Player Features and Ideas Discussion

the role bonus to Assault frigates in the upcoming patch should be

7.5% reduction in signature radius per assault ship level

this will make them harder to hit, at the same time not meddling in there original base stats to kick off some sort cry to re balance them on a later patch or update

valid point,

but the the fact that defender missiles suck and there isn't an effective way of countering missiles any other way like 'td vs turrets' then this wouldn't imbalance the terms of engagement too greatly

plus shouldn't missile chuckers be packing a web or target painter to negate this effect

i like this idea but when i think of it, i end up at electronic attack ships every time

One of the biggest problems I had with assault ships is that for teh cost of an assault ship I could buy a T1 fitted battlecruiser. Much greater tank, much greater DPS for the same price.

Balancing the cost/benefit ratio would do wonders for making an assault frigate useful in fleets.

I didn't run all the numbers but just reading the proposal and reasoning +1 in case CCP decides not to mess with ships too much.

On the more radical side of the argument, I've been toying around with an idea for a while now. I never ran any numbers with it so you'll have to excuse the general vagueness, I am however aware of the fact that I suck at balancing and will let better minds than mine tinker with it in case this generates any interest.

- Hawk, Vengeance, Ishkur and Jaguar - DPS should be balanced among these, most likely leaving Hawk and Vengeance where they are or SLIGHTLY boosting them and bringing Ishkur's and Jag's DPS down to be in line. 4th bonus would be used to boost their tanks (except for Hawk where it could be used for a slight DPS increase).
- Harpy, Retribution, Enyo and Wolf - 4th bonus used to reduce requirements for their respected MEDIUM sized guns

Yes, the second part is radical. Here's the rationale:

- Utility AFs become dedicated heavy tacklers with increased tank to facilitate the survivability against their primary targets which should be cruiser and destroyer hulls. Interceptors don't lose their superior tackle ability due to superior speed. Tackler AFs become the entry point for interceptors due to lower skill requirements.

NOTE: I know the Jaguar is the sticking point here given it's current capabilities but mid slot layout dictates it being the tackler frigate.

- Damage AFs become what they were always supposed to be - anti-cruiser and anti-destroyer platforms. By fitting cruiser sized guns their DPS output against given ship classes while still not robbing destroyers of their anti-frigate role due to inherent tracking and sig radius problems of medium turrets. DPS AFs become the entry point for HACs since they require the same guns but with lower skill requirements on other fronts.

NOTE: Minmatar problem again due to AC tracking being dangerous enough for frigates. Might be mitigated by allowing only long range variant of the guns (rails/beams/artillery) which also reduces the problem of lack of tanking abilities on DPS AFs.

This is of course all very conceptual and might have more holes in it than swiss cheese, I just wanted to throw it out there for discussion.

I like the new Enyo. The wolf would need an increase in CPU to be effective. It would easily eat 20 CPU if you gave it to it. I don't know what a correct amount would be.

I can't say I agree with separating the Assault Ship lineup into two different "roles". Assault Ships are the precursor to HACs and those aren't separated like say, Recon Ships are separated into Combat and Force Recons. Sure, there's a gunboat for each race and then one that uses a different approach, but the ships they are based on vary. No HAC, whether based on the tier-2 or tier-3, is clearly better than the other within its own race per se - the combination the skills and tactics necessary to fly them effectively make each unique. Furthermore, making categories makes it difficult to decide which one goes where, and invariably will leave someone with a bad taste in their mouth for the ship they once enjoyed.

More importantly, if CCP's recent design choices are any indication, medium guns adapted to fit a small vessel would best be suited to a new tier of destroyer. I fully support this direction and thus must petition against introducing it for Assault Ships. Assault Ships are supposed to be the pinnacle of the damage and tank combination at the small ship level, and should not require investment in medium gun skills to use effectively. Yes, tier-1 destroyers can do more damage with small guns but at the expense of having relatively weak tanks, even after their boost. Just as battlecruisers can do more damage than a HAC, they do not have the base resistances and focus on weapon bonusing that HACs do.


Assault Ships are "supposed to do" whatever you can manage to pull off in one. AFs will likely end up being an ideal anti-destroyer platform however, their uses should not be purposely limited. Trying to shoehorn pilots into "use this ship to kill these ships" scenarios decreases the possibilities for dynamic encounters and is the opposite of what we should be trying enable. The AF's place in a fleet won't be fully realized until the rest of the small ship T2 lineup is fleshed out (hint for what I'm going to tackle next).

Please don't be discouraged though, Ines - your idea is a neat workaround for what Marek proposed and basically turns small guns into medium ones without the need for additional training - perhaps this is another approach for bringing in an anti-cruiser tier-2 destroyer? There are some faults such as the tracking which you didn't address - leaving the tracking of small guns while boosting damage would make these in fact deadlier against other frigates, even if the turret signature resolution were increased.

I will admit that drastic separation between types of AFs is a bit weird, it was pretty much just my attempt at not making all the AFs feel the same. Small guns don't really offer enough diversity even when considering close range vs long range weapons, the distinction is really not that big in most cases (ok, yes, Harpy and rails, but we all know rails still have serious problems). You can always get away with the lack of available med slots with just having a larger amount of ships, what I was attempting is giving tackler AFs something unique over their DPS brethren, and vice versa.

The reason I was going for larger guns is I really don't like the concept of "Role nerf" like in the case of destroyers which was just dropped in the latest patch. And, tbh, I was myself pretty much torn about it until CCP pulled it off themselves with t3 BCs.

In any case, happy to see the discussion rolling, I really want AFs in general to be a more viable small gang and solo ships, I don't care how it will be achieved in the end, I just want to pull my dusty Hawk out at last and wreak some havoc in it :)

u forgot something ???
what about faction frigs??? if u do this to asults faction ships will just become rokie ships.... and if u change the asult ships hmm making them that more powerfull u will have to change the whole balance with cruisers and bcs...

think again on all veiv not just on the asults

faction frigs shoud be able to kill the t2 frigs...

i disagree with u about faction
in all games special faction unique rare.... items/ships are beter than comon
t2 ship u can make any day u want... faction bpo u will need to find it...

they shoud be superior to t2 so far they are...
ccp alredy ruined them becuse of the t3 ships

if this nerfing will continue
in eve there are like 200 difrent ships u can fly...
becuse of all the nerfing and changing like 10 ships are playeble....
t3 ships puted out factio crusers a bit
murader and comand ships totaly...

years ago u seen many of this ships ? now u barly know they exsist?


i fly sb and af ... and i am amar race , and the ships are good for the role, to good vs noobs....
so if they change them like people want there will be solo gangs in this afs totaly owning outhers....

dont forget its a space game and size does mather...