These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Ideas for resurrecting assault frigates from the dead
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cristl
#21 - 2015-12-11 15:57:58 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The problem with AFs, and with frigates in general, is that the new destroyers outperform them in every way that matters in this game. (Let's not even pretend like cost is a factor at that ship size)

The major reason for this is the speed the new destroyers are capable of attaining. It is reasonable for T3 and the new T2 destroyers to outpace most frigates in tank and firepower, they are a larger ship class after all. But what is not reasonable is their speed.

In addition to this, AFs very badly lack a niche of their own, they are designed to be tankier, shootier versions of T1 frigates. This means that they are sorely outclassed and invalidated by the new destroyers in every way.

Solutions?

#1. Ban oversize prop mods from each and every ship in the game. Notably, this solves more problems than just T3 destroyers, it solves T3 cruisers and a few others as well.

#2. Assault frigates no longer use cap for activating an afterburner(-100% use of cap role bonus). This gives them a niche, albeit a minor one, staying power. They're not just popping in and out for bursts of speed, instead they are relentless pursuers.

#3. A sensor strength boost or preferably a big helping of that new ewar resistance. Assault Frigates should be like an attack dog, you can't shake them off, you have to kill them.

The rottweiler protocol, I love this.

Maybe keep a reduced MWD role bonus too, so there is still a choice to be made between AB/MWD/Dual prop.

Also, possibly introduce sensible middle options for prop mods (3, 30 MN ABs; 15,150 MN MWDs) to keep some fitting choices open for 'oversize' props that aren't over the top?
Tornii
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-12-11 16:33:52 UTC
I looked through suggestions and one recurring theme is the "AFs are fine, they can sand up to X" comment. While that might (or might not) be true, the point is that the AFs are TII ship class and should thus feature a specialised niche role at which they would excel and for which they would be picked for fleets over other ships by some pilots.
Tornii
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-12-12 18:50:23 UTC
So, my reasoning while exploring what could become a a distinctive role for AFs was as follows: their special role can't be either tackle (that's an already overcrowded niche with ceptors being light tackle, recons being long-range tackle and HICs being heavy tackle) or DPS/range (that cuts into destroyers' territory, especially with that class having only recently reclaimed the anti-support role, plus the TDs having their own say in the damage/range area).

With EWAR role also occupied by other specialised ships, the only idea I could think of was to make AFs specialised anti-big ship brawling type. How about giving them reduced received neut+web bonus that would enable AFs to maintain their cap and speed tank against cruisers, BCs and BSs? That would make the ship class live up to its title.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#24 - 2015-12-12 19:13:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
You cannot look at AFs in isolation as the overlap between tactical destroyers and AFs is crucial. The reason tactical destroyers are so good is due to their signature to tank ratio.

It is actually quite easy to fix AFs, you just need to correct this ratio between AFs and tactical destroyers.

Best way to do this imo is below.

1. Increase the signature radius of tactical destroyers across the board.

2. Improve the signature to tank ratio on AFs, I would do this by changing their role bonus to 50% afterburner velocity and MWD signature reduction bonus.

On a side not I would also confer this bonus to HACs for consistency and to give them a slight buff.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#25 - 2015-12-12 19:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Tornii wrote:
...the only idea I could think of was to make AFs specialised anti-big ship brawling type. How about giving them reduced received neut+web bonus that would enable AFs to maintain their cap and speed tank against cruisers, BCs and BSs? That would make the ship class live up to its title.

Their current role is pretty much as you already describe imo, the only issue is that tactical destroyers do it much better. Increasing the signature of tactical destroyers will mean bigger ships will have an easier time hitting them, and then that will mean that AFs will once again become the preferred ship for this role helped with the addition of an AB bonus.
Tornii
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-12-12 19:22:30 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Tornii wrote:
...the only idea I could think of was to make AFs specialised anti-big ship brawling type. How about giving them reduced received neut+web bonus that would enable AFs to maintain their cap and speed tank against cruisers, BCs and BSs? That would make the ship class live up to its title.

Their current role is pretty much as you already describe imo, the only issue is that tactical destroyers do it much better. Increasing the signature of tactical destroyers will mean bigger ships will have an easier time hitting them, and then that will mean that AFs will once again become the preferred ship for this role helped with the addition of an AB bonus.

I can't recall AFs being efficient in anti-big ship role with all the medium/heavy neuts and webs the latter carry. Both while using AFs myself and seeing other people go up against bigger ships equipped with neuts/webs, I have always seen one outcome, and that was never in favour of the AFs.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#27 - 2015-12-12 20:33:30 UTC
Tornii wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
Tornii wrote:
...the only idea I could think of was to make AFs specialised anti-big ship brawling type. How about giving them reduced received neut+web bonus that would enable AFs to maintain their cap and speed tank against cruisers, BCs and BSs? That would make the ship class live up to its title.

Their current role is pretty much as you already describe imo, the only issue is that tactical destroyers do it much better. Increasing the signature of tactical destroyers will mean bigger ships will have an easier time hitting them, and then that will mean that AFs will once again become the preferred ship for this role helped with the addition of an AB bonus.

I can't recall AFs being efficient in anti-big ship role with all the medium/heavy neuts and webs the latter carry. Both while using AFs myself and seeing other people go up against bigger ships equipped with neuts/webs, I have always seen one outcome, and that was never in favour of the AFs.

With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships. The problem is that tactical destroyers are even better. I can't even contemplate attacking a tactical destroyer in a lot of BCs and BSs.
Tornii
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2015-12-13 06:59:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tornii
Moac Tor wrote:
With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships.

You keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#29 - 2015-12-13 15:32:50 UTC
Tornii wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships.

You keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM.

"completely negated by neuts and webs"
Not at all, unless your facing a 90% or dual webbed battleships which isn't common, then AFs are not completely negated. And heavy nuets have such a long cycle time they are easy for AFs to counter.
Tornii
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2015-12-14 09:21:21 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Tornii wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships.

You keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM.

"completely negated by neuts and webs"
Not at all, unless your facing a 90% or dual webbed battleships which isn't common, then AFs are not completely negated. And heavy nuets have such a long cycle time they are easy for AFs to counter.

Again, lots of theory while practice shows something else. Pilots of big ships have long understood it's better to have medium neuts for negating frigate threat, or mix different sized neuts for timing their activation in a way that keeps frigates capless, and helpless. And a single web combined with neuts and drones is more than enough to negate any chance of possible threat from small ships. That is why I suggested the reduced neut/web effect on AFs as a way of making them worthwhile and giving them a viable niche role.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#31 - 2015-12-14 13:00:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Tornii wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
Tornii wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships.

You keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM.

"completely negated by neuts and webs"
Not at all, unless your facing a 90% or dual webbed battleships which isn't common, then AFs are not completely negated. And heavy nuets have such a long cycle time they are easy for AFs to counter.

Again, lots of theory while practice shows something else. Pilots of big ships have long understood it's better to have medium neuts for negating frigate threat, or mix different sized neuts for timing their activation in a way that keeps frigates capless, and helpless. And a single web combined with neuts and drones is more than enough to negate any chance of possible threat from small ships. That is why I suggested the reduced neut/web effect on AFs as a way of making them worthwhile and giving them a viable niche role.

The amount of cap drained is practically irrelevant for a frigate, it is the cycle time of the neut that really hurts. It is very easy to counter medium and heavy neuts in a small ship (unless they have a lot of stagger them or have a bonus to cycle time such as a talisman implants). You don't seem to understand basic stuff though so nothing personal but you really shouldn't be commenting on assault frigate balance.
Tornii
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2015-12-14 16:09:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tornii
Moac Tor wrote:
Tornii wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
Tornii wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships.

You keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM.

"completely negated by neuts and webs"
Not at all, unless your facing a 90% or dual webbed battleships which isn't common, then AFs are not completely negated. And heavy nuets have such a long cycle time they are easy for AFs to counter.

Again, lots of theory while practice shows something else. Pilots of big ships have long understood it's better to have medium neuts for negating frigate threat, or mix different sized neuts for timing their activation in a way that keeps frigates capless, and helpless. And a single web combined with neuts and drones is more than enough to negate any chance of possible threat from small ships. That is why I suggested the reduced neut/web effect on AFs as a way of making them worthwhile and giving them a viable niche role.

The amount of cap drained is practically irrelevant for a frigate, it is the cycle time of the neut that really hurts. It is very easy to counter medium and heavy neuts in a small ship (unless they have a lot of stagger them or have a bonus to cycle time such as a talisman implants). You don't seem to understand basic stuff though so nothing personal but you really shouldn't be commenting on assault frigate balance.

Excuse me but you just spent an entire effort of that post to point out something already referred to (now highlighted) in my previous comment, i.e. the fact that multiple neuts spread out and timed at various points mean frigate caps are constantly drained.
Nothing personal but all you've done so far is waste your own time and mine reiterating theoretical frigate performance data to suggest it makes them viable against big ships while practical application of their counters proves that to be false.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#33 - 2015-12-14 16:38:41 UTC
The MWD bonus for AF was bad to begin with. Interceptors are the high speed kiting / tackle frigate. AF are the close in 'heavy' frigate tackle ships. You want to get them back in the mix - drop the misguided MWD bonus. Give them an AB role bonus and a web resistance bonus.

Give AF the ability to bore in and tackle something and hold onto it until the fleet can drop the hammer on its prey. This would give AF a role.

Their role and the construction of their role should never be to make them a solo powerhouse (that shouldn't be the role of any ship).


I think a lot of the balance issues w/ T3 destroyers is that you can instantly swap between 3 roles and (OMG... who would have thought) poof they are OP. The mode swap instawarp puts them over the top. (I'd recommend a 4 second mode swap c/d before a T3 can enter warp - you could call it a 'combat commitment' feature)
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#34 - 2015-12-14 21:39:43 UTC
Tornii wrote:
Excuse me but you just spent an entire effort of that post to point out something already referred to (now highlighted) in my previous comment, i.e. the fact that multiple neuts spread out and timed at various points mean frigate caps are constantly drained.
Nothing personal but all you've done so far is waste your own time and mine reiterating theoretical frigate performance data to suggest it makes them viable against big ships while practical application of their counters proves that to be false.

So then why were you suggesting that AFs should have a nuet resistance if you, as you now claim to understand, that neut amount negligible compared to the neut cycle time. Are you suggesting the AF should slow down the targets neut cycle time? Sorry you are all over the place and digging yourself deeper.

I actually agree with your original sentiment that AFs need to be buffed, it is a shame that you are now attacking me for pointing out a flaw in your proposal when I am actually on your side here.

Like I said before, give AFs a 50% afterburner bonus (which is actually a form of web resistance) alongside their current 50% MWD sig radius bonus, and then increase the sig radius of tactical destroyers so that they don't encroach on AFs role.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#35 - 2015-12-14 21:47:19 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
... The mode swap instawarp puts them over the top. (I'd recommend a 4 second mode swap c/d before a T3 can enter warp - you could call it a 'combat commitment' feature)


Or just call it as it would turn out - a hilariously expensive destroyer lossmail.

People still don't understand that the afterburner IS the tank. Resistance or not a 900m/s flying Confessor with 1mn afterburner is a 100m lossmail.
Right tools for the right purpose I say. 2 Sentinels or Dragoons and that Confessor will have a problem or two.

It's like saying a Brutix kills a Thorax - Brutix op.

Approaching a bigger boat in a nano ship might not be the right tactic for everything, go figure.


But back to the topic at hand, assault ships might need a little more speed, cap and maybe a range bonus like the Retribution has and all will be fine.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#36 - 2015-12-14 22:32:54 UTC
People want ewar resistance, so why not give a +100% bonus to the effectiveness of anti-ewar modules.

  • Tracking Computers,
  • ECCM,
  • SeBos,
  • Batteries (ugh, I think).

That way, you can fit a hard counter to the type of ewar you're expecting, but keep an important fitting choice without favouring any faction too much.

An AB bonus would be cool, but I despise the speed meta too much for that.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2015-12-14 23:44:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
I'm still asserting the best brawling method for AFs is the cruiser class weapons, but in order to beat the whole "speed is king" thing, I'd like to make them just as weak to tackle as anything else, but not usurp tackles role and make them for hitting dessies/cruisers but not so effective at BS.

So, cruiser weapons, tracking bonus only, AF bonus to speed.
Frig bonus: tracking bonus, or appropriate bonus for missiles, or smartbombs
AF bonuses: AB speed bonus 10%/level, 20%/level reduced lock time after decloaking(regular cloaks).
Role bonus: appropriate reductions to permit cruiser class weapons

That second AF bonus is to run gate camps but not have bubble immunity, have surprise Assfrig sex while camping gates, and to give solo roamers bathroom breaks.

It may require larger cargobays with a tradeoff in drone bay size and BW. Possibly a bit of speed if the AB bonus is raised even more.

As always the ishkur is a bit of an issue, but the trade off for that would be cargo size, bandwidth for 6 small drones(yes 6 in space at once) and be the only ship with bonuses to smartbombs.

a pipebombing frig, gimmie some love rooks and kings.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#38 - 2015-12-15 00:43:36 UTC
I'd love to see a HAM Hawk with the Rocket/LML bonuses transplanted directly with HAM/HML bonuses. My God, it'd be awesome fun fighting up-ship with that.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#39 - 2015-12-15 04:35:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Solutions?

#1. Ban oversize prop mods from each and every ship in the game. Notably, this solves more problems than just T3 destroyers, it solves T3 cruisers and a few others as well.

#2. Assault frigates no longer use cap for activating an afterburner(-100% use of cap role bonus). This gives them a niche, albeit a minor one, staying power. They're not just popping in and out for bursts of speed, instead they are relentless pursuers.

#3. A sensor strength boost or preferably a big helping of that new ewar resistance. Assault Frigates should be like an attack dog, you can't shake them off, you have to kill them.
MWD svipul is still better than a Jag/wolf and MWD confessor is still better than the retribution. Most Svipul fits I see are MWD + double MSE fit. Most Confessors I see MWD + beams. #1 doesn't solve anything in regards to the relationship between T3Ds and AFs.

#2 I don't think too many people are afraid of a 1mn AF "relentlessly" pursing them. The only real use that has is for dual prop fits attacking something with neuts, which currently is quite adequately addressed by fitting a nos.

#3 Sensor strength, capacitor buff, targeting range buffs and lock speed buffs I support because they actually enhance AF's role as heavy tacklers. Since long range neuts, ECM and damps the most common ways of peeling/preventing tackle. And really once you balance Svipuls and Confessors and fix some specific hulls like the Jaguar AFs should be fine.
Valacus
Streets of Fire
#40 - 2015-12-15 07:00:49 UTC
There is no way to balance AFs without some extreme nerfs to T3Ds, and seriously some of them need it. The Svipul and Confessor overshadow just about every other ship of their class and below. You can field entire fleets of Svipuls and kill carriers. Svipuls can 1v1 cruisers. Any discussion of AFs has to include a T3D nerf. T3Ds are simply better at everything. If they could ignore bubbles, they'd also replace interceptors for traveling. In fact they already do in low sec.