EVE Search - WTS Assault Frigates

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

WTS Assault Frigates

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Pattern Clarc Quam Singulari Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.03 11:14:00 - [1] Boost patch a dud? One of the most lacking ship classes getting completely ignored in this, the so fabled boost patch? bah. I'll suspend my account for a few weeks in protest.
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.03.03 12:27:00 - [2] Protest in the thread from my sig! The thread lost focus a bit, but it is great in the many experiments that were made and compared. At the end, we only see they need a straight boost in those areas : -Speed & Manoeuvrability (many liked the idea of simply reducing a bit the mass and tweaking a role bonus for the afterburner, making it an average speed small signature ship with a tank) -Survival when webbed (a slight resistance might be possible or maybe just having good speeds on AB and thus not a milk cow signature would help them tanking when webbed, may it be missiles because of the signature vs explosion radius or the huge tracking malus when shooting large guns on a 35m signature) -Keeping both of their T1 hull bonuses when applicable (when the weapon type matches between T1 and T2 variation) or having reworked bonuses in the style of their T2 designer (look at ferox->nighthawk bonus conversion or maller->sacrilege) They need... Something! Join us forum warriors! AFs need help! -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Trhamp Sthamp Caldari EVE Corporation1428 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.03 15:10:00 - [3] I do agree with this as well. As far as I am concerned, assfrigs are only useful during missions. I've honestly not found a good enough role for them in fleet and roaming gang pvp except for being expendable ships compared to those you're traveling with. -TS
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.03 18:46:00 - [4] Edited by: Ulstan on 03/03/2008 18:46:05 AF's are the most gimped class of ships overall in the entire game. They badly need tweaking so they aren't outperformed in almost all aspects by cheaper and more insurable T1 cruisers.
Mahn AlNouhm The Bastards	Posted - 2008.03.03 23:42:00 - [5] IMO, AFs should do a freaking ton of dps. More than a cruiser, no question, maybe even as much as, say, a BC. That would make them viable for taking down battleships. Their small size is both and advantage and a marked disadantage as they can't take very much damage at all. Making them hurt and hurt bad would make them worth flying compared to a cruiser. Guaranteed you'd see them in game if they could sting. . . .
El Mauru Amarr Nexus Analytics Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.03.04 09:10:00 - [6] give AFs the sig radius bonus of inties and they should be fine -
Eraggan Sadarr Phoenix Tribe	Posted - 2008.03.04 09:20:00 - [7] I agree... a very overlooked class of ships. Wouldn't a fourth bonus to sig radius make them more usefull. And also why not a fun bonus to overloading/heating while we are at it They definitely need some boost (read: boost patch!) Eve Market Scanner

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2008.03.04 15:11:00 - [8] We looked into Assault frigates, and we do realize they fail miserably at their role. However we didn't have the resources we needed to do the changes we wanted. We're looking into changes to the propulsion jamming system for this one. Assault frigates will get love. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Pattern Clarc Quam Singulari Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.04 15:39:00 - [9]
Pattern Clarc Quam Singulari Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.04 15:50:00 - [10] Originally by: CCP Nozh We looked into Assault frigates, and we do realize they fail miserably at their role. Is there any chance you could you clarify there intended role? And depending on what it is, aren't there already ships which do it - better? And could that change by changing game mechanics and wouldn't be better to redefine the role?
Pattern Clarc Quam Singulari Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.04 15:51:00 - [11] Also.. Originally by: Max Teranous Actually, i'd like to see this as a time to review all the propulsion speed & inhibiting systems, inc MWD's, AB's, webs etc. The fact that every single pvp ship i own excepting capitals has an MWD fitted says to me something isn't quite right. However CCP are going to have to look at it carefully, and make bloody sure that their first dev blog on the subject is written & answered better than the carrier dev blog abomination.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.04 15:52:00 - [12] Originally by: CCP Nozh We looked into Assault frigates, and we do realize they fail miserably at their role. However we didn't have the resources we needed to do the changes we wanted. We're looking into changes to the propulsion jamming system for this one. Assault frigates will get love. Why not let them fit command modules? Also, what is their "role"?
Sarmaul Minmatar	Posted - 2008.03.04 15:53:00 - [13] Originally by: CCP Nozh We looked into Assault frigates, and we do realize they fail miserably at their role. However we didn't have the resources we needed to do the changes we wanted. We're looking into changes to the propulsion jamming system for this one. Assault frigates will get love. hihihihi
Ephemeron Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.04 15:54:00 - [14] Originally by: CCP Nozh We looked into Assault frigates, and we do realize they fail miserably at their role. However we didn't have the resources we needed to do the changes we wanted. We're looking into changes to the propulsion jamming system for this one. Assault frigates will get love. I hope that doesn't mean they are messing with warp scrambling. Web resistance for a ship role is okay. But scrambling should not be messed with. I hope other players share my concern, changes to warp scrambling would have very serious consequences.
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.03.04 16:23:00 - [15] So... Not yet this time... Drop us a line when you know when you will start looking in AF, we want to hear about the different roles you see for them and the possible changes that you see. Hmmm... A devblog and asking for everyone's AF ideas, after you exposed the role they should have would be great! -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.03.04 16:27:00 - [16] Originally by: Sarmaul hihihihi Still love the idea of that module, but it simply suits a Ceptor much better. If the pilot is on his toes and has a pimped out (meaning warp speed rigged) Ceptor, he might be able to reach the destination before the fleeing opponent, but if an AF tries that, the other guy will be gone already due to slow warp speed of AFs. When considering that module, a swap of AFs and Ceptors role would be a good thing imho. The Ceptor intercepts someone who warps away. The AF tackles to initiate the assault on the enemy. shrug Possible role bonus: Ceptor: +warpspeed and scrambler range AF: scrambler cap-use and range That's how it should be.. Support Cailais' idea of LowSec MKII
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.04 16:36:00 - [17] Originally by: CCP Nozh We looked into Assault frigates, and we do realize they fail miserably at their role. However we didn't have the resources we needed to do the changes we wanted. We're looking into changes to the propulsion jamming system for this one. Assault frigates will get love. Good to know. So basically, CCP knows they sucks, but we shouldn't expect changes in Trinity 1.1, but in a future patch. I don't know what kind of propulsion jamming system you're thinking of (I hope they wont just wind up tacklers like interceptors - maybe you're thinking of web immunity) but a big part of the problem is that AF's don't handle like frigates at all. I understand you don't want them to step on interceptor toes, but they badly need to be closer to their T1 equivalents in terms of agilitly and align time. HAC's are more nimble/fast than T1 cruisers :)
Pattern Clarc Quam Singulari Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.04 17:52:00 - [18] Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 04/03/2008 17:53:38 Oh yeah, destroyers also need a little more ~~speed, agility~~ MASS REDUCTION and double the HP if assault frigates get retasked from lame ass frig killers (when HAC's and BC's do this infinitely better).
Julius Romanus Blood Corsair's Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.03.04 19:26:00 - [19] This makes me very sad :(
Corstaad	Posted - 2008.03.04 19:44:00 - [20] You guys have to remeber the AFs lost its 4th bonus and handles like my plate ruppy. If you guys don't attempt to set that right you might as well just not bother. If anything it fills a role pretty well in a low sec roamer but makes me want to throw things when I'm aligning in a pirate camp.
Darpz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.03.04 21:58:00 - [21] all AFs need is there speed unnerfed. you give them t1 frigate levels of speed & agility and you'll see them become alot more used. every other t2 class is atleast the same speed as the ship its based on if not faster. AFs get a speed reduction. afs going 2-3k a sec (just an mwd for speed mods no overdrives) would allow them to be allot more surviable and useful.
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.04 22:33:00 - [22] Originally by: Goumindong Why not let them fit command modules? Also, what is their "role"? Command modules is not a bad idea at all. Their 'intended' role, as I always understood it, was as a screening ship to cover and protect bigger ships from tackle. (The name of the class notwithstanding - let's face it, it's never really reflected reality or intent.) The issue of AFs needing some kind of buff or change became acute when Destroyers came out, as the role overlap is huge. ...and that's without the fact that lots of people will just use inties for anti-tackle anyway. The AF has really always suffered from Inties having more firepower than they probably should have (due to being the first T2 ships) and CCP never wanting to grasp the very thorny nettle of reducing inty DPS. With AFs being slower (which is obviously fair enough) and their tanks not being that good, they just have so many of their potential uses covered by other ships. Anyway, Command Frigates, I like that. I think that would work, not least because it would keep them varied within the class, as they are now, and which is a strength in game design not a weakness. Command modules can only benefit relatively slow or static formations at the moment. Command frigates would answer the same sort of need with command mods, as EAS answered with advanced EW. On the other hand, I'm not sure what propulsion jamming has to do with the price of fish unless we're wanting even more potential AF role overlap with EAS and inties if they get some kind of prop jamming use bonus - or if all we're interested in is highlighting even more which AFs are good and which are poor if they get some kind of prop jamming resistance. (Web resistance, or whatever, does precious little for a poor ship but does terrifying things for a good ship.) Cosmo The Star Fraction Communications Portal
ksis	Posted - 2008.03.04 22:50:00 - [23] Edited by: ksis on 04/03/2008 22:50:18 My thought was you give them the ability to increase damage for the rest of the gang. Command modules are more of a passive thing for the gang this would be a module much like a Target Painter in the sense that it would have to be activated on a single target at a time. The module would have a significantly higher bonus then Target Painters and would effect all damage type/weapon types equally. AF's would all receive - if they don't already have - a utility high slot for the module to be fitted in and the AF would get a huge bonus that decreased the req's for the module like most of the ships with specialized modules. The module would be short range so the AF has to engage in battle (sub 50km) so increasing the AF's tanking abilities might also be in order. The ship wouldn't need a damage bonus this way it would simultaneously be a more effective solo pvp ship along with a gang pvp ship.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.04 22:53:00 - [24] Edited by: Goumindong on 04/03/2008 22:53:44 It would be interesting to have a "projected propulsion Jamming asorber" where the AF targeting a friendly would get all forms of propulsion jamming/dps/whatever/etc transfered from the target to itself. So you had to kill/jam/damp/whatever the AF before you could stop the intended target from leaving. not sure what it would do to the game though ed: increasing dps for others is probably not a good idea.
Gordon Red SteelVipers Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.03.05 01:23:00 - [25] Originally by: CCP Nozh We looked into Assault frigates, and we do realize they fail miserably at their role. However we didn't have the resources we needed to do the changes we wanted. We're looking into changes to the propulsion jamming system for this one. Assault frigates will get love. Hmmmm, during that dev-cast, they said "boost patch" and now "we have don't have the rescources" => "they will get love" - somewhere and somewhen - sigh Some player ideas are easy to implement - mostly some changes of normal stats + some boni that aren't new either. I don't see why you have to invent the wheel a second time...
Thomina Yorke GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.05 02:08:00 - [26] AF's getting stiffed in yet another major patch? Say it isn't so.
Julius Romanus Blood Corsair's Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.03.05 03:23:00 - [27] Originally by: The Cosmopolite Originally by: Goumindong Why not let them fit command modules? Also, what is their "role"? Command modules is not a bad idea at all. Their 'intended' role, as I always understood it, was as a screening ship to cover and protect bigger ships from tackle. (The name of the class notwithstanding - let's face it, it's never really reflected reality or intent.) The issue of AFs needing some kind of buff or change became acute when Destroyers came out, as the role overlap is huge. ...and that's without the fact that lots of people will just use inties for anti-tackle anyway. The AF has really always suffered from Inties having more firepower than they probably should have (due to being the first T2 ships) and CCP never wanting to grasp the very thorny nettle of reducing inty DPS. With AFs being slower (which is obviously fair enough) and their tanks not being that good, they just have so many of their potential uses covered by other ships. Anyway, Command Frigates, I like that. I think that would work, not least because it would keep them varied within the class, as they are now, and which is a strength in game design not a weakness. Command modules can only benefit relatively slow or static formations at the moment. Command frigates would answer the same sort of need with command mods, as EAS answered with advanced EW. On the other hand, I'm not sure what propulsion jamming has to do with the price of fish unless we're wanting even more potential AF role overlap with EAS and inties if they get some kind of prop jamming use bonus - or if all we're interested in is highlighting even more which AFs are good and which are poor if they get some kind of prop jamming resistance. (Web resistance, or whatever, does precious little for a poor ship but does terrifying things for a good ship.) Cosmo Unless you're talking specifically about the taranis as far as inty dps. You're insane.
Tamalane Sevnir	Posted - 2008.03.05 03:47:00 - [28] Command modules aren't a bad idea. It's just a boring one, both from a design and a piloting perspective.
Alex Medvedov Minmatar Soliders Of Eve The Church.	Posted - 2008.03.05 10:28:00 - [29] Edited by: Alex Medvedov on 05/03/2008 10:35:37 Edited by: Alex Medvedov on 05/03/2008 10:31:03 Originally by: Eleana Tomelac So... Not yet this time... Drop us a line when you know when you will start looking in AF, we want to hear about the different roles you see for them and the possible changes that you see. Hmmm... A devblog and asking for everyone's AF ideas, after you exposed the role they should have would be great! Preciselly! CCP please, please, make some dev blog about AFs... Originally by: Knoppaz The AF tackles to initiate the assault on the enemy. shrug Possible role bonus: Ceptor: +warpspeed and scrambler range AF: scrambler cap-use and range That's how it should be.. Hell no, it will not help AFs at all and we dont need another tackler, inties are quite good at that.
Alex Medvedov Minmatar Soliders Of Eve The Church.	Posted - 2008.03.05 10:35:00 - [30] Originally by: The Cosmopolite Command modules is not a bad idea at all. If you wish to have command frigate, why not, but do not make it from "my" AF, is that clear?!:))

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

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.