These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Assault Frigates....
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#21 - 2016-03-16 20:06:48 UTC
Something that I would like to see, not sure if OP though, would be a resistance to scrambler for the use of MWD. Or a bonus to AB as suggested.

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#22 - 2016-03-16 21:36:45 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
You know, it's funny; I had questioned whether Freighters needed that 33% structure resist buff every ship got when the proposed DC changes were posted by CCP. I wonder if the T3D's should have to give that up when not in defensive mode, or if they should have them at all. Not sure how much of a deference that would be, admittedly I have no experience fighting in them (save for running some sites in a Jackdaw) nor against them. Of course, I also still wonder what the whole point of T3D's are; seems like CCP literally decapitated so many ships with them just for ***** and giggles.

Also, out of curiosity, do people switch modes mid-fight a lot or do they usually show up for a fight using one one mode ever?


I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode.

The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#23 - 2016-03-17 01:18:26 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:

I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode.

The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous.


Changing modes while holding a gate cloak is cancer.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#24 - 2016-03-17 01:43:45 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
You know, it's funny; I had questioned whether Freighters needed that 33% structure resist buff every ship got when the proposed DC changes were posted by CCP. I wonder if the T3D's should have to give that up when not in defensive mode, or if they should have them at all. Not sure how much of a deference that would be, admittedly I have no experience fighting in them (save for running some sites in a Jackdaw) nor against them. Of course, I also still wonder what the whole point of T3D's are; seems like CCP literally decapitated so many ships with them just for ***** and giggles.

Also, out of curiosity, do people switch modes mid-fight a lot or do they usually show up for a fight using one one mode ever?


I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode.

The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous.


What would you feel about CCP changing the sub mode from the "shield booster" method to the "armor repper" method, where the stats don't flip at the moment you change modes, but rather change effectively at the end of the cool down? It's an old idea I presented before back when people raged about the Confessor and later the Svipul being problematic. I had hoped it would make it possible to sort of catch a T3D with its pants down if it happens to start the engagement in the wrong mode rather than be the instant drop-of-the-hat advantage it is now. Reducing the agility in speed mode sounds like another solid move.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#25 - 2016-03-17 04:01:43 UTC
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:

I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode.

The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous.


Changing modes while holding a gate cloak is cancer.


That's true too...

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#26 - 2016-03-17 04:02:34 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
You know, it's funny; I had questioned whether Freighters needed that 33% structure resist buff every ship got when the proposed DC changes were posted by CCP. I wonder if the T3D's should have to give that up when not in defensive mode, or if they should have them at all. Not sure how much of a deference that would be, admittedly I have no experience fighting in them (save for running some sites in a Jackdaw) nor against them. Of course, I also still wonder what the whole point of T3D's are; seems like CCP literally decapitated so many ships with them just for ***** and giggles.

Also, out of curiosity, do people switch modes mid-fight a lot or do they usually show up for a fight using one one mode ever?


I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode.

The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous.


What would you feel about CCP changing the sub mode from the "shield booster" method to the "armor repper" method, where the stats don't flip at the moment you change modes, but rather change effectively at the end of the cool down? It's an old idea I presented before back when people raged about the Confessor and later the Svipul being problematic. I had hoped it would make it possible to sort of catch a T3D with its pants down if it happens to start the engagement in the wrong mode rather than be the instant drop-of-the-hat advantage it is now. Reducing the agility in speed mode sounds like another solid move.


I would totally support this adjustment.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#27 - 2016-03-17 04:05:43 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
You know, it's funny; I had questioned whether Freighters needed that 33% structure resist buff every ship got when the proposed DC changes were posted by CCP. I wonder if the T3D's should have to give that up when not in defensive mode, or if they should have them at all. Not sure how much of a deference that would be, admittedly I have no experience fighting in them (save for running some sites in a Jackdaw) nor against them. Of course, I also still wonder what the whole point of T3D's are; seems like CCP literally decapitated so many ships with them just for ***** and giggles.

Also, out of curiosity, do people switch modes mid-fight a lot or do they usually show up for a fight using one one mode ever?


I cannot speak for others, but I typically employ 2/3 modes in the course of a fight. I may start in propulsion to close distance, then switch to defense mode, or I might start in tracking mode to get a quick lock, then switch to defense mode.

The only thing really broken across the T3 destroyers as a class is the insta warping. Not saying some ships don't need some individual adjustment, but the insta warping is really cancerous.


What would you feel about CCP changing the sub mode from the "shield booster" method to the "armor repper" method, where the stats don't flip at the moment you change modes, but rather change effectively at the end of the cool down? It's an old idea I presented before back when people raged about the Confessor and later the Svipul being problematic. I had hoped it would make it possible to sort of catch a T3D with its pants down if it happens to start the engagement in the wrong mode rather than be the instant drop-of-the-hat advantage it is now. Reducing the agility in speed mode sounds like another solid move.


I would totally support this adjustment.


+1
You should propose this in it's own thread.
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#28 - 2016-03-17 12:09:15 UTC
As a class, AFs have two big problems: they're too slow, and they don't have a clearly defined role. The slowness can be fixed easily; simply adjust their base speed and mass/agility so they're around 5-10% slower and less agile than the corresponding combat frigates, in the same way that HACs are when compared to the corresponding T1 cruisers.

For the unique role, I'd suggest borrowing a trick from T3Ds and giving them two operating modes that influence the way afterburners work. In normal mode, ABs would function exactly as they do now; in overdrive mode, they would behave like MWDs in terms of speed boost, sig bloom, and cap consumption. Getting scrammed would disable overdrive mode and force the ship into normal mode. That helps AFs to function as heavy tacklers by giving them both the speed to run down fast larger ships and a boost to sigtanking once they've landed tackle without infringing on the Sansha role of superfast afterburners or creating all the balance problems that would go along with making them immune or resistant to ewar/neuting.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#29 - 2016-03-17 13:03:52 UTC
Give them 50% ewar immunity, that would make them relevant again.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#30 - 2016-03-17 20:04:20 UTC
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:

+1
You should propose this in it's own thread.


Gonna be out of town for the weekend (family stuffs), so if you guys want to pitch the idea and run a separate discussion on it in the mean time, feel free to. If not, I can shoot the idea up myself, but it might be next week before I can do so.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Corvald Tyrska
Valknetra
#31 - 2016-03-17 21:00:00 UTC
Skyler Hawk wrote:
As a class, AFs have two big problems: they're too slow, and they don't have a clearly defined role. The slowness can be fixed easily; simply adjust their base speed and mass/agility so they're around 5-10% slower and less agile than the corresponding combat frigates, in the same way that HACs are when compared to the corresponding T1 cruisers.

For the unique role, I'd suggest borrowing a trick from T3Ds and giving them two operating modes that influence the way afterburners work. In normal mode, ABs would function exactly as they do now; in overdrive mode, they would behave like MWDs in terms of speed boost, sig bloom, and cap consumption. Getting scrammed would disable overdrive mode and force the ship into normal mode. That helps AFs to function as heavy tacklers by giving them both the speed to run down fast larger ships and a boost to sigtanking once they've landed tackle without infringing on the Sansha role of superfast afterburners or creating all the balance problems that would go along with making them immune or resistant to ewar/neuting.


The problem with balancing AFs around afterburners and heavy tackle is that you start to tread on the Interceptor role. They have the same problem as HACs in that their role is "Better" T1 Frigate (where a HACs role is "Better" T1 Cruiser). Pretty much all other T2 ships specialise in some way but there isn't really a specific focus to their role where Stealth Bomber is stealth, Interceptor is speed/tackle, COVOPs is Exploration/Recon, etc. If they are just all-round better Frigates then they become the instant choice over the T1 Frigates (where cost ins't a factor) and the whole point of Tiercide was to keep all ships relevant.

EWAR immunity could be interesting. Other than that all I can think of is either glass cannon DPS (which is kinda Destroyer role) or massive Tank (be it buffer, active rep or even sig tank). I guess the other option that could be fun is DSCAN immunity, like Combat Recons.
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#32 - 2016-03-18 00:24:48 UTC
Corvald Tyrska wrote:


The problem with balancing AFs around afterburners and heavy tackle is that you start to tread on the Interceptor role. They have the same problem as HACs in that their role is "Better" T1 Frigate (where a HACs role is "Better" T1 Cruiser). Pretty much all other T2 ships specialise in some way but there isn't really a specific focus to their role where Stealth Bomber is stealth, Interceptor is speed/tackle, COVOPs is Exploration/Recon, etc. If they are just all-round better Frigates then they become the instant choice over the T1 Frigates (where cost ins't a factor) and the whole point of Tiercide was to keep all ships relevant.

EWAR immunity could be interesting. Other than that all I can think of is either glass cannon DPS (which is kinda Destroyer role) or massive Tank (be it buffer, active rep or even sig tank). I guess the other option that could be fun is DSCAN immunity, like Combat Recons.


AF with an afterburner buff is not going to tread on Inties much, the strengths are different. Inties are immune to bubbles, incredibly fast and nimble with generally low tank and Scram/Disruption bonuses. AFs have none of these qualities, tbh.

Giving AFs ewar or scram/disruption immunity is power creep. Giving them AB buff (like a 10%/AF Level or 50% Role speed boost) makes them somewhat better without negating other ships.

Other than rebalancing slot layouts, CPU/PG I don't see the other proposed changes as fitting within your 'Tiericide' defined goals.
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#33 - 2016-03-18 18:42:50 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


What AF's need is just a solid balance pass with fitting, cap, minor speed buffs and a few need some trait tweaking. Otherwise, there are still some fairly solid AF fits out there that still work in the current meta (enyo, harpy, hawk, vengeance). Even some oddball ones like small shield extender 280mm jaguar can contend with things like raildevils, or be a very strong scram kiter.



I wonder what you would think about giving them a new role as tanky little bricks. A resist bonus, rep bonus's and buckets more ehp than they currently have in exchange for keeping their current slow speed, and maybe losing some dps potential.

Thats really something frigates don't have options for right now. Surviving. I can't really think of any frigates off the top of my head that make me think "damn, this is going to be a ***** to burn down". Besides maybe a linked worm. Frigates tend to be "don't hit at all, or, durr he melted before he could click warp."
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2016-03-20 18:04:46 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:

Also, out of curiosity, do people switch modes mid-fight a lot or do they usually show up for a fight using one one mode ever?


I very often switch modes; usually going from Sharpshooter (after getting a lock) to Propulsion (to get in my desired range real quick) back to Sharpshooter (for improved dakka) and when redboxed it kind of depends on what I'm doing: when trying to kite, go Propmode - when brawling, go Defensive.

I'm sure other folks fly them differently but the aforementioned pattern holds true for my Confessor and Svipul alike.

Jackdaws are different and therefore require a different mindset.

Hecates are Gallente and while I may be pirate I still have principles. I've never set foot in one of those.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2016-03-20 18:43:04 UTC
Corvald Tyrska wrote:

The problem with balancing AFs around afterburners and heavy tackle is that you start to tread on the Interceptor role. They have the same problem as HACs in that their role is "Better" T1 Frigate (where a HACs role is "Better" T1 Cruiser).


Not entirely true.

A ceptor has bubble immunity. I don't mind AssaultFrigs being better ceptors lacking this peculiar trait.

HACs are not "better T1 Cruisers" by the way -- the way I fly them (and I may be off the mark but I'll throw it out anyway) my T1s are well-rounded ships with balanced DPS/Tank/Tackle. HACs on the other hand have T2 resists and better range which I paid dearly for and as such, wish to capitalise upon. Ergo: My HACs are solely fitting Tank and DPS. I don't have the mids to spare for tackle. This makes the T1 a jack-of-all-trades and the T2 a dedicated damage dealer.

The same could holds true for Assault Frigs; a Jag in its current iteration is nothing but a beefy interceptor - might as well take it all the way there. The Wolf on the other hand doesn't have the mids for decent tackle but it can fit some mean artillery. Comparing those to a T1 (Rifter), the rifter is again well-rounded between tackle and DPS, yet not overly impressive at either job.


What bugs me, is that one can fit a HAC pretty much to his liking, whereas specifically the Minmatar assault frigates are VERY limited. I think this might have more to do with the PG requirements on small Artillery than with the ship itself. I am very satisfied with the Hawk/Harpy for instance; but both the Jag and the Wolf need some love.

Case in fact: a Jaguar *could* be a kiter if only it had the PG to fit artillery. a Wolf *could* be a brawler but it's not only overshadowed by T3Ds but also by the other assault frigs (Enyo, ...). Perhaps we should start looking into what each individual ship is lacking, rather than theorycrafting the class as a whole.


The problem with the Jag: it has all the right bonuses for artillery but it can't fit them. It has all the mids and the resist profile for a dual MASB tank (Why is there no minmatar active shield bonused ship anyway??) but again, it can't fit that either. When you're done slapping the modules you can fit on them, you wonder why you paid 20 mil more when you could have just gotten a Rifter instead.

The problem with the Wolf: it has a decent SHIELD resist profile. But it doesn't have the CPU to fit an extender. It has no range dictation whatsoever so you wind up with a scram/autocannon/armour fit ..... and you're slower than a Thorax.


These problems existed even before the T3Ds came into play. I'm not sure a complete overhaul of assault frigs is in order, or rather perhaps review them on a ship-per-ship basis. I for one believe the small artillery fitting requirements should be looked at first. Once that's out of the way both the Wolf and the Jag are already well on their way. We could have that kiting Jag, and we could have that shieldtanked (or dualprop) Wolf. Further action may not even be necessary at that point.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#36 - 2016-03-20 20:08:37 UTC
The problem is not with the assault frigates, even after all the tiercide they are still highly capable ships able to win vs destroyers and such if flown well. The problem with them is the same problem all the frigate and destroyer lineup has, they are all utterly useless vs the likes of a svipul. Its not just an AF problem.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2016-03-20 21:34:03 UTC
...which begs the question: a cheap T3 Dessie or tech II rigged faction MSE roflmobile?

Unless blinged to high heaven, which is fair game of course, T3s don't strike me as massively OP to be honest. The price might be a tad higher and that alone would give some incentive to fly Assaultfrigs.

(cue random comment ISK BALANCING IS BAD ---> why is it bad? It'd be justified. I don't mind T3D gangs, but when you kill them you deserve fat killmails for your trouble. They are the destroyers you always wanted and I don't want them rebalanced (read: nerfed). I'd just like to see a good reason to fly AFs. ISK *is* a good reason in my book).
General Vachot
The Vendunari
End of Life
#38 - 2016-03-21 00:57:24 UTC
Hi Folks,

My 2 cents. Sorry if this is a repeat idea.

A couple of things we could do to bring back Assault frigates into the game and give them a niche space to play in.

1) Given them a single switching mode like a T3D but only 2 modes available not 3. Give them the ability to go into tank mode or speed mode only. Make the tank mode perhaps only very slightly better than their current tank ability and keep their DPS bonuses the same as they have now. That way you still have to chose how gank/tank you go even in tank mode.
Make the speed mode drop DPS and tank to level that doesn't make the AF an OP max damage kiting machine and ensure the speed bonus does not allow them to out-compete inty's or some of the very fast faction frigates, but does allow them to catch fast cruisers and T3D.

2) Maybe give them a fitting bonus for entosis so they can be used in sov, but make it so the entosis can only be cycled when in tank mode.

All this would require some careful number crunching and play testing but I feel this will bring back the AF as the heavy tackler and decent damage dealer it used to be before T3D came along and kinda of displaced it as a viable ship.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#39 - 2016-03-21 18:26:10 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...which begs the question: a cheap T3 Dessie or tech II rigged faction MSE roflmobile?

Unless blinged to high heaven, which is fair game of course, T3s don't strike me as massively OP to be honest. The price might be a tad higher and that alone would give some incentive to fly Assaultfrigs.

(cue random comment ISK BALANCING IS BAD ---> why is it bad? It'd be justified. I don't mind T3D gangs, but when you kill them you deserve fat killmails for your trouble. They are the destroyers you always wanted and I don't want them rebalanced (read: nerfed). I'd just like to see a good reason to fly AFs. ISK *is* a good reason in my book).


Except as we see right now, ISK isn't really a good enough reason unless we at least nerf T3D again by raising the production cost. And even at that point, the versatility of the T3D is pretty high making it better than a AF who can't swap it's role with the press of a single button.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2016-03-22 05:21:32 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
...which begs the question: a cheap T3 Dessie or tech II rigged faction MSE roflmobile?

Unless blinged to high heaven, which is fair game of course, T3s don't strike me as massively OP to be honest. The price might be a tad higher and that alone would give some incentive to fly Assaultfrigs.

(cue random comment ISK BALANCING IS BAD ---> why is it bad? It'd be justified. I don't mind T3D gangs, but when you kill them you deserve fat killmails for your trouble. They are the destroyers you always wanted and I don't want them rebalanced (read: nerfed). I'd just like to see a good reason to fly AFs. ISK *is* a good reason in my book).


Of course you don't want your overpowered toy nerfed, nobody who abuses an overpowered hull wants their toy nerfed. But when we have a situation where the only real counter to a T3D is another T3D a nerf is the only answer.