These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

When will assault ship balancing get a sticky here?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2011-12-29 15:48:46 UTC
AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense.
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#42 - 2011-12-30 08:28:44 UTC
Hungry Eyes wrote:
AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense.


2/10, you're a terrible troll.

AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship will always be preferable because the fitting requirements for a MWD are too high. Plus even with a bloom reduction, a MWD will give any shield tankers a sig the size of a cruiser.

A boost to AB is a much better idea, and complements (without nullifying) the recent buff to destroyers.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2011-12-30 11:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Grimpak
Svennig wrote:
Hungry Eyes wrote:
AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense.


2/10, you're a terrible troll.

AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship will always be preferable because the fitting requirements for a MWD are too high. Plus even with a bloom reduction, a MWD will give any shield tankers a sig the size of a cruiser.

A boost to AB is a much better idea, and complements (without nullifying) the recent buff to destroyers.



blanket AB bonus would make the bad AF's still bad and the good AF's too good. this is why the proposal was shot down even before it left the hangar.


sig bloom isn't the best bonus you can put there and in all honesty, you can't bring AF's into a workable state without overlapping a bit on other ship's roles.

no, it doesn't step on the inties because a) AF's are still fatter and slower and b) to be as good tacklers as the tackle inties you need to cram a RF/domi disruptor there.





on the specifics, wolf could use a bit more cpu, and the retri could have that 5th high converted into a 5th turret (+ fittings to accommodate this of course. would be good to see the ship using the one gun that no other frigate can use and still have enough fitting space for stuff)

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
CobaltSixty
Fawkes' Loyal Professionals
#44 - 2011-12-30 20:29:22 UTC  |  Edited by: CobaltSixty
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Added mass affects agility even when not boosting

Afterburners and microwarpdrives do not increase the ship's mass unless activated. Agility is not affected when the module is not in use.

Also, this whole idea of the disparity between the good and not-ideal Assault Ships increasing further is silly. The whole point of the AF boost (I think) is to bring up the bottom end closer to the top while giving all of them some new purpose. Whatever way they go, any role bonus that was not there previously is going to make these ships more dangerous than they were - and that's okay.

I do think that the microwarpdrive signature bonus is stepping on the Interceptor's toes, so an afterburner bonus but with a built-in penalty (terrible agility when activated, increased cap usage) by using the 10MN module seems appropriate. Turning it on will more than quintuple the mass of an assault ship yet still keeps the speeds far below what intereceptors are naturally capable of.
-80% is even the same numeral used to apply the Interceptor's role bonus. How can you say no? P
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2011-12-31 23:34:56 UTC
Svennig wrote:
Hungry Eyes wrote:
AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense.


2/10, you're a terrible troll.

AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship will always be preferable because the fitting requirements for a MWD are too high. Plus even with a bloom reduction, a MWD will give any shield tankers a sig the size of a cruiser.

A boost to AB is a much better idea, and complements (without nullifying) the recent buff to destroyers.


and youre a douchebag, like most of your brethren from Test Alliance. you never have anything useful to contribute because most of you are missing half a brain.
Lucas Quaan
Dark Enlightenment
New Eden Alliance 99013733
#46 - 2012-01-01 00:57:50 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
blanket AB bonus would make the bad AF's still bad and the good AF's too good. this is why the proposal was shot down even before it left the hangar.

Somewhat yes, but the main reason is probably that last time people started running 10MN setups on SiSi and that was a bit unbalanced to say the least. If we could limit it to 1MN units and a modest bonus, say 50%, so that the other frigs will still be faster with MWD there's no reason why it couldn't work.
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-01-02 04:03:42 UTC
Hungry Eyes wrote:
Svennig wrote:
Hungry Eyes wrote:
AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense.


2/10, you're a terrible troll.

AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship will always be preferable because the fitting requirements for a MWD are too high. Plus even with a bloom reduction, a MWD will give any shield tankers a sig the size of a cruiser.

A boost to AB is a much better idea, and complements (without nullifying) the recent buff to destroyers.


and youre a douchebag, like most of your brethren from Test Alliance. you never have anything useful to contribute because most of you are missing half a brain.


The best part of your post: the bit where you carefully refute the points I made. Oh wait. That didn't happen. Huh. All I see here is a mediocre attempt to insult me and my alliance. When all else fails, I guess?
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-01-02 04:07:05 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Svennig wrote:
Hungry Eyes wrote:
AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense.


2/10, you're a terrible troll.

AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship will always be preferable because the fitting requirements for a MWD are too high. Plus even with a bloom reduction, a MWD will give any shield tankers a sig the size of a cruiser.

A boost to AB is a much better idea, and complements (without nullifying) the recent buff to destroyers.



blanket AB bonus would make the bad AF's still bad and the good AF's too good. this is why the proposal was shot down even before it left the hangar.


sig bloom isn't the best bonus you can put there and in all honesty, you can't bring AF's into a workable state without overlapping a bit on other ship's roles.

no, it doesn't step on the inties because a) AF's are still fatter and slower and b) to be as good tacklers as the tackle inties you need to cram a RF/domi disruptor there.





on the specifics, wolf could use a bit more cpu, and the retri could have that 5th high converted into a 5th turret (+ fittings to accommodate this of course. would be good to see the ship using the one gun that no other frigate can use and still have enough fitting space for stuff)


Blanket ANY bonus would have this affect. My point is merely that if you're going to be heavy handed with a broad change, then you may as well do so in a way which leave some fitting room remaining and doesn't completely blur the line between AFs and inties.

Previous page123