EVE Search - Review of AF's in Empyrean Age?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Review of AF's in Empyrean Age?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Agazoth V	Posted - 2008.06.02 21:12:00 - [31] Corstaad: I think AFs with basic core stats improved would help the ships out. Its after all a T2 base frigate. All the fluff ideas do nothing for the ship. Take the Jag which is a decent AF. It feels like Cruiser, can't use ac's to full advantage, and is 33x's the price of a rifter. The fix is make them cheaper thru manufacturing, atleast frig base stats, and turn on the missing bonus.
Mithrantir Ob'lontra Ixion Defence Systems Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:06:00 - [32] Originally by: Derek Sigres Truth I agree to this. ------- Nobody can be exactly like me. Even I have trouble doing it.
Meridius Dex Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:17:00 - [33] Originally by: Derek Sigres 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. What is wrong with the devs in this company? The solution is RIGHT HERE ^^^ Why is it not being implemented? -- Meridius Dex -- Amarr = EVE on Hard setting
Arkanjuca R.U.S.T.	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:53:00 - [34] Edited by: Arkanjuca on 02/06/2008 22:53:55 reduce mass give another bonus another slot Look at these numbers: Punisher : 1425 Tons / 4-2-4 / 2 boni Retribution: 1950 Tons / 5-1-5 / 3 boni -- omen : 11950 Tons / 5-3-5 / 2 boni Zealot : 11950 Tons / 5-3-7 / 4 boni AF gains more mass, 1 slot and 1 boni HAC gains 2 slots, 2 boni and equal mass What if you had a retribution like this: Retribution: 1425 Tons / 5-2-5 / 4 boni (+5% rof) All the sudden you have a tackler that does not rival an interceptor and still dont out damage a cruiser but is much more effective at combat. You can apply that to any other AF i think and we will have that nice boost without breaking anything. Ideas? -- Whatever works for you...
Power's Urge Pixels Docks Fang Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.02 23:21:00 - [35] Originally by: Arkanjuca Ideas? Take a suitable tool (Armageddon comes to mind) and hammer this into the heads of the ship design/balancing team up there on the island of Iceland, as they refuse to see the obvious on their own. Seems it's mostly the people that actually fly these things that are aware that there's no need for some sophisticated 'role' for a ship class solely intended to be tough little beasts - there's enough other ships out there for all those special tasks.
Nethras Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.06.03 02:00:00 - [36] Giving AFs normal frig handling and giving them their missing 4th bonus might be enough, I'd have trained myself into AFs by now if Jags and Wolves handled like a Rifter and had the Rifter's tracking bonus :P Can't speak for cost efficiency concerns, but reduced cost or an extra bonus mid/low slot would both make AFs even more attractive - AB bonuses or web resistance bonuses, while cool, probably speak more to AB/MWD/web balance than anything else, and could complicate later, more general changes to that system. Personally though, if CCP is having a hard time deciding what to do, I'd much rather them give AFs frig handling and the 4th bonus (which in at least several cases could just be a bonus that's on the base hull that the AFs don't currently have...), and see what effect that has. As is, I'd rather fly a Rupture in the cruiser + T2 frig FW areas than an AF.
Phoenix119 Rum Runners' Syndicate	Posted - 2008.06.03 04:27:00 - [37] I honestly dont c nothing wrong with them atm, They almost = a cruiser except there smaller and faster. Anymore and there just going to be solo pwners.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.03 08:23:00 - [38] A good way to boost them would be to give them total immunity from anything more than 80km away. That way, they'd have a viable role as escort ships in fleet, and woulnd't be anything near overpowered. ------------------------------------------
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.06.03 08:26:00 - [39] Originally by: Shadowsword A good way to boost them would be to give them total immunity from anything more than 80km away. That way, they'd have a viable role as escort ships in fleet, and woulnd't be anything near overpowered. Such a boost is just completely unreasonable and does not solve the fundamental problems the ships have. Afterall, short of the Harpy most AF's are forced to fight at MUCH closer ranges - the fact that your foe can do you no harm is irrelevent when you can't do anything to them. The high mass and low top speed mean that crossing that 80km distance into your own range brings you under the guns of the fleet. Survival is not a role in Eve in much the same fashion that Tank is not a role.
kc51 All Pilipino SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.03 09:01:00 - [40] Originally by: Arkanjuca Edited by: Arkanjuca on 02/06/2008 22:53:55 reduce mass give another bonus another slot Look at these numbers: Punisher : 1425 Tons / 4-2-4 / 2 boni Retribution: 1950 Tons / 5-1-5 / 3 boni -- omen : 11950 Tons / 5-3-5 / 2 boni Zealot : 11950 Tons / 5-3-7 / 4 boni AF gains more mass, 1 slot and 1 boni HAC gains 2 slots, 2 boni and equal mass What if you had a retribution like this: Retribution: 1425 Tons / 5-2-5 / 4 boni (+5% rof) All the sudden you have a tackler that does not rival an interceptor and still dont out damage a cruiser but is much more effective at combat. You can apply that to any other AF i think and we will have that nice boost without breaking anything. Ideas? Now THIS is a good idea and a good suggestion!!! A good, reasonable, well proofed idea. Out of all the suggestions and posts, this is the best one. Got my vote for this one.

Neutrino Sunset KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2008.06.03 12:38:00 - [41] Originally by: "Derek Sigres" Good stuff This is nice, and definately along the right lines imo, but I think I can tweak it in a manner that reduces the chance of it being imbalanced. Giving AF's an AB boost bonus might leave them enough PG to fit full racks of top tier everything and/or duel rep, and enough cap to active tank like crazy. I wonder whether one of the reasons CCP has been so remiss reworking AFs is because they recognised that they totally screwed over cruisers when they introduced HACs. Instead of HACs being specialized combat versions of cruisers they are just uber cruisers, better than cruisers right across the board, making it completely pointless to ever use a cruiser as long as you can afford a HAC. Given how nicely balanced the frigate class currently is it would be a crying shame to make the same mistake with AFs. So I think that there is a possiblilty that AFs _might_ be fine with just a mass and price reduction, that would certainly be a safe balanced first step that should be taken immediately. Once that has been done give it some time to see how it pans out. If after a while it appears that they require additional love _then_ tweak the bonus, but instead of an AB bonus that could result in the situation I described at the start of this post, instead give them a MWD cap and sig radius penalty reduction bonus.
Segge Bolled Rainy Day Industries	Posted - 2008.06.03 12:49:00 - [42] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Instead of HACs being specialized combat versions of cruisers they are just uber cruisers, better than cruisers right across the board, making it completely pointless to ever use a cruiser as long as you can afford a HAC. Errr, or fly a HAC perhaps. Skills to actually fly a HAC well do add something to the equation ...
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.03 12:53:00 - [43] Originally by: Segge Bolled Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Instead of HACs being specialized combat versions of cruisers they are just uber cruisers, better than cruisers right across the board, making it completely pointless to ever use a cruiser as long as you can afford a HAC. Errr, or fly a HAC perhaps. Skills to actually fly a HAC well do add something to the equation ... Yeah... btw, if you think HACs are that much better over cruisers, check some of Garmon's Rupture videos. Yeah, he has mad skills for it and great fits and all that, but well... pew pew. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Neutrino Sunset KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:02:00 - [44] Originally by: Segge Bolled Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Instead of HACs being specialized combat versions of cruisers they are just uber cruisers, better than cruisers right across the board, making it completely pointless to ever use a cruiser as long as you can afford a HAC. Errr, or fly a HAC perhaps. Skills to actually fly a HAC well do add something to the equation ... Not really. Most HACs are better than their cruiser equivalents in absolutely every respect even before skills are taken into account, check out the Stabber and Vagabond stats if you don't believe me. The additional skill bonuses just reinforce that imbalance, they add nothing new to the equation at all.
Deadeye Devie	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:20:00 - [45] the % reduction to webs effect on the ship, IMHO, is fully in line with the 'assult' role of assult ships.....in that, since they are small tankier frigates with a bit more gank, the web resist means they perform well up close laying on damage and 'assulting' the target rather than having to keep distance to avoid popping. the idea is if you make a craft slipperyer to grab hold of, it has more chance to assult the target and more chance to survive and perform the job it is designed to do...not it has a good chance to get close n tackle, ewar does that so much better from safe distance in general, and inties have it better for tackling with thier insane speeds and small sig rad...this just helps lift AFs out of t1 frigates and gives them a more gankier, slipperier, up close role, and gives them some of the survivabillity that warrents the extra cash spent on them. AB and web % effect reduction are personally my favourite suggestions so far....say 1 from each race gets 1, and the other, the other?...or 1 gets high AB bonus low web resist, other gets high web resist, other low AB bonus???? all this, of course, with the number 1 issue being fixed of the mass/agility problem 1st.no re-balancing pg/cpu...no cost change...no extra slots/slots removed. just my 2 isk 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.
Jethro Amar	Posted - 2008.06.03 13:34:00 - [46] What would I give to AF's? Ability to lock warp drive on any seen target above 100km (so they could warp to enemy ships). That's what I call a nice assault.
Drek Grapper	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:10:00 - [47] Originally by: Power's Urge 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. I suspect that they are going to leave it so long that most of the player base will forget about them and move on. Well some of us won't forget. Ever. --------- If the Thorax was a car it would look like this
Delichon Perkone	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:36:00 - [48] To all of the people, who are crying about "more agility - more damage - more tank" buff of AF. Devs done that. Devs tried that on Sisi. Devs DID NOT like the results. Also check the transcript of the latest chat with Devs. ( here) Quote: MMORPG_Taera: allseeingI asks, Will Assault Ships be rebalanced in a near future, and if yes - in what way? Greyscale: Yes, definitely. I know they're high up on the balance team's list of issues, but they're not happy currently with the range of options they have available on that front So you see - they want to give AF a role, that is unique. Not filled by HACs/Inties/Recons/T1 frigs/Caps and the like. A unique role. Which is what AFs really need. ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. Next time they are going to nerf you directly. Eve Forums.
Power's Urge Pixels Docks Fang Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:58:00 - [49] Originally by: Delichon So you see - they want to give AF a role, that is unique. Not filled by HACs/Inties/Recons/T1 frigs/Caps and the like. A unique role. Which is what AFs really need. There is no "role" a laser damage dealer, a 100km sniper, a mini drone carrier and a hit-and-run artillery platform can feasibly fulfill with the same quality. Nor is it needed.
Mahn AlNouhm The Bastards	Posted - 2008.06.03 16:19:00 - [50] Originally by: Jethro Amar What would I give to AF's? Ability to lock warp drive on any seen target above 100km (so they could warp to enemy ships). That's what I call a nice assault. QFT. That would be fecking awesome. That would make them, basically, piloted fighters. Beautiful though. Just beautiful. . . .

Yakia TovilToba Halliburton Inc.	Posted - 2008.06.03 16:33:00 - [51] I hoped to use the harpy or the hawk for doing FW lvl 2 or even lvl 3 missions, since they have that awsome resistance on thermal/kinetik. But it takes too long for them to enter warp after a gatejump, so there are high chances the'll get caught in a gatecamp. Don't see a point using them, when they don't give that important advantage which the other frigates have: having a good chance to survive a lowsec-gatecamp.
Elhina Novae Sky's Edge deadspace society	Posted - 2008.06.03 17:22:00 - [52] Originally by: Derek Sigres Genious /signs Also take away the 5th high from a Retribution and give it another mid for the love of god. Somebody set up us the bomb
Dictum Factum Gemini Sun Violent-Tendencies	Posted - 2008.06.03 17:36:00 - [53] I have got to go with Derek on this one. Nice, solid ideas. I love my Ishkur, but it does need a little help from the design department. I know less than you think I do.
Resamo	Posted - 2008.06.03 18:00:00 - [54] Originally by: Jethro Amar What would I give to AF's? Ability to lock warp drive on any seen target above 100km (so they could warp to enemy ships). That's what I call a nice assault. This is a nice idea... warp to the enemy gang first (assaulting) then your gang can warp to you.. It really screams assault ship to me, the whole leading the assault thing.
Dictum Factum Gemini Sun Violent-Tendencies	Posted - 2008.06.03 18:33:00 - [55] Originally by: Resamo Originally by: Jethro Amar What would I give to AF's? Ability to lock warp drive on any seen target above 100km (so they could warp to enemy ships). That's what I call a nice assault. This is a nice idea... warp to the enemy gang first (assaulting) then your gang can warp to you.. It really screams assault ship to me, the whole leading the assault thing. The funny part of that scenario would be ending up with both fleets swapping positions with each other. I can easily see two opposing AF pilots saying "warp to me" at the same time... I know less than you think I do.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.03 18:58:00 - [56] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/06/2008 18:59:44 Originally by: Delichon To all of the people, who are crying about "more agility - more damage - more tank" buff of AF. Devs done that. Devs tried that on Sisi. Devs DID NOT like the results. Also check the transcript of the latest chat with Devs. ( here) Quote: MMORPG_Taera: allseeingI asks, Will Assault Ships be rebalanced in a near future, and if yes - in what way? Greyscale: Yes, definitely. I know they're high up on the balance team's list of issues, but they're not happy currently with the range of options they have available on that front Translated: We don't want AFs to be simply useful T2 frigates which fight well. We want to force them into a niche role where they'll be useless for 90% of current AF pilots. That's precisely what I don't want, a "Assault Ship" with a role. Unless it's very very wide role. Originally by: Delichon So you see - they want to give AF a role, that is unique. Not filled by HACs/Inties/Recons/T1 frigs/Caps and the like. A unique role. Which is what AFs really need. Which is the LAST thing they need. Useful combat ships. It's a Assault Ship. It should NOT have a niche role. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.06.03 19:46:00 - [57] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Originally by: "Derek Sigres" Good stuff This is nice, and definately along the right lines imo, but I think I can tweak it in a manner that reduces the chance of it being imbalanced. Giving AF's an AB boost bonus might leave them enough PG to fit full racks of top tier everything and/or duel rep, and enough cap to active tank like crazy. I wonder whether one of the reasons CCP has been so remiss reworking AFs is because they recognised that they totally screwed over cruisers when they introduced HACs. Instead of HACs being specialized combat versions of cruisers they are just uber cruisers, better than cruisers right across the board, making it completely pointless to ever use a cruiser as long as you can afford a HAC. Given how nicely balanced the frigate class currently is it would be a crying shame to make the same mistake with AFs. So I think that there is a possiblilty that AFs _might_ be fine with just a mass and price reduction, that would certainly be a safe balanced first step that should be taken immediately. Once that has been done give it some time to see how it pans out. If after a while it appears that they require additional love _then_ tweak the bonus, but instead of an AB bonus that could result in the situation I described at the start of this post, instead give them a MWD cap and sig radius penalty reduction bonus. If mass of ships were reduced and there was a MWD cap and sig radius penalty reduction then the most logical use of the ship is to nano the hell out of it and use it in the same way as an interceptor. Only it would be better than an interceptor given it's greater ability to tank thanks to higher resists, higher HP and much smaller signature radius. AF's have always seemd to be based along older styles of play - essentailly the game of gank versus tank. One of the primary valid complaints against the ships is that a T1 cruiser can fill the gank and tank role better than an AF at a fraction of the price and with much less uninsured ISK at risk in space. By increasing the potential for gank, tank and speed you move the AF into the role it was born to play: high risk point blank assaults on enemy support craft. As it stands enemy support ships are generally only considered vulnerable to sniper fitted ships. AF's revamped along the lines of what I suggest would still be killable but it would force greater diversity among the enemy fleet to accomplish it easily. One of the greatest errors I see when it comes to assumptions about AF's is that they should be used along the lines of frigates and fitted with standard PVP mentality. Pure speed matters little unless you're trying to tank missiles - all you really need is high angular velocity. If an AF could travel 1.5 km/s on afterburner it stands to reason it could be expected to travel 150 m/s when hit with a web. At point blank range 150m/s is sufficient speed to evade a great deal of damage especially when you don't balloon your signature radius by flipping on a MWD. Fitting AB's allows you to maximize your gank and tank factors, and small gangs of AF's using the "wolf pack" tactics of old are more than capable of ripping apart ships. The AF always has a benefit that most people don't give it credit for: it's small. For a ship that was never designed to be a fast mover, throwing away this bonus by putting on a MWD simply turns this bonus into yet another flaw in the ship and reduces it's survivability in most situations
Delichon Perkone	Posted - 2008.06.03 20:06:00 - [58] Originally by: Cpt Branko That's precisely what I don't want, a "Assault Ship" with a role. Unless it's very very wide role. That's your opinion. I wanted to highlight the dev's oppinion. It is different. It is based on some arguements, some logic and an understanding of the EVE as a whole, not just some part of Eve in particular. (the one with sec status between 0,5 and 0,1) ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. Next time they are going to nerf you directly. Eve Forums.
Power's Urge Pixels Docks Fang Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.03 20:09:00 - [59] Originally by: Delichon Originally by: Cpt Branko That's precisely what I don't want, a "Assault Ship" with a role. Unless it's very very wide role. That's your opinion. It's the opinion of said 90% of the people that currently fly AFs.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.06.03 20:21:00 - [60] number 1 issue of flying an af, is that it is a frigate, that isn't an interceptor. fc: why the hell are you in a frigate get the hell out of here alternatively, if your not in a fleet, oh hey its a cruiser (or bigger), oh crap I'm webbed. pop (although that won't happen if your attacking caldari noobs, they don't find out what a webber is until like 6 months into game) I don't think any role ccp gives to the afs will make me want to fly one more then I do currently.



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

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