Ships & Modules

No this is an awful idea. The MWD bonus is awesome and should be kept that way. AFs are meant to be the slowest and bulkiest frigs. Making them faster or lighter doesn't make any sense what so ever. Also making a ship immune to any EWAR (baring supers) is OP and doesn't fit within current game mechanics.

they need some changes in any case. T1 frigs better option in so many cases.

even after teiricide would an AB bonus still be massively op? Also the bonus proposed here is far less than the trial on the test server. I dunno I very rarely fly frigs, so I can't really say much here.

I agree with Jack, they should have both, not 15% per level as originally suggested as I can see how that would be incredibly powerful, but a lower bonus to make AB setups more competitive. The MWD sig bonus is still good as AFs can be used as some of the best heavy tackle in the game with it, an AB bonus would be very useful against other frigates but would still make it unable to catch large quick MWD ships.

the MWD bonus is there so that kiting AFs can't just get murdered at 20km by any projectile/laser-based cruiser or battlecruiser. The problem is just that afterburners themselves are awful outside of frigate 1v1s.

I was initially considering 7.5% per level, but I thought I'd bring it down to 5% in order to ensure it wasn't op.

HAC mwd bonus would greatly benefit some ships compared to other, I'm looking at you Vagabond.

Guys, AFs already had their balancing with Crucible 1.1, they are where it all began. Plus there is no tiers with the AFs anyways so tiericiding them would be pointless. I would much rather see these proposed bonuses (except the stupid immunity to Neuts one) applied to interceptors in their coming balance. Inties are very weak at the moment and are often outclassed by their T1 counterparts. I think they would benefit greatly from a 7.5% bonus per frigate level (or 5%bonus per interceptors level) to afterburner speed boost.

You just contradicted yourself really badly. You say he's putting words in your mouth saying t1 frigs are better than AF's, say that AF's are better than their t1 hull, then finish saying that actually no he was right not putting words in your mouth and t1 are actually better. Merlin does the same thing as a hawk (wut). Slasher does the wolf's job better is just false because I don't see a slasher doing 300 dps and the wolf's primary role is a high dps brawler/arty boat. An incursus can only beat an enyo 1 v 1 if the incursus has legion links with a dual rep fit and the enyo has an MWD so it can't control range. Without links an enyo will smash an incursus' face in.

For cost they are vastly superior.

In my opinion, the vengeance is the only exception, if you get to 200+ repair per second.

Under no circumstance would I fly any other t2 frig. I don't even fly the vengeance unless I can secure a cheap C-grade complex armor repper, or I just happen to loot a B grade (I sell A grades for the $$$)

---

Also, although cost should not be the sole balancing factor, you cannot ignore cost completely when balancing. Why? Because if you make a ship 90% as effective as another ship, which also happens to cost 90% less, no one will fly the more expensive ship.

Now if you made a ship that only 75% as effective as the higher tier version, but cost 75% less, you wil get many people to pay 4x the price for that extra 25% effectiveness.

However, you won't find many that will pay 10x more for an extra 10-15% effectiveness. It's like paying 10 milllion for a C-type small armor rep vs paying 250 million for an A-type. 2500% more and like 10% more effectiveness, lolololol. All you get is an embarrassing loss-mail.

Now if you got 30% more effectiveness from an A-type over a C-type armor rep, then that extra 2500% investment is worth it, so long as you know which targets to face. For instance, a B-type armor repping vengeance, with Afterburner, can wipe the floor with an autocannon sabre 1v1; however, a faction or tech II is guaranteed death, and c-type is high-risk for such a low reward.

So when it comes to cost, the potential risk (the cost investment) needs to be worth the potential reward (the increased effectiveness and versatility of your ship, so long as you know its limits).

Also, the relationship between cost and performance cannot be linear, as that would be pay-to-win, and would also be unrealistic. Take video cards for example, the performance/cost is logarithmic, and the market will determine the price increase for that little extra bit a performance, which often assumes that logarithmic result.

However, the current market and statistics prove that the hull cost is simply not worth the potential reward.