it would take more than a couple frigates/inties to actually web the thing, and then it has a chance to engage those frigs/inties, since you didnt take its web usage away. So what ensues is an actually fight. Needs team work on the other side. As long as they can clearly acheive velocities between interceptors and frigates, above cruisers, but not vagas, this would work i think.
I like the AB bonus to velocity to get away from sig rad increase from MWD, (anything going between 1k-3k is not really speed tanking and can be a juicy target due to sig increase on MWD.
|
Auron Shadowbane
Pelennor Swarm
Scorched Earth.
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 13:32:00 -
[77]
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.
|
Phrixus Zephyr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 13:36:00 -
[78]
Even with 10-50% resistance you'd still need a slight AF speed buff.
Go get an AF and fit a standard T2 mwd. They really are too slow.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 13:59:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Ulstan on 11/03/2008 14:04:34
The first fix that AF's need is to handle like frigates. HACS handle better than T1 cruisesr. AF's handle much much much worse than T1 frigates. They're slow flying bricks that get destroyed easily. They are essentially gimped super expensive T1 cruisers. You absolutely cannot have AF's getting outrun by MWD cruisers.
If a ship with frigate survivability handles like a cruiser, no one will bother using it. AF's need to be just as capable of jumping through gate camps as standard T1 frigates.
Fix their mass and make them handle like frigates, and then we can think about giving them their missing 4th bonus.
Oh and fix the Hawk so that it's not in fact, outdamaged by a T1 frigate.
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Abyss Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:07:00 -
[80]
Got to say that yes, 100% webbing immunity probably would be overpowered meaning battleship weapons tracking would give them little chance without smartbombs, neuts and/or support.
A 25% to 50% resistance to webbing however would probably not be overpowered, especially if they were boosted with as someone said earlier an improved targetting range, sensor strength and perhaps slightly better fall offs ( or whatever is needed racially: drone speed bonus for ishkurs etc) giving them a great "ranged anti-support" fleet role as well as improved "heavy tackling" ability.
That would certainly make them more worthwhile to fly.
On a slight tangent since Zulupark appears to be watching: I have posted previously in the ideas forum in (I think it was) Goumindong's excellent suggestion regarding improvements to webbing mechanics in that it should have ranges and verying strengths reflecting the ship class the module is fitted on, also used against and perhaps also based on sig radius (which would also boost use of ABs for PVP \o/) and veloctity like tracking making the uberquick tackleable and killable, and impacting the already uberslow much less.
My opinion is the current webbing mechanics are a little bit overpowered when a T1 frigate can produce enough webbing strength to effectively stop a Battleship, Carrier or even Dreadnaught dead in its tracks. The stasis webifier module is now a must fit module "for all situations" requirement along with the MWD and Scram of virtually all PVP setups currently (except the prevelant immune orbit at 20km at 7km/s nano-crud). These kind of differences for PVP "must have" fittings to PVE fitting really need looking at IMHO.
A prime example of broken webbing mechanics IMHO are Nano-Rapiers and Nano-Huginns. They are kind of ridiculous in that currently it takes a Nano-Rapier, Nano-Huginn or blob of tackle to ever get one tackled.
Anyway I'll get off my soapbox and let someone else tell me how noob I am because I dont always fly a stabbed BS with neuts when I go ratting or missioning.
Err..now back to the AF discussion.
ABVSS are recruiting...... Veeeeery Slowly!! Hehe!! |
|
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:07:00 -
[81]
Quote:
AF buffs: reduce mass to T1 frig levels, increase damage bonuses from 5% (nominally) to 7.5% per level, remove fake 4th bonus of resists per level and build that into the base ship stats. Add in 10% web resistance per level, add in 10% sig reduction per level.
Do all of the above, and you have some kick ass frigs. They'll still be slow, but they'd be able to tangle with cruisers, and perform better vs. interceptors.
I think those ideas are good, except possibly the 10% sig reduction per level one. Seems to be taking on an interceptor role. Maybe replace it with a resistance to neutralizers instead? I feel that assault ships should be capable of getting in and doing their damage - getting webbed and neutralized definitely hampers that.
I don't mind the idea of web resistance, if it would make these ships into good T1 cruiser killers.
But the mass fix I feel is pretty mandator to lift the class up out of the gutter :p
Oh and some specific ship fixes would be needed. See the Hawk. ;)
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:13:00 -
[82]
Quote:
Because there is no cruiser-sized interceptor that a speedy HAC would make pointless, like speedy AFs would make Interceptors pointless.
What is this nonsense? Do t1 frigs make interceptors pointless? No. The only thing that would make interceptors pointless are ships that are as fast and get the same tackling bonuses.
AF's that are fas fast as T1 frigs don't fulfill either of those criteria.
|
Mihailo Great
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:14:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Ulstan
Quote:
Because there is no cruiser-sized interceptor that a speedy HAC would make pointless, like speedy AFs would make Interceptors pointless.
What is this nonsense? Do t1 frigs make interceptors pointless?
That's because you're looking at this backwards.
Interceptors make t1 frigates pointless.
|
Phrixus Zephyr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:16:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Mihailo Great
Originally by: Ulstan
Quote:
Because there is no cruiser-sized interceptor that a speedy HAC would make pointless, like speedy AFs would make Interceptors pointless.
What is this nonsense? Do t1 frigs make interceptors pointless?
That's because you're looking at this backwards.
Interceptors make t1 frigates pointless.
HACs make cruisers pointless, but people still fly them. Whats your point?
|
ElCoCo
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:29:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Azirapheal
i like the fact that my 100km pod whipping harpy gets ignored on ops :)
Invaluable indeed. All FC's want those podkilling harpies in their gang |
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar
Military Industrial Research
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:42:00 -
[86]
I think they're pretty decent as they are. But if there is to be a change, all that is needed is to reduce their excessively high mass and they will be great and balanced. Very simple, very easy, and doesn't require reinventing the wheel.
Heavy Assault ships have a lot better tanking, more firepower, and in most cases more speed than equivalent tech 1 cruisers. Yet Assault Ships have a lot better tanking, a little bit better firepower, and less speed than equivalent tech 1 frigates.
It doesn't make sense.
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente
The Blackguard Wolves
Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 14:42:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
I have bashed Zulupark for so long, so this bud is for you! I like your idea, surprise surprise. But i hope you are writing down some other tweeks to the concept.
1. Flat out web immunity, would be overpowered, maybe. You first get the idea of huge gangs of AFs flying around as a way of saying uber pwnage swarm.
2. 10% Web immunity, would be underpowered.
3. Using a bonus to velocity only for ABs on AFs and Web resistance higher than 10%, which was suggested earlier, a good idea.
4. My idea, what if you were to make webbifier response on AF's like warp scramble points, say for each AF level above AF 1 gets immunity to 1 web locked on to it, so at level 4 you would need to get webbed by 3 ships. This means, it would take more than a couple frigates/inties to actually web the thing, and then it has a chance to engage those frigs/inties, since you didnt take its web usage away. So what ensues is an actually fight. Needs team work on the other side. As long as they can clearly acheive velocities between interceptors and frigates, above cruisers, but not vagas, this would work i think.
I like the AB bonus to velocity to get away from sig rad increase from MWD, (anything going between 1k-3k is not really speed tanking and can be a juicy target due to sig increase on MWD.
AGAIN he never suggested immunity, LTR.
---------------------------------
Oh noes!
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
*moderated - mother abuse - Mitnal*
|
Suitonia
Gallente
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 16:22:00 -
[88]
I think the mass reduction is key to them being more useful. I disagree with the fact that adjusting their mass to their t1 counterparts will make them better or replace interceptors. Can an Incursus go as fast as a taranis? No. So how would an ishkur end up going faster than a taranis, or an enyo even. If there are any imbalances like this they can simply add a small amount of mass onto them once tested to curb their speed from hitting 5km/s+ (If it's even possible?) or whatever the 'limit' should be.
It also should be noted that Interceptors have smaller sig radius, higher base speed, higher scan resolution, tackling range bonus on the tackleceptors, and a -80% reduction to scram cap use. Even if an AF is able to reach 'interceptor speeds' then it would cap out reasonable quickly which would make them fail as dedicated tacklers like interceptors, as well as locking slower etc.
---
I've always wondered about those Vagabond pilots... |
Rik Rels
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 16:39:00 -
[89]
LOL wow...
Web immunity... That will just be FAR too abusive. That's not a very smart fix for AF's that would just make swarms of them ridiculously powerful.
|
ghosttr
Amarr
ARK-CORP
SATRAPY
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 16:40:00 -
[90]
I think that instead of web immunity i think that the bonus should nullify (or decrease per level as with stealth bombers) the sig radius effect of ab (strictly ab, not mwd). Making their tanks effective against larger ships.
Also to make them so they arent dead in the water when confronted with neuts they should have a small capacitor that recharges very quickly. (to overcome the cycle time of the neuts/nos and make the frigate nos effective at keeptin it alive.
My Blog |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
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! |
|
|
Cottage Pie
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 20:58:00 -
[121]
For a role bonus, I would suggest an afterburner bonus combined with mass reduction rather than web immunity (total web immunity would be insanely overpowering), as even going at a few 100 m/s when webbed, would, without the sig radius explosion of a mwd make the AF very survivable against a cruiser or battleship and give them a chance against anything shooting missiles. Also, when not webbed they could still reach a few km/sec.
|
Ishina Fel
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:09:00 -
[122]
"a few km/sec" is frankly way too fast for afterburners. And I say that despite firmly believing afterburners suck and need buffing. 
Bored during Downtime? Why not try Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN! |
Cottage Pie
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:14:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Ishina Fel
"a few km/sec" is frankly way too fast for afterburners. And I say that despite firmly believing afterburners suck and need buffing.
lol true, i am kinda drunk on speed tbh and anything below 5kms sounds slow.
partial web immunity (so no silly speeds when not webbed) and an AB bonus then...either way I think the buff should involve afterburners and not just because I have stockpiled a few b-types, honest!
|
Troezar
Phoenix Division
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:29:00 -
[124]
In line with their "Assault" name how about a bonus to heat usage? i.e. they can overheat for much longer than a non-bonused ship. Gives flexibility in how you want to use your ship but has finite use so not overpowered..
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |