These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Assault Ships - 4th Bonus and Retribution Fix

Author
CobaltSixty
Fawkes' Loyal Professionals
#1 - 2011-11-26 07:59:14 UTC  |  Edited by: CobaltSixty
Preface:

As we all know, CCP is planning to add a long-awaited 4th bonus to the ships of the Assault Ship class sometime after the main Crucible release. No details have yet been decided upon (at least publically), so I hereby submit the following proposal which includes a well-conceived 4th bonus for all Assault Ships, as well as an overhaul to the Retribution.

AttentionAUTHOR'S NOTE: The scope of this proposal now extends beyond an overhaul of the Retribution and addition of a 4th bonus to assault frigates. Some ships have had varying degress of additional changes proposed, namely the Vengeance, Hawk, Enyo, Wolf and Jaguar. These changes are made to correct balance and consistency issues amongst the Assault Ship and T2 lineups while requiring the least amount of changes.

=================================================
Subject to changes / revisions based on continued refinement.
Last updated: December 2nd, 2011
=================================================



Amarr - Retribution (Proposal Version 2a)

  • -1 High-slot, to be exchanged for +1 Mid-slot.
  • New slot layout 4 High-slots (4 turrets, 0 launchers), 2 Mid-slots, 5 Low-slots.
  • +10tf to base CPU of Retribution, to a total of 135tf. Mid-slot modules generally require more CPU than capacitor warfare modules and so the draw on the ships computer is only partially negated by the removal of a high-slot. This is still noticably less than the Vengeance's (proposed) base of 170tf, but a good deal more than the Punisher's 115tf. New CPU total with Electronics V = 168.75tf
  • No change to powergrid necessary - the Retribution was already difficult to fit with a full rack of the heaviest lasers and a passive tank, let alone with a capacitor warfare module.
  • Increase bonus; change damage bonus from 5% to 7.5% per level of Assault Ships. Brings the Retribution in line with the Wolf for damage when fully trained.
  • Add new bonus; 7.5% to small energy turret tracking speed per level of Amarr Frigate. This is in line with the Retribution's manufacturer-cousin, the Crusader as well as all the other gunboat-AFs (Enyo, proposed Wolf). The exception to this is the Harpy which eschews a tracking bonus for a second optimal bonus - the traditional Caldari way.

Result: The Retribution has its role as the small Amarrian gunboat preserved and enhanced with the ability to fit both a speed module and a propulsion jamming module. The only negative effect is the removal of the utility high-slot which is countered by the addition of a new mid-slot.

EDIT: The original proposal involved a more complex series of adjustments in order to let the Retribution maintain its utility high-slot and DPS while being short-changed a gun. After some helpful input and comparison of the ship to its larger HAC brethren, it was found that the utility high is incongruous with the Retribution's role and Carthum's design philosophy. Proposal version 2 saw the damage bonus left at 5% - since reinstated to 7.5% requested in original proposal.

Amarr - Vengeance (Proposal Version 2)

  • +1 High-slot, no counter-removal of slots. Even with the other changes proposed, the Vengeance will be bringing up the rear of the pack for peak damage and speed amongst Assault Ships. There needs to be a tradeoff for this, and the ship's bonus to capacitor recharge suggests effectiveness in capacitor warfare. Also, it would be inappropriate for the Amarr to not have a 5 high-slot Assault Frigate when all the other races do. Yes, it would be the only AF with 12 slots total. No, this isn't game-breaking.
  • Move 5% armor resistance bonus from level of Assault Ships to level of Amarr Frigate. In all other cases where this bonus is applied, it comes from the Tech-1 ship skill and not the Tech-2. Consistent with other Khanid designs.
  • Add new bonus; 5% to missile launcher rate-of-fire per level of Assault Ships. Consistent with other Khanid designs.
  • +10tf to base CPU of Vengeance, to a total of 170tf. With all Level V skills and Tech-2 equipment, one should be able to fit an afterburner, 4 rocket launchers, a neutralizer, tackle mods, a ballistic control and a good passive tank. It should NOT be possible to do the same with standard missile launchers. New CPU total with Electronics V = 212.5tf.

EDIT: Based on revisions to Retribution proposal, Vengeance gains a utility high-slot to suit its role as the utility-minded one of the pair. The first version of the proposal did not include this change and also called for an increase to base powergrid instead of CPU which is no longer appropriate.

See next post for remaining ships...
CobaltSixty
Fawkes' Loyal Professionals
#2 - 2011-11-26 07:59:44 UTC  |  Edited by: CobaltSixty
Continued from first post...

Caldari - Harpy

  • Add new bonus; 5% to shield resistances per level of Caldari Frigate. In all other cases where this bonus is applied, it comes from the Tech-1 ship skill and not the Tech-2. This positions the Harpy as the superior tanker compared to the Hawk (see Hawk proposal below) and fits in with the bonuses applied to other Ishukone combat vessels, namely the Eagle and Vulture as well as its progenitor, the Merlin.


Caldari - Hawk (Proposal Version 2)

  • Remove 7.5% to shield boost amount bonus from level of Assault Ships. In nearly all other cases where this bonus is applied, it is on a Minmatar vessel. The exception is the Golem which makes sense given its specialized role. The Paladin also has an armor repair bonus not found on other Amarr ships.
  • Add new bonus; 10% to missile flight time per level of Caldari Frigate. This bonus is consistent with the Cerberus' missile flight time bonus and allows a Hawk to use rockets to a distance of up to 22.8km and standard missiles to 94.9km, identical to the Harpy's maximum range.
  • Add new bonus; 5% to missile launcher rate-of-fire per level of Assault Ships. This bonus is also consistent with the Hawk's bigger brother, the Cerberus.

EDIT: Original proposal saw the Hawk keep its shield boost bonus and gain only the 5% to missile launcher rate-of-fire bonus.


Gallente - Ishkur

  • Add new bonus; 5% to drone hitpoints and damage per level of Gallente Frigate. In all other cases where a similar bonus is applied, it comes from the Tech-1 ship skill and not the the Tech-2. This is consistent with other CreoDron vessels like the Ishtar and Sin. Note: the 25% increase in damage only applies to one of the Ishkur's two weapon systems. Total DPS increase varies depending on the guns and ammunition used.


Gallente - Enyo (Proposal Version 2a)

  • Swap T2 manufacturers with the Nemesis. Duvolle Labs makes gunboats, Roden Shipyards makes missile boats. Models with this change (Roden Shipyards Nemesis, at least) have been found in the assets folder. Make it happen!
  • Remove launcher slot from the Enyo. Duvolle does not use silly missiles.
  • Increase bonus; change damage bonus from 5% to 7.5% per level of Gallente Frigate. The Enyo's gun damage should be comfortably superior to the Taranis and slightly better than the combined damage of the proposed Ishkur.
  • Add new bonus; 10% to small hybrid turret falloff per level of Gallente Frigate. This bonus is consistent with other Duvolle vessels like the Deimos (see first change). New falloff with all Level V skills and antimatter = 4.68km
  • Increase drone bay by 5m³ and drone bandwidth by 5Mbit/sec. New total of 10 for each, respectively. This counters the removal of the launcher slot from the hull and is more consistent with Gallente/Duvolle design philosophy.

EDIT: Original proposal suggested only the manufacturer change and an armor repair amount bonus for this ship. After further consideration of what a Duvolle Enyo might be like, I feel the new proposal more closely matches what people expect it to be. Proposal version 2 originally had 5% damage bonus left as is - now increased to 7.5% per level.


Minmatar - Jaguar (Proposal Version 3)

  • Add new bonus; 7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level of Minmatar Frigate. This is consistent with the Jaguar's role as well as its progentior, the Rifter.
  • Replace bonus; switch the current bonus to small projectile damage per level of Minmatar Frigate to a 5% to small projectile turret rate-of-fire. This is consistent with other Thukker Mix vessels like the Vagabond and Panther. This yields an 8% increase in DPS and is to maintain the Jaguar's current position amongst the other Assault Ships with respect to damage while increasing manufacturer consistency and adding further variation from the Wolf.
  • Replace bonus; switch the current bonus to optimal range per level of Assault Ships to a 10% to small projectile turret falloff. This is consistent with the Vagabond with whom it shares a manufacturer.
  • Add 50GJ to base capacitor of Jaguar, for a new total of 300GJ. Currently, the Jaguar's capacitor stats are 100% identical to its progenitor, the Rifter. This is the only example of an Assault Ship that does not have more peak capacitor recharge than its T1 counterpart. This change will move the Jaguar just above the Wolf in capacitor stats but below every other Assault Ship. With having 2 more Mid-slots it's obvious that the Jaguar has a greater need for capacitor than the Wolf anyway.

EDIT: Tracking bonus from original proposal has returned, taking away the dreaded shield boost amount bonus that does not appear on any other Thukker Mix vessels. Earlier proposals kept the first damage bonus as well as the optimal bonus which should instead be migrated to the Wolf.


Minmatar - Wolf (Proposal Version 2)

  • Add new bonus; 7.5% to small projectile turret tracking speed per level of Minmatar Frigate. This will decrease the amount of missed hits during frigate brawls and is consistent with the tracking bonus of the Rifter it's based on as well as the bonus enjoyed by its larger brother, the Muninn.
  • Replace bonus; switch the current bonus to falloff distance per level of Assault Ships to a 10% to small projectile turret optimal range. This positions the Wolf as the artillery platform of the two and is consistent with the role/design of the Muninn.

EDIT: Original version saw the Wolf keep its falloff bonus which was inconsistent with other ships from Boundless Creations.



Discuss! I'm very much looking forward to reading feedback on this topic.
GuRasta
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2011-11-26 08:19:43 UTC
support for vengence and retribution by why would you put optimal on a wolf? you don't arty fit a wolf... not to mention a wolf can already solo a sabre(seen it a few times), does it make sense that the minnie assault ship can solo the mini frig killer? not really, make it a falloff bonus to wolf and give t2 destroyers a better tank so they cant be solod by a frig imo
CobaltSixty
Fawkes' Loyal Professionals
#4 - 2011-11-26 08:47:36 UTC  |  Edited by: CobaltSixty
GuRasta wrote:
support for vengence and retribution by why would you put optimal on a wolf? you don't arty fit a wolf... not to mention a wolf can already solo a sabre(seen it a few times), does it make sense that the minnie assault ship can solo the mini frig killer? not really, make it a falloff bonus to wolf and give t2 destroyers a better tank so they cant be solod by a frig imo

Hi GuRasta, thanks for commenting! After seeing your post and discussing the Wolf with a corp-mate, I've decided to change the new bonus to a tracking bonus. Unfortunately I can't support another falloff bonus like you said, as that would give the Wolf a double-falloff bonus (unprecedented thus far in EVE), and I think a tracking bonus much like what I'm suggesting for the Jaguar would go a long way to fleshing out the Wolf. I've also increased the tracking bonus to 7.5% per level for both, in line with the Rifter it is based on.

Thanks for your input!

EDIT: I am no longer proposing a tracking bonus for the Jaguar.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2011-11-26 08:55:19 UTC
whre is the lower caldari hacs signature to matar lvl??
Sigras
Conglomo
#6 - 2011-11-26 09:46:52 UTC
++ for the vengeance

while I see this boost as a step in the right direction, It still doesnt give assault ships a role that cant be fulfilled better by their interceptor counterparts . . .

I see them fulfilling a role such as heavy tackle, but the problem seems twofold:
1. Theyre too slow with an AB and too easy to kill with an MWD
2. Neuts are lethal and can prevent them from doing their heavy tackle job

Maybe you see them for a different role than I do but I just dont see them fulfilling a damage role when there are such tougher higher damage ships out there.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2011-11-26 14:05:09 UTC
Swawping out the utility high slot on the retribution certainley makes sense.

I still feel that they need the afterburner bonus previously suggested, perhaps it was over powered but at least 10% per level giving a 50% overall bonus, but personally i do not feel it is overpowered given the destroyer buff and the new tier 3 battlecruisers. I would give that to half then give the other half an active tank bonus but perhaps at an increased rate.

I think this works towards the heavy tackle approach either through speed or active repair.

Vengeance - 15% bonus to Afterburner speed
Retribution - 15% bonus to Armour repair amount
Hawk - 15% bonus to shield boost amount
Harpy - 15% bonus to Afterburner speed
Ishkur - 15% bonus to Armour repair amount
Enyoy - 15% bonus to Afterburner speed
Jaguar - 15% bonus to shield boost amount
Wolf - 15% bonus to Afterburner speed
StukaBee
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2011-11-26 15:15:16 UTC
Sigras wrote:
++ for the vengeance

while I see this boost as a step in the right direction, It still doesnt give assault ships a role that cant be fulfilled better by their interceptor counterparts . . .


This is the major problem with assault frigs. Not the lack of a 4th bonus, although it would be nice to have, but the fact that they just don't have a reason to exist. Give them an actual battlefield role (note: this may hypothetically involve, for example, nerfing interceptors to create a niche that assault frigs would then occupy) where they actually excel at something.
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#9 - 2011-11-26 15:23:26 UTC
I LOVE ALL THE IDEAS.

Katrina Oniseki

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#10 - 2011-11-26 17:12:02 UTC
Wow, you suggest a whopping 12% damage increase for the Retribution .. so generous. Why not give it a 30%+ increase like you do the others I wonder?
And designing a ship like the Vengeance which is bonused to ACTIVE REP (huge cap recharge) for a buffer fit without replacing the cap bonus .. what the hell man.

Why do you suddenly want to make the Gallente utility AF into an OP damage platform? Enyo should NEVER be outdamaged by Ishkur .. at least not by design.
Active tanking is dead, dead, dead. It is way too late to start adding bonuses for it on any ship, least of all a cap using gun ship. Might be worth doing if/when CCP gets around to doing the hard balancing jobs and redesigns the buffer/active relationship but that is several years in the future at least.

Minnies are already cream of the crop and should be baseline for the others .. adding tracking (or anything combat related for that matter) gives us the exact same scenario as the AB Boost would have done .. 90% of all AFs in space will be Jags/Wolves.

Hawk with 33% damage increase .. yeah that will go down well. It just got a massive buff when using racial ammo, that suggestion just plain breaks it.
Only semi-reasonable suggestion is for the Harpy. Doesn't break it too much and still leaves counters available.

In Short: Came expecting bloody lame gank/tank suggestions and was not disappointed. Dime a dozen.

My take:
Damage AFs = More damage and ganglink fitting bonus.
Utility AFs = better cap plus RR range and efficiency bonus
tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
BORE
#11 - 2011-11-26 17:54:45 UTC
I think the biggest problem people have when dealing with assault frigates is that they try to make them do something they were not intended to do. They may be frigates, but the laugh at the concepts of 'speed' and 'ewar' or 'tackle'. They let those 'other frigates' do that (inties). They are here for one thing and that is to stuff as many shells into the enemy's every pore in as short of time as possible.

to clarify: they are dps killing machines. Perhaps their role is too niche. They are perfect for frigate gangs, which is where the Electronic Attack Ships also shine. Here, they are the biggest guns and are supposed to deal the most damage, making all other ships feel inept with their lack of damage output. Hell, AFs are supposed to outdamage t1 cruisers and threaten BCs!

When the AFs are not throwing incredible amounts of dps, they instead are harden rocks of frigates to shoot at, designed to laugh at the damage thrown out by other vessels (to a limit!).

Now, looking back at the beginning or opening post, I have to agree with everything, even the hawk retaining its shield boost bonus, as that would put it somewhere between the golem and cerb when it comes down to bonuses.

Where the science gets done

Forest Baltar
Depeche Mode.
Rogue Caldari Union
#12 - 2011-11-26 21:20:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Forest Baltar
Nice job Cobalt! Well thought through, and quite fair.

I agree with all of your changes proposed. However, I do believe that the Wolf/Jaaaaaaaag is already the most popular AF, and is quite powerful and capable in and of itself at this moment. I understand that the additional bonuses you outlined for the Wolf/Jaaaaaaag are necessary in the interest of fairness, but if I could have it any other way, balancing of the Wolf/Jaaaaaaaag would be needed to level the field in comparison to the other races.

Also, your proposed Retribution fix quite positively needs to happen.

If CCP pay attention to this post and decide to go ahead with some/all of your changes, I would definitely be down for using the Ishkur or Enyo in the proper roles outlined by its design.

+1 Cobalt; I sincerely hope they (CCP) take a good long look at your post, and provide some feedback into the feasibility of all of this.

Cheers,

Forest
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#13 - 2011-11-26 23:25:19 UTC
These changes seem fairly decent actually. I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but I do like the general ideas outlined.
CobaltSixty
Fawkes' Loyal Professionals
#14 - 2011-11-26 23:42:46 UTC  |  Edited by: CobaltSixty
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Wow, you suggest a whopping 12% damage increase for the Retribution .. so generous. Why not give it a 30%+ increase like you do the others I wonder?
And designing a ship like the Vengeance which is bonused to ACTIVE REP (huge cap recharge) for a buffer fit without replacing the cap bonus .. what the hell man.

Why do you suddenly want to make the Gallente utility AF into an OP damage platform? Enyo should NEVER be outdamaged by Ishkur .. at least not by design.
Active tanking is dead, dead, dead. It is way too late to start adding bonuses for it on any ship, least of all a cap using gun ship. Might be worth doing if/when CCP gets around to doing the hard balancing jobs and redesigns the buffer/active relationship but that is several years in the future at least.

Minnies are already cream of the crop and should be baseline for the others .. adding tracking (or anything combat related for that matter) gives us the exact same scenario as the AB Boost would have done .. 90% of all AFs in space will be Jags/Wolves.

Hawk with 33% damage increase .. yeah that will go down well. It just got a massive buff when using racial ammo, that suggestion just plain breaks it.

Hirana, I can see you are as passionate about these ships as I am, but I think you might have misread some of the stats. The Retribution's increase of 12% is accurate however, not every ship in the lineup needs a damage increase while others do just to pull up the rear of the pack.

The Vengeance is the utility frigate of the two, yet all its high-slots are occupied. With the increase in damage for missiles via the new rate-of-fire bonus inherited from the Sacrilege, it makes more sense now to take away a launcher and replace it with a neutralizer, using that extra capacitor for something other than armor repair. The Sacrilege has the same pair of bonii but local reps are not a staple of every fit - why should they be here? Improved capacitor recharge can be seen as increased resistance to capacitor warfare.

The Ishkur's damage bonus is not the 10% per level that the Vexor, Ishtar, Dominix and several other drone ships receive but a more conservative 5%. This means at best, 5 Hobgoblin IIs (highest damage light drone and all that fits out of the Ishkur) would do 124 DPS. Considering the Ishkur can also do about that level of damage with its guns, it ends up slotting in right beside the Enyo for in a maximum damage configuration, and requires more compromisation of the tank to pull off. Damage increase in a balanced fit is only around 12%; the only way it's a straight 25% damage increase is if you choose to run the Ishkur without guns, which I don't recommend.

The Enyo's bonus comes partly from what I suggested as a change to its manufacturer. I think propogating the bonus to this level will further push CCP to improve active tanking. The only other options left would be to issue the never-before-seen third damage bonus or a tackling bonus, which will upset more people... "combat frigates with EWAR bonuses, don't we have those?"

The Hawk's damage increase may seem extreme however, this would push a perfectly skilled Hawk pilot in a ship with 4 Rocket Launcher IIs and a Ballistic Control Unit II from 136 DPS to 181 DPS, and only ever with kinetic damage. A similarily fitted Vengeance could do 151 DPS of any type, while the Hawk can only manage ~120 with the others. Hardly game-breaking, especially as standard missile DPS is 20% less than rockets to begin with, so the changes simply improve the damage of the Hawk noticably beyond the Kestrel (which I doubt anyone will argue against) while keeping the Vengeance caught up. A Harpy will still be capable of more damage even with only having one 25% damage bonus.

Finally, the Minmatar ships. As I mentioned, I'm not looking to set precedent by giving a third damage bonus and these are already decent gunboats. Giving them the tracking bonus from the ship they're based on (the Rifter; 5% to small projectile turret damage per level and 7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level) improves their continuity in the lineup and corrects deficiencies. Realistically, would the Minmatar Republic commission Rifter-variants that can't swivel their guns as quickly? It does nothing to improve damage in a scenario where you would already be getting peak damage and widens the range so misses in range are less common. Also, I considered a velocity bonus for the Jaguar (being the baby Vagabond) however, it's already the fastest Assault Ship by far.

EDIT: I am now proposing a 7.5% to shield boost amount per level of Minmatar Frigate for the Jaguar as its new 4th bonus, liberated from the Hawk as part of my other proposals.

I'm glad you agree with the Harpy proposal, but the rest of the changes are not as drastic on the second read-through I think.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#15 - 2011-11-27 07:59:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Hirana Yoshida
For future reference: +25% RoF bonus = +33% dps bonus

Just sayin' Smile

My issue is with everyone but a select few and myself wanting them to be chips of the old block which is quite frankly boring as hell. There is tons more fun to be had if the lights got a logistics platform rather than making them into generic mini-cruisers, the T1 cruiser line is under more than enough pressure as it is after pirate revamp, navy cruisers and the upcoming destroyer over-buff.
CobaltSixty
Fawkes' Loyal Professionals
#16 - 2011-11-27 09:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: CobaltSixty
CobaltSixty wrote:
The Hawk has had at maximum, a 25% increase in damage (via rate-of-fire), not 33%.

QFT'd myself.
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
For future reference: +25% RoF bonus = +33% dps bonus

Just sayin' Smile

My issue is with everyone but a select few and myself wanting them to be chips of the old block which is quite frankly boring as hell. There is tons more fun to be had if the lights got a logistics platform rather than making them into generic mini-cruisers, the T1 cruiser line is under more than enough pressure as it is after pirate revamp, navy cruisers and the upcoming destroyer over-buff.


Hirana, thank you for catching some fuzzy math in my calculations. My apologies; I had recently woken up and just plain missed it. Ugh

I'm going to edit those statements from the reply post as well as integrate that into the next revision I'm planning. I still call for the rate-of-fire bonuses, however. The Hawk and Vengeance will still be pulling up the rear of the pack (amongst Assault Ships) for damage with a 33% increase even when fitting specifically for damage.

EDIT: Next revision complete, see changes to Retribution, Hawk and Jaguar bonusing.

Regarding the role of these ships, I don't see them as being threatened by the upcoming destroyer buff as they're still going to be inferior tankers and missing a slot. Assault Ships are a stepping stone on the way to Heavy Assault Cruisers whose role no one has serious problems with - they're simply effective at different levels. I do agree that a small-scale logistics platform would be a valuable addition to small ship warfare, but they should be based on the mining frigates just as the logistics cruisers were based on the mining/utility cruisers.
Alex Medvedov
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2011-11-27 11:34:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex Medvedov
As a dedicated AF pilot I have to applaud you sir! The changes you are proposing seems to be well ballanced, useful and not game breaking. Well accept for the Jaguar - please do not try to give a shield boost amount bonus to the Jaguar - you would be surprised how few Jaguars are actually fitted as active tanks:) The original idea of giving the Jag tracking bonus was far more apropriate, even if the Wolf gets the same.

Only other thing i can add is that you might consider swapping the Jaguar´s optimal bonus for the Wolf´s falloff bonus from which in my opinion would benefit both of them.


Jaguar or Wolf capabilities are in no way off the board in comparison with other AFs. Jaguar might be nowadays the most versatile AF, and thats maybe why it is so popular but still it can be bested by Hawk, Iskhur, Vengeance or Harpy, quite easily.
Alex Medvedov
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2011-11-27 11:50:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex Medvedov
Double post
CobaltSixty
Fawkes' Loyal Professionals
#19 - 2011-11-27 11:57:59 UTC
Alex Medvedov wrote:
As for the other opinions in the discussion - please do not try to give Jaguar bonus to shield boost amount - you would be surprised how few Jaguars are actually fitted as active tanks:)

Just as I make that very change, haha. Lol

Still, I stand by it. Aside from designating a clear tanking vessel for the Minmatar in this category, being able to choose a bonused active tank will assist in keeping the vessel's signature down and encourage active tanking setups which admittedly, don't make much sense at the moment as you said. It also takes nothing away from the ship - pilots will be able to choose if they wish for the same passive tank as before or a stronger active one with a caveat that your ship will now be much more susceptible to capacitor warfare.

Thank you for the kind words though. Progress is being made on this topic and hopefully soon enough CCP will take notice.

Cheers!
Alex Medvedov
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2011-11-27 12:08:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex Medvedov
CobaltSixty wrote:
Alex Medvedov wrote:
As for the other opinions in the discussion - please do not try to give Jaguar bonus to shield boost amount - you would be surprised how few Jaguars are actually fitted as active tanks:)

Just as I make that very change, haha. Lol

Still, I stand by it. Aside from designating a clear tanking vessel for the Minmatar in this category, being able to choose a bonused active tank will assist in keeping the vessel's signature down and encourage active tanking setups which admittedly, don't make much sense at the moment as you said. It also takes nothing away from the ship - pilots will be able to choose if they wish for the same passive tank as before or a stronger active one with a caveat that your ship will now be much more susceptible to capacitor warfare.

Thank you for the kind words though. Progress is being made on this topic and hopefully soon enough CCP will take notice.

Cheers!


Yep i have read your post perhaps more hastily than i should:)) I have corrected my statement now...
The problem is, Jaguars nowadays excel as heavy tacklers. By introducing that "stupid shield boost bonus"(tm) you are either forcing Jag´s pilots to disregard the bonus or to depart from the role Jaguars had been so succesful in.
Besically with your bonus you are not helping Jaguars at all, you are paradixically nerfing them:)
Side note, this post was not ment to be as offensive as it might be understood:))
123Next pageLast page