Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Assault Frigates: Incendiary rounds

This role specific ability is a debuff applied to the repair rate of target ships. Damage applied by these ships reduces the ability of target ships to receive/activate shield/armor reps based on hull size, stacking to a maximum debuff of 20%. The type of debuff could also be race specific,

Amarr/Caldari - debuff applies to shield

Gallante/Minmatar - debuff applies to armor


Here is an example of how hull type would impact the debuff, per ship against target hull.



Assault Frigate

Frigate - 2%

Destroyer - 1.5%

Cruiser/Battlecruiser - 1%

Battleship - 0.5%

Capital - 0.1%

So it would take a 200 man AF fleet to reach the 20% cap against a capital ship.



Heavy Assault Cruiser

Frigate - 4%

Destroyer - 3%

Cruiser/Battlecruiser - 2%

Battleship - 1%

Capital - 0.2%

---

Ship info could be something like this,

Jaguar
Minmatar Frigate bonuses (per skill level):
5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret tracking speed

Assault Frigates bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret optimal range
5% bonus to Incendiary round effectiveness against armor
Role Bonus: Incendiary rounds, disrupting the effectiveness repair modules.

In large fleet battles you could set up a wing of AF’S/HAC’S to do hit and run tactics against specific targets, thoughts?

I wasn't talking about repairing overheated modules, I was referring to the shield booster/armor rep module effectiveness. Sorry for the confusion I edited the post.

not saying I like the idea, but certain chemical reactions are self contained and are able to function in conditions where you would not expect things to be able to burn.

Eh. At least it's a newish idea, I guess, but I don't think it would really change the landscape for AFs any.

Buffer tanks with logi support are more common than local active tanks in any sizeable engagement, and even if it reduced incoming remote reps, the existing strategies for thwarting logi (ECM, damps, MJFGs, blapping logi off the field, etc.) do a more thorough job, with fewer pilots necessary.

Why would I want AFs, when I can just damp the **** out of a logi and get -100% efficiency?

It's a new idea, but I don't think this would make the AF useful.

But on the note of "debuffing rounds", I would find it more interesting if an AF applied a debuff that would increase the incoming dps on a ship. Say for example, AF could fit a weapon system with rounds, that applied a 10s debuff that increased all damage on a target for 10%. I think something like that would be more interesting that decreasing rep efficiency.

Anyway, I'm just brainstorming now so this might be OP as **** or useless as hell... Haven't decided yet. :D

As I said, I was just brainstorming :D At least it's more useful than decreasing rep rounds.

If it's applied to either shield/armor pick the according ship, or you could introduce a module similar to defender missles that nullify it or even have certain ship types immune to its effects like pirate factions.

The idea sounds cool, i see quite a few videos where fleets of ships are unable to break the tank of larger singular ships and this idea could help AFs get a new role in helping with that.

Another idea would be for incendiaries to put the target's modules into a state in which:
a) they cannot be overheated
b) they take heat damage as if they were overheated
c) the cycle time stays the same

also crow needs to chill out

Yeah? And guess how that happens, by having a discussion about their ideas! Do you really think every good idea just came out perfect? Or maybe, just maybe it had some inherent flaws and so some people had a conversation about it to make it better.

Do you know the difference between criticism and constructive criticism? Didn't think so.

I am not sure how I feel about this idea.

On one hand... it is not the most "horrible" idea I have come across in F&I. And it is a pretty interesting concept with some practical use (without being totally overpowered).

On the other hand... it would not help Assault Frigates in large engagements (Remote Repairs and Logi) and would serve to put solo players (who generally rely on active tanks) at more of a disadvantage than they already are.

And if the concept were applied to RR as well... I could definitely see large gangs having Assault Frigate wings whose primary task is to neutralize Logi ships... which will cause some SERIOUS upsets in the current fleet/gang meta and perhaps even devolve things back into a "Alpha everything" meta.


I get that people want to see AFs get some more "OOMPH" but I don't think this is it.
It is too narrow of a focus and won't help AFs overall... especially since Tech 3 Destroyers will still be better than them in almost every respect (which I think is the exact crux of the problem to begin with).




edit:
To elaborate on the T3D point: Before Tech 3 Destroyers were introduced, an Assault Frigate vs Destroyer match-up would generally favor the Destroyer (due to the Dessie's higher native firepower).

However the AFs had the advantage in terms of speed and mobility. And they could even be "special fit" to be a serious threat to a Destroyer (hint: fit up a gank-fit Enyo or a super-tanked Vengeance... both of those ships made Destroyers leery).

In a larger sense, AFs and Dessies were the "same thing"... one cheaper and more ganky, the other tougher and more mobile.

Tech 3 Destroyers blew that balance out of the water by creating a ship that was highly mobile, quite tanky, and packed a lot of firepower into a relatively affordable (see: under 100 million ISK) package.