Wolf

* Added bonus: 7.5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Tracking per level
* +1 low slot
* +200 armor hp
* +10 CPU

It seams good but 2 details:

While the jaguar is more a tackling ship, the wolf is a killer! Its DPS ship! this ship needs to put more damage out, so the missile launcher does not make sence in a ship that gives bonus to turrents! Give the possibility to fit 1 more turrent instead -> and if you do this, give us a bonus to guns fitting so we can fit all 5 guns with no CPU or power problems!

Also this ship it is a armor tanking ship! low sig and speed is what it keeps it alive! For that to happen you cannot fit a MDW!
Please give it more base speed and give an afterburner bonus instead of MDW bonus to this ship!

Hello

Please post your feedback about Assault Ship balancing in this thread.

Thank you.


The changes are:

All Assault Ships

* Added role bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

why do minmatar ships always get better boni than amarr?
retribution 5% tracking
wolf n jaguar 7,5%

Remove: MWD Bonus
Add: 100% Bonus to "Small" Afterburner Speed

About the new role bonus, it looks good, but to be honest I think it goes into a area that belongs to interceptors and in no way helps assult ships, since 50% more or less signature only makes a diference when facing ships with large turrents, every other ship with medium or small guns will be able to hit you as before.

MWD role bonus is really uncreative.

Enyo, seriously a web and increased damage after the blaster buff you just put through? This thing will face melt stuff.

No it wont: "To bring Warp Scrambler II online requires 36.00 cpu units, but only 27.75 of the 193.75 units that your computer produces are still available."

You could reach 400dps but then you would have 5 empty slots. If you want to melt you are better of with a Catalyst.

You can't go around adding slots without adding enough CPU/PG to fit things in them. The Hawk, for example, is too hard to fit right now. If you're going to add a midslot, you need to add more than 10 CPU.

I think this is a start, but it's literally a step off the line.

General points:

You can't go around adding slots without adding enough CPU/PG to fit things in them. The Hawk, for example, is too hard to fit right now. If you're going to add a midslot, you need to add more than 10 CPU. Same with the Harpy - what are you putting in there that uses 10 CPU!???!
MWD bonus is lame. MWDs are harder to fit than ABs. They have a cap penalty, which penalises everything apart from projectiles and rockets (and therefore is yet another buff to the jaguar and wolf - I fly both, and I think they're OP right now). It penalises active tanking, which is already not used. Also, it will significantly reduce the usage of interceptors, as there is now almost no line between the two ship classes after this buff.
The jaguar and the wolf were already good enough - I fly both of them. They didn't need buffing, and with the buffs you're testing they will now both be seriously OP.

Specific points per ship:

I'll only discuss the ones I fly

Harpy: increase in low is nice, as is the bonus to shield resistance. Needs more CPU. A lot more CPU. It needed +40 CPU before you added a midslot. So, call it +64.

Hawk: The bonus to active tanking is useless. It's terrible, change it to something else. Thanks for the RoF and midslot, but again needs a lot more CPU.

Shameless quote other poster: Also, you still haven't fixed the Wolf/Jaguar bonus problem (the Jaguar is the Vagabond-style fast autocannon ship but has a range bonus appropriate for artillery, while the Wolf would work well as an artillery platform but gets a falloff bonus for ACs).

Jaguar: needs to get a midslot rather than a low.

I'm surprised that people are still suggesting afterburner bonuses. I thought that the prenerf Dramiel would have made everyone learn what a bad idea it is to combine silly speeds with an afterburner.

Hello

Please post your feedback about Assault Ship balancing in this thread.

Thank you.


The changes are:

All Assault Ships

* Added role bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

I guess this is a little biased because the only AF I fly is the Harpy and with a MWD I will always been in scram range making the buff nearly useless for me, unless I am in larger gangs or fleets.

unless this stuff is on sisi, none of what any of you have posted is anything more than opinion and ****/moaning.

Hardly. The issues with AFs have been known for a long time, and it's not too hard to see that this set of changes still leaves some of them resolved. You don't need to test it on sisi just to find out that the Hawk is still impossible to fit, or that the Jaguar's optimal range bonus is still worthless.

/agree......... also zarak1, this thread is about giving our opinions about the proposed changes, not showing everyone that you have issues with reading comprehension.

The hawk got screwed by this update, as was said before it was always a tight fit, and now it has an extra slot without the means to put anything useful in there. For example, to fit a web with a standard AB/scram loadout you need to drop the small neut from t2 to named, the medium shield booster dropped a meta level, the damage control upped to a (much more expensive" pseudoelectron, and the scram schanged to a jb5.

If you want to fit that web on a MWD fit (so that you can control range when your MWD gets shut off because you are in scram range) then you need to drop down to a small shield booster, which turns your tank from meh to shite.

Buffer tanks don't work, because with the two low slots used for damage mod and damage control, you can't get enough Powergrid, even with the 5% hardwire and AWU V, to fit any kind of respectable buffer.

The enyo is now incredibly powerful, either the other ships need to be brought up to this level or the enyo brought back in line.

About the role bonus, the "Role" of assault frigs has never been to be slower interceptors, not to mention most AFs spend the majority of their time inside scram range, so fitting a MWD leaves them slowboating it because scrams aren't exactly uncommon.

The role bonus should be something that would actually benefit them, such as a reduction in the mass addition of an AB, so they can orbit faster, and maybe a 10% increase in speed across the board, but don't try to make them something they aren't. Especially when there is another class of ships, Interceptors, that can do that job better.

I'm glad they are getting attention though

This thread is about feedback from SiSi which has the changes in it..

Also playing around with fittings on SiSi with an Enyo..

Dual prop fitting works, but no CPU for a mag stab unless you want a meta DCU. Fitting it with a MWD its also very tight.

An AB fit seems to work alot better, but its a bit slow..

- Hawk trumps Enyo every time, just saying. But yes, the Enyo is a bit powerful and needs more testing
- Hawk tanks just fine, tyvm. It's not a bad thing to be a tight fit, they all are.
- An AF in scramble range is really really hard to hit before you put an AB on it. Don't knock it before you've tried it
- AFs are slower than Interceptors because they aren't to replace Intereceptors

To me, it just sounds like you want a far more powerful Hawk before you realize just how strong it is.
My medium boosted Hawk tanks hybrids without batting an eye, and can do 230dps before heat. I think that is just fine

- An AF in scramble range is really really hard to hit before you put an AB on it. Don't knock it before you've tried it

@Soon
Retribution could maybe use some more tracking OR damage. Not both.
The Enyo gets 10% because that is two combined bonuses of 5%.
Unlike the other AFs, the Retribution has a really stiff tank combined with respectable dps, tracking, cap, and range.
It's much stronger than you're making it out to be.

[b]@ Kaedea
It's true, AFs are countered by support ships. Be it other AFs, Destroyers, or Interdictors.
However, I will say that you underestimate the strength of AF tanks and Nosferatus

Nope.

[Hawk DualMSE]

[Empty high slot]
Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket
Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket
Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket
Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket

Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
J2b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Medium Shield Extender II
Medium shield Extender II

Damage Control II
Micro Auxiliary Power Core I

Small Ancillary Current Router I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I

Needs a +2% pg implant.

OP much?

EDIT:

Actually read the rest of your post. What?

..Why? What do you need that much extra CPU for?

What? Active tanked hawk is at least as good as a dual rep Vengeance, if not better due to more dps. You might be trying to use a small booster. Don't, switch to medium.



What..? Why?

Feel free to come up with a well thought out idea that would benefit everybody.

It seems that a (rather small) number of folks want an AB bonus, without actually looking at the stats.
Not everyone fits ABs, and not everyone fits MWDs.
The difference is that a bonus to one (AB) is too powerful a tool, and a bonus to the other (MWD) is not.

These changes aren't making your beloved AB fits an less capable (moreso infact), so you really don't have anything to complain about. In the same vein, I called it an "enormous boost" because when you compare that to how woefully terrible they are right now, that's exactly what it is. If you're truly concerned that there will be a immeasurable number of MWD AFs in your low sec, then start practicing, because AB fits typically trump MWD fits no matter what the ship class.

You really haven't got anything to complain about.

Loving the general concept here, including the MWD bonus. It will also be much more useful on these than on ceptors because of the slower overall speeds and GTFO options. (And let's face it, the AB bonus would have been so OP) Buffing them makes them nicely in line with the new dessies as well. Of course my newly buffed Taranis will lose some of it's edge but hey I get cool new toys instead! (And ceptors could use some tiny loving as well)

IMHO it's the benefit of everyone to mix game balance in any case, after this CCP could either look at nerfing the Tier 2 BCs or buffing ceptors and T1 cruisers, or both.

Feel free to come up with a well thought out idea that would benefit everybody....

@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.

Feel free to come up with a well thought out idea that would benefit everybody.

It seems that a (rather small) number of folks want an AB bonus, without actually looking at the stats.
Not everyone fits ABs, and not everyone fits MWDs.
The difference is that a bonus to one (AB) is too powerful a tool, and a bonus to the other (MWD) is not.

These changes aren't making your beloved AB fits an less capable (moreso infact), so you really don't have anything to complain about. In the same vein, I called it an "enormous boost" because when you compare that to how woefully terrible they are right now, that's exactly what it is. If you're truly concerned that there will be a immeasurable number of MWD AFs in your low sec, then start practicing, because AB fits typically trump MWD fits no matter what the ship class.

You really haven't got anything to complain about.

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!

...
It seems that a (rather small) number of folks want an AB bonus, without actually looking at the stats.
Not everyone fits ABs, and not everyone fits MWDs.
The difference is that a bonus to one (AB) is too powerful a tool, and a bonus to the other (MWD) is not.
...

Great improvements, especially the overheating ones!

while youre at it though, could you possibly add the option to select an ammo switch while a gun or module is running?

its highly annoying to first deactive a gun or a tracking computer, and then switch, and then active again.


cheers!

Otherwise we'll just have a bunch more people calling Prom names, and that's not particularly helpful to the debate.

effect of this role bonus and buffs on low sec pvp

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

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.

Harpy
* Added bonus: -5% bonus to shield resistances

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).

I agree with a lot of your response but I need to pull you up here. By my numbers a Wolf with EMP loaded in 200mm ACs:

Edit: I am not *strictly* against the extra slots but I'd just like to see a touch of iteration first.

* Added role bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Enyo

* Added bonus: +5% damage changed to 10% bonus to damage (like taranis does)
* +1 mid slot
* +200 armor hp
* +10 CPU

Ishkur

* Added bonus: 10% bonus to drone hitpoints per level
* +1 low slot

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 can't force anyone to read bad ideas :p

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

* Added bonus: 10% bonus to drone hitpoints per level
* +1 low slot

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

Here is a graph with actual values put in:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2iu9k3r.jpg
RED - Optimal
GREEN - Falloff

As far as damage goes, the Wolf and Jag are indentical.
In reality, the Jag only has 3 turrets, but for the purpose of this experiment I've forced 4 turrets onto the ship.

As you can see for yourself, the OPTIMAL bonused autocannons out range the FALLOFF bonused ones

Your argument is flawed. SiSi cannot illustrate the affect a super-buffed ship class will have on a Tranquility Low Sec... it lacks the population for such modelling.

But the other outright buffs are way too much. They would raise the bar for anyone daring to enter low-sec; either get in an AF or stay out.

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

Math. Show it.
Wensley showed what we all know... falloff > optimal for actual damage projection with ACs.
Your pictures are cute... what do they mean?
Math, please? Like, math? You know, numbers?

Yet you force us to read yours

edit: derp

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).

Hey, how's that unfittable Hawk fit we posted for you? Battleclinic is not exactly a means to prove anything. You don't see me running around gloating about my awesome pvp ability because of my BC ranking (52 btw)

@Takeshi
There's are a couple major flaws with your graph.
1. 90 degree transversal is never 90 degrees. Maybe at one point or another, but it's never close to 90 on the regular.
2. A Comet doesn't orbit that close that fast. EFT doesn't account for agility, if that Comet is ABing its out more, and if it's not, it's way slower. On top of that, if it IS really close and moving really fast, it's because it doesn't have a tank.

Also, any Amarr AF pilot should laugh at you for even mentioning warrior drones. Really? Hobgobs (which are slower and bigger) sure, but Warriors?

I would rather have seen the AF geared more towards low sec activities than null sec.

I would rather have seen the AF geared more towards low sec activities than null sec.

@ Plutonian
Here's a question for you;
As a HAC pilot, why would I ever go back to T1 cruisers?

@Kalaratiri
AFs are one of the least used ships in EVE.
They are rare in 00 because AB fits are horrible for 00 roaming & combat, and MWD fits get you one shotted.

They are not rare in low sec. They are rare in null sec. So, please focus them for low sec use, where people will actually use them.

We're all entitled to our own opinion, but I think you you're pretty much describing why generic buffs plus the MWD role bonus is the right thing to do. It makes them overall stronger (some ships are maybe too strong) and should make them a lot better in nullsec where are underused.

What are you suggesting? An AB bonus that makes them solopownmobiles in lowsec while still being bad in nullsec?

Ed: if my fit is so bad, why is it the highest rated Hawk on Battleclinic http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/53680-MSB-Hawk.html

THERE!

Right there. I bolded and underlined it. Let's translate: While they skill up for Assault Ships because they have become the new baseline frigate.

It is ironic that I moved to Hevrice because you guys (and BRRC, but they've moved far away) actually come out and fight solo in T1 frigates. After the changes... will I ever get you out of the AS? What reason would you have to fly any other frigate? Should I just go ahead and reprocess the hundreds of Rifters I have on stock?

but you F$%^ over the people that actually use these ships by giving them a bonus they can't really use, slots that are akward to fit, and the 4th bonus which just makes the good AFs better while not fixing the underpowered ones.

I don't need to go onto SiSi to figure out that an already strong AF like the Wolf will be even stronger if you give it a tracking bonus and an extra slot on top of a MWD bonus. It's not as they say, rocket science.

No, I agree the AB bonus would make them overpowered. I was among the dramiel haters. I would actually rather they had no new 'role bonus' at all, just give them their 4th bonus like all the other t2 ships have, give the retribution another mid, and then leave them alone. Giving them new slots, well, I'll live, but I won't be jumping up and down cheering either. I actually rather like them as they are

hics aren't used in high sec

The focus should be on improving the ship for the majority of users not trying to create more users in a niche role that is already filled by interceptors. The fact of the matter is Assault frigates are used primarily in low sec because they are quick enough to usually avoid things one does not want to fight, while still having enough punch to take out many cruisers and other AFs. Thus if you want to improve these ships, improve them in a way that enhances their current role, do not invent a role you think they should fill and try to turn them into a different type of ship.

@Ava
My personal stance on faction ships to never be outright better than T2.
Faction frigates are a hybrid of T1 and T2. They offer similar advantages of T2, with the drawbacks of T1.
While you're having no trouble killing the them in your Wolf, I'm having even less trouble killing AFs in a Cruor.



Yes, they are. In fact, HICtors are even fairly popular ships in low sec because they have an extremely long point and a really big tank that handles gate guns without breaking a sweat.


Boosting a ship to only work in one environment is called creating a small niche. The proposed role bonus removes that niche and makes the ships usable everywhere and not just in low sec.

Perhaps you should try fitting an AF like an Interceptor and see how far you get.
You're pulling at straws with that argument as everyone pretty much knows that AFs can't replace Interceptors.
AFs are much slower, much larger, far less agile, have weaker capacitor, and no tackle bonuses.

Mate, you don't get it.

Glad to see we have a knowledgeable hand behind these changes.

Long live the goons

So what you're saying is nerf link alts and pirate implants?

Yeh. I like that suggestion.

Ok, having been on sisi 2 days in a row now, I have tested the Hawk, the Harpy, the Wolf and the Retribution. I have fought against the vengeance, the enyo, the retribution, the jaguar and the dramiel.

I'm not particularly impressed. They've taken a strong class, made all of them stronger, and some of them are just insane. I'd be happier with just the 4th bonus, and the retri being given it's second mid. If they still need changing after that, then fine, but do it a little at a time, instead of one massive change.

It seems to me that they are trying to be made more viable for null sec, but I'm struggling to see the point. In null sec, people usually just don't fly assault ships, they fly navy/pirate faction if they fly frigates at all. If I'm missing something, and AFs are actually widely used in null sec, I would be delighted to see any evidence.

AF pilots are more or less entirely based in low sec, and the people who fly them have no need for an MWD bonus. In dog-fighting and duels, which, being honest is more or less their entire usage, (apart from wolfpacks), an mwd is a liability more than a bonus. It reduces the cap for active tanking, and takes up a large amount of powergrid and cpu that could be used for other things. It also leaves them without a prop mod once scrambled, and getting a scram on an mwd'ing frigate is not actually that hard.

I'd honestly rather CCP just left them alone than this.