LRF role change and Frigate tweaks

Suggestions Balance
#1

This is a rather large suggestion, so I’m going to try to break it down into parts.

 

Suggestion Overview: Change the LRF frigate class into a Destroyer class (Massive DPS, Weak Armor), effectively changing its role in battle. Tweak other two frigate classes to better refine their role.

 

Changes:

 

 

LRFs:

 

  • Remove ‘Disintegrator’ and ‘Guided Torpedo’ special abilities.
  • Add ‘Weapon Overload’ Destroyer special ability (Increases firing rate by 50% and critical damage by 25%, reduces strafe, rotation, and max speed by 75%. Duration: 8 seconds. Recharge; 80 seconds. Energy Usage: 100 units.) *

 

  • Remove ‘Weapon Overcharge’ module

  • Remove ‘Tachyon Charge’ module

  • Remove ‘EM Scattering Field’ module

  • Remove ‘Reverse Thruster’ module

  • Remove ‘Minelayer’ missile

  • Add ‘Focused Fire’ module (Increases main weapon critical hit chance by 30%. Duration: 10 seconds. Recharge: 130 seconds. Energy usage: 200 units.) *

  • Add ‘Anomaly Generator’ missile

  • Add ‘Warp Gate’ module

= Keep ‘IR Pulsar’ module

 

+Add 10% Shield Strength and Shield Resistance to Jericho LRFs.

 

++ Rename LRF to “Destroyer”

 

Explanation: The idea is to change the LRF from a camping frigate into the best offensive weapons platform on the battlefield. As such, they are given the means to deal out massive damage with their six turrets, while having almost no defensive measures other than IR Pulsar. Given the Engineers Warp Gate module, at the risk of overextending and being caught alone, as they are a frontline frigate.

 

**Modules and abilities marked with an asterisk are new modules that do not exist in-game but are based on existing modules of similar purpose.

 

 

Guards:

 

  • Remove ‘Anomaly Generator’ missile
  • Add ‘Minelayer’ missile

 

Explanation: Guards are meant to defend objectives and be generally hard to kill. As such, giving them the minelayer from the LRF frigate would help them fortify objectives.

 

Engineers:

 

  • Remove ‘Warp Gate’ module

  • Add ‘EM Scattering Field’ module

  • Add ‘Reverse Thruster’ module

 

Explanation: Engineers are some of the most important, yet easy to kill frigates on the battlefield. Giving them EM Scattering Field allows them to camp in the middle of a formation without worrying about being singled out instantly, thus boosting their effectiveness at the cost of mobility. Giving them Reverse Thruster also allows them a quick escape should they attract too much attention. After all, a dead Engineer can’t help anyone.

 

 

Thoughts? Constructive criticism? Questions?

#2

Considering Engineer is my “main” class of ship, I would kill for the EM + RT combo on my ships. See how the snipers like it when the shoe is on the other foot, and unlike LRFs, Engineers don’t have obnoxious amounts of DPS and range and will considerably cut down on the amount of ire said combo brings up. Instead of getting punished for attacking a warping and invisible-to-lock-on LRF, you simply fail to secure a kill on an Engineer and he continues to provide heals for his team. Less severe consequences and thus a win-win.

 

Cuts down on EM/RT LRF spam and gives Engineers much needed options.

 

Would also bring in a lot more depth on module choice. Do you go with RT/Auras as a mobile ambulance or EM/Eggs and be a mostly invisible heal station?

#3

I for one don’t want to see a Styx with RT. 

#4

I for one don’t want to see a Styx with RT. 

 

That is a separate issue. It is no secret that the Styx is OP as heck due to its unusual (and broken) hull strength. Please don’t dismiss the idea based on one broken ship.

#5

That is a separate issue. It is no secret that the Styx is OP as heck due to its unusual (and broken) hull strength. Please don’t dismiss the idea based on one broken ship.

 

It’s not a separate issue when you’re putting RT on a Styx. I have to look at the whole combination and decide if that’s acceptable. At any rate, I’ll address the rest of the case here.

 

 

LRFs:

 

  • Remove ‘Disintegrator’ and ‘Guided Torpedo’ special abilities.
  • Add ‘Weapon Overcharge’ gunship special ability (Increases firing rate by 50% and critical damage by 25%, reduces strafe, rotation, and max speed by 75%. Duration: 8 seconds. Recharge; 80 seconds. Energy Usage: 100 units.)

 

  • Remove ‘Weapon Overcharge’

  • Remove ‘Tachyon Charge’

  • Remove ‘EM Scattering Field’

  • Remove ‘Reverse Thruster’

  • Remove ‘Minelayer’ missile

  • Add ‘Aiming Overcharge L’ (Increases main weapon critical hit chance by 30%. Duration: 10 seconds. Recharge: 130 seconds. Energy usage: 200 units.)

  • Add ‘Anomaly Generator’ missile

  • Add ‘Warp Gate’

= Keep ‘IR Pulsar’

 

+Add 10% Shield Strength and Shield Resistance to Jericho LRFs.

 

++ Rename LRF to “Destroyer”

 

Explanation: The idea is to change the LRF from a camping frigate into the best offensive weapons platform on the battlefield. As such, they are given the means to deal out massive damage with their six turrets, while having almost no defensive measures other than IR Pulsar. Given the Engineers Warp Gate module, at the risk of overextending and being caught alone, as they are a frontline frigate.

 

Not a fan of losing the Jeri torp, but if it has to go, it has to go. Like the motivation behind the change. I’ll prefer a new set of modules, rather than re-using gunship modules, but the desired effect should be similar. Warp Gate is a support module and I wouldn’t put it on a Destroyer. Besides, it probably won’t see any use because of the cooldown, and the lack of survivability makes it better to stack horizons and stay far away, or use multiple survivability modules. 

 

 

Guards:

 

  • Remove ‘Anomaly Generator’ missile
  • Add ‘Minelayer’ missile

 

Explanation: Guards are meant to defend objectives and be generally hard to kill. As such, giving them the minelayer from the LRF frigate would help them fortify objectives.

 

I guess that’s a logical choice.

 

 

Engineers:

 

  • Remove ‘Warp Gate’

  • Add ‘EM Scattering Field’

  • Add ‘Reverse Thruster’

 

Explanation: Engineers are some of the most important, yet easy to kill frigates on the battlefield. Giving them EM Scattering Field allows them to camp in the middle of a formation without worrying about being singled out instantly, thus boosting their effectiveness at the cost of mobility. Giving them Reverse Thruster also allows them a quick escape should they attract too much attention. After all, a dead Engineer can’t help anyone.

 

I don’t know about this… Warp Gate is pretty bad to begin with, but the fact remains that it is a redeployment tool and this fits in with what an engineer should do. Furthermore, engies are supposed to be in the thick of things, where EM Scattering is useless especially for Fed engies. RT… if your team doesn’t want to protect you, then they don’t deserve the healing. 

#6

I’m sorry but the first part of this post is just no. Removing LRF’s just because they annoy you is stupid. Let alone buffing the gunship which is already OP as all f***.

#7

I’m sorry but the first part of this post is just no. Removing LRF’s just because they annoy you is stupid. Let alone buffing the gunship which is already OP as all f***.

 

You misunderstand. I’m not advocating for the removal of LRFs because they annoy me (I actually fly a Sigurdr as my best ship). I’m advocating for them to be shifted into what is essentially a missing role that will help get them off the sidelines and into the thick of things.

 

I’m also not advocating buffing the gunship fighter class. I think you misunderstood my use of the term “gunship modules”. What I was advocating was giving the LRF class a gunship-like special ability rather than their sniping abilities to make them into brawlers instead of campers. The ‘Weapon Overcharge’ and ‘Aiming Overcharge L’ would be two new and separate modules designed exclusively for the LRF class (or Destroyers), while their stats were borrowed from the gunship modules of similar name.

 

EDIT:

“Weapon Overcharge” renamed to “Weapon Overload” -proposed Destroyer special ability.

“Aiming Overcharge L” renamed to “Focused Fire” module -proposed Destroyer module.

#8

Guards with mines?

 

No! No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO NO NO NO NO!

 

_Terrible _idea! Burn this thread! Damn it to hell for that sin! Nothing can be redeemed from any post that proposes you give minefields back to the Guard!

 

Seriously though, this whole thread is a mess of bad ideas with absolutely no thought given to them. You complain about LRFs, but then you want engineers to be able to sit 10km away behind an EM-scattering field and send attack drones to murder people? Reverse thruster is less broken on an engineer, but it’s still broken; imagine plasma arcing a Styx only for it to leap backward and then slaughter you with drones and eclipse.

 

It seems to me that you really didn’t put any thought into this “suggestion” at all.

#9

Ah, I see what’s being proposed here now. I believe that soldiers is proposing to replace the LRF’s with a Destroyer class as to bring them closer to the battle. However, if this did happen, they would need a major buff stats wise to help them tank the damage that they would receive.

#10

I’ve suggested before the idea of turning the LRF into a missile frigate. I think it’s a mistake to push for the class to become a front line brawler, but the core issue with the LRF is they are too far back. They need to be up on the second line alongside the Engineers, not sat in spawn with a thumb up their arse.

#11

Unfortunately LRF’s have been with the game since the start and removing them would cause a major disruption…                                                          

 

 

…in the force

#12

That’s not a valid argument. You could have said the same thing about Empire ships having Disintegrators, Pulsar, Mines and healing modules. You could have said the same thing about the 6-gun Styx that made every other class obsolete. You could make that for almost any of the broken game features that were removed.

 

The point is, the game would be better without the LRF.

#13

On second thoughts, LRFs should keep their minefields. Guards have enough incentive to come to the front; a well-played LRF can make good use of minefields. 

 

Unfortunately LRF’s have been with the game since the start and removing them would cause a major disruption…

 

With enough horizons, anyone can have an LRF.

#14

With enough horizons, anyone can have an LRF.

This. Anyone who’s come under fire from a main gun from 8-10km out will attest to that!

#15

 

You complain about LRFs…

 

It seems to me that you really didn’t put any thought into this “suggestion” at all.

 

Where am I complaining about LRFs?!? The only thing I mentioned that could be considered a complaint is that I was trying to make LRFs more useful by changing their role to one that isn’t encouraged to camp at the far edges of the battlefield. There is absolutely no rage, anywhere in my original post.

 

What does make me angry is that you’ve condemned my entire suggestion while accusing me of not thinking any of it through. Major points for that one.

 

 

…you want engineers to be able to sit 10km away behind an EM-scattering field and send attack drones to murder people? Reverse thruster is less broken on an engineer, but it’s still broken; imagine plasma arcing a Styx only for it to leap backward and then slaughter you with drones and eclipse.

 

You seem to forget that this already happens. With Attack Drones as craft-able items in Invasion there are already LRFs mounting 6x Coils that RT backwards, activate EM, and launch Drones (which are far stronger than the Engineer version). Engineers only have 4x guns, their drones are much weaker than the crafted version, and they are encouraged to stay with the pack as that is where they get assists.

 

 

Guards with mines?

 

No! No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO NO NO NO NO!

 

That is their purpose. To Guard objectives. When killing a Guard, it is already a terrible idea to get in close as you will probably get Inhibited + Pulsar (or just EM Torp’d in the face). So you wouldn’t be getting close enough for them to hit you with a Minelayer in the first place (hopefully). The reason I took Minelayer away from LRFs and gave it to the Guard is because it is far more likely that Guards will use them to mine objectives which is the entire point of the Guard class.

 

I don’t understand your vehement opposition. A Guards ability to facetank a point-blank EM torp to shake off Interceptors is far more dangerous and common right now.

 

 

…if your team doesn’t want to protect you, then they don’t deserve the healing. 

 

The problem is, that mentality usually only hurts the player trying to bring the heals (I would know). Sure, the entire team will probably lose, but they’ll have more fun than the poor guy getting caught alone and slaughtered. If the Engineer is forced to RT out of a situation, the team will be deprived of heals anyway, the only difference being the Engineer can relocate to a group that will actually protect him (hopefully).

 

 

Ah, I see what’s being proposed here now. I believe that soldiers is proposing to replace the LRF’s with a Destroyer class as to bring them closer to the battle. However, if this did happen, they would need a major buff stats wise to help them tank the damage that they would receive.

 

I’m glad you understand what I’m trying to do. The issue is, if LRFs were changed, their armor could not be on par with Guards. They NEED to be weak defensively because they would pack so much raw firepower. The only reason I mentioned a small buff to Jericho LRFs was because Shield tanking is slightly inferior to Hull tanking. If LRFs were shifted into Destroyers, they would have to keep their paper armor to keep them balanced.

#16

The problem is, that mentality usually only hurts the player trying to bring the heals (I would know). Sure, the entire team will probably lose, but they’ll have more fun than the poor guy getting caught alone and slaughtered. If the Engineer is forced to RT out of a situation, the team will be deprived of heals anyway, the only difference being the Engineer can relocate to a group that will actually protect him (hopefully).

 

If the team didn’t bother to defend the engie once, I doubt they’ll do it again. Furthermore, if an engie’s caught out of position, it deserves to die, not get a second chance. Positioning is critical for engie play, and I believe you know it, possibly even better than me. Furthermore, an engie with RT (or EM scattering) is an engie with one less remote station or aura. There are already enough badly-fitted engies; I wouldn’t want to see long range engies appear in-game. 

#17

Maybe you haven’t be around long enough to remember when any frigate could bring mines. It was common for beacons to have 2-3 mine fields covering them, making it nigh on impossible for interceptors to do their job. Nor could you approach a frigball without seeing the screen fill with the red mist of mines.

Mines should stay on a ship that is relatively weak, so as to make it a risk for them to push forward and leave mines at critical locations.

#18

That is their purpose. To Guard objectives. When killing a Guard, it is already a terrible idea to get in close as you will probably get Inhibited + Pulsar (or just EM Torp’d in the face). So you wouldn’t be getting close enough for them to hit you with a Minelayer in the first place (hopefully). The reason I took Minelayer away from LRFs and gave it to the Guard is because it is far more likely that Guards will use them to mine objectives which is the entire point of the Guard class.

 

I don’t understand your vehement opposition. A Guards ability to facetank a point-blank EM torp to shake off Interceptors is far more dangerous and common right now.

You must not have been here for the christmas tree beacons.  Minefields are used to abandon a beacon.  Then the other team’s interceptors can’t capture even though no one is guarding it.

#19

Maybe you haven’t be around long enough to remember when any frigate could bring mines. It was common for beacons to have 2-3 mine fields covering them, making it nigh on impossible for interceptors to do their job.

 

You must not have been here for the christmas tree beacons.  Minefields are used to abandon a beacon.

 

You must be referring to before the massive Class-Restrictions update somewhere around 0.8.0? I remember, as I used to fly an Alligator-M with 6 Rapid Rails, Warp Gate, Pulsar, Inhibitor Field, Hull Aura, and Minelayers.

 

If you remember, a large reason for the massive minefields around beacons was because of the Warp Gate + Minelayer combo. ANY frigate could warp in and lay minefields before anything other than a Recon Inty could get there to stop them.

 

This shouldn’t happen again, as Guards are without a doubt the least mobile ship class. If you are afraid of Engineers (Or Destroyers) launching mine-laden Guards at beacons with their own Warpgates, that most likely won’t happen as we have yet to see LR Frigates being launched at beacons with their minefields, even though it is possible.

 

The only way your fears of ‘Christmas Tree’ beacons could be realized is if the enemy team sends a Guard to camp each beacon, which weakens the attacking team by spreading them out, and makes the solitary Guards prime targets for ECM Interceptors.

 

So no, I don’t share the concern that beacons will suddenly become uncapturable if Guards are given the Minelayer.

#20

Tacklers+mines= happiness

 

Just saying.