|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tornii
Infinite Point DARKNESS.
78
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 19:11:33 -
[1] - Quote
In a clear demonstration of how tricky the EVE ship balancing structure is, the interceptor bubble immunity and the recent introduction of tactical destroyers have pushed the assault frigate class to the brink of complete uselessness. Their MWD role bonus counts for nothing now, and they have no niche role, which - in the complicated system that involves so many ships of similar performance - is the only way to make all ships more or less worthwhile.
So, I believe some advanced brainstorming on ideas to make this ship class viable again would be welcome and timely. I hope to see suggestions based on reasoning, i.e. what would give AFs a unique role and encourage pilots to pick them over other ships, while also not dissuading people from bringing other ships - for their own unique roles - to fleets?
I will contribute with my own ideas in a subsequent post in this thread.
P.S. I searched for recent threads on assault frigs but the only one that's still open for replies was exclusively on their comparison to HACs, while this thread I hope will serve a broader discussion.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point DARKNESS.
78
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 16:33:52 -
[2] - Quote
I looked through suggestions and one recurring theme is the "AFs are fine, they can sand up to X" comment. While that might (or might not) be true, the point is that the AFs are TII ship class and should thus feature a specialised niche role at which they would excel and for which they would be picked for fleets over other ships by some pilots.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point
78
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 18:50:23 -
[3] - Quote
So, my reasoning while exploring what could become a a distinctive role for AFs was as follows: their special role can't be either tackle (that's an already overcrowded niche with ceptors being light tackle, recons being long-range tackle and HICs being heavy tackle) or DPS/range (that cuts into destroyers' territory, especially with that class having only recently reclaimed the anti-support role, plus the TDs having their own say in the damage/range area).
With EWAR role also occupied by other specialised ships, the only idea I could think of was to make AFs specialised anti-big ship brawling type. How about giving them reduced received neut+web bonus that would enable AFs to maintain their cap and speed tank against cruisers, BCs and BSs? That would make the ship class live up to its title.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point
78
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 19:22:30 -
[4] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote:...the only idea I could think of was to make AFs specialised anti-big ship brawling type. How about giving them reduced received neut+web bonus that would enable AFs to maintain their cap and speed tank against cruisers, BCs and BSs? That would make the ship class live up to its title. Their current role is pretty much as you already describe imo, the only issue is that tactical destroyers do it much better. Increasing the signature of tactical destroyers will mean bigger ships will have an easier time hitting them, and then that will mean that AFs will once again become the preferred ship for this role helped with the addition of an AB bonus. I can't recall AFs being efficient in anti-big ship role with all the medium/heavy neuts and webs the latter carry. Both while using AFs myself and seeing other people go up against bigger ships equipped with neuts/webs, I have always seen one outcome, and that was never in favour of the AFs.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
78
|
Posted - 2015.12.13 06:59:04 -
[5] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships. Excuse me but you keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 09:21:21 -
[6] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote:Moac Tor wrote:With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships. You keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM. "completely negated by neuts and webs" Not at all, unless your facing a 90% or dual webbed battleships which isn't common, then AFs are not completely negated. And heavy nuets have such a long cycle time they are easy for AFs to counter. Again, lots of theory while practice shows something else. Pilots of big ships have long understood it's better to have medium neuts for negating frigate threat, or mix different sized neuts for timing their activation in a way that keeps frigates capless, and helpless. And a single web combined with neuts and drones is more than enough to negate any chance of possible threat from small ships. That is why I suggested the reduced neut/web effect on AFs as a way of making them worthwhile and giving them a viable niche role.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 16:09:46 -
[7] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote:Moac Tor wrote:With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships. You keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM. "completely negated by neuts and webs" Not at all, unless your facing a 90% or dual webbed battleships which isn't common, then AFs are not completely negated. And heavy nuets have such a long cycle time they are easy for AFs to counter. Again, lots of theory while practice shows something else. Pilots of big ships have long understood it's better to have medium neuts for negating frigate threat, or mix different sized neuts for timing their activation in a way that keeps frigates capless, and helpless. And a single web combined with neuts and drones is more than enough to negate any chance of possible threat from small ships. That is why I suggested the reduced neut/web effect on AFs as a way of making them worthwhile and giving them a viable niche role. The amount of cap drained is practically irrelevant for a frigate, it is the cycle time of the neut that really hurts. It is very easy to counter medium and heavy neuts in a small ship (unless they have a lot of stagger them or have a bonus to cycle time such as a talisman implants). You don't seem to understand basic stuff though so nothing personal but you really shouldn't be commenting on assault frigate balance. Excuse me but you just spent an entire effort of that post to point out something already referred to (now highlighted) in my previous comment, i.e. the fact that multiple neuts spread out and timed at various points mean frigate caps are constantly drained. Nothing personal but all you've done so far is waste your own time and mine reiterating theoretical frigate performance data to suggest it makes them viable against big ships while practical application of their counters proves that to be false.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 07:32:04 -
[8] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote:Excuse me but you just spent an entire effort of that post to point out something already referred to (now highlighted) in my previous comment, i.e. the fact that multiple neuts spread out and timed at various points mean frigate caps are constantly drained. Nothing personal but all you've done so far is waste your own time and mine reiterating theoretical frigate performance data to suggest it makes them viable against big ships while practical application of their counters proves that to be false. So then why were you suggesting that AFs should have a nuet resistance if you, as you now claim to understand, that neut amount negligible compared to the neut cycle time. Are you suggesting the AF should slow down the targets neut cycle time? No, and I was pretty clear about what I meant from the beginning. But okay, I'll do this one more time.
I suggested bonus to AFs for received neut/web effect because I said neuts on big ships ruined AF chances against them; when you pointed out large neuts had long cycle time and thus AFs could counter them for quick cap regen, I pointed out that large ship pilots have long known that and used combinations of small+medium or 2x medium neuts with varying activation times to keep AF caps dry. My suggestion would counter this by making the amount drained by neuts from AFs lower, thus allowing AFs to keep their caps alive (even in cases of neut combinations stated above) for staying alive while fighting bigger ships.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 14:39:37 -
[9] - Quote
Now this is getting ridiculous.
Moac Tor wrote:As others in this thread have also pointed out, neuts are not a major problem Page 1: post 1, post 2 - both indicate the AF vulnerability to neuts I mentioned. Just because you saw a third post suggesting otherwise doesn't mean you should start making false statements in the hope that nobody will check their validity.
Moac Tor wrote:unless you are facing multiple neuts staggered Multiple=more than one. And 2x neuts staggered in activation is exactly what I have been mentioning for the last three or more replies now.
Moac Tor wrote:there are only a very small number of BS and BC that tend to fit enough neuts to bother an AF Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.
You don't like my idea - I have no issues with that. But please stop skipping/twisting my points or creating theories suiting your agenda.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 20:40:26 -
[10] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Tornii wrote: Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.
Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers. I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently.
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle. As I already mentioned, the tackle role is already overpopulated. We have ceptors as light tackle, recons as long range tackle and HICs as heavy tackle (plus the Keres long tackle option). AFs need their own specialised role, which is why I raised the idea of reduced neut/web effect. And if you think that's a gimmick, by that logic half of all EVE ships have gimmick bonuses.
Thank you for your contribution to this pool of ideas though.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
83
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 06:24:49 -
[11] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote:maybe in 0.0 they are dead. but who plays there anyways. Even if nullsec was empty (which it isn't, and I could invite you to Querious to bear witness to that) that would still be a very poor argument against fixing a ship class for all usages.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
83
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 08:45:19 -
[12] - Quote
Otso Bakarti wrote:having far too many classes of ships to do very few things is the source of any and all imbalance. Well said. Even if TDs get nerfed in terms of sig radius /speed /etc they're still fundamentally in the similar role as AFs, and that is the issue in my opinion. It's similar to how nobody (maybe apart from FW players who find themselves in artificially limited terms of ship classes they can choose) even remembers the existence of T1 destroyers now as three other destroyer classes are there for the choosing. And they're so simple and quick to train for the T1 versions can't even claim a 'training and preparation' role for themselves. It's understandable CCP feel they need to keep bringing new ships to draw players in with juicy announcements but that also makes other ships obsolete unless you make them distinctive via specific, unique, niche roles.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
83
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 17:23:36 -
[13] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:You seem to percieve less assault ships in the space you are flying in than you are used to see. Now let me quote a saying that you might have heard not in EVE but here it goes, "out of sight, out of mind". While I agree on the general phenomenon of perception you described, you can come to nullsec any time and count how many AFs you encounter on the way. And I'm not even talking about chances of AFs to get into roaming/ops fleet compositions of corps and alliances.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
|
|
|