Test Server Feedback

It's a flat increase to armour not a percentage increase. The total increased ehp is a much lower percentage if you're actually fitting it as a pure brawler.

The additional lowslot doesn't actually allow you to magically fit any module you want given the very moderate increase in fitting room.

The tracking bonus only means that you can't use a dual prop/fast ab only frigate to get under its tracking any more and given any competent wolf pilot already carried drop to prevent this, it really doesn't affect the overall power of the wolf at all. It still has the same weaknesses of speed/projection when compared to many other frigates which are the holes you exploit to beat them on TQ currently (or, if they fit as a vaga wolf to address these, then it remains a much weaker brawler than other fits).

And I appreciate the personal slights, my killboard will also demonstrate my complete lack of experience flying a variety frigates (both solo and in gangs)...

Indeed. I personally don't care that much about these changes. However, these ships will encroach into interceptor territory (which does frustrate me). I don't care much for the signature bonus because it's currently a joke (so giving it to assault frigates is also a joke). However, giving assault frigates a signature bonus will make interceptors obsolete. Currently, the only faction navy frigate worth flying over a similarly cost assault frigate is a Imperial Navy Slicer. However, it's possible for a faction navy frigate to engage a assault frigate effectively. Not after these changes (for the most part). So, I'm not ignoring what is fact with these changes.

There are also those who believe they have some great insight because they believe they are the only ones that have thought about using dual stasis webifiers on a frigate. STFU! That has been around so long that even new pilots to the game who saw these changes suggest doing that to a Hawk and Harpy. All active defence set-ups will blow the aforementioned set-ups away; active Enyo, Ishkur, Hawk, Vengeance, and Harpy (also, Jaguar with a interesting set-up without a cap booster). All those are able to tank 1 - 2 assault frigates depending on set-ups (using combat boosters even more so) and able to project damage all over warp scrambler range.

This will all increase the length of frigate engagements. I'm not sure how many of you have engage another active tanked ship in a active tank ship. Takes long as is pretty boring.

It's possible only the assault frigates that can operate @ rage will offer a different dynamic (Retribution mainly, but Wolf if you believe in that set-up)...



-proxyyyy

I have to agree with what most have said about the MWD bonus, it's kinda pointless. I have tried the fit with a few assault ships as a "heavy interceptor" it worked alright, and has it's moments, but for the most part people don't fit MWD's on them. This area is already covered by interceptors. Instead maybe an AB speed bonus?

I disagree with what someone said about the active tank. Most of my assault ships are active tanked. I don't run them in large fleets with logi where they would just be alphaed anyway, I run them in small gang or roaming where active tank is enough to keep me alive anyway. I usually use cap boosters to keep myself from running dry, although some fits can be cap stable even without this. I've found I prefer this over a resist/buffer tank because most frigates just don't have enough of a buffer, but maybe that's a personal choice.

I think you should really look at the MWD bonus, but for the rest it looks like a good start. I'll be happy to get my assault ships out on the field more :)

Pretty much a total noob here so feel free to ignore, but here’s my take on the proposed role bonus.

I don’t think there’s any disagreement that the MWD bonus will be useful and open up some new opportunities for AFs (as sturdy tackle), though some are rather annoyed that it would leave their favored AB fits without a benefit from the role bonus. I also agree with most of the points raised against the proposed AB-boosting replacements, they either won’t be powerful enough to let you catch an MWD cruiser/bc or they’ll be overpowered because there is no way for people to turn it off once you are close (like a scram does to an MWD).

However, I also don’t think either really fits with what an AF is. A mobility increase would undoubtedly make AFs better off in the game but I don’t think it fits. In my mind, at least, an AF is a frigate made to punch above its weight class. It should excel at hitting something bigger than it is. To this end, I think the role bonus it receives should be some form of protection against one of the two ewar that disproportionately harms smaller ships more than larger ships: ECM and/or energy neuts.

ECM hits smaller ships harder because it works off of sensor strength, which smaller ships have less of than larger ones. This leads to obnoxious things like a single falcon permajamming an entire frigate-based roam. For ECM resistance it could have its sensor strength for purposes of opposing ECM be calculated as 3x its actual sensor strength. This would put them in the 25-40 range of sensor strength, harder to jam than a BS but not impossible, with the higher sensor strength AFs being roughly equivalent to a BS w/ one ECCM.

This would have the drawback of really hampering the Kitsune’s role but, honestly, I am not particularly displeased if an ECM ship loses relative power as the mechanic is obnoxious and needs to be seriously reevaluated (and EAFs in general need a rework independent of the strength/weakness of ECM).


Energy neutralization and cap warfare also hits frigates harder than other ship classes due to their much smaller total capacitor size. A large neut Will completely bottom out nearly all frigs in a single cycle. While the long cycle time does allow for regen to keep point going it also means that weapons which use cap get turned off if a larger vessel has a neutralizer. This can be somewhat countered with a cap booster, but only by some AFs since the others do not have a mid to spare (most notably the Retribution and the Enyo, who both require cap to shoot and also have the fewest mid-slots).

I would propose a phased in resistance to energy neutralizers applied cumulatively like this:
1-50: 10% reduction
51-100: 25%
101-200: 50%
201-300: 75%
301+: 90%

A T2 small neut, which does 54 base energy damage, would now neutralize 48 energy.
A T2 small neut used by a sentinel would be 86.5 (instead of 108).
A T2 med neut, which does 180 base, would now neutralize 122.5 energy.
A T2 med neut used by a curse/pilgrim would be 147.5 (instead of 360).
A T2 large neut, which does 600 base, would now neutralize 187.5 energy.

This makes larger neuts less effective against AFs without completely destroying the Sentinel’s ability to neut AFs (~20% less effective than currently). It would, however, more than halve the effects of a med neut on a curse/pilgrim against an AF.

Anyway, that’s my take on it. Take it for what little it’s worth.

A first thought, why are you fighting everyone on this? Why are you pushing back against any criticism so much?

My point was that the role bonus is largely irrelevant as almost all AF ranges dictate they stay within 10km and thus are in web/scram range. So while it's useful for closing distance, I don't see how or what the point is. Interceptors already do a better job at it. The shredding of AFs on TQ is largely also a part of their lack of buffs, and not just the role bonus.

Also, could someone straighten out the neck/head on the Merlin/Hawk/Hary Models. Looking at it has always thrown me off. It's actually angled slightly to the right, (anatomical perspective), like it's swiveled its "head" in that direction to look at something.

Okay, not a huge deal; but it's bugged me since the first time i sat in a station ship spinning and looked at one. That was some time ago now; but I'll hardly fly one anymore as a result of it.

ok I've been seriously flying frigates for likw 3 years out of time in eve. i LOVE THEM. so I'm going to post my main idea here again.

Role bonus
200% increase in warp speed

This would make assault ships exit out of warp much fast than other ships. Meaning they can catch targets that try to run. See imo AF need a 4th bonus, but are still pretty badass already for their cost. A change like this allows them to cover a role that no other ship has without directly increasing or decreasing their ability in combat.

that said, they still need the new 4th bonus you've been adding, so woot to that.

seriously we should be able to watch someone warping, do our best by watching which way they go into the sky box, click on said target and warp, and with enough skill and reaction time, end up waiting of them on the other side of that warp tunnel. Come on guys, that's f***ing badas right?

Instead of giving the assault ships a MWD signature radius reduction, I think they need a speed boost to afterburners to keep them separated from interceptors. Assault frigates are one of the funnest classes of ships in the game for good small gang and solo frigate PvP where afterburners dominate.

50% bonus to afterburner speed increase.

@Kyle
It's been beaten to death already, and it's generally unanimous that AB bonuses are a **** idea.

@Mars
Making the Vengeance able to fit missile launchers as well isn't a terrible idea.

I disagree with rest of your suggestions though, and here is why:
The optimal bonus is incredible on the Harpy and fits with the rest of the Caldari line.
7km optimal with neutrons & null? Nothing wrong with that.

Changing the Hawk to work with any rocket type isn' t really worth it.
It would too easily trump it's racial enemies (Gallente). The Kinetic bonus isn't awful and keeps the ship from being overpowering.

You're adding an extra slot for the Jaguar which is not needed. The extra low is a good change, the ship simply needs a bit more base shields and fitting. If that gets done it will be fine.

You're adding an extra slot for the Wolf which is not needed. Giving it an extra mid makes it too similar to the Jaguar, and there would be no reason to fly the Jag over the Wolf. There is nothing wrong with 2 mids for pvp, it's still very very effective especially against larger targets.

And lastly removing the extra turrets/missile hardpoints isn't necessary. Even if people aren't using on a regular basis, they add some potential variety to the ships. Nobody is forcing you to run 4 rockets on the Veng and Hawk. In fact, you can achieve higher damage output if you run 3 rockets and 2 turrets. The same applies for the other ships and their optional rocket launchers. That slot can be missile deterrent (defenders) or an extra 20dps if you so choose.
Basically, you aren't gaining anything by removing them, you're just limiting.

3 mids on a Wolf would leave you with a MSE, AB, and scram, and then you have your lows for nanos, gyros, TEs, etc.. You cannot have 3 mids on a Wolf or else you will start to see shield tanks because Matari resists lean towards this.