| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Verdis deMosays
The Gold Angels
Sixth Empire
129
   |
Posted - 2017.07.14 17:35:58 -
[1] - Quote
I've been considering some changes which would help revitalize the assault frigate class, and think I've come up with a solution.
My idea is a highslot module with minimal fittings called an Assault Field Generator. Usable only by assault Frigates, it would function as a stasis web with a range of 10km T1, and 12km T2, and project a -60% speed field around the frigate using it. This would allow assault frigs an extra midslot for ewar, which in cases like the wolf and retribution would go a long way to revitalizing the ships due to their two mids.
A further role is having it scriptable to nullify bubbles and dictor probes within range, at the expense of the web effect. This would allow Assault Frigates to have a unique role by nullifying the warp disruption effect as long as they stayed in range of the probe or mobile disruptor. A fleet attacking another which is deploying defensive bubbles could give themselves a path through the bubbles by using assault frigs to open a hole they could warp through.
In lowsec, where bubbles are not a concern, having aor webbing could do a lot to slow down fast gangs, at the expense of having the web generator being relatively fragile.
I think this could revitalize AFs,which have fallen behind the curve dramatically since the introduction of T3Ds.
Thoughts would be appreciated, but I think we all agree AFs need a new role, since T3Ds made them essentially redundant. |
Perkutor Jakuard
Los violentos de Kenny
13
|
Posted - 2017.07.16 15:07:47 -
[2] - Quote
I love the idea. They should be inmune to the web effect too. Othrwise they could move them. 3 of them would get inmovile themslef.
Or maybee having a bonus to reduce the effect
Anyway they should be rebalanced too, so eveey race had something useful for the role. |
Meditril
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
380
|
Posted - 2017.07.18 09:27:35 -
[3] - Quote
Interesting idea, but probably overpowered.
In my opinion it would be simply enough, if Assault Frigates would get a 50% role bonus to reduction of enemy stasis webifier. |
Nicaragua
The Scope
Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2017.07.19 06:50:20 -
[4] - Quote
Meditril wrote:Interesting idea, but probably overpowered.
In my opinion it would be simply enough, if Assault Frigates would get a 50% role bonus to reduction of enemy stasis webifier.
Yup, this would work for me. |
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders
Spaceship Bebop
40
|
Posted - 2017.07.19 17:16:01 -
[5] - Quote
Give them mini grappler, that goes out further but has strong falloff
make them them like mini battleships in thier class |
Stacy Osinova
The Scope
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2017.07.19 17:33:34 -
[6] - Quote
I recon AF are fine as they are. Don't like them, well don't fly them ! |
Nikea Tiber
Backwater Enterprises RD
82
|
Posted - 2017.07.20 23:58:07 -
[7] - Quote
Stacy Osinova wrote:I recon AF are fine as they are. Don't like them, well don't fly them !
No. AFs are not fine; they have *never* been fine. They have been getting wrecked by reasonably fit tech 1 destroyers for over a decade.
AFs are subjectively and objectively trash tier ships.
All suffer from lack of PG, CPU, and mid slots. Despite assault resists, as frigates your survivability is tied to your on grid mobility, which AFs lack in comparison to all other frigates. Small tanking modules can't keep you alive when you have poor on grid mobility. Aside from the harpy, AFs lack the engagement range to avoid scrams, webs, medium and large neuts. AFs also have poor sensor strength and a frigate sized capacitor, so are vulnerable to ECM and neuts.
A new module to fix these shortcomings is not a reasonable fix, as it further exasperates slot loadout and poor fitting, as well as essentially removing a slot from all AFs.
A reasonable fix is simple and has been discussed for years; resistance to all types of electronic warfare as a role bonus as well as on grid mobility parity with t1 combat frigates, and enough grid and cpu to fit gank tier weaponry, a prop module, tackle and a "reasonable" tank, or a bait level tank by downgrading weapons.
If you think AFs are fine I'm thinking you've never flown any other tech 2 hulls.
my other nano is a polycarb
|
Verdis deMosays
The Gold Angels
Sixth Empire
132
|
Posted - 2017.07.27 08:29:45 -
[8] - Quote
So, in light of the feedback I'm seeing, with the concern of mobility being raised, how is this?
Assault Field Generator: Highslot, minimal fitting, minimal cap use, 10s duration, restricted to Assault Frigates.
When activated, this module reduces the effectiveness of stasis webs applied to operating ship by (75%?). Module may be scripted to nullify the effects of Interdiction Probes, and mobile warp disruptors within a 15km radius, at the expense of web immunity. While active, operating ship will be unable to activate it's warp drive.
Would make for tackle which is nearly impossible to pin down, but has to.commit to the fight. Also be useful for breaching bubble walls in nullsec. |
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
463
|
Posted - 2017.07.27 12:52:23 -
[9] - Quote
Nikea Tiber wrote:Stacy Osinova wrote:I recon AF are fine as they are. Don't like them, well don't fly them ! No. AFs are not fine; they have *never* been fine. They have been getting wrecked by reasonably fit tech 1 destroyers for over a decade. AFs are subjectively and objectively trash tier ships. All suffer from lack of PG, CPU, and mid slots. Despite assault resists, as frigates your survivability is tied to your on grid mobility, which AFs lack in comparison to all other frigates. Small tanking modules can't keep you alive when you have poor on grid mobility. Aside from the harpy, AFs lack the engagement range to avoid scrams, webs, medium and large neuts. AFs also have poor sensor strength and a frigate sized capacitor, so are vulnerable to ECM and neuts. A new module to fix these shortcomings is not a reasonable fix, as it further exasperates slot loadout and poor fitting, as well as essentially removing a slot from all AFs. A reasonable fix is simple and has been discussed for years; resistance to all types of electronic warfare as a role bonus as well as on grid mobility parity with t1 combat frigates, and enough grid and cpu to fit gank tier weaponry, a prop module, tackle and a "reasonable" tank, or a bait level tank by downgrading weapons. If you think AFs are fine I'm thinking you've never flown any other tech 2 hulls.
AFs do need a balance pass, but lol not 'cause they are being wrecked by T1 dessies.
They need stats upgrade, look at the puni vs veng/retri (punisher has more powergrid than vengeance or retribution, has better cap regen than retribution and puni is also faster and more agile). |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
140
|
Posted - 2017.07.27 14:53:57 -
[10] - Quote
afs need a buff sure but i dont like your idea very much
here are some reasons why
firstly i dont like the idea of having a free aoe web on a high slot
the slot layout of the ships are the limitations in which you have to fly the ships
and this idea changes the whole playstyle of those ships and turns them into something completely different to the way they are meant to be flown
or the way many of us have learned to fly them
secondly an aoe web is super powerful and pushes other dedicated webbers out of their roles
if a ship can web anything in a 12km radius then its potentially an infinite number of webs
its like having infinite midslots for webs and pushes a whole bunch of ships out of their webbing roles
granted you can only chase one ship and the others can scatter out of range
but in many situations a single ship will be able to web a large group on its own
this makes it a primary target to take down in a fight
which brings me to my third complaint
in gangs you take away any reason to use the ship in any capacity other than webbing or nullification
you will end up with afs being dual tanked to increase survivability as much as possible
so they can keep their web up or their nullification without getting instapop
essentially you will turn the afs into a class of brigs with a choice of web or nullification
and obviously one of those bricks is going to be supreme over all others
whichever has the most ehp most likely
so in short
you push existing ships out of their roles
and force afs into a role of being a brick and nothing else
and from all of those bricks only one will be worth using
just my thoughts sorry
|
|
|
Corporal Punishment08
The Decoys
10
|
Posted - 2017.07.31 21:36:30 -
[11] - Quote
Verdis deMosays wrote:So, in light of the feedback I'm seeing, with the concern of mobility being raised, how is this?
Assault Field Generator: Highslot, minimal fitting, minimal cap use, 10s duration, restricted to Assault Frigates.
When activated, this module reduces the effectiveness of stasis webs applied to operating ship by (75%?). Module may be scripted to nullify the effects of Interdiction Probes, and mobile warp disruptors within a 15km radius, at the expense of web immunity. While active, operating ship will be unable to activate it's warp drive.
Would make for tackle which is nearly impossible to pin down, but has to.commit to the fight. Also be useful for breaching bubble walls in nullsec.
Please read the highlighted parts and rethink your logic |
Andrew Indy
Jedran Space Services
291
|
Posted - 2017.08.01 06:14:58 -
[12] - Quote
Corporal Punishment08 wrote:
Please read the highlighted parts and rethink your logic
I think the point is the AF is stuck but the fleet its support is not.
|
Steeve In-disguise
Tax Reduction - Active Permanently
3
|
Posted - 2017.08.02 15:36:20 -
[13] - Quote
I think you don't need some unique modules to make them worth it.
Give them some extra powergrid and penalty reduction for Shield extenders/Armor plates, then give them +1 warp disruptor strength, +2 warp scrambler strength and +1 Warp core strength.
This way you get their role of heavy tackle reinforced while also remove their weakness against kitey ships that's not scramkiters. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |