Test Server Feedback

You are kidding, right? You wouldnt be able to track an assault frigate even with another frigate.

^Can't emphasize this enough!!!

Was really looking forward to assault frigates being tailored a bit more towards low security space too.

@ Prom
Disregarding the whole MWD-charade. The complaint regarding low-sec that was brought forward was that the change buffs AFs too much. This will limit low-sec target selection, both in terms what you are willing to fight and who's willing to fight you. Now please tell me, this is a good thing.
I think we all agree that a buff to AFs is needed, but at least the low-sec crowd partly feels should the proposed changes go through like that, that AFs become (regarded as) OP. Those changes will make AFs more viable for the solo 0.0 AF roamer, which we all know is like really every 0.0 pilot, yeah right.

What a lot of people irks is that you try to sell these changes like the next best thing since sliced bread; they're not comparing the general 0.0 populace vs the general lo-sec populace in numbers, they are comparing who le shizzle actually uses AFs in their day to day playtime, aka a lot of lo-sec vs a comparatively tiny minority in 0.0. So pretty please with sugar on top, don't ruin AFs for people that actually fly them in an environment where they are common, only to make them viable in the environment you'd love to see them perform better.

So maybe less of a buff at once, but a more iterative style of buffing?

Cheers,
Ilik Tanikalot

As far as I know my logistics concept as the 4th bonus was never aired before me and the only 'negatives' I got from it was that some people would rather have a dedicated frigate/destroyers logistics, the idea spawned 3-4 independent threads .. so there goes that "theory".
- Adding a logistics bonus (efficiency+range) to already combat capable ships not only increases diversity and fills a gap but allows the "logistics" to fight back provided they don't go full Naughty Nurse .. hell one could use them as the ultimate bait ships as all enemy frigs descend upon it to clear logi only to run into a combat fit.
- Gang link platforms on the small scale has what available? BC, CC, T3, Car/Scar/Titans are the only ones in game .. which one would you like to drag around on a cruiser-down/Frig roam?
*Gang-links will be changed either in power (unlikely) or made on-grid (logical) with appropriate tanking buffs and whatever else may be required to lessen the pain of change, since the idea of a single ship effectively doubling the power of an entire fleet/gang from anywhere in a system is, to put it mildly, untenable.

Unfortunately the amount of attention he is giving this indicates that it is either his idea or he has been assigned to 'answer questions' by CCP so ignoring him is not really an option .. bet he is even responsible for reporting 'progress' in thread back to Tallest so CCP will only get all the rave reviews until its too late.

Heh, would not be surprised if that was how it started, "logic" used for evil is never a pretty thing. What they should have done was add the midslot and then take a bit of CPU away from it .. forces either voluntary loss of low for fitting mod or loss of high utility if the extra mid has a high cpu mod in it (ie. tackle).
But if that was the initial reasoning, then I don't know why they ignored the Ishkurs lower slot count .. arguably one of the best AFs currently despite its slot deficit, so I reckon there was other factors at play .. namely the uniformly-null council's wish for something more fun to fly in blob-camp-land without dying every 5 seconds, balance everywhere else be damned.

Abuse Eve-Search. Look for the threads on the Test Server Forum from 3 years hence when testing of that exact bonus was done on SiSi .. now if only I could remember what those threads were called, but should get you started.
Crux of it was that prior to testing start, we argued that the 75%?-AB speed bonus would widen the gap within the class to absurd levels and make AF's nigh unkillable by just about anything .. both points were proven and acknowledged by CCP after which the change was scrapped.

Why don't you humour us and explain how you expect a ship balanced for null survival/viability (the ~40%) can ever be anything but broken everywhere else. It is not a question of casting them into the abyss, but preventing them from reaching god-hood .. the over-buff proposed is more damaging to overall balance and makes the intra-class differences even more pronounced.
- Vengeance with a slot for Nos/neut .. yay, more cap (has enough for Goddess sake!) or 10s shaved off a kill on a cap dependent ship.
- Retribution with tackle .. yay, now I can burn some extra cap before the neuts shut me down just as before!
- Hawk/Harpy .. damage mod, still slow and fat as nothing else. Will be in the same place that blasters occupied for years, situational in the extreme but awesome damage when applied. Will see use due to passive tanking ability.
- Enyo .. actually a good change. Web helps blasters and its brought up to Ranis level, armour buff a little overdone though.
- Ishkur .. doesn't actually need a buff, result is as expected an OP ship in the making. At least you stopped short of the drone dmg bonus.
Wolf/Jaguar .. Still almost an entire bodylength (ie. not merely head and shoulders) above the rest only now with an extra free damage mod (as if they need more damage .. sheesh!) .. yay.

But meh, I'll shut up now and let SiSi testing prove me right as it did with the AB boost idea (yes I was in the vanguard, as I said logic and common sense are powerful tools)

Literally everything you said there is wrong-headed speculation. You have not even the first beginnings of a clue as to how the SiSi AFs perform at present or what their strengths and weaknesses are.

Help me out here: what am I missing? Even the counter proposals aren't increasing the fitting.

What am I supposed to put in the new lowslot of the harpy with only +10 CPU?
What am I supposed to put in the new midslot of the hawk with only +10 CPU?

You see, when ships are changed, you should be able to just take your existing fittings and throw new mods on without having to make any changes anywhere else or rethink things. Right?

Re: the hawk, you can do a good dual web/MSE buffer setup with 240 dps that can be applied to more or less anything in scram range without issue, you can do an MSE/small shield booster setup with full tackle and a nos, or you can do a medium shield booster with a cap injector, all without issue.

Yes, but cap dependent AF's like the Enyo are useless with an MWD.

It would be useful to the discussion if people would post full fits exemplifying what they think should be a viable fit on these ships instead of saying "well these two or three modules fit", or an even more generic "I had trouble fitting this ship".

I have to admit I'm impressed. Alot of people just think "my opinion is right and that is all that matters" but it takes some balls to literally say it out loud.