These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balancing Feedback: Assault Ships

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
DARKSTAR POWNYOUALL
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#421 - 2012-01-10 08:13:25 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
SO since you so loving stated that they are already more powerful than the other frigates, perhaps *gasp* that's no longer their equal match-up. AFs have always been intended as big-game hunters, hitting well above their weight. Complaining that they now kill interceptors that come in tackle range is just being plain stupid.


Do you seriously expect any self respecting cruiser pilot to die to those abominations?
You are slow and fat (for a frigate), and you have zero range control. ANY Cruiser remains faster than you once they have their web/scram on you. Stop looking at eft/pyfa and go TRY and fly those.

In fact, someone tried to do one of those with an Ishkur earlier today.
I was in a Vexor, and I **** all over him. He didn't even stand a chance.



So basically you are saying , that you want to make Assault Frigs overpowered in their class, so that no other frigs are any longer an equal match up, just so that they can fight cruisers better and still lose??

What is so great to gain here that is worth making them more powerful than any other frigate?
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#422 - 2012-01-10 08:18:10 UTC
@Proxy

Wow, if you were trying to use those as FRIGATE combaters, you've got other problems.
No frigate in their right mind would bother sticking around against that.

It's like this on TQ.
I'm in my Taranis (for example), and I engage a Vengeance (because I'm a boss).
I notice that he is tanking a **** load, and has only got me scrambled, not webbed/scrammed.
What do you think I do? I get the hell out. I simply turn around and leave.

The ships you have posted are so bloody slow that they don't even serve a purpose against frigates OTHER than being damage sponges. They don't do a crippling amount of damage, so anyone with their head on straight can just turn around and leave once you have them scrambled. The only exception to the rule there is the Wolf, and that ships is pretty well balanced with it's giant armor resist holes.

I naturally assumed you were looking to combat cruisers with those fits just because they were obscenely weak examples of frigate combatants.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Laerise
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#423 - 2012-01-10 08:18:30 UTC
The thing is though, Prom, that hunting "big game" would neccesitate a certain resistance to neutralisers.

Sure, an AF can run down a stupid nano ship any day now - but stuff like double neuting armor canes with a single web can already shred them without second thought. Roll
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#424 - 2012-01-10 08:19:44 UTC
Notice how SOME completely miss the point. The question is. Would a Interceptor be superior @ tackling a cruiser or battle-cruiser, compared with assault ships after these changes (quick answer is no).

Overall velocity is not the issue @ the moment. Tank is. Which is why the stiletto is favoured over all tackling interceptors. What use is a Ares going 4,000m/sec. If he cannot tackle a single shield-Hurricane or 2, without being shredded instantly. Anyone can go and test tanked assault frigates for the role of fleet tackle and they will fine they're better than Interceptors are with these changes.

Fun thing about a TEST server. You go there to TEST!


-proxyyyy
Laerise
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#425 - 2012-01-10 08:26:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Laerise
m0cking bird wrote:
Notice how SOME completely miss the point. The question is. Would a Interceptor be superior @ tackling a cruiser or battle-cruiser, compared with assault ships after these changes (quick answer is no).

Overall velocity is not the issue @ the moment. Tank is. Which is why the stiletto is favoured over all tackling interceptors. What use is a Ares going 4,000m/sec. If he cannot tackle a single shield-Hurricane or 2, without being shredded instantly. Anyone can go and test tanked assault frigates for the role of fleet tackle and they will fine they're better than Interceptors are with these changes.

Fun thing about a TEST server. You go there to TEST!


-proxyyyy



For once I have to agree with Prom - quit playing EFT-online m0cking bird.

Interceptors will still (at least in lowsec) be the mainstay tacklers the fc asks for after this change.

In most gang fights the big ships are too busy killing dps ships to take care of ceptors - and ceptors are able to just burn away from anti support in the blink of a moment. AF's however are stuck, in a gangfight, and are more easily picked off by anti support.


Edit: The thing you forgot that's the most important about tackling ceptors is their lock speed and long disruptor range.
These two advantages put them so far ahead of af's (which mostly use scrams and webs anyways) that your argument becomes kind of invalid.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#426 - 2012-01-10 08:28:55 UTC
@Dark
Wake up! AFs were NEVER equal to the other T2 frigates.
There were BAD AFs, and there were GOOD AFs. The good ones never had an excuse to lose, and the bad ones were simply bad on every meaningful level. Now none of them are bad, that's it.

Once again I will bring up HACs.
No T1* cruiser will ever beat a HAC unless the HAC is poorly fit or poorly flown.
HACs are (roughly) on par with their race of BC.
**not including faction**

The same applies for AFs.
No T1* frigate will ever beat an AF unless the AF is poorly fit or poorly flown.
AFs are (roughly) on par with their race of Cruiser.
**not including faction**

@Laerise
Small nos is really strong against medium and large neuts.
Besides, they aren't looking to take down BCs. They can, but that's not what they are for.
Similar to how I can kill a Vagabond with a Taranis, but that's not what they are for.

@Proxy
Yes, an Interceptor is still superior for tackling Cruisers and up.
AFs simply do not have the cap or fitting to maintain mwd + point + tank. Interceptors do.
AFs are also much less agile, and Cruisers can still get tackle when they do some nice piloting.

The Hurricane is a different story entirely. They will shred any frigate at that range doesn't matter if it's an AF or not.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#427 - 2012-01-10 08:45:52 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
The first setup uses a neutraliser. Which can operate effectively like a stasis webifer to immobilise another ship if it does not have a nos or cap booster. I used this kind of set-up before in the past with turrets, instead of rockets (perma neut is p fun).The other set-up is more is more focused on damage. Both can permantly neutralise with a warp scrambler and stasis webifier active. This is the kind of damage I do not want to see on a ship with immense defensive capabilities.

Prom we're going to disagree and I'm fine with that. You are in no way going to change my opinion on some things. Since I really don't care what you write and what you're on about. There is no reason you should have any interest in the statements I make. Just leave it @ that (done).

Laerise SFTU.=! You're so lost and you don't even realize it. (since mer D left your corp has really become full of tards). (your RP is p weak too...)

So yeah! Not a fan of increasing damage on this ship @ all.

Vengeance 150 damage per second (without heat)

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Gremlin Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Foxfire Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Small Capacitor Booster II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Small Armor Repairer II
Small Armor Repairer II
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II

Small Anti-Thermic Pump I
Small Ancillary Current Router I

Vengeance, 180 damage per second (without heat) 11, 000 effective hitpoints.

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Gremlin Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Foxfire Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Small Capacitor Booster II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Small Armor Repairer II
Small Armor Repairer II
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II

Small Anti-Thermic Pump I
Small Ancillary Current Router I


-proxyyyy
Laerise
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#428 - 2012-01-10 08:51:02 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
The first setup uses a neutraliser. Which can operate effectively like a stasis webifer to immobilise another ship if it does not have a nos or cap booster. I used this kind of set-up before in the past with turrets, instead of rockets (perma neut is p fun).The other set-up is more is more focused on damage. Both can permantly neutralise with a warp scrambler and stasis webifier active. This is the kind of damage I do not want to see on a ship with immense defensive capabilities.

Prom we're going to disagree and I'm fine with that. You are in no way going to change my opinion on some things. Since I really don't care what you write and what you're on about. There is no reason you should have any interest in the statements I make. Just leave it @ that (done).

Laerise SFTU.=! You're so lost and you don't even realize it. (since mer D left your corp has really become full of tards). (your RP is p weak too...)

So yeah! Not a fan of increasing damage on this ship @ all.

Vengeance 150 damage per second (without heat)

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Gremlin Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Foxfire Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Small Capacitor Booster II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Small Armor Repairer II
Small Armor Repairer II
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II

Small Anti-Thermic Pump I
Small Ancillary Current Router I

Vengeance, 180 damage per second (without heat) 11, 000 effective hitpoints.

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Gremlin Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Foxfire Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Small Capacitor Booster II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Small Armor Repairer II
Small Armor Repairer II
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II

Small Anti-Thermic Pump I
Small Ancillary Current Router I


-proxyyyy



Something tells me you're just out for an easy troll - also, those fits, they're terrible.
Sylvous
Bigger than Jesus
#429 - 2012-01-10 08:56:26 UTC
@ Prometheus Exenthal

I basically agree with what dark star is saying. 0.0 doesn't need more toys at the expense of messing up the AFs current role (though I admit toys are fun).

Let’s compare this situation to cutlery shall we? Let’s say I have a butter knife. It is perfect at what it does, it can cut and spread the butter etc. Now someone wants to know why they can't use it to cut through a steak. So they sharpen it and make it serrated. Now it can cut through a steak, but is not longer able to do its original function as well. This is not an improvement, what you needed was a knife meant for cutting meat in the first place. There is a reason a butter knife is god awful at everything else, it’s meant to cut butter. The frigs of 0.0 are cloaky ones, and interceptors. The frigs of low sec are AF's, don't take away the only viable class of low sec T2 pvp frigs. Ships are meant to have strengths and weaknesses. By buffing up all of the weaknesses of one class you are not improving the game.

Also, the example you gave comparing HACs to BC’s and AF’s to cruisers is invalid. Compare AF’s to destroyers as that is the equivalent coparison, and you’ll see they are about on par, with a slight edge to the destroyers (which is good).
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#430 - 2012-01-10 09:08:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
With the changes, Destroyers fit to combat support still have the edge against AFs.
Obviously some are better than others, and some need some boosts (ie: Cormorant).
But Destroyers (like tier3BCs) are outside of the normal range of ships.

Destroyers aren't quite cruisers, just like the new BCs aren't quite battleships/battlecruisers.
Both of them offer damage above their weight, with tanks below their class.
ie: cruiser dps, frigate+ tanks / battleship dps, cruiser+ tanks
Both of them are only (really) good at one thing and that's taking care of things from a distance.

You don't see Destroyers brawling down cruisers. Their role is anti-support.
So no, as long as Destroyers are able to counter AFs I will continue to compare AFs to Cruisers.

Also, your analogy is pretty bad P
This wouldn't take away anything from low-sec, and that's what I've been trying to say for the past few posts.
T2 combat ships are flat-out better than T1 combat ships. T1 could kill AFs before because they were deficient. End of story.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#431 - 2012-01-10 09:19:50 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
Sylvous wrote:
@ Prometheus Exenthal

I basically agree with what dark star is saying. 0.0 doesn't need more toys at the expense of messing up the AFs current role (though I admit toys are fun).

Let’s compare this situation to cutlery shall we? Let’s say I have a butter knife. It is perfect at what it does, it can cut and spread the butter etc. Now someone wants to know why they can't use it to cut through a steak. So they sharpen it and make it serrated. Now it can cut through a steak, but is not longer able to do its original function as well. This is not an improvement, what you needed was a knife meant for cutting meat in the first place. There is a reason a butter knife is god awful at everything else, it’s meant to cut butter. The frigs of 0.0 are cloaky ones, and interceptors. The frigs of low sec are AF's, don't take away the only viable class of low sec T2 pvp frigs. Ships are meant to have strengths and weaknesses. By buffing up all of the weaknesses of one class you are not improving the game.

Also, the example you gave comparing HACs to BC’s and AF’s to cruisers is invalid. Compare AF’s to destroyers as that is the equivalent coparison, and you’ll see they are about on par, with a slight edge to the destroyers (which is good).



I agree somewhat. However, assault frigates were not ever exclusive to low security space and these changes won't hinder assault frigates viability there @ all (more like improve alot). You don't have to use a micro warp drive on a assault frigate (even with the proposed role bonus). However, these ships will be able to easily tackle larger vessels and be able to take alot of punishment. Anyone who TEST them will notice this.


-proxyyyy
Sylvous
Bigger than Jesus
#432 - 2012-01-10 09:28:23 UTC
@ m0cking bird

Read some of my (and others) previous posts. It addresses your points. I also advise reading those of Alex Medvedov, essentially lord of the Jaguar.

:P
Bengal Bob
Slymsloot Enterprises
#433 - 2012-01-10 09:32:00 UTC
I don't want to get into the whole debate about which class AF belong to or what their role is (just yet)

I love frigs and AF, mostly because it is somewhat easier to get fights in them.
The problem I have, along with a number of people interested in PVP, is that it is difficult to find people willing to engage in AF at the moment. Generally they run. Buff them further and they will become useless, not because they are bad, but because no one will want to fight them.

MWD Role bonus is silly. Fly solo and you will die. Fly in a fleet and the inties will outperform you.

Give us something to expand the target pool for AF. Preferably something that will not overbuff against frigs/faction frigs or inties.

How about adding the ability to fit Med NOS to AF to help counter nuets on cruisers?

This keeps AF as viable targets for smaller classes, as well as the larger ones, whilst allowing them to function as heavy tacklers in fleet or engage larger classes in solo situations.

tl;dr
AF Role Bonus: Med NOS please!!
Captain Sucky
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#434 - 2012-01-10 09:47:00 UTC
People, please at least try the AFs on SiSi before posting. Hell, just do one fight on SiSi for every post you make in this thread.

New AFs need tweek here and there as mentioned before but as a whole are just fine. Good job!
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#435 - 2012-01-10 09:47:22 UTC
Must admit, never killed a Destroyer while flying an AF .. have had to make do with killing them in Punishers (~50/50 win/lose ratio) and Brawling Slicer (~90/10 win/lose ratio) .. albeit before they lost the RoF penalty but since they put close to zero pressure on tank and have received no additional tracking I don't expect that to have changed.

If an AF dies to a destroyer it will be entirely due to piloting error (ie. he is a noob). The over-buffed AFs should be able to take on 2-3 Dessies at once, so there goes the 'they have counter' argument (We in FW do **** with frigs that only the fun addicted oldschool pirates can match).

Just sayin'
Volstruis
Kybernauts
Kybernauts Clade
#436 - 2012-01-10 09:49:27 UTC
Tawa Suyo wrote:
[quote=DARKSTAR POWNYOUALL]But please, do explain how buffing the weaker AFs to the levels of the stronger ones while leaving those that already dominate at approximately the same level of power is completely unbalancing frigate combat in general....


i don't think it will, but i doubt very much it will increase overall versatility and activity in low sec. i expect you will see fotm af's and much much more anti frigate fit bc's
Bengal Bob
Slymsloot Enterprises
#437 - 2012-01-10 09:54:22 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
With the changes, Destroyers fit to combat support still have the edge against AFs.
Obviously some are better than others, and some need some boosts (ie: Cormorant).
But Destroyers (like tier3BCs) are outside of the normal range of ships.

Destroyers aren't quite cruisers, just like the new BCs aren't quite battleships/battlecruisers.
Both of them offer damage above their weight, with tanks below their class.
ie: cruiser dps, frigate+ tanks / battleship dps, cruiser+ tanks
Both of them are only (really) good at one thing and that's taking care of things from a distance.

You don't see Destroyers brawling down cruisers. Their role is anti-support.
So no, as long as Destroyers are able to counter AFs I will continue to compare AFs to Cruisers.

Also, your analogy is pretty bad P
This wouldn't take away anything from low-sec, and that's what I've been trying to say for the past few posts.
T2 combat ships are flat-out better than T1 combat ships. T1 could kill AFs before because they were deficient. End of story.


Too much politics, too little PVP for you I think.

Post buff dessies are still vulnerable to T1 frigs. I see them everyday brawling down cruisers though.
And no, unless your AF pilot is a noob or drunk, you can't counter AF with a dessie. Dessie dies every time.

I wish we had FW pilot on CSM who still actively does pvp Cry
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#438 - 2012-01-10 10:02:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
I'm an extremely active pvper, and I have thousands of kills and 15 popular videos to back it up Roll
I haven't really done too much on TQ since Crucible was released and that has more to do with Iceland, holidays, & testing the AFs.

If Destroyers are still dying to T1 frigates AND able to kill T1 cruisers, you're looking at terrible Destroyer pilots in the frig situation, and terrible Cruiser pilots in the other. A Destroyer in web range of a Cruiser is like fish in a barrel. The same can be said if you're going to bring a frigate in tackle range of a Destroyer.

Multiple frigates vs a Destroyer or multiple Destroyers vs Cruiser are poor examples for balancing, as you can say the exact thing about T1 Cruisers vs something like Battlecruiser or Battleship.

The MWD bonus is a massive bonus to the ships versatility, and like I said if you haven't spent a ton of time in lawless combat you won't understand that. The change increases the target pool to larger ships. While using an AB fit you ever tried catching a Cruiser that doesn't want to be caught? Good luck. At the same level, have you tried the same with an MWD fit AF? It's suicide.

As for countering neuts, a small nos does just fine. I suggest training up your cap/nos skills if you don't find it's sufficient.

@Hirana
If an AF dies to a Destroyer it's because the Destroyer was fit to counter support (as intended).
The new AFs can barely deal with a single Destroyer. Your mention of them being able to handle 2-3 of them (assuming fit normally and not some awful proxyy tank) made me choke on my drink. 2-3? What the hell have you been smoking lmao

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#439 - 2012-01-10 10:12:09 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
If an AF dies to a destroyer it will be entirely due to piloting error (ie. he is a noob). The over-buffed AFs should be able to take on 2-3 Dessies at once


Can you please start flying on SiSi before you say things like this?
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#440 - 2012-01-10 10:33:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Hirana Yoshida
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
If an AF dies to a Destroyer it's because the Destroyer was fit to counter support (as intended).
The new AFs can barely deal with a single Destroyer. Your mention of them being able to handle 2-3 of them (assuming fit normally and not some awful proxyy tank) made me choke on my drink. 2-3? What the hell have you been smoking lmao

One year plus of killing Dessies in Punishers, switched to Slicers after they were buffed to increase target pool .. what I am smoking, shooting up, snorting or whatever other word you can think of to try to discredit my statements has nothing to do with it.

Frigates are stupidly effective when used right.

PS: Is it intentional that the boosts seem to be aimed at doubling the already insane power of the dual-prop Jaguar/Ishkur (and now Hawk as well I guess)?

Caveat: I am in FW/LS so not subject to bubble camps and excessive on-grid travel distances.