Posted - 2008.07.09 08:22:00 - [31]

 

I can't say I agree 100% with this idea, but I will say that it's a change and a decent one at that, so I support it.

However, the ideas my friends and I came up with were somewhat different, but still rather close to the ideas you presented.

Essentially: Assault Frigates should be considered Mini-Cruisers. At this point in time, they seem to be a joke for two reasons: Their mass is far larger than their Tech I variants, while HACs are the same and can achieve speeds faster than their Tech I counterparts. Their severe lack of mid-slots and/or low-slots severely limit their viability.

I personally don't think Assault Frigates need more DPS, more Tank. Instead, I think they need more speed to bring them up to par with Heavy Assault Cruisers over their Tech I variants, and give them more mid/low slots. One example is the Retribution. It has a *single* mid-slot. Considering the current nano-craze, this is incredibly disabling for the ship.

Considering their role should be as mini-Cruisers, they should be allowed more versatility, and thus be able to fit more than a single module in any one slot. Heck, they probably should have closer to what most Cruisers had for med/low slots.

Posted - 2008.07.23 12:53:00 - [33]

 

Posted - 2008.07.23 13:17:00 - [35]

 

Edited by: Angeliena on 23/07/2008 14:41:39
Edited by: Angeliena on 23/07/2008 13:17:35
I agree 100% with the OP. Fixing AFs by giving them the same mass as their T1 hulls is such an obvious and simple thing to do that you have to wonder why the devs have not done this years ago.

I think the reason has something to do with the devs not wanting a viable entry level T2 PVP ship to be able to be flown effectively by relatively new players (e.g. only 6 months of fee paying -note they are happy with new palyers using an effective T2 PVE ship though).

Effective AFs should be fun to PVP in even for players with years of fee paying skill points. Not all experienced players have the isk to burn on losing lots of 100 million+ HACS on daily roams, however, most players could afford to field and loose multiple AFs and would have more fun loosening lots of AFs during the same roams into enemy territory, than looseing a single high priced HAC.

PS: yes I know some people retort saying that giving AFs the same mass of T1 frigs will make interceptors not worth flying, but this argument is obviously false to anyone who has ever flown an interceptor, because we already go against such ships as a T1 nano rifter which achieves speeds of about 3.5kps while fitting T2 guns. The OP’s change to AF mass would only allow AF to match the speed that their sister T1 frigs already have (e.g. AFs 3.0 to 3.5 kps –get hit by regular missiles flying over 3.75 kps vrs interceptors 6.0 to 12.0 kps which can out speed even a max skill boosted cerb’s missiles flying at over 8 kps)

Posted - 2008.07.23 17:32:00 - [37]

 

This is badly needed. Assault Frigates could have a lot of potential.

Posted - 2008.07.23 18:05:00 - [39]

 

AFs need 4th bonus.

Posted - 2008.07.23 19:28:00 - [41]

 

Why not make all ABs give resistance to Webs and keep their minor speed boosts, and give AFs a bonus to said AB web resistances? Too broken?

Posted - 2008.07.24 01:35:00 - [43]

 

Posted - 2008.07.24 13:13:00 - [45]

 

Edited by: Helevorn Feanaro on 24/07/2008 13:13:34
Signed in general.

Hawk needs extra love too.

Posted - 2008.07.24 14:18:00 - [47]

 

i vote for invincible af. i love my ishkur.

Posted - 2008.07.25 02:38:00 - [49]

 

I'm in agreement that the mass needs reducing to t1 variant levels.

As for bonuses I'd agree more with the people that asked for extra tracking...or equivalent bonuses to fight nanoships (explosion velocity for missiles, tracking for guns).

Without increasing the overall damage output of these ships you'd make them one of the few ships that could fight nano's without being fitted for speed themselves. This would not be a bad thing at all.