Test Server Feedback

Ok, get this; They aren't terrible. They are terrible in fleet roles. But AF's as such are not terrible as they are. This thread has a lot of people that fly them solo A LOT and are telling you they aren't bad. A lot of those people can show you killboards that will confirm their claims.

Also who are you to tell me what I get to complain about? I think AF's are fine the way they are, so do apparently a lot of other people who fly them right now and do well in them.
By making them massively more powerful, CCP is heavily impacting the face of lowsec PvP and a well established sub-culture within EVE namely that off solo frigate PVP'ers. As the people actually flying these ships I think we have a right to speak our minds about it, not in the least because we're very experienced in them. Some other lowsec pvp'ers have different opinions that's also fine.

As to the argument that because something takes more skill points and is more expensive it should stomp on anything that requires less of either, that's an excellent way to murder entry level PvP (for all of those who don't dream of being hero tackle for a massive nullsec blob) and little else. It's also not currently true of EVE in any way at all, plenty of battlecruisers will walk all over much more expensive and skill point intensive T2 ships in a solo encounter. I killed a 150mil+ Sacrilege in a 45mil Cyclone only last week, by your logic therefore T2 cruisers should be buffed... right?.

I understand an AB bonus would be bad, I've said that before, I am willing to admit a MWD bonus would prolly help them lots in null so go for it, I am yet to hear any good arguments as to WHY they need the other buffs and WHY they need to be implemented simultaneously.

since I left my opinion in a previous thread, I'm gonna copy-pasta myself here:




in addition, the proposed changes aren't bad. they become a bit more like HACs (like they should've been in the first place). all they need is a bit more space, fittings wise, and I still think the retri should've had a 5th turret.

@Prom: Get the feeling you have very little experience with small fast gangs. Do you really believe that the very fragile balance on the sub-BC small gang scene will be fine when you add slots, tank plus applied damage to the hulls right smack in the middle of the ship line-ups?

Already did, numerous times in the relevant threads.

Split them up in utility/combat and give them primarily non-combat related bonuses:
- Utility gets 20%/lvl RR (both!) efficiency and 150%/lvl RR range = All four races get a shield+armour (maximum versatility) RR frigate with a 40km+ range where each small RR performs like a medium.
- The remaining four get CPU/Grid fitting bonus to be able to field gang links, will be godly when links are made on-grid (you know its coming, common sense is a biatch!), in the meantime they could get a combat bonus .. temporarily!

Gives them value/purpose on the small as well as the large scale, doesn't translate into yet another Winmatar FTW! change AND nimbly avoids destroying what remains of balance in the sub-BC classes.

I think you might have missed the point.

The complaint re: the MWD bonus is that it is focused on benefiting the nulsec community and ignores the solo / small gang lowsec community.

As you said, not everyone fits ABs and not everyone fits MWDs.

For this reason I would rather see a bonus which does not rely on the fitting of a certain module.

For example (and entirely off of the top of my head (and in no way is this a suggestion as to what the bonus should be) a level dependant bonus to speed for all AFs (say 5% per level of assault ships skill) would boost the speedyness of AB, MWD, dual prop and no-prop fits whether those fits are found in low, nul, hsec or w/h space. If you want speedy ships that seems to be a better solution than requiring that certain modules be fit in order for a role to be fulfilled. It also deals with the apparently (I have no idea) overpowered AB boost vs Mwd boost and benifits everyone who uses AFs except ship spinners.

FYI I'm entirely unconcerned about there being an immeasuarble number of MWD fits in lowsec (not my lowsec btw, although thanks for the pedestal). I do love variety.

Oh, and if you think AFs are vastly underpowered, well, I can always use this argument: If you don't like AFs, dont use them! :P

Sorry but this is a pretty terrible idea. There is no reason to give up on combat focused AFs. There are people posting in this thread who are using them right now as they are.

While I do think there might be room for frigate sized logistics, that should be separate line of ships, and most importantly, before it happens the other frigates should be fixed.

Gang link frigates? I think there are enough gang link capable ships already.

first good idea in this thread

So, spent several hours last night testing the new changes on SiSi with corpmates/random players. Definitely liking the direction these have taken AFs in. As for feedback;


Please keep the MWD sig bonus

It serves a dual purpose, firstly, it gives AFs a role in fleets as a heavy tackler for chasing down and scramming nano ships while holding them down long enough for the rest of the fleet to catch up. This was proved last night by a corpmate chasing and catching a vaga that was laming on our dueling from 40km away without the AF getting blown out the sky. They still won't obsolete interceptors since they remain better at permanently holding point on a target while outranging med/heavy neuts and avoiding incoming dps with speed/sig tanking. Interceptors stop things ever warping away, AFs hold something still while surviving dps/neuts (ie, fit a nos) long enough for it to be dogpiled before they have to gtfo.

Secondly, it actually makes AFs viable as solo ships in nullsec. As it stands currently you can't get clear of a bubble before being locked and scrammed, you can't split a gang across the grid without being popped from 50-100km away by larger ships, hell, half the time you can't even get enough speed up before being scrammed to make it back to the gate to jump out. Reducing the MWD sig bloom fixes these issues.

No, it doesn't hugely affect lowsec frigate 1v1s, but it does expand the usage of AFs beyond _just_ lowsec 1v1s. An AB will still be better for dictating range within scram, so lowsec brawlers will still fit those (obvious exceptions like the wolf aside). Yes, this means you're not using the role bonus, but neither are those ab/web ranises you see and they don't seem to mind since it makes their ship viable in other areas of the game.

As for wanting an AB bonus, this can only be being proposed by people who either want another easy mode Dramiel or just don't understand frigate pvp. Replacing the MWD sig bonus with an AB bonus _would_ break frigate pvp balance, no-one would be able to range control an AF within scram range and would lead to no other frigates being seen again. It'd also lead to a stream of dead BCs and Cruisers since they'd never be able to either evade an AF or stand a chance at killing it once tackled.


All the other changes seem good with the exception of some slight tweaks in the numbers;
- Currently the Enyo has too much tank for the level of gank it has (although I'm assured this is already being addressed).
- The Jag is woefully weak compared to the other AFs with the tank/gank ratio being out of line with the rest of the AF lineup. It's possible to do some nice things with an arty Jag, but it's still less versatile and somewhat weak compared to the other AFs.
Personally I favour swapping the optimal bonus for a tank bonus (shield resists possibly), it would bring the tank/gank ratio in line with the other ships (erring on the side of tank obviously) as well as helping it in usage as a heavy tackler (something the Jag is already the best suited for amongst the AFs due to its inherent speed).
- I'd also quite like the ability to fit a repper on my wolf without sacrificing tank/gank (useful on those 100j roams without the ability to dock), ie, an addition 4 cpu/pg, but that might unbalance pure buffer 1v1 fits, so I'm sure I can cope without.
-And I'm told by people actually able to fly it that the retribution could use some (very, very, very) minor improvement but having not flown it myself I can't entirely comment.


As for the claims that this will ruin lowsec frigate pvp, I fail to see how. Slicers/Dramiels/Daredevils/combat inties (ie, most of the none AF frigates you see in lowsec) can still happily beat these if flown well. The only faction frig I'd have any concerns about is the Hookbill since it's more directly impacted by the Hawk now having the 5 mid slot levels of control, but even then, the Hookbill has a speed and range advantage which is a thoroughly exploitable niche (and is better than the current where the Hookbill effectively obsoletes the Hawk in lowsec). Oh, and Cruors are actually more viable now since they are very effective at countering the increased number of AFs you'll see using cap based weapons.

And the idea that this renders T1 frigates worthless is ridiculous, as it stands currently the only way a T1 frig can beat an AF is if the AF is badly fit or flown. Yes, we've all done it, but that proves nothing about actual balance just that there are bad players in eve. T1 frigates will still be perfectly viable for new players to learn in since there will always be other T1 frigate pilots and bad players in 'better' ships for them to fight.


These changes balance the AFs within the overall lineup so you'll see more than the huge Jag/Ishkur/Vengeance bias you see now with the occaisional Wolf/Harpy thrown in. They'll lead to an increase of the variety of AFs being seen in lowsec while still retaining the viability of other frigates. That hardly sounds like stagnation to me.

And you get to use them in both fleets and solo in nullsec with the MWD bonus, opening up their usage to entire new parts of the game than just lowsec frigate dueling.



Just please, don't remove the MWD sig bloom based on conjecture. Don't add an AB bonus or web immunity bonus (oh god that idea) based on the opinions of people who don't understand frigate pvp. And please, please test these things out for yourselves before claiming the changes are bad.


I would of course like to see the opinions of others ~based on SiSi testing~ (not based on EFT warrioring and random conjecture please). My corp is well known for only flying battleships with falcon support in highsec war decs, so our testing of these ships may not be relevant to lowsec/frigate pvp.

Oh, and anyone who can't fit an excellent hawk (either buffer or active) after these changes is bad at ships.

Suggestions:
1) Rename Assault Ships “Assault Frigates” and then leave them alone
2) Create a “Heavy Assault Frigate” class with attributes akin to the buffed Assault Ships proposed by CCP Tallest / Prometheus
3) Rename Heavy Assault Ships “Heavy Assault Cruisers”

Down the line you could consider creating an “Assault Cruiser” class, rather than buffing T1 cruisers too high.

Frigate - Assault Frigate - Heavy Assault Frigate
Cruiser - Assault Cruiser - Heavy Assault Cruiser

Edit: @TuskerDude (to avoid a double post) -> Yeah and I quite like them, especially being foremost an Intie pilot. So I like MWD's and use them on most of my current line-up. Oh God Enyo be still my beating heart is what I first thought as well.

Then I read these threads and have been convinced on this point.

Why can't we have a role bonus that really benefits everybody? Not just makes a heavier tackle role for Nulsec PVP but actually gives the AF a proper viable role in solo and gang work.

You mean +5% to shield resistance bonus on Harpy, not -5%