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)
Timaios Art of War	Posted - 2008.03.05 11:52:00 - [31] 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'd like to quote Max Teranous from SCH: Originally by: Max Teranous at SCH 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. While you're at it, would you consider in general the issue that is the fitting of midslots for PVP. Because, most commonly, midslots are filled in the following order: 1: MWD 2: scram 3/4: cap injector/web (order depending on ship) The first is mandatory in all serious PVP ships. The second is mandatory in all but specialized ships (falcons, huginns etc). The third and fourth are just so good that most ships require them to be competitive. Changes and modifications to both propulsion and propulsion jamming systems are more than welcome, please keep us informed and give us chance to give comments.
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.05 13:55:00 - [32] Originally by: Julius Romanus 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. I don't know what you think I have said or what you think I am advocating but you are very likely wrong on both points. What seems to have got your goat is a side point at this stage as it looks like CCP want to boost AFs by giving them some new role or set of abilities. So the real debate is around trying to influence CCP to give them such that makes sense in the context of the wider game. As far as that goes, some new set of modules or a widening of the use of currently narrowly-used modules could well be a satisfactory solution (ie. use of existing command modules, use of a new set of command modules or some other new set of modules). Cosmo The Star Fraction Communications Portal
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home	Posted - 2008.03.05 13:56:00 - [33] Originally by: Alex Medvedov ... Hell no, it will not help AFs at all and we dont need another tackler, inties are quite good at that. Well, with this suggestion the AF would be the primary tackler with the Ceptor having it's role changed to warp-intercepting. Sure, the Ceptor could be left as it is and the AF could get warp-intercepting as role, but that would mean that.. 1. it needs to get it's warp-speed increased big-time and 2. the role doesn't really fit with the name of the ship-type. That's why I thought of role-swapping between AF and Ceptor. Support Cailais' idea of LowSec MKII
Yussef Amarr Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.05 15:24:00 - [34] Originally by: Eleana Tomelac 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! All this sounds pretty good actually.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.05 20:34:00 - [35] I don't particularly think 'assault' frigates should be either tacklers or gang boosters. They should essentially be more heavily armed and armored T1 frigates. Slower than inties and without the speed bonus, but able to counter frigate sized enemy support. To do this they need to handle like frigates :p
Corstaad	Posted - 2008.03.06 06:26:00 - [36] Think what Ulstan said was shot on. The AF's first fix should be bring it along the lines of a T2 ship for its T1 hull. After that we can start thinking of role bonus's. If they won't fix this mass issue because of a pve use for this ship everyone should throw lots of poo at these Devs.
Suitonia Gallente interimo	Posted - 2008.03.06 12:01:00 - [37] I'll be happy as long as you reduce their mass so they don't align slower than cruisers. The problem really at the moment is that they are inferior to most cruisers. I.e. A Ishkur is slower than a Vexor, aligns slower, has less turret dps (even if the vexor fits 4x light guns), 3x less drone bandwidth and 2x less drone bay and tanks about the same overall, without offering anything else than slightly higher lockspeed, and lower sig; - Which the interceptor class smashes them at. Assault ships with frigate mass would be hot, without being overpowered. Then they would make nice pirating vessels, as well as ships that are capable of assaulting (Goes with the name ;) enemy space while being harder to interdict being frigates. Also adds a nice roaming ship for the lower SP player. That, and look at adding a 4th bonus to them, and just 'build-in' the resists like their HAC counterparts. --- I've always wondered about those Vagabond pilots...
Nhaz Nubs. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.03.06 15:27:00 - [38] Id like to point out that a ishkur is possible the most dangerous AF there is. most inties will hesitate before attempting to tackle a ishkur. Its possibly the only AF that doesn't need help. _____________________________________________ It's NOT paranoia, If they REALLY ARE out to get you!
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.03.06 15:44:00 - [39] Originally by: Nhaz Id like to point out that a ishkur is possible the most dangerous AF there is. most inties will hesitate before attempting to tackle a ishkur. Its possibly the only AF that doesn't need help. And not be afraid of a hawk? the missiles are equally efficient to the drones... If you're going faster than missiles, you are way faster than drones, so, at some point both AF become useless. If the ishkur was faster, it wouldn't affect inties attacking it, they would still be way faster. And if it's just light drones that are scary to inties, then what to say of a vexor or arbitrator? they can hold more drones and have more drone speed modules, the ishkur is just crap when compared to those two cruisers. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.06 18:07:00 - [40] Originally by: Ulstan I don't particularly think 'assault' frigates should be either tacklers or gang boosters. They should essentially be more heavily armed and armored T1 frigates. Slower than inties and without the speed bonus, but able to counter frigate sized enemy support. To do this they need to handle like frigates :p Ships like this already exist. They are called destroyers. This is why a new role is a better idea.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.03.06 21:00:00 - [41] Quote: Ships like this already exist. They are called destroyers. This is why a new role is a better idea. Neither gang boosting nor tackling is a new role. Also, if AF's worked right, they would own tech 1 destroyers :p
Rehen Sulithus	Posted - 2008.03.07 00:36:00 - [42] Edited by: Rehen on 07/03/2008 00:37:06 There was a point just after the missile nerfs before raven poilets got there new missile skills up af's were very good, but since them missile skills are maxed force recons came out ect.. and interdictors spam bubbles everywere. Counters for fast frigates have made af's usless tbh they are far too slow so are easly takaled and locked down by bigger ships giving them no chance in pvp realy, I would make it so they couldent be bubbled and had a natral 2point warp stab or somthing. Or have it so it cant be webed just somthing to stop it being scramed webed dead because a smaller sig radius wont stop this.
Ze'khan	Posted - 2008.03.07 02:22:00 - [43] You can't reduce their mass because their speed with an AB/MWD is then too high and they end up competing with inty's. Interceptors already have all the intercepting/scrambling jobs needed from frigates covered - we don't need more and It's unlikely they'd even consider this. You could however: 1) Increase their agility (without reducing mass significantly). 2)Give a role-bonus to the damage(or tank, or whatever) to other assault frigates in your gang by lets say 10%(to be determined) per AF up to a set maximum so it doesn't become overpowering - This would Promote small-gang pvp. 3) Increase their dps to be higher than that of T1 cruisers (maybe up to T2 cruiser levels but make them more expensive in return) - Keep in mind T2 cruisers would be superior in every way other than agility, sig radius and similar damage per turret.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.07 03:15:00 - [44] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/03/2008 03:17:49 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/03/2008 03:15:29 Originally by: Ze'khan You can't reduce their mass because their speed with an AB/MWD is then too high and they end up competing with inty's. Interceptors already have all the intercepting/scrambling jobs needed from frigates covered - we don't need more and It's unlikely they'd even consider this. Rubbish. If you reduced their mass and put them on par with T1 frigs and boosted the speed of the more horrible ones, they'd be on par with T1 frigs speed wise roughly. Do you want me to tell you what happens to a T1 frig trying to fly like a interceptor (meaning, tackle out of webrange) versus anything that has: (a) Warrior IIs (b) Medium longer-ranged guns (meaning, medium ACs and pulses) (c) Precision lights Death. Ceptors which go under 6km/s die very often. AFs going 4km/s when speedfit (and say, 2-2.5km/s standard) would break nothing at all, and would not step on the toes of interceptors. Think of how much easier is to track something that's got a roughly 35% bigger sig radius and is going 40% slower... survivability of 'interceptor wannabe' AFs would be very low. Making their damage output close to T2 cruisers would be sickly overpowered. They need to have more damage, but boosting AF damage output by 100-200% is just LOL. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Agil TradeAlt	Posted - 2008.03.07 08:30:00 - [45] Edited by: Agil TradeAlt on 07/03/2008 08:30:53 All races need long range webers and scramblers to lock down nanoships. Currently, to lock down a cheap nanoship, you need expensive recons with lots of skills and hope that the nanoship pilot is a idiot. Perhaps the AF should do this. Have massive web and scram range. But give them 2 minds so they either choose something like a 40km web or a 40km scram, but not both. Yeah it does what a huggin does but so what? Rapier can warp cloaked and huggin/rapier can carry more midslots. The new AF can only do one or the other. Originally by: CCP kieron ISK buying is a major contributor to the inflation in EVE's economy.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.07 09:53:00 - [46] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/03/2008 09:53:13 Originally by: Agil TradeAlt Edited by: Agil TradeAlt on 07/03/2008 08:30:53 All races need long range webers and scramblers to lock down nanoships. Currently, to lock down a cheap nanoship, you need expensive recons with lots of skills and hope that the nanoship pilot is a idiot. Perhaps the AF should do this. Have massive web and scram range. But give them 2 minds so they either choose something like a 40km web or a 40km scram, but not both. LOL. Blatantly overpowered and just redicilous If you want long-range webbing in a frig package, use a Hyena. A, say, Jaguar with a 40km web could preety much solo all the nano-HACs which have to worry about tracking To lock down a cheap nanoship, you need, at best, a interceptor. Since cheap nanoships are T1 mostly unrigged thingies... the nano-HACs which require polycarbons to work are in no way cheap nanoships. That said, to make your gang a hot blob of nanoship death, have your pilots train heat and have any T1 BC with a cheap module (400K) and a cheap implant (2M) - you need just one to train for it, and have fun and enjoy the ownage. Since you are likely to keep said BC safespotted, you might in fact gimp the setup to put two links which make your gang even better at it. Now stop hijacking the AF thread with 'omg, nano' whines and post with your main. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Ze'khan	Posted - 2008.03.07 11:14:00 - [47] Edited by: Ze''khan on 07/03/2008 11:21:15 Edited by: Ze''khan on 07/03/2008 11:19:13 Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/03/2008 03:17:49 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/03/2008 03:15:29 Originally by: Ze'khan You can't reduce their mass because their speed with an AB/MWD is then too high and they end up competing with inty's. Interceptors already have all the intercepting/scrambling jobs needed from frigates covered - we don't need more and It's unlikely they'd even consider this. Rubbish. If you reduced their mass and put them on par with T1 frigs and boosted the speed of the more horrible ones, they'd be on par with T1 frigs speed wise roughly. Do you want me to tell you what happens to a T1 frig trying to fly like a interceptor (meaning, tackle out of webrange) versus anything that has: (a) Warrior IIs (b) Medium longer-ranged guns (meaning, medium ACs and pulses) (c) Precision lights Death. Ceptors which go under 6km/s die very often. AFs going 4km/s when speedfit (and say, 2-2.5km/s standard) would break nothing at all, and would not step on the toes of interceptors. Think of how much easier is to track something that's got a roughly 35% bigger sig radius and is going 40% slower... survivability of 'interceptor wannabe' AFs would be very low. I don't think you understand, reducing it massively would turn them into heavy interceptors, reducing it less as you suggest (and as you have so clearly shown) has no point, it's a worthless change - they gain no role - this is the issue here. If all you want is for them to align/turn faster all you need is better agility as I previously suggested. Quote: Making their damage output close to T2 cruisers would be sickly overpowered. They need to have more damage, but boosting AF damage output by 100-200% is just LOL. Firstly I said on a per turret basis - not as a whole as they just don't have the fittings generally, lack drones and lack the slots for things like heat sinks unlike T2 cruisers - overall they wouldn't compare only on a turret for turret basis. Don't keep forgetting what they lack that cruisers have. Secondly, you're not really making it easy for yourself here as you just listed some of the (major)weaknesses due to their speed which shows why it wouldn't be overpowered. It would have to be a fairly major change - enough so that they would have a role and the cost of them would likely have to be higher to compensate.
Arkady Renko	Posted - 2008.03.07 12:35:00 - [48] and so the're gonna give the Retribution some Propulsion jamming love....big wup with 1 midslot....oh but it's Amarr so that's alright then. Boost the defence% I say, make 'em harder than Chinese algebra
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.03.07 17:10:00 - [49] Originally by: Ze'khan I don't think you understand, reducing it massively would turn them into heavy interceptors, reducing it less as you suggest (and as you have so clearly shown) has no point, it's a worthless change - they gain no role - this is the issue here. I disagree on principle about the 'role' discussions in AF discussions. Do HACs have a role? Do Field Commands have a role? Not really. They're full out combat ships, first and foremost. Any roles for the specific ships there are secondary to the fact they're good combat ships in general. AFs need to stop sucking in general. Which means, they should not be penalized versus T1 frigs when it comes to speed (HACs aren't), and should, in fact, quite easily outrun a T1 cruiser with vanilla fittings. Like frigs do right now. This is mandatory to fill out the 'does not suck' role, which should be first and foremost in a Assault Ship. Once that is done, they need (and it's clear to everyone) a fourth bonus suited for the particular ship. I believe that'd already put them on the 'doesn't suck in a horrible way' territory. Quote: Firstly I said on a per turret basis - not as a whole as they just don't have the fittings generally, lack drones and lack the slots for things like heat sinks unlike T2 cruisers - overall they wouldn't compare only on a turret for turret basis. Don't keep forgetting what they lack that cruisers have. I can agree that they need to match cruisers damage wise on a gun per gun basis, but many of the turret-based ones already do, given the 33% progression between small and medium turrets (which is completely solved by a 5% rof/level bonus or partially with a 5% damage/level bonus) - except in cases like Minmatar where the cruisers are double damage bonused with ROF+damage and AFs get damage and damage. Personally, I would like 4 primary weapon systems as standard on the AFs and the existing 4 gun ones (Enyo,Wolf) not penalized by two midslots. Basically, +1 more midslot on the Enyo/Wolf/Harpy/The One Midslot Amarr one, +1 gun slot on the Jaguar/Ishkur/etc. Having just +1 slot over Tier 3 combat frigates doesn't cut it. But that might be unlikely - although it would make them truly 'assault' ships ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
FarScape III Journey On Squad	Posted - 2008.03.07 17:59:00 - [50] Edited by: FarScape III on 07/03/2008 18:04:35 I don't care, give them a better role, whate ever, or As I see it, They make awesome Frigates, the problem is they cost 2 - 3 times more then an avarage T1 Cruiser. If they would cost something like 2mil isk a piece then they would make sense, so just lower the cost to build them and it's good to go. Other then that they are fun to fly as is. Other wise why in the world wouldn't i just fly a Thorax for the same or cheaper price? But then I DO fly the minmatar and Caldari AF's and imo they aint so bad except the price makes them not worth it to bring into PvP imo. ***
BiggestT	Posted - 2008.03.09 03:21:00 - [51] Originally by: Mahn AlNouhm 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. That would be awesome signed
Roemy Schneider BINFORD Solidus Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.09 05:30:00 - [52] actually, they're not that bad, but it's a very small niche between tackling (inties) and damage (destroyers). ew has recently been assigned to a new group (and half of the ships didn't have the proper slot layout anyway) however, one gets t2 resistances at the cost of agility&speed via their mass - which i still find too high (same for stealth bombers btw) ~30% heavier than t1 would be ok (and maybe 100% tops for stealth bombers) and boost AFs to "assault" warp speed, like, 7.5au/s. not that it would matter that much but it'd endorse frig gangs. that or introduce some kind of siege module that adds 90% resitances and lets them inflict mentionable damage against POS defenses :o - putting the gist back into logistics
azura nester White Shadow Imperium	Posted - 2008.03.09 08:28:00 - [53] AF's do need a boost...big time. as i see it, they are the "little brother" so to speak of the hacs. hacs fulfill the role that they have...to speed in, and hit hard. hacs can take down ships up to 2 classes bigger then they are. the af has problems when it meets a well fit cruiser. not to mention, sad to say, my taranis comes to close to the dps my enyo does. changes need to be made.
BlondieBC Minmatar Rising Knights SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.09 21:30:00 - [54] I would like to see assault frigates become anti-ewar, anti-tackle ships, probably through a 4th bonus that counters ewar and tackle.
Lubomir Penev interimo	Posted - 2008.03.09 22:20:00 - [55] 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 can't you just make them a tiny bit lighter than their T1 counterpart. Exactly like heavy assault ships are lighter than their t1 hull... This would be 80% of the problem solved. It's utterly stupid a frigate hull is not faster than a cruiser with equal skills. And no they would not compete with interceptors in the tackling role with this simple boost applied. -- Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP!

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.