EVE Search - Assault Frigates....

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Assault Frigates....

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
The Economist Logically Consistent 23	Posted - 2016.03.09 12:19:01 - [1] - Quote Assault frigates. What is the game design philosophy and is there one? Slightly loathe to mention them due to the current era of frigates online and my personal desire for more focus on making bigger ships relevant again...but...the poor little things just can't stop getting swept under the rug it seems, so let's restart a conversation. Loooong overdue a re-design in the eyes of many; do they, in your opinion still have any role or relevance? Do they have a niche that they fit better than the other myriad options? With the addition of tactical destroyers have they gone from underwhelming to utterly obsolete? Why do they exist? What would you change?
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 767	Posted - 2016.03.09 13:41:36 - [2] - Quote In a time long ago and a galaxy far far away they were relevant, and then CCP gave us the new T3 destroyers instantly wiping out most of the usefulness of an entire class of ships. Then they had the brilliant idea that we needed another class of ships called the command destroyers making them even less relevant. Essentially with the changes to older hulls and the recent additions it is hard to see how or where CCP can find a niche, or a role for the AF that other ships cannot do as well if not better. Which makes me wonder if they even care about the AF class anymore.
Rovinia Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 466	Posted - 2016.03.09 14:50:31 - [3] - Quote Assault Frigats and Heavy Assault Cruisers have the same problem: The T3 Lines of their class. The problem is it doesn't makes sense to start a powercreep here. They need a unique selling point. To give them their own niche, i would like to see some sort of E-War immunity in this line. Higher Sensorstrenght or some of the new E-War resists for better defence (The HAC allready has a higher sensorstrenght, but it's not enough), 50% Web immunity, Afterburner bonuses to make them less affected to scrams, etc. Off course not all of that, but something in that direction.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 511	Posted - 2016.03.09 15:52:18 - [4] - Quote Rovinia wrote: Assault Frigats and Heavy Assault Cruisers have the same problem: The T3 Lines of their class. The problem is it doesn't makes sense to start a powercreep between AF's and T3 destroyers. The Assault Frigate needs a unique selling point. To give them their own niche, i would like to see some sort of E-War immunity in this line. Higher Sensorstrenght or some of the new E-War resists for better defence, 50% Web immunity, Afterburner bonuses to make them less affected to scrams, etc. Off course not all of that, but something in that direction. Along with HAC's, this could be very interesting. If I had to choose from what you'd listed, I'd pair very high sensor strength with web resistance. That'd give them a niche survival ability. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Wimzy Chent-Shi Unkindness Incorporated Who Dares Wins. 41	Posted - 2016.03.11 12:11:06 - [5] - Quote But they have singular use over t3d = burner missions +ùD Others call me weak for not condescendingly speaking to plebs, but they are those speaking to plebs at all fortunately only those in "imperium" are plebs.
Estella Osoka Perkone Caldari State 1125	Posted - 2016.03.11 15:03:51 - [6] - Quote Wimzy Chent-Shi wrote: But they have singular use over t3d = burner missions +ùD No, actually the pirate frigs usually work better. For instance, the Daredevil, the Garmur, the Succubus, and the Worm.
Templar Dane Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica 377	Posted - 2016.03.11 16:49:30 - [7] - Quote AFs got buffed a long time ago. They were used, they were everywhere. But then the rest of tiericide happened. Tech 1 frigates got buffed so the gap between them grew smaller. Though the real death knell of the AF was buffing tech 1 destroyers. Tech 1 destroyers got a big ehp buff, and then lost their 25% rof penalty, and then got fitting adjustments for bigger guns/tank.
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 220	Posted - 2016.03.11 18:41:42 - [8] - Quote I purposes similar features for AFs like last year It would be nice to see them - Have resist vs EW, have immunity to the turning off of their MWD via Scram (scram still prevents warping) higher resist/agility per their racial strengths and scan strength. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 14675	Posted - 2016.03.11 18:44:34 - [9] - Quote they're still fantastic at fighting up a couple of weight classes, cruisers and up are what im used to attacking with them but as mentioned t3d's will go through you for a shortcut Better the Devil you know. =]\|[=
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives 11203	Posted - 2016.03.11 22:43:44 - [10] - Quote I see... Another moustachio contender enters the arena. Ready your tins of wax and tiny brushes narrows eyes Got a HoleySheet1 corpse? I'll buy it for 200m! Bumble's Space Log
Rovinia Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 469	Posted - 2016.03.12 00:41:32 - [11] - Quote Bumblefck wrote: I see... Another moustachio contender enters the arena. Ready your tins of wax and tiny brushes narrows eyes And so it started... The great mustachio war of our time....
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17510	Posted - 2016.03.12 01:46:39 - [12] - Quote The best buff AF can get is for T3D to be savagely beaten with the nerf bat until they become destroyers.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 760	Posted - 2016.03.12 03:51:54 - [13] - Quote Rovinia wrote: Assault Frigats and Heavy Assault Cruisers have the same problem: The T3 Lines of their class. The problem is it doesn't makes sense to start a powercreep between AF's and T3 destroyers. The Assault Frigate needs a unique selling point. To give them their own niche, i would like to see some sort of E-War immunity in this line. Higher Sensorstrenght or some of the new E-War resists for better defence, 50% Web immunity, Afterburner bonuses to make them less affected to scrams, etc. Off course not all of that, but something in that direction. This comes up often, and I don't think its a good idea. It forces BC and BS to take another one in the chin for an imbalance on the small ship level. AF already work well against larger ships, its the dessie/frigate meta where they flounder a bit. With your proposal to make AF good, you're basically nerfing anything larger than a destroyer doing it. EWAR immunity/resistance makes them an even bigger headache to deal with when in larger ships than a frigate/dessie. Cruisers may not be as affected, but things like BC's and BS will suffer even more than they do now. We need more reasons to fly ships larger than dessies, not less. What AF's need is just a solid balance pass with fitting, cap, minor speed buffs and a few need some trait tweaking. Otherwise, there are still some fairly solid AF fits out there that still work in the current meta (enyo, harpy, hawk, vengeance). Even some oddball ones like small shield extender 280mm jaguar can contend with things like raildevils, or be a very strong scram kiter. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Lugh Crow-Slave 1704	Posted - 2016.03.12 04:07:21 - [14] - Quote Bumblefck wrote: I see... Another moustachio contender enters the arena. Ready your tins of wax and tiny brushes narrows eyes worry not he has nothing on you or your stash Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1704	Posted - 2016.03.12 04:09:20 - [15] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Rovinia wrote: Assault Frigats and Heavy Assault Cruisers have the same problem: The T3 Lines of their class. The problem is it doesn't makes sense to start a powercreep between AF's and T3 destroyers. The Assault Frigate needs a unique selling point. To give them their own niche, i would like to see some sort of E-War immunity in this line. Higher Sensorstrenght or some of the new E-War resists for better defence, 50% Web immunity, Afterburner bonuses to make them less affected to scrams, etc. Off course not all of that, but something in that direction. This comes up often, and I don't think its a good idea. It forces BC and BS to take another one in the chin for an imbalance on the small ship level. AF already work well against larger ships, its the dessie/frigate meta where they flounder a bit. With your proposal to make AF good, you're basically nerfing anything larger than a destroyer doing it. EWAR immunity/resistance makes them an even bigger headache to deal with when in larger ships than a frigate/dessie. Cruisers may not be as affected, but things like BC's and BS will suffer even more than they do now. We need more reasons to fly ships larger than dessies, not less. What AF's need is just a solid balance pass with fitting, cap, minor speed buffs and a few need some trait tweaking. Otherwise, there are still some fairly solid AF fits out there that still work in the current meta (enyo, harpy, hawk, vengeance). Even some oddball ones like small shield extender 280mm jaguar can contend with things like raildevils, or be a very strong scram kiter. upping the sig of t3ds would also go along way make them kings when it comes to killing small ships but make them vulnerable to cruisers that opens a niche for the AFs Citadel worm hole tax
Corvald Tyrska Dha'Vargar 83	Posted - 2016.03.12 08:21:40 - [16] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: upping the sig of t3ds would also go along way make them kings when it comes to killing small ships but make them vulnerable to cruisers that opens a niche for the AFs Well if the goal is to make them good choices against cruisers then they could always go the attack battlecruiser style and let them fit medium guns with a trait for the hull to reduce the fitting levels. This would give an interesting niche to most of them (except the Wolf and Jaguar as medium projectiles suck except on stupidly bonused hulls) but personally I would rather see their focus be on frigate/destroyer rather than cruiser and up. There isn't really an easy niche for them at the frigate/destroyer level that isn't going to step on the toes of other ships. Maybe a niche around heavy tanking i.e. large bonuses to active self repping with a larger than usual base armour/shield value? Either that or buff their signature radius down. The real question is though are Assault Frigates really outclassed by T3 Destroyers in general or are they just outclassed by Svipuls? Maybe the best fix is the nerf the over performing ship.
The Economist Logically Consistent 25	Posted - 2016.03.15 11:09:10 - [17] - Quote EW or scram resists are interesting ideas for giving a unique flavour. Doesn't feel like the winner, but at least we're talking about them again!
Kaldi Tsukaya Deveron Shipyards and Technology 235	Posted - 2016.03.16 04:41:21 - [18] - Quote Of the possibilities listed in the OP, I would go with the AB buff. This gives the hull a niche that exists in only a few hulls and helps the surviveability that is a hallmark of the ship class. It augments the existing strengths of the class without power creep. Additionally ALL the AF should get 3 mid slots minimum (I'm glaring at you Mr Retribution).
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1501	Posted - 2016.03.16 04:53:25 - [19] - Quote Give them frigate-like agility for starters. AF's and EAF's could really do with an agility buff. Do not run. We are your friends.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 856	Posted - 2016.03.16 15:41:34 - [20] - Quote You know, it's funny; I had questioned whether Freighters needed that 33% structure resist buff every ship got when the proposed DC changes were posted by CCP. I wonder if the T3D's should have to give that up when not in defensive mode, or if they should have them at all. Not sure how much of a deference that would be, admittedly I have no experience fighting in them (save for running some sites in a Jackdaw) nor against them. Of course, I also still wonder what the whole point of T3D's are; seems like CCP literally decapitated so many ships with them just for ***** and giggles. Also, out of curiosity, do people switch modes mid-fight a lot or do they usually show up for a fight using one one mode ever? "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Kiddoomer Deep Space Exploitation Federal United Battalion of Armed Renegades 101	Posted - 2016.03.16 20:06:48 - [21] - Quote Something that I would like to see, not sure if OP though, would be a resistance to scrambler for the use of MWD. Or a bonus to AB as suggested. A survey scanner tweak and new mining methods: interactive mining
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2367	Posted - 2016.03.16 21:36:45 - [22] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: You know, it's funny; I had questioned whether Freighters needed that 33% structure resist buff every ship got when the proposed DC changes were posted by CCP. I wonder if the T3D's should have to give that up when not in defensive mode, or if they should have them at all. Not sure how much of a deference that would be, admittedly I have no experience fighting in them (save for running some sites in a Jackdaw) nor against them. Of course, I also still wonder what the whole point of T3D's are; seems like CCP literally decapitated so many ships with them just for ***** and giggles. Also, out of curiosity, do people switch modes mid-fight a lot or do they usually show up for a fight using one one mode ever? I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode. The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Kaldi Tsukaya Deveron Shipyards and Technology 236	Posted - 2016.03.17 01:18:26 - [23] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode. The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous. Changing modes while holding a gate cloak is cancer.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 858	Posted - 2016.03.17 01:43:45 - [24] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: You know, it's funny; I had questioned whether Freighters needed that 33% structure resist buff every ship got when the proposed DC changes were posted by CCP. I wonder if the T3D's should have to give that up when not in defensive mode, or if they should have them at all. Not sure how much of a deference that would be, admittedly I have no experience fighting in them (save for running some sites in a Jackdaw) nor against them. Of course, I also still wonder what the whole point of T3D's are; seems like CCP literally decapitated so many ships with them just for ***** and giggles. Also, out of curiosity, do people switch modes mid-fight a lot or do they usually show up for a fight using one one mode ever? I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode. The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous. What would you feel about CCP changing the sub mode from the "shield booster" method to the "armor repper" method, where the stats don't flip at the moment you change modes, but rather change effectively at the end of the cool down? It's an old idea I presented before back when people raged about the Confessor and later the Svipul being problematic. I had hoped it would make it possible to sort of catch a T3D with its pants down if it happens to start the engagement in the wrong mode rather than be the instant drop-of-the-hat advantage it is now. Reducing the agility in speed mode sounds like another solid move. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2368	Posted - 2016.03.17 04:01:43 - [25] - Quote Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode. The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous. Changing modes while holding a gate cloak is cancer. That's true too... CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2368	Posted - 2016.03.17 04:02:34 - [26] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: You know, it's funny; I had questioned whether Freighters needed that 33% structure resist buff every ship got when the proposed DC changes were posted by CCP. I wonder if the T3D's should have to give that up when not in defensive mode, or if they should have them at all. Not sure how much of a deference that would be, admittedly I have no experience fighting in them (save for running some sites in a Jackdaw) nor against them. Of course, I also still wonder what the whole point of T3D's are; seems like CCP literally decapitated so many ships with them just for ***** and giggles. Also, out of curiosity, do people switch modes mid-fight a lot or do they usually show up for a fight using one one mode ever? I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode. The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous. What would you feel about CCP changing the sub mode from the "shield booster" method to the "armor repper" method, where the stats don't flip at the moment you change modes, but rather change effectively at the end of the cool down? It's an old idea I presented before back when people raged about the Confessor and later the Svipul being problematic. I had hoped it would make it possible to sort of catch a T3D with its pants down if it happens to start the engagement in the wrong mode rather than be the instant drop-of-the-hat advantage it is now. Reducing the agility in speed mode sounds like another solid move. I would totally support this adjustment. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Kaldi Tsukaya Deveron Shipyards and Technology 237	Posted - 2016.03.17 04:05:43 - [27] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: You know, it's funny; I had questioned whether Freighters needed that 33% structure resist buff every ship got when the proposed DC changes were posted by CCP. I wonder if the T3D's should have to give that up when not in defensive mode, or if they should have them at all. Not sure how much of a deference that would be, admittedly I have no experience fighting in them (save for running some sites in a Jackdaw) nor against them. Of course, I also still wonder what the whole point of T3D's are; seems like CCP literally decapitated so many ships with them just for ***** and giggles. Also, out of curiosity, do people switch modes mid-fight a lot or do they usually show up for a fight using one one mode ever? I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode. The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous. What would you feel about CCP changing the sub mode from the "shield booster" method to the "armor repper" method, where the stats don't flip at the moment you change modes, but rather change effectively at the end of the cool down? It's an old idea I presented before back when people raged about the Confessor and later the Svipul being problematic. I had hoped it would make it possible to sort of catch a T3D with its pants down if it happens to start the engagement in the wrong mode rather than be the instant drop-of-the-hat advantage it is now. Reducing the agility in speed mode sounds like another solid move. I would totally support this adjustment. +1 You should propose this in it's own thread.
Skyler Hawk The Tuskers The Tuskers Co. 73	Posted - 2016.03.17 12:09:15 - [28] - Quote As a class, AFs have two big problems: they're too slow, and they don't have a clearly defined role. The slowness can be fixed easily; simply adjust their base speed and mass/agility so they're around 5-10% slower and less agile than the corresponding combat frigates, in the same way that HACs are when compared to the corresponding T1 cruisers. For the unique role, I'd suggest borrowing a trick from T3Ds and giving them two operating modes that influence the way afterburners work. In normal mode, ABs would function exactly as they do now; in overdrive mode, they would behave like MWDs in terms of speed boost, sig bloom, and cap consumption. Getting scrammed would disable overdrive mode and force the ship into normal mode. That helps AFs to function as heavy tacklers by giving them both the speed to run down fast larger ships and a boost to sigtanking once they've landed tackle without infringing on the Sansha role of superfast afterburners or creating all the balance problems that would go along with making them immune or resistant to ewar/neuting.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 953	Posted - 2016.03.17 13:03:52 - [29] - Quote Give them 50% ewar immunity, that would make them relevant again. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 861	Posted - 2016.03.17 20:04:20 - [30] - Quote Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: +1 You should propose this in it's own thread. Gonna be out of town for the weekend (family stuffs), so if you guys want to pitch the idea and run a separate discussion on it in the mean time, feel free to. If not, I can shoot the idea up myself, but it might be next week before I can do so. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,05s, ref 20251003/1211
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.