Remejiah
   |
Posted - 2007.10.23 20:29:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Remejiah on 23/10/2007 20:40:45
Edited by: Remejiah on 23/10/2007 20:39:34
Most ships in this game have a clearly defined role. People train up for them because they want to use them in a certain way. Take for example, interdictors. These ships are primarily used "for the breaching of enemy warp tunnels", according to CCP. Sounds pretty clear, right? People use them to drop warp disruption bubbles around gates and enemy fleets.
Assault ships, however, are sadly lacking in the direction department. With no clearly defined role, they flounder about without purpose. I'm eagerly training up for a Jaguar, but I'm starting to wonder what the point of these ships are? How does CCP envision their use? Heavy tacklers? Anti-tacklers? Fire support?
In my humble opinion, these ships have great potential if their abilities could be harnessed for heavy tackling / fire support. When an interceptor would be too easily killed or not deal enough damage, assault frigates could be used instead. With the ability to both take more damage and deal more damage than any other frigate, Tech 2 or otherwise, these ships would fill this role nicely.
In order for something like this to happen though, several problems with assault frigates as a whole need to be addressed.
Mass:
Assault frigates are unrealistically heavy for their size. Most AFs have at least a 70% increase in mass over their Tech 1 and interceptor counterparts. This is both illogical and inconsistent -- illogical in that the ships do not need to be that heavy, and inconsistent in that HACs do not weigh 70% more than their Tech 1 variants. In fact, HACs are only slightly bulkier, not 70%.
Obviously just reducing AF mass isn't that simple. Lightened AFs open up a whole new area for exploitation with speed tanking setups. This is probably why AF mass was so high in the first place. Imagine a nanoed Ishkur with 4 Hammerhead IIs orbiting you at 4km/s. Not exactly pretty. This can't be allowed. To counter this, I read an awesome suggestion from another player regarding the way webbers work. The original post is here. The basic idea is that the large your signature radius is, the more susceptible your ship is to webbing. This means that MWD frigates can be severely webbed, but AB frigates will only be affected slightly. With these proposed webber changes, AFs would be rewarded for not fitting excessive, over-the-top nanoed speed setups.
While webber changes might be controversial, there is another more drastic option to prevent nano AFs: a nerf to MWDs when fitted to an AF. Something in the area of 80%. You could even go as far to make the nerf only apply when weapons or offensive modules are activated. This would still allow for the MWD to be used for charging and fleeing.
Agility:
This is tied in to AFs being unnecessarily heavy for their size. Right now, most AFs literally handle like cruisers. Bringing their mass down will correct this problem too.
The resistance "bonus":
This is nice to have, honestly, but it's completely inconsistent with the whole assault ship line. Both HACs and Command ships have their resist bonuses built directly in. In fact, most Tech 2 ships do. Why not the AF as well? Trade this bonus for another one.
A Role Bonus:
This one might actually be a bit over the top. But since interceptors get a role bonus, AFs should too. Other players have suggested either a bonus to afterburners or a certain amount of webber resistance. Either of these would allow the AF to fill the role of Heavy Tacker /F ire support very effectively.
I know most these points have already been discussed by other players, but I thought they should bear repeating. So in short, CCP needs to define a role for the assault frigate.
Edit: Forgot the link.
|