Test Server Feedback

If you have another character with a less risible combat record and have some demonstrable experience, then by all means, post with that character. Also:

[Hawk, Cheap MSB, injected (a bad fit for bad people)]

Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket

Medium C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I
1MN Afterburner II
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 200

Ballistic Control System II
Internal Force Field Array I

Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I


That's a bad fit btw, but it does literally everything you were claiming it couldn't do.

Prom - Can you please tell CCP Tallest to come to this thread so we can interact with him. At least he is someone we can actually talk to that is in charge of this stuff and more importantly; listens to feedback of players who don't share the same vision you seem to have for this ship. I know you feel passionately about this mwd role bonus Prom, but you can' t just ignore the many post in here saying it is bad/not well thought out/gimmicky.

So far, these changes have mixed reviews.

Mixed reviews by a tiny handful of people who are vastly outnumbered by those who are pro-boost.
Can't please everyone, but we can please the majority.

As far as Tallest goes, he's monitoring the thread.
I can't force anyone to read bad ideas :p

To be fair, Prom, this is a pretty big boost so its going to get the inverse <3 : whine ratio of a nerf.

Prom, did you write these assault frigate changes yourself? Reading the way that you're talking, particularly in this post, suggests so.

I thought CSM6 was pretty clear from the outset that their role wasn't to play at amateur game designer, but if I'm interpreting you correctly that's exactly what you've ended up doing?

I think it was more 'the wolf would get better range out of an optimal range bonus than a jag gets out of one' not that it'd get more range than a falloff bonus wolf.

Either way, optimal bonus on the wolf is a horrible idea that needs to stop being suggested. Feel free to get rid of it on the jag if you want tho... (Jag has inherently better range control, so doesn't actually _need_ a range bonus).


As for 'overwhelming majority', I've yet to many well reasoned arguments or opinions against. There are a few I'll happily admit (in fact, would quite like to see Wens/Muira/et al come on to SiSi for some testing since fine tuning is definitely needed before live), but should probably discount anyone complaining about the changes because they want an ab/web immunity bonus instead/think this will make inties obsolete and/or don't actually fly frigates on TQ.

Nice, but, as others have stated, this steps on the interceptor role as tackler. As you might recall, the MWD sig bonus was specifically added to inty's to give them the unique advantage in this role.

Maybe a ROF bonus would make more sense, as a role bonus for an "assault" ship?


Enyo doesn't need an even larger damage bonus. It can already easily pop most cruisers. However, if you insist on beefing up the Enyo's damage output, swap that useless launcher hardpoint for a 5th turret hardpoint.

Extra mid slot is nice.

Instead of additional armor hp, add it to the hull hp instead. This is more inline with Gallente ship design, anyways, and boosts the benefit of using a DC.


Ishkur should get a drone damage bonus as well, per the norm with the other Gallente drone boats.

Moar frigate pew pew in losec is bad?

You're all over the place here, you want a ROF role bonus, and then immediately turn around and shun the Enyos DPS.


This would be extremely powerful and a bad idea. I don't think many people realize just how much 50% extra hp is for a light drone. That gives light drones the roughly the same level of hp as T1 medium drones, and that is pretty awesome.

I'll cut you some slack as you've missed out on quite a bit of thread, and so far it seems, all the testing.

Go try the ships.
Understand that AFs will NOT tread on Interceptors because they are nearly 2km/s slower, have worse cap, and are far larger.
Understand that the Enyo has an absolutely HORRID tank if you want to do hero dps, and it's very very killable.

Um... players would use the frigates that are viable for pvp? Same as now except that there'd be a wider variety of ships seen since more would be viable. What actual play testing of the new AFs allows is to see which ships are viable, which are too weak and which are too strong. You really don't need the full TQ population to do that (although more people play testing is always a good thing for balancing).

Honestly, I don't see how there's some magical effect that buffing AFs will have on lowsec. People fly viable ships since they can fight in them same underlying cause either way, except maybe you won't just see the same few ships as you see now (seriously, the majority of lowsec AFs are jag/vengeance/ishkur with a few wolves/hawks, a rare harpy and once in a blue moon an enyo. Oh, and I did see a retribution once). All none AF frigs that are currently viable are still viable and you'll see a few more cruors. I fail to see how diversity is bad.




Or a faction frig. Or a good combat inty. Basically the same as now...

Or they could just do what they've always done and grab a T1 frig while they skill up, plenty of other T1 frigs to fight, same as now (cheap fun and all).

It's not like a T1 frig could kill a well flown/fitted AF before these changes either. Yes, people get kills like that, but that's due to bad pilots, not bad ships. (or using cheese fits to exploit a particular weakness in the AF. Mostly those weaknesses remain)

Before the inevitable killmail link, again, that's spurious logic and is due to bad pilots/fitting. I've killed an AC/shield cane with a pre-buff thrasher, does that mean Hurricanes should be buffed or does it mean that particular cane was bad?