| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pax Empyrean
   |
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:57:00 -
[91]
Give them each an extra 2-3 slots, keep them as heavy as they are now so you can't nano them like crazy with the extra slots, and they'd be worth their cost.
|
Siigari Kitawa
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:02:00 -
[92]
My gosh you people whine a bunch.
It's a flipping ASSAULT frigate. That means heavy frigate.
Sure, I'm cool with it having the mass of it's tech 1 counterpart... if it has the same grid spec. I can tear things up in an Ishkur that cannot be done in an Incursus. Sure, it's heavy but that's part of the role of a HEAVY WEAPONS PLATFORM which is what assault frigates are.
Come on people, think before you post.
www.siigarikitawa.com |
Agazoth V
Vardr ok Lidskjalv
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:09:00 -
[93]
Nobody ever said its a Heavy weapons platform, its a T2 Frig. T2 is base model with all the bells and whistles not a vehicle with bad axles  .
|
Siigari Kitawa
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:34:00 -
[94]
 Originally by: Agazoth V
Nobody ever said its a Heavy weapons platform, its a T2 Frig. T2 is base model with all the bells and whistles not a vehicle with bad axles .
Well, they are designed to do more dps and have more Sh/Ar/St than a tech 1 frig, so why shouldn't they be heavier?
www.siigarikitawa.com |
Cloora
Black River Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:53:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa
Originally by: Agazoth V
Nobody ever said its a Heavy weapons platform, its a T2 Frig. T2 is base model with all the bells and whistles not a vehicle with bad axles .
Well, they are designed to do more dps and have more Sh/Ar/St than a tech 1 frig, so why shouldn't they be heavier?
By that logic, then why are HACs the same mass as thier T1 equivelant?
SOMETHING needs to change with these ships. T1 frig mass is the first. |
Siigari Kitawa
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:01:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Siigari Kitawa on 06/06/2008 04:00:44
Originally by: Cloora
By that logic, then why are HACs the same mass as thier T1 equivelant?
SOMETHING needs to change with these ships. T1 frig mass is the first.
That's a horrible argument. Frigates are much smaller than cruisers. You have to take into account that when you're dealing with things on such a small level that changes start to cause large differences.
I'm sure they are using the lightest stuff they've got but it's not bringing the total mass down enough. So deal. I will agree that they should get perhaps an agility bonus or something, but it is unfair to say that you should have a small heavier class ship (which is what an assault ship is) be the same mass as a lighter ship it's size.
Face it, everyone is upset that they cannot use their playstyle of nanofaggotry on assault ships so the first thing to take care of is lower the mass. That's like adding 4 polycarbs to your assault frigs. Sounds like a sham to me.
www.siigarikitawa.com |
Cloora
Black River Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:04:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa
That's a horrible argument. Frigates are much smaller than cruisers. You have to take into account that when you're dealing with things on such a small level that changes start to cause large differences.
I'm sure they are using the lightest stuff they've got but it's not bringing the total mass down enough. So deal. I will agree that they should get perhaps an agility bonus or something, but it is unfair to say that you should have a small heavier class ship (which is what an assault ship is) be the same mass as a lighter ship it's size.
Face it, everyone is upset that they cannot use their playstyle of nanofaggotry on assault ships so the first thing to take care of is lower the mass. That's like adding 4 polycarbs to your assault frigs. Sounds like a sham to me.
I think it is pretty obvious who has the horrible argument here.
They are exempt form being the same mass as thier T1 counterpart because a frig is smaller? WTF? You start trying to explain it away like EVE tech is real...
Just make the frickin things as light and agile as the T1s or nerf HACs. I'd prefer an AF buff |
Siigari Kitawa
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:19:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Cloora
I think it is pretty obvious who has the horrible argument here.
They are exempt form being the same mass as thier T1 counterpart because a frig is smaller? WTF? You start trying to explain it away like EVE tech is real...
Just make the frickin things as light and agile as the T1s or nerf HACs. I'd prefer an AF buff
Welp, think that as you like, but I'm sure that the person that had the good idea in the thread about the agility bonus + 4 additional bonuses had it right.
That would make the frigate well rounded, and you would still have the mass. Agility and mass work in harmony, so it would be an effective solution.
www.siigarikitawa.com |
Agazoth V
Vardr ok Lidskjalv
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:21:00 -
[99]
No reason to argue Nano fits on AFs(tweakers will use a HaC). This ship works but doesn't make sense to argue against.
|
Papa Gwan
Noob Mercs
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 05:44:00 -
[100]
My vote;
-give AF's enough grid and cpu to field medium weaponry, and
-reduce their mass to only slight higher, or equal to, their tech 1 parents
Thus as a tech 2 Assault frigate, you'd have the speed and maneuverability of a frigate with the firepower of a Cruiser(albeit with fewer hardpoints). Excellent for hit-and-run operations. You could stack on additional bonuses, especially against EWAR, and that would give them a definitive role: Anti-support Frigate.
Meh, I hope they change stuff soon tho! I love AF's, lots of fun!
|
|
|
Nethras
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 06:38:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Blutreiter
As stated before, a mass reduction to frig levels would just make everyone nano them for all they're worth.
Definetely not a solution.
Increase agility to counter the mass, so they are nimble enough but won't benefit from an MWD so much. 50% role bonus to AB thrust would be very nice. But don't balance the ships around their mass.
Lowering the agility multiplier so that their effective mass for acceleration is on par with frigs might be enough on that score, yes... though I question how effective nanoing an AF would be even if the mass was straight reduced to T1 levels, and with the lower base speed and no propulsion jamming cap use bonus, I really don't see the added EHP making them better nano-boats than intys, and would be plagued by the same problem intys have of not having the damage outside web range to do much to larger targets.
Still, just give them the ability to actually align and warp like a frig rather than a cruiser. Maybe with a bonus to AB speed boosts so that they could reach T1 frig AB speeds. Considering the ships with "roles" tend to be whined about a lot as possibly overpowered (nano HACs/some recons), or ignored as nearly useless (stealth bombers, EAFs), I kinda dread the devs creating a role for AFs though =/
And as for the devs not liking the results of giving the AFs less mass and more damage, their damage is decent enough now, and better agility would be a lovely alternative if less mass is a problem... maybe making their 4th bonus an AB bonus to offset the mass for non-MWD use... so I really don't feel like that path is necessarily THAT dead.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |