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)
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 sht 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.

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.

Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.06.03 22:51:00 - [61] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton 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) This is a common misconception bred from a now long standing assumption that pure speed and the ability to stay out of web range are the most important factors for survival. The reason I advocate a significant AB boost on AF's is quite simple - once you get inside webrange (and I mean DEEP inside, as in under 5km) it doesn't take much transversal to keep you alive. If you tried the same thing with a MWD clicked on you'll find that your new cruiser sized sig radius and low speed will mean a huge number of painful hits in short order. The AB is necessary in order to close the distances to enemy support craft and to maintain at least reasonably high transveral once engaged in combat. As it stands now, IF you can get inside web range and hang out at point blank range, even when webbed a battleship class gun will rarely hit you. This leaves drones, smartbombs and missiles as your only concern. While I certainly don't advocate attempting to take down a battleship with a solo assault frigate the task can be completed with a handful of them quite handily. Afterall, most PVP ships these days rely on buffer more than active tanking and as such it takes very little damage to break their tanking threshold. I'm often accused or heresy when I present the above scenario but it indeed works and is in all actuality the ONLY place AF's shine. The goal of my suggestion is to expand the scenarios where a point blank attack in a frigate would be possible and potentially useful.
Miss Miata	Posted - 2008.06.04 00:04:00 - [62] ive just trained af 5 in readiness for the (i thought promised) look at af`s. small being my fav ships, ive been on the edge of my seat waiting for a tiny boost, just somthing to make training af5 worthwhile. with all the talk over last 12 months i finally decided to go for af5 in readiness. im halfway there and now im reading this thread which has broken my heart. im started to think the promise of looking at lookin at af roles was just said to keep af fans like me keeping our subs running. i guess its time to accept the ship i most want to fly is a sp hole with no light at the end of its long tunnel
Katy Karkinoff Psycho Chicks	Posted - 2008.06.04 00:11:00 - [63] what do you think CCP would do if ppl started a petition like with picket signs outside their building in iceland for an AF buff? i think it would be effective. I cant afford to do it myself, but i encourage anyone who can do so, would get some laughs at the very least
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.06.04 00:18:00 - [64] I sort of liked the idea of making them mini command ships. That would allow them to "coordinate assaults" or something along those lines. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Neutrino Sunset KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2008.06.04 00:19:00 - [65] Originally by: "Derek Sigres" 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. mass speed Rifter 1100000 320 Claw 1125000 475 Wolf 1825000 295 I had in mind reducing AF's mass to a point where they were about 25-40% heavier than a frigate instead of the current 67% heavier. As you can see the AF's base speed is still way down on the interceptor. This would I believe put them in the speed bracket where they could at least keep up with your average nano cruiser/HAC (Vagabond excepted), but would not compete with interceptors in raw speed. It should be fairly straightforward to tune the mass so that a nanoed AF is capable of around 4 kms with T2 gear. Average nano HACs do around 3.5, inties do around 7. I agree with you though that the agility should be addressed as well. I appreciate your point about a MWD cap and sig radius penalty reduction bonus stepping on the inties ground to a certain extent, but I don't really see why that should be a problem, they are both T2 frigate hulls after all, so wouldn't it make sense for them to have some technological aspects in common. The AF will still be much slower and tougher than the inty. The AB bonus on the other hand just seems a bit bizarre, given that right now AFs barely go as fast as cruisers even with MWD, what technology would suddenly enable them to go as fast with an AB as a cruiser can with a MWD? That could potentially mean they go faster with AB than with MWD? And why wouldn't that technology be applied to other ships like inties or frigates? I personally prefer balancing measures that are as believable and consistent with the rest of Eve tech as possible, but I accept that I'm probably in the minority there since most of the other guys here seem much more interested in the raw numbers alone. I don't mean that as a criticism, it's just my thing.
Arkanjuca R.U.S.T.	Posted - 2008.06.04 09:44:00 - [66] Edited by: Arkanjuca on 04/06/2008 09:45:49 No mega special bonuses No mini command ship No warp follower No invulnerability to web Just a boost, make AF the same HACs are to cruisers... Yes, its that simple, put that on sisi and lets play out, after all, its a test server... The thing about web, AB and MWD is another topic, really, it deserves its own changes affecting every other ship, AF dont need special rules to be effective or to have a "role". -- Whatever works for you...
Delichon Perkone	Posted - 2008.06.04 10:45:00 - [67] Originally by: Power's Urge It's the opinion of said 90% of the people that currently fly AFs. Which is something like 0,01% of those who fly HACs and Recons (but would like to fly AFs for a change - as long as AF would be better than HACs and Recons at something). Oh, and there is no democracy in EVE. Just in case you haven't noticed. ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. Next time they are going to nerf you directly. Eve Forums.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.04 10:46:00 - [68] Originally by: Derek Sigres The reason I advocate a significant AB boost on AF's is quite simple - once you get inside webrange (and I mean DEEP inside, as in under 5km) it doesn't take much transversal to keep you alive. If you tried the same thing with a MWD clicked on you'll find that your new cruiser sized sig radius and low speed will mean a huge number of painful hits in short order. The AB is necessary in order to close the distances to enemy support craft and to maintain at least reasonably high transveral once engaged in combat. This. However, one of the major issues is that MWD-ing BS generally outrace AB-ing AFs (or frigs). This naturally extends to both the both-unwebbed and both-webbed scenarios (with both-webbed being more common naturally), so the BS is always capable of making the AF go into a 'chase' after the faster BS, when angular velocity starts dropping to 0 rad/sec, and then you do pop. With multiple webs on the BS, you can do this right now. I always use ABs on my short-range frigs for this very reason. Fixing the issue of frig/AF AB vs BS MWD would give them much more of a fighting chance: you'd need to either pop the ship on approach (doable) or neut it so it can't point/web/shoot or match speeds somehow (via, say, overheating your MWD to get the frigate to follow), or drone/SB it to death, or release ECM drones and then pop him since you're no longer webbed and are in control of transversal. It's not like it leaves big ships out of options (and many of the counters are cookie-cutter fits, such as neuts/drones/ECM drones), while it does reduce the effectiveness of BS vs very small targets. However, I think a generic AB buff instead of specifically doing something for AFs is better. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.04 10:53:00 - [69] Originally by: Delichon Originally by: Power's Urge It's the opinion of said 90% of the people that currently fly AFs. Which is something like 0,01% of those who fly HACs and Recons (but would like to fly AFs for a change - as long as AF would be better than HACs and Recons at something). If we use your logic, all ships up to BS class would either have to have a 'special purpose' like nanoing or EW are simply obsolete and useless, since a BS simply does it better? They're better then HACs at price and size, and should be better at agility (which does count for a lot). Btw, a number of people who do fly AFs right now can and do fly HACs/HICs and recons and CS. However, when you're going to solo roam and look for ratters and such, well, a AF costs way less to lose and is nimbler and harder to catch (and less prone to get people going after it like mad) then a, say, field command. And some people find them fun and like them, so they fly them regardless of the fact their combat effectiveness is less then a T1 cruiser. It's also funny to get comedy kills in a Wolf Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Arkanjuca R.U.S.T.	Posted - 2008.06.04 11:04:00 - [70] Originally by: Cpt Branko Btw, a number of people who do fly AFs right now can and do fly HACs/HICs and recons and CS. However, when you're going to solo roam and look for ratters and such, well, a AF costs way less to lose and is nimbler and harder to catch (and less prone to get people going after it like mad) then a, say, field command. And some people find them fun and like them, so they fly them regardless of the fact their combat effectiveness is less then a T1 cruiser. It's also funny to get comedy kills in a Wolf Exactly... We just want our rifters, punishers, incursus and merlins to get improved, and not improved but gimped with a ridiculous mass addition that no other t2 ship has... -- Whatever works for you...

Deadeye Devie	Posted - 2008.06.04 12:48:00 - [71] Edited by: Deadeye Devie on 04/06/2008 12:49:18 AFs do NOT need a role, thier role is ASSULT FRIGATES....meaning more agressive, tanky, versions of the t1 frigate hulls thier based on. the only thing stopping this in the main part is the mass/agility thing being screwed to hell!!! i myself pick ABs over MWD as i dont like my sig rad being blown up so big, and, as covered by others, ABs can be just as usefull up close, its a case of knowing how to handle the ship. An AB boost to bring em up to MWD or just below, when using an AB would help this lot a whole heap, and as i have noticed (slapping a 100mn AB on a 'cane and testing it against a 10mn MWD for turning n speed) an AB will make it accell at a good speed, and hit a nice top speed, but still make turning a lil more iffy at top speed and decellerating....giving a nice 'assult' feel of fast moving and small sig rad, to get in n start laying gank down. good in a straight line, not designed for tackling, frigates with tank. 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.
Dr Clay	Posted - 2008.06.04 13:06:00 - [72] An AF should be able to make a T1 cruiser sweat a bit more than they do now.
Omarvelous Destry's Lounge XIII Legio	Posted - 2008.06.04 13:29:00 - [73] SOLUTION: Role bonus: +25% damage, 5% reduction in web effect per level. That is all. Don't make them lighter, faster or more agile. Just make them more shooty! Don't try to make their relationship to tech 1 frigs like HAC's and tech 1 cruisers. Cruisers have more low slots and therefore can be nanoed and that's why its done - AF's have too few low slots to effectively speed tank - even with lower mass/agility. A web resistance bonus would be slick - but no ab speed bonus - you risk making the ship being overpowered. A web resistance bonus and more dps would make for a great anti-BS/BC option for small gangs. They should still be slow, and I still think cruisers should tank better than an assault frigate. The ship to counter the anti-BS assault frigate would be either a Destroyer or a tech 1 Cruiser, or any fast and agile ship with small precise weapons. Balanced improvements IMHO. __________________________________________________ Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
BiggestT Fun Inc Black-Out	Posted - 2008.06.04 13:36:00 - [74] mak them cost 4-5 mill. SOLVED. suicide in af any1? \o/ Boost Field commands! they need love :(
Deadeye Devie	Posted - 2008.06.04 13:37:00 - [75] Originally by: Omarvelous SOLUTION: Role bonus: +25% damage, 5% reduction in web effect per level. That is all. Don't make them lighter, faster or more agile. Just make them more shooty! Don't try to make their relationship to tech 1 frigs like HAC's and tech 1 cruisers. Cruisers have more low slots and therefore can be nanoed and that's why its done - AF's have too few low slots to effectively speed tank - even with lower mass/agility. A web resistance bonus would be slick - but no ab speed bonus - you risk making the ship being overpowered. A web resistance bonus and more dps would make for a great anti-BS/BC option for small gangs. They should still be slow, and I still think cruisers should tank better than an assault frigate. The ship to counter the anti-BS assault frigate would be either a Destroyer or a tech 1 Cruiser, or any fast and agile ship with small precise weapons. Balanced improvements IMHO. a good idea, but with keeping the mass/agility the same, it doesnt matter if you have the web resist and damage bonus, your still a slow sitting target with a frigates range of hp/tank, tho slightly stronger. the reason for compairing them to frigs of t1 in the same way as cruisers to HACs is that, this is what thier designed as.....and nanoing isnt the design and role aim of HACs, just the trend to use for them...its similar to saying dessies were designed for salvaging!!! TBQFH i would prefer the AB boost and not the web resist bonus idea...the web bonus would be more unbalancing, in ways, than an AB bonus...but these 2 things are the best suggestions so far, i feel. 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.
Arkanjuca R.U.S.T.	Posted - 2008.06.04 14:14:00 - [76] Originally by: Omarvelous SOLUTION: Role bonus: +25% damage, 5% reduction in web effect per level. That is all. Don't make them lighter, faster or more agile. Just make them more shooty! Don't try to make their relationship to tech 1 frigs like HAC's and tech 1 cruisers. Cruisers have more low slots and therefore can be nanoed and that's why its done - AF's have too few low slots to effectively speed tank - even with lower mass/agility. A web resistance bonus would be slick - but no ab speed bonus - you risk making the ship being overpowered. A web resistance bonus and more dps would make for a great anti-BS/BC option for small gangs. They should still be slow, and I still think cruisers should tank better than an assault frigate. The ship to counter the anti-BS assault frigate would be either a Destroyer or a tech 1 Cruiser, or any fast and agile ship with small precise weapons. Balanced improvements IMHO. You really think that an AF with the mass of a normal frigate, 1 more bonus instead of that bull**** about x% more resistance, and 1 more slot would be imbalanced? Seriously, web, ab and mwd are other topics, AF dont need a "role" bonus, it just needs its deserved bonus. -- Whatever works for you...
Delichon Perkone	Posted - 2008.06.04 14:30:00 - [77] Originally by: Cpt Branko If we use your logic, all ships up to BS class would either have to have a 'special purpose' like nanoing or EW are simply obsolete and useless, since a BS simply does it better? Well, discounting the "your logic" part, yes. Recent topic on russian forums was named "Can BC be useful in fleet warfare". The agreed decision was - yes, but only 4 of them and only if you are a cheapscate who can't afford a sniper HAC. In all other cases BC pilot should get into a different ship. And I know corps that live by that rule. I know people who left the said corps because they refused to train for one of the 10-20 ships that were considered appropriate. And I know that these corps pwn everyone they meet, hold a considerable territory and are generally very effective in playing the 0.0 PVP game. Originally by: Cpt Branko However, when you're going to solo roam and look for ratters and such, well, a AF costs way less to lose and is nimbler and harder to catch (and less prone to get people going after it like mad) then a, say, field command. Cap, I've highlighted the tricky part. CCP does not want you to solo. It is a major paradigm in EVE that solo <<< gang <<< fleet <<< blob. CCP has done everything in their power to enforce this paradigm. Caps, Jumpbridges, Recons, Cynojammers - you name it. True soloships have been dropping like flies to the nerfbat - and that is just on my memory, which is only 1 year long. Any decision that would encourage solo is a step back after 20 steps forward have already been made. I can understand people's feeling about this, but asking CCP to reinvent solo is kind of naive. Consider balancing ships from the point of view that you are always in gang and that price is not an issue(6 mil what? My crow costs 15 - and it is still peanuts) This what is made, and that is how it would be made further on. ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. Next time they are going to nerf you directly. Eve Forums.
Dr Clay	Posted - 2008.06.04 14:34:00 - [78] Why would anyone gang with a complete stranger? :[ Why would anyone trust another person? :{ Why would we not be alone forever> ;[}
Blutreiter Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.06.04 15:12:00 - [79] 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. Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Arkanjuca R.U.S.T.	Posted - 2008.06.04 23:15:00 - [80] Ok, i took the time to write my idea in more detail, its on the development forums: AF simple boost idea Help me discuss that idea -- Whatever works for you...

Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.05 01:12:00 - [81] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 05/06/2008 01:14:41 Originally by: Delichon I can understand people's feeling about this, but asking CCP to reinvent solo is kind of naive. Reinvent? It's still there, just less common. Not everything is about 0.0 fleet fights. Originally by: Delichon Consider balancing ships from the point of view that you are always in gang and that price is not an issue(6 mil what? My crow costs 15 - and it is still peanuts) Price is a issue when outpreformed by ships cheaper then you (unlike a good portion of the 'PvP'-ers, I happen to live off ganking people and taking their stuff), and you're not always in gang - and seriously, something showing up with a AF for anything other then a frig gang (where they'd lag you down) needs to go and get himself a cruiser. At any rate, most pilots flying the actual damn ships as it is want to make them capable ships, not something shoved into a niche role for gang support. *My last Wolf costed nearly 40M - it's definitely cheaper to lose a Hurricane then it. Fortunately, it made about 100M before it died thanks to a few ransoms and some very good kills/drops, but it's hardly cost-effective given a Hurricane costs 31-32M to lose Are BCs effective for fleet fights? Don't know/don't care. I do know they tend to melt faces off HACs in direct combat This thread is about AFs though. Simply, AFs do not need a bloody niche role - what they need to be is effective frigate-sized assault ships. To whoever who said about 'nano-ing' mass-fixed AFs, I suggest you check their speeds, sig radiuses and their typical weapon rangse, and tell me what would such a AF do? Taking into account that a 6km/s interceptor has good odds of being murdered by anything totting medium ACs or pulses...
Arkanjuca R.U.S.T.	Posted - 2008.06.05 14:54:00 - [82] Originally by: Omarvelous Cruisers don't have an interceptor class like frigates do. Cruisers have the low slots to take advantage of a lower mass to actually competently nano. I don't want assault frigates to imitate HAC's in being able to move fast. True, but the current speeds are too slow, even for a cruiser... Originally by: Omarvelous I suppose your suggestion for lowered mass, would make for a better solo ship. My suggestion for more damage and web resistance would make for a better gang ship. Then again they could just leave AF alone and drop their build price to be more economically competitive with tech 1 cruisers... T1 frigates are dirty cheap you know? -- AF should be like HACs
Cloora Black River Industries	Posted - 2008.06.05 18:09:00 - [83] I read this whole thread I didn't see this suggestion so I'm going to throw it out there... Give them Frigate mass/agility and make thier 4th bonus a role bonus of PG/CPU bonus to fit medium sized weapons. Maybe include a penalty of missile explosion velocity and gun tracking This would make the Assault frig ASSAULT larger ships and be very effective at putting out AWESOME DPS. But makes them vulnerable to Intys, EAS, Dessies and T1 frigs. Then they could be more agile, slightly faster and harder to hit then T1 cruisers (thier current competitor) while doing better damage, but not as much tank or nano capability as a HAC as to not step on a HACs toes. Opinions?
Gimpb	Posted - 2008.06.05 18:23:00 - [84] Originally by: Menellaix My Review of AF's in Empyrean Age: Bad. Get used to it. Actually I'll go out on a limb and say they'll be quite good in FW due to acceleration gate hull limitations. Of course, that's artificial and not really representative of general PvP where there's always a bigger fish.
Hudsonn Dragons United Pure.	Posted - 2008.06.05 18:23:00 - [85] swap the jag and wolf bonus around and i'll be happy tbh. ___________________________
Kaileen Starsong Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.06.05 18:31:00 - [86] Originally by: Cloora I read this whole thread I didn't see this suggestion so I'm going to throw it out there... Give them Frigate mass/agility and make thier 4th bonus a role bonus of PG/CPU bonus to fit medium sized weapons. Maybe include a penalty of missile explosion velocity and gun tracking This would make the Assault frig ASSAULT larger ships and be very effective at putting out AWESOME DPS. But makes them vulnerable to Intys, EAS, Dessies and T1 frigs. Then they could be more agile, slightly faster and harder to hit then T1 cruisers (thier current competitor) while doing better damage, but not as much tank or nano capability as a HAC as to not step on a HACs toes. Opinions? You're overestimating DPS superiority of medium guns compared to small ones. For example, Heavy Neutron Blaster II does 33% more DPS than Light Neutron Blaster II(while having more range also, ofc). But it has more than tripple resolution(125v40) and 1/3rd the tracking of the latter. Essentially, that'll reduce AFs DPS against frigs(and prolly dessies too) :) And before you say "Cruisers".. any cruiser worth anything will just BBQ the said AF anyway. Although, I gotta admit Retribution with 4 pulses, dual damage bonus and range bonus would be rather funny, talk about mini-zealot, heh.
Cloora Black River Industries	Posted - 2008.06.05 20:15:00 - [87] Originally by: Kaileen Starsong You're overestimating DPS superiority of medium guns compared to small ones. For example, Heavy Neutron Blaster II does 33% more DPS than Light Neutron Blaster II(while having more range also, ofc). But it has more than tripple resolution(125v40) and 1/3rd the tracking of the latter. Essentially, that'll reduce AFs DPS against frigs(and prolly dessies too) :) And before you say "Cruisers".. any cruiser worth anything will just BBQ the said AF anyway. Although, I gotta admit Retribution with 4 pulses, dual damage bonus and range bonus would be rather funny, talk about mini-zealot, heh. No I'm not overestimating, that is the entire reason I stated that. It wont track the smaller ships nearly as easy. so that leaves a vulnerability. But it can ASSAULT larger ships much better as it has harder hitting guns. It would need tweaking sure, but I think its a viable idea. Better then web resistance as I dont think that fits well in the EVE tech unless you come up with some fiction to explain how this ship can shrug off a stasis webber and other ships cannot.
Agazoth V	Posted - 2008.06.05 22:04:00 - [88] We'd just use a HAC or a Cruiser if you put medium guns on it. If you even gave the ship a 100% damage bonus you'd still use a cruiser because of set restrictions that a frig size ship as. It needs to perform as a frig with orginal frig bonus. I wasn't around during the orginal AFs but I keep hearing they got nerfed because they may have been op'd for complex tanking. If this anywhere near the truth I'd hope they're not holding back improvements we all want just because of PvE crap.
Polkageist Carnivores	Posted - 2008.06.05 22:20:00 - [89] Edited by: Polkageist on 05/06/2008 22:25:07 i Never flown a AF and dont plan to, but anyways maybe bonus to warp scramble strenght.. (ex. a disrupter with 3 points) Unique role good for certain stuff like catching haulers and WCStabbed mission runners and ratters. ? Invisible on scanner ? deception lol ( able to take form of a badger :) ) ? Able to scan and thereby get direction on cloaked ships ? Bonus to racial sensor strenghth ( like ladar for minmatar etc) ? Liek impossible to jam for a falcon and such bastard caldari ships Give them a option to perform different aviation manuvers with new modules? Reduction in web efficiency when webbing an AF ? Improved bumping ability :) ? ... well anyways i hope ccp gets them fixed by giving them a unique role that is relevant in certain roles so other ships dont get the nerf bat with a af boost.
Agazoth V	Posted - 2008.06.05 22:25:00 - [90] Its role really is just a change of pace ship for ad hoc fights. Of course its not a practical fleet ship but there's alot pvp not formed around fleet duels.

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]

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.