open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [IDEA] AF simple boost
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Aidan Ordway
Amarr
Astral Phoenix Dockworks

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.

Erik Legant
Posted - 2008.07.09 16:43:00 - [32]
 

I made some calculations on the speed of AFs myself.

The same mass for the t1 counterpart of the AF ? Thumbs up.

* Proposed change to the Retribution ? No, thanks
* Proposed change to the Vengeance ? Yes to a velocity bonus, no to a slot change
* Proposed change to the Harpy ? No !
* Proposed change to the Hawk ? No, thanks
* Proposed change to the Enyo ? No !
* Proposed change to the Ishkur ? Yes.
* Proposed change to the Jaguar ? No !
* Proposed change to the Wolf ? No !
--
Erik

Siona Windweaver
Placeholder Holdings
Posted - 2008.07.23 12:53:00 - [33]
 


WishBlade
Caldari
Atomic Heroes
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2008.07.23 13:02:00 - [34]
 

Why give the Harpy double optimal bonus? Granted, it's in line with the Eagle, Cormorant, and Rokh, but as an anti-frig/inty vessel tracking would be much more viable

Angeliena
Caldari
Eye of God
Intergalactic Exports Group
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. Very Happy 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 OPís 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 Ėget 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 cerbís missiles flying at over 8 kps)

Lucai
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.07.23 14:05:00 - [36]
 

Not going into details, i support the general idea.

Zara Skyray
Caldari
Carthage Industries

Posted - 2008.07.23 17:32:00 - [37]
 

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

Pwett
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
Posted - 2008.07.23 18:00:00 - [38]
 

I agree, we just need to flesh out what the role of the assault frigate really is nowadays.

For the most part, as it stands, theres nothing an AF can do that a cruiser can't do better and cheaper.

Kelron Queldine
Beyond Divinity Inc
Excuses.
Posted - 2008.07.23 18:05:00 - [39]
 

AFs need 4th bonus.

Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Posted - 2008.07.23 18:07:00 - [40]
 

I like the fix of making AF using Afterburners immune to webs more than this solution.

Dzajic
Gallente
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?

Lieutenant Isis
Caldari
Gristle Industries

Posted - 2008.07.23 20:23:00 - [42]
 

This is a pretty good idea, one of the better for AFs. Could make them alot more fun, if they were more tankable and/or had more DPS.

Tzujeih
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.07.24 01:35:00 - [43]
 


Thorradin
State Protectorate
Posted - 2008.07.24 01:47:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Thorradin on 24/07/2008 01:49:21
A simple AF boost would be to give AFs their missing 4th bonus.

Also your Hawk suggest is damn near criminal. That you even considered suggesting the removal of the ROF bonus is nothing short of sick. If the Hawk only had a 5% kinetic (should be all damage types, period) bonus and no ROF it'd be so horribly inferior to the Kestrel that it would be best to delete the ship from the database.

Helevorn Feanaro
Gene Works
AKA-AHN KINGDOM
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.

Kade Jeekin
Kinda'Shujaa

Posted - 2008.07.24 13:35:00 - [46]
 


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

i vote for invincible af. i love my ishkur.

Jeirth
Minmatar
Republic Military School

Posted - 2008.07.24 23:39:00 - [48]
 

Support that the AF's need some love

Herring
Caldari
Pimpology

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.



Pages: 1 [2]

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