The reason for this is because he refuses to acknowledge the effect of this role bonus and buffs on low sec pvp and tells us we're idiots for thinking the way we are, despite the fact that many people here have flown AF's pretty much exclusively in low sec for their entire careers. He then tells us he doesn't really care since we are a vast minority and should just deal with how awesome his ideas are.

We are then told our ideas and suggestions are stupid (in a feedback thread lol).

This is hardly helpful to the debate.

What would be helpful would be listening to people who love and fly these ships day in and day out.

Um...

lol?

So, you don't get that was a joke, yet you're an expert on lowsec frigates?

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

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.

But that's what it does. It makes AFs viable both in nullsec solo as well as working well as heavy scram tackle in gang work (both in low and nullsec).

The slot/fitting/bonus changes make all the AFs viable in lowsec frigate PvP too, just ignore the MWD bonus there and be happy that there's more than 3-5 AFs to choose from now.

You're probably right and I'm probably just having a bad day. Do you really think it will lead to more diversity? And not FOTM ENYO

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.

Okay, I'm glad I'm not going to be the only one who says this: ASSAULT FRIGATES DO NOT NEED AN EXTRA SLOT.

As it stands the range of assault frigates is pretty well balanced. The obvious standout is the Retribution because it can only fit propulsion or tackle. I can understand why people aren't happy about this but you can also see where it comes from, damage AFs lose a mid over the T1 variant for a low and high slot. If the aim of the extra slot is to fix the Retribution in a balanced way then it needs to be done in a logical fashion, ie return the lost slot on all ships. If this is done, though, then the real brawler AFs become completely overpowered (Enyo with a web is just ridiculous). The proposed changes basically undo all the good work of boosting destroyers by pushing the power balance back to AFs. As it currently stands, a destroyer should come out on top of an AF but an AF has more travel survivability, pretty much like how a battlecruiser kills a HAC but finds it harder to travel. A nice symmetry, no?

The MWD signature radius bonus is not designed to make AFs into heavy tackle. It is there to allow them more ability to manoeuvre on the grid and get position to attack. I like the general principle of it and it will boost my playstyle so I'm hardly going to complain about it. A bit of me wonders if an MWD capacity penalty reducition wouldn't be slightly more interesting, allowing MWD AFs to fit slightly better active tanks. Those demanding the afterburner bonus are doing so because, like the slot additions, it is completely overpowered. Such a bonus basically creates an entire class of heavy Dramiels. Because that's a good idea...

Finally, regarding the specific bonuses I like them in general. The calls for a change to the Retribution (5 -> 7.5% tracking) and Hawk (shield boost -> shield resistances) both make good sense to me. I would have liked to see the Vengeance getting a bit of a range buff rather than damage but that's not a bad thing to get more of either. The Enyo's HP bonus would have been better as a structure boost in my eyes, like the Taranis the Enyo's best tank is its hull tank. The Wolf must not lost its falloff bonus, especially as it does not gain a web in this pass. It needs the falloff to be able to project damage to the end of scrambler range. If anything the Jaguar's bonus should be switched to falloff too.

These opinions come from someone who flies pretty much the entire range of assault frigates in null security space as a solo pilot. At the moment AFs occupy a very nice niche as their name intends, they are the hard-hitters of the frigate class. They do not encroach upon the role of interceptors in fleets but can make competent heavy tacklers if so desired. The changes, as have already been suggested, seem geared towards making them more favourable to fleet pilots. This seems a shame because a solo assault frigate is already king of the frigate field, especially with the nerf to Dramiels. A small gang of assault frigates is a deadly beast and should be feared.

TL,DR: Add the new bonuses and see how that plays out before turning the entire ship class on its head with new slots and making it totally overpowered. This is not an example of power creep but power leap. Small steps please, CCP, with iteration on them.

The MWD bloom bonus is excellent, makes them much more survivable when maneuvering with larger hostile ships on the field. I honestly don't get the criticism it's come in for here (and I have to say, I've not really seen any of the critics logged in on SiSi testing the things...). That said, there's no law saying you have to fit an MWD, so I don't see how the bonus screws over lowsec frigate aficionados (and I count myself among their number), and they've all been substantially upgraded in terms of tank/dps/applied dps.

Specific criticisms: the enyo is very very powerful and probably needs to be toned down; the jag is very very weak* and needs the optimal bonus turned into something more useful if it's to offer comparable performance to the others as tank-and-gank boat. That said, it has more potential as a kind of heavy interceptor than the other AFs; I'm just not sure that's a role for which there is a great deal of demand or use.

*Yes, it got buffed, but the others got buffed a lot harder, making the jag by far the weakest member of the AF lineup atm.

Just Plain Wrong.

Useless shite and Flames

[an awful rendition of a good fit]
This was my fit pre "buff", notice the neut. Works wonders against active tanks.
No more neut for the hawk, at least not without murdering the tank.

[Hawk, so bad]
F85 Peripheral Damage System I
Ballistic Control System II

1mn Afterburner II
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
'Langour' Drive Disruptor I
Medium C5-L Emergency Shield Overload I
Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400

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

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

Also, as someone who has done the background and math for the Jags optimal bonus vs the Wolds falloff bonus, the Wolf would be better suited with the optimal bonus. It would gain slightly more range.

@Ava
I don't even count 5 people complaining about the extra slots, so I wouldn't say there are many. Reddit is the same people moaning as here, and nobody actually playing with them on sisi has even mentioned anything remotely close to that.

@Wensley

Also, as someone who has done the background and math for the Jags optimal bonus vs the Wolds falloff bonus, the Wolf would be better suited with the optimal bonus. It would gain slightly more range.

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

I thought about the MWD cap reduction in addition to the sig bonus, but that encroached on Interceptors ability to maintain long range tackle, AND made tanks a little bit too hard to break.
....
Similarly I thought about a resist bonus instead of the boost bonus.
....
Also, as someone who has done the background and math for the Jags optimal bonus vs the Wolds falloff bonus, the Wolf would be better suited with the optimal bonus.

I would of course like to see the opinions of others ~based on SiSi testing~ (not based on EFT warrioring and random conjecture please).