Test Server Feedback

I think this is a start, but it's literally a step off the line.

General points:

You can't go around adding slots without adding enough CPU/PG to fit things in them. The Hawk, for example, is too hard to fit right now. If you're going to add a midslot, you need to add more than 10 CPU. Same with the Harpy - what are you putting in there that uses 10 CPU!???!
MWD bonus is lame. MWDs are harder to fit than ABs. They have a cap penalty, which penalises everything apart from projectiles and rockets (and therefore is yet another buff to the jaguar and wolf - I fly both, and I think they're OP right now). It penalises active tanking, which is already not used. Also, it will significantly reduce the usage of interceptors, as there is now almost no line between the two ship classes after this buff.
The jaguar and the wolf were already good enough - I fly both of them. They didn't need buffing, and with the buffs you're testing they will now both be seriously OP.

Specific points per ship:

I'll only discuss the ones I fly

Harpy: increase in low is nice, as is the bonus to shield resistance. Needs more CPU. A lot more CPU. It needed +40 CPU before you added a midslot. So, call it +64.

Hawk: The bonus to active tanking is useless. It's terrible, change it to something else. Thanks for the RoF and midslot, but again needs a lot more CPU.

Shameless quote other poster: Also, you still haven't fixed the Wolf/Jaguar bonus problem (the Jaguar is the Vagabond-style fast autocannon ship but has a range bonus appropriate for artillery, while the Wolf would work well as an artillery platform but gets a falloff bonus for ACs).

Jaguar: needs to get a midslot rather than a low.

What? So let me get this straight... you want a 5 midslot, falloff bonused Jag, and you cant fit a hawk or harpy.

What?

I am not sure if I like the changes or not, however I think I understand the logic behind the 50% mwd bonus. When flying solo or in a small AF gang in 0.0 it can be pretty hard to mwd burn back to the gate fast enough. The 50% bonus would give a second or two more time before being webbed/scrammed/pulverized and would significantlly increase the survivability of an AF trying to avoid a gate camp. I agree that for low-sec and AB fit is more common, but in 0.0 MWD are used to survive gatecamps and for that reason alone I like that change. As for the rest of the changes... they need some serious tweaking to be sure.

The problem with the Dramiel was many things. Not just isolated to the AB.

Get educated please.

AFTERBURNER FRIGATES DO NOT WORK.


If you can not go at least 2km/s (2.5-3km/s if you want to handle the best opponents), cruisers and battlecruisers are faster than you. Since they are faster than you, you can not orbit them (simple geometry). Transversal drops to near zero, and it doesn't matter how low your sig is, you're still getting hit by 500+ dps. Against a good BC/HAC, an AB assault frigate has a life expectancy of less than 15 seconds.

So, the problem with an afterburner bonus is simple:

If the bonus is small, AFs still suck (for PvP at least). They aren't fast enough with an AB, they still get kited, and you still have to fit a MWD on them. Except now your grid/CPU/cap are balanced around an AB you can't use, and CCP is convinced that AFs are "fixed" and won't give them a real boost.

If the bonus is large, as in enough to reach MWD speeds with only an AB, AFs become game-breaking. This is what happened with the last attempt to give them an AB bonus: they became too fast for their sig radius, and virtually immune to anything besides another frigate. And don't say this was because of the oversized ABs, any AB bonus that gives AFs enough speed to reduce damage from medium guns is going to have the same problem.

End result: AFs need to be balanced around fitting a MWD.

MWD sig bonus? No thanks. In my opinion Assault Ships are meant to use afterburners.

That said, I wouldn't want an afterburner speed bonus, because as the Dramiel showed, doing 2k/s with 30m sig is just broken.

What I would want in assault ships is a decreased mass. As far as I know, there are few T2 ships that have much worse base stats than their T1 parents. Assault Frigates are an exception to this, having 20-30% larger mass (equaling worse agility and acceleration) across the board compared to their T1 counterparts.

Like everyone else, I think the role bonus needs to be rethought. How about a bonus to overheating? That would give AFs a way to close distance when using ABs, but without the danger of creating a ship that can be permanently unhittable.


As for specifics..

Vengeance looks good. With the RoF bonus it might actually do more damage with its intended weapon system than with autocannons as it does now.

A single midslot on the Retribution would be fine IF it was exceptionally good as a pure dps ship. As it is, a Wolf does more damage and can tackle. So in liu of a hefty damage boost, a second mid is welcome. The rest of the changes look good as well, as far as fitting numbers go.

Jaguar should have a falloff bonus, not an optimal bonus, because artillery/beams/rails on frigates in general is useless outside of some very specific comedy fits. Not sure what do do with the spare low slot, since most current fits are tight enough as it is. Extra nano I guess. The tracking bonus is gravy.

As for the Wolf I'm not sure if extra CPU is what's needed. A few more points of power grid would be more welcome so you could fit 200mm guns with a 400mm plate. Again, the extra low will be either a nano or maybe a tracking enhancer, which would fit even without the added CPU.

Hawk should get rid of its active tank bonus in favor of something else. A cap recharge bonus like the Vengeance would make it better at active tanking, while making it not completely useless if you opt for a buffer tank.

Ishkur needs the +10% drone damage bonus that all the other Gallente drone carriers have, OR the +5 drone bay bonus needs to include +5mbit bandwidth so it can use medium drones at high enough skill levels.

I've never flown the Enyo or Harpy so I won't comment on those.

For those who have no idea about weapon tracking and such, an AF in scramble range is extremely difficult to hit.
This is without an afterburner. The whole purpose of the MWD bonus was so that AFs could move around the battlefield without being blapped out of the sky.

As Merin states above, an AB bonus would either be too strong or too weak, there is no middle ground.

As far as I'm concerned with the MWD bonus, the AFs are working exactly as I had intended them to.
They are quick, damaging, and tankable, while not immune to incoming damage.

Wait ... what? No ... Please .. less ships dependent on MWD, please. What about this:

Role Bonus for (example) Hawk:
xx% Reduction in the power grid and xx% CPU need of modules that require Shield Upgrades.
xx% reduction in capacitor need of shield boosters
xx% reduction in cycle time of medium shield boosters.

And for Harpy:

Role Bonus
xx% Reduction in the [grid and cpu] of Medium Hybrid Turrets.
xx% Reduction in the capacitor need of Med Hybrid Turrets


OR ....

Harpy

Role Bonus:
99% Reduction in the Power grid need of Siege Modules
50% reduction on CPU requirements of Siege Modules
50% reduction in cycle time of Siege Modules
50% reduction in activation cost of Siege modules.

kind of partial to plan 'B'

How exactly do you plan to GET into range without a MWD?

The answer of course is you can't, and the MWD bonus allows you to take less damage approaching the target.

IMHO, in terms of Assault Frigates the appropriate buff would be: cutting the production cost by 75%.

THE MWD thing is neat, but don't care.