Posted - 2010.04.21 15:42:00 - [62]

 

Edited by: Trevor Warps on 21/04/2010 15:44:38
All I will say is that I ressubed recently.

I logged in the first 4-5 days.

It blows for me. I like mostly solo stuff or very small gang. With the speed nerf anf the web nerf there is nothing I can do.

It's all about ****ing blobbing, annoying ****ty brainless bull**** skilless gamestyle.

1. Stay docked until you vastly outnumber ennemy
2. Undock and start firing
3. Post viewtiful killmail to make your ego feel good and your stats go +1
4. Welcome to Eve

Blows big time. Not even talking about laggy fleet fights which take forever and a half to wait for to happen.

No my game anymore, definitely not.

Posted - 2010.04.21 19:07:00 - [64]

 

Edited by: Trevor Warps on 21/04/2010 19:10:02

Originally by: Liang Nuren

---

Trevor, my only suggestion is that you find some friends to fly with regularly. Here's some ideas that may help you:
- Low sec piracy/anti piracy in semi deserted regions may yield fewer fights, but the ones they do are much better since there's so many fewer people to be involved.
- Highsec wars can yield very awesome fights - particularly if you find a "bear" corp that wants to fight.
- Crashing gatecamps on lowsec/0.0 entrances can be highly amusing with 1-3 people. It really helps to have a scout run through first and make sure that they don't have too overwhelming odds.
- Fly with us - we aren't particularly blobby... but we get blobbed a lot. Dunno if you're in the late late US TZ or AUS TZ /shrug

-Liang

---

- Ok but there is nothing to do but look at veldspar roids when no one is around

- My first Factionnal Warfare experience was a bunch of scrubs making me warp on their low sec POS to blow me up. They failed to kill my ship but still this sucked, left FW the same night.

- Most gatecamps are overpowering/blobbed

- I appreciate the invitation, I am US east. If you get blobbed alot its back to square one tho. But I will consider if I log in again.


I think the game is just a bit slow for me now. I dont have as much time as i used to and setting up a gang and going to hunt usually take some time, nevermind find reasonable targets. I wish I could also hop on the game for some quick fun as well but it looks like it aint gonna happen.

Posted - 2010.04.21 19:12:00 - [66]

 

Originally by: Ophelia Ursus

---

For a start, pretty much everything you've said about the Jag is wrong. It's both faster and more agile than a Stabber, and more to the point, if you're using them as heavy tackle, they fulfil the role differently

---

Before fitting yes. After fitting... not so much. And if you're putting speed mods on the jag you could be over-tanking another frigate.

You are right in that the 4 meds of the Jag does allow it a range of advantage in the close range over the stabber. But not all of the AF's can have 4 meds. And then you're stuck with one or two AF's that are decent and the rest that are dominated by Cruisers.

Quote:

---

Frigates thrive on speed and maneuverability, and combat inties will easily retain a role even with buffed AFs.

---

Really? Combat inties have a role to destroy other frigates. If they can't kill the primary frigate class(which would be AF's if they were simply super-t1 ships) then what would they kill?

Quote:

---

Second, your insistence that good AFs obsolete combat inties is just theorycrafting without regard for the state of things on TQ. Again, there are currently two OK-ish AFs in the Jag and the Ishkur; neither obsoletes their racial combat inty

---

So you're saying that if the Jag and Ishkur were boosted that people would not use them more and use other frigates less? That if there were a 2 med retribution(with a 4th bonus) that was as fast and agile as a rifter is now that this would not have any effect on the ships that people fly?

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Except stuff like speed, locktime, warp speed, ability to evade stuff, etc. It's a frigate hull. It has advantages intristic to the frigate hull chassis.

---

Speed mods make many tech 1 cruisers fast enough to overtake the current AF lineup, even the Jag. Locktime advantage is one of the few times where the cruiser does indeed lose out. Evasion ability is about the same. The point is that after fitting the intrinsic frigate hull advantages are minimized even compared to the least of the cruisers, then only the disadvantages stand out.

You're correct that I am generalizing here, the point is not to say that there are not very niche things that AF's can do as current, but that the vast majority of real situations you're better off in a cruiser fit for speed. (Mainly because the situations where the niche has an advantage typically occur in tandem with the situations where the AF's have a disadvantage)

Quote:

---

Besides, if you want a covops probing tackler AF, what's the point of flying it when both covops frigs exist and Arazu exists? Covops frigs (Anathema) can somewhat hold point vs various failboats. Arazu can hold point on practically anything.

---

Ideally you want something that can hold points on non-failboats, isn't a tech 2 cloaking ship(iirc that part got cut in editing), and has the ability to find targets at the fastest of rates.

Originally by: Braitai replying to Merin Ryskin

---

You said something similar in the boost rockets thread, I'm still wondering what you're thinking with it. You do realise if you double SML damage, an AML Caracal will do 350dps with missiles alone, at 60km, right? Not to mention 200dps Crows...

---

Merin has never been one to do anything but explicitly request boosts to the ships that she flies at the expense of all others.

Posted - 2010.04.22 04:47:00 - [68]

 

Originally by: Goumindong

---

So is every short range cruiser. Not sure what the issue is.

---

The issue is that you can't talk about how awesome a short-range cruiser fit is when the nanocane dominates it in every possible way.

Quote:

---

Why? Note, that the solution given does not require people to not focus fire. So if you don't want to get more loot, you're perfectly free to not do so.

---

You have this backwards. YOU are the one who wants a change, YOU have the burden of proof of demonstrating why focused fire is a problem at all.

Quote:

---

Not really, no. The simple fact is people largely do not see the benefits of fitting reps, not that they aren't there.They look at the overall picture and fail to examine the margin.

---

If the benefits are already there and people just don't see them, why are you proposing a boost to active tanking? Shouldn't it just be left exactly as it is, so the smarter players can take advantage of it?

Quote:

---

Not really, no. You can get a lot of it, but not 90%. But even then, is that really such a bad thing? Specialization becomes the reward and not the requirement.

---

You can nitpick all you want about whether it's 85% or 90% or whatever, but the simple fact is that your proposal removes all of the commitment in skill training. Currently you have difficult choices to make and it makes a significant difference whether you get them right or wrong, your proposal removes this element almost entirely and replaces it with "all of the above".

Quote:

---

So what you're saying is that since some people don't like to be killed that it makes it OK for other people to be completely safe?

---

No, what I'm saying is that the AFK cloaker "problem" only exists because local is an intel channel and idiot carebears are too afraid to engage if there's even the possibility that the AFK cloaker might attack them.

If the AFK cloaker is actually doing anything other than sitting AFK in a safespot (and doing absolutely nothing useful), they are no longer completely safe.

Quote:

---

As for ending cloaked ships? No, that is just foolish if you think that the suggested changes would end cloaked ships. That is, unless you're too incompetent to move your ship, align, warp, and use the directional scanner.

---

Hint for the clueless: on-grid warping with a smart probe pilot = your recon/covops has a life expectancy measured in seconds. You either give up on doing anything but running away, or you get decloaked and ganked.

Quote:

---

No, actually. I said it would be clearly the best anti-support and that other ships should have purchase in that role.

---

Yes, and guess what: we got a 5-gun Eagle and it sucks. It isn't used as an anti-support sniper, it isn't used as a blaster ship, it isn't used for anything besides very rarely filling in as a "better than nothing" sniper for people who can only fly Caldari.

Quote:

---

I did not say that the pulse zealot sucked. I said that the existence of the pulse zealot is no reason have the Muninn and Zealot be dominated in their primary role.

---

If the pulse Zealot is not enough of a reason (PS: pulse Zealot = Zealot's primary role) for the Zealot to be weaker than the Eagle in the sniping role, then the pulse Zealot is not a good ship.

It's just like how nobody expects the Vagabond to be the best sniper, because the Vagabond is awesome in a completely different role. If you want a ship to excel in one area, it doesn't get to be up at the top in all other areas at the same time.

Quote:

---

It should be noted that the other role of the pulse Zealot did not exist at that time(that cat is out of the bag right?)

---

Wrong again. Pulses were already very strong at the time, they just weren't FOTM. In fact, this is exactly my point, you were too clueless to realize how good pulses were and how the metagame was shifting. And guess what, it doesn't look like you've learned anything since then.

Posted - 2010.04.22 05:08:00 - [70]

 

Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 22/04/2010 05:09:02
Finally, let's take a look at the effects of the proposed skill change on the market:


Many T2 modules (weapons, for example) instantly become worthless. Best-named modules have the same fitting, the same stats, and now they can use T2 ammo and benefit from the T2 specialization skills. Congratulations: with one change, you just crashed the entire T2 production system. I'm sure the industry players will be happy about this.


T1 modules become worthless. Since low-end named modules are dirt cheap and better in every way, the only use for T1 modules is in the production of T2 modules. Well, guess what, T2 production has just been removed from the game, so T1 modules are now only useful for reprocessing into minerals to build ships. Again, I'm sure the industry players will be happy about this, especially after CCP is finally talking about removing T1 modules from mission loot.


High-end named modules spike in price. If you think arbalest missile launchers are bad now, just wait until T2 is removed from the game. PvP becomes significantly more expensive unless you fly around in cheap failfits. Hey, it'll be just like the "good" old days before invention. At least the mission runners and macro ratters will be happy...

Posted - 2010.04.22 06:41:00 - [72]

 

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

The issue is that you can't talk about how awesome a short-range cruiser fit is when the nanocane dominates it in every possible way.

---

You have started from the position that there are OK short range cruisers. You started by saying that the Moa sucked because it did not stack up compared to other cruisers. You do not get to, then say, that it sucks because it doesn't stack up to a BC. The Moa, with the proposed changes, would be a decent short range cruiser. Not the best certainly, but it should not be so. Their relative competence, when they do have that secondary role of being engagible does matter.

Quote:

---

You have this backwards. YOU are the one who wants a change, YOU have the burden of proof of demonstrating why focused fire is a problem at all.

---

I thought I did that well enough in the paper. If it is not enough for you, there ought to be a system that blunts the pain of choosing to fit for a small gang, but does not interfere with fitting for larger gangs when in larger gangs.

Quote:

---

If the benefits are already there and people just don't see them, why are you proposing a boost to active tanking? Shouldn't it just be left exactly as it is, so the smarter players can take advantage of it?

---

Read the paper. I am tired if having to re-iterate points that ought to have been clear. What part of the move from passive to active not meeting diminishing marginal returns was hard to comprehend? What part of "relative capacitor usage is such that optimal repping times can almost never be achieved" was hard to understand?

Quote:

---

You can nitpick all you want about whether it's 85% or 90% or whatever, but the simple fact is that your proposal removes all of the commitment in skill training. Currently you have difficult choices to make and it makes a significant difference whether you get them right or wrong, your proposal removes this element almost entirely and replaces it with "all of the above".

---

No, it removes one skill level of training which equates to about 12.5% damage and a month of training. 12.5% damage is a big deal any way you look at it.

Quote:

---

No, what I'm saying is that the AFK cloaker "problem" only exists because local is an intel channel and idiot carebears are too afraid to engage if there's even the possibility that the AFK cloaker might attack them.

---

And what would happen without that local channel? Do you really think it would be like wormhole space even with all the clear deviations between K and W-Space?

Threats matter in strategic systems, with no way to perceive if the threats are real or not(and they're almost always credible since they can always be executed) allowing cloaked ships total free reign amounts to securing the strategic advantage for cloaked ships always.

This does not mean that cloaks should not offer advantages, and its why the proposed changes do little to affect ships that have covert cloaking devices or cloak bonuses and are able to move themselves on grid at high rates except keep them on their toes. But these advantages should not be absolute as they are.

Quote:

---

If the AFK cloaker is actually doing anything other than sitting AFK in a safespot (and doing absolutely nothing useful), they are no longer completely safe.

---

You must be very unimaginative if you think that you can do nothing useful as a cloaked ship while cloaked.

Quote:

---

Hint for the clueless: on-grid warping with a smart probe pilot = your recon/covops has a life expectancy measured in seconds. You either give up on doing anything but running away, or you get decloaked and ganked.

---

You didn't read it did you? But lets assume that what you say is true and that you can defensively probe. Just take your cov-ops scout and have them be aligned. Warp out when they get decloaked and use the directional scan. Hop between pounces and off grid points. No, you're not perfectly safe any more, the other side can actually deploy resources and destroy you. God forbid.

Posted - 2010.04.22 06:42:00 - [74]

 

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

No, combat inties have a role of tackling with a secondary ability to shoot at other frigates while doing that job. They're a middle ground between the pure tackle inties and AFs, obviously not the best at either role, but that's the price you pay for versatility.

---

I don't buy it. Half of them have 2 med slots, all of them have plenty of damage and bonuses to killing small targets. They literally scream "slam me into another frigate and kill it". If i wanted a frigate that tackled first and had a secondary ability to shoot at other frigates I would choose a frigate with range bonuses and tackle bonuses(oh hey, its tackle inties) and not interceptors which often have significant problems getting initial tackles because they aren't designed for it in the least. Maybe your experiences are tainted from looking at the crow, which is certainly an aberration in the line. But the rest of them do not perform in the same role that tech 1 frigates are set to.

Quote:

---

So what exactly is the T1 cruiser setup that can overtake a 3.3km/s Jaguar? The Stabber with a full rack of overdrives can't even do it (it falls 100m/s short, and has half the agility).

---

Actually it has 66% of the agility in those fits. But use nano-fibers instead of OD's and you're only off a few hundred m/s and are more agile. But yea, there are edge cases where the one slightly useful AF has an advantage over one of the weaker cruisers. But these largely aren't happening all the time(which is to say when those things matter) and you're still up against the question of why not fly a tech 1 frigate if you want frigate speed, agility, and lock time and don't care about DPS or EHP?

Quote:

---

Apparently people are too stupid to figure out that 50%-100% includes the ship bonus

---

Yes, people tend to be too stupid to read your mind and know that you mean increasing the damage of the ships by 100% after all changes and not increasing the damage of the missiles by 100%(which has the same effect of increasing the damage of the ships 100%) when you give no hint or indication that that is what you're proposing.

Quote:

---

Finally, let's take a look at the effects of the proposed skill change on the market:

---

Actually you're likely to see an increase in demand for tech 2 items as lower skilled players substitute away from tech 1 and named items to tech 2(even substituting away from best named items to tech 2, something they would have done earlier based on cost). You're likely to see an increase in demand for best named and faction items as some people change their fits as available(or necessary) to use the weapons with the lower fitting. You're not likely to see huge shifts to best named weapons as best named weapons are often not necessary or beneficial in order to make efficient fits work.(which is to say it depends on the PG/CPU bound you're dealing with and often times that bound does not require the more scarce item).

You're much more likely to see faction weapons used however. T1 modules are already pretty much worthless(low-end named modules are dirt cheap and better in every way... including using for invention)and so cheap they don't really matter for t2 production costs... which won't have profitability problems because there will be no exodus from tech 2 equipment as you say.

I mean, on one hand you say that PVP will be more expensive unless you fly around in fail fits. On the other hand you say that tech 2 item prices will plummit. And weren't you saying earlier that you wanted module costs more a part of ship costs than hulls, or was that someone else?

Posted - 2010.04.22 07:24:00 - [76]

 

Originally by: Goumindong

---

]You have started from the position that there are OK short range cruisers.

---

Err, what? Please do not strawman me, I do not think that there are OK short range cruisers, all of them are dominated by the nanocane.

At most, there are some T1 cruisers that aren't terrible, if you are a newbie who is not able to use BCs yet. The Moa is not one of them.

Quote:

---

You started by saying that the Moa sucked because it did not stack up compared to other cruisers.

---

The Moa sucks compared to everything. It has poor dps, poor speed, a horrible slot layout (which results in poor tank), and no role.

Quote:

---

You do not get to, then say, that it sucks because it doesn't stack up to a BC.

---

Yes I do, because I didn't say it only sucks compared to T1 crusiers.

Quote:

---

The Moa, with the proposed changes, would be a decent short range cruiser. Not the best certainly, but it should not be so. Their relative competence, when they do have that secondary role of being engagible does matter.

---

No it is not. Your proposed Moa is utter trash that is slower than a nanocane, does less dps than a nanocane, has less range than a nanocane, has less tank than a nanocane, and has no gang mod. In fact, your proposed changes make things even worse for the short range Moa because you no longer have the "I can't use T2 ACs + barrage" excuse for flying one.

Quote:

---

I thought I did that well enough in the paper. If it is not enough for you, there ought to be a system that blunts the pain of choosing to fit for a small gang, but does not interfere with fitting for larger gangs when in larger gangs.

---

You spent all of one sentence on why focused fire is a problem at all, and it consists of "some people complain about focused fire". This is NOT the same thing as establishing that the problem is more than a few whiners.

Quote:

---

Read the paper. I am tired if having to re-iterate points that ought to have been clear. What part of the move from passive to active not meeting diminishing marginal returns was hard to comprehend? What part of "relative capacitor usage is such that optimal repping times can almost never be achieved" was hard to understand?

---

You can't have it both ways. Either:

1) Active tanking sucks, and I'm right that it's currently useless (for the listed reasons).

OR

2) Active tanking does not suck, in which case your "problem" does not exist.

Pick one or the other. You can't simultaneously argue that active tanking needs a boost and that active tanking is currently strong in small gangs (even if people don't understand it).

Quote:

---

No, it removes one skill level of training which equates to about 12.5% damage and a month of training. 12.5% damage is a big deal any way you look at it.

---

False dilemma. There is not a choice between 100% dps and 87.5% dps, the result will be 100% dps on one weapon system and 87.5% dps on everything else with a trivial amount of effort, removing the price of committing to a single race.

Is specialization still useful? Yes.

Does it make cross-training every possible ship way too easy? Yes.

Please address my actual point and don't just nitpick the difference between 90% and 87.5%.

Quote:

---

Threats matter in strategic systems, with no way to perceive if the threats are real or not(and they're almost always credible since they can always be executed) allowing cloaked ships total free reign amounts to securing the strategic advantage for cloaked ships always.

---

Yes, threats matter. Unfortunately the popular response to the threat of a cloaked ship is to whine on the forums and demand a cloak nerf instead of being prepared to deal with the cloaked ship.

The only "advantage" an AFK cloaked ship secures is the psychological advantage of carebears who are too afraid to undock without 100% safety.

Posted - 2010.04.22 07:42:00 - [78]

 

Quote:

---

No, i was fitting MWD's in those calculations. Lock time is the only one that can't be matched. Your did not propose that AFs had their speed modified.

---

AFs are already considerably faster and more agile than cruisers.

Quote:

---

Nor have you explained how this would not limit the role of interceptors or tech 1 frigates as i have explained. Your argument boils down to "nuh-uh".

---

Because interceptors are faster, lock faster, and half of them have range bonuses to warp disruptors. This makes interceptors the ideal pure tackler. If all you want is a pure tackler, an AF can not compete.

Quote:

---

With a 2x damage boost a light missile kestrel would do 172 DPS to 40km with no damage mods. It would do 210 dps with rockets. A crow would do 120 DPS to 60km with zero damage mods. Are you really sure this is "barely acceptable"?

---

Maybe "barely acceptable" is exaggerating a bit, but 150-200 dps is not really that much, especially once you include the damage reductions without web/painter (and good luck fitting those on missile frigates).


PS: nice job quoting the extreme high end of the range I proposed. Consider the 50% end of the range and things look a lot more reasonable.

Quote:

---

Actually it has 66% of the agility in those fits. But use nano-fibers instead of OD's and you're only off a few hundred m/s and are more agile. But yea, there are edge cases where the one slightly useful AF has an advantage over one of the weaker cruisers.

---

Yeah, you're right, it's an edge case, because we're talking about the fastest possible cruiser fitted purely for speed, which is faster than all other cruisers by a significant margin. Your claim about AFs not having a speed advantage is pure bull**** when the fastest possible cruiser can't even match a Jaguar.

Compare the average cruiser speed to the average AF speed and the AF wins easily.

Quote:

---

But these largely aren't happening all the time(which is to say when those things matter) and you're still up against the question of why not fly a tech 1 frigate if you want frigate speed, agility, and lock time and don't care about DPS or EHP?

---

Hint: a T1 frigate insta-pops when trying to tackle anything with good tracking/neuts/light drones/etc. An AF does not.


Yes, Rifters are good, but they don't do the job of an AF or interceptor.

Quote:

---

Yes, people tend to be too stupid to read your mind and know that you mean increasing the damage of the ships by 100% after all changes and not increasing the damage of the missiles by 100%(which has the same effect of increasing the damage of the ships 100%) when you give no hint or indication that that is what you're proposing.

---

Yeah, I mean, it's not like I included something about "depending on ship bonus changes" to suggest that I was talking about the net result of ship bonus + base stats, not just base stats.


Oh wait, I did.

Quote:

---

You're not likely to see huge shifts to best named weapons as best named weapons are often not necessary or beneficial in order to make efficient fits work.(which is to say it depends on the PG/CPU bound you're dealing with and often times that bound does not require the more scarce item).

---

What, can't you even keep track of your own proposal? Hint:

With tech 2 modules as our new baseline (whether you want them to be or not, they are), the requirements for fitting them need to be modified such that they are the same as tech 1 modules.

Posted - 2010.04.22 11:43:00 - [80]

 

Wow, this thread is really getting out of the hand, so i'll restrain myself to that one one point:

Originally by: Goumindong

---

If blaster boats require that other ships tackle for them. Why don't we just use ships that don't have to wait until the target is webbed and/or scrammed to get close, doesn't have to risk getting webbed and scrammed and doesn't have to open itself up to more types of weapons?

---

Well maybe because blasters are still the highest dps weapon system in game? And maybe you need this dps to, say, kill something before its aggression timer runs out and it simply redocks?
There are lots of ways to use blaster ships. I wouldnt say they dont need a little buff, but what you're done puts it over the edge.
After all... if you dont like that up close uber dps style, all races that use blasters have other ships with other playstyles, like Missile or Drone boats.

Posted - 2010.04.22 15:48:00 - [82]

 

Originally by: Taja Calaren

---

Well maybe because blasters are still the highest dps weapon system in game? And maybe you need this dps to, say, kill something before its aggression timer runs out and it simply redocks?

---

And if it takes 10 seconds for that ship to get into proper range and damage dealing speed you're better off using something that has ~15% less DPS but does that DPS instantly. (and you still have to deal with how much you might have a close call because of RF Fusion on a faster minmatar boat that is also ganked out)

THe ability to do DPS instantly has always been what lasers (and to a lesser extent AC's have been good for) and you cannot negate the time they deal DPS before another target gets in range as valuable

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Err, what? Please do not strawman me, I do not think that there are OK short range cruisers

---

Then what in the world were you complaining about?

Quote:

---

The Moa sucks compared to everything. It has poor dps, poor speed, a horrible slot layout (which results in poor tank), and no role.

---

You should look at the Moa again, it has one of the better tanks for tech 1 cruisers and while it doesn't do an amazing amount of DPS its not terrible.

Quote:

---

No it is not. Your proposed Moa is utter trash that is slower than a nanocane, does less dps than a nanocane, has less range than a nanocane, has less tank than a nanocane, and has no gang mod. In fact, your proposed changes make things even worse for the short range Moa because you no longer have the "I can't use T2 ACs + barrage" excuse for flying one.

---

So why do people fly ruptures? And why didn't you read the paper? The complaint you're discussing was already fleshed out.

Quote:

---

You spent all of one sentence on why focused fire is a problem at all, and it consists of "some people complain about focused fire". This is NOT the same thing as establishing that the problem is more than a few whiners.

---

And the second argument that you just quoted?

Quote:

---

You can't have it both ways. Either:

---

The system is not cut and dry Merin. There indeed can be problems with systems that have other aspects of them within a good tolerance.

Quote:

---

False dilemma. There is not a choice between 100% dps and 87.5% dps, the result will be 100% dps on one weapon system and 87.5% dps on everything else with a trivial amount of effort, removing the price of committing to a single race.

---

The price of committing to a single race will still be 12.5% damage.. and all the penalties for not having 5's in those races ship skills and all the penalties for not having other secondary systems trained up. Yea, this is not some end of the world scenario Merin. New players will simply be more competitive.

Quote:

---

Yes, threats matter. Unfortunately the popular response to the threat of a cloaked ship is to whine on the forums and demand a cloak nerf instead of being prepared to deal with the cloaked ship.

---

So, literally the problem is not that cloaks aren't overpowered. The problem is that people discuss this fact on the forum?

Posted - 2010.04.22 15:49:00 - [84]

 

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

AFs are already considerably faster and more agile than cruisers.

---

One of them is decently faster than cruisers.

Quote:

---

Because interceptors are faster, lock faster, and half of them have range bonuses to warp disruptors. This makes interceptors the ideal pure tackler. If all you want is a pure tackler, an AF can not compete.

---

This makes tackle inties the ideal tackler. Not combat inties. They are different beasts. One is a set of ships designed to get initial tackles and hold it until others arrive. One is a set of ships designed to kill frigates. Those are the ones with short lock ranges, low med slots, tracking and damage bonuses.

Quote:

---

Maybe "barely acceptable" is exaggerating a bit, but 150-200 dps is not really that much, especially once you include the damage reductions without web/painter (and good luck fitting those on missile frigates).

---

150-200 DPS is actually a whole lot. Especially considering we're not fitting damage mods yet and considering that the damage they do do is not nearly as reduced as you claim it is. These aren't torps.

Quote:

---

Your claim about AFs not having a speed advantage is pure bull**** when the fastest possible cruiser can't even match a Jaguar.

---

Yes, the fastest cruiser is not faster than the fastest AF.(but is as agile). It is however faster than all the other AFs.

Quote:

---

Hint: a T1 frigate insta-pops when trying to tackle anything with good tracking/neuts/light drones/etc. An AF does not.

---

Maybe you should fit a tank then?

Quote:

---

What, can't you even keep track of your own proposal? Hint:

With tech 2 modules as our new baseline (whether you want them to be or not, they are), the requirements for fitting them need to be modified such that they are the same as tech 1 modules.

---

Yes, and i am not sure what you are seeing that has these two points contradict each other. If you modify the requisite skills for tech 2 modules to be the same as tech 1. Those people who previously were using tech 1 will want to use tech 2. This is an increase in demand for tech 2 modules. There are some people who will stop using tech 2 modules and will start using other modules like best named weapons.

But the incidence of that depends not on some raw factor, but on the final ship fitting. If there are serious gains to be had from moving to best named then that will happen. But largely there are not serious gains to be had from moving to best named(sometimes yes, other times no) which means that that shift to best named modules will not be some massive shift.

You're were complaining that tech 2 demand was going to plummet and best named demand was going to skyrocket(and then saying it was going to be expensive to buy a non-fail fit). I was responding to that prediction and correcting is assumptions

Posted - 2010.04.22 17:24:00 - [86]

 

Originally by: Ophelia Ursus

---

Why are you acting as though the Stabber and its faction/t2 derivatives are in any way representative of cruisers as a whole? The Harpy is the slowest AF, and does 2.2-ish km/s with an MWD before speed mods/heat/implants. Unlike your ridiculous triple nano Stabber, it doesn't need to sacrifice all its tank and DPS to achieve this either. What non-Stabber T1 cruiser can match that?

---

Irrelevant if it still has more tank and DPS than the AF. Final values matter. Oh, and and the Bellicose can.

Posted - 2010.04.22 18:23:00 - [88]

 

Originally by: Ophelia Ursus

---

A dualprop AF

---

So in order to be valuable you need to be able to dual prop your AF? MWD/AB/pt doesn't leave room for anything but an armor tank(unless you have 4 meds) and in that case your speed falls (and frankly its unlikely your EHP will ever get close to the a cruisers.

The point that you're failing to connect is that the AF is just as bad as you claim the cruiser is. With a dual prop you cannot dictate range against a cruiser that has an MWD unless you have 4 meds or a 2pt. With a 2 pt you give up that fast locking/scram advantage because you have to close the distance to the target before you can point anyway. With either you're armor tanking and slowing yourself down even more. If you decide against that then you cannot dictate range as the other ship MWD's away and pops you and the higher RAW EHP of the Stabber/Bellicose is more advantageous(as is the longer range and higher DPS).

At the end of the day you're still looking at one OK AF in the Jag. If you buff them in raw values except speed you will do almost nothing. If you buff their speed and other attributes such that they are super-frigates then you get in the way of the role of the assault interceptors.

The advantages of the AF compared to cruisers rely on other ships attempting to cover other roles.

Quote:

---

Do you actually understand or play the game you're trying to rewrite? Or are you just completely incapable of conceding a point with good grace?

---

Look, I have said that there are edge cases where AFs have advantages, me disagreeing that those edge cases are absolute as you claim is not me being wrong on the issue. Its fine that there are edge cases where one AF isn't terrible, the question is not just that, the question is also what role do they play and how does that role affect everything else.

You keep insisting that since there is an AF that doesn't entirely suck that demands that AF's be boosted to the speed and agility of the tech 1 frigates* but keep not saying anything about what effect that will have on the game and why people flying those ships might be bad for the other ships that are already properly designed. If there are problems with my argument as to why this would not happen, i would love to hear it, but, like Merin, you seem to simply say "nuh-uh" whenever these issues are brought up.

The long and short of it is this. If you boost AFs to be useful in non-specialized roles then you need to re-write combat inties to other roles. If you keep combat inties in their current roles you need to give AF's other roles. Frankly given the number of AFs and harm it can do to regular tech 1 frigates, it think its better to give the new roles to AF rather than combat inties.

*Or whereever there are a number of proposals on the table, some that leave AF's being terrible, some that require the rewrite of combat interceptors.

Posted - 2010.04.22 20:25:00 - [90]

 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 22/04/2010 20:28:23
Also, there whole argument about them stepping on toes of combat interceptors is a joke.

Have you missed anything about the part where combat interceptors have a sig penalty reduction? A AF to have a similar damage reduction while running a long point in 20km orbit would have to go roughly 14.000m/s, not to mention that it would have a much harder time permarunning the whole sha-bang because of something called a -80% activation cost bonus on propulsion jamming modules.

On the upside, it can take a lot more droning to shake it off.

The only really valid observation you can glean from your document is that the tier system is bad and needs to go since it really does not make sense in today's eve. The rest is just your personal vision for EVE. It's nice you have one, sure. However, the burden of proving conclusively that:
(a) Problems which you intend to fix exist
(b) Your fix indeed fixes them
are on you, and you are not doing a stellar job convicing people.