Test Server Feedback

Yes but, don't they fufill this role already?

Also, haven't made it to test recently, BUT, I'm getting the impression some AFs will have as many slots (or more) than lower-tiered cruisers. Is this true? If it's true, doesn't this send up a red flag in anyone's head?

I'm not much of a frig pilot but the potential slot issue has me concerned. Imagine if HACs had as many slots as lower-tiered battleships....lol. I can't describe it any better than just a bad feeling, but I feel it.

AFs should be equivalent to lower tier cruiser in many respects. Not Tech IIs, which should spank AFs in the equivalent role, but cruisers.

AF's require a lot of training to sit and fit right, and to provide the base stats to make them truly challenging. An AF piloted by a novice is still going to lose to a Frigate or cruiser piloted by someone with skills.

@Alex
Maybe not to you directly, but I mentioned a couple times in various posts about why the AFs have more slots.
The biggest reason, in my mind, is that it balances the AFs within their own circle. Yes, some still need a bit of tweaking (jag/retribution mostly) but overall they are pretty damn good on sisi.

On TQ you have AFs that are clearly better, in every aspect, than the others. The slots don't really effect their abilitiy to engage larger ships or lower tier ships (they should win anyways), they allow the ships to work best in their intended position (within each other). For example; Ishkurs no longer out gank Enyos.

And yes as it's been said several times before, the Jag needs more shields and fitting, and the Enyo could do without the shields. But until someone can prove to me that a 5mid Hawk is truly overpowered I will just laugh at the thought. Said Hawk being able to gank T1 frigates easier doesn't count as being broken.

@Bengal Bob
I don't gank
In regard to your statement, how is the MWD bonus overpowered against Destroyers? They have absolutely no issues tracking Interceptors which are smaller & faster. AFs are slower and fatter. I don't see how it can be seen as overpowered in any other way

@Wensley
As stated earlier, Destroyers a bit of a side class like tier3BCs, rather than a full blown class. They really only do one thing well and that's take care of support. They really don't have any variation or too much flexibility in what they can do.
Hell, if it were up to me the new BCs would be thrown into the Destroyer class of ships. AFs are more like HACs.

@Placeholder
I'm not intentionally ignoring anybody's points. If I see a point being made, I'll try to respond to it.
The problem is, like I said, it's all hearsay. Go and try them then make a case with actual proof.

And yes, I represent the players (specifically pvp).
The majority of which does not occur in Empire space (proven by CCP in a past dev blog).

@Plutonian
Go and try them out. Nobody who has been playing with them will agree with you.

Yes T1 frigates need work within their own circle. Some are woefully inadequate for everything and against anything.
T2 is better than T1. Period. You cannot compare a Rifter to a Wolf or Jaguar, just like you can't compare an Atron to an Ares, or Vexor to an Ishtar.

As for whether or not I have a personal interest, it makes little to no difference.
If I were a Non-CSM member, I would be in the exact same position. In fact, the only way you would not try to blame a player is that if the ideas for EVE came directly from CCP with no outside influence and were implemented without player suggestion.

@X
T2 (by CCPs definition) are supposed to be better than Navy, and equal to Pirate.
3 of the 5 Pirate frigs could use a buff (Cruor, Worm, Succubus).

Once again. try the ships. If you are WTFPWNING everything (t1 frigates don't count) then we can take a look and go from there. And again, I've yet to see anyone raping people in those elusive OP 5-mid Hawks

@Zircon
AFs aren't supposed to replace BCs/HACs and such.
They are for fast mobile gangs, and if used in fleet, they are tough anti-support platforms.
As for the ships I've killed, I was AB fit and had warp-ins on said targets. You don't even need a prop mod if you have warp-ins.

@Magosian
They do not fill that role currently. If you can even say they have the role currently..
And no, unless you have a direct drop on a t1 cruiser and are in one of a couple good AFs, Cruisers obliterate AFs.

@Mars
The only reason people may agree with you on the low-tier cruiser thing is because cruisers need a look at.
Assuming that they get buffed in the future, that argument would become invalid and AFs would be in the same slump again.

And in relation to your post, a TP is used to paint smaller targets so they can be hit by bigger ships.
What you described is exactly what should happen, and still will happen with the new changes. The fact of the matter is that bonused TPs aren't exactly the most popular EWAR, so that's not a major threat for most.

Yes they can deal with low-end cruisers more or less. It can be sketchy though. The mid-slots were a CCP surprise if Prom is telling the truth so it might be nothing but things to keep the players from yelling about an insufficient boost (regardless of objectivity). Or it could be that CCP got smart and released overly-buff items so that the players could walk them back to realistic levels...which gives CCP cover from balancing fallout. vOv

Anyway-

I have only done a small amount of playing with the new AF but it did not seem like there were any OMGWTF!! imbalances.

Will applecarts be turned over? Maybe.
Can we be sure of all the ramifications? No.
Might it turn out that some/all are just a tad too hot? Sure it might.
Are things are close enough that SISI testing starts losing effectivenes? Yes.

The fine tuning can and should be done after the changes spend sometime on TQ because it qualitatively different than the test server. If AF wind up too hot (or still too lame), then CCP's new "no! no! we are iterating promise!!" mantra will be tested. If they fail to balance after that time then we know it is just marketing. If they do re-balance then we know it is legit AND we can have timely fixes at the same time.

I say put them through as is and do another hard look at them in 6mo after release. We had the dram domination for such a long time that 6mo should be easy to cope with.

So those who are saying the AF will become OP; is it because of a combination of changes or a specific one?

@Alex
Sure, whenever I can log into the test server
Todays patch seems to broken something on my end preventing my logging in

@placeholder
Hearsay holds very little merit with the magnitude of these changes.
It's not something simply like knowing tripling the falloff of Autocannons would be a bad idea.

The boost changes how AFs interact with ships. You can't suggest that they become overpowered based off their current iteration on TQ when the AFs on Sisi are different ships.

By the same argument, you can't say that the numbers in low-sec are not biased towards a different type of pvp.
That's like trying to argue that Interdictors & HICtors are used less in low-sec because you can't bubble. The difference with that is Interdictors are still Destroyers/Cruisers without the bubble (therefore usable), whereas AFs are just plain useless in 00.

And as it's been said many many many times before.
This isn't going to remove AFs from low sec, and this isn't going to make AFs the defacto low-sec ship.
They cost to much and are too easy to lose to just throw at targets. The people who aren't drowning in isk will still be flying their Cruisers and Frigates.

This wouldn't be moving AFs from low sec into 00.
This would be adding the ability to use them there, similar to how Interdictor types are still usable in low sec.

I couldn't kill a Hawk in a Daredevil. I mean I could but it'd take me his full supply of active injection, since he was active injecting and active shield boosting.

That was a fun fight ;) I'm not convinced it'a a fair example for the Hawks performance though, being as you were faction fit vs meta 3/4 and T2 launchers.

@Darkstar
I think you've got a misconception of ship classes.
AFs are not in the same class as Interceptors, EAFs, Bombers, or T1 frigates.
Just as HACs aren't in the same class as Recons, Logistics, & HICtors.

Interceptors need to willingly engage an AF to lose that fight, as no AF will catch one easily.
EAFs need to willingly engage an AF to lose that fight, and even still EAFs can remove themselves from the fight at any time.
Navy frigates (as stated by CCP) are LESSER than T2. They aren't comparable.
Pirate frigates (as stated by CCP) are on par with T2 (although no necessarily AFs), and it's be said already that a couple of the PIRATE frigates need boosts (namely Cruor & Worm).
AFs are still countered by Destroyer hulls. Try it out and see for yourself.

You need to understand that no T2 frigate shares the same "class" as any other frigate. They are all merely frigate hulls, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. If you're so worried about AFs obsoleting T1 frigates, how come you aren't adamant about nerfing the other T2 classes? They all do the exact same thing when it comes to their own abilities.

You aren't going to bring an AF for fast tackle, just as you aren't going to being an EAF to a brawl, a bomber for probing, or an Interceptor for ewar.

@Morgan
taking any hybrid ship against a hawk/harpy isn't the best choice either way

Sir, are you ********? "Badgers arent good in pvp, so they need to be buffed?"