open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Assault frigates MK II (Trying to make Assault Ships useful)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.07 15:10:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 25/01/2008 16:57:28
Adding some love to ships people would like to use for something!

This line made me dream of those ships when I began playing Eve :
Quote:
Sturdy and powerful frigates built for all-out combat.

I will use this concept as centerpoint of the AF redesign.

Assault frigates?

Assault frigates have no defined role, no defined speciality, they are just ships with guns that are under average of everything a cruiser does.
Also, there is one thing we don't want : another interceptor like frigate.
For the long range ones, it is possible to shoot interceptors, but for the short range ones, as they souldn't be able to catch on interceptors, they are more designed to shoot support ships, their decent approach speed and tank giving them enough safety to approach targets such as logistics ships.
Also, they could have a fleet role as fighter squadron commanders, adding a fixed fighter command bonus.


So, we need guidelines about what AF should be able to do and the things it shouldn't do.

Rule 1: AF should have a tank bonus

Assault frigates should be Sturdy! It should have the best tanking concept from its race. Amarr and Caldari have usually 5% resistance bonus, Minmatar and gallente get a 7.5% repair bonus.

Rule 2: AF should be faster than a cruiser but should not compete with interceptors

Assault frigates must never reach the interceptor speed, it is not their role.
But, you won't assault anything if you are in the slowest frigate of the galaxy, you'll just get shot.
AF should be able to be fast with an afterburner enabling them to be faster than all cruisers (maybe not the stabber) on afterburner but not too fast with a microwarpdrive.

Several possibilities for the AB improvements :
-Increase AB thrust power. Adds the same speed multiplier to everyone.
-Increase the AB speed bonus. Adds the same speed multiplier to everyone.
-Remove the AB mass bonus when active : works if the weights of AF are changed.

Actual bonus in the stats : +50% to AB thrust, -100% to AB mass penalty and revised speeds and mass.

I hope I understood properly the the mass effect to afterburner/mwd modules.

Rule 3: AF should have uniform weapon systems

To compete with cruisers and be really specialized in shooting a type of ship, they should have five weapons with several bonuses.
As always there are some exceptions for very low DPS weapons (rockets) and it much depends on the weapon range.
The old other type hardpoints can be kept for flexibility.

Rule 4: AF of the same race should be focused on different weapon type

They will use different weapon systems, each one will be optimized for a type of weapons, in the style of the said race.
Gallente is blasters and drones.
Caldari is Railguns and light missiles.
Minmatar is Autocannons and artillery.
Amarr is lasers and rockets.

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.07 15:10:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 08/04/2008 14:40:05
Rule 5: AF should have more in common with their T1 hull
But only if they use the same weapon types...
All the T1 frigates have two bonuses, so the AF should have 4. They are T2 ships and should have all the bonuses liked to this fact. Some AF have the same bonus as its T1 hull had but on the AS skill, this needs to be reverted and a proper bonus added. The idea is not to increase raw DPS but to increase the ease of use of the main weapon type. Here range, tracking, falloff bonuses will be welcome for the ships that don't already own it on frigate skill or to get it twice to be more effective (harpy is a good example).
There are exceptions for this rule for AF from corporations that specialize into changing the weapon types of a ship to another in the T2 version (Khanid Innovations, Lai Dai, Creodon - at least for the cross weapon AF designers).
So, 5 AF out of 8 will follow this rule, other will take their bonuses from a ship that had their weapon type as a primary in their race if possible.

Rule 6: AF should fit the big cool weapons that make them look good and hit hard

Some are lacking powergrid, others, CPU, and some both.
Also, with the uniform weapon mounts, it will surely need some more powergrid and CPU.

Rule 7 about having two classes of Af removed, so, special antiship bonus and antifrig bonuses were removed and there is just one focusing on firepower and the other focusing on chasing fast ships.

Some notes :

-I chose to add a thrust bonus to the AB because it seemed the best stat to work on for ships with high mass. But I may not have the right formula to calculate the real speed, correct me if the thrust will not have the intended effect.

-More firepower seemed someting useful, maybe I'm totally going the wrong way with this, but I tried to have the weak damage output AF be more efficient. So, the hawk gets a nice boost on all light missile types while the vengence gets some more bonuses on the rockets. The Ishkur change is like this to make its firepower survive and trying to increase a bit (but less than the other AF have their damage increased by these changes) but not too much the damage output.




Thanks to :
Gordon Red
Cpt Branko
Nian Banks
Ath Amon
Ron Lycan
Gypsio III
Archivian Specialatus
Tarron Sarek
Neuromandis
Erik Legant

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.07 15:11:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 08/04/2008 14:42:29
All the ship's HP values do not move at all unless stated. Stats are based on trinity stats (I say this mostly for the Ishkur because it changed)

The Assault Ships

Enyo

Slots: 5/2/5 (+1 low)
Missiles: 1 (same)
Turrets: 5 (+1)
Drones: 5m3 (same)
Base speed: 255 (+15)
Mass: 1 562 500 kg (was 1 950 000)
Inertia modifier: 3.1 (+0)
Powergrid: 50 (+8)
CPU: 177 (+32)

Frigate Bonus: 5% to hybrid turret damage, 10% to hybrid turret falloff

Assault Ships Bonus: 7,5% to armor repair amount, 5% bonus to stasis webifier resistance per level

Role bonuses :
50% To afterburner thrust power, -500000kg to AB mass addition.

Evaluated speed with proper navigation skills : speed (speed with 3 overdrives and 2 polycarb)
enyo
AB : 1233m/s (2435)
Mwd : 1824m/s (3337)

Rule 1: Check (Bonus in AS skill)
Rule 2: Check (base speed set over cruiser speed)
Rule 3: Check (It should use 5 blasters)
Rule 4: Check (Ishkur is focused on drones)
Rule 5: Check (It has the exact Incursus bonuses)
Rule 6: Check (It can fit 5 blasters with added powergrid and CPU)


The New Ishkur

Slots: 4/3/4 (+1 low)
Missiles: 0 (same)
Turrets: 3 (same)
Drones: 50m3, 25Mb/s bandwidth (same)
Base speed: 260 (+0)
Mass: 1 593 750 kg (was 2 000 000)
Inertia modifier: 3.1 (+0)
Powergrid: 43 (+1)
CPU: 175 (+20)

Frigate Bonus: 10% to hybrid turret optimal range, +15% to drone hitpoints and +5% to drone damage.

Assault Ships Bonus: 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount, +10% to drone speed and tracking per level

Role bonuses :
50% To afterburner thrust power, -500000kg to AB mass addition.

What is an assault frigate without its weapons? Nothing, so its drones should have a lot of HP (it makes + 75%).
Is +5% to drone damage balanced? This is the current question.

Evaluated speed with proper navigation skills : speed (speed with 3 overdrives and 2 polycarb)

AB : 1233m/s (2435)
Mwd : 1832m/s (3355)

Rule 1: Check (Bonus in AS skill)
Rule 2: Check (base speed set over cruiser speed)
Rule 3: Check (It has a bonus on drones)
Rule 4: Check (Enyo is focussed on blasters)
Rule 5: ? (The incursus was a blaster frigate, it's a total weapon change)
Rule 6: Check (The fit doesn't change)

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.07 15:11:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 08/04/2008 14:49:49

The New Retribution

Slots: 5/2/5 (+1 med)
Missiles: 0 (same)
Turrets: 5 (+1)
Drones: 0m3 (same)
Base speed: 255 (+15)
Mass: 1 562 500 kg (was 1 950 000)
Inertia modifier: 3.1 (+0)
Powergrid: 71 (+15) --to fit medium beams
CPU: 156 (+31)

Frigate Bonus: 10% reduction to small energy turret capacitor use, 5% to all armor resistances.

Assault Ships Bonus: 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret damage and 5% bonus to stasis webifier resistance per level

Role bonuses :
50% To afterburner thrust power, -500000kg to AB mass addition.

Evaluated speed with proper navigation skills : speed (speed with 3 overdrives and 2 polycarb)

AB : 1233m/s (2435)
Mwd : 1824m/s (3337)

Rule 1: Check (Gave it back the resistance bonus of punisher)
Rule 2: Check (base speed set over cruiser speed)
Rule 3: Check (it has 5 turrets all with bonuses)
Rule 4: Check (Vengence is a missile boat)
Rule 5: Check (It has exact punisher bonuses)
Rule 6: Check (It can fit 5 medium pulses with added CPU and powergrid)


The New Vengence

Slots: 4/3/5 (+1 high)
Missiles: 5 (+1)
Turrets: 3 (same)
Drones: 0m3 (same)
Base speed: 250 (+15)
Mass: 1 593 750 kg (was 2 000 000)
Inertia modifier: 3.1 (+0)
Powergrid: 47 (+4)
CPU: 170 (+10)

Frigate Bonus: 10% bonus to rocket velocity, 5% bonus to armor resistances

Assault Ships Bonus: 10% bonus to rocket velocity, 10% bonus to rocket explosion velocity

Role bonuses :
50% To afterburner thrust power, -500000kg to AB mass addition.
Special as rockets are not too well in their current state : +200% to rocket velocity, -66% to rocket flight time (same range, but allows to shoot fast things).

Evaluated speed with proper navigation skills : speed (speed with 3 overdrives and 2 polycarb)

AB : 1185m/s (2341)
Mwd : 1762m/s (3226)

Rule 1: Check (Gave it back the resistance bonus of punisher)
Rule 2: Check (base speed set over cruiser speed)
Rule 3: Check (it has 5 launchers all with bonuses)
Rule 4: Check (Retribution is a laserboat)
Rule 5: ? (It has half punisher bonuses, the laser bonus is converted to a rocket bonus)
Rule 6: Check (It can fit 5 rocket launchers with added CPU and powergrid)

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.07 15:12:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 08/04/2008 14:52:32

The New Harpy

Slots: 2/5/5 (+1 med)
Missiles: 1 (same)
Turrets: 5 (+1)
Drones: 0m3 (same)
Base speed: 245 (+20)
Mass: 1 625 000 kg (was 2 125 000)
Inertia modifier: 3.1 (+0)
Powergrid: 60 (+10)
CPU: 210 (+35)

Frigate Bonus: 5% bonus to shield resistances and 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret optimal range.

Assault Ships Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret optimal range per skill level, 5% bonus to stasis webifier resistance per level

Role bonuses :
50% To afterburner thrust power, -500000kg to AB mass addition.

Note that with 5 turrets, it does 25% more DPs than previous version of harpy.

Evaluated speed with proper navigation skills : speed (speed with 2 overdrives and 2 polycarb)

AB : 1139m/s (2074)
Mwd : 1701m/s (2875)

Rule 1: Check (Gave it back the resistance merlin)
Rule 2: Check (base speed set over cruiser speed)
Rule 3: Check (it has 5 railguns all with bonuses)
Rule 4: Check (Hawk is a missileboat)
Rule 5: Check (It has the exact hawk bonuses)
Rule 6: Check (It can fit 5 150mm with added powergrid and CPU)


The New Hawk

Slots: 2/5/5 (+1 med)
Missiles: 5 (+1)
Turrets: 1 (same)
Drones: 0m3 (same)
Base speed: 250 (+15)
Mass: 1 656 250 kg (was 2 250 000)
Inertia modifier: 3.1 (+0)
Powergrid: 51 (+9)
CPU: 215 (+35)

Frigate Bonus: 5% bonus to shield resistances and 10% bonus to light missile velocity

Assault Ships Bonus: 5% to light missile damage per level, +10% to light missile explosion velocity per level

Role bonuses :
50% To afterburner thrust power, -500000kg to AB mass addition.

Evaluated speed with proper navigation skills : speed (speed with 2 overdrives and 2 polycarb)

AB : 1140m/s (2077)
Mwd : 1711m/s (2894)

Rule 1: Check (Gave it back the resistance merlin)
Rule 2: Check (base speed set over cruiser speed)
Rule 3: Check (it has 5 standard missile launchers all with bonuses)
Rule 4: Check (Harpy is a railboat)
Rule 5: ? (It has half the merlin bonuses and the railgun range bonus changed to equivalent : missile velocity)
Rule 6: Check (It can fit 5 standard missile launchers with the added powergrid and CPU)

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.07 15:12:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 08/04/2008 14:58:21
The New Jaguar

It needs more shield for an efficient shield tank.

Slots: 2/4/5 (+1 high)
Missiles: 1 (same)
Turrets: 5 (+2)
Powergrid: 63 (+20)
CPU: 165 (+15)

Frigate Bonus: 5% to small projectile turret ROF and 7.5% bonus to tracking per level

Assault Ships Bonus: 10% Small Projectile Turret optimal range and 5% reduction to signature radius per level

Role bonus :
50% To afterburner thrust power, -500000kg to AB mass addition.

Why the signature radius? It's a very minmatar bonus, and it will be better than an active tank bonus in the results.

Evaluated speed with proper navigation skills : slot layout 1 (speed with 2 overdrives and 2 polycarb)

AB : 1360m/s (2477)
Mwd : 1992m/s (3352)

Rule 1: Check (Signature tanking)
Rule 2: Check (base speed set over cruiser speed, layout 2 avoids it to compete with interceptors)
Rule 3: Check (it has 4 or 5 280mm all with bonuses)
Rule 4: Check (Wolf uses AC)
Rule 5: Check (It has the exact rifter bonus)
Rule 6: Check (It can fit 4 or 5 280mm with the added powergrid and CPU depending on the slot layout)


The New Wolf

Slots: 5/2/5 (+1 low)
Missiles: 1 (same)
Turrets: 5 (+1)
Drones: 0m3 (same)
Base speed: 265 (-30)
Needs more armor for better durability.
Mass: 1 531 250 kg (was 1 875 000)
Inertia modifier: 3.1 (+0)
Powergrid: 54 (+6)
CPU: 155 (+30)

Frigate Bonus: 5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret damage and 5% bonus to small projectile turret rate of fire per level

Assault Ships Bonus: 5% bonus to stasis webifier resistance per level and 5% to signature per level

Role bonus :
50% To afterburner thrust power, -500000kg to AB mass addition.

Evaluated speed with proper navigation skills : speed (speed with 3 overdrives and 2 polycarb)

AB : 1308m/s (2583)
Mwd : 1925m/s (3517)

When trying to fit, I noticed that it can be equally fitted in 200mm Ac or 250mm arties, well, falloff is always good for minmatar, arties have a huge falloff too.


Rule 1: Check (Signature tanking)
Rule 2: Check (base speed set over cruiser speed)
Rule 3: Check (it has 5 projectile guns with bonuses)
Rule 4: Check (Jaguar shield tanks and uses arties)
Rule 5: ?
Rule 6: Check (It can fit 5 250mm arty or 5 200mm AC with the added powergrid and CPU)


From here, you can make constructive posts... Or not.

Feel free to flame me on my modifications of all the AF, I haven't runned the numbers and compared all you can do with each AS, I only tried to make the AS survivable and with more firepower to fill a real efficient anti-support role, while not replacing the interceptors.

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.07 15:13:00 - [7]
 

for extensions...

Bring in your visions of the AF and what they should be able, more rules to check and things to make them useful.

Landarian
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2007.12.07 16:33:00 - [8]
 

/signed^10

Futher Bezluden
Minmatar
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.12.07 16:40:00 - [9]
 

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=619681

:) was my bit for giving them a role and trying to make them more like their T1 origins.


Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.07 16:43:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Futher Bezluden
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=619681

:) was my bit for giving them a role and trying to make them more like their T1 origins.




Yeah, I replied to many threads about AF, but I couldn't find one with all the things I wanted at the same time.
I will re-read your post and see if I missed something that would make AF cool and useful. You may just write here what exactly you would like to add to this and I will edit.

joshmorris
Posted - 2007.12.07 17:19:00 - [11]
 

I would sign it but ur mentioning after burners ... but .. who uses afterburners apart from care bears in plex's ?

But signed for the role bonus .... they should have a good role bonus that makes them usefull either make them hit hard (thorax sorta dps .. they do cost the same) orrrrr make them tank 2 teh **** (small very small siggy and keep them the same now)

Saris Dadra
Posted - 2007.12.07 19:14:00 - [12]
 

I like pretty much everything you have here, but it seems that all of the close range ships would still be dead if they got hit by a webber. In most other threads about AFs someone usually suggests a resistance to webbing, and I think that this could be done through a AF specific module:

Propulsion Stabilizer I:
Low Power Slot
Powergrid Useage: 3 MW
CPU Useage: 10,000tf: (99.99% reduction on AF to 10tf)
Activation Cost: 1 Energy
Duration: 20 Seconds
Description: Used to reduce the effects of stasis webifiers by 30%. Afterburner activation cost is doubled, and MWD activation cost is tripled while this module is active.

At a heavy cost to capacitor most afterburnering assault frigates could maintain a speed of 400 m/s against a single 90% web, enough not to be dead in the water, but not enough to be totally unstoppable. Also a MWD would drain your cap so fast that it would be much more realistic to fit an Afterburner.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.12.07 20:05:00 - [13]
 

/signed for pretty much all of it. Though i think they should add one mid slot to the retribution even if it means removing one of the other slots. Its a nice idea that its supposed to have gone totally Amaar tradition spec, but there is a reason the Amarr decided to use more than one on any other ship. 1 Mid slot just makes it useless.

Some one had mentioned resistance to webs from other threads, well that is a nice idea and all. And Im not really going to complain if they put that in. But pretty much anything small and fluffy is dead if it gets webbed anyway. At least the AF would be able to hit back, even if it is futile.

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2007.12.07 22:03:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 07/12/2007 22:11:33
Nice suggestions. I very much agree with Rule 1,2 and 5.

I'd say all this can be accomplished if they were just fixed. With that I mean bring them in line with HAC's.
Assault Frigates / Heavy Assault Cruisers - both are assault variants of their T1 counterparts and should follow similar design guidelines.
Assault Frigates should be to frigates what Heavy Assault Cruisers are to cruisers.
Unfortunately, they are not.

As far as I know AF's are heavier/slower 'because they're heavily armored'.
However HAC's receive just the same resistance boost, but don't suffer from increased mass. Some are even lighter. That doesn't make sense.
HAC's get four real bonuses, AF's get three. That also doesn't make sense, especially since most players generally tend to go: bigger=better. So it's very unlikely that the same amount of bonuses would make AF's too popular or overpowered.

Therefore:
1. Streamline AF's and HAC's and make them all either faster or slower than their T1 counterparts. I'd say 10-15% mass increase compared to T1 variants. Exceptions may occur, but should be balanced (mass, firepower, etc.).
2. Give AF's a real 4th bonus.

These changes should make AF's faster and more dangerous. I guess they won't need any special role after that, because people will like them more and find suitable roles.
I mean, what's an 'assault' ship supposed to do anyway? Heavier tank and more forepower seems reasonable.

Poena Loveless
Minmatar
Dawn of a new Empire
The Initiative.
Posted - 2007.12.07 22:10:00 - [15]
 

5 rails/rockets/missles/lasers on a frig seems overkill, even for a t2 ship

Sha'ara Sha'amashira
Minmatar
Nomad Sails
Posted - 2007.12.07 22:27:00 - [16]
 

the minmatar ones would still need the bonus even though they are already really fast (i had noted that you said something about this) the downside to the minmatar ones is that unlike most of the other assault frigs that get 1 low resistance stat the minmatar ones take 2 low stats, as a result they need to be faster to help reduce the damage they take from most other ship types, particularly caldari since they get a bonus to kinetic dmg which is one of the resists that the minmatar assault frigs are weak to, minmatar af's are already supposed to be speed tanks. the only other beef that i have with what you have suggested is that while useful for bigger ships, af's getting repair amount bonuses would be incredibly underpowered compared to the ones that get resist bonuses, since frigate repair modules mathematically don't benefit much from the bonus, instead i think it might be nicer to perhaps see something different, maybe have the gallente AFs get a sig rad rudcution bonus, and the minmatar ones get the 5% per lvl speed bonus which would still make them quite a bit slower than the minmatar inties but help lvl out the playing field when fighting with other vessels when not webbed. i will sign off on the anti web bonus/mod though that sounds like a great idea to me. keep up the great work

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.07 22:47:00 - [17]
 

Any afterburner bonus is still more or less worthless in PvP because a frigate hull either needs a microwarpdrive to get into tackling or weapon range so as not to be left behind by the very ships its trying to target, or is a ranged sniping fit like the Harpy and has no use for a speed bonus in the first place.

Somebody posted an idea here earlier which I can't find now, but essentially was that Assault frigs would get a reduction in the penalties applied for using T2 ammo. So if this bonus was introduced at 20% per level of Assault Ships, a pilot who specialised for the role and trained Assault Ships V would get T2 ammo with no penalties, which would surely be worth considering and give the ship something worth shouting about. Something else I like the idea of, and which seems to fit the concept, is that of an 'overgunned' frigate - what if Assault Frigs recieved a role bonus allowing them to fit medium turrets or launchers of the appropriate type to their race? Anyone want to see a Hawk with 90% reduction in the powergrid needs of HAM Launchers, or an Enyo with the ability to fit medium blasters?

Sha'ara Sha'amashira
Minmatar
Nomad Sails
Posted - 2007.12.07 23:13:00 - [18]
 

there is a problem with fitting medium guns to it, unfortunately, try fitting a medium gun to a frig some time or better yet a large gun (you can do it but you aren't allowed to undock with it sadly) the gun models are actually scaled to the size of the ship they are on so if you put medium guns on an assault frig, well the result is rather badass and frightening to behold but i doubt CCP would want us having such things :( i also like that reduction to tech 2 ammo penalties idea

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.08 01:29:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Sha'ara Sha'amashira
there is a problem with fitting medium guns to it, unfortunately, try fitting a medium gun to a frig some time or better yet a large gun (you can do it but you aren't allowed to undock with it sadly) the gun models are actually scaled to the size of the ship they are

Fitting medium guns to a frig hull doesn't look oversized at all, really - if anything, turret models are slightly undersized right now compared to the hull they're designed to fit on. The only real problem is that some hardpoints are too narrow for the base of a medium turret model to fit onto (try it on the Merlin's wingtip hardpoints for a good example) and that's something that could easily be fixed on the assfrig models themselves.

Plus, I wish we actually had launchers modelled on the ships so we could complain about the size of them...

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.10 10:32:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 10/12/2007 10:38:58
Originally by: Poena Loveless
5 rails/rockets/missles/lasers on a frig seems overkill, even for a t2 ship


The idea is mainly to have a uniform weapon system.
The damage output has to be watched closely for it not to go overkill.
The damage bonuses have to be watched closely too because a 25% bonus on 4 turrets is one more turret.
Also, I wanted to have AS closer to cruiser firepower, and cruisers have often 5 turrets with one turret DPS bonus. As a small turret is around 25% under the medium turret, having 2 bonuses brings it to the cruiser firepower, but having just one damage bonus for the races that often have them, they will never have more firepower than a cruiser.
Just remember they need more skill and cost same/more than a cruiser, so they should compete with them.

Originally by: joshmorris
I would sign it but ur mentioning after burners ... but .. who uses afterburners apart from care bears in plex's ?


Did you look at the stats and see how fast should be the AF with the proposed bonus? It makes the AB good enough to compete with the actual speed of a mwd on AS, and the signature stays small which means better survival for the AS who is trying either to approach or while in orbit.

It could be changed to make the mwd totally useless, but it's much a nonsense for me. I made some tests with a bigger bonus to mwd in my excel sheet for the AS speed, but too much is bad, it makes AF the new nano setups on AB which we don't want.

Neuromandis
Posted - 2007.12.10 11:39:00 - [21]
 

I sign this idea wholeheartedly.

The thing i like the most is the uniform weapons and the afterburner bonus;

-The uniform weapons due to personal taste.

-The afterburner bonus because contrary to what people believe it is a TANKING bonus that also gives better approaching-orbiting speed, perfectly suited for the role of small, heavy attack ship that is hard to target and shoot down. So you make them faster without stepping on inties' toes...

I say tanking bonus because Afterburners do not have the sig radius penalty to cancel out their speed effect (cancel out more or less, at least) so their speed increase directly relates to less hits taken/less damage taken...

Ath Amon
Posted - 2007.12.10 13:16:00 - [22]
 

more or less like the proposals, just a pair of thing to consider

tank bonus should be res to all... with these ship passive tank is pretty good and don't forget that neuts still hurt them pretty bad.

to force active tank on 2 races will make them imo subpar to others

so i'd say 5% res to all

about minnies... the dps will be pretty low, to be on par with other races they need a dual dmg bonus or an additional high

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.10 13:34:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 10/12/2007 15:50:04
For the AB speed, I just thought about another possible change that still makes mwd slightly better and AB speed better than now while keeping a slow orbit for the T2 ammunition (halved tracking) when turning off the AB/mwd.

I just played with numbers. As some stated, the minmatar AF not receiving the speed bonus because they are already fast is quite unfair.

So, it's either 5% speed bonus (not 10%) and +100% to AB thrust, or +0% speed bonus (no bonus on base speed) and +150% to AB thrust.
The +150% bonus makes the mwd really crap compared to the small signature and low cap consumption of the AB. The speed with mwd is only slightly higher and it may accelerate slower (I'm not totally sure of all effects of the thrust bonus).

So, here are some speed values for no base speed bonus and +150% to AB thrust bonus :

See the ships stats, I updated with the values that were here.

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.10 13:48:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Ath Amon
more or less like the proposals, just a pair of thing to consider

tank bonus should be res to all... with these ship passive tank is pretty good and don't forget that neuts still hurt them pretty bad.

I dodn't want to make them all the same, this vulnerability can be balanced with more firepower or speed, which seems they already have.


Originally by: Ath Amon
to force active tank on 2 races will make them imo subpar to others

so i'd say 5% res to all

I didn't want that they end with every ship being the same as the other race, and the time when a single nosf was draining dead AS is over, now, people need to fit a neut and sacrifice the cap for it. It is still an issue, but when there's no cap, several will have no weapons and AB will turn off and they will die. I don't know how this can be fixed.


Originally by: Ath Amon
about minnies... the dps will be pretty low, to be on par with other races they need a dual dmg bonus or an additional high


I need to check this, maybe changing the bonus to ROF is an option, it is a bigger bonus and they won't have cap issues with a ROF bonus. Also, an arty Jaguar should not overdamage by too much much a harpy. And the wolf may be close to the enyo damage output, still it has a bit more range, so a bit less DPS.

I spent much time on the vengence which had the lowest DPS trying to help with the rocket power... I missed some other issues for sure!

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2007.12.10 14:14:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 10/12/2007 14:24:41
I tend to disagree with many of the OP's ideas. A tanking bonus on AFs is quite useless, mostly - and resist bonuses are definitely better on a small ship which relies on buffer and speed more often then tank to survive.

What AFs need:

* 4 bonuses - inheriting the bonuses from the T1 hulls where appropriate.

* mass decrease to +- 10% of their respective T1 hulls (take into account that the cruisers are close when looking at agility, and destroyers tend to be, in fact, more agile then AFs. The Thrasher is more agile then even the Jaguar, which is just Rolling Eyes). AFs MUST be noticeably faster and more agile then cruisers.

* CPU/grid to fit them properly

* Two midslot AFs don't cut it - if a ship is to assault (as the name suggests) and fight at close range, it must have three midslots. For close-range fighting 3/3 layouts are better then 2/4 layouts.

What would be really nice:
* Role bonus: boost to AB efficency of roughly 50-75% speed bonus increase. This, combined with their reduced mass, would greatly increase their viability as short-range 'assault' ships, since they could reach a respectable 1.3-1.7km/s depending on AF involved running a AB.

Regarding uniform weapons: while it would objectively be a boost to damage output, I don't see the need for this - I rather like the Jaguar's 3 ACs + 1 rocket launcher layout, for example. The thing that mostly irks me isn't lack of firepower (which is a issue on some AFs, though), it's lack of agility/speed and lack of survivability.


Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2007.12.10 14:31:00 - [26]
 

These are good ideas, but we require a web counter module or some kind to make close range frigates truly viable. All other forms of EW have counters (except target painters) webs should not be an exception.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2007.12.10 14:40:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
These are good ideas, but we require a web counter module or some kind to make close range frigates truly viable. All other forms of EW have counters (except target painters) webs should not be an exception.


Webs must be an exception. Else we'll make the nano-ships completely immune to their most dreaded counter.

However, get this: if you could get a AF to go faster on a AB then a cruiser goes on a MWD, that would partially counter one web (provided you're webbing him and flying properly) - he'd still be able to hit you somewhat especially if he'd maneuver a bit, but at a noticeably reduced efficency.

Two webs don't and should not have a counter.

That is why I'm in favour of a AB speed boost increase and a mass decrease on AFs instead of webber immunity: turbo-fast MWDing AFs would still be messed up by webs but could try to keep out of webrange like a (slow) interceptor if they had a mass decrease, and normally fast AB-ing AFs would be able to do much better in webrange.

This makes both kinds of fittings viable (both MWD and AB, for different purposes), and gives the whole class versatility, agility and speed (with the mass decreases) to be more then a 15-20M deathtraps.

Ath Amon
Posted - 2007.12.10 14:55:00 - [28]
 

is it true that nos is not anymore so used but neut is still pretty effective...

if ships will have something like... immune to energy neut then yes passive and active will be both viable but if not passive will be the only way to do that, expecially considering that these ships should be usefull even against cruisers

Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Eclats de verre
Posted - 2007.12.10 15:10:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko

I tend to disagree with many of the OP's ideas. A tanking bonus on AFs is quite useless, mostly - and resist bonuses are definitely better on a small ship which relies on buffer and speed more often then tank to survive.

The tanking bonus works, you either need to repair more or to take less damage when you have a huge buffer of HP and a small repairer/small shield booster, or it would take an eternity to repair.

Originally by: Cpt Branko
What AFs need:

* 4 bonuses - inheriting the bonuses from the T1 hulls where appropriate.

Can't agree more!

Originally by: Cpt Branko
* mass decrease to +- 10% of their respective T1 hulls (take into account that the cruisers are close when looking at agility, and destroyers tend to be, in fact, more agile then AFs. The Thrasher is more agile then even the Jaguar, which is just Rolling Eyes). AFs MUST be noticeably faster and more agile then cruisers.

Everything I tried with lower mass ended with some AF flying easyly at 4000+ m/s and just replacing interceptors... This is why I proposed to have a big afterburner boost and a higher inertia modifier.

Originally by: Cpt Branko
* CPU/grid to fit them properly

Can't agree more...

Originally by: Cpt Branko
* Two midslot AFs don't cut it - if a ship is to assault (as the name suggests) and fight at close range, it must have three midslots. For close-range fighting 3/3 layouts are better then 2/4 layouts.

Full tacklers? Replacing inties again? 2 med slots is often enough. Retribution has an issue on this.

Originally by: Cpt Branko
What would be really nice:
* Role bonus: boost to AB efficency of roughly 50-75% speed bonus increase. This, combined with their reduced mass, would greatly increase their viability as short-range 'assault' ships, since they could reach a respectable 1.3-1.7km/s depending on AF involved running a AB.

Well, exactly what I did... But reducing mass makes them mwd beasts which is very wrong.
Also, look at the speeds I showed on the previous post with a +150% thrust bonus and no base speed and same mass. The fact is that if the max speed is higher, they will accelerate faster than now, they will just take the same time to reach top speed.

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Regarding uniform weapons: while it would objectively be a boost to damage output, I don't see the need for this - I rather like the Jaguar's 3 ACs + 1 rocket launcher layout, for example. The thing that mostly irks me isn't lack of firepower (which is a issue on some AFs, though), it's lack of agility/speed and lack of survivability.

Maybe the higher inertia modifier is a bad idea, they already have a higher mass so they should accelerate slower than any inty.
The firepower is too low compared to a cruiser, that is what I wanted to fix.

I'm going to reread what has been said in the last posts and edit a bit the main posts.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2007.12.10 15:54:00 - [30]
 

Some interesting thoughts.

All I will say is that the Hawk (which is currently almost useless) won't be much better off with the suggested changes, relative to a Caracal. Giving it a 10%/level bonus to light missile explosion velocity would give it an interesting niche.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only