These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Winter] Attack Cruisers

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#901 - 2012-11-09 22:55:28 UTC
What's the point of AB if everything can permarun an MWD ?
Dato Koppla
Balls Deep Inc.
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#902 - 2012-11-09 23:04:56 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
What's the point of AB if everything can permarun an MWD ?


No cap penalty, no sig penalty, fitting, unscrammable, there are lots of reasons to run an AB over an MWD. It's rarely worth it solo in ships bigger than frigates though.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#903 - 2012-11-09 23:23:40 UTC
Dato Koppla wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
What's the point of AB if everything can permarun an MWD ?


No cap penalty, no sig penalty, fitting, unscrammable, there are lots of reasons to run an AB over an MWD. It's rarely worth it solo in ships bigger than frigates though.

I mean, cap penalty is symbolic if everyone can permarun the MWD with everything else.

You said it infact : AB is already rarely worth all its advantages, and still, you want to buff MWD (more cap for ships is a buff to MWD, because let's face it : MWD is the most consumer of cap on most ships).
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#904 - 2012-11-09 23:28:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kai'rae Saarkus
I want to buff the ships; the fact that almost all viable fits for them include an MWD means that cap is almost always an issue.

But I want to do it in a way that buffs the ships generally, not the MWD-fits specifically. And a 10% base cap increase does not make these fits cap stable. It merely improves their cap stability. (Even a 20% increase won't make them cap stable).
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#905 - 2012-11-11 13:52:12 UTC
A popular buff was to have ships with +% in AB per level. Used to be desired feature by the fanbase for Assault Frigates, but for whatever reason (probably too OP), it got turned down.

I still hope it could be used somewhere, because, as said above, even with all those little things like no-sig bloom, unscrammable, AB is still rarely worth applying. I would love to rely more on AB, but - oooh well :D.

confirthisposmed

I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#906 - 2012-11-11 16:22:12 UTC
Deena Amaj wrote:
A popular buff was to have ships with +% in AB per level. Used to be desired feature by the fanbase for Assault Frigates, but for whatever reason (probably too OP), it got turned down.

I still hope it could be used somewhere, because, as said above, even with all those little things like no-sig bloom, unscrammable, AB is still rarely worth applying. I would love to rely more on AB, but - oooh well :D.


the problem with AB's is as soon as you get webbed you lose much of the advantage of using it webs are too strong for AB's to be effective and then there's the issue of range either in keeping it or needing to get into it in the first place.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#907 - 2012-11-12 04:58:52 UTC
Yeah. And doesn't make sense to nerf webs more.

Allthough... AB's having a internal resistance against webs would be interesting, or would that be overpowered? As ridiculous it may sound, it would give AB that slight advantage over MWD. Usually, several webs means death, but just maybe some resistant AB would help - as in making sure your velocity doesn't drop down too much. Not sure how mathematically it would work without hurting webs too much, but if AB is that underwhelming as mentioned, then I'd almost say - put that for AB.

A seperate active propulsion module with something like could be interesting as well.

Dual prop players could rejoice. Plus one cannot use MWD and AB at the same time, unless Chuck Norris is sitting on your lap.

confirthisposmed

I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#908 - 2012-11-12 11:20:23 UTC
Deena Amaj wrote:
Yeah. And doesn't make sense to nerf webs more.

Allthough... AB's having a internal resistance against webs would be interesting, or would that be overpowered? As ridiculous it may sound, it would give AB that slight advantage over MWD. Usually, several webs means death, but just maybe some resistant AB would help - as in making sure your velocity doesn't drop down too much. Not sure how mathematically it would work without hurting webs too much, but if AB is that underwhelming as mentioned, then I'd almost say - put that for AB.

A seperate active propulsion module with something like could be interesting as well.

Dual prop players could rejoice. Plus one cannot use MWD and AB at the same time, unless Chuck Norris is sitting on your lap.

But then, what would be the counter to AB ?
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#909 - 2012-11-12 11:51:35 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Deena Amaj wrote:
Yeah. And doesn't make sense to nerf webs more.

Allthough... AB's having a internal resistance against webs would be interesting, or would that be overpowered? As ridiculous it may sound, it would give AB that slight advantage over MWD. Usually, several webs means death, but just maybe some resistant AB would help - as in making sure your velocity doesn't drop down too much. Not sure how mathematically it would work without hurting webs too much, but if AB is that underwhelming as mentioned, then I'd almost say - put that for AB.

A seperate active propulsion module with something like could be interesting as well.

Dual prop players could rejoice. Plus one cannot use MWD and AB at the same time, unless Chuck Norris is sitting on your lap.

But then, what would be the counter to AB ?


I think the problem is that only one prop module can be active at any one time on your ship so being webbed by multiple webs makes the AB pointless. If you could have 2 afterburners working at the same time this would counter multiple webbing but that's not possible nor is it a good idea.

I would like to see AB's get some form of a buff because right now they're pretty underwhelming.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#910 - 2012-11-12 12:55:27 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
I would like to see AB's get some form of a buff because right now they're pretty underwhelming.


Like everytihng in eve, it is situational. Yes a web slows you down and this result in an increase of damage on you. But that web would be even more lethal if you didn't have that AB in the first place.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#911 - 2012-11-12 13:58:59 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
...I would like to see AB's get some form of a buff because right now they're pretty underwhelming.

Been thinking the same, but not in the traditional buff sense more in the vein of "recommended" usage pattern .. adding some additional deliberations to the AB/MWD choice (not all at once mind you, just examples):

- Partial eWar immunity. Especially valuable when/if TDs become anti-missile and eWar in general is buffed/rebalanced.
- Local/Remote rep amount modifier.
- Weapon tracking/explosion radius bonus.
- More agility, better inertia.
- Etc.

Basically apply one or more to one drive type and the opposite (or near) to the other drive type. That way DP fits primarily get the current benefit of always being able to be at speed while 'pure-breds' get something different yet beneficial to their operation.

Example (numbers irrelevant, its the concep/idea):
- AB gets local/remote rep bonus of 50% applied to it eWar affects it 20% more severely than normal.
* AB fits are often reliant on local/remote for survival and due to close quarter fighting not as hard hit by 'ranged' eWar, potentially crippled by correctly used tracking script TD but can be mitigated by the clever pilot.
- MWD is affected 25% less by eWar but overall powerdrain reduces any repair by 40%.
* MWD fits are most often pure buffer tanks. Adding an AB (DP) will increase active repair slightly at expense of mass-fitting, partial eWar immunity gives them a slight protection against the soft measures most frewuently used to foil their plans.
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#912 - 2012-11-12 14:12:44 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
[quote=Deena Amaj]
But then, what would be the counter to AB ?



The webber itself actually. Just have to make the resistance value so that webbing does not kill speed fully but also so that webbing is not obsolete.

I know what you mean with counters for AB, but maybe expecting a counter for AB is too sharp. I know I am derailing, but since it has to do with all ships, 'ere we go.

AB doesn't essentially make that much of a speed buff when you think about it.
How fast are for instance BSes with AB on? Just pulling this out of the hat, Typhoon should be the fastest of BSes with some 500m/s with Overdrives and average joe skills. The rest are 300m/s if it comes up.

Stabber around some 800 to 1000m/s'ish, the others a tad below. Frigates of course being lightest, they are even faster.

You can still get tackled, should it be a Rapier, a small flock of Interceptors or just raw fire.

Yet, even with the no-sig bloom etc, AB is underwhelming. If it had a bit of a speed-reduction resistance, that could help a bit. Say have some skill determine the bonus. Of course, a Rapier and other anti-frigate platforms should be able to kill these.


The other idea was to implement a seperate afterburner sort of propulsion that either consumes PI-goods or simply cap, giving you the bonus of some webbing resilience.
Likewise, a new webber with different specs could be interesting too.


In simple words,
have the AB apply a "limit" so that speed reduction does not fall under some ~80%. You'll be slow but cannot ridiculously slowed down. You're not "that fast" with an AB really unless you're actually in a light vessel or such, so webbing is not obsolete. Plus MWD would still be king as you'd be much faster with it.

That's all I can figure out. I just find that there is no need to worry all too much about a counter as one can play with that web-resistance value.

confirthisposmed

I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#913 - 2012-11-12 18:31:12 UTC
Also it doesn't help that rapiers webs and arazu's scramble range get such long range as they do.
the rapiers webs can go as far as 100km quite easily using faction OH and links.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Randy Wray
Warcrows
Sedition.
#914 - 2012-11-12 21:45:31 UTC
AB is pretty fine IMO just gotta know how to use it.

Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec

twitch.tv/randywray
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#915 - 2012-11-12 21:47:34 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
...I would like to see AB's get some form of a buff because right now they're pretty underwhelming.

Been thinking the same, but not in the traditional buff sense more in the vein of "recommended" usage pattern .. adding some additional deliberations to the AB/MWD choice (not all at once mind you, just examples):

- Partial eWar immunity. Especially valuable when/if TDs become anti-missile and eWar in general is buffed/rebalanced.
- Local/Remote rep amount modifier.
- Weapon tracking/explosion radius bonus.
- More agility, better inertia.
- Etc.

Basically apply one or more to one drive type and the opposite (or near) to the other drive type. That way DP fits primarily get the current benefit of always being able to be at speed while 'pure-breds' get something different yet beneficial to their operation.

Example (numbers irrelevant, its the concep/idea):
- AB gets local/remote rep bonus of 50% applied to it eWar affects it 20% more severely than normal.
* AB fits are often reliant on local/remote for survival and due to close quarter fighting not as hard hit by 'ranged' eWar, potentially crippled by correctly used tracking script TD but can be mitigated by the clever pilot.
- MWD is affected 25% less by eWar but overall powerdrain reduces any repair by 40%.
* MWD fits are most often pure buffer tanks. Adding an AB (DP) will increase active repair slightly at expense of mass-fitting, partial eWar immunity gives them a slight protection against the soft measures most frewuently used to foil their plans.



Sounds nice, but I think it would narrow their usage too much instead of opening more options.


The minimum speed thing sounds better, however the bonus can't be too high, otherwise you gimp a lot of valid situations where web is used against ABs (especially in frig battles).
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#916 - 2012-11-12 22:14:53 UTC
Sorry if this was asked and answered already. But are these ships going to make faction cruisers even more obsolete than they already are?

Will there be a buff to the faction cruisers? If so when?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#917 - 2012-11-12 23:43:05 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Sorry if this was asked and answered already. But are these ships going to make faction cruisers even more obsolete than they already are?

Will there be a buff to the faction cruisers? If so when?


faction and T2 stuff will be balanced some time later. I agree with you that balancing faction variants which are direct improvements to T1 variants at the same time would make sense, but that is not how CCP decided to do it.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#918 - 2012-11-13 05:21:25 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Also it doesn't help that rapiers webs and arazu's scramble range get such long range as they do.
the rapiers webs can go as far as 100km quite easily using faction OH and links.



Then it shouldn't be a problem to have some AB love patch. Not everybody uses a AB either.

Quote:
AB is pretty fine IMO just gotta know how to use it.


This could probably backfire, but I don't see if that is quite true. MWD requires somewhere more skill since you have to know when to turn it on, how long, etc. AB only needs to be turn on and it works. But it is not that rewarding either as it may seem - and people already mentioned the flaws.

I just find AB should at least assure one of flying some 60% regardless of how many trillions of webber-stacks one has.

confirthisposmed

I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#919 - 2012-11-13 09:42:32 UTC
I'm starting to like the idea of web resistant afterburners. It would actually mean people would start to choose AB's over MWD's.

Also; what if a web resistant AB used more cap if it was being webbed as a drawback to the buff? For example whilst a ship is webbed with one web the AB would cost 25% more cap per cycle. 2 webs 50% more cap per cycle etc etc
Felicia McVanders
xTESLAx
#920 - 2012-11-13 10:00:22 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
I'm starting to like the idea of web resistant afterburners. It would actually mean people would start to choose AB's over MWD's.

Also; what if a web resistant AB used more cap if it was being webbed as a drawback to the buff? For example whilst a ship is webbed with one web the AB would cost 25% more cap per cycle. 2 webs 50% more cap per cycle etc etc


Since multiple webs have diminishing returns, so too should the proposed cap penalty. I.e., 1st lops off 25%, next 20%, etc. or some such thing.