These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tornii
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2015-12-15 07:32:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tornii
Moac Tor wrote:
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?

No, and I was pretty clear about what I meant from the beginning. But okay, I'll do this one more time.

I suggested bonus to AFs for received neut/web effect because I said neuts on big ships ruined AF chances against them; when you pointed out large neuts had long cycle time and thus AFs could counter them for quick cap regen, I pointed out that large ship pilots have long known that and used combinations of small+medium or 2x medium neuts with varying activation times to keep AF caps dry. My suggestion would counter this by making the amount drained by neuts from AFs lower, thus allowing AFs to keep their caps alive (even in cases of neut combinations stated above) for staying alive while fighting bigger ships.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#42 - 2015-12-15 13:58:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Tornii wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
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?

No, and I was pretty clear about what I meant from the beginning. But okay, I'll do this one more time.

I suggested bonus to AFs for received neut/web effect because I said neuts on big ships ruined AF chances against them; when you pointed out large neuts had long cycle time and thus AFs could counter them for quick cap regen, I pointed out that large ship pilots have long known that and used combinations of small+medium or 2x medium neuts with varying activation times to keep AF caps dry. My suggestion would counter this by making the amount drained by neuts from AFs lower, thus allowing AFs to keep their caps alive (even in cases of neut combinations stated above) for staying alive while fighting bigger ships.

So again for the nth time, that will have a neglible effect as it doesn't affect the nuet cycle time. Sorry your idea is terrible and you cant seem to admit it despite the obvious flaws. As others in this thread have also pointed out, neuts are not a major problem unless you are facing multiple neuts staggered (ie a curse), there are only a very small number of BS and BC that tend to fit enough neuts to bother an AF which is properly setup to counter them. I suggest before your next reply you go back to the drawing board and try to understand what is being said to you before repetedly suggesting the same bad idea over and over again.
Tornii
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2015-12-15 14:39:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tornii
Now this is getting ridiculous.
Moac Tor wrote:
As others in this thread have also pointed out, neuts are not a major problem

Page 1: post 1, post 2 - both indicate the AF vulnerability to neuts I mentioned. Just because you saw a third post suggesting otherwise doesn't mean you should start making false statements in the hope that nobody will check their validity.

Moac Tor wrote:
unless you are facing multiple neuts staggered

Multiple=more than one. And 2x neuts staggered in activation is exactly what I have been mentioning for the last three or more replies now.

Moac Tor wrote:
there are only a very small number of BS and BC that tend to fit enough neuts to bother an AF

Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.

Moac Tor wrote:
BS and BC that tend to fit enough neuts to bother an AF which is properly setup to counter them.

The only way to fit AFs to counter multiple neuts from a BC/BS is to have a cap booster, and maybe even NOS in addition (and even then multiple and timed neuts could nullify that fit). Fitting a ship already scarce on mod slots that way will sacrifice its tackling/tanking/damage potential and thus undermine its role as anti-big ship brawler, the role discussed within my suggestion.

You don't like my idea - I have no issues with that. But please stop skipping/twisting my points or creating theories suiting your agenda.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#44 - 2015-12-15 15:37:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Tornii wrote:
Now this is getting ridiculous.
Moac Tor wrote:
As others in this thread have also pointed out, neuts are not a major problem

Page 1: post 1, post 2 - both indicate the AF vulnerability to neuts I mentioned. Just because you saw a third post suggesting otherwise doesn't mean you should start making false statements in the hope that nobody will check their validity.

Moac Tor wrote:
unless you are facing multiple neuts staggered

Multiple=more than one. And 2x neuts staggered in activation is exactly what I have been mentioning for the last three or more replies now.

Moac Tor wrote:
there are only a very small number of BS and BC that tend to fit enough neuts to bother an AF

Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.

Moac Tor wrote:
BS and BC that tend to fit enough neuts to bother an AF which is properly setup to counter them.

The only way to fit AFs to counter multiple neuts from a BC/BS is to have a cap booster, and maybe even NOS in addition (and even then multiple and timed neuts could nullify that fit). Fitting a ship already scarce on mod slots that way will sacrifice its tackling/tanking/damage potential and thus undermine its role as anti-big ship brawler, the role discussed within my suggestion.

You don't like my idea - I have no issues with that. But please stop skipping/twisting my points or creating theories suiting your agenda.

Interesting that you start the thread of asking for other peoples ideas, yet now it turns out that your real intention was to create a thread where you end up ignoring everyone else's constructive criticism and propagate a terrible idea which shows no knowledge of the mechanics. It is not just me saying that a neut/cap bonus is not necessary, you need to read your own thread.

Nevermind, your a lost cause. I'll let you continue to espouse your terrible idea in ignorance. It has 0% chance of being implemented anyway.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#45 - 2015-12-15 17:33:40 UTC
Tornii wrote:

Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.


Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers.

I suppose if you want to be derpy, Any BC could fit 2 neuts if they start dropping guns, but thats kind of silly to use that as a balancing point.

Same goes for battleships, geddon, fleet phoon, tempest and maybe 1-2 other BS' can fit dual heavy neuts, or 1 heavy neut/1 medium neut. Again, you can claim "2 neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without issue" if you start dropping guns.

We don't need a neut reduction gimmick. Neuts are there on purpose so bigger ships have some way to mitigate smaller ships. You already mentioned the best counter there is, a cap booster. We don't need gimmicky little AF with neut/web reduction bonuses. AF work decently now, they're just overshadowed by T3D which do the same thing for a similar price and completely dunk most AF's in comparable fights.

AF were good at holding down larger ships. The tank/sig of most of them is pretty significant when you're fighting against a non RHML BS or drone BC. Yes, BC/BS have fits designed to counter smaller ships. That is not a weakness of the ship class, its a counter. The last thing we need is yet another nerf to larger ship hulls. All they have going for them to counter small cancer ships are neuts, webs and drones. Excluding drone boats, most don't have extravagant drone bays either.

So now we want smaller, t2 resist profiled ships, with MWD sig reduction bonuses to have an immunity or reduction against webs/neuts? Fix cancer with more cancer, sounds like a good idea.

STOP TRYING TO IMPLEMENT GIMMICKS INTO SMALLER SHIP CLASSES THAT NEGATE LARGER SHIP COUNTERS.

FFS, there are more things in EVE than frigates and destroyers. Every suggestion to improve frigates seems to ignore the fact that you will be shitting all over larger ships even more, which don't need any more nerfs.

Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle. Increase fitting, adjust traits, etc and MAYBE work on an AB bonus as that is the least derptarded thing mentioned so far.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#46 - 2015-12-15 18:25:19 UTC
I'll see the derp suggest so far and raise you: AF pilots are invisible to local.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#47 - 2015-12-15 18:35:47 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Tornii wrote:

Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.


Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers.

Exactly. It takes quite a lot of fitting compromises to get an effective cap warfare BC or BS, neuts take a tonne of powergrid and use up a utility high which a lot don't even have. Even then they can be countered by use of nos and cap boosters unless you have a bonused ship.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
We don't need a neut reduction gimmick. Neuts are there on purpose so bigger ships have some way to mitigate smaller ships. You already mentioned the best counter there is, a cap booster. We don't need gimmicky little AF with neut/web reduction bonuses. AF work decently now, they're just overshadowed by T3D which do the same thing for a similar price and completely dunk most AF's in comparable fights.

Also even a small nos will give you enough cap to run frigate sized modules such as an afterburner, web, scram. Combine that with a cap booster and a decent AF pilot will have literally no problem with neuts. If anything neuts need a buff.
Tornii
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2015-12-15 20:40:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tornii
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Tornii wrote:

Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.


Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers.

I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle.

As I already mentioned, the tackle role is already overpopulated. We have ceptors as light tackle, recons as long range tackle and HICs as heavy tackle (plus the Keres long tackle option). AFs need their own specialised role, which is why I raised the idea of reduced neut/web effect. And if you think that's a gimmick, by that logic half of all EVE ships have gimmick bonuses.

Thank you for your contribution to this pool of ideas though.
Alexis Nightwish
#49 - 2015-12-16 00:15:54 UTC
I consider AFs to one of the most well-balanced ship classes in the game. It's the T3Ds and RLMLs that are the problem. If CCP were to fix those, you would see AFs flying around again.

Oh, and by 'fix' I mean 'nerf into the ******* ground' because it needs to be done.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#50 - 2015-12-16 03:53:40 UTC
Tornii wrote:
I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently.
Really? Who are these people, corps, alliances dropping bonused gun/missile slots for neuts? Any semi-decent gang that's worried about tackle these days brings a RLML boat. Any decent soloer I know brings double webs or if they want to go dual neuts, picks a ship that actually has two utility high slots.

Tornii wrote:
Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle.

As I already mentioned, the tackle role is already overpopulated. We have ceptors as light tackle, recons as long range tackle and HICs as heavy tackle (plus the Keres long tackle option). AFs need their own specialised role, which is why I raised the idea of reduced neut/web effect..[/quote]
HICs go 1200-1600ms. Not exactly speedy. Svipuls currently perform heavy tackle because they can catch up to kiting Vagas, Cynabals, Nomens and fast BCs without being 2-3 shot like Ceptors. Prior to T3Ds this is was a role AFs filled somewhat adequately (they were never THAT great tbh). Heavy tackle is a legit role of AFs to fill and they certainly could be better at it.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#51 - 2015-12-16 15:02:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Tornii wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Tornii wrote:

Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.


Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers.

I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle.

As I already mentioned, the tackle role is already overpopulated. We have ceptors as light tackle, recons as long range tackle and HICs as heavy tackle (plus the Keres long tackle option). AFs need their own specialised role, which is why I raised the idea of reduced neut/web effect. And if you think that's a gimmick, by that logic half of all EVE ships have gimmick bonuses.

Thank you for your contribution to this pool of ideas though.


So wait, assuming this actually happens "frequently" (i doubt it, ive never ran across this scenario and ive solo'd for years), you want to introduce a gimmicky counter to ships that drop turrets/dps for neuts designed to counter frigates. They are sacrificing dps for better utility against frigates but are then vulnerable to larger ships. Your reasoning makes no sense.

Fitting ship A specifically to kill ship B, but in turn will be at a disadvantage to ship C is literally a non issue and is how the game balances itself. You are basically crying about a setup designed to kill frigs (while sacrificing elsewhere) and use that as a basis for allowing AF to have web/neut immunity/reduction. Which is just.. derpy as hell.

AF are easy to train into for most new players. HICs, recons are not. EAF are fairly easy to train as well but are by no means considered heavy tackle. You so much as sneeze on them and they will pop, not to mention they do very low dps. AF on the other hand are the definition of heavy tackle for 2 reasons:

1. MWD sig reduction bonus - Meaning its harder for larger guns to track, allowing you to get close and tackle

2. T2 resist profile - Yes t3ds have their tank mode, but they sacrifice range/speed to get comparable resistances. AF do not, its all in one package.

It is a gimmick and a gimmick that reduces effectivness of counters. To put in a different light, it would like saying giving the orthrus a bonus role for 90% reduction of effectiveness to sensor damps and missile disruptors because those counter it and its not fair.

AF need stat rebalances which include fitting resources and tweaking some of the weaker ships to balance out the group. You givethem the resources for fitting decent tanks without gobs of fitting mods and enough damage to be dangerous, you will see them come out again and be more evenly matched against t3ds.

To those who think t3d should dunk any frig are delusional. T1 destroyers by definition are anti-frig, yet can be killed fairly easily by a well skilled pilot and properly fit ship. I see no reason why t3ds should be an I win button. Again AF have tank/projection in one package. T3Ds do not. If AF had better tank and a bit more dps, that would solidify their role as heavy tackle and could even kill t3ds as long as they were a good pilot with a good fitting.
Valacus
Streets of Fire
#52 - 2015-12-16 16:53:59 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Tornii wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Tornii wrote:

Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.


Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers.

I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle.

As I already mentioned, the tackle role is already overpopulated. We have ceptors as light tackle, recons as long range tackle and HICs as heavy tackle (plus the Keres long tackle option). AFs need their own specialised role, which is why I raised the idea of reduced neut/web effect. And if you think that's a gimmick, by that logic half of all EVE ships have gimmick bonuses.

Thank you for your contribution to this pool of ideas though.


So wait, assuming this actually happens "frequently" (i doubt it, ive never ran across this scenario and ive solo'd for years), you want to introduce a gimmicky counter to ships that drop turrets/dps for neuts designed to counter frigates. They are sacrificing dps for better utility against frigates but are then vulnerable to larger ships. Your reasoning makes no sense.

Fitting ship A specifically to kill ship B, but in turn will be at a disadvantage to ship C is literally a non issue and is how the game balances itself. You are basically crying about a setup designed to kill frigs (while sacrificing elsewhere) and use that as a basis for allowing AF to have web/neut immunity/reduction. Which is just.. derpy as hell.

AF are easy to train into for most new players. HICs, recons are not. EAF are fairly easy to train as well but are by no means considered heavy tackle. You so much as sneeze on them and they will pop, not to mention they do very low dps. AF on the other hand are the definition of heavy tackle for 2 reasons:

1. MWD sig reduction bonus - Meaning its harder for larger guns to track, allowing you to get close and tackle

2. T2 resist profile - Yes t3ds have their tank mode, but they sacrifice range/speed to get comparable resistances. AF do not, its all in one package.

It is a gimmick and a gimmick that reduces effectivness of counters. To put in a different light, it would like saying giving the orthrus a bonus role for 90% reduction of effectiveness to sensor damps and missile disruptors because those counter it and its not fair.

AF need stat rebalances which include fitting resources and tweaking some of the weaker ships to balance out the group. You givethem the resources for fitting decent tanks without gobs of fitting mods and enough damage to be dangerous, you will see them come out again and be more evenly matched against t3ds.

To those who think t3d should dunk any frig are delusional. T1 destroyers by definition are anti-frig, yet can be killed fairly easily by a well skilled pilot and properly fit ship. I see no reason why t3ds should be an I win button. Again AF have tank/projection in one package. T3Ds do not. If AF had better tank and a bit more dps, that would solidify their role as heavy tackle and could even kill t3ds as long as they were a good pilot with a good fitting.


AFs themselves don't need any changes. The only problem is T3Ds. Why should we remake the entire AF class just because CCP screwed the pooch with T3Ds? And T3Ds aren't just AFs problem, they're everyone's problem. All ship classes suffer because T3Ds are way out of whack, AFs just happen to suffer the most because T3Ds are just better AFs. They aren't even bigger sig wise, just faster, harder hitting, and packing more tank. Changing AFs is just beating it around the bush. We'd have to rework all ship classes cruiser and below to rebalance everything around T3Ds instead of tackling the real problem.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#53 - 2015-12-16 17:05:17 UTC
Valacus wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Tornii wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
[quote=Tornii]
Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.


Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers.

I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently.

So wait, assuming this actually happens "frequently" (i doubt it, ive never ran across this scenario and ive solo'd for years), you want to introduce a gimmicky counter to ships that drop turrets/dps for neuts designed to counter frigates. They are sacrificing dps for better utility against frigates but are then vulnerable to larger ships. Your reasoning makes no sense.

Fitting ship A specifically to kill ship B, but in turn will be at a disadvantage to ship C is literally a non issue and is how the game balances itself. You are basically crying about a setup designed to kill frigs (while sacrificing elsewhere) and use that as a basis for allowing AF to have web/neut immunity/reduction. Which is just.. derpy as hell.

AF are easy to train into for most new players. HICs, recons are not. EAF are fairly easy to train as well but are by no means considered heavy tackle. You so much as sneeze on them and they will pop, not to mention they do very low dps. AF on the other hand are the definition of heavy tackle for 2 reasons:

1. MWD sig reduction bonus - Meaning its harder for larger guns to track, allowing you to get close and tackle

2. T2 resist profile - Yes t3ds have their tank mode, but they sacrifice range/speed to get comparable resistances. AF do not, its all in one package.

It is a gimmick and a gimmick that reduces effectivness of counters. To put in a different light, it would like saying giving the orthrus a bonus role for 90% reduction of effectiveness to sensor damps and missile disruptors because those counter it and its not fair.

AF need stat rebalances which include fitting resources and tweaking some of the weaker ships to balance out the group. You givethem the resources for fitting decent tanks without gobs of fitting mods and enough damage to be dangerous, you will see them come out again and be more evenly matched against t3ds.

To those who think t3d should dunk any frig are delusional. T1 destroyers by definition are anti-frig, yet can be killed fairly easily by a well skilled pilot and properly fit ship. I see no reason why t3ds should be an I win button. Again AF have tank/projection in one package. T3Ds do not. If AF had better tank and a bit more dps, that would solidify their role as heavy tackle and could even kill t3ds as long as they were a good pilot with a good fitting.


AFs themselves don't need any changes. The only problem is T3Ds. Why should we remake the entire AF class just because CCP screwed the pooch with T3Ds? And T3Ds aren't just AFs problem, they're everyone's problem. All ship classes suffer because T3Ds are way out of whack, AFs just happen to suffer the most because T3Ds are just better AFs. They aren't even bigger sig wise, just faster, harder hitting, and packing more tank. Changing AFs is just beating it around the bush. We'd have to rework all ship classes cruiser and below to rebalance everything around T3Ds instead of tackling the real problem.


There are certain AF that need help even before t3d (jag/wolf/retribution/ishkur). These arent radical rebalances mind you, more like optimization. Things like the ishkur drone bonus trait. Just give it enough bandwidth from the getgo and change its bandwidth trait to something like armor rep. Same for jag/wolf, consolidate the dual damage bonuses into one damage bonus and add a different trait.

All AF need a cap rebalance. They have terrible cap and some can barely run an MWD and t1 point longer than 1 minute. Giving them more fitting/cap and rebalancing some traits is all fairly minor and requires no gimmicks to get the same effect.

T3Ds are being nerfed, so we will see how it settles once the focus groups are done.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#54 - 2015-12-16 17:08:36 UTC
Tom Gerard wrote:

Yeah FLEXIBLE T2 ships

and SPECIALIZED T3 ships...

This is the exact opposite of what was proposed by CCP.

I think it is clear that Assault Frigates need a Specialization as they are T2.
+ I think a cool idea would allow them to run MWDs even while scrammed, would be niche and powerful
+ Immunity to Stasis Webifiers would be amazing.
+ A 50% E-War Resistance (like the balanced capitals are getting)

I think it is clear that T3Ds are Flexible and that was the intent of the T3 design.


I wouldn't give them full immunity to any ewar but giving them ewar resistance is a very good role, a flat 50% resistance to everything except points/scrams would make them very useful but not too OP. I would include neuts in that.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Valacus
Streets of Fire
#55 - 2015-12-16 17:09:44 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
There are certain AF that need help even before t3d (jag/wolf/retribution/ishkur). These arent radical rebalances mind you, more like optimization. Things like the ishkur drone bonus trait. Just give it enough bandwidth from the getgo and change its bandwidth trait to something like armor rep. Same for jag/wolf, consolidate the dual damage bonuses into one damage bonus and add a different trait.

All AF need a cap rebalance. They have terrible cap and some can barely run an MWD and t1 point longer than 1 minute. Giving them more fitting/cap and rebalancing some traits is all fairly minor and requires no gimmicks to get the same effect.

T3Ds are being nerfed, so we will see how it settles once the focus groups are done.


I also think it goes without saying that AFs should be faster than T3Ds, meaning either AFs need to get faster or T3Ds need to get much, much slower. If anything, T3Ds should be equal in speed to AFs while in speed mode, or maybe slightly faster. As it is now, T3Ds run circles around them. Hell, the Svipul even runs circles around my Crow, and I have prop rigs.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#56 - 2015-12-16 17:17:32 UTC
Valacus wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
There are certain AF that need help even before t3d (jag/wolf/retribution/ishkur). These arent radical rebalances mind you, more like optimization. Things like the ishkur drone bonus trait. Just give it enough bandwidth from the getgo and change its bandwidth trait to something like armor rep. Same for jag/wolf, consolidate the dual damage bonuses into one damage bonus and add a different trait.

All AF need a cap rebalance. They have terrible cap and some can barely run an MWD and t1 point longer than 1 minute. Giving them more fitting/cap and rebalancing some traits is all fairly minor and requires no gimmicks to get the same effect.

T3Ds are being nerfed, so we will see how it settles once the focus groups are done.


I also think it goes without saying that AFs should be faster than T3Ds, meaning either AFs need to get faster or T3Ds need to get much, much slower. If anything, T3Ds should be equal in speed to AFs while in speed mode, or maybe slightly faster. As it is now, T3Ds run circles around them. Hell, the Svipul even runs circles around my Crow, and I have prop rigs.


Agreed. I remember using an arty svipul pre-nerf and could go 5k OH and like 3.8k cold. I was outrunning inties while at the same time doing more dps than an AF using short range ammo, when I was using long range ammo.

I stopped flying t3ds because they feel cheap and OP.

That being said, speed/sig are hopefully getting looked at, especially in the svipuls case. So maybe this wont be as bad of an issue in the upcoming changes.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#57 - 2015-12-16 19:04:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
as the other thread was rightly closed ill inject the essentials here.

the op's suggestion was an infinipoint for assault frigs
we immediately ignored this and started speculating what slightly less mad things might be good for them.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
afterburner bonus ?
i know its something id love to see on them.

elitatwo wrote:
Me too but I think my Succubus would become very sad. Anyhow didn't they try that on SiSi once and say it was too strong already?

The one thing assault ships are good for is burner missions.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
pretty sure that was before the t3's were a thing though.

Goldensaver wrote:
It was before anything else at all got tiericided.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
may be worth revisiting then eh.

ill be clear here though, im actually fairly happy with assault frigates right now,
yeah t3d's will go through them for a shortcut but im not all that offended by this,
before they were thing i would have happily jumped on any of the destroyer class in my ishkur because they just weren't that scary , you have the resistances to tank them and if you caught them off balance you could kill them before they actually did all that much dps to you.

im not saying they aren't broken as f*** , they are and i know it , but the food chain seems a little more appropriate now , even if its gone too far in the desie classes favour.

Iain Cariaba wrote:
I don't know what CCP was thinking when they introduced d3s. Why ever would they implement some hulls, of the size group that's supposedly purpose built to be frigate killers, that are actually good at killing frigates?

The concept boggles the mind. Shocked


Iain Cariaba wrote:
...-said there were too many quotes-...
I don't know what CCP was thinking when they introduced d3s. Why ever would they implement some hulls, of the size group that's supposedly purpose built to be frigate killers, that are actually good at killing frigates?

The concept boggles the mind. Shocked

elitatwo wrote:
Didn't CCP Fozzie say in one of the o7 shows that CCP is planning on shaking up things without predicting the outcome just for the sake of shaking?
You take the words right out of my mind, destroyer kills frigate, destoyer op - LOL.

I think people give some values on the fitting screen too much credit. Assault ships have t2 resists, sure, but those resistances only postpone the inevitable or slow them down.

A frigate is still a frigate.

And frigates had a good run. Now they have more predators. Anyone remember tier 3 battlecruisers? I hear tornadoes kill destroyers with one shot. If only they would cost a tad less.
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2015-12-16 19:11:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Elyia Suze Nagala
Assault Frigates were ment to one thing, DPS.

Role Bonus:
25% Additional damage to (Insert Racial Weapon)

There fixed.

Everyone stop griping.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#59 - 2015-12-16 19:16:27 UTC
D3's heavily nerfed and RLML's converted into a light assault missile/launcher combo might bring AF's into a more useful place, perhaps with the assault line gaining some e-war resistances they are adding too capitals.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#60 - 2015-12-16 19:56:56 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
D3's heavily nerfed and RLML's converted into a light assault missile/launcher combo might bring AF's into a more useful place, perhaps with the assault line gaining some e-war resistances they are adding too capitals.


Id say its more of a T3D problem than RLML problem tbh. RLML might be counterable through sig reduction and a bigger tank combined with missile EWAR.

That being said, just because supers/capital ships are getting EWAR resistance does not mean other ships should. Supers used to be EWAR immune short of bubbles and infinite point HICs. Now they are not, but are allowed resistance to it. This is specific to capitals and supers, not something that should be thrown around to other ship classes "just because".

By assault line do you mean HACs as well too? Since those are heavy assault cruisers. Do we really wanna go down this road where vagabonds are resistant to webs, cerbs are resistant to damps and the deimos resistant against neuts? The few ways these ships are counterable would be reduced which is not needed in the HAC line, nor is it needed in the AF line.

I speak about this because i still fly AF on occasion. They can still put the hurt on most other frigs and dessies and some cruisers without much issue. Giving them EWAR immunity/resistance will make them just as one sided as t3ds are against AF.