EVE Search - Why not... (assault frigate change suggestion)

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Why not... (assault frigate change suggestion)

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Loreth V.L.A.S.T. Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2008.06.06 04:54:00 - [1] Instead granting AF web immunity as ship stats, introduce a projected effect high slot* module that is only available to AF class and gives web immunity to either its target as long as it is in range of effect** or with a scrip - to the AF itself. What we get is a durabile tackling support unit. Wouldnt that create more variety in many small scale engagements, especialy fast gangs, or just more complexity ? * You have probably noticed the spare one there already :) ** Say 15km module default and 10-20% range per AF/Other lvl Disclaimer: I am no aware if this or similar idea isn't out there already but i am not that determined to check.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.06.06 04:58:00 - [2] Originally by: Loreth Instead granting AF web immunity as ship stats, introduce a projected effect high slot* module that is only available to AF class and gives web immunity to either its target as long as it is in range of effect** or with a scrip - to the AF itself. What we get is a durabile tackling support unit. Wouldnt that create more variety in many small scale engagements, especialy fast gangs, or just more complexity ? * You have probably noticed the spare one there already :) ** Say 15km module default and 10-20% range per AF/Other lvl Disclaimer: I am no aware if this or similar idea isn't out there already but i am not that determined to check. I crit this post with occam's razor. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Nethras Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:19:00 - [3] Clearly, we need a ship that can be used to rescue nano-ships if they actually get themselves caught! /sarcasm off In general though, for something that would change the dynamics of combat that much, there should be a reason to add such a role beyond having a ship-class that needs a role to fill, and I really don't see a need for projecting web immunity beyond coolness factor, and that's a huge can of worms to deal with for a feature which doesn't have a need it is addressing... I'm not even certain that AFs NEED a role beyond being pew-pew T2 frigates if they actually flew like frigs, and especially if they were given a 4th real ship bonus. If you do have a reason you think this idea would be worth the problems it would certainly create, please do share :)
Agazoth V Vardr ok Lidskjalv	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:21:00 - [4] Righto its a T2 Frig that needs better pew pew. My AF doesn't handle gatecamps or running away like a frig so we have problems.
Strongbow Snow	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:23:00 - [5] Edited by: Strongbow Snow on 06/06/2008 05:25:37 I just don't see why people keep trying to change them. My pvp corp / Alliance, and many others we work with and fight against, use them, and they work great as they are. If you're crying for a change just because they aren't uber, then please stop; they really are great little ships that seem balanced well.
Agazoth V Vardr ok Lidskjalv	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:30:00 - [6] Its not changing them to be uber its changes to make them fly like there to T1 variants. I happen to spend way to much time in a rifter so I noticed this. I did alittle research and realize there is a straight up flaw with this ship. Its slower, doesn't change direction as well, and is missing a massive tracking bonus. To me a purist the AF is completely broken.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:36:00 - [7] Originally by: Strongbow Snow Edited by: Strongbow Snow on 06/06/2008 05:25:37 I just don't see why people keep trying to change them. My pvp corp / Alliance, and many others we work with and fight against, use them, and they work great as they are. If you're crying for a change just because they aren't uber, then please stop; they really are great little ships that seem balanced well. I love this game. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Agazoth V Vardr ok Lidskjalv	Posted - 2008.06.06 05:43:00 - [8] Erotic you need to fly in there shoes to love this AF. I know its a dead ship, its basically a nub ship. That said it needs to be on par with a T1 ship.
Loreth V.L.A.S.T. Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2008.06.06 06:07:00 - [9] Quote: Righto its a T2 Frig that needs better pew pew. My AF doesn't handle gatecamps or running away like a frig so we have problems. My friend :) I havent used an assault frigate since 2005 i think ... As for nanogangs geting more uber ... i just made a suggestion dont shoot me :)
EdFromHumanResources BobFromMarketing's Alt	Posted - 2008.06.06 06:10:00 - [10] Even without webs affecting them AF's are too slow and too easy to hit to be effective in a fleet. If you want them to have their own special place, give them the ability to jam the connection between a player and his fighters. Not so that he loses them, just making him unable to issue commands other than withdraw. The assault frigate is fragile enough that this won't be unbalanced in the slightest outside of the lowsec solo pwnmobile mothership players. They will cry about it tons im sure. ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote****gotism -Zurrar
Furb Killer The Peacekeeper Core	Posted - 2008.06.06 06:15:00 - [11] Nice for 0.0, but then in normal fights it still is beaten by a t1 cruiser.
EdFromHumanResources BobFromMarketing's Alt	Posted - 2008.06.06 06:16:00 - [12] Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 06/06/2008 06:17:32 Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 06/06/2008 06:16:47 Originally by: Furb Killer Nice for 0.0, but then in normal fights it still is beaten by a t1 cruiser. Yes, there is a problem with this? edit: Also an ishkur can solo t1 cruisers with relative ease. 2nd edit: Just occured to me you're refering to a pvp role for the ship...out of 0.0. I'm pretty sure people use carriers in low sec as well. ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote****gotism -Zurrar
Jaketh Ivanes Do Or Die And Live Or Try The Kano Organisation	Posted - 2008.06.06 07:09:00 - [13] Originally by: Agazoth V Erotic you need to fly in there shoes to love this AF. I know its a dead ship, its basically a nub ship. That said it needs to be on par with a T1 ship. So basically remove the t2 resistance bonus and extra damage bonuses? I'm with the group of "Doesn't need change". Yes, it could be so much better, but doesn't need to.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.06.06 07:13:00 - [14] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 06/06/2008 06:17:32 Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 06/06/2008 06:16:47 Originally by: Furb Killer Nice for 0.0, but then in normal fights it still is beaten by a t1 cruiser. Yes, there is a problem with this? edit: Also an ishkur can solo t1 cruisers with relative ease. 2nd edit: Just occured to me you're refering to a pvp role for the ship...out of 0.0. I'm pretty sure people use carriers in low sec as well. then that t1 cruiser is an idiot, not average but an idiot to die to a ship with no drone damage bonus and a frigate capacitor with the mobility of a destroyer ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Etho Demerzel Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.06.06 07:28:00 - [15] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Also an ishkur can solo t1 cruisers with relative ease. Unless the user is beyond stupid, T1 cruisers annihilate any assault frigs. Ishkur included. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
EdFromHumanResources BobFromMarketing's Alt	Posted - 2008.06.06 07:34:00 - [16] Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 06/06/2008 07:33:51 Originally by: Etho Demerzel Unless the user is beyond stupid [/quote This right here summarizes many many pilots in Eve. Just sayin. ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote****gotism -Zurrar
Furb Killer The Peacekeeper Core	Posted - 2008.06.06 07:47:00 - [17] Carriers arent used as often in low sec as in 0.0, and still i also want them to be good for solo/small gang pvp. I have pvp'ed a while in ishkur (pvp as in fair fights against pirates, not shooting down people who rat in t1 frigate). Sure i have destroyed cruisers, but in general they had stupid fitting or did stupid things.
EdFromHumanResources BobFromMarketing's Alt	Posted - 2008.06.06 09:09:00 - [18] Originally by: Furb Killer Carriers arent used as often in low sec as in 0.0, and still i also want them to be good for solo/small gang pvp. I have pvp'ed a while in ishkur (pvp as in fair fights against pirates, not shooting down people who rat in t1 frigate). Sure i have destroyed cruisers, but in general they had stupid fitting or did stupid things. I find people have stupid fittings more often than they don't. Cargo expanders on dreads that are sieging pos, tech 1 smartbombs on titans, a full rack of 50mm plates on a navy mega(Ya im not kidding). As for how to improve it for low sec, I really doubt not webbing would give it an edge against cruisers. It would however make a stabbed, cloaking, ecm bursting, mwding assault frigate the t2 shuttle of choice. We may at one point just have to face the fact that the entire class of ships was poorly thought out and try to a niche that can be filled to put them in with completely different stats/bonuses. ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote****gotism -Zurrar
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.06 09:32:00 - [19] Web immunity would fix them mostly i believe. Their dps is pretty high already and giving them more slots would encourage either lol nano or lol tank setups. I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them.
Grimpak Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 09:38:00 - [20] Originally by: Sokratesz Web immunity would fix them mostly i believe. Their dps is pretty high already and giving them more slots would encourage either lol nano or lol tank setups. as long as you don't change the mass and agility, don't forget about that --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Dante Seth	Posted - 2008.06.06 09:47:00 - [21] Originally by: Loreth Instead granting AF web immunity as ship stats AF's are getting/had immunity to webs?
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.06.06 09:48:00 - [22] Originally by: Dante Seth Originally by: Loreth Instead granting AF web immunity as ship stats AF's are getting/had immunity to webs? this is a myth, web immunity is going to happen like Planetary Flight is ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Grimpak Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.06 09:50:00 - [23] Originally by: Dante Seth Originally by: Loreth Instead granting AF web immunity as ship stats AF's are getting/had immunity to webs? one of the options in the table, according to some obscure dev posting. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.06 09:51:00 - [24] Edited by: Sokratesz on 06/06/2008 09:51:50 Well i started flying a Wolf on an alt a few days ago and so far i'm pretty impressed but it's simply much too vulnerable to large targets. It doesn't have the speed to outrun HACs nor dodge their fire like inties can. I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them.
Loreth V.L.A.S.T. Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2008.06.06 10:00:00 - [25] Grim and Sokratesz thanks for your input. My point was to create a ship with unique role not just a "heavy" tackler. They would still be limited by locking range, mass and speed. And to those yelling "Nano gangs pwn us bad enough already" - if you know you will be facing nano gang don't undock in drakes. A 10 man nano gang on a gate hardly wins against 3-4 proper set tier 1 battleships, considering most engagements happend on a gate. Plus its a lot cheaper to field the BS. But "your EvE" is not "my EvE" so have fun - i personaly think nanoships are fine.
EdFromHumanResources BobFromMarketing's Alt	Posted - 2008.06.06 10:41:00 - [26] Seems my idea doesn't even get a nod :) ------------------------------------------------- Everyone hates goonswarm for one reason or another. ... And they promote****gotism -Zurrar
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.06.06 11:26:00 - [27] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Seems my idea doesn't even get a nod :) it's cause your name breaks the forums I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and i refuse to respect people who hold them.
Noisrevbus Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.06.06 11:57:00 - [28] Being a fan and early advocate of the web immunity and afterburner bonus suggestions i just want to add: I don't necessarily belive those are good bonuses because they would help your fight Cruisers. I have this backward idea in my head that when you go one size up in the hierarchy those should be the ships posing the most immidiate threat to your ship. Thus AF's and Destroyers would be good against frigates, but threatened by Cruisers and HACs. One of the problems with the AF's is that they (esp. as a Tech-II ship) are not really well equipped to handle the even larger targets, that they should be small enough to be annoying enough for. That become an even larger problem when the bonuses the AF's have are set in that ideal. That's more or less where all my motivation lie for liking the suggestions that i support. An AB bonus (above making AB's more worthwhile as a module) would allow AF's to get decent speed, out-orbiting larger/slower weapons, without affecting signature. While a Web bonus would both do good against larger ships (BS, BC etc) and provide a nice bonus against smaller ships, which AF's in that very same line of thought would be intended to be good against (frigates that rely on webbing to beat your web should you catch them). The webbing bonus would more so be a good bonus against the 'web me / web you and mwd out' trick that a faster ship can pull off against a slower ship. With those bonuses Cruisers would still be tricky as their weapons generally hit semi-fast targets well, they are quite agile themselves etc. They are the 'bigger fish' in the setting though, so it only seems natural. Then of course, there will always be things that stop you from flawlessly working your role or bonuses (ie. even if a BS may have a tougher time against you, they still have L-NOS and L-Neut which could be devastating for an AF); but you can't have everything and those two bonuses provide a good nische and fighting chance, as a (highly defensive) heavy tackler / anti-support ship. The third, offensive option: If you want to make an AF a good anti-frigate and anti-cruiser platform, there's always the third suggestion (which i put out there myself some time ago): instead of giving an AF the physics of a frigate, you could retain their Destroyer-like bulk and feeling, and then run the full race out and make the AF the second Tech-II Destroyer, with the slot allocation of a Destroyer (an Assault Destroyer), rather than the fourth Tech-II Frigate. There are too many Frigates and too few Destroyers as it stand today. It would be quite nice with anothe reason to train 'Destroyers V', and it would make a better selection.
Mystic Pete	Posted - 2008.06.06 12:00:00 - [29] Isn't the main problem with AFs their mass increase? I'd like to see a change to either give them a X% increase in shield and armour HP or a flat role bouns 25% resistence on either shield / armour or both to make the lack of manuverability more worthwhile. I think web immunity is a bad idea. If there supposed to be heavily tanked slower frigates then that's cool, we should look at how to make them work in that role before coming up with crazy ideas.
Arana Tellen The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2008.06.06 12:21:00 - [30] Originally by: Noisrevbus Being a fan and early advocate of the web immunity and afterburner bonus suggestions i just want to add: I don't necessarily belive those are good bonuses because they would help your fight Cruisers. I have this backward idea in my head that when you go one size up in the hierarchy those should be the ships posing the most immidiate threat to your ship. Thus AF's and Destroyers would be good against frigates, but threatened by Cruisers and HACs. One of the problems with the AF's is that they (esp. as a Tech-II ship) are not really well equipped to handle the even larger targets, that they should be small enough to be annoying enough for. That become an even larger problem when the bonuses the AF's have are set in that ideal. That's more or less where all my motivation lie for liking the suggestions that i support. An AB bonus (above making AB's more worthwhile as a module) would allow AF's to get decent speed, out-orbiting larger/slower weapons, without affecting signature. While a Web bonus would both do good against larger ships (BS, BC etc) and provide a nice bonus against smaller ships, which AF's in that very same line of thought would be intended to be good against (frigates that rely on webbing to beat your web should you catch them). The webbing bonus would more so be a good bonus against the 'web me / web you and mwd out' trick that a faster ship can pull off against a slower ship. With those bonuses Cruisers would still be tricky as their weapons generally hit semi-fast targets well, they are quite agile themselves etc. They are the 'bigger fish' in the setting though, so it only seems natural. Then of course, there will always be things that stop you from flawlessly working your role or bonuses (ie. even if a BS may have a tougher time against you, they still have L-NOS and L-Neut which could be devastating for an AF); but you can't have everything and those two bonuses provide a good nische and fighting chance, as a (highly defensive) heavy tackler / anti-support ship. The third, offensive option: If you want to make an AF a good anti-frigate and anti-cruiser platform, there's always the third suggestion (which i put out there myself some time ago): instead of giving an AF the physics of a frigate, you could retain their Destroyer-like bulk and feeling, and then run the full race out and make the AF the second Tech-II Destroyer, with the slot allocation of a Destroyer (an Assault Destroyer), rather than the fourth Tech-II Frigate. There are too many Frigates and too few Destroyers as it stand today. It would be quite nice with anothe reason to train 'Destroyers V', and it would make a better selection. The non cap using weapons would have a big advantage in this case. --------------------------------- Oh noes! Originally by: CCP Greyscale moderated - mother abuse - Mitnal

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.