| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
Divine Retribution Alliance
   |
Posted - 2007.12.08 04:59:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 08/12/2007 05:00:13
There have been a plethora of threads surrounding the assault ships recently, and in my mind most have missed the mark somewhat despite many great ideas being posted surrounding the redefinition they desperately need. I have an idea of what they really need myself, and rather than hijack an existing idea thread, I felt it made more sense to allow a topic of it's own to expand upon it.
Assault ships come in one flavour: damage. They have no specialy abilities, and they have no "fleet" role. If we look at the heavy assault ships, there tends to be a high damage variant and a heavy tank variant. If we look at command ships, there's the obvious differences between the fleet and field command ships.
It's this that I feel would be the saving grace for the much maligned assault frigate: Give them their "missing bonus" and let them use that last utility high slot for gang assist modules. In effect, turn one into a Field Assault Ship and the other a Fleet Assault Ship. Using the Amarr's Retribution as an example:
Retribution
Fleet Assault Ship
Highs: 5 (4 Turrets)
Mids: 1
Lows: 5
Frigate Bonus: Laser cap use & resistances
Assault Ship Bonus: Laser range and damage
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in power and cpu requirements for warfare link modules. Can fit three warfare link modules simultaneously
...and subsequently, the Vengeance:
Vengeance
Field Assault Ship
Highs: 4 (4 launchers, 3 turrets)
Mids: 3
Lows: 4
Frigate Bonus: rocket damage & resistances
Assault Frigate Bonus: resistances and cap recharge
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in power & cpu requirements for warfare link modules.
I'm sure you can see the consequences here. What was once a ship that most fleet commanders would sneer at when brought to the field becomes a ship that massively improves the efficacy of the entire gang. What was once two flavours of the same thing within a single class of ship becomes two very different ships without changing their current nature in the slightest.
Hell, I know I'd want one!
The actualy bonus itself may be too much or too little, and perhaps the hardpoint allotment should be changes as well - but it's more the principal that interests me. If it's liked, then balancing is a very simple matter after that.
Any thoughts? I'd love to see if anyone more familiar with the other racial assault frigates would care to take a stab at a Field and Fleet Assault Ship...
Hardpoint Rigs |
TimMc
Gallente
Exanimo Inc
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 10:13:00 -
[2]
Edited by: TimMc on 08/12/2007 10:16:15
Yeah I was thinking about this earlier, it would be really cool to have a frigate that could fit gang modules - impossible to hit! Plus it would encourage new players to train leadership, they are a bit of the bottem of the barrel atm until you get a commandship.
Edit: I think you got those bonuses the otherway around. The Damagedealer should only fit 1 Gang Module, the tanker should be able to fit 3.
Jita: No one gets out alive. |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
Divine Retribution Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 13:38:00 -
[3]
 Quote:
Edit: I think you got those bonuses the otherway around. The Damagedealer should only fit 1 Gang Module, the tanker should be able to fit 3.
For every other race bar Amarr I'd be inclined to agree, but the main reason I placed them the way I did is because the Retribution, whilst an effective damage dealer (or mini-tank - it's extra low slot means that when fit for all tank it tanks almost as well as the Vengeance) is the only frigate that cannot solo with the vast majority of fits, as it requires that there is least be one other person present to tackle for it. As such, it is by it's very nature a fleet ship whilst the Vengeance becomes the "solopwnmobile" and jack of all trades like the field command ships.
A quick switch of the bonuses wouldn't hurt, but it would still leave the Retribution especially as a one trick pony. If it was made the fleet command ship, the option is there to sacrifice the damage output in favour of gang bonuses. I'd rather these ships had their roles reversed in this fashion, but you are correct in your assertation that I have them back to front. That was a deliberate choice, and that's why I was so interested in seeing the thoughts of those who fly the other racial assault frigates.
With your suggestion in mind, here's my take on the Caldari versions:
Hawk
Fleet Command Ship
Highs: 5 (4 launchers, 2 turrets)
Mids: 4
Lows: 2
Frigate bonus: kinetic missile damage & resistances
Assault Frigate bonus: missile velocity & shield boost
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in power & cpu requirements for warfare link modules. Can fit three warfare link modules simultaneously
Harpy
Field Command Ship
Highs: 5 (4 turrets, 1 launcher)
Mids: 4
Lows: 2
Frigate bonus: hybrid optimal range & resistances
Assault Frigate bonus: hybrid optimal range & damage
Role bonus: 99% reduction in power & cpu requirements for warfare link modules
Anyone want to have a stab at the Minmatar ones?
Hardpoint Rigs |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
Divine Retribution Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 13:55:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 08/12/2007 14:01:54
Quote:
Assault Ships Skill Bonus: 3% bonus to effectiveness of Information Warfare Links and +5 Drone Bay capacity per level
This one skipped by me unnoticed!
I like this suggestion (dropping one of the bonuses in favour of a bonus to warfare links), however I'd be inclined to say remove the 15 & 10% resistance bonus from the frigate skill, move one of the assault ship bonuses up into that slot and boost the resistances to match those of other tech two ships.
Here are my "revised" fleet assault ships from above to take this into account.
Retribution
Fleet Assault Ship
Highs: 5 (4 Turrets)
Mids: 1
Lows: 5
Frigate Bonus: 10% reduction in Small Energy Turret cap use & 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret damage per level
Assault Ship Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Energy Turret optimal range & 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored Warfare Links per level
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in power and cpu requirements for warfare link modules. Can fit three warfare link modules simultaneously
Shield resistances: 0% EM 20% Thermals 70% Kinetic 90% Explosive
Armour resistances: 60% EM 35% Thermal 62.5% Kinetic 80% Explosive
Hawk
Fleet Assault Ship
Highs: 5 (4 launchers, 2 turrets)
Mids: 4
Lows: 2
Frigate bonus: 5% bonus to Missile Kinetic Damage & 10% bonus to missile velocity per level
Assault Ship bonus: 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount & 3% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level
Shield resistances: 0% EM 80% Thermal 70% Kinetic 60% Explosive
Armour resistances: 60% EM 86.3% Thermal 62.5% Kinetic 10% Explosive
Ishkur
Fleet Assault Ship
Highs: 4 (3 turrets)
Mids: 3
Lows: 3
Gallente Frigate bonus: 5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret damage, 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret optimal per level
Assault Ships bonus: 3% bonus to effectiveness of Information Warfare Links and +5 Drone Bay capacity per level
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in power and cpu requirements for warfare link modules. Can fit three warfare link modules simultaneously.
Shield resistances: 0% EM 60% Thermal 85% Kinetic 60% Explosive
Armour resistances: 60% EM 67.5% Thermal 83.8% Kinetic 10% Explosive
Is it just me, or are these things looking pretty damned fun to fly? 
Hardpoint Rigs |
Rashmika Sky
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 16:46:00 -
[5]
This is an interesting idea, and could be useful for frigate gangs, to bring gang modules in an inexpensive and relatively quick (compared to a battlecruiser) ship. I'd still prefer to see something along the lines of a lower sig radius, faster speed, lower mass... right now the problem with assault ships is that they have too many weaknesses "balancing" their strengths, otherwise they would probably work fine.
But your idea is still a good one, and I wouldn't complain if it were implemented. There are just two things to consider though:
1) In particular, the Amarr ships, but probably all of them, would have trouble finding 50 cpu for gang mods unless that is increased or unless the cpu-need reduction bonus is increased.
2) I think capacitor need for gang modules has been reduced by half, but even so it would be a large drain on frigates.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
Teikoku Trade Conglomerate
Visions of Warfare
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 20:04:00 -
[6]
I'd rather see this as a new kind of destroyer-based ship with a 6AU/sec warp as one of its role bonuses. AFs should just be combat ships.
Crusades: Bounties & Security Status |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
Divine Retribution Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 21:49:00 -
[7]
Quote:
I'd rather see this as a new kind of destroyer-based ship with a 6AU/sec warp as one of its role bonuses.
So would I, but I've long since given up on the hope of ever seeing another destroyer in this game: I think CCP just hates the entire class.
As such, I feel that turning the Assault Frigates into Fleet and Field Assault Frigates would be the only way we could realistically see an incentive for people to train up leadership and provide a solution to the blandness of the assault frigates at present.
Hardpoint Rigs |
Donatien Francois
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 22:00:00 -
[8]
Interesting ideas, but two things:
Even if you were doing more frigate scale fleet combat with assault ships, I think that 3 warfare links is a bit much. Simply giving them the ability to fit one in the first place would be shiny for frigate scale encounters.
Second, as was mentioned above, there are plenty of T2 frigates out there already, but there's only the one model destroyer for any given race. Since the command ships are battle cruisers, the destroyer hull makes a little bit more sense for a frigate scale command-type ship anyway.
Now, I'd love to see a "Squad Command Ship" scale version of the destroyer that could fit a warfare link module and gets some nice T2 resists similar to the assault ship, which would fit in thematically with the Wing Command battle cruisers, and if you click the link in my signature, the idea I had for Fleet Command Ships.
Flagship and Titans
POS Warfare |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
Divine Retribution Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.08 22:30:00 -
[9]
Quote:
Second, as was mentioned above, there are plenty of T2 frigates out there already, but there's only the one model destroyer for any given race. Since the command ships are battle cruisers, the destroyer hull makes a little bit more sense for a frigate scale command-type ship anyway.
I agree, but as stated above I think CCP have made it quite clear what they think of the Destroyer class ships by never introducing any new ones!
As such, Assault Frigates are our best hope. I'd love to see new destroyers, but I seirously think it's just not going to happen.
Hardpoint Rigs |
HazaMonZo
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 19:54:00 -
[10]
Interesting idea! I love my AF'f but its hard to find a good role for them in fleet combat. The introduction of Warfare link module bonus would really be nice. It would make all those leadership skill i trained worth something.
Haza
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 05:38:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 05/01/2008 05:41:38
Back to the top for more comments.
For reference:
Quote:
The actual bonus itself may be too much or too little, and perhaps the hardpoint allotment should be changed as well - but it's more the principal that interests me. If it's liked, then balancing is a very simple matter after that.
Hardpoint Rigs |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 06:11:00 -
[12]
Hmm, I think I don't like the idea of 'mini command ships' all that much. I don't know, it doesn't feel right. To me it's like finding a role for them just for the sake of finding a role for them.
Assault ships are just that: damage dealers. They can and do come in different flavours.
Their current problem is: price (isk+skill training time) vs. performance.
You could just as well pick a T1 cruiser for the same tasks, which is cheaper.
The devs should simply fix the assault ships - give them a real fourth bonus and lower the mass.
We will see them more often and they will very likely not need a role after that.
___________________________________
- Balance is power, guard it well -
Please stop using the word 'nerf'
Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2008.01.06 03:29:00 -
[13]
Quote:
The devs should simply fix the assault ships - give them a real fourth bonus and lower the mass.
The problem there is that an Assault Frigate is as far as I can tell intended to be the equivalent of a cruiser; to fully T2 fit an Assault Frigate currently takes about as long in training time as to fully T2 fit a Cruiser. The other factor that you have to take into account is the fact that in like for like damage setups (at least in regards to gunships), an Interceptor can be configured to put out just as much damage as an Assault Frigate: The difference comes in durability.
My suggestion to turn these ships into squad command ships does take this into account, replacing the void resistance bonus that is built into other T2 ships by building it into the Assault Frigates and replacing it with the command module bonus. The main justification here is not so much to "fix" the Assault Frigates - I've personally had plenty of success with them - but to revitalize what by many is considered a dead class and to add justification to training leadership skills, a skill set that simply isn't required until you get to command ships.
Hardpoint Rigs |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |