|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
OMG heavy drones are notviable in pvp ffs either buf drone speed, give drone speed bonus, or give the ishtar a sentry bonus like the domi. Sentry ishtars are viable. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
yeah well now you see how much drones as the prime weapons system sucks so yeah all those and it still only decent. but anyway just support sentries on it is all. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
IN THE ISHTAR you seriously you really gonna be like "oh there's that talos lemme drop heavies on him" please its a joke needs sentry bonus or ship is not viable in any other form except ahac and even then its better with sentries |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP Rise wrote:I'll look at the Ishtar fitting. To me it seems like one of the stronger HACs already and it gained a bonus to damage projection and application so I didn't see a need to give it even more buffs. I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots. All that said, I'll have another look. The problem is that the Ishtar has problem running S-sized mods in its high slots, to say nothing about any kind of highslot drone mod or remote support mod. Giving it a proper amount of CPU is not so much a buff as it is a balancing of the ship. The new drone mods (and especially their T2 variants) have already ruled out any kind of highslot extravaganza, and even with the old T1 mods, you were always at the very edge of what the CPU would allowGǪ GǪwith small guns fitted. By all means, keep the CPU limited, but then do something that lets it actually fit the modules that are in line with the ship's main purpose. If that means going outside of the ship balancing act and changing the drone mods, or if it means giving the ship a fitting bonus doesn't particularly matter (to meGǪ Maximus Andendare disagrees). What matters is that everything you want to fit on an Ishtar eats CPU like crazy before you even get to such extravagances as turrets.
It seems to me that guys just took the easy way out and buffed what these ships are currently used for...lol fail AHACS. They used to be the small gang/pvp corp's BS. You supposedly gave us tier 3's for that but they just got co opted into sniper blobs so that didnt work out, save the talos. Omni Directionals should always been a high slot mod. Heavy drones in any form of PVP save suicide heavy tackle is fail. With T2 Omnis and the new sentry/Domi bonus i could see use for this ship again. Although with Omnis in the mids thats a big if. And btw how does this ship have good damage projection with heavies? |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
what they should of did is of the 2 HACS for each race make one for this gawd awful AHAC role, And one for nano kiting role. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:52:00 -
[6] - Quote
im not against heavy drones as a prime weapon system. The problem is mediums are fast enough but totally blows for dps to the tune of would need more of a drone damage bonus currently on any ship to work. but that bonus would ofc overpower heavies. The other problem is heavies have good damage, but cannot in anyway chase down and apply damage to BC's and below cept armor brick tanks. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
I just think they should keep in the teiricide traditon and make AHAC version and Nano version |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
thorgil wrote:Quote:The biggest change here, and the one that affects all 8 ships, is a new role bonus. It is the same one that Assault Ships get, a 50% reduction in Signature Radius Penalty from Microwarp Drives. thank you, that's gonna be fun.
And thats great..for AHACS. throw some shield extenders on and fire up the mwd and not so great. Just make one role bonus for AHAC and one for Kiters, then these ships speed, sig, sensor strenth, and even weapon system and bonuses could be easily chosen.
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
pmchem wrote:CCP Rise wrote:I'm currently chatting with CSM and some other game design folk about working on the Ishtar a bit. Probably no update on what we come to as a conclusion until tomorrowish. oh god please don't screw up the ishtar, just give it a few more slight buffs to quiet the fitting nerds the change from gun to drone focus was nice
M8 its been ******. Yeah it was cool pre nano nerf. And after it was alright in nano sentry set up. But then they made medium rigs and loki speed bonuses. Good bye Ishtar.
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
10% bonus to drone tracking speed and optimal
Make Omni Directionals high slot mods
fixed for you. Or delve inot the **** storm of making heavies useful (the hard way) |
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
MAKE OMNI DIRECTIONALS & DRONE SPEED MODS HIGH SLOT MODS |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:15:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Do not like the Ishtar changes.
Am I the only person that puts a full rack of medium tech 2 blasters with Void M on an Ishtar so that I can overheat the high slots when I need a short, sharp burst of damage?
The Ishtar is already a frigate annihilator and doesn't need a tracking bonus making it even better against small ships. Where it needs help is in combats against larger ships.
PvE impact of the changes: Minimal nerf to non-sentry based Ishtar fits, minor buff to sentry based ones. PvP impact: Significantly improved performance against Interceptors, slight improvement v. frigates/AFs/Dessies, moderate nerf v. cruisers and larger.
the tracking and optimal is for sentries bro...cause using heavies is stupid. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:22:00 -
[13] - Quote
why not have a combat and attack role? combats get the bonus to sig, attack get speed bonus, not pre nano nerf but ffs faster than tier 3's |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Honestly kil2 you know any road leading to HACS not the being kiteyest, fastest cruiser hulls and above is a failure. If they want to divide them into attack and combat roles than that be cool I guess. But without the above it's just...no. WTF is CCP still petrified about the pre nano nerf days? |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 17:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Namamai wrote:Ishtar:
This almost makes up for the ruining of the Deimos.
Gardes reach out to 45km now stock, and Curators to 78km. Two Omnitracks make those 70km and 115km, respectively. However, the guns remain useless as ever, and the tank continues to be an issue. This is basically the only HAC that's not outclassed by Tech3 cruisers or T3 BCs, simply because there is no drone Tech3.
Ultimately, though, it's just a little better -- not enough to really distinguish it from the VNI or Dominix, and certainly not enough to justify the isk or SP investment.
I expect that some plated Ishtar doctrines might emerge as a complement to today's Dominix doctrines. (However, the lack of MJD might be an issue.) However, other than that, it's in the middle of the road of the HAC lineup; it doesn't really excel at anything, which is a problem given the Tech2 concept of "better than T1 for specialized role." What is the Ishtar's role?
Muninn:
Some win, some loss.
Shield arty Muninns weren't using their option highs anyways other than small neuts. They get to fit a damage control for an extra 8k EHP, or a third TE (to compensate for the tracking nerf), or a nano; they gain an 11% DPS due to the arty ROF gain. Ultimately, Elo Knight will be happy, but their position in the Eve meta won't change here.
Armor Muninns (stop laughing) don't really change either. The AC+HAM fit is gone, obviously; the only real fit now is 5x 220mm ACs + med neut, and you pick up a lowslot for a gyro. Net DPS ends up being about the same.
Vagabond:
I'm flabbergasted at how foolish this change is. The Vagabond was already functionally obsolete compared to the Cynabal, and they've actually managed to make it worse. The ranting for this is best put at a separate post, after this.
In summary:
Three terrible changes. Two no-ops. And three ships that are slightly better than before, but ultimately remain outclassed by Tech3 cruisers or Tier-3 BCs, both in absolute performance and in bang-for-isk/sp ratios.
Wormhole dwellers, Naga/Tornado/Cynabal producers, and T1 cruiser fans: you have nothing to fear at this time. It's almost angering how bad these changes are.
@Namamai you know the fact that omni's and drone speed mods not being high slot mods **** this ships true potential amirite? |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 17:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
ConranAntoni wrote:Rabble rabble rabble AHAC DOESN'T WORK FOR MY PERSONAL PLAYSTYLE IMMA CRY TILL CCP LISTENS TO ME BITCHING RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.
AHAC is niche doctrine stop it lol
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 18:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So... do any of the old or (proposed) new HACs not suck? After 56 pages I'm still eagerly awaiting a solid set of proposed counterchanges.
Well for one lets divide the 2 racial ships into attack and combat roles. ONE of these roles NEEDS to be a nano/kiter. Don't really care what they do with the other role as I have no use for HACS outside small gang pvp (hasn't there been enough ships created for blob warfare?). They should be the fastest hulls (after frigs) in the game. Dedicating this whole class of ships to AHAC faggotry is just pointless IMO. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 18:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:gardes look like they need a nerf on their tracking they track the same as ogres which is odd and combined with domis/ ishtars proposed bonuses and omnis they can track aswell as medium guns but with sniper range. No gardes don't need a nerf dude those domis are tracking like Autocannons but at 80km plus its insane OP .. i think maybe the 10% tracking and optimal range might be too strong... especially combined with the tracking and range of gardes Also no other ship gets a 10% tracking bonus .. could you imagine if the Apoc got 10% tracking and range bonus combined aswell as a damage bonus?
No other BS has so much killable DPS... No other BS is so easily separated from it's DPS range wise... adapt or stop shitposting... |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 19:26:00 -
[19] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:JerseyBOI 2 wrote:Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:gardes look like they need a nerf on their tracking they track the same as ogres which is odd and combined with domis/ ishtars proposed bonuses and omnis they can track aswell as medium guns but with sniper range. No gardes don't need a nerf dude those domis are tracking like Autocannons but at 80km plus its insane OP .. i think maybe the 10% tracking and optimal range might be too strong... especially combined with the tracking and range of gardes Also no other ship gets a 10% tracking bonus .. could you imagine if the Apoc got 10% tracking and range bonus combined aswell as a damage bonus? No other BS has so much killable DPS... No other BS is so easily separated from it's DPS range wise... adapt or stop shitposting... errr... lasers and blasters are neutable ....or jammable or dampeble ..... missiles are killable... smartbombs and bombs so who is shitposting exactly?
So you would have senrtry drones (I assume thats what were talking about here) have the same disadvantages as turret based ships? You shouldn't underestimate the advantage of having weapon range to target, and ship range to target identical. Oh yeah and the fact that your turrets cant be targeted and killed/bombed until your useless. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:47:00 -
[20] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:all i said was gardes are OP combined with domis bonuses.... you kicked up the fuss mate How many full fleets of done ships have you fought? As it pertains to this topic, the Ishtar is still going to be far from OP because of fitting. This is a ship that basically can't fit turrets because it is so hosed by its fittings. For Domis, just get into the drone field with smartboms, or bomb them, NO battleship can carry more than 4 full flights. you're kind of missing the point here..... gardes are tracking like autocannons but with Artie range on Domis... this is clearly wrong and unbalanced. stop making this about dronebays and losing drones .. that is a different issue altogether
But that is what its about so no matter how much unicorn riding you do drones have serious disadvantages and DESERVE some unique advantages. Jeez AT comes around, teams use domis so by defacto there OP lol...herd mentality |
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:10:00 -
[21] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:JerseyBOI 2 wrote:Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:all i said was gardes are OP combined with domis bonuses.... you kicked up the fuss mate How many full fleets of done ships have you fought? As it pertains to this topic, the Ishtar is still going to be far from OP because of fitting. This is a ship that basically can't fit turrets because it is so hosed by its fittings. For Domis, just get into the drone field with smartboms, or bomb them, NO battleship can carry more than 4 full flights. you're kind of missing the point here..... gardes are tracking like autocannons but with Artie range on Domis... this is clearly wrong and unbalanced. stop making this about dronebays and losing drones .. that is a different issue altogether But that is what its about so no matter how much unicorn riding you do drones have serious disadvantages and DESERVE some unique advantages. Jeez AT comes around, teams use domis so by defacto there OP lol...herd mentality they have an excellent advantage of being able to assign drones and that jamming the ship doens't stop their dps... all weapons have disadvantages .. mostly they can have their dps stopped in many different ways.. Also the fact that domis are winning every match tells you they are OP and that gardes are better than heavy drones
Sentries have been better than heavies ever since 90% webs went away, boosting lokis appeared, & almost every hull got speed boosts. I don't think your complaining that sentries WORK, not that heavies are so BAD. Heavies only work if the target is webbed or scrammed to hell. Now if you want walk the conversation back to how bad heavies are for everything except fighting in scram/web range (lol suicide pvp) lets do that. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:11:00 -
[22] - Quote
* I think |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Allandri wrote:Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)? as a class they should all be geared toward the same style otherwise you might aswell split them into multiple classes which as it stands you probably could... -snipers - Vaga .. about the only skirmish one here - brawlers
yeah because the tier3's aren't snipy enough. We have enough fleet ships in the game. HACS are better suited for fast small scale skirmishes. Stop trying to make every hull fit nicely into large scale fleets |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:32:00 -
[24] - Quote
Onictus wrote:JerseyBOI 2 wrote:
yeah because the tier3's aren't snipy enough. We have enough fleet ships in the game. HACS are better suited for fast small scale skirmishes. Stop trying to make every hull fit nicely into large scale fleets
ABCs arguably do that better.
Not quite. Tier 3's are indeed skirmishy but also a one trick pony and pretty susceptible to tackle. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
maybe if CCP removed pirate implants (snakes) and off grid links they won't be so scared of what you COULD do and give HACS the speed they deserve |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:Allandri wrote:Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)? Actually I like this and was thinking something similar. Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship. Inty HacsCerb Zealot Vaga Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one. Assault Frig HacsEagle Muninn Sac Ishtar <- again, unsure on this one And give each class bonuses to operate each role.
TBH the Ishtar would make better the kiter than the deimos. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:23:00 -
[27] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Christopher Multsanti wrote:Allandri wrote:Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)? Actually I like this and was thinking something similar. Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship. Inty HacsCerb Zealot Vaga Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one. Assault Frig HacsEagle Muninn Sac Vexor <- again, unsure on this one And give each class bonuses to operate each role. I think CCP's terminology for those two classes would be "Attack" for "Inty" (I assume these are kiters) and "Combat" for "Assault Frig" (I think you meant brawlers?) Your breakup of them looks good, its hard to kite with drones, but I think the Deimos is a brawler more so than a kiter... .
back in the day (yes post-nano nerf) you could run an effective kiting Ishtar w/sentries. Things got tankier (medium rigs), faster so no longer viable. The drone tracking/optimal bonus is a step in the right direction except: speed still not there (all HACS) w/out loki links/snakes, and for the ishtar specifically, omnis and drone speed mods need to be high slot mods...oh and MOAR CPU |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:26:00 -
[28] - Quote
Onictus wrote:JerseyBOI 2 wrote:Christopher Multsanti wrote:Allandri wrote:Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)? Actually I like this and was thinking something similar. Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship. Inty HacsCerb Zealot Vaga Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one. Assault Frig HacsEagle Muninn Sac Ishtar <- again, unsure on this one And give each class bonuses to operate each role. TBH the Ishtar would make better the kiter than the deimos. If the rail changes are as good as advertised, that is highly debatable. With heavy drones being near useless due to travel time, that means sentries, and you are going to lose a LOT of sentries kiting.
Yes you do, but still gratifying when pulled off
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:35:00 -
[29] - Quote
Although TBH I could give no fucks as to WHICH racial HAC became a fast kitey ship, as long as there was one to choose from. I think most would agree that the game needs ships with kiting ability (not snipers). Well maybe not bears who only stop bearing to join TIDI ****** blob orgies. Okay maybe badies who think kiting takes no skill and are cowardly faggots too. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 13:03:00 -
[30] - Quote
Vegine wrote:Suggestion for Ishtar:
remove the drone optimal range bonus from the optimal and tracking bonus remove the +5km drone control range bonus COMPLETELY remove the drone bay expansion bonus COMPLETELY and add in drone bay as part of the ship
add a 10% per level drone speed/tracking bonus. (yes, double tracking bonus) add a 7.5% per level to armor repair effectiveness (was also thinking 4% resist bonus but I guess its for gila only...)
move one med slot to low. (or two! ...........) add 75CPU
This will make it more a closer range brawling ship viable with heavies, like heavy assault ships are suppose to be. I don't think optimal bonuses fits on heavy assault crafts. even if its a drone boat. and...... need some test on sisi to see how it would work. ::p
not all HACS are supposed be "close range brawling ships". this is a **** idea. Although I too want use a 200mil ISK ship so that it cant disengage in pvp even though brutix is cheaper. baddies go away til hacs r done |
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:54:00 -
[31] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: My point on the mids was. IF they are adamant on keepign shield boost bonus. Then it needs a 5th mid.
Not at all. With that shieldtank-bonus, you got the choic between large SB+CB (like a shieldlegion), XL-ASB with 180s or the good old fit. The good old fit is now A LOT better thanks to that mwd-bonus. Pretty much the same to the muninn. I believe some nanogroupies will go crazy over the 6th lowslot on that one \o/ (at least I do) If the Vaga gets a fifth mid it can actually tank WELL, not just "tank". It also needs more shield HP so it doesn't just get alpha'd when a ship is more than km from it. And more grid so it doesn't need an ancillary rig to fit an ASB and 180s! Nobody uses 180s on ANYTHING else! Enough grid to fit an ASB and 220s would be nice. I still don't get this, the problem of the Vaga has never been its tank, yeah its **** poor but it wouldnt be an issue if it actually did decent DPS and applied it reasonably well. Its problems are entirely to do with the fact that its DPS and projection are awful.
Tank, DPS, DPS projection....These things mean **** all if they dont get faster...alot. No ones gonna use them over t1 cruiser brawlers or BC's for the obvious reason ITS NOT WORTH THE PRICE. This has always been the case with HACs and is no different now. Give speed or remove. We'll use T3's |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 16:39:00 -
[32] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:Ok, so Rise hasn't replied yet, so here's my 2 cents:
1) We appreciate the opportunity to give (hopefully) constructive feedback on the direction that HACs get taken in, and we understand that conservative changes were attempted. BUT! compared to the *very* non-conservative (dare I say 'revolutionary') changes that were enacted as part of the tiericide initiative to date, the proposed changes are not interesting, exciting, or enticing in any way. Go back to the drawing board, find a Role or Roles for the HAC lineup to fulfill and then make them shine in those roles.
2) The MWD bloom bonus is trite and uninspired. The Role bonus that the HACs get needs to be in line with the Role of the ship, and preferably something that either makes the Hull (if hull-by-hull role bonuses are used) or hull classification distinctive from ALL other ships. Reference HICs, SBs, BOps for things that T2 "Specialized" hulls can do that no other hull can.
3) Don't be as concerned about the price point of the hull as you are with whether or not the performance of the hull will entice pilots to that hull. It's easy to make enough ISK to buy a HAC by the time you have the skills to fly one effectively, it's hard to justify spending that ISK on a HAC if there's no clear advantage to flying one. Make the Hull worth flying, and the market price will adjust to the new level.
4) Be consistent in your module slot layouts. Since AFs got +2 slots over T1, people are going to expect +2 slots over T1 for HACs too - ESPECIALLY since T3's already have 16.
5) Whatever you do with the HAC lineup, bear in mind that the ABC hulls already outperform them in virtually every area. Whatever you do should go towards addressing this, unless the next balancing pass is to nerf the f**k out of ABCs. Either way, currently the 'smart' investment is ... not a HAC, and let's leave it at that.
6) There's a lot of good comments in this thread regarding the expected roles/strengths of Heavy Assault Cruisers. Start with Heavy, then focus on Assault, then realize that cruisers are the awkward middle child of the subcap lineup. Big enough to do some damage, but not big enough to get away with it... An advanced cruiser hull should have some staying power.
Thanks [/my2cents]
"Big enough to do some damage, but not big enough to get away with it..." <---this. It's not cost effective to brawl down with HACS (we have T3's for that, Hyperion). Case in point, how many command ships do you see flying around? It's fine for t1 cruisers and BC's (vexor, brutix) because there cheap. To make them worth fighting with in close you would have make their tank OP(not an option IMO, fly cheap or CS's, or T3's). |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:02:00 -
[33] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:Roime wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:dude compare T3's EHP with T1 cruisers and then blankly stare at the main reason ooohh... look it has about three times the amount .. that's not normal ... then look at the dps difference... Look at the DPS. - Thorax - 2 Magstabs 5 Neutrons, Void - 522 DPS - Loki - 2 Gyros 6 425mms, RF EMP - 525 DPS Now look at the cost. - Thorax - 10m - Typical Armor Tanked Loki - 400m And the SP loss. - Thorax SP loss - 0sp - Typical Armor Tanked Loki ~ 7 days of training (Subsystem 5, Minmatar Strat Cruiser 4) So, a T3 costs 40x as much before bling (which any good T3 pilot has), and costs the pilot 7 days of training every time one explodes. [Condescending Wonka] Tell me again about how T3s are OP compared to T1 Cruisers? [/Condescending Wonka] So you decided to compare a Gallente cruiser with Minmatar T3, and exaggerate the training time by a comfortable 3-4 days? Understandable if you want to push your agenda, but still looks blatantly stupid. Proteus: 1004dps, 112K EHP, 400mil Thorax: 40mil So real cost difference is only 10x, 3-4 days of training and you get twice as much dps and about six times more EHP. And HACs are barely better than T1, but take longer to train than T3. This increase in performance is completely out of whack when compared with performance increases between other ship classes. this is one of the reasons hac's need to sit in the middle of cruisers and t3's. cruisers > faction cruisers > hacs > t3's is the way it should be but currently the distinction between them is so small in some cases might as well not bother
"After talking with several CSM member on possibly gearing HACs to decently engage the blob there is apparently some members who strongly dislike the idea of smaller groups being able to engage larger forces and have an impact.
So much for CSM members caring about what is best for the game. Yes, I know, CSM members only pushing their own agenda non-shocker." |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 19:07:00 -
[34] - Quote
Nyancat Audeles wrote:Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage
Because a 50% bonus to drone tracking is not overpowered?
Yeah, lets just have Ishtars in every fight and snipe away every interceptor and frigate in 2 volleys, regardless of transversal. It's already bad enough with Domis.
makes up for sentries not being able to mitigate traversal (burning away / towards). So sentries should go back to not being able to hit **** all? only pulse / beam zealots get to hit frigs from range? shut up |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:55:00 -
[35] - Quote
Lord Eremet wrote:Such underwellming changes, CCP. I thought this was about a HAC buff, not a reshuffle so some ships still stay bad, some become bad and a few become good,..or well, at least somewhat usefull.
Its clear to me that CCP have no real vision what to do with these ships.
The Sacrilege a heavy tackler? Oh common, I would take a prophecy for that, less cost and insurable. And likely last longer. Change that cap boni to a armour ammount and give it another lowslott and maybe it will be good. Giving it heavy missiles is at least something, but your overdoing it with the dronewidh.
The Vagabond with a shieldboost boni for brawling? And only 4 slots, that is 2 slots after you fitted point and mwd, or that that new roleboni is for nothing... again; brawling? /me roles eyes.
The Diemost still got a crappy MWD boni.. and the ship are still useless. Get a bunch cheap thoraxes with tech 1 fitting instead. When you die you do it with a smile and not with a broken hearth (walllet).
The Eagle... paint yourself a vivid image of a mighty bird flying the sky waiting tfor unsuspecting prey to dive on. Well this poor bird aint gonna do that. Is crap will stay crap. Say hello NAGA. Maybe make it a shieldtanked diemost with a dronebay?
The Ishtar, it still need more CPU! Add at least 15 more base cpu to it. Beside that, this ship isI the only semi-good change so far. But losing a highslot hurts.
The Cerberus a kitter? Well, I guess that could work. Except in my world you don't do sniping with missiles that be seen comming half a mile awaw and let the target warp before they hit.
The Muninn, moving a high slot to a low. Let see now I can fit a dcu, or a signal amp, or a fiber so it at least have some speed... Maybe some creative people will make it armortanked.
The Zealot, at least you didn't break it, CCP. Here have a cookie.
Between tech 1 cruisers and ABC's, kitting and high mobility is the only viable role I see for HAC's. Scirrmishing and guerrilla warfare is where they should excel. For that they all need to be faster. The Vagabond is the only real good HAC doing so, and that one is owershadowed by the Cynabal. Now don't be so quick about breaking the cyna too. That still won't do crap hacs any more used.
The devs lack of interest in this thread is telling, these changes is what we get and will stay so for another two to four years.
"Between tech 1 cruisers and ABC's, kitting and high mobility is the only viable role I see for HAC's. Scirrmishing and guerrilla warfare is where they should excel."<------this |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 23:38:00 -
[36] - Quote
Chessur wrote:I have stated before in this thread, but to me its pretty easy to differentiate HAC's from Tech 3 and Teir 3.
If CCP decides to give them a role, it should be that of a Kiting ship. Or if you want a dual role bonus (like those found on the force / combat recons) a kiting / med sniping role.
Teir 3's are not kiting ships (well at least not in the current meta). With the advent of T1 cruisers / navy cruisers Tier 3 ships are just not fast enough. Sure they have great DPS and in some cases projection, but they are poor solo ships if you are attempting to engage a gang that has multiple fast cruisers / light tackle. A HAC could differentiate its self from the Tier 3's in two / three areas:
1. Speed. Give the HAC's cruiser speed, and make sure that their speed is fast enough where outpacing T1 cruisers and anything that is not a frigate would be easy. Currently the Tier3 and Tech 3 are unable to outrun t1 / navy cruisers. Give the HAC's this job.
2. Projection bonuses on Med guns. Give every HAC superior projection bonuses. Allow the vagabond to actually apply DPS with AC's. Make sure that the deimos can actually kite with blasters, or give it something to help with rails. Just like the Tier3's the HACs should be very good at projection damage to 35K+++. The HAC's will be using medium guns, allowing them to handle lighter ships. IE. Cruisers / Dessies / T1 Cruisers more aptly than Tier3's. Again this separates the HAC's further, and gives them a very valid role in small gang / solo / fleet comps.
3. Tank. The HAC's being cruisers should not sport a great tank. Give them something that will give them increased survivability at range, or at least enough EHP / fitting to support a tank that will allow the HAC's enough time to: a. Pull range on an enemy gang b. Dive into long point range, to quickly point targets while attacking.
A cruiser should not have an amazing tank. Leave that job for the Tech3s, Command ships, BC's and BS. A cruiser has no place living inside of the range of heavy neuts, webs, scrams, and large tracking guns. A cruiser needs to use its speed and mobility to its advantage- that is its tank.
So now the other question, how can HAC's be different from Tech 3s?
This one is pretty easy to answer, if- like me you can see the validity of a kiting based cruiser. The Tech3s use to have a single kiting boat in the 100MN tengu. However post HML nerf, the Tengu has really been nerfed hard. HML's apply horrible damage to cruisers and down, and the 100MN tengu is no longer fast. With a T1 cruiser easily going 2.2K/s with out links, tengus with their 15+++ second align time just don't have the agility to keep up anymore.
That said, Tech 3's have really not been that useful out side of a few situations-
Heavy armor gangs. There you can see a lot of brick Scram proteus, Web lokis and the like. However you will never see a Tech 3 in a kiting situation any longer- they just don't have the projection, and in many cases the speed to be proper kiters. Let the Tech 3's be the super tank / brawly cruisers that they are. The HAC's should have nothing to do with that at all.
Lastly, the HACs should all have increased low slots inorder to give them room for nanos. and other mods that will help increase ther DPS at range. A turret ship like the eagle should not have to deal with only 4 lows. This can be double the case for ships that are also armor tankers. Now I am not saying that you also have to provide the fitting room for these slots. We don't want tohem to be able to be turned into super tanked brawlers. But they need something to set them apart.
In closing: Give HACs superior speed, projection, and damage at range when compared to T1 cruisers. Role bonuses should help accentuate these intended goals. Here are some examples:
1. MWD cap use 2. MWD sig (would have to be much greater than 50% however) 3. MWD / AB Speed bonus 4. Flat speed boost 5. Projection boost
This is what I've been saying. They shouldn't have massive tanks except good racial resists which they currently have. They need to be flat out fast, low sigs, good cap, and better projection. Problem is the HACS biggest problem,...speed. Why? well because speed is the most reluctant boost CCP is willing to give (cept t1 and navy cruisers) because of past balance issues. But damage projection then wan't anywhere where it is now, which should offset a boost in speed to them. It's their fault they left it to off grid links and plants to give HACS the speed they need. Except why use a HAC then? |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 02:03:00 -
[37] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Baren wrote:SO We are all IN Agree ment?
HACs shoulw have two roles, whith each Role having a unique Bonus?
i think the only agreement here is that were all unsatisfied with stuff .... most common concern : hacs suck cause they mostly lack purpose. followed by: if they have (or had) purpose they are overshadowed by other stuff and or unviable due to changed meta. Well they were overshadowed by T3's, at least some, before Heavy Missile changes, before HAM changes and before T1 Cruisers changes. Now that this important part of the game is done you don't see that many of those being fielded and there's a reason: T1's are clearly very very good. Power creep? -Too late That's what happens when you don't listen to players base feedback. You do the same job twice, quite professional (not) Step back on T1's, sure, decrease tank/mobility/dps for 5/7% and maybe new HACs might look better but still in need at least of 20%+ EHP either by resist profile or hp or combination of 2, better mobility and be at least 10% faster than T1 versions, then add better fittings a third rig slot and we're done with HACs and T3's at the same time because those HACs will eat T3's alive. HACs weren't overshadowed by T3s at all, they were totally stomped on by battlecruisers, and continue to be. Now knocking the command mods down a rung is is certainly needed, but HACs ONLY claim to fame is small scale scrimishing sometimes, and ahacs sig tanking battleships. .....both of which basically require gang links. Hell T3s fleets require the ganglinks People need to put the pitch forks away until we see what they are doing with 1) The HACs, this pass doesn't come close to handling most of the hulls' issues. 2) Boosting, all we know is that CSs and T3s are going to get their bonuses basically swapped. Which is fine. Going by the REST of the T2 cruisers in comparison, T3 logi vs T2 logi, T2 all of the way.....all day, the lack of a range bonus make that sub useless....except in some BLOPs gangs T3 recon vs T2 recon, the EWAR from the T2s is flat out better, pretty much across the board. T3 Scanner.....go go cov-ops frig, the T3s certainy work Emergent locis even have a the same virus strength as the role bonus for a frigate since there are no rats I would much rather fly the frig than a half bill in T3 cruiser. T3 HAC vs T2 HAC here we have issues but its all over the board. Hybrid Tengu? LOL Drone Proteus? Laser Legion works I guess but usually you go HAM and I have only ever really seen them in Garmon videos and ratting fits. The issue isn't the T3s so much, the issue is that the HACs basically suck. Buff the HACs up to comparable levels speed and damage or tank and range and you are on to something. ...and you only need to tweek the subs on the T3s, HACs aren't really favorable in comparison to Battlecruisers, not in tank, not in damage, they are a little faster, have a smaller sig, and ~sometimes~ have a better resist profile. Again the issue isn't T3s, its the HACs are just plain underwhelming, particularly when you are looking at 150mil for the hull alone.
"they were totally stomped on by battlecruisers, and continue to be" truth.
Remember when drakes where lol? Before Loki links how often did you encounter linked opponents?(outside of blob fleets) Before med rigs how easier where BC's to burn down? (BC's not worth rigging / HACS where worth rigging) HACS were the goto for small gangs. BC's got faster, tankier. In comparison to rest of the game HACS got slower, fluffier, and out ranged. No going back on the tank issue. MAKE THEM FASTER. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
Dysgenesis wrote:I apologise if this has already been brought up (I have tried to read the majority of this threadnaught).
If the Vagabond speed bonus is wrapped up into the hull and replaced with a shield boost bonus it makes the vaga an outlier on base stats with essentially 5 bonuses (the usefulness of those bonuses not withstanding).
The Ishtar on the other hand pays for its large drone bay by giving up a slot (as do the other drone boats) yet it also takes a bonus slot unlike the other drone ships. This makes no sense at all to me. Personally I would like to see the Ishtar get a larger drone bay as part of its base stats and a new fourth bonus (what I would really like is able to control +1 drone per level, but keep the bandwith at 125, but maybe that should be reserved for the Eos).
Yes this is because omni directionals and and drone speed mods should be high slot mods(galent have enough lows) |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:15:00 -
[39] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I just don't understand who benefits from the further destruction and marginalization of the HAC. Every group uses them, so this can't be anything done by the null sec lobbyists within the CSM.
This seems to be strictly a CCP produced disaster. There is simply no logic to this.
Don't underestimate the null bears. Put yourself in their shoes (if not already in it) The only pvp that concerns them is how a ship performs in fleet doctrines. That is all.
the fact that kil2 is an avid pvp'er (you would think HACS would be his baby) and still cant give skirmish warfare a good platform is testament of how much the people who have a voice give no fucks about FiS outside of blob warfare
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:23:00 -
[40] - Quote
Zetak wrote:I have just one comment to add to the topic:
It is very good and nice to make mid-long range platforms more viable by buffing them HAC needed some serious love. But the fact remains the same. For an effective snipe, you have to either use a lot of buddies to drop and pop someone sitting on 90km range, or you still need at least someone short range with warp disruptor to lock down the enemy, a brawler can do it effectively by himself since he is short range for gods sakes. So it is great that you buff long range, but short range platforms will have an inherent advantage because of the short range of warp disrupt modules. At 60-100km range, your opponent has a good chance to escape if you don't have support, but if you are a short range fighter, then the same chances does not apply. Ofc power is in numbers, but in a small engagement 2v2, 2v3 3v3 short range wins always because of this.
My problem is really not with the changes to the ships, it is the viability of long range fighting, as you cannot prevent someone to just simply warp out when things go sideways. The warp disruption modules needs a change. The modules should have as much range and falloff and 'chance to hit' as a sensor dampener or target painter. That is the key problem of long range fighting Imo.
I hope this helps. peace.
your bad. brawlers suck for fighting larger gangs then your own they can't disengage(fact that you suggest this means baddie). You don't have point all the time(cept ninja pointing). They should be coming for you til you've killed enough. |
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:58:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey again
So we had the tournament this weekend and then I was out of the office yesterday. I'm getting started on this topic again today, but as evidenced by this enormous thread, there's plenty to do. I think we will have another CSM review step before getting the new version (which isn't even finished yet) back to you guys. If things go well, I'll have a new pass for you guys by the end of this week, if things go slow it would probably be start of next week.
Thanks for all the feedback and ideas. A lot of you have different ideas about these ships, but hopefully we can distill some good stuff and do a revision that you're all excited about.
The CSM are the wrong ones to ask. Their agenda is a ship that can be incorporated into fleet. Certainly they don't want small gang hot rods burning threw thier sov space harassing ratters. Come'on |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 20:17:00 -
[42] - Quote
Darco Aldent wrote:Back on topic , CCP Rise , if find the changes pretty decent , it does not make them OP and they can still be strong with the right people flying them .The more i think about it the more i do not think they need more buffs, the role bonus is pretty strong imo. Just make sure to double check the CPU and powergrid, maybe add a bit to some especially since you dont want to gimp their fit if you fit a mwd , maybe even add a fitting bonus to mwd. GL
their speed is woefully inadequate. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 03:08:00 -
[43] - Quote
Doddy wrote:They are "assault" cruisers. They should be tough as hell brawlers that get in your face and break you. Ahacs epitomise this.
A bonus that should be considered is one to the reactive armour hardener, allowing the hac to react to incoming damage quicker than other ships. Its not suiable for shield hacs obviously but hey you can give them a bonus to asbs in some way. Maybe a role bonus that allows armour hacs to react twice as fast as normal with reactive hardener and allows shield hacs to load twice as many boosters in asb?
Allowing them to use the Micro jump drive could work also. Or use target breaker without losing own lock. The "more enemies shooting you the more effective it is" thing totally fits. Really this is a big opportunity for ccp to do something a bit different.
More boring bonuses are the obvious ab speed like assault frigs were going to have back in the good old days. Or an overloading bonus so they can go trully all in (steps on t3s toes too much in my view).
Wow. These ships are not brawlers. When you brawl you either go money, (super pimped insert-->T3, Hyperion, Vindi, Navy Mega, Maelstrom, links, pills, etc...) or you go cheap (insert-->Brutix, Vexor, Thorax, Maller, Prophecy, lol links, lol pills, etc.. ) you get the point. This is EVE 2013. Gangs are now considered <50, everyone is baiting, 9 outta 10 you wont be able to disengage. If this is your playstyle your a fool to use HACS. Not the tankiest, not the cheapest. Just because FLEETS use AHACS to great effect doesn't mean they are good. stop it. SPEED.
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 03:59:00 -
[44] - Quote
Chessur wrote:A HAC is not a brawling ship. A cruiser is playing to non of its strengths when it is webbed, scrammed, heavy neuted. It doesn't have the raw EHP / DPS to live in those kind of environments. Cruiser hulls are meant to be fast, have disengage ability, and have a tank that is based around range control. In order to do that cruisers need speed, and some kind of sig tank. Cruisers are kiters at their core. Brawling in a cruiser sized hull places you in line with BC's / Command ships / Battle ships. All of those ships have huge DPS or EHP advantages over HACs for the same cost (or in the case of BC's) a fraction of the cost.
The HAC needs to have a role bonus that will accentuate the advantages of a cruiser hull in regards to the kiting area. HAC's should not have a role bonus that some how tries to make their cruiser EHP / DPS and cap relevant for brawling. Trying to do that will be trying to force a cruiser hull into a role it was never intended to have.
Here are some role examples if HAC's were to be made into kiters / ranged fighters
Projection bonuses: Allow the Vaga to actually do damage with Medium AC's. I want to drill this point home, because post TE nerf 10% falloff bonus is just not enough with these guns anymore. The projection bonues needs to give HAC's the ability to apply good DPS (Read superior to T1 cruisers / Navy) At 35K+++ With Medium 'short ranged' guns. Blasters on the deimos hull would have to be looked at in this regard. But perhaps something can be done with rails + Deimos hull. Flat speed boost MWD / AB speed boost MWD cap use bonus MWD Signature reduction bonus (would need to be far more than 50%)
The HAC's could easily make their own role for themselves if they are the final word in a kiting platform. Tier 3 BCs once had this position. However post T1 cruiser / navy cruiser buff- Tier 3 BC's are just so slow. They are unable to pull distance and control range against cruisers. Their inability to do so, severely limites their kiting ability in solo / small gang situations. This is where a specialzed ship could shine. A HAC could be a medium gun based, cruiser platform that specializes in speed, and projection. Allow the HAC to be comfortable flying in and around 35/40K From an enemy fleet, because currently the T1 cruisers / Navy cruisers can only do this job so/so.
Agreed. Lets use a Thorax as an example (a Stabber being extreme though relevant for the Vaga). With no implants, no low slot speed mods, no links, and with MWD it will go, MWD 2000ish / OH 2900ish. So have the Deimos go say...2400ish / OH 3300ish. I mean come'on CCP this is hardly pre nano nerf numbers. **** links scrap them. Even though I know that won't happen they are just power creep. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 10:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Christopher Multsanti wrote:Chessur wrote:A HAC is not a brawling ship. A cruiser is playing to non of its strengths when it is webbed, scrammed, heavy neuted. It doesn't have the raw EHP / DPS to live in those kind of environments. Cruiser hulls are meant to be fast, have disengage ability, and have a tank that is based around range control. In order to do that cruisers need speed, and some kind of sig tank. Cruisers are kiters at their core. Brawling in a cruiser sized hull places you in line with BC's / Command ships / Battle ships. All of those ships have huge DPS or EHP advantages over HACs for the same cost (or in the case of BC's) a fraction of the cost.
The HAC needs to have a role bonus that will accentuate the advantages of a cruiser hull in regards to the kiting area. HAC's should not have a role bonus that some how tries to make their cruiser EHP / DPS and cap relevant for brawling. Trying to do that will be trying to force a cruiser hull into a role it was never intended to have.
Here are some role examples if HAC's were to be made into kiters / ranged fighters
Projection bonuses: Allow the Vaga to actually do damage with Medium AC's. I want to drill this point home, because post TE nerf 10% falloff bonus is just not enough with these guns anymore. The projection bonues needs to give HAC's the ability to apply good DPS (Read superior to T1 cruisers / Navy) At 35K+++ With Medium 'short ranged' guns. Blasters on the deimos hull would have to be looked at in this regard. But perhaps something can be done with rails + Deimos hull. Flat speed boost MWD / AB speed boost MWD cap use bonus MWD Signature reduction bonus (would need to be far more than 50%)
The HAC's could easily make their own role for themselves if they are the final word in a kiting platform. Tier 3 BCs once had this position. However post T1 cruiser / navy cruiser buff- Tier 3 BC's are just so slow. They are unable to pull distance and control range against cruisers. Their inability to do so, severely limites their kiting ability in solo / small gang situations. This is where a specialzed ship could shine. A HAC could be a medium gun based, cruiser platform that specializes in speed, and projection. Allow the HAC to be comfortable flying in and around 35/40K From an enemy fleet, because currently the T1 cruisers / Navy cruisers can only do this job so/so.
You are very much incorrect in every way. And forcing all HACS to be kiters is just insane. and forcing them all to be snipers and brawlers is insane and a waste of a class .. kiting is the only purpose left for tis class of ship
And yet kiting was the last time these ships were used to great effect in small gang. This seems to be an inconvenient truth for many of you. Probably players that came after they no longer being used. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 11:52:00 -
[46] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:JerseyBOI 2 wrote:Harvey James wrote:Christopher Multsanti wrote:Chessur wrote:A HAC is not a brawling ship. A cruiser is playing to non of its strengths when it is webbed, scrammed, heavy neuted. It doesn't have the raw EHP / DPS to live in those kind of environments. Cruiser hulls are meant to be fast, have disengage ability, and have a tank that is based around range control. In order to do that cruisers need speed, and some kind of sig tank. Cruisers are kiters at their core. Brawling in a cruiser sized hull places you in line with BC's / Command ships / Battle ships. All of those ships have huge DPS or EHP advantages over HACs for the same cost (or in the case of BC's) a fraction of the cost.
The HAC needs to have a role bonus that will accentuate the advantages of a cruiser hull in regards to the kiting area. HAC's should not have a role bonus that some how tries to make their cruiser EHP / DPS and cap relevant for brawling. Trying to do that will be trying to force a cruiser hull into a role it was never intended to have.
Here are some role examples if HAC's were to be made into kiters / ranged fighters
Projection bonuses: Allow the Vaga to actually do damage with Medium AC's. I want to drill this point home, because post TE nerf 10% falloff bonus is just not enough with these guns anymore. The projection bonues needs to give HAC's the ability to apply good DPS (Read superior to T1 cruisers / Navy) At 35K+++ With Medium 'short ranged' guns. Blasters on the deimos hull would have to be looked at in this regard. But perhaps something can be done with rails + Deimos hull. Flat speed boost MWD / AB speed boost MWD cap use bonus MWD Signature reduction bonus (would need to be far more than 50%)
The HAC's could easily make their own role for themselves if they are the final word in a kiting platform. Tier 3 BCs once had this position. However post T1 cruiser / navy cruiser buff- Tier 3 BC's are just so slow. They are unable to pull distance and control range against cruisers. Their inability to do so, severely limites their kiting ability in solo / small gang situations. This is where a specialzed ship could shine. A HAC could be a medium gun based, cruiser platform that specializes in speed, and projection. Allow the HAC to be comfortable flying in and around 35/40K From an enemy fleet, because currently the T1 cruisers / Navy cruisers can only do this job so/so.
You are very much incorrect in every way. And forcing all HACS to be kiters is just insane. and forcing them all to be snipers and brawlers is insane and a waste of a class .. kiting is the only purpose left for tis class of ship And yet kiting was the last time these ships were used to great effect in small gang. This seems to be an inconvenient truth for many of you. Probably players that came after they no longer being used. That might have been their last usage but it certainly wasn't there first usage. HACS originally were all Solo capable brawlers before anyone have ever heard of nano. The vaga was the first and only real kiter when HACS where released. I stated this somewhere else but i'll say it again. Yes game mechanics and fleet engagements have changed massively but that doesn't mean we shoudn't have any brawler hacs.
There should be both kiters and brawlers. Thing with the brawlers is they need the MOST modification (the whole way many cheaper options, not being able to disengage thing).
maybe a fix to armor repping would go along with powerfulnew rep bonuses on the brawlers(was already mentioned in this thread just rehashing).
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 14:14:00 -
[47] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:The problem with making them brawlers is that they are expensive ships too lose and they will never be better brawlers than T1 bc's so whats the point?
Navy bc's are twice as good as HAC's could ever be at brawling so unless they make HAC's as cheap as navy cruisers then kiting is all there good for and would be the only reason i would consider buying one other wise i would buy a navy brutix for brawling or CS .. for kiting i can still use my cynabal unless they make the Vaga better or cerberus if they bump its dps and lose the ridiculous flight time bonus for some much needed tracking.
Agreed. Before the re-balance most people skipped the cruisers went straight to BC's. Same weapons, moar DPS, moar tank, and not much more speed. So they gave them lots more speed. Wallah, they do something significantly better than BC's. Granted they don't project enough (most don't) to go along with that speed but they have their use as a speedy hard tackler (haven't been active I could be wrong on this).
So for HACS (at least for 1 of 2 for each race), I don't see the problem with taking it a step further with T1 cruiser speed (I would prefer more but meh) AND the projection. Seeing as how much they cost I think that's reasonable. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 18:08:00 -
[48] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:...btw a MJD on anything than a BS would comepletely ruin their purpose on BS
so HELL NO MJD on anything than bs PLZ! You are right (sort of) .. but .. MJD's on BS allows them to operate without the need of support in any significant numbers, bubbly tackle and a MJD blob is all you need, there is nothing to really threaten them. By the by, I notice you are not condemning the advocates of creating kiters that are able to cover the 100km distance in roughly the same time as MJD's by brute force speed .. an attribute that has a significantly bigger (negative) impact on Eve (ie. not just MJD blobs). Personally loathe the idea of a single class/role bonus, always has and always will, but variety must demand too much from CCP as they seem to be smitten with the concept. Would much rather have racially distinct bonuses with role bonuses within the classes and to discard the idea that what works for one class must work for all other classes that share one or two attributes (ex. AF MWD sig bonus on HACs is pretty much useless).
"brute force speed .. an attribute that has a significantly bigger (negative) impact on Eve" lol yeah and cheap agile BC's that can snipe the **** out of you from 100 clicks off has been good.
The CSM loved t3' BC's because their fleet potential so I'm sure their recommendations on HACS will be win. |
|
|
|