These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Electronic Attack Frigates need big fat buff!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Boris Ginnungagap
Doomheim
#1 - 2011-12-13 17:14:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Boris Ginnungagap
Give all EAF's 20% bonus to Afterburner speed bonus per EAF skill level.

Make them super fast, tiny and devilish electronical warfare specialists.

Oops, wrong skill edited.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#2 - 2011-12-13 17:33:51 UTC
I want to see EAF more frequently in the game. But they need more then just a simple universal bonus unrelated to their specialty. They need in some cases a complete redo.

They all have less of a lock range then their T1 counterparts.
They all have signatures that are ridiculous.
They all have bonuses related to cap conservation.

There's lots of room to make these ships better. Here's an example -

Hyena -
Reduce signature radius by 15m - to 38m.
Increase lock range to that of Vigil

Frigate Bonuses - 5% velocity per level and 7.5% target painter effectiveness per level
Gasp. The same as the T1 frigate.

EAF Bonuses - 20% web range per level and 10% less sig penalty on MWD per level
I'm changing the sig reduction bonus - a former lesser version of what interceptors got - to a MWD sig bloom penalty reduction - also a lesser version of the current 15% bonus that interceptors CURRENTLY get.

Role Bonus: Cap recharges 25% faster.

Much more survivable on the battlefield. Still larger then an interceptor. No firepower to speak of. Fulfills a role without running roughshod over another ship's role. Ta Da! Blink
Khrage
#3 - 2011-12-13 18:02:12 UTC
Boris Ginnungagap wrote:
Give all EAF's 20% bonus to Afterburner speed bonus per EAF skill level.

Make them super fast, tiny and devilish electronical warfare specialists.

Oops, wrong skill edited.


blanket bonuses/buffs - bad. specific, tailored, and balanced buff - good. and everyone knows EAFs need to be buffed and i really haven't heard anyone saying they shouldn't. there's been a lot of discussions about this, try finding some of the older threads to see other people's crackpot ideas. :)
Boris Ginnungagap
Doomheim
#4 - 2011-12-13 19:40:13 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:

They all have less of a lock range then their T1 counterparts.
They all have signatures that are ridiculous.
They all have bonuses related to cap conservation.

I think this should be our christmas present list.

Fix EAF's CCP!

I could fly Hyena, but doubt that I will unless someone gives one for free..
1-Up Mushroom
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2011-12-13 22:11:18 UTC
Actually I'd like to see them get a Cov Ops Cloak ability, would make them very fun, I mean we got the Scanner, The BC and Above destroyer and now we need the CR and below destroyer Big smile

Also a EHP buff would be nice
5 Senses In A Person... 4 Seasons In A Year... 3 Colors In A Stoplight... 2 Poles On The Earth... ONLY 1-UP MUSHROOM!!!  If You Like My Sig, Like Me!   Remember EVE is EVErything!
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2011-12-13 22:15:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
I don't really see them being viable for anything but very small gang work until they stop being so vulnerable to cruiser-sized Scorch and Barrage fire. They pop just too quickly in unfavorable situations.
Khrage
#7 - 2011-12-14 00:27:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Khrage
1-Up Mushroom wrote:
Actually I'd like to see them get a Cov Ops Cloak ability, would make them very fun, I mean we got the Scanner, The BC and Above destroyer and now we need the CR and below destroyer Big smile

Also a EHP buff would be nice


at first, i didn't agree with adding a cov ops cloak. but while i was writing a repsonse trying to explain why, i couldn't really think of really solid reasons not to give them one. you would have to buff CPU and add a high slot in most cases, but if someone say wouldn't want a cov ops cloak, then that extra cpu and slot would effectively improve upon the base ships we have now. it would also keep them fragile for the people who do want the cloak. of course without REALLY looking into stats, balance may become an issue in one way or another - but these ships really do need some love. only thing is i could see this spawning just too many pilots flying cloakers and a lot more covert fleets, which could lead to less fighting, less losses, more inflation, etc, etc.

may someone please be a NO man to this idea for me? i can't think of too many other things that would caused by this.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#8 - 2011-12-14 00:40:15 UTC
Back a long time ago I used to run with a 3-4 damp Helios. It was awesome. WTB Keres:

Frigate:
- 5% Damp Effectiveness/level*
- 10% Damp Optimal/level

EAF:
- Covops Cloak Bonus
- 10% Warp Disruptor Range/level

* IIRC this needs to be 12.5%/level just to get bonused ships back to how effective they were before the damp nerf. Yes, the damp nerf was THAT harsh.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Dorian Tormak
RBON United
#9 - 2011-12-14 01:06:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Dorian Tormak
I think what they need to do is simply get rid of EAFs and CovOps frigs all together.

Then add a new frigate class, "Recon Frig" or some other **** like that, you get ones for combat/Ewar and ones for CovOps and stuff like the cruiser class Recon Ships.

Holy Satanic Christ! This is a Goddamn Signature!
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#10 - 2011-12-14 01:33:44 UTC
We do not need another ship running around with a covert ops cloak. It's a band-aid that doesn't address the signature radius, lock range, or the redundant and obsolete bonuses on many of them.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#11 - 2011-12-14 01:47:48 UTC
I tried to argue the case for cloaky EAF's once

It mostly it just turned into argument

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=7011

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#12 - 2011-12-14 02:25:34 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
We do not need another ship running around with a covert ops cloak. It's a band-aid that doesn't address the signature radius, lock range, or the redundant and obsolete bonuses on many of them.


If they don't give it a covops cloak, they really need to address its survivability in raw combat. As in, give it a lot more.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#13 - 2011-12-14 03:22:12 UTC
I'll use the hyena as an example here. It has a 3% sig reduction per level. For those playing the game prior to the nano nerf, you'll remember that interceptors used to get a 5% sig reduction per level. That was changed to 15% MWD sig bloom reduction after testing showed interceptors were getting instapopped at the slower speeds. The Hyena didn't get that update. The 3% sig reduction is obsolete.

The MWD cap bonus advertises the use of a MWD. As a tackler the Hyena needs one. 20km webs are too small a buffer for other frigates to get inside of scrambler range and kill it though. Another strike.

Finally, the popularity of TE makes operating at the 10 km to 20 km range suicidal.

Now I've tried a 400mm plate. I've tried a MSE. I've tried to nano it. I've tried to use an AB. The thing dies horribly fast. Period. A covert cloak on it is, as I said, a band aid.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#14 - 2011-12-14 03:29:08 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I'll use the hyena as an example here. It has a 3% sig reduction per level. For those playing the game prior to the nano nerf, you'll remember that interceptors used to get a 5% sig reduction per level. That was changed to 15% MWD sig bloom reduction after testing showed interceptors were getting instapopped at the slower speeds. The Hyena didn't get that update. The 3% sig reduction is obsolete.

The MWD cap bonus advertises the use of a MWD. As a tackler the Hyena needs one. 20km webs are too small a buffer for other frigates to get inside of scrambler range and kill it though. Another strike.

Finally, the popularity of TE makes operating at the 10 km to 20 km range suicidal.

Now I've tried a 400mm plate. I've tried a MSE. I've tried to nano it. I've tried to use an AB. The thing dies horribly fast. Period. A covert cloak on it is, as I said, a band aid.


Yeah, like I said - if they don't give it a covops cloak (and may be if they do!) the EAFs are going to need some MAJOR survivability improvements. My dream of a covops cloaking Damper comes from my previous experience with a Damp Helios - but by no means is that the only way I'd fly the ship. Anyway - I see no reason that we shouldn't see EAFs with covops cloaks... just as I see no reason why we shouldn't see them without covops cloaks.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Norris Packard
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#15 - 2011-12-14 04:40:16 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I'll use the hyena as an example here. It has a 3% sig reduction per level. For those playing the game prior to the nano nerf, you'll remember that interceptors used to get a 5% sig reduction per level. That was changed to 15% MWD sig bloom reduction after testing showed interceptors were getting instapopped at the slower speeds. The Hyena didn't get that update. The 3% sig reduction is obsolete.

The MWD cap bonus advertises the use of a MWD. As a tackler the Hyena needs one. 20km webs are too small a buffer for other frigates to get inside of scrambler range and kill it though. Another strike.

Finally, the popularity of TE makes operating at the 10 km to 20 km range suicidal.

Now I've tried a 400mm plate. I've tried a MSE. I've tried to nano it. I've tried to use an AB. The thing dies horribly fast. Period. A covert cloak on it is, as I said, a band aid.


Yeah, like I said - if they don't give it a covops cloak (and may be if they do!) the EAFs are going to need some MAJOR survivability improvements. My dream of a covops cloaking Damper comes from my previous experience with a Damp Helios - but by no means is that the only way I'd fly the ship. Anyway - I see no reason that we shouldn't see EAFs with covops cloaks... just as I see no reason why we shouldn't see them without covops cloaks.

-Liang


To be honest I don't know why they didn't make 2 of each EAFs like they made 2 of each Recons. I would love to see two sets of them one cloaky and fragile the other tough as nails and combat worthy but with some added EWAR. I didn't like the last few sets of t2 ships that they came out with not having a sister ship that was different. Lessens variety and that is not a good thing for the game.
Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2011-12-14 04:44:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Twylla
module and targeting range boosts across the board.. they're EWar, they need reach (not counting shorter-range stuff like Web/Disrupt range). They are meant to enable unfair, one-sided fights, not win them. This means being able to 'lock down' multiple targets, not 'barely disable' one ship.. you just as well be in an assault frigate or inty.


An unnerfing of dampers may help too. I can't remember the last time I ever typed 'sensor dampeners' in a chatroom and didn't elicit sarcastic humor or outright laughter. Ewar should shift tides, not **** in a corner pretending to do something productive.

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
Khrage
#17 - 2011-12-14 07:13:23 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
We do not need another ship running around with a covert ops cloak. It's a band-aid that doesn't address the signature radius, lock range, or the redundant and obsolete bonuses on many of them.


thank you. needed to have someone else share that anti-more cloakers view.

Skippermonkey wrote:
I tried to argue the case for cloaky EAF's once

It mostly it just turned into argument

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=7011


thank you for showing me this thread. after reading through almost every post - adding a cloak really isn't a option CCP has to fix EAFs.

and just to say it again, since it might one day be heard by CCP - EAFs need more survivablity at the VERY least.
Ren Angust
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2011-12-14 09:07:49 UTC
I quite like my Senti, tbh the only thing i think they need is a little more ehp.
If the Sentinal had a covops cloak it would be stupidly op, at least in my opinion.
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#19 - 2011-12-14 09:23:30 UTC
Dunno about the rest but keres could certainly use a less sig, I almost lost a one to a bomb once from full shields and the bomb was against my highest resists.

And buff damps. Pirate
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2011-12-14 10:30:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
EAFs need a MWD bloom reduction bonus and a signature reduction so they can zip around the battlefield without getting insta-popped by cruiser-sized weapons, while still being squishy and vulnerable against other frigates.

Trying to solve that problem by increasing EWAR range and amount as well as EHP is only going to make them inferior copies of recons. They need to have a unique strength to be worth using.
12Next page