Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Draksyl Lyskard
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 12:24:00 -
[1]
I thought that along with faction ships, AF's were going to be reviewed in Empyrean Age (with a view to giving them a viable role once again). However I have yet to read anything on the forums indicating that they have changed significantly in the recent testing on Sisi.
Has anyone noticed any chances to AF's? Or has the review of AF's been pushed back?
Thanks for any info.
|
Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises Babylon Project
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 12:25:00 -
[2]
Nothing changed so far afaik and prolly yes, pushed back.
All the stuff above does not necessarily reflect my corp, my alliance or even me.. Drone guide.. |
BiggestT
Fun Inc Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 12:25:00 -
[3]
like ccp do many a time they simply expanded the capacity of their "too hard basket" and put it in there..
Dont get ur hopes up sorry :(
Boost Field commands! they need love :( |
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 12:30:00 -
[4]
The issue was raised in last night's dev chat.
The answer was essentially that CCP will be looking at AFs in the future, but currently have no idea how to change them.
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
|
Rachael Malace
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 12:32:00 -
[5]
I wasn't too sure, but I thought AF's would have a pretty good advantage in L2 encounters were they wouldn't have to worry about HAC's/Nano's. I would feel pretty confident in a hawk/harpy going up against most cruisers.
|
El Torrent
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 12:32:00 -
[6]
Considering, basically no information flow about ship balancing changes (well, faction cruisers being an exception) I don't think we are going to see any major balance changes. --
|
Power's Urge
Pixels Docks Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 12:41:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Rodj Blake but currently have no idea how to change them.
There are hundreds of ideas out there, and a few good ones too; CCP just doesn't bother making up their minds about those. They wouldn't even really need to think; just pick a suggestion and implement it.
|
Deadeye Devie
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 12:55:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Deadeye Devie on 02/06/2008 12:57:08
Originally by: Rodj Blake The issue was raised in last night's dev chat.
The answer was essentially that CCP will be looking at AFs in the future, but currently have no idea how to change them.
thats just a weak excuse not to do anything....now with E.A. being braught in and faction warfair with graded encounters, theres even more reason to sort this issue out!!!! there has been countless comments as to how they can be fixed and STILL we get told they dont know what top do.....Sh1t or get off the pot, CCP !!!!
here is the list of some of the fixes that have been offered and discussed over at least 3-4 MONTHS
necessary 1st alteration:-
reduce mass and give back the AFs agility....for gods sake, who would wanna use one when they are 2-3 times more expensive than a T1 cruiser and have the same feel to them....its rediculus....do HACs have the agility of BSes, compared to thier T1 hull counterparts??? no...so why do AFs suffer
list of possible other fixes:-
1/across the board AB boost bonus, to give them the assult role, make it that AFs use ABs to get thier speed, and make that speed level with or just lower than, thier MWD speed...this would help a lot in giving thier role as fast gank frigates, without encroaching on interceptors uber speed territory
2/ make them the counter ships to ewar, with bonuses resisting the effects of either thier own based, or alternate based racial ewar, and give 1 of each 2 ship 1 resist....therefor each ship has a use and counteres thier opposing ship...this would also make them a handy anti recon/eas boat for fleet engagements.
3/ a blanket resist % against webs to give them a little more 'slipperyness' that is required of this class of ship...there small, ganky for thier size, they should be hard to pin down. doesnt have to be a biggie, say either flat 30% or a 2% per level of skill (picking numbers out of the air just as an example)
there are waaaay more ideas in MANY of the foum channels, and yet still CCP dont even address the 1 thing making this class borked.,......the mass/agility issue!!! im sure that even if they sort out this issue in E.A. then a lotta ppl who trained up for this class of ship, only to never bother with it due to its mistreatment and nerffage....this 1 issue would make these people a little more appeased, and leave space for the major reork later on.....its not that much of a puzzle DEVs.....could we possibly get any word on why this is not a possible fix???? Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of themself without that law is both. |
Blutreiter
Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 13:26:00 -
[9]
Another really nice idea was to give AFs an additional gang bonus when assigned to a carrier as a squad leader.
That plus reduced hangar size for AFs would make them the ship of choice for carrier support.
Still my favourite
Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sh*t up
Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
|
Furb Killer
The Peacekeeper Core
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 13:39:00 -
[10]
@blu, but pointless for most people.
And many cruisers have no problem with popping an AF. Okay HAM caracals wont be one of them, but a thorax for example, or a vexor, laughs at you. If thorax got ECM drones you cant even target him half of the time. His medium blasters can still hit you quite good when you are webbed, and as long as he has cap he can dictate range because he has mwd and you have AB usually. (so you wont be orbitting at 500m arround him). If he has normal drones you are really dead. And that is assuming they dont have a neut with them.
|
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 15:32:00 -
[11]
Like just about every other change CCP is discussing about, the AF boost will be "later, when we'll have decided how to do it". Nevermind that this is repeated again and again since months, and still they got no idea how to fix it.
Fix for dysprosium price? Same answer since 6 months. Fix for nanos? More of the same since even longer.
I'm starting to think that the balance team is just damn lazy. ------------------------------------------
|
Varshyll
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 15:37:00 -
[12]
Just give AF a new e-war weapon which add mass, you ll fix 2 problems : _AF will have a role. _You won t have to nerf nanos, coz all races will have a weapon to counter it.
|
TimMc
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 15:55:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Deadeye Devie stuff
If CCP just reduced the mass to the same as other frigates, I would use AFs alot.
|
Menellaix
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 15:59:00 -
[14]
My Review of AF's in Empyrean Age: Bad. Get used to it.
|
Power's Urge
Pixels Docks Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 16:00:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Varshyll Just give AF a new e-war weapon which add mass
What would that do that a webber can't ?
Quote: _AF will have a role.
A bad one, and not very "assault". AFs don't need some esoteric "role" because they do have one; they are to T1 frigs what HACs are to cruisers. Their stats are just not that good in comparison; nobody complains about HACs not having a "role", although all the models are completely different from each other - because they're good at being extreme exponents of certain styles of fighting, while most AFs have serious issues - e.g. the Hawk's damage output, the Wolf/Jag's wrong falloff/range bonuses, the Ishkur vs. the Ishtar's drone bonuses, their handling in general. They just need to be made worthwhile to choose over cruisers in the same way that people choose HACs over BSs.
|
Furb Killer
The Peacekeeper Core
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 16:03:00 -
[16]
@power, give it larger range, then it hurts top speed of nanos and their agility, so their orbit speed drops a lot. No large affects on other ships.
|
Pax Empyrean
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 16:15:00 -
[17]
I'd like it if they did something more than just reduce the mass, but that would be a great start and would help them a lot while they figure out what they want to do to give AFs a distinct and useful role.
|
Power's Urge
Pixels Docks Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 16:24:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Power''s Urge on 02/06/2008 16:24:46
Originally by: Furb Killer @power, give it larger range, then it hurts top speed of nanos and their agility, so their orbit speed drops a lot. No large affects on other ships.
I think such a "specialty tackler" role would still be too narrow for eight ships that are completely different from each other (and doesn't seem very feasible to me for, say, an egregious sniper like the Harpy which can engage at ranges of 100km), as it would relegate each ship's special combat style to a secondary feature which wouldn't help the class at all . Those different combat styles should on the contrary be emphasized a lot more and improved upon. AFs don't need a change, they just need to become more viable to use and fun to fly.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 16:34:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 02/06/2008 16:34:41
Originally by: Power's Urge There are hundreds of ideas out there, and a few good ones too; CCP just doesn't bother making up their minds about those. They wouldn't even really need to think; just pick a suggestion and implement it.
Probably not a good idea to just spend a couple of months doing something, only to find out afterwards that it affects the game in a way that was not intended.
So they think and plan first. You should try it. :)
Now I sound like a fanboi again... oh well...
--- Its dead, Jim.
|
kc51
All Pilipino SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 17:23:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Deadeye Devie Edited by: Deadeye Devie on 02/06/2008 12:57:08
Originally by: Rodj Blake The issue was raised in last night's dev chat.
The answer was essentially that CCP will be looking at AFs in the future, but currently have no idea how to change them.
thats just a weak excuse not to do anything....now with E.A. being braught in and faction warfair with graded encounters, theres even more reason to sort this issue out!!!! there has been countless comments as to how they can be fixed and STILL we get told they dont know what top do.....Sh1t or get off the pot, CCP !!!!
here is the list of some of the fixes that have been offered and discussed over at least 3-4 MONTHS
necessary 1st alteration:-
reduce mass and give back the AFs agility....for gods sake, who would wanna use one when they are 2-3 times more expensive than a T1 cruiser and have the same feel to them....its rediculus....do HACs have the agility of BSes, compared to thier T1 hull counterparts??? no...so why do AFs suffer
list of possible other fixes:-
1/across the board AB boost bonus, to give them the assult role, make it that AFs use ABs to get thier speed, and make that speed level with or just lower than, thier MWD speed...this would help a lot in giving thier role as fast gank frigates, without encroaching on interceptors uber speed territory
2/ make them the counter ships to ewar, with bonuses resisting the effects of either thier own based, or alternate based racial ewar, and give 1 of each 2 ship 1 resist....therefor each ship has a use and counteres thier opposing ship...this would also make them a handy anti recon/eas boat for fleet engagements.
3/ a blanket resist % against webs to give them a little more 'slipperyness' that is required of this class of ship...there small, ganky for thier size, they should be hard to pin down. doesnt have to be a biggie, say either flat 30% or a 2% per level of skill (picking numbers out of the air just as an example)
there are waaaay more ideas in MANY of the foum channels, and yet still CCP dont even address the 1 thing making this class borked.,......the mass/agility issue!!! im sure that even if they sort out this issue in E.A. then a lotta ppl who trained up for this class of ship, only to never bother with it due to its mistreatment and nerffage....this 1 issue would make these people a little more appeased, and leave space for the major reork later on.....its not that much of a puzzle DEVs.....could we possibly get any word on why this is not a possible fix????
Dude calm down!!! Are you one of those types of people that complains about everything. Let them handle this game the way they see fit and stop complaining. If you dont like AF's, dont fly them. Otherwise, wait and see what happens. I'm so tired of hearing people complain about CCP do this, CCP do that, and CCP doesnt know what they're doing and why can't the DEVS do this its so easy!!!! STOP COMPLAINING!!!! |
|
Furb Killer
The Peacekeeper Core
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 17:39:00 -
[21]
Someone obviously has never been in an AF.
|
kc51
All Pilipino SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 18:00:00 -
[22]
I have the retribution and the vengeance and i fly them quite a bit, i'm happy just the way they are. However any ship is made, and it doesnt work right, then it presents a challenge or i fly a ship i'll like more.
|
Deadeye Devie
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 18:47:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Deadeye Devie on 02/06/2008 18:48:12
Originally by: kc51
Dude calm down!!! Are you one of those types of people that complains about everything. Let them handle this game the way they see fit and stop complaining. If you dont like AF's, dont fly them. Otherwise, wait and see what happens. I'm so tired of hearing people complain about CCP do this, CCP do that, and CCP doesnt know what they're doing and why can't the DEVS do this its so easy!!!! STOP COMPLAINING!!!!
...yeah, on second read that does seem a lil too loude..
all i was merely tryna get out was that many possible new use to fit the group of these ships have been discussed and the same one that would improve the ships, that even the devs have said, is to bring the mass and agility into line...its a good small move to get this fun class to be more viable n appealing to the masses...and i would also be overjoyed as i now own all but the caldari ones and find it a pitty this class isnt too viable a ship in most situations coz of its cruiser like handling....e.g.
Originally by: TimMc
Originally by: Deadeye Devie stuff
If CCP just reduced the mass to the same as other frigates, I would use AFs alot.
....case and point statement. Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of themself without that law is both. |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 19:15:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Furb Killer Someone obviously has never been in an AF.
I AM of the opinion that AF's have potential. Things about giving the ships a role is fairly silly when lack of a role is not the underlying problem of the ship design.
The single NUMBER ONE issule that AF's have is their price tag. They simply do not perform as well as their price indicates.
There is not (or least there should not be) any argument that an Assault Ship is a match for it's T1 equivalent. Thus it already has a role - the same one frigates do, only they do it better.
But "doing something better" is only part of a the issue - just because a Wolf can outperform a rifter doesn't mean it's the best ship for the job. Often a rifter is thrown into suicidal situations, getting early points and webs on targets and fully expected to die. Such a task means expendability is of paramount concern.
An assault ship should be designed from the ground up to fight people with pure gank and tank. In order to maxamize it's potential as an assault ship, the vessels would need blanket bonuses on the order of:
2x Gank Bonuses 1x Tank Bonus 1x Racial Bonus
This assumes the resists are built into the hull rather than added in as a useless bonus.
Immunity to Webs has been thrown about quite a bit, but such a bonus is not in line with the assault theory of ship design. Web bonuses indicate the role of the ship is tackling, probably inside the 13km death zone - and tackling is a role already filled to bursting by t1 frigs (expendible tackling) interceptors (ultra fast ADD tackling), HAC's (vagabond for example for heavy tackling) interdictors (for bubble tackling) and HICS (for ultra heavy tackling).
Instead, I suggest the following blanket changes to the ships: 1) A cut in component requirements that would make 6 - 10 million ISK a reasonable average price for the ship. 2) Agility that mirrors the agility of the ship's T1 hull. 3) A bonus to afterburners that will allow an AF's to achieve similar speeds to the average t1 cruiser using a MWD.
These changes maxamize the role implied by the name: assault. They would be hard hitting little ships, taking tank and gank to the logical extreme for the frigate class. Reduced price combined with an overall increase in survivability means they could indeed be used in headlong assaults on enemy support craft, where two or three fully fitted assault ships could be lost for each enemy recon destroyed and there would STILL be a net win for the assault force (in terms of isk at risk). This would mean that no ship was as supremely suited to the task - cruisers may hit harder but their much larger size means they are far less durable than their smaller cousins, and frigates would have far less firepower at their disposal.
|
GusHobbleton
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 20:05:00 -
[25]
It'd be nice if they did, the Wolf and Jag (and especially Hawk) badly need some updating. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
Power's Urge
Pixels Docks Fang Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 20:10:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Derek Sigres <Truth>
/signed
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 20:19:00 -
[27]
AF's don't need a 'role' they need to handle like frigates instead of cruisers. And they need their missing 4th bonus.
|
Pax Empyrean
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 20:24:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Derek Sigres A thousand shining truths.
Please, listen to this man.
|
Selia Rain
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 20:37:00 -
[29]
I'd be happy with AF's if they just got back their frigate class handling, at least make them about as agile as their T1 counterparts...
With that simple change they become the anti-inty they could have been in the first place, a true superiority frigate instead of some brick.
Not that all current AFs are totally useless, but they really don't shine as a ship class...
The 4th bonus that they're missing for some reason would be gravy, but I'd think more of a ship "class" bonus like the sig bonus 'ceptors get would be better than straight out tank or gank bonuses... A + to sensor strength to make them anti EW would be neat, or something along those lines, something to give them a clear role and make them useful.
|
Boz Well
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 20:51:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Derek Sigres Good stuffz
If they did that, I'd actually buy an AF.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |