Assault Frigates

[Knight7]

So I've been lurking a few months, and I was reading the Assault Frigates discussion in EVE General when I saw somebody complain that Assault Frigates have no role in fleet combat, and that it would be nice to encourage a more combined arms approach to EVE fleet combat (I think it was Helicity) - so I started thinking about what kind of role AFs they could be altered to fill, with an eye toward that. I hit upon inspiration when I thought about Stealth Bombers being the anti-battleship+ frigate, what with their bombs and torps - but then it hit me that SBs too fragile to be suited to stand-up fights, and their bombs aren’t as useful in close-range fleet engagements due to the risk of friendly fire. Thus came to me the idea that where Stealth Bombers were excellent for ambushes and short engagements, a potential role for Assault Frigates lay in the idea of applying sustained DPS to larger ships. Thus, my proposal:

All Assault Frigates gain the ability to fit new Assault Modules. Similar in concept to Siege Modules, these modules increase both the output of and resistance to damage, while locking the ship into a particular role for the duration of the module’s cycle time:

Immunity to remote effects
Can’t activate warp drive or MWD.
Large damage increase
Large tracking reduction
Increase AB speed boost

Basically, the intention is that with the Assault Mod running, AFs should be able to speed tank battleship guns till the cows come home and give cruiser guns a difficult time of it, while themselves lacking the tracking to consistently land good hits on anything smaller than a battlecruiser. This shouldn't give a single AF the ability to kill a battleship solo, but squads of AFs should definitely be a threat.

I also was thinking about 4th bonuses; one of my corpmates suggested that a 4th bonus might be too much on top of the Assault Module, but I figure I'll provide my suggestions anyway.

Retribution: 5% bonus to armor resists per level.
Vengeance: 5% bonus to rocket velocity per level.
Harpy & Hawk: 5% bonus to shield resists per level.
Enyo: 5% bonus to armor resists per level.
Ishkur: 5% bonus to drone damage per level.
Jaguar & Wolf: 5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret tracking per level.

So, have at me.

[Tyrus Tenebros]

Not the worst 1stpost I've seen, but AFs are such a quagmire :-/

[Sponk]

I am quite OK with there being more 'siege mode' modules in Eve.

Not convinced assault frigates are the place to start tho.

[prometheus]

I am against AB speed boosting, inability to warp/mwd, and your chosen bonuses.
They don't need a fancy gimmick module to make them worth flying.

They simply need to be turned into heavier interceptors. Nowhere near as agile or fast, but small enough to MWD to a target without getting blapped.

[Marlona Sky]

I'm for an nice AB bonus. Along with a couple tweaks in reducing their size and a few other things they would make for great heavy frigate tackle. Able to maintain a nice speed to give larger ships issues with getting them off of them. In addition to respectable dps, they would find a nice role.

[prometheus]

I'm for an nice AB bonus. Along with a couple tweaks in reducing their size and a few other things they would make for great heavy frigate tackle. Able to maintain a nice speed to give larger ships issues with getting them off of them. In addition to respectable dps, they would find a nice role.
Yea, a nice role in being nigh unkillable.

[Marlona Sky]

I'm for an nice AB bonus. Along with a couple tweaks in reducing their size and a few other things they would make for great heavy frigate tackle. Able to maintain a nice speed to give larger ships issues with getting them off of them. In addition to respectable dps, they would find a nice role.
Yea, a nice role in being nigh unkillable.

Support killing support works just fine. Don't sound like a dread pilot QQing about losing its drone bay now.

[prometheus]

I'm for an nice AB bonus. Along with a couple tweaks in reducing their size and a few other things they would make for great heavy frigate tackle. Able to maintain a nice speed to give larger ships issues with getting them off of them. In addition to respectable dps, they would find a nice role.
Yea, a nice role in being nigh unkillable.

Support killing support works just fine. Don't sound like a dread pilot QQing about losing its drone bay now.
I was on the server when the first started testing the AB bonus.
It was a terrible idea now, and it's still a terrible idea now.

[Marlona Sky]

I was on the server when the first started testing the AB bonus.
It was a terrible idea now, and it's still a terrible idea now.

I was on the test server too when they came out. They made the ships actually useful, but still vulnerable to other frigate/destroyer support hulls and smart/skilled cruiser ships. If your refering to players using cruiser sized ABs on them they could easily restrict the bonus to 1mn size and that problem goes away. (which was not a major problem anyways). Yes there needs to be a couple other tweaks, but the AB bonus was a really good 4th bonus. It was a great idea then, and it's still a great idea now.

[Knight7]

I am against AB speed boosting, inability to warp/mwd, and your chosen bonuses.
They don't need a fancy gimmick module to make them worth flying.

They simply need to be turned into heavier interceptors. Nowhere near as agile or fast, but small enough to MWD to a target without getting blapped.

Originally, I couldn't decide whether it should be a sig radius reduction or an AB speed boost, I could easily change it to the former. The bonuses were pretty much an afterthought and mostly pulled out of my ass. The reasoning behind the lack of ability to warp/mwd is threefold: I felt like there needed to be a bigger tradeoff than just the tracking penalty; I wanted to avoid stepping on interceptors' toes; and I wanted the assault frigates, like dreads, to be committed to that particular role for the cycle time of the assault module. If we're dropping the AB speed boost then we can drop the inability to MWD as well, but I think that the inability to warp is an important drawback.

I disagree that Assault Frigates should be heavier interceptors; they should be assaulting things, not intercepting them. If you want heavier interceptors, change interceptors.

[Mfume]

I disagree that Assault Frigates should be heavier interceptors; they should be assaulting things, not intercepting them. If you want heavier interceptors, change interceptors.

Assaulting things is not best done with ships generally rocking around 10K ehp with an effective range under 15km.

[Alain Colcer]

I still think the solution to AFs is two fold:

1) Change the afterburner skill so its a cap saving bonus, not a "cycle time" bonus. (affects all ships)

2) Add a cap saving bonus to active tanking (shield boost, armor rep).

[DaBigCheez]

1) Change the afterburner skill so its a cap saving bonus, not a "cycle time" bonus. (affects all ships)

So, "Fuel Conservation 0.5: Electric Boogaloo"?

[Yankunytjatjara]

1) Change the afterburner skill so its a cap saving bonus, not a "cycle time" bonus. (affects all ships)
And heat damage as well or you're nerfing it.

[Knight7]

I disagree that Assault Frigates should be heavier interceptors; they should be assaulting things, not intercepting them. If you want heavier interceptors, change interceptors.

Assaulting things is not best done with ships generally rocking around 10K ehp with an effective range under 15km.
A fair point, but that's why I set things up in my post the way I did - if things have a hard time getting good hits on you, then having a relatively low amount of ehp isn't as much of an issue - and having range less than 15km helps reinforce that, as it encourages one to fly close and get under the guns of a target.

[Spartan Dax]

Give them all tank, dps and utility bonuses. No tracking or range ones. In fact give them a -25% tracking role bonus or more so other frigs can challenge them at will. And maybe a -10% / lvl cycletime on Nosferatus. Destroyers do the anti frig thing all too well so there's no point in competing in that area.

[Tsubutai]

Give them all tank, dps and utility bonuses. No tracking or range ones. In fact give them a -25% tracking role bonus or more so other frigs can challenge them at will. And maybe a -10% / lvl cycletime on Nosferatus. Destroyers do the anti frig thing all too well so there's no point in competing in that area.
What exactly is the use of a frigate that cannot shoot down light drones? Do you feel that the game should be balanced so that a stabber can challenge a vaga "at will", whatever that means?

[Spartan Dax]

I don't have a problem with ships that have severe drawbacks as long as they're not useless. So what if it takes a few volleys more to kill a light drone if your tank is also much improved?

I very much doubt we can have good, balanced AF's that can be:

1. Heavy tacklers
2 Frig killing machines.

Pick one. Once we've made up what we want all the easier to tail it to that role.

[Marlona Sky]

Frigate killing machines are destroyers.

[prometheus]

because we need more ships that are really really adept at killing cruiser hulls.
lets just keep digging that hac grave

[Marlona Sky]

because we need more ships that are really really adept at killing cruiser hulls.
lets just keep digging that hac grave

HACs dying to frigates because they didn't bring their own frigate support nonshocker.

[joe space]

decrease the sig bloom of mwds for everything but ceptors (just change the module stats and then reduce the bonus ceptors get and maybe increase their speeds slightly to compensate.)

it isn't a straightforward AF buff, but it does help them while addressing many other problems at the same time (like buffing cruisers, especially in relation to the new BCs; making for a lot of interesting new fits; and perhaps causing people to use their rig slots more creatively then just always picking trimarks or cdfes. people will want to keep their tiny sig armor tanks fast enough to mitigate some damage even while mwd'ing, so they might not always choose armor rigs. people may also find the sig bloom penalty of shield rigs actually make a difference.)

then also give AFs resist buffs. this would give them a unique roll that isn't just limited to active tanking, but doesn't exclude awesome active tank setups.

[joe space]

because we need more ships that are really really adept at killing cruiser hulls.
lets just keep digging that hac grave

HACs dying to frigates because they didn't bring their own frigate support nonshocker.

edit: nvm. he posted in support of our logo so he is obv a gentleman and scholar. o/\o

[Knight7]

I've been giving this some more thought, decided to put up an update with the current iteration of my ideas. The fundamental thought is the same – give AFs a part to play in fleet combat, with an eye toward encouraging a mixed arms approach. Assault Mod-equipped AFs will prey on battlecruisers and up, while the ones without the mod will keep enemy frigates, drones, and other light combatants off them long enough for their brothers to apply their DPS - or they can help defend the main fleet from waves of enemy assault frigates
Each race will have one assault frigate that can mount the Assault Module, which will have the following effects when active:

Immunity to remote effects
Inability to warp
Large reduction in tracking speed and/or increase to weapon signature resolution
Large damage increase
Reduction in signature radius

And new sets of bonuses:
Retribution
Amarr Frigate: 10% to Small Energy cap use and 5% bonus to armor resists
Assault Ship: 7.5% to Small Energy damage and optimal
Able to fit Assault Module
+1 mid slot
Vengeance
Amarr Frigate: 10% to Rocket damage and 5% to armor resists
Assault Ship: 10% to Rocket explosion velocity and 5% to cap recharge
Harpy
Caldari Frigate: 10% to Small Hybrid optimal and 5% to shield resists
Assault Ship: 10% to Small Hybrid optimal and 5% to Small Hybrid damage
Able to fit Assault Module
Hawk
Caldari Frigate: 10% to Missile velocity and 5% to shield resists
Assault Ship: 7.5% to Missile kinetic damage and shield boost amount
Enyo
Gallente Frigate: 10% to Small Hybrid falloff and 5% to Small Hybrid damage
Assault Ship: 7.5% to Small Hybrid optimal and damage
Able to fit Assault Module
Ishkur
Gallente Frigate: 10% to Small Hybrid falloff and 5% to Small Hybrid damage
Assault Ship: 10% to drone damage & hp and 5m^3 drone capacity
Jaguar
Minmatar Frigate: 5% to Small Projectile damage and 7.5% to Small Projectile tracking
Assault Ship: 10% to Small Projectile falloff and 7.5% to Small Projectile damage
Wolf
Minmatar Frigate: 5% to Small Projectile damage and 7.5% to Small Projectile tracking
Assault Ship: 10% to Small Projectile damage and 7.5% to Small Projectile optimal
Able to fit Assault Module

[prometheus]

No.

[filingo]

so you are fitting a seige module to af's?

im siding with prom

[Sponk]

Im ok with siege modules. Just not for AF. Would rather see them on something slower, like Hulks.

[Alenar Rumanev]

The way I see it, divide AFs into two groups: heavy tacklers and mini-command ships.

Heavy Tacklers (give them all ~10% additional cap, and a stronger sensor strength, lower base speed by 3-5%)

Vengeance:
Amarr Frigate - 5% bonus to rocket damage and 5% bonus to armor resistances per level
Assault Ships - 5% bonus to cap recharge per level and 5% reduction of stasis webifier effects per level

Hawk:
Caldari Frigate - 10% bonus to kinetic missile damage per level and 5% bonus to shield resistances per level
Assault Ships - 10% bonus to missile velocity per level and 5% reduction of stasis webifier effects per level

Ishkur:
Gallente Frigate - 10% bonus to small hybrid falloff per level and 5% bonus to small hybrid damage per level
Assault Ships - +5m^3 drone capacity per level and 5% reduction of stasis webifier effects per level

Jaguar:
Minmatar Frigate - 5% bonus to small projectile damage per level and 10% bonus to small projectile falloff per level
Assault Ships - 5% bonus to small projectile damage per level and 5% reduction of stasis webifier effects per level

Note- Ishkur and Jaguar optimal bonuses changed to fall-off, Hawk shield boost bonus changed to shield resistance bonus

Mini-command ships (give them all 10% additional hp, +1 grid, +10 cpu)

Retribution:
-1 High, -1 Turret, +1 Mid
Amarr Frigate - 10% reduction in small energy turret cap use per level and 7.5% increase in small energy turret damage per level
Assault Ships - 10% bonus to small energy turret optimal range per level and 5% increase to armor warfare link bonuses per level
Role Bonus: -99.5% warfare link grid and cpu, may fit 1 warfare link

Harpy:
Caldari Frigate - 10% bonus to small hybrid optimal range per level and 5% bonus to small hybrid damage per level
Assault Ships - 10% bonus to small hybrid optimal range per level and 5% increase to siege warfare link bonuses per level
Role Bonus: -99.5% warfare link grid and cpu, may fit 1 warfare link

Enyo:
Gallente Frigate - 10% bonus to small hybrid optimal per level and 5% bonus to small hybrid damage per level
Assault Ships - 7.5% bonus to small hybrid tracking per level and 5% increase to information warfare link bonuses per level
Role Bonus: -99.5% warfare link grid and cpu, may fit 1 warfare link

Wolf:
Minmatar Frigate - 5% bonus to small projectile damage and 10% bonus to small projectile optimal per level
Assault Ships - 5% bonus to small projectile damage per level and 5% increase in skirmish warfare link bonuses per level
Role Bonus: -99.5% warfare link grid and cpu, may fit 1 warfare link

Note: switched Wolf falloff bonus for optimal bonus, gave Retribution damage bonus an increase due to -1 turret.

The idea is to make the tackling frigates harder to shake off by bigger ships (more cap, so more neut proof, more ECM proof, less susceptible to webbing) but slower out of the box so other frigates/destroyers have no issues catching them. The command frigates can give gang bonuses to a frig gang, but won't supplant T3s or command ships (assuming CCP increases CS bonuses from 3% to 5% to keep T3s from obsoleting them anyway, but that's another fight) because they can only run one link (and a command processor would gimp them completely).

[prometheus]

Links are already an incredibly stupid/broken/exploitable mechanic.
No.

[Mr Marram]

so you are fitting a seige module to af's?

im siding with prom

Rather than scrolling I clicked on your avatar by accident, OH GOD MY EYES !!!! ARRRRRGGGGG !!!!

On topic, AFs have just lost their cheap, small sig, DPS role to destroyers so now need to either get back level with them or take another role.
The AB bonus was interesting but it was exploited with 10mn ABs very quickly on SiSi, as for other options, perhaps the 4th bonus should be damage or damage projection as has been said above or as has also been said before a 500% damage bonus to supers making AF swarms a real threat as they can get on field very quickly and don't require a heavy SP investment compared HACs or BSes but can still put 1000 dps down against these targets only.

[Sponk]

Needs subsystem targeting imo

[Mr Marram]

Needs subsystem targeting imo

For hitting supers? But then you need a whole new damage mechanic.
This is assuming you mean WoT module damage style, hitting sensor clusters damages sensor res/targeting range, drone control antanee reduces drone control amount/range, energy cores reduces cap total/recharge and so on.

[Navigator Six]

This just came to mind, as I was trying to think of a way to make heavy tacklers (and blaster boats, maybe) slightly better: what about giving the heavy-tackler AFs a role bonus of something like


75% reduction to MWD mass and 200% increase to MWD capacitor use

I think the mass reduction should effectively increase straight-line agility, right? (I could have this totally wrong, but that's the idea at least.) So it would give AFs a quick boost to tackle something, counteracted by the increase in cap usage. The non-MWD speed of AFs could let them maintain tackle on larger ships, but shouldn't work as well against smaller stuff (and maybe not against cruisers either, but that might not be a bad thing). Nothing's preventing dual-prop fits either, which should work better than before (maybe too well?).

[RoemySchneider]

(I could have this totally wrong....)yop...

agility is agility; no distinction for straight line or anything.

and a bonus to _MWD_ mass does either very little when only a third of your mass is on your actual mwd, or massively OP if your entire mass gets reduced and speeds reach ludicrous levels (again) - especially when someone starts oversizing with the help of those new cute MAPC IIs -.-

edit after eft&spreadsheet: a wolf would go 33.4k m/s with the agility resulting in 4.5sec align time

[Rudolf Miller]

This just came to mind, as I was trying to think of a way to make heavy tacklers (and blaster boats, maybe) slightly better: what about giving the heavy-tackler AFs a role bonus of something like


75% reduction to MWD mass and 200% increase to MWD capacitor use

I think the mass reduction should effectively increase straight-line agility, right? (I could have this totally wrong, but that's the idea at least.) So it would give AFs a quick boost to tackle something, counteracted by the increase in cap usage. The non-MWD speed of AFs could let them maintain tackle on larger ships, but shouldn't work as well against smaller stuff (and maybe not against cruisers either, but that might not be a bad thing). Nothing's preventing dual-prop fits either, which should work better than before (maybe too well?).

200% boost would cap out even a vengeance in a stupidly fast amount of time. 50% seems more fair. But yeah, this seems pretty cool to me.

[Navigator Six]

(I could have this totally wrong....)yop...

agility is agility; no distinction for straight line or anything.

and a bonus to _MWD_ mass does either very little when only a third of your mass is on your actual mwd, or massively OP if your entire mass gets reduced and speeds reach ludicrous levels (again) - especially when someone starts oversizing with the help of those new cute MAPC IIs -.-

Hm, right. Assuming you could add an agility reduction to a MWD, what about something like -40 or -50 agility? That's pretty out there (istab II is -20, for example), and should give a big reduction in acceleration time.

[Knight7]

No.

Why?


so you are fitting a seige module to af's?

im siding with prom


Im ok with siege modules. Just not for AF. Would rather see them on something slower, like Hulks.

Why not?

[Sponk]

The entire concept of a siege module is "I'm not going anywhere, but shit just got real for everyone else".

On a frigate, that's not going to be very useful.

[Knight7]

Well, my "Assault Module" idea (as of the latest version) only prevents an AF from warping - normal flying and use of ABs and MWDs is still very possible. It's also not really meant to be used when operating solo.

[Snoboardude]

Prom will probably come in here and yell at me but I am really not a fan of the MWD sig reduction. However, I agree that AB SPEED was a bad idea. The thing I have a problem with is that there was plenty of middle ground CCP could have exploited with the AF AB bonus.

What if:

- AF had a 95% cap usage bonus to ABs
- 50% less cycle time but 50% better 'overheat' per cycle (ie cycle time increases without making overheating an AB 'worse)
- a bit more overheated speed
- 20% less fitting
- 10% more speed and 10% less mass with an active AB

Or something along those lines. (All numbers unimportant btw). All I am trying to say is that discarding the 'AB bonus' just because the speed buff made it retarded just doesn't make sense. IMO stop shitting on inties with the MWD sig reduction and investigate some of the other things that can be done with AB bonuses other then then turning AFs into overpowered speed buffed rape machines.

[Pattern]

Have you guys ever asked the very simple, but fundamental question - "what do I actually want to do with this class of ships? (that isn't totally game breaking or better done already with another class of ships). All I see are a few lolideas and a lot of really boring stats and 4th bonuses thrown around. AF's in my mind should be decent, heavy, main battle, in your face tacklers, with a huge number of mid slots (5-7), a cpu and cap use reduction bonus to scrams and disruptors and a reasonable way of not being insta-gibbed by more than one of *insert roaming ship here*.

Beyond that, there just re-inventing the wheel.

[Tyrus Tenebros]

Have you guys ever asked the very simple, but fundamental question - "what do I actually want to do with this class of ships? (that isn't totally game breaking or better done already with another class of ships). All I see are a few lolideas and a lot of really boring stats and 4th bonuses thrown around. AF's in my mind should be decent, heavy, main battle, in your face tacklers, with a huge number of mid slots (5-7), a cpu and cap use reduction bonus to scrams and disruptors and a reasonable way of not being insta-gibbed by more than one of *insert roaming ship here*.

Beyond that, there just re-inventing the wheel.how do you balance that against captors? If anything AFs should have a minimum of midslots, maximum damage, and complement interceptors (fast tackle) who should all have 3 or more mids, and eafs, which should have many mids


Your proposal essentially obsoletes all other frigates.

Inty: fast, small tackle
EAF: ewar
AF: DPS and tank to fight close in

[Pattern]

Have you guys ever asked the very simple, but fundamental question - "what do I actually want to do with this class of ships? (that isn't totally game breaking or better done already with another class of ships). All I see are a few lolideas and a lot of really boring stats and 4th bonuses thrown around. AF's in my mind should be decent, heavy, main battle, in your face tacklers, with a huge number of mid slots (5-7), a cpu and cap use reduction bonus to scrams and disruptors and a reasonable way of not being insta-gibbed by more than one of *insert roaming ship here*.

Beyond that, there just re-inventing the wheel.how do you balance that against captors? If anything AFs should have a minimum of midslots, maximum damage, and complement interceptors (fast tackle) who should all have 3 or more mids, and eafs, which should have many mids


Your proposal essentially obsoletes all other frigates.

Inty: fast, small tackle
EAF: ewar
AF: DPS and tank to fight close in
Dps af in the age of 400dps destroyers is silly.

Ceptors will always move faster, lock faster and warp faster, have longer range points. They intercept, but if you wanted to pin down multiple ships for the duration of a fight that type of ship would be better.

[Ophichius]

This is probably a stupid idea, but I'll throw it out anyways and watch you guys shoot it to pieces.

Why not put the assault in assault frigate, and give them role bonuses to fit cruiser weapons. Adjust the role bonus to make fitting highest-tier weapons require fitting mods, thus forcing people to pick between a fragile, gank-heavy fit, or a less damaging (but still nasty) fit with a modest tank. Essentially Tier 3 BCs: Now in bite-sized fun packs!

Ideally I'd really prefer to see destroyers get the role of oversized gunboats with thin tanks, and let AFs fill their current role of frigate-killing DPS monsters. But this thread is about fixing AFs, not fixing AFs and destroyers.

[prometheus]

Dps af in the age of 400dps destroyers is silly.
You are so misguided.
Right, lets just send in our fat paper destroyer hulls to brawl down ________.
Good call, right?

I agree with Tyrus.
AFs now work as high(ish) damage, big(ish) tanking frigate hulls with the capability to brawl or kite if they so choose.
They are the spiritual successor to Destroyers, but they do not replace them.

The BIGGER challenge will be to make EAFs better without stepping on the toes of interceptors even more.
Although I've got some ideas, they haven't been fleshed out enough to be brought to light AND I'd like to see how my ideas with the AFs work out in practice on sisi.

As for AFs getting cruiser weapons, it had been thought about, but I think that since oversized gunships are still in their infancy CCP doesn't want to go that route.
Beyond that I'd see that idea as being a Destroyer thing.

Current Destroyers being tier1 (small guns)
Non-existent Destroyers being tier2 (medium guns) - ship size to be what the current BC3s are
Tier3 BCs being rightfully changed into tier3 Destroyers (large guns) - ship size increased to be closer to battleships than battlecruisers

Of course, then you have problems balancing them all with the rest of the ships and T1 medium hulls become more and more useless :p

[Pattern]

Dps af in the age of 400dps destroyers is silly.
You are so misguided.
Right, lets just send in our fat paper destroyer hulls to brawl down ________.
Good call, right?
Not really sure why any frig should be the dps platform - or at least to be a dps platform with any staying power beyond actual speed, not least because nanoing larger crap is so effective, but from a gang perspective, larger ships are generally there to bring the pain. As for destroyers, I can't seem to see where you stand on this issue as if anyone else apart from yourself deems it to be broken/squishy, you seem to tell them that they're flying it wrong or risk adverse faggots. What? They shouldn't brawl? And get sniped from existence by (insert race) medium turret. Or what, the key to their success is fitting 10nm abs? :/

From were I'm standing this is just another shade of grey from CCP's old style "t2=better" mentality which will live or die based upon how many jacks of all tradey things it just so happens to master at the expense of other ships (even beyond it's size class). Personally, i'd rather see something that would make the average pilot think twice about taking a bog standard nano cane, for a frig who couldn't be easily supplanted because it did something no ships currently do in the way or environments they did them.

[prometheus]

EVE players already have enough trouble committing to fights, so I see the AFs as a welcome change.

And yes, Destroyers are not designed for brawling down larger targets. You can do it with numbers (which is the case for ANY ship), but they designed as anti-support platforms.
They were designed with the intention of clearing the field of drones, frigates and destroyer hulls. That is their design philosophy, and they do it well.
People not using them for that is not grounds for changing that, just as Taranis aren't exactly intended for taking down Vagabonds. They can do it, but that's not what they are meant for.

AFs will now be filling a bit of a void when it comes to frigate combat. Currently, frigates are only really effective when combating larger hulls (Bombers) OR other frigates (everything else).
AFs fill the hole which is frigate vs destroyer/cruiser hulls. They aren't they highest dps, but hurt. They aren't the tankiest, but can manage themselves. They aren't the fastest, but they are (now) survivable.

EAFs need work, but once they are set up nicely I think you will understand the potential strengths of frigate-based gang warfare.
When EAFs/AFs are sorted, then Interceptors can get a small boost, as they are still extremely valuable.

Side Note; HACs could probably use a bit of a boost in some capacity, probably base signature size or something.

[Pattern]

What about the chaos AF iteration makes them unable to do what destroyers do almost as well? Turret tracking speed and % more dps for the destroyers is nice, but it's totally cancelled out by what, despite what you just said, will be by far the most tankiest frigs (unless there is something major I've missed about resists or fittings).

Sure, they'll be able to kill cruisers solo (although almost everything can kill t1 cruisers tbh) or kite retards who still solo in commandships even better than before, but they'll still experience total hell death against current fleet formats if flown in frig gangs or solo vs competent pilots.

When it comes to these things, my ideal is having less homogeneous gangs. People weighing up an opportunity cost in favour of not just doubling up on x ship class in a fleet but flying something different that provides a force multiplier to a gang.

Personally I would have just merged the EAF's and the chaos version AF's together, sans dps, with maybe that whole anti-ewar immunity thing people were talking about a while ago.

[prometheus]

Destroyers are far easier to get into, and far more effective at anti-support than AFs are.
Yes, in a testing environment Destroyers may seem inferior to AFs, but it's similar to why people are using the BC3s. 8 Guns on a smaller than normal platform is simply advantageous in numbers.
If you've got 10 Destroyers vs 10 AFs, those Destroyers will wipe the floor with them.

What you're discussing about fleet compositions and such is well beyond the scope of a simple AF change.
That has more to do with the fundamentals of pvp warfare, and less to do with one specific class of ship.

The purpose of the proposed changes is to make AFs worth flying without making them overpowered in any capacity.
The changes should allow that without much hassle.

Also, any sort of immunity is a bad choice as far as game design is concerned.

[Pattern]

Re: anti-ewar immunity related to that idea that ridded super caps and sieged/triaged caps of there ewar immunity, whether via role bonus to ewar mods or something else.

I'll concede the point on alpha if destroyers where ever used en masse but re: roles and pvp warfare, what ships actually do, their utility vs opportunity cost, is absolutely at the heart of what drives pvp. I never argued that they wouldn't be more desirable to fly, but this type of change appears to be raw, unfocused power creep, with may others already looking at which class to spec up in accordance next.

[prometheus]

Now I'm busying trying to make EAFs worth flying :P

[Tsubutai]

Now I'm busying trying to make EAFs worth flying :P
Will be interesting to see what you come up with for the Kitsune.

[prometheus]

Now I'm busying trying to make EAFs worth flying :P
Will be interesting to see what you come up with for the Kitsune.

kitsune doesn't really need much fixing on its own, it's issues are more ECM/EAF related

[Shiroi Okami]

In regard to what you were saying earlier prom, imo to keep hacs competitive now that AFs are actually good and dessies can fulfill their role properly it's not so much a sig change they need (Most hacs are already farily small iirc) as just playing around a bit with their fitting. Eg a vagabond needing an ACR to fit decent guns and a med neut while the hurricane can fit THE ENTIRE WORLD without any fitting mods is retarded. Similarly, a zealot needing an ACR (or two) to fit HPLs, a plate and an MWD is equally stupid

[prometheus]

That has more to do with the Zealot originally having 1 less gun, the Vaga being fairly balanced, and artillery taking ridiculous amounts of powergrid.