EVE Search - Assualt Frigate changes: Assault Destroyers?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Assualt Frigate changes: Assault Destroyers?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Noisrevbus Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.03.17 18:57:00 - [1] There have been numerous good suggestions in regard to AF's. Something i haven't seen mentioned though, but would fit well into the discussion is making the AF's into AD's (Assault Destroyers) instead. Alot of people have commented about how AF's have the speed, weight and agility of a Cruiser or Destroyer rather than a Frigate, and they want that rectified to make the ship class more in line with the other frigates. Why not simply turn that idea around? Let them retain their current physics but poke them up a bracket and feed them new slots and skins instead. The frigate class is already an overpopulated ship class, whereas Destroyers is probably the most underused ship class with just one tech I and one tech II ship per race. The Assault Frigate concept of additional small weapons and a tougher tank doesn't do itself justice on a Frigate backbone, but today's concept would definately lend it's mark well as a tech II Destroyer instead. A ship that could batter it out with tech I Cruisers without problems, and still be the scourge of Frigates with the Destroyer concept of having alot of small weapons. Think about it Take the AF as it stands today and just add: +2 or 3 Highslots (but only enough grid to fit frigate size weapons) +1 Midslot +1 Lowslot Or in relation to Interdictors: +1 or 2 Highslots Better resistances Weapon and tank bonuses Tech II resists on more base HP, with weapon specific (damage, tracking, explosion velocity) and tankspecific bonuses. Coupled with similar physics as an Interdictor. On that it's still small enough to hit, fast enough to be mobile without being a prominent speed tank and have a very specialized role chasing down smaller to near equal size targets while being tough to kill for something larger (which is the idea behind both Destroyers and Assault Frigates separately today, isn't it?). Another reason to train Destroyer V, beyond those who like to Bubble ;).
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2008.03.17 19:05:00 - [2] Hmmm, sounds tempting. A destroyer with good lows and mids (better than current AFs!). And it had t2 ship resists? Who would fly anything else? Probably ought to keep the lows and mids as is.
Batelle HOMELESS. Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.03.17 19:10:00 - [3] I kind of like this idea, they'd need a bit more pg and cpu as well. EC-P8R... You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Xavok eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.03.17 19:12:00 - [4] I like this idea a lot.
ThaMa Gebir Raddick Explorations Friend or Enemy	Posted - 2008.03.17 21:10:00 - [5] Originally by: Xavok I like this idea a lot. Yes, it certainly is one of the better suggestions out there. Only thing is though, what would ccp then do for the second assault frigate? ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here!!!!
Xanos Blackpaw The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2008.03.17 22:17:00 - [6] Originally by: ThaMa Gebir Originally by: Xavok I like this idea a lot. Yes, it certainly is one of the better suggestions out there. Only thing is though, what would ccp then do for the second assault frigate? make them into specialiced anti-posmodule ships. like say 4 cruiser guns but haveing crap tracking so they wont hit anything thats not compleatly still? Playing minmatar is "like going down a flight of stairs in a office chair firing an Uzi".
Grahv Exitus The Unbound	Posted - 2008.03.17 23:44:00 - [7] I love this idea. I've always thought of Destroyers as the Corvette (Homeworld) ship class, as they seem as if they're designed to combat smaller faster ships, while being fairly mobile, however too specialized to be effective at much else. Maybe a bonus to web range, decreased cap use for webs, or increased velocity penalty to increase their frig nuking capability. There would need to be some sort of drawback to using them so they wouldn't become a solopwnmobile in relation to frigates. /Signed -- Upon him I will visit famine and fire. 'Til all around him desolation rings And all the demons of the outer dark Look on amazed and recognize That vengeance is the business of a man.
Darth Kenzie Ganja Labs	Posted - 2008.03.18 00:02:00 - [8] Edited by: Darth Kenzie on 18/03/2008 00:05:06 I love this idea. a fun idea might be to give 1 sub type a role as a remote eccm boat and make the other a close range brawler. ------- Even my barge has kills...
Liang Nuren Black Sea Industries Insurgency	Posted - 2008.03.18 00:04:00 - [9] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/03/2008 00:04:40 I will say that the destroyer seems to me to be a great ship class that's horribly done wrong. The base destroyer needs a smaller sig radius, a bit more tank, and the removal of the 50% ROF penalty. Also, what's up with the Thrasher getting an optimal bonus?! All destroyers should get both optimal and falloff bonuses :) -Liang Ed: All of that to say that I'd be ok with it if they fixed destroyers to not be near useless. -- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance.
Lance Fighter Safe Haven North Star Confederation	Posted - 2008.03.18 00:06:00 - [10] Originally by: Grahv Exitus Edited by: Grahv Exitus on 17/03/2008 23:46:49 I love this idea. I've always thought of Destroyers as the Corvette (Homeworld) ship class, as they seem as if they're designed to combat smaller, faster ships, while being fairly mobile but too specialized to be effective at much else. Maybe a bonus to web range, or something along those lines. There would need to be some sort of drawback to using them so they wouldn't become a solopwnmobile in relation to frigates. /Signed The whole point of a corvette in HW2 was to blow up the class of ship under it... imo a t2 dessy should pwn any t1/t2 frig, unless the frig pilot has some mad skills. Ive noticed that 99.9% of people on these forums have a signature. If you are one of the 0.1% that doesnot have a sig, copy this into your sig, and display your defiance towards people with sigs.
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.03.18 01:17:00 - [11] Corvette class ftw. Although, weren't corvettes smaller than frigs? Oh well, not like it matters... I totally agree that destroyers/af's need to be looked at in general. I would LOVE for a new t2 destroyer. Pretty please with a cherry on top? Anti-support please. --
Morgan La'Chance Dynamic Reallocation and Logistics	Posted - 2008.03.18 12:10:00 - [12] Originally by: Marcus Druallis Corvette class ftw. Although, weren't corvettes smaller than frigs? Oh well, not like it matters... I totally agree that destroyers/af's need to be looked at in general. I would LOVE for a new t2 destroyer. Pretty please with a cherry on top? Anti-support please. Well, remember that the true harbinger of destruction in Homeworld 2 was... the destroyer! But yes, in general steel fleet naval terminology, it's cutter -> corvette -> frigate -> destroyer, with most modern navies fielding mainly corvettes and frigates, and navies with need for greater range or firepower also use destroyers (and as a funny sidenote, the new Japanese Naval SDF class of "helicopter destroyers" almost have the same tonnage as a British Invincible-class aircraft carrier ). And as to add something EVE related... 8 high slots/weapon slots would have to go for assault destroyers. They can't have that + combat bonuses + T2 ship resists AND proper low/mid configurations.
Xanos Blackpaw The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2008.03.18 14:07:00 - [13] i dont know if it would work but i got another idea...how about a heavy destroyer? cruiser class hull and 8 guns with dubble damage? small guns ofcourse and a RoF penalty to keep the dps down Playing minmatar is "like going down a flight of stairs in a office chair firing an Uzi".
LordThyGod Acerbus Vindictum Nex Super Vos	Posted - 2008.03.19 19:03:00 - [14] I love this idea, i have always been in love with my desty. The only ship i truly love asside from my rokh is that stupid lil corrmarant that i resist rigged back hwen i was like a month old.
Perfect Diamond Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.03.19 19:40:00 - [15] More weapons = bigger ship class bigger ship = different skill requirements different skill requirement = people complaining Amarr is the tank OR gank race. Not the tank and gank race.
Omarvelous Destry's Lounge XIII Legio	Posted - 2008.03.19 19:44:00 - [16] Edited by: Omarvelous on 19/03/2008 19:46:57 Edited by: Omarvelous on 19/03/2008 19:44:05 Originally by: LordThyGod I love this idea, i have always been in love with my desty. The only ship i truly love asside from my rokh is that stupid lil corrmarant that i resist rigged back hwen i was like a month old. phew glad I wasn't the only one to have done that! I would personally like to see AF's as ships with an afterburner bonus - like instead of 2x speed you get 3x speed. Maybe 5% per level web effectiveness reduction - at level 5 a 90% webifier would be as effective as a 72% webifier. For example: An AF would go base speed 280 m/s -> current afterburner goes 540 m/s - 90% web drops you to 54 m/s. Squish New Omarvelous rules... An AF would go base speed 280 m/s -> new afterburner goes 810 m/s - 90% web working as 72% web drops you to 230 m/s. Tears of joy! Now you have a ship that can survive a tackle, and not step on the interceptor's toes for speed tanking. While a tech 1 cruiser hits harder and lasts longer, is more vulnerable in web range than an AF. Thoughts? __________________________________________________ Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.

Pages: 1 :: [one 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.