These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#561 - 2012-01-11 15:28:39 UTC
Cpt Cosmic wrote:


I understand your point but the other AS receive huge buffs compared to the ishkur which makes the ishkur alot weaker. why take an ishkur when I can take an enyo that does more damage, has more ehp and comparable tank?


maybe because eve online is not eft...

Ishkur has better damage projection and versatility than the enyo will ever have... having a sizeable portion of your dps (80-97) being independent of your ship and cap free will always be a significant advantage in the frigate lineup. Factor in the room for a wing of ecm drones OR a different damage type and it's easy to see why the Ishkur is currently and will continue to be very effective. It's not like the Ishkur is a dps slouch either, I'm easily getting 300+ dps on the majority of my setups.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#562 - 2012-01-11 15:55:31 UTC
Giving a MWD bonus to ships that are going to have to fight within scram range 90% of the time seems a little pointless. On the wolf and jag it will be great, but for ships that have to be within 10km to actually do any damage like the Vengeance and the enyo it's pretty worthless.
Cpt Cosmic
Perkone
Caldari State
#563 - 2012-01-11 16:08:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Cosmic
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Cpt Cosmic wrote:


I understand your point but the other AS receive huge buffs compared to the ishkur which makes the ishkur alot weaker. why take an ishkur when I can take an enyo that does more damage, has more ehp and comparable tank?


maybe because eve online is not eft...

Ishkur has better damage projection and versatility than the enyo will ever have... having a sizeable portion of your dps (80-97) being independent of your ship and cap free will always be a significant advantage in the frigate lineup. Factor in the room for a wing of ecm drones OR a different damage type and it's easy to see why the Ishkur is currently and will continue to be very effective. It's not like the Ishkur is a dps slouch either, I'm easily getting 300+ dps on the majority of my setups.

The old “eve is not eft” argument except in your case it turns against you. You post is so wrong, I don’t know where to start. enyo has no problem maintain its cap with a nos unless outnumbered and heavily sucked dry in which case ANY frigate is toast. And your awesome great 80 dps projection, go send out your drones and they get killed in a matter of seconds. you have to be close to scoop them otherwise they get shot down very fast and a 300 dps ishkur fit is full of fail. You need a dmg mod for your 300 dps, you also have to use smaller blasters (thus less range) + you will not have an explosive hardener, only one reactive plating to fill the explosion dmg weakness due to CPU constraints thus you will end with a much weaker tank than an enyo fit with 300 dps. the extra armor for the enyo is such a big advantage...
Joshke
Dumpy Drunky Donkey
#564 - 2012-01-11 16:09:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Joshke
Every point is quite interesting, I like changes for Retribution or -50% sig bonus for MWD, Wolf is not so clear.
But perhaps it is better to give us simply more assault ships? Tier 3 or simply new names, or even T3 assault frigates.

Don't invest too much in changing old cars, invest in future and give us new models.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#565 - 2012-01-11 16:47:41 UTC
Cpt Cosmic wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Cpt Cosmic wrote:


I understand your point but the other AS receive huge buffs compared to the ishkur which makes the ishkur alot weaker. why take an ishkur when I can take an enyo that does more damage, has more ehp and comparable tank?


maybe because eve online is not eft...

Ishkur has better damage projection and versatility than the enyo will ever have... having a sizeable portion of your dps (80-97) being independent of your ship and cap free will always be a significant advantage in the frigate lineup. Factor in the room for a wing of ecm drones OR a different damage type and it's easy to see why the Ishkur is currently and will continue to be very effective. It's not like the Ishkur is a dps slouch either, I'm easily getting 300+ dps on the majority of my setups.

The old “eve is not eft” argument except in your case it turns against you. You post is so wrong, I don’t know where to start. enyo has no problem maintain its cap with a nos unless outnumbered and heavily sucked dry in which case ANY frigate is toast. And your awesome great 80 dps projection, go send out your drones and they get killed in a matter of seconds. you have to be close to scoop them otherwise they get shot down very fast and a 300 dps ishkur fit is full of fail. You need a dmg mod for your 300 dps, you also have to use smaller blasters (thus less range) + you will not have an explosive hardener, only one reactive plating to fill the explosion dmg weakness due to CPU constraints thus you will end with a much weaker tank than an enyo fit with 300 dps. the extra armor for the enyo is such a big advantage...


..... Time for me to waste your Enyo with an Ishkur then?

I'll see you later today. Time to put up or shut up my eft warrioring "friend".
Jaigar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#566 - 2012-01-11 16:52:01 UTC
Cpt Cosmic wrote:

now take the enyo, which has more EHP without plate thus also more agility. enyo also has 3 mid slots for tackling. in short, it can hold its target better in place better and for longer then wolf. winmatar? dont make me laugh.

The issue is the Wolf's T2 Resists bonuses aren't nearly as useful as the Enyo's for armor tanking, resulting in a much lower eHP. Personally I still stick with the 150s even after the tracking bonus, opens up a little bit more fitting options (and perhaps enough CPU to use a DCU2 and save a few million iskies), and I still use ABs on them. If I'm getting up as close as I can to someone I want an AB. If you go MWD and end up vs. a crusier class hull, that cruiser will outrun you if its scram/1 web fit, even if its not running a prop mod (single webbed wolf with no speed mods goes 165 m/s with no prop), or it will match your speed close enough to where you cannot get transversal on it.

I also do not like looking at every single ship as a solo ship, but even comparing it to an Enyo, the Enyo will have shorter range and guns that use cap, meaning if the Enyo is holding range(say 8km, I don't know why it would ever want to be out this far) using null, the Wolf is getting about the same DPS, and if the Enyo comes in close, the Neut can cause some serious issues. The problem with the Wolf is its huge kinetic hole so the Enyo will rip it a new one. But will said Enyo plug his explosive hole? You never know... The Enyo does have an extraordinary amount of tank and gank, but it still has cap dependent guns, meaning it needs a small cap booster or a nos or it might get capped out before it can pop someone. EFT assumes you start a fight at 100% cap, but if you are roaming more often than not its around 70-80%. So looking at cap stability time, thinking you got a minute even of cap, might be a lot less...

There is just so many variables in frigate fighting, completely different (yet viable) fittings, etc. Being able to be choosy with fights, deciding whether you should fit your ship to better deal with Enyos, Vexors, Wolves, Taranis's, battle Helios, etc.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#567 - 2012-01-11 17:47:12 UTC
Cpt Cosmic wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Winmatar doesn't have enough fitting! Not in my Eve!

Gank Wolf:
200mm II x 4
Named nuet

Limited MWD I What?
Named Scrambler

200mm rolled tungsten
Reactive nano II
F85 DC
Gyro II
TE II

Projectile Burst
Projectile collision

now take the enyo, which has more EHP without plate thus also more agility. enyo also has 3 mid slots for tackling. in short, it can hold its target better in place better and for longer then wolf. winmatar? dont make me laugh.


I've been pretty consistent that the Enyo is more in line with these changes. I was responding to one person's complaint about fittings so don't take me out of context.
Zircon Dasher
#568 - 2012-01-11 18:58:35 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
@Zircon
I don't generally use AB AFs in 00. I did on a short stint as it was proved exceedingly difficult.
Running gate camps was impossible.

Good AF pilots can kill bad Cruiser pilots. The opportunities to kill and number of which are much much higher in Empire space.
This doesn't make it any more relevant as I was personally able kill bad battlecruisers and battleships with T1 frigates and faction frigates (before they were boosted).

The new AFs definitely have less trouble killing Cruisers & Destroyers. But less trouble is a far cry from saying it's easy.
Well flown & fit Destroyers & T1 Cruisers still wipe the floor with AFs.

Fast mobile gangs are those which consist of Interceptors, Faction Frigates, Nano Cruisers/Battlecruisers, EAFs, Bombers, and Cov Ops. Typically..

As for boosting more stuff. T1 (and 3 Pirate) frigates & cruisers have needed their lower tier ships boosted for a while now They need it done, and it doesn't depend on AFs get buffed or not.


1)I agree that running camps is nigh on impossible. The rational originally given for the role bonus was not camp running however. It was being in attack mode ie. you cant catch prey.

2)If you want to claim that AF can only kill bad cruisers, then what you fundamentally are saying is every cruiser pilot you(and every other AF pilot) ever killed was absolutely terrible. If you are only talking about cruisers that are specifically fit or especially able to kill frigs, then I am inclined to agree with you. The 425 nano ruppy that gets an AF dropped on it in scram range (thank you mr. warp-in alt) will die unless his ECM drones get a jam before they are insta-popped, and it does not necessitate a terrible cruiser pilot for it. Even with frig sensor strength it is not a given ECM drones always jam before they die.

3)It is strange that you list BC and cruiser hulls in "fast mobile gangs" here, but tried to deflect the original question by infering they were not part of said gangs earlier. Doesnt matter though because your list actually reinforces the point the question I was asked raises. AF will not take over the DPS role in these gangs (bc/cruiser hulls), nor will it take over the cov-op/bomber role or kitsune role. So the only thing left is keres,inty and faction frigs. You also claim that the new AF will not step on the tackle-ceptor role (I tend to agree) and by the same reasoning it wont take over the keres role. This means that the only place for the new AF in these gangs is by doing the, generally, pirate faction frig thing. Except they dont get web strength bonuses, nor are they as versatile as drams because of being fat and slow. SOOOooo the question still stands: Why would a serious gang want AF's?

I will agree that for people looking to bring back 'ranis-esque gangs it is possible that these new AF will have a purpose. Let's be honest though. While they are fun and effective in limited instances, the limited scope of engagement scenarios possible with frig gangs precludes them from becoming generally used in null.

4) Given that some of the best anti-frig cruisers are lower tier t1, will the buffs that are inbound be ones that enhance that role or will they make them better cruiser fighting ships? You should know this info better than I.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#569 - 2012-01-11 19:37:27 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Personally I'm excited at the prospective of frigates making a comeback in PvP as more than the odd tackler or soloer and approve of any changes needed to accomplish that.

The request by some to balance the game around low sec does not see the bigger picture in my opinion. While I can understand the concerns about upsetting the faction/pirate frigate balance in relation to AFs, it's worth keeping in mind that the current CCP seems more willing to address balance issues instead of leaving them untouched. As Zarnak Wulf said earlier, let the dust settle on faction/pirate frigates and then iterate. It's also quite likely that AFs themselves may need small adjustments because a few hundred SiSi testers (at best) simply cannot provide the same feedback as the Tranquility player base will be able to over the course of some months (in fact, I would like to see another SiSi update with minor changes to some AFs).

As far as AF vs cruiser or destroyer balance goes, I haven't seen any real problems.


This really. The proposed changes are really for the better.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#570 - 2012-01-11 20:29:16 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
I like how some pilots have been linking their r3tarded and terrible set-ups. That they then proverb as being OVERPOWERED. No! You are dumb. Prom is correct in terms of what ships will be able to counter most common dual stasis webifier set-ups. Without being specifically set-up to do so (other than using long range ammunition).

However, there is another extreme I've reference in this thread that eliminates the need to be in warp scrambler range (more like 14 - 15,000m). This set-up uses the Hawks range bonus to its full extent (warp disruptor). Since I know for a fact some in this thread are not referencing this set-up. You should really step back and evaluate what you THINK you know. You should STFU now. This was based off of the last dual stasis webifier set-up I used. Based off the ORIGINAL Hookbill set-up. I then started to focus on using high damage Hookbill set-ups.

Caldari Navy Hookbill
Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Small 'Accommodation' Vestment Reconstructer I

Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption
1MN Afterburner II
Faint Warp Disruptor I
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket

Small Bay Loading Accelerator II
[empty rig slot]
[empty rig slot]

Using dual stasis webifier on a Hawk. Was one of the first things frigate pilots said to me when I was linked the proposed changes (that and the Retribution and Enyo). ( I didn't even know about it for awhile)

Again, these set-ups can be countered by common damage biased frigates with great damage projection. Not something worth using in a outnumbered engagement. Where you need to bring things down quickly. With that being said. With these changes, the Hawk will do alot of damage = ) Something the Hookbill could not do once set-up in the similar way. Go away. Your set-ups are terrible and what you think is overpowered is in your head ( See r3tarded ^)

Anyway, off this silly topic.
Still! I'm not a fan of adding more slots to these ships. As I've said in many threads before this and my other issues with these changes. Assault frigates replacing Interceptors etc...

Also, has no one used heavily tanked assault frigates to tackle one or two Hurricanes (@ range or in warp scrambler range) on the TEST SERVER yet?


hawk

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
[Empty High slot]

Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
1MN Afterburner II
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Faint Warp Disruptor I
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Ballistic Control System II

Small Bay Loading Accelerator I
Small Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I


hawk

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
[Empty High slot]

Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
1MN Afterburner II
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Faint Warp Disruptor I
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Ballistic Control System II

Small Bay Loading Accelerator I
Small Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I


hawk

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
[Empty High slot]

Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I
1MN Afterburner II
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Faint Warp Disruptor I
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Ballistic Control System II

Small Bay Loading Accelerator I
Small Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I


-proxyyyy
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#571 - 2012-01-11 21:04:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington
Ok, so looking over a few pages of this, the a lot of the "against" arguments seem to fall into these main categories:
"Omg this will obsolete T1 frigates"
T1 frigates were obsolete long before this hit. Their niché is, was, and will be for the forseeable future as newbie tackle ships.

"Omg this screws over T1 cruisers"
What doesn't these days? They need their own buff patch.

"ZOMG I'm not MWDing this so that role bonus is useless"
... So ignore the MWD bonus. Not like you're missing out.

"But these still won't work with my 500man Abaddon blobs!"
Suck it up. This isn't a blob buff.

"But the MWD bonus obsoletes interceptors!"
No it doesn't. Try looking at the reasons inties are good at their job, rather than one bonus the types happen to share.
Laerise
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#572 - 2012-01-11 21:05:59 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
I like how some pilots have been linking their r3tarded and terrible set-ups. That they then proverb as being OVERPOWERED. No! You are dumb. Prom is correct in terms of what ships will be able to counter most common dual stasis webifier set-ups. Without being specifically set-up to do so (other than using long range ammunition).

However, there is another extreme I've reference in this thread that eliminates the need to be in warp scrambler range (more like 14 - 15,000m). This set-up uses the Hawks range bonus to its full extent (warp disruptor). Since I know for a fact some in this thread are not referencing this set-up. You should really step back and evaluate what you THINK you know. You should STFU now. This was based off of the last dual stasis webifier set-up I used. Based off the ORIGINAL Hookbill set-up. I then started to focus on using high damage Hookbill set-ups.

Caldari Navy Hookbill
Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Small 'Accommodation' Vestment Reconstructer I

Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption
1MN Afterburner II
Faint Warp Disruptor I
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket

Small Bay Loading Accelerator II
[empty rig slot]
[empty rig slot]

Using dual stasis webifier on a Hawk. Was one of the first things frigate pilots said to me when I was linked the proposed changes (that and the Retribution and Enyo). ( I didn't even know about it for awhile)

Again, these set-ups can be countered by common damage biased frigates with great damage projection. Not something worth using in a outnumbered engagement. Where you need to bring things down quickly. With that being said. With these changes, the Hawk will do alot of damage = ) Something the Hookbill could not do once set-up in the similar way. Go away. Your set-ups are terrible and what you think is overpowered is in your head ( See r3tarded ^)

Anyway, off this silly topic.
Still! I'm not a fan of adding more slots to these ships. As I've said in many threads before this and my other issues with these changes. Assault frigates replacing Interceptors etc...

Also, has no one used heavily tanked assault frigates to tackle one or two Hurricanes (@ range or in warp scrambler range) on the TEST SERVER yet?


hawk

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
[Empty High slot]

Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
1MN Afterburner II
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Faint Warp Disruptor I
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Ballistic Control System II

Small Bay Loading Accelerator I
Small Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I


hawk

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
[Empty High slot]

Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
1MN Afterburner II
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Faint Warp Disruptor I
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Ballistic Control System II

Small Bay Loading Accelerator I
Small Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I


hawk

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
[Empty High slot]

Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I
1MN Afterburner II
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Faint Warp Disruptor I
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Ballistic Control System II

Small Bay Loading Accelerator I
Small Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I


-proxyyyy


Quote:
I like how some pilots have been linking their r3tarded and terrible set-ups.


qed
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#573 - 2012-01-11 21:23:21 UTC
Laerise wrote:
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.



qed...
Alex Medvedov
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#574 - 2012-01-11 21:36:08 UTC
[
m0cking bird wrote:
I like how some pilots have been linking their r3tarded and terrible set-ups. That they then proverb as being OVERPOWERED. No! You are dumb. Prom is correct in terms of what ships will be able to counter most common dual stasis webifier set-ups. Without being specifically set-up to do so (other than using long range ammunition).



Could you please enlighten us which AF has its damage projection so good that can deal with said double web Hawk setup with ease, Einstein?
Rastaa Fari
Standard Issue Strategic Action
#575 - 2012-01-11 21:42:13 UTC
Another AF V crew checking in..

MWD is still difficult to fit on a normal AF setup, and I dont want to do it anyway. I would say 95% of my time flying an AF was with an afterburner setup, and I have lived in all security levels of space. I would definitely favor some kind of large bonus to mass reduction, or agility. Ewar resistance also sounds like a very fun idea. Making AFs be interceptors and interceptors be light interceptors is just not creative.

And on a personal note, to all of the people that say afterburner setups are inferior; fill a garbage bag with gasoline and drown yourselves please.
Korg Tronix
Mole Station Nursery
#576 - 2012-01-11 21:44:26 UTC
Alex Medvedov wrote:
[
m0cking bird wrote:
I like how some pilots have been linking their r3tarded and terrible set-ups. That they then proverb as being OVERPOWERED. No! You are dumb. Prom is correct in terms of what ships will be able to counter most common dual stasis webifier set-ups. Without being specifically set-up to do so (other than using long range ammunition).



Could you please enlighten us which AF has its damage projection so good that can deal with said double web Hawk setup with ease, Einstein?


I think a double web hawk has that projection :P

Evil: If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One! [zaps one of his minions accidentally, minion screams]
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#577 - 2012-01-11 21:49:36 UTC
Alex Medvedov wrote:
[
m0cking bird wrote:
I like how some pilots have been linking their r3tarded and terrible set-ups. That they then proverb as being OVERPOWERED. No! You are dumb. Prom is correct in terms of what ships will be able to counter most common dual stasis webifier set-ups. Without being specifically set-up to do so (other than using long range ammunition).



Could you please enlighten us which AF has its damage projection so good that can deal with said double web Hawk setup with ease, Einstein?


Any Retribution setup does. Hawk can disengage tough.

Rail setups do also but I'm sure who wins the dps/tank war.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#578 - 2012-01-11 21:50:16 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:

Also, has no one used heavily tanked assault frigates to tackle one or two Hurricanes (@ range or in warp scrambler range) on the TEST SERVER yet?


A heavily tanked assault frigate has no trouble tackling, tanking, and quite likely even killing any battlecruiser you care to name even currently on TQ. Assault frigates are not terribly gimped ships and the changes on the test server are far reaching indeed. I think everyone should step back and consider that AFs are getting:
- Extra fittings
- Extra slot
- Extra HP
- 4th bonus
- Role bonus

This is a lot of changes for one class of ship that actually performs reasonably well already. The end result is that all AFs are getting a significant survivability boost when kiting and when on "approach" (don't approach). Then they are getting a 4th bonus which makes most certainly shores up any problems the ships might already have - such as tracking for the Jag and DPS for the Hawk. And finally they are getting an entire extra slot worth of mobility, utility, DPS, or Tank.

Taking a moment to discuss the role bonus: I think its a nice to have, but I think perhaps the fact that this bonus keeps propagating to frigates everywhere should be a clue we need to change the MWD sig bloom penalty on frigate MWDs instead of assigning these bonuses around like candy. However it turns out though, these AFs are going to be small fast targets that are hard to hit and have ridiculously huge tanks when you manage to do so. Their ability to tackle is going to be literally second to none.

These changes are far reaching enough that I am very concerned about game balance. I implore the CCP game devs to axe the extra slot and move slots around on the ships that require it.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#579 - 2012-01-11 22:01:27 UTC
Alex Medvedov wrote:
[
m0cking bird wrote:
I like how some pilots have been linking their r3tarded and terrible set-ups. That they then proverb as being OVERPOWERED. No! You are dumb. Prom is correct in terms of what ships will be able to counter most common dual stasis webifier set-ups. Without being specifically set-up to do so (other than using long range ammunition).



Could you please enlighten us which AF has its damage projection so good that can deal with said double web Hawk setup with ease, Einstein?



Well, provided that a Hawk is not using a tracking disruptor: rail-Ishkur, rail-Enyo, Retribution, Vengeance (javelin), Hawk, rail-Harpy (which also does dual stasis webifier). Not including other frigates that can also do the same.

Against a Tracking disrupting Hawk. Any rail assault frigate with Spike ammunition (which can definitely track a frigate @ that range). Assault frigates that use missiles and drones.

Sad that you even ask...


-proxyyyy
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#580 - 2012-01-11 22:03:18 UTC
WTB AF that can survive a dual nuet Hurricane on TQ. With new mid slots and cap boosters maybe... Anyways, I've waited for years for AF to get buffed. Get back in the Orca Liang. P