Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Reduce EAF Signature Radius with Destroyer Buff

Author
Prometheus Bird
#1 - 2011-11-08 13:48:22 UTC
Really simple; with destroyers getting reduced signature radii, they are basically the same size as Electronic Attack Frigates. This doesn't make much sense (I've seen a sentinel in space right next to a thrasher, and they are not even close to the same size).

Apologies of these are incorrect, but last I checked the new sig rads will be:

Catalyst: 65
Coercer: 62
Comorant: 68
Trasher: 56

Compare these to the signature radii of the existing EAFS (and their T1 equivalents):

Keres: 55, (t1- maulus, 48)
Sentinel: 53 (t1- crucible, 46)
Kitsune: 58 (t1- griffin, 50)
Hyena: 51 (t1- vigil, 44-- this one is really unfair since one of the bonuses is 3% sig radius as well).

Please fix this up, it means these little guys (which are probably the least tanked ships in the game) are basically the same sie as destroyers.


Amarr Empire
#2 - 2011-11-08 14:02:34 UTC
also boost their tank , and maybe give drone immunity to them
The Revenant Order
#3 - 2011-11-08 15:45:04 UTC
A reduction in their sig radius, boost to speed, and boost to resists would make the forgotten Electronic Attack Ship a viable option for Frigate gangs.

+1

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#4 - 2011-11-10 06:41:30 UTC
+1

ANY boost to EAFs is a good thing at this point.

It knows what you think.

Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-11-10 22:21:27 UTC
Yeah EAF's are the little orphan children of EVE and have been for sometime.

Supported.
Ivy League
#6 - 2011-11-10 23:17:28 UTC
And given that their focus is electronic warfare... kind of makes sense that they would have better control over their signature radius.
#7 - 2011-11-11 02:07:47 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
And given that their focus is electronic warfare... kind of makes sense that they would have better control over their signature radius.


So can recons have a smaller sig too? Bellicose sig ~110, Rapier sig ~130 iirc

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Ivy League
#8 - 2011-11-11 02:38:20 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
And given that their focus is electronic warfare... kind of makes sense that they would have better control over their signature radius.


So can recons have a smaller sig too? Bellicose sig ~110, Rapier sig ~130 iirc


As a fellow recon pilot, I could get behind that - but I'd rather see the EAFs get some love (we have other tricks up our sleeves as recon pilots).
#9 - 2011-11-11 03:15:32 UTC
Supported. EAF's are a dead-end skill (not needed for progression to another hull), are seen as generally poor ships, and too expensive for what they do. Anything done to change this is for the better.
Prometheus Bird
#10 - 2011-11-16 13:02:55 UTC
Woo.
The-Culture
#11 - 2011-11-16 17:04:08 UTC
Because of Falcon --> Because of EAF...

I'm ok with that!
#12 - 2011-11-17 18:07:58 UTC
After a few long discussions with friends, I have been swayed to the idea that CCP would do better to increase the benefit and number of places where EAF's are the only available Recon-type ship, rather than trying to force EAF's into general purpose boats.

The former creates more player driven content. The latter creates more balance headaches and whine threads.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Mercenary Coalition
#13 - 2011-11-17 19:24:27 UTC
Sig radius isn't the same as physical size, and if you have lots of EM emissions (hint: 'Electronic attack')...

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Prometheus Bird
#14 - 2011-11-18 13:51:23 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
After a few long discussions with friends, I have been swayed to the idea that CCP would do better to increase the benefit and number of places where EAF's are the only available Recon-type ship, rather than trying to force EAF's into general purpose boats.

The former creates more player driven content. The latter creates more balance headaches and whine threads.



I don't get how they'd do this? The only thing I could think of is making them immune to bubbles?
Caldari State
#15 - 2011-11-18 18:23:16 UTC
Prometheus Bird wrote:


Compare these to the signature radii of the existing EAFS (and their T1 equivalents):

Keres: 55, (t1- maulus, 48)
Sentinel: 53 (t1- crucible, 46)
Kitsune: 58 (t1- griffin, 50)
Hyena: 51 (t1- vigil, 44-- this one is really unfair since one of the bonuses is 3% sig radius as well).



Which idiot dev came up with this garbage?

Whoever it was, fire him and biomass any offspring.

Also, do what the op said.
Shadow Cartel
#16 - 2011-12-05 01:01:50 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
After a few long discussions with friends, I have been swayed to the idea that CCP would do better to increase the benefit and number of places where EAF's are the only available Recon-type ship, rather than trying to force EAF's into general purpose boats.

The former creates more player driven content. The latter creates more balance headaches and whine threads.


Ah, a very interesting idea here. This would be a good fit to tie in with Faction Warfare plex revamping, since that is the principle they operate under - control fleet composition, and you give a chance for smaller ships to become much more significant.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Forum Jump