Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 60 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1621
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
YAYYYY
Alright so for HACs (Heavy Assault Cruisers) we had a few goals:
Increase viability for the worst ships (Eagle, Cerberus, Sacrilege especially) Support rather than disrupt current uses (AHACs) Make room for new uses when possible 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.
We feel this is a really nice fit because it doesn't boost afterburner variations that are already very strong, but it does add to resilience for most other uses.
On top of that, many of the ships have gotten significant changes to slot layout or bonus - enjoy!
Small note: All the weird tiny stat tweaks are just to make the numbers more even (originally a lot of arbitrary randomness was added for the sake of "realism" and we are just cleaning some of that up, which we've done for all the recent rebalances.
=============================================================================
SACRILEGE - Highlights here would be the increased drone bay, increased PG, and the addition of HML to the Cruiser damage bonus. Hopefully the result is a ship that can more comfortably fulfill its heavy tackle/utility HAC role without sacrificing quite as much as it used to when compared to combat BCs or other HACs. We concede that the cap recharge bonus is a bit strange, but feel the ship actually doesn't need another standard bonus like damage application or range to make it work.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (added heavy missiles) 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+120), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2100(+12) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount) : 1650(+25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 200(+2) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 15 Radar Signature radius: 140
ZEALOT - Zealot is arguably the most functional currently of the entire group and so it gets the least change.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H, 3M, 7L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1180 PWG, 320 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 980(-4) / 2250 / 1670(-18) Capacitor (amount) : 1500 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+1) / .553 / 12580000 / 9.64s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 306 / 6 Sensor strength: 14 Radar(+1) Signature radius: 125
=============================================================================
CERBERUS - Biggest change here is adding a 6th launcher. Also gets a huge maxVelocity boost so that it can actually kite some to take advantage of the great missile range.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile flight time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 4L; 0 turrets, 6 launchers(+1) Fittings: 720 PWG(+85), 500 CPU(+60) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2000(-4) / 1200(+4) / 1400(-6) Capacitor (amount) : 1100(+37.5) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 205(+30) / .463 / 12720000 / 8.17s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+15) / 15(+15) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km / 282 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Gravimetric(+1) Signature radius: 135
EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 150
=============================================================================
DEIMOS - Like the Thorax, Deimos now has 4 mids and gives up the extra high. It also goes faster and aligns faster.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 1030 PWG(+40), 350 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount) : 1400(+25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 220(+12) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 15 Magnetometric Signature radius: 160
ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gall... |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1270
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
First Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
8911
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Nom nom nom!
|
|
Morrow Disca
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
81
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
FRont page on what will be an interesting thread https://twitter.com/SniggWaffe https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=237822 |
Tremer Latan
Airkio Mining Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
ONce again: Great Work. I look foward for more HACs in my Hangar. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1270
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thoughts on the Ishkur, it would be better to swap the drone bay bonus and the tracking and optimal bonus around. Also ditch the drone control range bonus for a MWD velocity increase. Also I hope it is a typo but did you intentionally kill the 10% drone damage per level? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Nalha Saldana
Syneptics Inc.
731
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
You forgot the "and Damage" on Ishtar drone bonus or are you removing it? |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
620
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Sacrilege changes are not enough, it is still bad. do something else with it or it will now have replaced the eagle as the worst hac
rest are decent changes though OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Zer Res
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
No damage on the ishtar?? |
Evanga
Way So Mad Space Immigration
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:24:00 -
[10] - Quote
/me faints
just awesome |
|
Dvla
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
So all t1 cruiser versions of these ships are now just as fast if not faster than their equivalent HAC? I kinda thought... you know.. that HACs were supposed to be fast but I guess i was wrong. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1625
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
Zer Res wrote:No damage on the ishtar??
Hah, sorry, fixed =) |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:26:00 -
[13] - Quote
these or therefore lack of will have virtually no impact on there usage.
I was expecting a more extreme buff perhaps more like the navy attack cruisers ... boy i was WRONG..... 15 slots only its T2 why not the +2 slots that the AF's get over T1 frigs .. where's the advantage over navy here? 50% is too low without reducing there sig radius especially on shield HACS For the 150-200mil price tag these come with making them compete with Navy bc's for tank is stupid.. competing with sniping ABC's is even worse idea.
Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Meltmind2
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
Them Eagle changes, I'm already getting flashbacks to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9B_0K6f-bc |
Zer Res
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Zer Res wrote:No damage on the ishtar?? Hah, sorry, fixed =) Cheers. Some great changes up there by the way; I look forward to the meta being re-jigged once again. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1270
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
825
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ishtar still has bonus to drone damage I hope? I saw you are fixing that. What I do wonder about... the drone range bonus now says it applies to scouts and heavies... only? Does the drone control range bonus no longer apply to sentry drones now?
Looks good. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Morwen Lagann
Tyrathlion Interstellar
747
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:30:00 -
[18] - Quote
Awesome.
Thanks for keeping the MWD capacitor penalty bonus on the Deimos, it was one of the cool/unique things about the Thorax pre-Tiericide - I was quite disappointed when it was removed!
As far as the cap recharge bonus on the Sac goes, it follows along from the Sac's smaller sibling, the Vengeance, so it seems appropriate to keep it. Helps out a little bit with active tank fits, even though most of those are going to have an injector on them anyway. Morwen Lagann Director, Tyrathlion Interstellar |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6715
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:30:00 -
[19] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:these or therefore lack of will have virtually no impact on there usage.
I was expecting a more extreme buff perhaps more like the navy attack cruisers ... boy i was WRONG..... 15 slots only its T2 why not the +2 slots that the AF's get over T1 frigs .. where's the advantage over navy here? 50% is too low without reducing there sig radius especially on shield HACS For the 150-200mil price tag these come with making them compete with Navy bc's for tank is stupid.. competing with sniping ABC's is even worse idea.
Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here
Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Ma Poubelle
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:31:00 -
[20] - Quote
SAc just needs MORE!!! |
|
StarFleetCommander
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
164
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
\o/
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
Finally much needed boost to the HACS.
Love the sacrilege changes really. They were the only ship unable to shoot at more then 40Km without loosiing a bonus. |
Escobar Slim III
YOLOSWAGHASHTAGDOLLARBILLZSWIMMINGPOOLICECREAMS
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:33:00 -
[23] - Quote
FIRST. |
David Kir
Tailender
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
HA F*** YOU, CYNABAL |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:35:00 -
[25] - Quote
I would work on 16 slots and reduce sig radius and add a more Attack like theme .. no point in competing with Bc's for tank also HICS come to mind for tanky brawling cruisers... and sniping against ABC's seems a waste.
Sacrilege Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 10% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (added heavy missiles) (+5%)
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 6(+1)L; 0 turrets(-4), 6 launchers Fittings: 1250 PWG(+220), 430 CPU(+60) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2100(+12) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount) : 1650(+25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+32) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 15 Radar Signature radius: 120(-20)
ZEALOT Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage (+5%)
Slot layout: 5H, 4M(+1), 7L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1180 PWG, 320 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-404) / 2250 / 1670(-18) Capacitor (amount) : 1500 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 220(+11) / .553 / 11580000(-1000000) / 9.64s (whatever minus 1mil mass does Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 306 / 6 Sensor strength: 14 Radar(+1) Signature radius: 115(-10) Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1631
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:36:00 -
[26] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Ishtar still has bonus to drone damage I hope? I saw you are fixing that. What I do wonder about... the drone range bonus now says it applies to scouts and heavies... only? Does the drone control range bonus no longer apply to sentry drones now?
Looks good.
Fixed this too
|
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
825
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:42:00 -
[27] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I would work on 16 slots and reduce sig radius and add a more Attack like theme .. no point in competing with Bc's for tank also HICS come to mind for tanky brawling cruisers... and sniping against ABC's seems a waste.
Sacrilege Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 10% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (added heavy missiles) (+5%) 6(+1) Lowslot Fittings: 1250 PWG(+220), 430 CPU(+60) Signature radius: 120(-20)
ZEALOT Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage (+5%)
4 Midslots(+1) -1 million mass because that seems good Signature radius: 115(-10) You are truly a genius at balancing. I'm so glad you have everyone's best interests at heart and not only a small subset of players like yourself. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
825
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:42:00 -
[28] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Iam Widdershins wrote:Ishtar still has bonus to drone damage I hope? I saw you are fixing that. What I do wonder about... the drone range bonus now says it applies to scouts and heavies... only? Does the drone control range bonus no longer apply to sentry drones now?
Looks good.
Fixed this too Oh good!
200km bouncer ishtar inc Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:43:00 -
[29] - Quote
CERBERUS - Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% missile explosion velocity 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 5L(+1); 0 turrets, 6 launchers(+1) Fittings: 720 PWG(+85), 500 CPU(+60) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2000(-4) / 1200(+4) / 1400(-6) Capacitor (amount) : 1100(+37.5) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 220(+45) / .463 / 11720000 (-1000000)/ 8.17s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+15) / 15(+15) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km / 282 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Gravimetric(+1) Signature radius: 115(-15)
EAGLE Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 5L(+1); 5 turrets, 0 launchers(-2) Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+51) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 125 (-25)
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
BiggestT
Serenity. CORP. Diggers Inc.
62
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:44:00 -
[30] - Quote
ALL HAIL
The Eagle is gonna be sweeet |
|
Zane Ziebold
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:44:00 -
[31] - Quote
for some parts and for other parts |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released Verge of Collapse
2253
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:46:00 -
[32] - Quote
This is probably weird of me to say, but I'll be in my bunk....... Allow me to be frank. You will not like me. You will not like me now, and you will not like men++ a good deal less as we go on. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
240
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:47:00 -
[33] - Quote
The Isthar changes are a little lackluster, especially when compared to the VNI. There is nothing heavy nor assaulting about it.
Let's start with the bonuses, which is it basically a mini-domi with some added range. It also kept that lame 50m3 drone bay per level. Since this is a T2 ship and it is suppose to specialize over T1 and Faction, how about dropping the 50m3 bonus and swapping it for a "5% bonus to drone velocity and tracking". This would allow it to fully specialize in both short range and long range drone combat.
Every other race has one HAC that has a tank bonus. Thank you for not giving the Isthar an active tank bonus (I know I've been trolling you, but please don't troll me back on this one by adding it ;-) .Speaking of tank, how about moving that fifth med slot from the Ishtar to a low slot?
For the Deimos, can you roll some of that that MWD bonus up into the ship by increasing the recharge and replace it with something else. It is another archaic bonus that looks out of place. Compare the bonuses to the Muninn: double damage bonus (dmg+rof), optimal range bonus, and tracking bonus. Deimos: double damage bonus, fall-off bonus, MWD bonus. Can you replace the MWD bonus with the tracking bonus that is found on the Thorax? |
Capqu
Love Squad
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:47:00 -
[34] - Quote
hi, why do some of these t2 ships not have the same base hull bonus as their t1 counterparts?
please fix rise 3/10 see me after class http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:50:00 -
[35] - Quote
DEIMOS - Like the Thorax, Deimos now has 4 mids and gives up the extra high. It also goes faster and aligns faster.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H 4M(+1), 6L; 6 turrets, 0 launchers (-2) Fittings: 1030 PWG(+40), 350 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount) : 1400(+25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 240(+32) / .475(-.055) / 10460000 ( -1mil)/ 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 15 Magnetometric Signature radius: 125 (-35)
ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
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
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Scout and Heavy Drone operation range per level 5% drone velocity
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 6L(+1); 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 315 CPU ( +35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 205(-26) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375 (+250) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 135 (-10)
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
David Kir
Tailender
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:52:00 -
[36] - Quote
Capqu wrote:hi, why do some of these t2 ships not have the same base hull bonus as their t1 counterparts?
please fix rise 3/10 see me after class
Because they are not straight up improvements of T1 hulls. They are specialized ships. 0,0029834/10, read up some stuff. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:53:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:these or therefore lack of will have virtually no impact on there usage.
I was expecting a more extreme buff perhaps more like the navy attack cruisers ... boy i was WRONG..... 15 slots only its T2 why not the +2 slots that the AF's get over T1 frigs .. where's the advantage over navy here? 50% is too low without reducing there sig radius especially on shield HACS For the 150-200mil price tag these come with making them compete with Navy bc's for tank is stupid.. competing with sniping ABC's is even worse idea.
Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised.
Well the thought was you would actually make them worth flying over say navy cruisers or ABC's on this evidence ...not really the case .. i at least expected you to give them comparable mobility buff like all cruisers have gotten Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1323
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:55:00 -
[38] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU The vexor is gun bonused and sort of expected to use them, the ishtar is not. You can fit a 1600mm plate based tank and "basically anything you want" to the vexor already if you don't make much use of the highs, or you can fill your highs with utility modules at the cost of a lighter tank and tighter fitting. It's a fair trade off. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Capqu
Love Squad
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:56:00 -
[39] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Capqu wrote:hi, why do some of these t2 ships not have the same base hull bonus as their t1 counterparts?
please fix rise 3/10 see me after class Because they are not straight up improvements of T1 hulls. They are specialized ships. 0,0029834/10, read up some stuff.
if you look at how t2s all started this isn't true, they all (except stealth bombers i think - but they fixed that when they gave them a unique model) had exactly the same bonuses as t1 but with an added t2 bonus and maybe a role bonus because they were improved/specialized versions of the t1 ships, hence why they show up in variations of that t1 http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Kansas Winndu
DMoney Corp
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:57:00 -
[40] - Quote
I'm wondering if the Ishtar gonna op. Image a hac with web/scramb, battleship dps, short range gun tracking, long range gun optimal and neuts on high, It can solo or kill off most other ships with little effort. |
|
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
156
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:57:00 -
[41] - Quote
RISE!!! I just read the Medium long range guns thread and was soo happy.
Then this!! This. . . IS Awesome!!!
It's like a WINsplosion on the features and ideas. Too much WIN. I love all the ideas! I like all the ships! |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
495
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:58:00 -
[42] - Quote
Interesting changes, but imo even if this change is logical, the ishtar will be too OP now with another drone bonus. G££ <= Me |
Woo Glin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
542
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:59:00 -
[43] - Quote
These are some interesting changes. The only problem I see is that the loss of utility highs on several of the ships pretty much negates their use in cloaking gangs. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1270
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:59:00 -
[44] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:The Isthar changes are a little lackluster, especially when compared to the VNI. There is nothing heavy nor assaulting about it.
I have to agree. CCP Fozzie's Navy Vexor > CCP Rise Ishkur
We got an extra turret hard point but no extra fitting, a MWD bonus but then 2 bonuses to ranged combat. Did you run out of ideas for this ship?
How about this: Gallente Cruiser 10% Drone damage and HP per level + 50m^3 Drone Bay per level (if you insist on keeping this bonus it should be here) Heavy Assault Ships +10% Drone Tracking and Optimal Range per level +5% Drone MWD velocity per level Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6716
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:00:00 -
[45] - Quote
Capqu wrote:David Kir wrote:Capqu wrote:hi, why do some of these t2 ships not have the same base hull bonus as their t1 counterparts?
please fix rise 3/10 see me after class Because they are not straight up improvements of T1 hulls. They are specialized ships. 0,0029834/10, read up some stuff. if you look at how t2s all started this isn't true, they all (except stealth bombers i think - but they fixed that when they gave them a unique model) had exactly the same bonuses as t1 but with an added t2 bonus and maybe a role bonus because they were improved/specialized versions of the t1 ships, hence why they show up in variations of that t1
Forcing the T2 base hull bonuses to be the same as the T1 hulls has never been a hard rule, and it is not something we're going to start enforcing now. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
BadAssMcKill
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
303
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:00:00 -
[46] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:these or therefore lack of will have virtually no impact on there usage.
I was expecting a more extreme buff perhaps more like the navy attack cruisers ... boy i was WRONG..... 15 slots only its T2 why not the +2 slots that the AF's get over T1 frigs .. where's the advantage over navy here? 50% is too low without reducing there sig radius especially on shield HACS For the 150-200mil price tag these come with making them compete with Navy bc's for tank is stupid.. competing with sniping ABC's is even worse idea.
Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised.
Yeah but when they still feel underwhelming compared to T1/Faction that's a problem no?
http://i.imgur.com/6j6cIZE.gif-á |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6716
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:02:00 -
[47] - Quote
BadAssMcKill wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:these or therefore lack of will have virtually no impact on there usage.
I was expecting a more extreme buff perhaps more like the navy attack cruisers ... boy i was WRONG..... 15 slots only its T2 why not the +2 slots that the AF's get over T1 frigs .. where's the advantage over navy here? 50% is too low without reducing there sig radius especially on shield HACS For the 150-200mil price tag these come with making them compete with Navy bc's for tank is stupid.. competing with sniping ABC's is even worse idea.
Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised. Yeah but when they still feel underwhelming compared to T1/Faction that's a problem no?
We can't control how you feel, we can only control how powerful the ships are, and they're quite powerful. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
David Kir
Tailender
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:02:00 -
[48] - Quote
Capqu wrote:David Kir wrote:Capqu wrote:hi, why do some of these t2 ships not have the same base hull bonus as their t1 counterparts?
please fix rise 3/10 see me after class Because they are not straight up improvements of T1 hulls. They are specialized ships. 0,0029834/10, read up some stuff. if you look at how t2s all started this isn't true, they all (except stealth bombers i think - but they fixed that when they gave them a unique model) had exactly the same bonuses as t1 but with an added t2 bonus and maybe a role bonus because they were improved/specialized versions of the t1 ships, hence why they show up in variations of that t1
Ok, I'll put it this way. The Sacrilege used to be a short ranged laser boat. Zealot was a sniper. You know what happened? People slapped pulses on the Zealot, and rolled with it. That's why the Sac is now a missile boat. Would you prefer the two ships stepping on each other's toes? What do you want? Two identical armor/laser ships?
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1270
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:02:00 -
[49] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU The vexor is gun bonused and sort of expected to use them, the ishtar is not. You can fit a 1600mm plate based tank and "basically anything you want" to the vexor already if you don't make much use of the highs, or you can fill your highs with utility modules at the cost of a lighter tank and tighter fitting. It's a fair trade off. And what is the reason the navy vexor has the same power grid and +10 CPU over the vexor yet only has 2 unbonused turrets, where as the Ishtar got an extra turret. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:03:00 -
[50] - Quote
CCP Rise have you tried to fix the cerberus? seriously does it need to spew missiles out too 200km ?
look at the caracal that is the model you need to look at here and also the corax these have nice combos.... missile explosion velocity is perfect for a kitey missile ship
Also more speed on these things please Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:05:00 -
[51] - Quote
Also a vaga shield tanking with 4 mids still..... i was expecting another mid here also more cpu might help with cpu hungry ASB's Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
620
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:05:00 -
[52] - Quote
with the sac. how about removing the utility high and adding a low slot.
OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Max Ventrue
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:06:00 -
[53] - Quote
If you want to have the Sac maintain its role as heavy tackle, why not drop the cap recharge bonus for a 5 or 10% web bonus to either range or velocity?
All in all +1 for the changes. |
David Kir
Tailender
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:07:00 -
[54] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise have you tried to fix the cerberus? seriously does it need to spew missiles out too 200km ?
look at the caracal that is the model you need to look at here and also the corax these have nice combos.... missile explosion velocity is perfect for a kitey missile ship
Also more speed on these things please
Speed belongs to the Minmatar rustbins. Want speed? Then the Minmatar should get an appropriate chunk of it. |
Capqu
Love Squad
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:08:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Capqu wrote:David Kir wrote:Capqu wrote:hi, why do some of these t2 ships not have the same base hull bonus as their t1 counterparts?
please fix rise 3/10 see me after class Because they are not straight up improvements of T1 hulls. They are specialized ships. 0,0029834/10, read up some stuff. if you look at how t2s all started this isn't true, they all (except stealth bombers i think - but they fixed that when they gave them a unique model) had exactly the same bonuses as t1 but with an added t2 bonus and maybe a role bonus because they were improved/specialized versions of the t1 ships, hence why they show up in variations of that t1 Forcing the T2 base hull bonuses to be the same as the T1 hulls has never been a hard rule, and it is not something we're going to start enforcing now.
yuck, muh lore
you better give inties some goddamn lockrange to make up for this http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:09:00 -
[56] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise have you tried to fix the cerberus? seriously does it need to spew missiles out too 200km ?
look at the caracal that is the model you need to look at here and also the corax these have nice combos.... missile explosion velocity is perfect for a kitey missile ship
Also more speed on these things please Speed belongs to the Minmatar rustbins. Want speed? Then the Minmatar should get an appropriate chunk of it.
They all need more speed the eagle at 175m/s is shockingy slow ... what about people who would like to use a blaster setup instead of Rails? .. some light drones would help too Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:12:00 -
[57] - Quote
Also is the cost being considered here? any reduction on there cost?
you will certainly have too if you want people to use them over navy cruisers which just seem plain better at being cruisers... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
David Kir
Tailender
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:13:00 -
[58] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:David Kir wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise have you tried to fix the cerberus? seriously does it need to spew missiles out too 200km ?
look at the caracal that is the model you need to look at here and also the corax these have nice combos.... missile explosion velocity is perfect for a kitey missile ship
Also more speed on these things please Speed belongs to the Minmatar rustbins. Want speed? Then the Minmatar should get an appropriate chunk of it. They all need more speed the eagle at 175m/s is shockingy slow ... what about people who would like to use a blaster setup instead of Rails? .. some light drones would help too
It's kind of got an astonishing range bonus, which makes it golden with antimatter, so range control shouldn't be much of an issue.
I'd boost its agility, instead: its sniper role would benefit from fast warp in/warp out capacity. |
Tsubutai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
211
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:14:00 -
[59] - Quote
As written, the cerberus' flight time bonus only applies to heavy and heavy assault missiles but not lights fired from rapid light launchers - is this intentional? |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:15:00 -
[60] - Quote
Kinda weird to see 50 m^3 drone bay on a Sacrilege, when 25 m^3 should be enough by all senses, but I suppose the ship needed a buff (even though my senses say that giving it a bonus to explosion velocity would be more logical that giving it a unusually large drone bay for a non-Gallente ship).
Eagle still has a duplicate optimal range bonus. If 100% bonus to optimal range was so great more people would fly Rail Tengus I suppose. Therefore I would replace the range bonus from HAC skill with a bonus to tracking, damage or maybe even shield hitpoints.
Also, I don't think that falloff bonus on Hybrid boats is much useful, no matter if you use Blasters or Rails. So I would remove the falloff bonus from Deimos and replace it with a 7.5% bonus to either tracking or armour repair amount (or maybe even 10% optimal, which I would like to see on a Gallente boat for once).
And Ishtar, while being changed for the better, still has the same CPU :( |
|
Alsyth
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:16:00 -
[61] - Quote
- slower than most T1 cruisers still, which is a real problem - base hp so low that tank cannot rival faction cruisers except under heavy reps. - munnin still bad, why not get rid of these utility hi like the deimos, and have a truly versatile 5/4/6? that along the very small buff to arties compared to the others makes Munnin really poor. Only 3 med slots, really... Even the Deimos has 4!
- could really hurt the tier3 BC and that's a good thing - awesome job on the vaga, will be a great solo ship with ASB (OP even, imo) - nice for the deimos, ishtar - awesome for the eagle except it's still much too slow - awesome for rapid light missile launcher cerberus, but still no use for hml, and horrible to fit. One of the few with a decent speed. - sacrilege I don't understand. still meh (HML being so useless don't help), and the cap bonus, really? - Zealot will be nice, the damage buff will make it really powerful. But too slow. |
David Kir
Tailender
49
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:17:00 -
[62] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Kinda weird to see 50 m^3 drone bay on a Sacrilege, when 25 m^3 should be enough by all senses, but I suppose the ship needed a buff (even though my senses say that giving it a bonus to explosion velocity would be more logical that giving it a unusually large drone bay for a non-Gallente ship).
Eagle still has a duplicate optimal range bonus. If 100% bonus to optimal range was so great more people would fly Rail Tengus I suppose. Therefore I would replace the range bonus from HAC skill with a bonus to tracking, damage or maybe even shield hitpoints.
Also, I don't think that falloff bonus on Hybrid boats is much useful, no matter if you use Blasters or Rails. So I would remove the falloff bonus from Deimos and replace it with a 7.5% bonus to either tracking or armour repair amount (or maybe even 10% optimal, which I would like to see on a Gallente boat for once).
And Ishtar, while being changed for the better, still has the same CPU :(
Rail Tengus weren't flown because: a) Rails used to suck b) the Accelerated Ejection Bay is OP as hell. c) Rails used to suck |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:18:00 -
[63] - Quote
It looks to me like it will still be the same old goo too HACS ... Vaga for mobility and killing little things now with a strong tank ASB. Zealot and muninn for 0.0 AHAC gangs.... and ishtar for drone guys now even better than before.
Its a shame i was hoping caldari HACS would be worth bothering with.. :( sacrilege potential is still wasted on tanking obsession yet didn't get the extra low it needs Deimos will still be over-expensive and slow version of thorax which tracks better and is much quicker.. or ofc Talos which is plain better and won't be much speed difference it seems. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:18:00 -
[64] - Quote
... you're buffing the Vagabond?
What, were people not using them or something?
I like the Ishtar change and about half the Deimos change. I wish you'd replaced the MWD capacitor bonus with something useful though, maybe tracking? |
Kansas Winndu
DMoney Corp
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:19:00 -
[65] - Quote
Instead of buffing Ishtar as an op-dominix, I suggest to make some use of the heavy drones.
How about. 5% Bonus to drone MWD speed and tracking speed.
So it can be either a sentry sniper platform or a Heavy drone dps
wait I forget It's navy vexor's stat.... |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
896
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:20:00 -
[66] - Quote
And here was me thinking that i didn't use HACs because of their comparatively poor dps, tank and slot layout. It turns out what i really wanted was the sig radius of a battleship... A 25% bonus to AB speed would have been nice.
The medium long range gun buff will do a lot for HACs but I guess we'll see if this WMD bonus is actually an improvement when they hit the real server.
When can we expect to see these changes? Putting work in since 2010. |
Salpun
Aliastra Gallente Federation
600
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:20:00 -
[67] - Quote
When can we test these changes? |
David Kir
Tailender
49
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:21:00 -
[68] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:- slower than most T1 cruisers still, which is a real problem - base hp so low that tank cannot rival faction cruisers except under heavy reps. - munnin still bad, why not get rid of these utility hi like the deimos, and have a truly versatile 5/4/6? that along the very small buff to arties compared to the others makes Munnin really poor. Only 3 med slots, really... Even the Deimos has 4!
- could really hurt the tier3 BC and that's a good thing - awesome job on the vaga, will be a great solo ship with ASB (OP even, imo) - nice for the deimos, ishtar - awesome for the eagle except it's still much too slow - awesome for rapid light missile launcher cerberus, but still no use for hml, and horrible to fit. One of the few with a decent speed. - sacrilege I don't understand. still meh (HML being so useless don't help), and the cap bonus, really? - Zealot will be nice, the damage buff will make it really powerful. But too slow.
The Muninn's extra high is for a remote SeBo, which is what it needs. The new lowslot layout makes it sturdier.
All in all, its role as an alpha dealer is still intact, and its efficacy has been improved. BL will be quite happy about this. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1323
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:22:00 -
[69] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU The vexor is gun bonused and sort of expected to use them, the ishtar is not. You can fit a 1600mm plate based tank and "basically anything you want" to the vexor already if you don't make much use of the highs, or you can fill your highs with utility modules at the cost of a lighter tank and tighter fitting. It's a fair trade off. And what is the reason the navy vexor has the same power grid and +10 CPU over the vexor yet only has 2 unbonused turrets, where as the Ishtar got an extra turret. Okay, can't argue with you there. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
David Kir
Tailender
49
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:22:00 -
[70] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:... you're buffing the Vagabond?
What, were people not using them or something?
I like the Ishtar change and about half the Deimos change. I wish you'd replaced the MWD capacitor bonus with something useful though, maybe tracking?
Yep, people were not using them. Really. |
|
Jassmin Joy
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
160
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:29:00 -
[71] - Quote
Someone seems broken when Navy versions are going to outdo t2 versions. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
286
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:30:00 -
[72] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:... you're buffing the Vagabond?
What, were people not using them or something?
I like the Ishtar change and about half the Deimos change. I wish you'd replaced the MWD capacitor bonus with something useful though, maybe tracking? Yep, people were not using them. Really.
they were most likely using cynabals instead like me :) Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Andrea Griffin
590
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:32:00 -
[73] - Quote
I'd much rather give the assault cruiser line something unique to help them stand out - like EWar resistance. 10% per level reduction in the effectiveness of hostile EWar (TDs, Damps, Webs, etc.). This would give the HACs a useful and unique capability to help them stand out. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2392
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:33:00 -
[74] - Quote
So far you have my likes. Love the 50% MWD sig reduction.
I actually want to try the Diemost now as a rail boat. The Ishtar changes look beautiful for my sentry boat. Drone speed would've been nice for pvp. The Cerb might work for my Caldari alt now. Eagle I'll at least play with in EFT again. Might have to try an ASB vagabond. Zealot is really going to miss that 18 hull, but +1 sensor strength is a fair trade. :)
Sac and Muninn I've not flown, so no comments.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
896
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:35:00 -
[75] - Quote
It also seems very silly to not turn the sacrilege into a drone boat. The prophecy was turned into a drone boat meaning thAT Amarr players needed to skill up for drones, but then there is no higher level (e.g. HAC) drone boat for Amarr pilots. Putting work in since 2010. |
Corporal Cina
Offworld Miners and Fabricators Guild
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:39:00 -
[76] - Quote
Finally HAC love!
I like the Ishtar and Vaga. Many other good changes out there but it will take a while to see where the dust settles.
Eagerly await the Command Ship pass. (Eos as a real drone boat please!) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
275
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:43:00 -
[77] - Quote
According to that big list of what you guys would be tiericiding, I thought T2 and faction frigates would come before T2 cruisers.
I trained EAF 5. When will I be able to use it outside the AT? AFs, the nemesis, dictors, all interceptors and all pirate frigates could use some work too. |
Jureth22
the unified Negative Ten.
103
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:44:00 -
[78] - Quote
thanks for ruining the vagabond.also,eagle changes are mostly insignificant.back to drawing board |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
4104
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:46:00 -
[79] - Quote
Sac should get some sort of scram/disrutper/web range/strength bonus instead of the mostly useless cap bonus. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
David Kir
Tailender
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:47:00 -
[80] - Quote
Jureth22 wrote:thanks for ruining the vagabond.also,eagle changes are mostly insignificant.back to drawing board
Ruining the Vagabond?
I hope you're trolling: the contrary would mean you're stupid. |
|
Meatypopsicle
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:48:00 -
[81] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU The vexor is gun bonused and sort of expected to use them, the ishtar is not. You can fit a 1600mm plate based tank and "basically anything you want" to the vexor already if you don't make much use of the highs, or you can fill your highs with utility modules at the cost of a lighter tank and tighter fitting. It's a fair trade off. And what is the reason the navy vexor has the same power grid and +10 CPU over the vexor yet only has 2 unbonused turrets, where as the Ishtar got an extra turret. Okay, can't argue with you there.
The drone mods (link aug and omnidir) take a lot of CPU so even if the PG is unchanged it needs more CPU.
on a different point it's kinda dumb that something like a Gila has more drone bay. Add another 50 to the base drone bay and keep the +50 per level.
Finally, I'm sad that going short range with blasters has been nerfed...
|
Jureth22
the unified Negative Ten.
103
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:50:00 -
[82] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Zer Res wrote:No damage on the ishtar?? Hah, sorry, fixed =)
what about ishtar getting another low slot for the one lost?also vaga getting another mid? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
287
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:51:00 -
[83] - Quote
if you're not willing to go to 16 slots then at least increase bonuses like you did on bc's and then take from the highs to feed the lows or mids
Also is it just me or do all these seem to be designed either for brawling or sniping? Also eagle's bonuses contradict it in every way Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
darius mclever
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:51:00 -
[84] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise have you tried to fix the cerberus? seriously does it need to spew missiles out too 200km ?
look at the caracal that is the model you need to look at here and also the corax these have nice combos.... missile explosion velocity is perfect for a kitey missile ship
Also more speed on these things please
The cerb used to have 250k range, which was especially nice to annoy falcons to death. IMHO it needs the range.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
275
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:51:00 -
[85] - Quote
If sig bonuses don't help AFs and inties survive being on grid with tier 3 BCs for more than 10s, I don't see how it will help HACs out much more. Sig bonus really seems kind of a deimos/sacrilege kind of bonus, not the kind of thing you want on an eagle or cerberus chilling at long range. |
MyrddinBishop
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:53:00 -
[86] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU The vexor is gun bonused and sort of expected to use them, the ishtar is not. You can fit a 1600mm plate based tank and "basically anything you want" to the vexor already if you don't make much use of the highs, or you can fill your highs with utility modules at the cost of a lighter tank and tighter fitting. It's a fair trade off. And what is the reason the navy vexor has the same power grid and +10 CPU over the vexor yet only has 2 unbonused turrets, where as the Ishtar got an extra turret. Okay, can't argue with you there. I really think that the Ishtar needs some sort of buff to fitting. I fully expected it to get some sort of love in this regard with this balance pass and am disappointed that it has not. I think that the comparison to the Faction Cruiser equivalent is a fair one to make. The Vexor Navy Issue(VNI) and the Ishtar have very similar bonuses to drones. However, it is a toss up and maybe even more of a nod toward using the VNI just because of fitting. I don't believe this should be the case. I feel that the nod towards preference should not be towards the Faction Cruiser but toward the HAC. I think this could be done simply by expanding the fitting to be more in line with the VNI.
VNI Fittings: 800 PWG, 310 CPU
Ishtar Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU
Just under 10% more CPU and well over 10% more PWG is pretty signigicant and I would like to see this addressed or at the very least I hope to hear the reasoning behind making the Ishtar or even some of the other HACs either very similar in power or even having the Faction Cruisers be slightly better than there equivilant HAC. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
287
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:53:00 -
[87] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:If sig bonuses don't help AFs and inties survive being on grid with tier 3 BCs for more than 10s, I don't see how it will help HACs out much more. Sig bonus really seems kind of a deimos/sacrilege kind of bonus, not the kind of thing you want on an eagle or cerberus chilling at long range.
well at the moment 50% won't do much good to the shield ships with there high sig radius they have and low speed Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Adwokat Diabla
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:53:00 -
[88] - Quote
cerb could really use a rapid bonus along with the ham/hml bonus seens how hml's are pretty ******* worthless atm |
David Kir
Tailender
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:54:00 -
[89] - Quote
Jureth22 wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Zer Res wrote:No damage on the ishtar?? Hah, sorry, fixed =) what about ishtar getting another low slot for the one lost?also vaga getting another mid? 5 mids on the Vaga would make it OP: same tank as a Sleipnir, more speed and a smaller sig. I love the new Vagabond, please leave it alone or they'll nerf it. |
Adwokat Diabla
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:55:00 -
[90] - Quote
MyrddinBishop wrote:mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU The vexor is gun bonused and sort of expected to use them, the ishtar is not. You can fit a 1600mm plate based tank and "basically anything you want" to the vexor already if you don't make much use of the highs, or you can fill your highs with utility modules at the cost of a lighter tank and tighter fitting. It's a fair trade off. And what is the reason the navy vexor has the same power grid and +10 CPU over the vexor yet only has 2 unbonused turrets, where as the Ishtar got an extra turret. Okay, can't argue with you there. I really think that the Ishtar needs some sort of buff to fitting. I fully expected it to get some sort of love in this regard with this balance pass and am disappointed that it has not. I think that the comparison to the Faction Cruiser equivalent is a fair one to make. The Vexor Navy Issue(VNI) and the Ishtar have very similar bonuses to drones. However, it is a toss up and maybe even more of a nod toward using the VNI just because of fitting. I don't believe this should be the case. I feel that the nod towards preference should not be towards the Faction Cruiser but toward the HAC. I think this could be done simply by expanding the fitting to be more in line with the VNI. VNI Fittings: 800 PWG, 310 CPU Ishtar Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Just under 10% more CPU and well over 10% more PWG is pretty signigicant and I would like to see this addressed or at the very least I hope to hear the reasoning behind making the Ishtar or even some of the other HACs either very similar in power or even having the Faction Cruisers be slightly better than there equivilant HAC.
honestly, the better comparison to make is gila vs ishtar, and the gila literally does everything x10 times better fitting wise then the ishtar |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
287
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:56:00 -
[91] - Quote
MyrddinBishop wrote:mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU The vexor is gun bonused and sort of expected to use them, the ishtar is not. You can fit a 1600mm plate based tank and "basically anything you want" to the vexor already if you don't make much use of the highs, or you can fill your highs with utility modules at the cost of a lighter tank and tighter fitting. It's a fair trade off. And what is the reason the navy vexor has the same power grid and +10 CPU over the vexor yet only has 2 unbonused turrets, where as the Ishtar got an extra turret. Okay, can't argue with you there. I really think that the Ishtar needs some sort of buff to fitting. I fully expected it to get some sort of love in this regard with this balance pass and am disappointed that it has not. I think that the comparison to the Faction Cruiser equivalent is a fair one to make. The Vexor Navy Issue(VNI) and the Ishtar have very similar bonuses to drones. However, it is a toss up and maybe even more of a nod toward using the VNI just because of fitting. I don't believe this should be the case. I feel that the nod towards preference should not be towards the Faction Cruiser but toward the HAC. I think this could be done simply by expanding the fitting to be more in line with the VNI. VNI Fittings: 800 PWG, 310 CPU Ishtar Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Just under 10% more CPU and well over 10% more PWG is pretty signigicant and I would like to see this addressed or at the very least I hope to hear the reasoning behind making the Ishtar or even some of the other HACs either very similar in power or even having the Faction Cruisers be slightly better than there equivilant HAC.
This whole balance pass looks much like the battleship pass... a rush job....:((((( unlike the Navy cruisers which seem to have a lot more thought put into them. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
darius mclever
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:58:00 -
[92] - Quote
Two step wrote:Sac should get some sort of scram/disrutper/web range/strength bonus instead of the mostly useless cap bonus.
that cap bonus is actually pretty nice for its tanking role. especially when active tanked for small/solo work. add the cap battery changes from a few patches ago. planned nos changes will also help. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
686
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:03:00 -
[93] - Quote
>> Give the Cerb a rapid light missile bonus aswell. << |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
287
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:05:00 -
[94] - Quote
darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise have you tried to fix the cerberus? seriously does it need to spew missiles out too 200km ?
look at the caracal that is the model you need to look at here and also the corax these have nice combos.... missile explosion velocity is perfect for a kitey missile ship
Also more speed on these things please The cerb used to have 250k range, which was especially nice to annoy falcons to death. IMHO it needs the range.
well if we had the TD missile change (when are we getting that btw CCP?) it would be fine without it. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
darius mclever
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:08:00 -
[95] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:darius mclever wrote:The cerb used to have 250k range, which was especially nice to annoy falcons to death. IMHO it needs the range. well if we had the TD missile change (when are we getting that btw CCP?) it would be fine without it.
How would a module that lowers the effective range of the cerberus, help the cerberus? |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
159
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:09:00 -
[96] - Quote
First impressions, I like the changes, I particularly like the change to the Ishtar, not sure on giving the Sac more drones though, remember you can't balance everything with drone bay. I'd still like to see more capacitor across the board for all ships and the cap bonus on the Deimos changed out for something else.
Ishtar needs CPU, it's kind of ridiculous how short on CPU it is. I have no idea why it gets so little.
ALL HACS need better lock range. The **** poor lock range on these things interfears with their intended specialised role, for example the Muninn is supposed to be a sniper, but its lock range is 55km... Not enough.
Vaga needs more CPU if you want it to fit an ASB. It needs more PG as well frankly, the TE nerf has hit Auto kiting hard and it hasn't got the powergrid to fit Artillery, the SFI does a shield arty boat better which is sad. Unless you want to pigeon hole it into dual 180 XL ASB config.
Given the sort of mildness of these changes, I presume Tech 3's will be getting the nerf bat straight up the clacker. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
605
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:10:00 -
[97] - Quote
The bonuses for gal cruiser and HAC on the ishtar should be swapped. Right now the ishtar is super good even with hac 2, while some others like the zealot need hac 2 to function well. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
605
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:11:00 -
[98] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:>> Give the Cerb a rapid light missile bonus aswell. <<
Yes pls |
Teens in Jeans
Endstati0n The Retirement Club
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:14:00 -
[99] - Quote
So what was the problem to give AHACs the rolebonus "imune to EWAR" ?
Tech2 HeavyAssaultCruiser are the ship no1 which should be a counter to falcon and co. |
David Kir
Tailender
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:15:00 -
[100] - Quote
Akturous wrote:First impressions, I like the changes, I particularly like the change to the Ishtar, not sure on giving the Sac more drones though, remember you can't balance everything with drone bay. I'd still like to see more capacitor across the board for all ships and the cap bonus on the Deimos changed out for something else.
Ishtar needs CPU, it's kind of ridiculous how short on CPU it is. I have no idea why it gets so little.
ALL HACS need better lock range. The **** poor lock range on these things interfears with their intended specialised role, for example the Muninn is supposed to be a sniper, but its lock range is 55km... Not enough.
Vaga needs more CPU if you want it to fit an ASB. It needs more PG as well frankly, the TE nerf has hit Auto kiting hard and it hasn't got the powergrid to fit Artillery, the SFI does a shield arty boat better which is sad. Unless you want to pigeon hole it into dual 180 XL ASB config.
Given the sort of mildness of these changes, I presume Tech 3's will be getting the nerf bat straight up the clacker.
I'm quite afraid that the Vaga won't be getting any more PWG. Just think of it, it'd become a cheaper, more mobile Sleipnir, with the same tanking capacity. |
|
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
74
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:15:00 -
[101] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Jureth22 wrote:thanks for ruining the vagabond.also,eagle changes are mostly insignificant.back to drawing board Ruining the Vagabond? I hope you're trolling: the contrary would mean you're stupid.
Well iam with david restringing the vaga to a shield bonus is ****...
And lol at people buying hacs at 2 weeks ago. |
Ivory Kantenu
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:15:00 -
[102] - Quote
The Sacrilege still stands, to me, as the odd man out.
While adding HMs to its possible armory, HMs are still kind of in a bad place here. Their Damage is rather lackluster on a ship that comes with a HAM Bonus, and most people will try to avoid using HMs on a ship that's always been a brawler, and instead opt in for Tech II LR HAMs.
Would tacking on, say, an explosion velocity bonus to the Sac make it far too strong? How about missile velocity? I wouldn't mind being able to throw HAMs a good deal further with this platform, and not worry about HMs at all.
Also, the Amarr and Gallente HACs really could do with a small boost to their targeting ranges. Another 5km on the Amarr ones would be absolutely fantastic for sure, especially if the HMs stick. It always bothered me that I could throw something further than I could lock on to what I'm throwing it at. :) Learn the basics of Wormhole Selling: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101693&find=unread
|
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:17:00 -
[103] - Quote
Aaaaand the cerberus is still useless lol |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1143
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:18:00 -
[104] - Quote
why did you keep the outdated mwd cap bonus?
you replaced that bonus on the thorax with a tracking bonus... why leave the deimos the same
here is the version i would like to see.
Quote:DEIMOS - Like the Thorax, Deimos now has 4 mids and gives up the extra high. It also goes faster and aligns faster.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 1030 PWG(+40), 350 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount) : 1700(+325) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 220(+12) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 15 Magnetometric Signature radius: 160 There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1096
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:19:00 -
[105] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU
Bingo...The Ishtar has always had huge CPU issues, and this does nothing to change that. And forget about the Ishtar being used in action that requires high speed. You can't kite with it, and you can't close with it to brawl. |
David Kir
Tailender
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:20:00 -
[106] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:David Kir wrote:Jureth22 wrote:thanks for ruining the vagabond.also,eagle changes are mostly insignificant.back to drawing board Ruining the Vagabond? I hope you're trolling: the contrary would mean you're stupid. Well iam with david restringing the vaga to a shield bonus is ****... And lol at people buying hacs at 2 weeks ago.
Wait what?
I actually like the new Vagabond, it looks like a beast!
|
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
353
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:20:00 -
[107] - Quote
Gnoshia wrote:Aaaaand the cerberus is still useless lol
You have a pretty strange definition of useless. |
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
106
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:20:00 -
[108] - Quote
Deimos with fattest sig by a huge margin, easiest one to track.
Considering AHAC gangs rely on sig tanking, so basically Muninns and Zealots forever. Nothing changes.
Also, Gallente base sensor strength unimpressive as ever. Wouldn't want to present a challenge to Falcons/BBs/EC- drones, that'd be unfair! |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
687
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:21:00 -
[109] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Akturous wrote:First impressions, I like the changes, I particularly like the change to the Ishtar, not sure on giving the Sac more drones though, remember you can't balance everything with drone bay. I'd still like to see more capacitor across the board for all ships and the cap bonus on the Deimos changed out for something else.
Ishtar needs CPU, it's kind of ridiculous how short on CPU it is. I have no idea why it gets so little.
ALL HACS need better lock range. The **** poor lock range on these things interfears with their intended specialised role, for example the Muninn is supposed to be a sniper, but its lock range is 55km... Not enough.
Vaga needs more CPU if you want it to fit an ASB. It needs more PG as well frankly, the TE nerf has hit Auto kiting hard and it hasn't got the powergrid to fit Artillery, the SFI does a shield arty boat better which is sad. Unless you want to pigeon hole it into dual 180 XL ASB config.
Given the sort of mildness of these changes, I presume Tech 3's will be getting the nerf bat straight up the clacker. I'm quite afraid that the Vaga won't be getting any more PWG. Just think of it, it'd become a cheaper, more mobile Sleipnir, with the same tanking capacity.
It wouldn't really be as strong as a sleip, and the command ships are going to be rebalanced later too. So you shouldn't compare them just yet. |
James1122
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
79
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:22:00 -
[110] - Quote
Have been waiting for HAC buff for forever so thank you :) Will need SISI and eft before i can give proper feedback so the below is just my gut feeling.
I Like the 50% reduction bonus alot :) makes kiting/nanoing more viable.
SAC changes are good but i do believe after the med weapons buff Heavy missiles will need a revisit.
Zealot was already a good ship and nothing of note really has changed so no comment there
Cerb looks pretty epic now (maybe OP ?) will need to wait till eft and SISI though to see how it turns out
Eagle i'm mixed on. Changes are good, but i can't help but feel that its still going to be dead in the water against ABC snipers. I also still can't imagine its going to be any good at brawling either.
Diemost midslot was very much needed. My major concern here is the big hit to its armour. I feel this ship may just be a bit too weak in the EHP department.
Ishtar change is awesome. Glad that happened! Only gripe is at having an extra turret but no extra PG :S
I have very mixed feelings about the Vaga. It was already completly outclassed and dominated by the Cynabal, I'm scared that the change you've made is going to make the Vaga a 1 trick pony with LASB fits being the only realy fitting viable for it. Especially considering a lot of the T1 cruisers can take on a standard buffer tank Vaga.
Munnin changes are also very good. (personally would have liked +1 mid) but this change makes it a real competitor with the zealot for being a Brawly AHAC
I guess my overal opinion though is that i am a little underwhelmed. The ships themselves are fine but i find them just a bit lacking when combared to t1 cruisers, navy cruiser, bcs (abcs especially). I guess i just feel overall they could do with a litle more speed and EHP. Two Step for CSM |
|
Carka Gerschen
Ubiquitous Hurt
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:22:00 -
[111] - Quote
So just for my understanding. The Ishtar actually loses a slot and doesn't gain any fitting resources. It is already impossible to fit decently without going for a nanofit. I guess that is the thing you want with them, with no other viable options there.
Regards,
Carka |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1121
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:23:00 -
[112] - Quote
Huh.. this is odd..
Changes and there isn't anything i think is majorly wrong with them.. Mostly its good changes.
I think you should remove the drone bay bonus from this ishtar (and later the ishkur) because really, that bonus seems to just be a "**** you" to anyone that doesn't have the skill to V.
I like how you're discouraging the awful use of AC's for kiting with giving the vaga a shield boost bonus.
(Only thing i don't agree with is lumping the sac in with the Eagle and the cerb.. The sacrilige has always been a more useful Ahac than those two >=[ ]
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
275
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:23:00 -
[113] - Quote
It'd be nice to see speed, tracking and range on the ishtar. I'm guessing that control range bonus is only for combat drones, like the current one, which would make no sense. It kind of sucks to see a drone ship being either a sentry drone ship or a combat drone ship (nexor, dominix). Sentries are cool and all, but it would be nice to have better damage application from combat drones sometimes. the bay per level bonus also is a complete joke (medium rep amount plz, come on). |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
160
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:25:00 -
[114] - Quote
Taking a second look at fitting on the Muninn, this thing is still very very bad. You need 2 ACR's to fit 720s and a 1600 plate with a 10mn AB and you get 3120 alpha and 355 dps (not including the changes) with 2 gyros (so lows would be DC, RAR, Explosive and Kin hardener, 1600 plate).
This is pretty pathetic alpha with close range ammo on a specialist arty platform considering the Loki manages 4.5k alpha and double the tracking with the same fitting. I think the Muninn needs another turret and the fittings to fit a full rack of 720s and a 1600 with AB with 1 ACR, then it might see some use outside of BL novelty/old times sake gangs. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Harimata
Hedion University Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:25:00 -
[115] - Quote
Can you explain the reasoning behind the Muninn change? The 6/3/6 layout strongly encourages it to be armor fit, which creates a lot of overlap between the it and zealots/diemos/etc. What role is it meant to fill? Would it be able to compete with a standard zealot or a post-buff diemos in those roles?
The other thing to mention is that a rupture has a 5/4/5 layout, making both shield and armor fits viable. Why not have a 6/4/5 layout on a Muninn for the same flexibility? This would keep the whole racial continuity thing going strong.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1271
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:25:00 -
[116] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU Bingo...The Ishtar has always had huge CPU issues, and this does nothing to change that. And forget about the Ishtar being used in action that requires high speed. You can't kite with it, and you can't close with it to brawl. It would also seem that CCP Rise has a Sentry drone fetish, this is twice now we get a bonus that pretty much applies only to sentry drones. And that is weird considering the MWD role bonus all the HAC got. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Andrea Griffin
590
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:26:00 -
[117] - Quote
This is one of the few chances we have to inject something new and interesting to ship mechanics. You're putting in a lot of effort into the ship rebalancing crusade, and that's great, but so many of the ships feel the same. HACs in the current and slated future state aren't any different. "It has more EHP and does more damage." The MWD sig radius isn't all that special either; many other ships have it.
Can we please at least try to do something interesting with these ships? Something that no other line of ships can do?
This is the Great Balancing Apocalypse - I very much doubt that Eve will have a chance to do this again for years. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:27:00 -
[118] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:ISHTAR...
Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU
Please review Ishtar fitting, and if determined that a buff there is not warranted would you mind taking a couple of lines to explain why? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
291
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:28:00 -
[119] - Quote
darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:darius mclever wrote:The cerb used to have 250k range, which was especially nice to annoy falcons to death. IMHO it needs the range. well if we had the TD missile change (when are we getting that btw CCP?) it would be fine without it. How would a module that lowers the effective range of the cerberus, help the cerberus?
errr.. because they would add to TE's TC's etc.... think about it.... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Capqu
Love Squad
134
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:28:00 -
[120] - Quote
looking forward to round 2 rise since you don't seem to get anything right first time around http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
|
David Kir
Tailender
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:29:00 -
[121] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:David Kir wrote:Akturous wrote:First impressions, I like the changes, I particularly like the change to the Ishtar, not sure on giving the Sac more drones though, remember you can't balance everything with drone bay. I'd still like to see more capacitor across the board for all ships and the cap bonus on the Deimos changed out for something else.
Ishtar needs CPU, it's kind of ridiculous how short on CPU it is. I have no idea why it gets so little.
ALL HACS need better lock range. The **** poor lock range on these things interfears with their intended specialised role, for example the Muninn is supposed to be a sniper, but its lock range is 55km... Not enough.
Vaga needs more CPU if you want it to fit an ASB. It needs more PG as well frankly, the TE nerf has hit Auto kiting hard and it hasn't got the powergrid to fit Artillery, the SFI does a shield arty boat better which is sad. Unless you want to pigeon hole it into dual 180 XL ASB config.
Given the sort of mildness of these changes, I presume Tech 3's will be getting the nerf bat straight up the clacker. I'm quite afraid that the Vaga won't be getting any more PWG. Just think of it, it'd become a cheaper, more mobile Sleipnir, with the same tanking capacity. It wouldn't really be as strong as a sleip, and the command ships are going to be rebalanced later too. So you shouldn't compare them just yet.
Te issue isn't the comparison between it and the Sleipnir, it's the comparison between it and the other HACs. A 1000 dps tank is a huge thing, for a cruiser, and even more so for a kiting ship. The LASB fits work pretty nicely, in my opinion. Now if they fixed offgrid boosting, and thus all of those speed creeps you can find around, the Vaga would fall right back into its previous niche. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
162
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:29:00 -
[122] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:It'd be nice to see speed, tracking and range on the ishtar. I'm guessing that control range bonus is only for combat drones, like the current one, which would make no sense. It kind of sucks to see a drone ship being either a sentry drone ship or a combat drone ship (nexor, dominix). Sentries are cool and all, but it would be nice to have better damage application from combat drones sometimes. the bay per level bonus also is a complete joke (medium rep amount plz, come on).
He said it works with sentries Trouser, it's on the 2nd page I think. I agree on the giving the drone bay bonus as native and adding rep amount or drone speed to give heavies some love. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
291
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:29:00 -
[123] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU Bingo...The Ishtar has always had huge CPU issues, and this does nothing to change that. And forget about the Ishtar being used in action that requires high speed. You can't kite with it, and you can't close with it to brawl. It would also seem that CCP Rise has a Sentry drone fetish, this is twice now we get a bonus that pretty much applies only to sentry drones. And that is weird considering the MWD role bonus all the HAC got.
well Fozzie started it with the trsitan :)
yes the MWD bonus kind of seems like a token gesture without any backing up whatsoever.... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Yanarix Blitz
Black Scare
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:31:00 -
[124] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: VAGABOND - we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus. This has nice racial continuity and supports a play-style that has been emerging for the Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler
Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance.
close range brawler? active boosting? and no change in performance?
did you dudes even take a look at your own game in the last 5 years????? none of those points is even remotely true for the vaga.
its a kiter only outmatched by the cyna perhaps!!!!! this changes are just plain ********, its not a pve ship to require an active boosting bonus omg... ... and then you give all hacs a mwd bonus which is totally used in close range brawling. you are so full of crap its unbelievable |
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:31:00 -
[125] - Quote
Pretty good changes. But I think you've forgot one race to make it in line with others.
Each race as usual gets either resist or active tank bonus. Everything in line except for gallente. Give one of the gallente hacs such bonus. F.e. put ishtar drone bay bonus inside the hull and give the armor rep bonus as a skill.
North |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
162
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:31:00 -
[126] - Quote
David Kir wrote:
Te issue isn't the comparison between it and the Sleipnir, it's the comparison between it and the other HACs. A 1000 dps tank is a huge thing, for a cruiser, and even more so for a kiting ship. The LASB fits work pretty nicely, in my opinion. Now if they fixed offgrid boosting, and thus all of those speed creeps you can find around, the Vaga would fall right back into its previous niche.
Till you run out of charges, then your stuffed. Balancing around the clearly obcene unbalanced bonuses that t2 links give you atm isn't a good idea. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1143
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:31:00 -
[127] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:these or therefore lack of will have virtually no impact on there usage.
I was expecting a more extreme buff perhaps more like the navy attack cruisers ... boy i was WRONG..... 15 slots only its T2 why not the +2 slots that the AF's get over T1 frigs .. where's the advantage over navy here? 50% is too low without reducing there sig radius especially on shield HACS For the 150-200mil price tag these come with making them compete with Navy bc's for tank is stupid.. competing with sniping ABC's is even worse idea.
Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised.
well thats easy... there is no sound in space. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
111
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:37:00 -
[128] - Quote
About the Ishtar:
The domi's bonus for drones is nice, but why is the slot layout still so heavily taylored towards shield tanking and the CPU still WAY too low to fit any semblance of a serious spider tank?
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:37:00 -
[129] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:these or therefore lack of will have virtually no impact on there usage.
I was expecting a more extreme buff perhaps more like the navy attack cruisers ... boy i was WRONG..... 15 slots only its T2 why not the +2 slots that the AF's get over T1 frigs .. where's the advantage over navy here? 50% is too low without reducing there sig radius especially on shield HACS For the 150-200mil price tag these come with making them compete with Navy bc's for tank is stupid.. competing with sniping ABC's is even worse idea.
Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised. well thats easy... there is no sound in space.
i just noticed i meant to put the word change in after therefore .. LOL Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1144
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:38:00 -
[130] - Quote
Two step wrote:Sac should get some sort of scram/disrutper/web range/strength bonus instead of the mostly useless cap bonus.
or how about a racial bonus to em damage for missiles? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
Sushi Nardieu
Bite Me inc Bitten.
142
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:38:00 -
[131] - Quote
The Muninn doesn't feel like it's going to change the meta at all. But that could just be me.
I quite like the changes. Was hoping to get more DPS from HAM SACs but it gets some other buffs which are nice too. - The Guns of Knowledge-á |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:38:00 -
[132] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:About the Ishtar:
The domi's bonus for drones is nice, but why is the slot layout still so heavily taylored towards shield tanking and the CPU still WAY too low to fit any semblance of a serious spider tank?
The ishtar needs a more unique flavour to it and unique drone bonus would be nice otherwise i still like the NVexor more.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
74
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:38:00 -
[133] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:David Kir wrote:Jureth22 wrote:thanks for ruining the vagabond.also,eagle changes are mostly insignificant.back to drawing board Ruining the Vagabond? I hope you're trolling: the contrary would mean you're stupid. Well iam with david restringing the vaga to a shield bonus is ****... And lol at people buying hacs at 2 weeks ago. Wait what? I actually like the new Vagabond, it looks like a beast!
sorry i mistyped i mean "i agree with jureth". |
David Kir
Tailender
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:40:00 -
[134] - Quote
Yanarix Blitz wrote:CCP Rise wrote: VAGABOND - we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus. This has nice racial continuity and supports a play-style that has been emerging for the Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler
Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance.
close range brawler? active boosting? and no change in performance? did you dudes even take a look at your own game in the last 5 years????? none of those points is even remotely true for the vaga. its a kiter only outmatched by the cyna perhaps!!!!! this changes are just plain ********, its not a pve ship to require an active boosting bonus omg... ... and then you give all hacs a mwd bonus which is totally used in close range brawling. you are so full of crap its unbelievable
Errrr...have you ever flown a Sleipnir? A Maelstrom, or an active tanked Proteus, for that matter? Any Hawks and Harpies? Active boosting is for PVE?
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1098
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:41:00 -
[135] - Quote
The entire concept of the MwD sig bonus is total waste as a concept. On an AF, it matters, since the sig bloom change impacted how large turrets hit a MwD'ed AF.
But guess what. The sig bloom of the new buffed Assault Cruiser is STILL BIGGER than the sig size of a BS class gun. BS class guns will still hit just as hard as they did before.
So this bonus is meaningless. Please go back to the drawingboard and re-think all these changes.
I love to see a reason for people to actually fly these over the Navy counterparts. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1144
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:41:00 -
[136] - Quote
Carka Gerschen wrote:So just for my understanding. The Ishtar actually loses a slot and doesn't gain any fitting resources. It is already impossible to fit decently without going for a nanofit. I guess that is the thing you want with them, with no other viable options there.
Regards,
Carka
drone boats always have one less slot... the ishtar was op when it had 15 There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:42:00 -
[137] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Two step wrote:Sac should get some sort of scram/disrutper/web range/strength bonus instead of the mostly useless cap bonus. or how about a racial bonus to em damage for missiles?
I agree the sacrilege has more potential bonuses to pick from instead of being pigeon holed into a brawling ship which is a shame as if you look at other options for the same price ... Navy drake is so much better ..... i was hoping all HACs would be more vaga based .. i.e. speed and dps/damage projection ... also HICS outank these.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
74
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:42:00 -
[138] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Yanarix Blitz wrote:CCP Rise wrote: VAGABOND - we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus. This has nice racial continuity and supports a play-style that has been emerging for the Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler
Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance.
close range brawler? active boosting? and no change in performance? did you dudes even take a look at your own game in the last 5 years????? none of those points is even remotely true for the vaga. its a kiter only outmatched by the cyna perhaps!!!!! this changes are just plain ********, its not a pve ship to require an active boosting bonus omg... ... and then you give all hacs a mwd bonus which is totally used in close range brawling. you are so full of crap its unbelievable Errrr...have you ever flown a Sleipnir? A Maelstrom, or an active tanked Proteus, for that matter? Any Hawks and Harpies? Active boosting is for PVE?
So how is making the vaga more like a sleipnir good for the vaga? Because that is the only remotely similar ship in those ships that you mentioned to the vaga. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:43:00 -
[139] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:The entire concept of the MwD sig bonus is total waste as a concept. On an AF, it matters, since the sig bloom change impacted how large turrets hit a MwD'ed AF.
But guess what. The sig bloom of the new buffed Assault Cruiser is STILL BIGGER than the sig size of a BS class gun. BS class guns will still hit just as hard as they did before.
So this bonus is meaningless. Please go back to the drawingboard and re-think all these changes.
I love to see a reason for people to actually fly these over the Navy counterparts.
yes either a stronger bonus to mwd ... or reduce their sig radius .. or both Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Yanarix Blitz
Black Scare
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:44:00 -
[140] - Quote
wondering if this is a nerf hidden under the term "buff" cus that it looks like to everyone who's actually playing the game...
do you dudes have too much time/mone to think about changing working stuff instead of bringing new content? - cus the last 3 expansions weren't taht great content wise, and POS is still crap!
ohwait... i guess you'll start doing something usefull again once subscriptions gooing back and you realised you only producing hot air and ****! |
|
Antoine Jordan
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:46:00 -
[141] - Quote
Any thoughts to adding a drone speed/mwd speed bonus to the Ishtar? would help across the board and maybe make heavies viable (haha ok maybe that's going a bit too far). It's really the only aspect of drones that doesn't have a bonus on the hull now.
also the CPU is pathetic for a drone boat :( Really needs some help there! |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
630
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:46:00 -
[142] - Quote
Ishtar's CPU is still VERY subpar. This is REQUIRED for it to be considered "Rebalanced".
The Vagabond is, imo, far too similar to what it was pre-rebalance.
Notice how the two Minmatar HACs have 3 and 4 medslots ? This isn't really...I mean, there is no novelty.
I heard you wanted T2 ships to be specialized. HACs are specialized as hard-hitting gankboats, mostly. The focus should be put on guns, right ?
You want the Vagabond to be the shield HAC. Let's make it so. -1 Highslot, +1 Medslot. There you go.
It's not a Cynabal, because it has an active shield-tanking bonus. It doesn't have a medium neut, which makes it a bit more vulnerable to frigates. But it has 5 medslots to either make it more of an active-shield-tanking ship, or provide a web defense versus frigates and such. It also has less drones than the Cynabal. All those things combined makes the Vagabond specialized as opposed to the jack-of-all-trades Cynabal. A slight PWG buff would help too, so that you can finally fit 425mms or attempt an arty-fit Vagabond.
The Vagabond has been overshadowed by the Cynabal and the Talos for too long.
What do you think about that ?
The Deimos' signature radius is over the top. It's even bigger than the specialized, long-range shield tanker Eagle. Considering the Vagabonds' sig and the Cerberus' sig, the correct value should be around 125m.
That's it for now, maybe I'll notice other weird things later. But we're on the right tracks apparently
|
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
116
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:50:00 -
[143] - Quote
Why do drone ships still have a slot penalty? The slot penalty was from "back in the day" when there was almost no drone upgrades. It has been 5+ years since that penalty was relevant. Stop putting it on new ships. Drone boats are hardly used enough to justify a penalty these days.
Also the Ishtar still has the cripplingly low CPU it inherited from the Tier 2 Vexor almost a decade ago.
Also, the role bonus will rarely be used on most HACs. |
Yanarix Blitz
Black Scare
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:50:00 -
[144] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Yanarix Blitz wrote:CCP Rise wrote: VAGABOND - we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus. This has nice racial continuity and supports a play-style that has been emerging for the Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler
Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance.
close range brawler? active boosting? and no change in performance? did you dudes even take a look at your own game in the last 5 years????? none of those points is even remotely true for the vaga. its a kiter only outmatched by the cyna perhaps!!!!! this changes are just plain ********, its not a pve ship to require an active boosting bonus omg... ... and then you give all hacs a mwd bonus which is totally used in close range brawling. you are so full of crap its unbelievable Errrr...have you ever flown a Sleipnir? A Maelstrom, or an active tanked Proteus, for that matter? Any Hawks and Harpies? Active boosting is for PVE?
must be the reason you see so many active tanked maels and proteus around these days... you sir are a ****** ;)
furthermore just because mael and sleipnir got a active boosting bonus doesnt mean the vaga needs one too. if i want active boosting i fly a sleipnir you tard guess why? cus it already has a boosting bonus. its abut variety of choices not making all the same, otherwise we could stomp all ships and restrict eve to nubships only
|
David Kir
Tailender
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:50:00 -
[145] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:David Kir wrote:Yanarix Blitz wrote:CCP Rise wrote: VAGABOND - we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus. This has nice racial continuity and supports a play-style that has been emerging for the Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler
Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance.
close range brawler? active boosting? and no change in performance? did you dudes even take a look at your own game in the last 5 years????? none of those points is even remotely true for the vaga. its a kiter only outmatched by the cyna perhaps!!!!! this changes are just plain ********, its not a pve ship to require an active boosting bonus omg... ... and then you give all hacs a mwd bonus which is totally used in close range brawling. you are so full of crap its unbelievable Errrr...have you ever flown a Sleipnir? A Maelstrom, or an active tanked Proteus, for that matter? Any Hawks and Harpies? Active boosting is for PVE? So how is making the vaga more like a sleipnir good for the vaga? Because that is the only remotely similar ship in those ships that you mentioned to the vaga.
All of those are frequently active tanked ships. All of those quite used, and very much successful. My point is: active tanks aren't only for PVE, and I'm right. That is it.
You can still use your beloved Vagabond as you did, in that it hasn't changed by one single bit. But now you can also ASB it, if you're brave and good enough to do so, and be a very capable brawler.
|
Anharat
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:50:00 -
[146] - Quote
The Ishtar change is making me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Thank you. (Can i get a drone speed bonus instead of the extended drone bay ? ;) ) |
Yanarix Blitz
Black Scare
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:52:00 -
[147] - Quote
Voith wrote:Why do drone ships still have a slot penalty? The slot penalty was from "back in the day" when there was almost no drone upgrades. It has been 5+ years since that penalty was relevant. Stop putting it on new ships. Drone boats are hardly used enough to justify a penalty these days.
Also the Ishtar still has the cripplingly low CPU it inherited from the Tier 2 Vexor almost a decade ago.
Also, the role bonus will rarely be used on most HACs.
so true +1 |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1098
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:53:00 -
[148] - Quote
Yanarix Blitz wrote:wondering if this is a nerf hidden under the term "buff" cus that it looks like to everyone who's actually playing the game...
do you dudes have too much time/mone to think about changing working stuff instead of bringing new content? - cus the last 3 expansions weren't taht great content wise, and POS is still crap!
ohwait... i guess you'll start doing something usefull again once subscriptions gooing back and you realised you only producing hot air and ****!
You should listen and read the comments of soundwave and fozzie in any interviews they have given in the past while. They both have stated many times they want more and more situations for ships to blow up in space.
Hence the TE nerf, to discourage kiting, and encourage more in your face brawling. Hence soundwaves publicly stated hatred of off-grid boosting, which is slated for removal. Hence the "at best" neutral changes to HAC's. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
116
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:53:00 -
[149] - Quote
Yanarix Blitz wrote:Voith wrote:Why do drone ships still have a slot penalty? The slot penalty was from "back in the day" when there was almost no drone upgrades. It has been 5+ years since that penalty was relevant. Stop putting it on new ships. Drone boats are hardly used enough to justify a penalty these days.
Also the Ishtar still has the cripplingly low CPU it inherited from the Tier 2 Vexor almost a decade ago.
Also, the role bonus will rarely be used on most HACs. so true +1 Gallente get ******, Winmatar get unneeded buffs.
WHO COULD HAVE FORSEEN THIS!!!111one
Seriously, just compare the base stats of the Vaga and the Ishtar, it is a goddamn joke. |
Anathmarr
Church of Unitology
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:54:00 -
[150] - Quote
Gonna have to jump on the bandwagon, haven't really gone through the whole thread, maybe I should but I'm lazy. Anyway, I love the sac for its looks and the idea of it, but it fails on all accounts, too low dmg and speed to qualify as an attack shi, heavy interdictors outdo it in a heavy tackle roll. Also the cerb needs a bonus to cap, ive never found a cerb fit able to to hold its cap, and if you're making it kitey you kinda need to beable to run that MWD and hardeners. |
|
David Kir
Tailender
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:55:00 -
[151] - Quote
Yanarix Blitz wrote:David Kir wrote:Yanarix Blitz wrote:CCP Rise wrote: VAGABOND - we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus. This has nice racial continuity and supports a play-style that has been emerging for the Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler
Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance.
close range brawler? active boosting? and no change in performance? did you dudes even take a look at your own game in the last 5 years????? none of those points is even remotely true for the vaga. its a kiter only outmatched by the cyna perhaps!!!!! this changes are just plain ********, its not a pve ship to require an active boosting bonus omg... ... and then you give all hacs a mwd bonus which is totally used in close range brawling. you are so full of crap its unbelievable Errrr...have you ever flown a Sleipnir? A Maelstrom, or an active tanked Proteus, for that matter? Any Hawks and Harpies? Active boosting is for PVE? must be the reason you see so many active tanked maels and proteus around these days... you sir are a ****** ;) furthermore just because mael and sleipnir got a active boosting bonus doesnt mean the vaga needs one too. if i want active boosting i fly a sleipnir you tard guess why? cus it already has a boosting bonus. its abut variety of choices not making all the same, otherwise we could stomp all ships and restrict eve to nubships only
Cut down the "tard" talk or you'll get reported, and stop being an angry douche.
Ok, your turn: tell us how to rebalance dem HACs. Tell us. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1124
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:56:00 -
[152] - Quote
Seriously the drone bonus on the Ishtar
How would you feel about giving the zealot 1 gun and then giving it 1 gun per level in HAC's? Its a really silly bonus. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Yanarix Blitz
Black Scare
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:56:00 -
[153] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:David Kir wrote:Yanarix Blitz wrote:CCP Rise wrote: VAGABOND - we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus. This has nice racial continuity and supports a play-style that has been emerging for the Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler
Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance.
close range brawler? active boosting? and no change in performance? did you dudes even take a look at your own game in the last 5 years????? none of those points is even remotely true for the vaga. its a kiter only outmatched by the cyna perhaps!!!!! this changes are just plain ********, its not a pve ship to require an active boosting bonus omg... ... and then you give all hacs a mwd bonus which is totally used in close range brawling. you are so full of crap its unbelievable Errrr...have you ever flown a Sleipnir? A Maelstrom, or an active tanked Proteus, for that matter? Any Hawks and Harpies? Active boosting is for PVE? So how is making the vaga more like a sleipnir good for the vaga? Because that is the only remotely similar ship in those ships that you mentioned to the vaga. All of those are frequently active tanked ships. All of those quite used, and very much successful. My point is: active tanks aren't only for PVE, and I'm right. That is it. You can still use your beloved Vagabond as you did, in that it hasn't changed by one single bit. But now you can also ASB it, if you're brave and good enough to do so, and be a very capable brawler.
no i can not as i did, cus IT GETS ******* 25%!!!! SLOWER |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1144
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:56:00 -
[154] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Two step wrote:Sac should get some sort of scram/disrutper/web range/strength bonus instead of the mostly useless cap bonus. or how about a racial bonus to em damage for missiles? I agree the sacrilege has more potential bonuses to pick from instead of being pigeon holed into a brawling ship which is a shame as if you look at other options for the same price ... Navy drake is so much better ..... i was hoping all HACs would be more vaga based .. i.e. speed and dps/damage projection ... also HICS outank these..
it does seem odd that they choose for some hacs to be "combat" and others to be "attack" There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
TheButcherPete
The James Gang SpaceMonkey's Alliance
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:57:00 -
[155] - Quote
Ishtar still has that absolutely silly HAC bonus of range :| and the 50m3/lvl is annoying
a Dominix doesn't need Battleship 5 to have 375m3 of drone bay, but an Ishtar does. THE KING OF EVE RADIO
ElQuirko is my son |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
74
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:57:00 -
[156] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:David Kir wrote:Yanarix Blitz wrote:CCP Rise wrote: VAGABOND - we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus. This has nice racial continuity and supports a play-style that has been emerging for the Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler
Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance.
close range brawler? active boosting? and no change in performance? did you dudes even take a look at your own game in the last 5 years????? none of those points is even remotely true for the vaga. its a kiter only outmatched by the cyna perhaps!!!!! this changes are just plain ********, its not a pve ship to require an active boosting bonus omg... ... and then you give all hacs a mwd bonus which is totally used in close range brawling. you are so full of crap its unbelievable Errrr...have you ever flown a Sleipnir? A Maelstrom, or an active tanked Proteus, for that matter? Any Hawks and Harpies? Active boosting is for PVE? So how is making the vaga more like a sleipnir good for the vaga? Because that is the only remotely similar ship in those ships that you mentioned to the vaga. All of those are frequently active tanked ships. All of those quite used, and very much successful. My point is: active tanks aren't only for PVE, and I'm right. That is it. You can still use your beloved Vagabond as you did, in that it hasn't changed by one single bit. But now you can also ASB it, if you're brave and good enough to do so, and be a very capable brawler.
What i'am saying is that the bonus to the vaga puts her in a role that frankly i dont think suits her , but to make her do just thta give her a med and take a low or something, what i would prefer is a bonus to damage or to speed to tank in speed but hey i still live in the old nano times...
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1272
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:58:00 -
[157] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Seriously the drone bonus on the Ishtar
How would you feel about giving the zealot 1 gun and then giving it 1 gun per level in HAC's? Its a really silly bonus. How about just the Ishtar in general, it like they went "awe **** it, it just a drone ship they will ***** but oh well". It is sub par compared to the vexor navy issue. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:00:00 -
[158] - Quote
I have to say I'm fairly disappointed in this balance round so far(HACS), I hope this gets some serious rework before it's released.
Active tanked 5low Sac is just lame, unless you give it another launcher or something to make up for it's lack of dps.
Ishtars CPU is still horrid, and most of the HACs in general lack CPU
Eagle is too slow, atleast make it 185 or 190.
Muninn, designed for sniping, has a utility high, what? give it a mid instead of the high.
I don't think most of the HACs would be overpowered from receving another slot in total either, not looked that much into how that would pan out but this just seems lacking and I fear for the Command Ship rebalancing stage now. |
David Kir
Tailender
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:00:00 -
[159] - Quote
Yanarix Blitz wrote:
no i can not as i did, cus IT GETS ******* 25%!!!! SLOWER
Oh lord.
The speed bonus was integrated in the hull.
Read up before playing the fool. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1099
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:00:00 -
[160] - Quote
Voith wrote:Why do drone ships still have a slot penalty? The slot penalty was from "back in the day" when there was almost no drone upgrades. It has been 5+ years since that penalty was relevant. Stop putting it on new ships. Drone boats are hardly used enough to justify a penalty these days.
Also the Ishtar still has the cripplingly low CPU it inherited from the Tier 2 Vexor almost a decade ago.
Also, the role bonus will rarely be used on most HACs.
Indeed, I have always dreamed of a shield tanked Ishtar DPS machine that could fit small neuts/vamps in the high utilities, that did not need faction stuff and a CPU upgrade.
Look at the fit below with the current stats. It STILL needs a 1% CPU implant to work, even with the faction shield extenders, while having 79 PG that is wasted.
Guess we will never see an Ishtar that can actually make use of all it's grid given the huge limitations on CPU.
[Ishtar, Short Range DPS] Damage Control II Co-Processor II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Caldari Navy Large Shield Extender Caldari Navy Large Shield Extender Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M Small Diminishing Power System Drain I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Ogre II x5
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10866
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:01:00 -
[161] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU The vexor is gun bonused and sort of expected to use them, the ishtar is not. You can fit a 1600mm plate based tank and "basically anything you want" to the vexor already if you don't make much use of the highs, or you can fill your highs with utility modules at the cost of a lighter tank and tighter fitting. It's a fair trade off.
"It fits if you leave 5 slots empty" is not a very convincing argument for the Ishtar having sufficient CPU.
Even drone boats have a use for those high slots.. DLA IIs are 55 CPU each, for instance.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Capqu
Love Squad
139
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:07:00 -
[162] - Quote
incorporate t1 changes and redo
tia in advance http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
David Kir
Tailender
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:07:00 -
[163] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:[
What i'am saying is that the bonus to the vaga puts her in a role that frankly i dont think suits her , but to make her do just thta give her a med and take a low or something, what i would prefer is a bonus to damage or to speed to tank in speed but hey i still live in the old nano times...
It got a sig bonus, which should marginally help its tank. As for the "nano times"... they're over. CCP is pushing EVE towards aggressive, risky tactics, which is where the AB bonus fits. The buff to armor tanks, the speed disparity decrease, the incoming OGB fix, etc., all good and explodey stuff.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1272
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:08:00 -
[164] - Quote
This worries me for the T3 balance, many of these ships cant compete with the Navy balance pass. Will this mean T3 ships will be worse than T1? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
X ATM092
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
77
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:10:00 -
[165] - Quote
These need to have at least the same base speed and agility as the faction cruisers. You can use the osprey as the base for the eagle, the augoror for the sac and so forth. |
Suitonia
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
188
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:10:00 -
[166] - Quote
These changes all look good. However the Ishtar could still use a bit more CPU. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
687
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:11:00 -
[167] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:[
What i'am saying is that the bonus to the vaga puts her in a role that frankly i dont think suits her , but to make her do just thta give her a med and take a low or something, what i would prefer is a bonus to damage or to speed to tank in speed but hey i still live in the old nano times...
It got a sig bonus, which should marginally help its tank. As for the "nano times"... they're over. CCP is pushing EVE towards aggressive, risky tactics, which is where the AB bonus fits. The buff to armor tanks, the speed disparity decrease, the incoming OGB fix, etc., all good and explodey stuff. wtf are you talking about. |
TheButcherPete
The James Gang SpaceMonkey's Alliance
298
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:13:00 -
[168] - Quote
Yeah, while the Ishtar doesn't really need a huge powergrid (neutrons weren't very popular with them anyway) the Ishtar was lacking on something rather important:
CPU. Ishtar's CPU is awful. THE KING OF EVE RADIO
ElQuirko is my son |
David Kir
Tailender
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:13:00 -
[169] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: wtf are you talking about.
About the fact that kiting (as most "damage avoiding") tactics are becoming less and less viable.
|
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
229
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:14:00 -
[170] - Quote
Sacrilige buff was still not strong enought, it still appears uselss compared to the rest. The Eagle looks like a good buff combined with the rails. Demios change with the extra buff and mid slot will have crashed the Vigilant price. The utility high was pretty useless and the extra web/scram/dual prop will be sweet fora close range blaster ship. having 4 mids could allow for shield DPS PVE fit but still not as good as a shield dps vigilant.
Vagabond speed nerf is nice that ship was a little OP.
|
|
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:16:00 -
[171] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Sacrilige buff was still not strong enought, it still appears uselss compared to the rest. The Eagle looks like a good buff combined with the rails. Demios change with the extra buff and mid slot will have crashed the Vigilant price. The utility high was pretty useless and the extra web/scram/dual prop will be sweet fora close range blaster ship. having 4 mids could allow for shield DPS PVE fit but still not as good as a shield dps vigilant.
Vagabond speed nerf is nice that ship was a little OP.
The Vagabond's speed was not nerfed.
Read up before posting, don't be a fool. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
163
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:17:00 -
[172] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote: Vagabond speed nerf is nice that ship was a little OP.
Lol. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
687
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:17:00 -
[173] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Sacrilige buff was still not strong enought, it still appears uselss compared to the rest. The Eagle looks like a good buff combined with the rails. Demios change with the extra buff and mid slot will have crashed the Vigilant price. The utility high was pretty useless and the extra web/scram/dual prop will be sweet fora close range blaster ship. having 4 mids could allow for shield DPS PVE fit but still not as good as a shield dps vigilant.
Vagabond speed nerf is nice that ship was a little OP.
What vagabond speed nerf? |
Ammzi
Boob Heads Test Alliance Please Ignore
1390
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:17:00 -
[174] - Quote
In order to get the most out of the ishtar slot layout, more cpu is definitely needed. quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Yanarix Blitz
Black Scare
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:18:00 -
[175] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Diesel47 wrote: wtf are you talking about.
About the fact that kiting (as most "damage avoiding" tactics) is becoming less and less viable. EDIT: poor grammar.
here i must agree, and its terrible imho.
restricting games/playstyles instead of broadening its features and possiblilities is often their death.... but as i said, ccp wil realise their wrong doings once the playerbase dwindels again cus of ****** "expansions" |
Ix Method
Order of Cut-Throats
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:19:00 -
[176] - Quote
Expected Amarr Drone, Minmatar Missile ships, left in tears. |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
74
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:19:00 -
[177] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:[
What i'am saying is that the bonus to the vaga puts her in a role that frankly i dont think suits her , but to make her do just thta give her a med and take a low or something, what i would prefer is a bonus to damage or to speed to tank in speed but hey i still live in the old nano times...
It got a sig bonus, which should marginally help its tank. As for the "nano times"... they're over. CCP is pushing EVE towards aggressive, risky tactics, which is where the AB bonus fits. The buff to armor tanks, the speed disparity decrease, the incoming OGB fix, etc., all good and explodey stuff.
That is all fine and dandy , but as i said at least do a good job at making the vaga a "close" brawler , and speed tanking isn't over just watch the cyna or anyh angel ship.. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1099
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:20:00 -
[178] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:mynnna wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU The vexor is gun bonused and sort of expected to use them, the ishtar is not. You can fit a 1600mm plate based tank and "basically anything you want" to the vexor already if you don't make much use of the highs, or you can fill your highs with utility modules at the cost of a lighter tank and tighter fitting. It's a fair trade off. "It fits if you leave 5 slots empty" is not a very convincing argument for the Ishtar having sufficient CPU. Even drone boats have a use for those high slots.. DLA IIs are 55 CPU each, for instance.
The world just stopped turning....I agree with Malcanis on something. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:21:00 -
[179] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:These changes all look good. However the Ishtar could still use a bit more CPU. By a bit, do you mean 150? |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
419
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:21:00 -
[180] - Quote
One thing first:
Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.
70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's... increase it to 85km or more
and for the deimos the new role bonus probably helps it the least compared to the other hacs couldnt it get lower signature radius? the zealot is 125m ,deimos 150m ...
ishtar sniper drone carrier of doom .... will be op as hell, a smaller/faster dominix with t2 resists just what we needed oh and this can probably mwd forever with small signature
vaga: "Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance." hmm role bonus should give it much better results vs large guns,so the performance improved a lot(probably the winner of the role boni) |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1274
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:21:00 -
[181] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Deimos Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff
Just so you know, there are charges beyond Antimatter and Null. This would be much better served as a tracking bonus, since this ship is made for a MWD Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Photon Ceray
Caesar Lile Directorate
105
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:22:00 -
[182] - Quote
Love the changes!
I hope they turn out in practice as good as they don paper/forum. |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:22:00 -
[183] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:David Kir wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:[
What i'am saying is that the bonus to the vaga puts her in a role that frankly i dont think suits her , but to make her do just thta give her a med and take a low or something, what i would prefer is a bonus to damage or to speed to tank in speed but hey i still live in the old nano times...
It got a sig bonus, which should marginally help its tank. As for the "nano times"... they're over. CCP is pushing EVE towards aggressive, risky tactics, which is where the AB bonus fits. The buff to armor tanks, the speed disparity decrease, the incoming OGB fix, etc., all good and explodey stuff. That is all fine and dandy , but as i said at least do a good job at making the vaga a "close" brawler , and speed tanking isn't over just watch the cyna or anyh angel ship..
Speed tanking is still fine, and if you can speed tank with a Cynabal, the Vagabond does a better job, given the much smaller signature. But the nano age is definitely over. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
294
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:24:00 -
[184] - Quote
SO what about the resistances CCP.... any changes here .. how about reducing them? 90% resist on EM for instance is this balanced at all? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10867
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:24:00 -
[185] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:One thing first:
Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.
70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's... increase it to 85km or more
Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:25:00 -
[186] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Rise wrote: Deimos Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff
Just so you know, there are charges beyond Antimatter and Null. This would be much better served as a tracking bonus, since this ship is made for a MWD
Then it would just be an expensive slow thorax .... however it would be nice if they did an ammo rebalance as there are so many useless T1 ammo types out there that could be given a role Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1099
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:26:00 -
[187] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:This worries me for the T3 balance, many of these ships cant compete with the Navy balance pass. Will this mean T3 ships will be worse than T1?
Yup. All hail the great "rebalance". Nothing wrong with paying 400 M for a hull and subssytems, plus risk 3-5 days SP every time you fly it, for the privilege of gutting the rigs every time you want to change its role.
Yes, will be doing that instead of buying 20 T1 cruiser hulls that outperform the T2 and T3 equivalent. |
Capqu
Love Squad
142
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:26:00 -
[188] - Quote
stop giving hybrids ****** range bonuses
a 10% bonus on a hybrid to optimal is as good as a 5% bonus to optimal on a laser
either do 20% like the tengu or stop doing it, they only get half as much out of it as the other two gun systems http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
335
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:26:00 -
[189] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
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
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145 Well, initial thoughts on this: WHY IS THE ISHTAR STILL CRIPPLED BY ITS CPU?! Come on, it is the hardest ship to fit--by far--from its horrendous CPU. Even a Nexor has 310 CPU before skills! Second, remove the stupid drone bay bonus. Buff the bay to 375 and give the ship another, more useful bonus. This bonus is the most wasted one I can imagine. Don't make a drone ship *increase the drone bay* as a bonus. Give it another bonus that's more useful.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:27:00 -
[190] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:One thing first:
Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.
70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's... increase it to 85km or more
Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead.
Malcanis what do you think of these changes or rather a lack of IMO? What would you like CCP to change or add? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Draconic Slayer
Swagwaffe xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:28:00 -
[191] - Quote
XLASB VAGA
OMGYAYAYAYESOMGYESTHANKYOUKIL2 GÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑ |
Minerva Radisky
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:28:00 -
[192] - Quote
Awesome! Can't wait to gate camp and fly some of the buffed ships, and looking forward to all of them filling their own niche instead of "hurry why fly X just fly a battlecruiser at half the cost." |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
477
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:29:00 -
[193] - Quote
Won't really be able to know till testing but... The boost amount bonus on the vaga is probably going to be op... Best t2 shield resistances combined with a ship bonused asb? Expect temporary tanks of 2k with crystals and links... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15601
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:29:00 -
[194] - Quote
How about, instead of +50m-¦ drone hold/level for the Ishtar, you give it a base drone hold of 375m-¦ and a skill bonus of +5% CPU/level? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:30:00 -
[195] - Quote
Draconic Slayer wrote:XLASB VAGA
OMGYAYAYAYESOMGYESTHANKYOUKIL2 GÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑ
It'll be pretty damn effective in gang setups, you'll just have to mind your cycles, given the EHP. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
477
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:32:00 -
[196] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
DEIMOS Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Fozzie and rise, please explain why this aborted fetus of a bonus is still attached to my deimos?
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:33:00 -
[197] - Quote
Also are cargobays being increased too match other cruisers as they are about half of what T1 cruisers have... the Vaga nay need it. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1099
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:33:00 -
[198] - Quote
CCP Rise...can you give us a view of what niche the HAC is supposed to fill in the Eve patheon of ships? To me at least, the term Assault means "hurting things".
What does it mean to you?
Given that the T1 equivalents can dish out more DPS in some cases, while at the same time, fit a healthy tank, why would anyone ever fly a HAC in heavy fighting? And that does not even factor in the cost issue of a 10:1 hull cost. |
Fr0stle
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:34:00 -
[199] - Quote
I'll just add my voice to the group and ask for some more CPU on the Ishtar. It was always CPU gimped and now we have all these new drone modules that are CPU heavy too. More CPU is needed to make this ship viable in it's intended role. |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
218
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:34:00 -
[200] - Quote
Tippia wrote:How about, instead of +50m-¦ drone hold/level for the Ishtar, you give it a base drone hold of 375m-¦ and a skill bonus of +5% CPU/level? Or a role bonus of Can fit Co-processors in currently unfitable high slots.
Fear God and Thread Nought |
|
Esharan
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
104
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:36:00 -
[201] - Quote
Hi Rise,
I'm not important, but I fly a lot of Vagabonds and have for years.
I think the shield boost bonus is...just like totally useless. I mean its cool you added the speed bonus to the base stats; but the % of people that are going to plop a SB on a vagabond is so small because it's gonna lose its cap too fast with MWD/Shield Booster and lets face it, the Vagabond is a kiter.
Isn't there anything else you could slap on it? Tracking? ROF? even additional sig reduction like 4% per level so the Vaga has a real small signature radius - like frigate sized..idk.
The SB bonus just seems like an enormous waste of space. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
606
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:36:00 -
[202] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
DEIMOS Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Fozzie and rise, please explain why this aborted fetus of a bonus is still attached to my deimos?
Because its a good bonus? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:37:00 -
[203] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
DEIMOS Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Fozzie and rise, please explain why this aborted fetus of a bonus is still attached to my deimos?
LOL you could ask the same thing about the cerberus missile flight time bonus Eagles shield resis bonus on a sniper... why? when it needs more dps a damage bonus would make sense here instead Sacrilege cap bonus is also odd instead of a missile tracking bonus. And ofc the old dronebay bonus .... seriously why? drone velocity makes sense with the range bonus on lights. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:38:00 -
[204] - Quote
Fr0stle wrote:I'll just add my voice to the group and ask for some more CPU on the Ishtar. It was always CPU gimped and now we have all these new drone modules that are CPU heavy too. More CPU is needed to make this ship viable in it's intended role.
that and reducing CPU on all drone mods would make sense ... also add a drone tracking for the lows like a TE for drones. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
111
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:39:00 -
[205] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:About the Ishtar:
The domi's bonus for drones is nice, but why is the slot layout still so heavily taylored towards shield tanking and the CPU still WAY too low to fit any semblance of a serious spider tank?
The ishtar needs a more unique flavour to it and unique drone bonus would be nice otherwise i still like the NVexor more..
The Ishtar's bonuses - just like the Domi's - are taylored towards sentry drones, while the VNI's are leaning towards heavy and med's. The main reason why you're not seeing the different flavour is that heavy drones are pretty useless right now, so VNI pilots still use sentries despite wasting part of their ship's bonus that way. |
Ivol Kishtani
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:41:00 -
[206] - Quote
Does anyone use the Muninn as a long range platform? I would think a 4th mid would be more useful than an additional low. |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:41:00 -
[207] - Quote
Esharan wrote:Hi Rise,
I'm not important, but I fly a lot of Vagabonds and have for years.
I think the shield boost bonus is...just like totally useless. I mean its cool you added the speed bonus to the base stats; but the % of people that are going to plop a SB on a vagabond is so small because it's gonna lose its cap too fast with MWD/Shield Booster and lets face it, the Vagabond is a kiter.
Isn't there anything else you could slap on it? Tracking? ROF? even additional sig reduction like 4% per level so the Vaga has a real small signature radius - like frigate sized..idk.
The SB bonus just seems like an enormous waste of space.
Fit an ASB, if cap is what worries you. |
Azula Kishtar
Lonely among the Stars
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:41:00 -
[208] - Quote
David Kir wrote:
The Vagabond's speed was not nerfed.
Read up before posting, don't be a fool.
It did get nerfed a tiny bit, in fact.
Current base speed of a Vagabond is 239m/s, according to my EVEMon.
The current speed bonus is 25%. This bonus is always applied as you need Minmatar Cruiser at V to even fly the Vagabond. The base with the bonus is therefore:
239m/s * 1.25 = 298.75m/s
The new Vagabond gets 290m/s base.
The rest (Navigation skill, prop mods etc.) should apply in the same manner to those values, so the new Vagabond should be always slightly slower with the same fitting and skills.
Not sure how big the difference is with full fits though. I doubt it really matters, even though people will probably still feel they lost something. You know how EVE players are.
But anyway, i'm mostly ok with what i see, for now. Ishtar could use some more CPU. Other than that, i first have to look at some updated fits and compare to other ship classes with similar roles to really see what is going on. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1274
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:42:00 -
[209] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Harvey James wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:About the Ishtar:
The domi's bonus for drones is nice, but why is the slot layout still so heavily taylored towards shield tanking and the CPU still WAY too low to fit any semblance of a serious spider tank?
The ishtar needs a more unique flavour to it and unique drone bonus would be nice otherwise i still like the NVexor more.. The Ishtar's bonuses - just like the Domi's - are taylored towards sentry drones, while the VNI's are leaning towards heavy and med's. The main reason why you're not seeing the different flavour is that heavy drones are pretty useless right now, so VNI pilots still use sentries despite wasting part of their ship's bonus that way. These are supposed to be a step up and greater specialized than there navy variants, again we get a "I don't know what else to do for a drone bonus so I will give it a sentry bonus and call it good." Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:43:00 -
[210] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP Rise...can you give us a view of what niche the HAC is supposed to fill in the Eve patheon of ships? To me at least, the term Assault means "hurting things".
What does it mean to you?
Given that the T1 equivalents can dish out more DPS in some cases, while at the same time, fit a healthy tank, why would anyone ever fly a HAC in heavy fighting? And that does not even factor in the cost issue of a 10:1 hull cost.
indeed they seem to be a hot-potch of brawlers and snipers.. the mwd bonus would make sense with a kitey dps role .. an attack role Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:43:00 -
[211] - Quote
Ivol Kishtani wrote:Does anyone use the Muninn as a long range platform? I would think a 4th mid would be more useful than an additional low.
It's often used in armor alpha gangs, and quite effectively so. The extra low gives it that little bit of tank or damage it needs. BL Muninn+Huginn gangs are infamous. |
SokoleOko
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:44:00 -
[212] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Given that the T1 equivalents can dish out more DPS in some cases, while at the same time, fit a healthy tank, why would anyone ever fly a HAC in heavy fighting? And that does not even factor in the cost issue of a 10:1 hull cost.
No to mention that T1 hull can be insured, T2 not really.
I'm dissapointed. Other than repeating AFs bonus, there's really nothing new. OK, ASB Vagabond could be interesting, but would it really kill you, CCP Rise (pun intended) to give Vagabond a mere 30 PG more so it could fit 5x220mm AC, meta 4 medium neut and 2 T2 LSEs without gimiping fit with PDS or using implant? Really?
Sacrilege is still crap. HMLs won't solve main issue of this ship which is laughable DPS when active tanked. It can't kill ships fast enough before cavalry arrives and die to it.
Cerberus still can't fit 2nd LSE and all launchers, making it having worst shield tank.
In general - I've expected some buffs across the board (like +10% to EHP) to make HACs better than T1 cruisers and more competitive against ABCs. The current proposal just won't cut it, sorry. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15601
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:45:00 -
[213] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Fr0stle wrote:I'll just add my voice to the group and ask for some more CPU on the Ishtar. It was always CPU gimped and now we have all these new drone modules that are CPU heavy too. More CPU is needed to make this ship viable in it's intended role. that and reducing CPU on all drone mods would make sense ... also add a drone tracking for the lows like a TE for drones. GǪor, hell, just to enforce the whole GǣT2 = specialisationGǥ angleGǪ
How about having the Ishtar reduce the CPU need for drone mods? That way, the ship can maintain its limited CPU to keep it from being too versatile, but you can still pack it absolutely full of the very specific set of mods that are related to its niche. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Van Kuzco
Stryker Industries Ocularis Inferno
71
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:49:00 -
[214] - Quote
Excited for the changes! The Ishtar seriously needs a CPU boost though or a reduction to CPU of drone mods. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:49:00 -
[215] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Harvey James wrote:Fr0stle wrote:I'll just add my voice to the group and ask for some more CPU on the Ishtar. It was always CPU gimped and now we have all these new drone modules that are CPU heavy too. More CPU is needed to make this ship viable in it's intended role. that and reducing CPU on all drone mods would make sense ... also add a drone tracking for the lows like a TE for drones. GǪor, hell, just to enforce the whole GǣT2 = specialisationGǥ angleGǪ How about having the Ishtar reduce the CPU need for drone mods? That way, the ship can maintain its limited CPU to keep it from being too versatile, but you can still pack it absolutely full of the very specific set of mods that are related to its niche without making those available to every ship out there. At -10%/level, that would mean Omnilink IIs at 29.5 tf, Drone link IIs at 27.5 tf, and Drone damage amps at 15 tf when you have HAC V. The first decent idea you have ever had. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1661
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:52:00 -
[216] - Quote
Alright I've been pretty busy today but I'm trying to catch up on feedback. Here's some initial thoughts:
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.
While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.
I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
On a related note: someone commented that because HACs with MWD active have larger sig than battleship gun resolution the role bonus is useless. This is not true and I recommend you hop over to the medium weapon balance thread and read some of the explanation for the way tracking works to find out why.
Generally on the role of HACs I think theres a lot of disagreement because people seem to have different ideas of what they are supposed to do. The easiest thing to say on this is that they are not supposed to out-perform t1 or faction cruisers in every way. With this role bonus addition we are really emphasizing that they are supposed to be harder to kill than t1 or faction variations, which is true also for Assault Frigs. They have much better effective HP coming from both base HP and resists. This lends them to both large fleets, where they can be very difficult to kill, or small engagements where they provide a great platform for both primary damage and anti-support which isn't nearly as easy to kill as lower tech variations.
Keep it coming, glad that a lot of you seem excited |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
336
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:52:00 -
[217] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Harvey James wrote:Fr0stle wrote:I'll just add my voice to the group and ask for some more CPU on the Ishtar. It was always CPU gimped and now we have all these new drone modules that are CPU heavy too. More CPU is needed to make this ship viable in it's intended role. that and reducing CPU on all drone mods would make sense ... also add a drone tracking for the lows like a TE for drones. GǪor, hell, just to enforce the whole GǣT2 = specialisationGǥ angleGǪ How about having the Ishtar reduce the CPU need for drone mods? That way, the ship can maintain its limited CPU to keep it from being too versatile, but you can still pack it absolutely full of the very specific set of mods that are related to its niche without making those available to every ship out there. At -10%/level, that would mean Omnilink IIs at 29.5 tf, Drone link IIs at 27.5 tf, and Drone damage amps at 15 tf when you have HAC V. Let's not start a trend where the bonus is that you can fit your ship. The fitting should be acceptable for a "normal" fit without having to add bonuses in order to do so. fitting something nontraditional should require fitting mods or rigs, which is working as intended. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Violet Winters
Angelic Eclipse.
92
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:52:00 -
[218] - Quote
Deimos is just yummy, best support for our machs!
But yea, not sure about that vaga - I gues you guys are just reinforcing the whole ASB vaga brawl stuff, +1 from me anyways.
<3 Anglic Eclipse.
Lee told me to remove my signature Minmatar and Gallente FW |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:52:00 -
[219] - Quote
Azula Kishtar wrote:David Kir wrote:
The Vagabond's speed was not nerfed.
Read up before posting, don't be a fool.
It did get nerfed a tiny bit, in fact. Current base speed of a Vagabond is 239m/s, according to my EVEMon. The current speed bonus is 25%. This bonus is always applied as you need Minmatar Cruiser at V to even fly the Vagabond. The base with the bonus is therefore: 239m/s * 1.25 = 298.75m/s The new Vagabond gets 290m/s base. The rest (Navigation skill, prop mods etc.) should apply in the same manner to those values, so the new Vagabond should be always slightly slower with the same fitting and skills. Not sure how big the difference is with full fits though. I doubt it really matters, even though people will probably still feel they lost something. You know how EVE players are. But anyway, i'm mostly ok with what i see, for now. Ishtar could use some more CPU. Other than that, i first have to look at some updated fits and compare to other ship classes with similar roles to really see what is going on.
Hmm, CCP trying to pass minuscule nerfs under the radar... this sounds familiar, doesn't it.
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
66
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:53:00 -
[220] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Rise wrote:ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
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
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145 Well, initial thoughts on this: WHY IS THE ISHTAR STILL CRIPPLED BY ITS CPU?! Come on, it is the hardest ship to fit--by far--from its horrendous CPU. Even a Nexor has 310 CPU before skills! Second, remove the stupid drone bay bonus. Buff the bay to 375 and give the ship another, more useful bonus. This bonus is the most wasted one I can imagine. Don't make a drone ship *increase the drone bay* as a bonus. Give it another bonus that's more useful.
I'm in agreement here. CPU is quite hampered. And it really needs something else, though that something else might be more of the drone overhaul.
|
|
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:53:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright I've been pretty busy today but I'm trying to catch up on feedback. Here's some initial thoughts:
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.
While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.
I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
On a related note: someone commented that because HACs with MWD active have larger sig than battleship gun resolution the role bonus is useless. This is not true and I recommend you hop over to the medium weapon balance thread and read some of the explanation for the way tracking works to find out why.
Generally on the role of HACs I think theres a lot of disagreement because people seem to have different ideas of what they are supposed to do. The easiest thing to say on this is that they are not supposed to out-perform t1 or faction cruisers in every way. With this role bonus addition we are really emphasizing that they are supposed to be harder to kill than t1 or faction variations, which is true also for Assault Frigs. They have much better effective HP coming from both base HP and resists. This lends them to both large fleets, where they can be very difficult to kill, or small engagements where they provide a great platform for both primary damage and anti-support which isn't nearly as easy to kill as lower tech variations.
Keep it coming, glad that a lot of you seem excited
Nice stealthy Vaga speed nerf.
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
420
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:53:00 -
[222] - Quote
I dont get whats the problem with ishtar's cpu. Even if it has to fit some cpu mods/rigs it is still an awesome ship 650+ dps at 100km+ range is pretty awesome for a med hull. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:54:00 -
[223] - 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1274
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:54:00 -
[224] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Harvey James wrote:Fr0stle wrote:I'll just add my voice to the group and ask for some more CPU on the Ishtar. It was always CPU gimped and now we have all these new drone modules that are CPU heavy too. More CPU is needed to make this ship viable in it's intended role. that and reducing CPU on all drone mods would make sense ... also add a drone tracking for the lows like a TE for drones. GǪor, hell, just to enforce the whole GÇ£T2 = specialisationGÇ¥ angleGǪ How about having the Ishtar reduce the CPU need for drone mods? That way, the ship can maintain its limited CPU to keep it from being too versatile, but you can still pack it absolutely full of the very specific set of mods that are related to its niche without making those available to every ship out there. At -10%/level, that would mean Omnilink IIs at 29.5 tf, Drone link IIs at 27.5 tf, and Drone damage amps at 15 tf when you have HAC V. So in a bonus redo for the Ishtar we could/would like to see Gallente Cruiser 10% Drone damage and HP per level 5% Drone Tracking and MWD velocity per level Heavy Assault Ships -10% to the CPU need of Drone Upgrade Modules per level 10% to Drone Tracking and Optimal range per level Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10870
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:55:00 -
[225] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:This worries me for the T3 balance, many of these ships cant compete with the Navy balance pass. Will this mean T3 ships will be worse than T1? Yup. All hail the great "rebalance". Nothing wrong with paying 400 M for a hull and subssytems, plus risk 3-5 days SP every time you fly it, for the privilege of gutting the rigs every time you want to change its role. Yes, will be doing that instead of buying 20 T1 cruiser hulls that outperform the T2 and T3 equivalent.
Agreed entirely. The mob hunger for T3 nerfs risks doing real damage to the game.
1 Kings 12:11
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
277
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:56:00 -
[226] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright I've been pretty busy today but I'm trying to catch up on feedback. Here's some initial thoughts:
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.
While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.
I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
On a related note: someone commented that because HACs with MWD active have larger sig than battleship gun resolution the role bonus is useless. This is not true and I recommend you hop over to the medium weapon balance thread and read some of the explanation for the way tracking works to find out why.
Generally on the role of HACs I think theres a lot of disagreement because people seem to have different ideas of what they are supposed to do. The easiest thing to say on this is that they are not supposed to out-perform t1 or faction cruisers in every way. With this role bonus addition we are really emphasizing that they are supposed to be harder to kill than t1 or faction variations, which is true also for Assault Frigs. They have much better effective HP coming from both base HP and resists. This lends them to both large fleets, where they can be very difficult to kill, or small engagements where they provide a great platform for both primary damage and anti-support which isn't nearly as easy to kill as lower tech variations.
Keep it coming, glad that a lot of you seem excited
The ishtar's bonus to 'damage application' only works on sentries. Giving it drone speed as well wouldn't be making the sentry blob setup more powerful. That bay/level bonus is dumb, it's like dropping the zealot to 1 gun, then giving it +1 per level of hac.
You'll never do this, but I still think giving it 50 bandwidth and a double damage drone bonus would be cool, then it would project damage more like a conventional turret or missile ship. ~500 dps of medium drones going around at 3km/s would be nice. Sentries are great, but being stuck with them isn't always great. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
975
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:57:00 -
[227] - Quote
Mr Rise
Nice to see this happen, not played yet with all numbers yadaya but with Rails changes aren't we going to see stupid Raxes and Deimos everywhere?
Just a first feeling, maybe second dmg bonus needs to be turned in to better optimal or fall off. Notice I will not complain at all if I have full Gallente doctrines going around but rails changes +bonus might make these 2 ships a bit out of whack.
4 meds = enough to make it a-la ASB Vigilant with JUST better resist profile and lows full of dmg mods which might finish with a ship taking on all others specially in numbers. Hope I'm wrong and it's just a bad feeling, I want my Gallente ships better but not out of whack to see them nerf to the ground in 6months. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
riando
FishRobot
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:57:00 -
[228] - Quote
Guys, I hope you're joking, " Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler" Or you know nothing about vaga, or ... i hope you're joking, vaga its a kite long range ship! It has not slots from active tank! So, ideal would be maximize bonus for tracking&faloff. And nothing new not need!
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:57:00 -
[229] - 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. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:58:00 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright I've been pretty busy today but I'm trying to catch up on feedback. Here's some initial thoughts:
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.
While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.
I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
On a related note: someone commented that because HACs with MWD active have larger sig than battleship gun resolution the role bonus is useless. This is not true and I recommend you hop over to the medium weapon balance thread and read some of the explanation for the way tracking works to find out why.
Generally on the role of HACs I think theres a lot of disagreement because people seem to have different ideas of what they are supposed to do. The easiest thing to say on this is that they are not supposed to out-perform t1 or faction cruisers in every way. With this role bonus addition we are really emphasizing that they are supposed to be harder to kill than t1 or faction variations, which is true also for Assault Frigs. They have much better effective HP coming from both base HP and resists. This lends them to both large fleets, where they can be very difficult to kill, or small engagements where they provide a great platform for both primary damage and anti-support which isn't nearly as easy to kill as lower tech variations.
Keep it coming, glad that a lot of you seem excited
lots of fluff without answering anything at all .. you would make a good politician :P
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
75
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:58:00 -
[231] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright I've been pretty busy today but I'm trying to catch up on feedback. Here's some initial thoughts:
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.
While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.
I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
On a related note: someone commented that because HACs with MWD active have larger sig than battleship gun resolution the role bonus is useless. This is not true and I recommend you hop over to the medium weapon balance thread and read some of the explanation for the way tracking works to find out why.
Generally on the role of HACs I think theres a lot of disagreement because people seem to have different ideas of what they are supposed to do. The easiest thing to say on this is that they are not supposed to out-perform t1 or faction cruisers in every way. With this role bonus addition we are really emphasizing that they are supposed to be harder to kill than t1 or faction variations, which is true also for Assault Frigs. They have much better effective HP coming from both base HP and resists. This lends them to both large fleets, where they can be very difficult to kill, or small engagements where they provide a great platform for both primary damage and anti-support which isn't nearly as easy to kill as lower tech variations.
Keep it coming, glad that a lot of you seem excited
So what you are saying is basically that t2 variants arent mean to be more powerfull than t1/navy? So tell me why should i prefer to use the vaga per exemple against a sfi? |
Lixia Saran
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:59:00 -
[232] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:This worries me for the T3 balance, many of these ships cant compete with the Navy balance pass. Will this mean T3 ships will be worse than T1? Yup. All hail the great "rebalance". Nothing wrong with paying 400 M for a hull and subssytems, plus risk 3-5 days SP every time you fly it, for the privilege of gutting the rigs every time you want to change its role. Yes, will be doing that instead of buying 20 T1 cruiser hulls that outperform the T2 and T3 equivalent. Agreed entirely. The mob hunger for T3 nerfs risks doing real damage to the game.
Agreed here as well. I can barely see the justification of flying a vaga over a SFI (granted one's a shield the other's mostly an armor ship) because of the price difference vs the 'gain' in power. |
Haradgrim
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:59:00 -
[233] - Quote
I really like most of the changes (especially the eagle) but I still have 3 primary concerns:
1) The 50% reduction to MWD is great but I think it might need to be higher for HACs than it was made for AFs. With AFs, the range on small guns is such that the MWD puts you out of range before someone with sufficient tracking can kill you and the sig reduction is enough to keep you from getting Alpha'd or DPS'd to quickly. Now I haven't looked closely at what the tracking looks like post-MWD-sig-reduction but my initial feeling is that it will be too easy to Alpha a HAC with medium long range weapons with a tracking fit or if their velocity drops at any point (which happens more frequently than in frigs).
2) The vaga, even if people are using SBs on them, is an iconic ship with an iconic role. It used to be perhaps the most overpowered ship in the game (pre-polycarbon nerf) but was also one of the most fun. I think that if it were moved closer to its old role of being an almost interceptor style cruiser it would make for much more interesting game-play especially now that the meta is a lot different due to the changes to scrams and prevalence of tracking fits.
3) The Deimos MWD cap bonus is bad, everyone hates it and it just feels annoying and out of place. So does the cap bonus on the Sac but at least that could be useful. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:59:00 -
[234] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Tippia wrote:Harvey James wrote:Fr0stle wrote:I'll just add my voice to the group and ask for some more CPU on the Ishtar. It was always CPU gimped and now we have all these new drone modules that are CPU heavy too. More CPU is needed to make this ship viable in it's intended role. that and reducing CPU on all drone mods would make sense ... also add a drone tracking for the lows like a TE for drones. GǪor, hell, just to enforce the whole GǣT2 = specialisationGǥ angleGǪ How about having the Ishtar reduce the CPU need for drone mods? That way, the ship can maintain its limited CPU to keep it from being too versatile, but you can still pack it absolutely full of the very specific set of mods that are related to its niche without making those available to every ship out there. At -10%/level, that would mean Omnilink IIs at 29.5 tf, Drone link IIs at 27.5 tf, and Drone damage amps at 15 tf when you have HAC V. So in a bonus redo for the Ishtar we could/would like to see Gallente Cruiser 10% Drone damage and HP per level 5% Drone Tracking and MWD velocity per level Heavy Assault Ships -10% to the CPU need of Drone Upgrade Modules per level 10% to Drone Tracking and Optimal range per level
certainly better than it is now at least. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Andrea Griffin
593
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:00:00 -
[235] - Quote
SokoleOko wrote:I'm dissapointed. Other than repeating AFs bonus, there's really nothing new. Exactly. This is just another "More EHP, More DPS" ship line. There isn't that something special that really sets these ships apart. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
622
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:00:00 -
[236] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright I've been pretty busy today but I'm trying to catch up on feedback. Here's some initial thoughts:
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.
While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.
Ishtar just got an extra turret slot, so not having the fitting requirement improved seams daft given the fact that you just did that. plus it was always a ***** to fit anyhow
sac, omg its still crap, but as of now you just made it worse than all of them even the now actually decent eagle, well done. remove utility high and give it that extra low it needs so badly for tank.
rest are mostly ok changes OMG when can i get a pic here
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
329
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:00:00 -
[237] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:YAYYYY
EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 150
i am seeing that correct yah? so thats a 50% bonus to med hybrids optimal slapped ontop of another potential 50% bonus to med hybrids optimal yes? |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
241
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:00:00 -
[238] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright I've been pretty busy today but I'm trying to catch up on feedback. Here's some initial thoughts:
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.
While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.
I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
On a related note: someone commented that because HACs with MWD active have larger sig than battleship gun resolution the role bonus is useless. This is not true and I recommend you hop over to the medium weapon balance thread and read some of the explanation for the way tracking works to find out why.
Generally on the role of HACs I think theres a lot of disagreement because people seem to have different ideas of what they are supposed to do. The easiest thing to say on this is that they are not supposed to out-perform t1 or faction cruisers in every way. With this role bonus addition we are really emphasizing that they are supposed to be harder to kill than t1 or faction variations, which is true also for Assault Frigs. They have much better effective HP coming from both base HP and resists. This lends them to both large fleets, where they can be very difficult to kill, or small engagements where they provide a great platform for both primary damage and anti-support which isn't nearly as easy to kill as lower tech variations.
Keep it coming, glad that a lot of you seem excited
Damage application of one type of drones, sentries. Drones suck. Why are you limiting us to a one trick pony here? The Ishtar should be specializing in drones without stomping on the toes of the Vexor or VNI. It already has less DPS than both due to the lack of turret bonus and the fitting requirements. Please consider dropping drone bay bonus for the speed bonus. This will not stomp either the Vexor or the VNI. Both are much faster and make for better brawlers. This will just allow the Ishtar to brawl as well. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
119
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:01:00 -
[239] - Quote
riando wrote:Guys, I hope you're joking, " Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler" Or you know nothing about vaga, or ... i hope you're joking, vaga its a kite long range ship! It has not slots from active tank! So, ideal would be maximize bonus for tracking&faloff. And nothing new not need!
Holy **** people.
The vaga got nothing but buffs.
It's called an ASB. Look it up, fit one, experience Godmode on Vaga. |
Sai Talos
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:01:00 -
[240] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised.
Hey Fozzie, Rise, thanks for all the hard work. These changes look great, and I love the Medium gun changes.
I am a bit concerned about the upcoming giant nerf bat that's coming to T3's, however. It doesn't look like T2 has stepped up to be a viable alternative in high class wormhole pvp/pve comps like we (the WH community) have been hoping.
Just bear in mind we will need something that's going to work when the T3 changes hit, and this will not do that for us. Thanks. |
|
Gripen
1631
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:01:00 -
[241] - Quote
Oh... once again this stupid MWD signature bonus which makes choosing between MWD and AB even more no-brainer decision. Instead of adding choices you remove them from the game again and again.
CCP Rise wrote:... afterburner variations that are already very strong ... I must confess, that I haven't been active for last year but isn't ABHACs just one trick pony against incompetent foes who fail at trivial thing of providing webbing support and keeping it alive and this format popularity sharply declined after short initial spark of novelty? Am I wrong here? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10871
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:02:00 -
[242] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher.
"Amazing" is exactly the right word.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Lixia Saran
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:02:00 -
[243] - Quote
Dear CCP Santa,
while you are rebalancing T2 ships, please can you please pass a note to the art team to remove space camo (I'm looking at you vagabond!)
Thanks,
Lixia
P.S.: Milk and Cookies are on the table. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
241
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:02:00 -
[244] - Quote
Another minor nit. Please remove the launchers from Deimos. There is no need for them without the utility high. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2394
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:02:00 -
[245] - Quote
+1 on the Ishtar CPU. It has always been the reason this ship can't fully shine.
The CPU rigs were a godsend when they came in, and then the drone damage mods helped the ship a lot, but they reintroduced the CPU issue as well.
Lots of good ideas here...
(I also agree that the 50m3 bay/level is a goofy bonus, but I trained HAC 5 years ago. I like the analogy of fitting 1 gun and getting +1 gun per level on other ships :) )
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:03:00 -
[246] - Quote
Voith wrote:riando wrote:Guys, I hope you're joking, " Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler" Or you know nothing about vaga, or ... i hope you're joking, vaga its a kite long range ship! It has not slots from active tank! So, ideal would be maximize bonus for tracking&faloff. And nothing new not need!
Holy **** people. The vaga got nothing but buffs. It's called an ASB. Look it up, fit one, experience Godmode on Vaga.
It did get a minor speed nerf.
|
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
119
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:03:00 -
[247] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright I've been pretty busy today but I'm trying to catch up on feedback. Here's some initial thoughts:
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.
So.. you don't expect the Ishtar, a Heavy Assault Cruiser, to use Cruiser sized Modules?
Why is it constantly Gallente, and Drone Ships, that get random gimping?
If you "balanced" any of the other HACs around using Frigate modules people would laugh.
Wait, people ARE laughing at the Ishtar changes!
|
Ivol Kishtani
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:04:00 -
[248] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Ivol Kishtani wrote:Does anyone use the Muninn as a long range platform? I would think a 4th mid would be more useful than an additional low. It's often used in armor alpha gangs, and quite effectively so. The extra low gives it that little bit of tank or damage it needs. BL Muninn+Huginn gangs are infamous.
BL Muninn gangs are shield not armor. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10871
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:05:00 -
[249] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Voith wrote:riando wrote:Guys, I hope you're joking, " Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler" Or you know nothing about vaga, or ... i hope you're joking, vaga its a kite long range ship! It has not slots from active tank! So, ideal would be maximize bonus for tracking&faloff. And nothing new not need!
Holy **** people. The vaga got nothing but buffs. It's called an ASB. Look it up, fit one, experience Godmode on Vaga. It did get a minor speed nerf.
But it got a major tank buff. And although it lost some of it's range control ability, it's still easily the fastest cruiser hull other than the egregious Cynabal.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:05:00 -
[250] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:CCP Rise wrote: I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher.
"Amazing" is exactly the right word.
sarcasm malcanis or expressing that HAMS range is still insanely high atm Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
277
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:05:00 -
[251] - Quote
Lol @ all these wormhole guys thinking T3s don't need to be massively nerfed/deleted entirely |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:06:00 -
[252] - 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 |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:06:00 -
[253] - Quote
Lixia Saran wrote:Malcanis wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:This worries me for the T3 balance, many of these ships cant compete with the Navy balance pass. Will this mean T3 ships will be worse than T1? Yup. All hail the great "rebalance". Nothing wrong with paying 400 M for a hull and subssytems, plus risk 3-5 days SP every time you fly it, for the privilege of gutting the rigs every time you want to change its role. Yes, will be doing that instead of buying 20 T1 cruiser hulls that outperform the T2 and T3 equivalent. Agreed entirely. The mob hunger for T3 nerfs risks doing real damage to the game. Agreed here as well. I can barely see the justification of flying a vaga over a SFI (granted one's a shield the other's mostly an armor ship) because of the price difference vs the 'gain' in power.
This. 400 mil (for the unfitted ship) and 3 days of training are enough to justify their existence in the current form. Just rebalance the Accelerated Ejection Bay, and you'll have fixed the major source of imbalance.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:06:00 -
[254] - Quote
Gripen wrote:Oh... once again this stupid MWD signature bonus which makes choosing between MWD and AB even more no-brainer decision. Instead of adding choices you remove them from the game again and again. CCP Rise wrote:... afterburner variations that are already very strong ... I must confess, that I haven't been active for last year but isn't ABHACs just one trick pony against incompetent foes who fail at trivial thing of providing webbing support and keeping it alive and this format popularity sharply declined after short initial spark of novelty? Am I wrong here?
maybe if they buffed AB's it would be a more genuine choice Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
75
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:06:00 -
[255] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:David Kir wrote:Voith wrote:riando wrote:Guys, I hope you're joking, " Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler" Or you know nothing about vaga, or ... i hope you're joking, vaga its a kite long range ship! It has not slots from active tank! So, ideal would be maximize bonus for tracking&faloff. And nothing new not need!
Holy **** people. The vaga got nothing but buffs. It's called an ASB. Look it up, fit one, experience Godmode on Vaga. It did get a minor speed nerf. But it got a major tank buff. And although it lost some of it's range control ability, it's still easily the fastest cruiser hull other than the egregious Cynabal.
SO why take a vaga when you can take a sfi? |
Capqu
Love Squad
142
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:07:00 -
[256] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
the fact that you don't even mention rlml when talking about the cerb shows just how out of touch these changes really are. hmls are garbage, there is no point in using them instead of rapid lights unless you force it by making extremely specific, narrow ship bonuses that only affect one and not the other. that's a pretty big hint of awful design
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:08:00 -
[257] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:David Kir wrote:Voith wrote:riando wrote:Guys, I hope you're joking, " Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler" Or you know nothing about vaga, or ... i hope you're joking, vaga its a kite long range ship! It has not slots from active tank! So, ideal would be maximize bonus for tracking&faloff. And nothing new not need!
Holy **** people. The vaga got nothing but buffs. It's called an ASB. Look it up, fit one, experience Godmode on Vaga. It did get a minor speed nerf. But it got a major tank buff. And although it lost some of it's range control ability, it's still easily the fastest cruiser hull other than the egregious Cynabal.
I know, it was just to point out that it did get ONE nerf. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15605
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:09:00 -
[258] - Quote
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. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1275
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:09:00 -
[259] - Quote
It would be nice to do something interesting like a +100% velocity bonus to Afterburners, instead of the MWD sig reduction bonus. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Transcendent Sedition Dustm3n
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:09:00 -
[260] - Quote
Just 2 things..
One.. On the Sacrilidge.. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of the utility high slot for a 6th low, I want this thing to be a tanking machine (or fit more DPS, whichever one comes first). It would vastly help with its brawling capibility I think.
Two.. Tracking Bonus would be nice on the Diemos instea of MWD bonus. -Bl+¦d
Wormholes are the best Space.. |
|
The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
126
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:10:00 -
[261] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.
How about limiting the damage bonus just to HAMs and give it a 20% per level velocity for HAMs, so it simply works like the SAC before the HAM range nerf as heavy tanked medium range missile platform with up to 60km range? It doesn't need more drones. Another launcher or a little bit higher damage bonus would be more helpful(because of the limited low slots) HACs are not primary brawling ships and the sac overlapping in the brawling role with HAM Drake is what makes it so bad. Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
278
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:11:00 -
[262] - Quote
Capqu wrote:CCP Rise wrote: I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
the fact that you don't even mention rlml when talking about the cerb shows just how out of touch these changes really are. hmls are garbage, there is no point in using them instead of rapid lights unless you force it by making extremely specific, narrow ship bonuses that only affect one and not the other. that's a pretty big hint of awful design
If they thought HMLs were garbage, they'd probably be fixing HMLs, rather than handing out RLML bonuses. |
Capqu
Love Squad
142
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:12:00 -
[263] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Capqu wrote:CCP Rise wrote: I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
the fact that you don't even mention rlml when talking about the cerb shows just how out of touch these changes really are. hmls are garbage, there is no point in using them instead of rapid lights unless you force it by making extremely specific, narrow ship bonuses that only affect one and not the other. that's a pretty big hint of awful design If they thought HMLs were garbage, they'd probably be fixing HMLs, rather than handing out RLML bonuses.
i'm not saying they think they are garbage, they clearly think they're fine because rise thinks they are worth using ever
which they aren't http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:12:00 -
[264] - Quote
CCP RISE
I'm getting the impression here that people don't want more tank they want more options like... dps and speed, projection, tracking, armour tanking being viable without becoming unable to fit things like guns etc... more fitting ability like cpu.. and more interesting bonuses.
Bottom line here is brawling HACS aren't a great role because other ships do it better like bc's navy bc's T3's etc...
MWD bonus fits with ships that kite like a vaga, HAM cerberus .. but these need speed buffs too work. Also sort out the strange resistances they should be more omni rather than ranging from 90% -0%
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
darius mclever
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:13:00 -
[265] - Quote
Esharan wrote:Hi Rise,
I'm not important, but I fly a lot of Vagabonds and have for years.
I think the shield boost bonus is...just like totally useless. I mean its cool you added the speed bonus to the base stats; but the % of people that are going to plop a SB on a vagabond is so small because it's gonna lose its cap too fast with MWD/Shield Booster and lets face it, the Vagabond is a kiter.
Isn't there anything else you could slap on it? Tracking? ROF? even additional sig reduction like 4% per level so the Vaga has a real small signature radius - like frigate sized..idk.
The SB bonus just seems like an enormous waste of space.
Even with ASBs? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10871
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:15:00 -
[266] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Malcanis wrote:CCP Rise wrote: I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher.
"Amazing" is exactly the right word. sarcasm malcanis or expressing that HAMS range is still insanely high atm
I'll be amazed if people use the cerb as a skirmisher.
Well, to be fair they'll probably use it once, to try it out, but I'll be amazed if they repeat the attempt, because it's too slow to avoid medium tackle and too fragile to tank the DPS when it's inevitably webbed and pointed down while the guys who brought Vagabonds trololol away, enjoying their 700m/s speed avantage and tanking bonus.
It's going to make for a nice cheap alternative to the Tengu for a guristas/serp missile ratter for people who don't live in space restful enough to use Ravens, so that's something.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1667
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:16:00 -
[267] - Quote
Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me. |
|
TheButcherPete
The James Gang SpaceMonkey's Alliance
300
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:17:00 -
[268] - Quote
Using HMLs to snipe is kind of silly... THE KING OF EVE RADIO
ElQuirko is my son |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1667
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:17:00 -
[269] - Quote
Quote:I'll be amazed if people use the cerb as a skirmisher.
I think you're super wrong here. We will have to see I guess. |
|
Capqu
Love Squad
143
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:19:00 -
[270] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.
i'm sorry, it was a crime of passion http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:20:00 -
[271] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.
seriously Rise with RML's .. have you not thought about how insane it is using frigate ammo on cruisers? abolish them and replace with a light assault variant i.e. like the difference in using 180's to 425's. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:20:00 -
[272] - Quote
Ivol Kishtani wrote:David Kir wrote:Ivol Kishtani wrote:Does anyone use the Muninn as a long range platform? I would think a 4th mid would be more useful than an additional low. It's often used in armor alpha gangs, and quite effectively so. The extra low gives it that little bit of tank or damage it needs. BL Muninn+Huginn gangs are infamous. BL Muninn gangs are shield not armor.
I know, otherwise I wouldn't have specified that they also use the Huginn.
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
687
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:22:00 -
[273] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.
Can we just have all missile boats get the bonuses to RLMLs like they should? Its a medium weapon system and it should get the benefit of not having to pick and choose which ship gets it like all the other weapons in the game. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
336
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:23:00 -
[274] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 150 Eagle should have recieved +1 turret if you want it to be able to put out measurable dps. It's the same sort of thing you did with the Ferox to keep it viable. As it currently stands with this initial pass, it doesn't look like it's going to get much more use than it currently does.
And just to make another point: you really ought to consider changing out the lol bonuses for some that actually make sense. Flat our remove the +50 drone bay for something more useful, or if you're going to give it a stupid bonus, make it an active rep bonus. At least it wouldn't be using it's cap for weapons, and the ship may actually get some use as a brawler.
For the 5% cap/level and the Sac's 5% cap charge/level---you can do better. Look at the other ships. Some have 4x damage/application bonuses. Put these that have dumb bonuses on par, at least. Give one +5% armor amount per level, +repair amount, etc. Keeping the old bonuses because you couldn't think of anything better isn't a reason to keep them. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1277
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:23:00 -
[275] - Quote
CCP Rise or CCP Fozzie, maybe even one of the CSMs in the thread, are drones going to be looked at any time soon, or are they a lost cause and need to be completely rewritten? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
687
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:24:00 -
[276] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me. seriously Rise with RML's .. have you not thought about how insane it is using frigate ammo on cruisers? abolish them and replace with a light assault variant i.e. like the difference in using 180's to 425's.
This is stupid. How else are missile boats going to defend against frigs? 15 m3 drone bay? No thx. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1144
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:25:00 -
[277] - Quote
Still dont understand why thorax tracks better then the diemos... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:25:00 -
[278] - Quote
Ok, so Cerberus will get the same super-destroyer role the Caracal fits into. I can deal with that. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:27:00 -
[279] - 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? |
The Ironfist
Nordgoetter Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:28:00 -
[280] - Quote
For the ishtar to be viable in any kind of fleet capacity it desperatly needs more CPU! When I outfit it for armor tank and drone range/damge I'm left with 3 med and 2 high-slots I can not fit because of CPU. Fitting for shield you run into the same issue. Dunno but that just doesn't seem right to me. I mean you guys took one highslot away which we could never outfit anyway but at the very least you could give us some more base CPU.. +20 or something like it would go a long way. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10874
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:28:00 -
[281] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I'll be amazed if people use the cerb as a skirmisher. I think you're super wrong here. We will have to see I guess.
Indeed we will. If by some incredible turn of events we don't see people flocking to use a ship that can't outrun a Caracal (let along a Stabber) as a skirmisher, I hope there will be an opportunity to look at giving it a genuinely distinctive role.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
336
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:28:00 -
[282] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:It would be nice to do something interesting like a +100% velocity bonus to Afterburners, instead of the MWD sig reduction bonus. I have to echo this sentiment. I realize that CCP likely won't do this because it'd make these ships vastly overpowered (sig tank + speed + damage), but I don't know if the MWD sig reduction goes far enough or even performs its purpose. These ships will balloon with their MWDs on, so that kills shield ships sniping and does nothing to AHACs/brawlers once they get in range. Unfortunately, though, Omnathious, I'm pretty sure CCP is set on this. Fozzie stated during a Fanfest presentation that this was in the works, so I'm sure with such an old idea, they started with it and went from there. I expect this one is going to stay.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
220
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:29:00 -
[283] - Quote
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. for the way tracking works to find out why.
Little point in having the slots if you can't fit them with anything but a place holder.
Consider reducing the number of gun slots or even drop another high slot in return for some more CPU. Fear God and Thread Nought |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
278
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:29:00 -
[284] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Rise wrote:EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 150 Eagle should have recieved +1 turret if you want it to be able to put out measurable dps. It's the same sort of thing you did with the Ferox to keep it viable. As it currently stands with this initial pass, it doesn't look like it's going to get much more use than it currently does. And just to make another point: you really ought to consider changing out the lol bonuses for some that actually make sense. Flat our remove the +50 drone bay for something more useful, or if you're going to give it a stupid bonus, make it an active rep bonus. At least it wouldn't be using it's cap for weapons, and the ship may actually get some use as a brawler. For the 5% cap/level and the Sac's 5% cap charge/level---you can do better. Look at the other ships. Some have 4x damage/application bonuses. Put these that have dumb bonuses on par, at least. Give one +5% armor amount per level, +repair amount, etc. Keeping the old bonuses because you couldn't think of anything better isn't a reason to keep them.
The ferox is currently underpowered, actually. It has the same number of effective turrets as everyone else, but theirs are compacted into 1 fewer highslots. That's why the ferox is 1 mid short of a drake, for no good reason. It's because it would be kind of silly to double up the range bonus to meet the doubled up damage bonus of the other ships. That whole BC nerf was pretty underwhelming and bad, really. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:29:00 -
[285] - Quote
ITT: No one comprehends T2 native resists and proceeds to complain about things that don't matter.
(The Deimos mwd bonus is silly, though.) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:30:00 -
[286] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me. seriously Rise with RML's .. have you not thought about how insane it is using frigate ammo on cruisers? abolish them and replace with a light assault variant i.e. like the difference in using 180's to 425's. This is stupid. How else are missile boats going to defend against frigs? 15 m3 drone bay? No thx.
Well this is where the argument over adding missiles to TE's/TC's come in as gunships can use them to strong effect against frigs but missile ships can't having a similar tracking to say a vaga via a Light assault missile with TE's/TC's and say an explosion velocity bonus would be adding more options to the game and make sense instead of using frig ammo to do the job with much less dps. It should have ability to fight larger stuff aswell instead of being a anti frig only ship.
Also corax is excellent anti frig .. the role of the destroyer and all .. cruisers shouldn't be aimed at killing smaller ships than itself. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Tsubutai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
211
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:31:00 -
[287] - Quote
I'd rather see the Cerb lose its silly drone bay and have the kinetic damage bonus swapped to an all-flavor damage bonus in exchange, but I think it'll be in a pretty good place overall as long as the double range bonus is applied to light missiles as well as heavies and HAMs, and that it should be a very viable skirmisher. The double range bonus is excessive for heavies, but it's excellent for lights and HAMs. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
278
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:31:00 -
[288] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I'll be amazed if people use the cerb as a skirmisher. I think you're super wrong here. We will have to see I guess. Indeed we will. If by some incredible turn of events we don't see people flocking to use a ship that can't outrun a Caracal (let along a Stabber) as a skirmisher, I hope there will be an opportunity to look at giving it a genuinely distinctive role.
Having a much larger tank and more damage is a pretty good substitute for being better at running away. Why should it be able to outrun a caracal? |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:33:00 -
[289] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me. seriously Rise with RML's .. have you not thought about how insane it is using frigate ammo on cruisers? abolish them and replace with a light assault variant i.e. like the difference in using 180's to 425's. This is stupid. How else are missile boats going to defend against frigs? 15 m3 drone bay? No thx. Well this is where the argument over adding missiles to TE's/TC's come in as gunships can use them to strong effect against frigs but missile ships can't having a similar tracking to say a vaga via a Light assault missile with TE's/TC's and say an explosion velocity bonus would be adding more options to the game and make sense instead of using frig ammo to do the job with much less dps and ability to fight larger stuff aswell instead of being a anti frig only ship. Also corax is excellent anti frig .. the role of the destroyer and all .. cruisers shouldn't be aimed at killing smaller ships than iteself.
What? Cruisers shouldn't be aimed at killing smaller ships?
What should they be aimed at, only killing each other?
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1277
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:33:00 -
[290] - Quote
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. for the way tracking works to find out why.
Wait, are you serious on this? We get a bonus to sentries, putting Garde IIs out to 45Km, but then you don't expect us to put medium sized weapons in the high slots. So we are left with 45Km drone projection and 8~10 km turret projection. And still not enough CPU to give a damn about drone mods and tank. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
darius mclever
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:34:00 -
[291] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:I'd rather see the Cerb lose its silly drone bay and have the kinetic damage bonus swapped to an all-flavor damage bonus in exchange, but I think it'll be in a pretty good place overall as long as the double range bonus is applied to light missiles as well as heavies and HAMs, and that it should be a very viable skirmisher. The double range bonus is excessive for heavies, but it's excellent for lights and HAMs.
cerb has a drone bay? |
Enthes goldhart
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:34:00 -
[292] - Quote
For the Deimos PLEASE DONT TAKE MY 6TH HIGH SLOT! It desperately needs this for NOS due to the amount of neuts in the game. You did this for the Megathron and it worked as Megathrons always have cap boosters fitted due to the MWD, however with the cap bonus to the MWD the Deimos doesnGÇÖt need a cap booster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown. This would really hurt the passive Deimos setups.
The rest of the changes look good mostly though i feel they might not have gone far enough compared to their T1 and navy counterparts. (I would have liked to see and increase to sensor strength to stop those pesky ecm drones) ooster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
336
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:36:00 -
[293] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:The ferox is currently underpowered, actually. It has the same number of effective turrets as everyone else, but theirs are compacted into 1 fewer highslots. That's why the ferox is 1 mid short of a drake, for no good reason. It's because it would be kind of silly to double up the range bonus to meet the doubled up damage bonus of the other ships. That whole BC nerf was pretty underwhelming and bad, really. Yes, but Ferox is arguably better with 7 turrets that it ever was over 6, since it's bonus is to optimal. With Eagle having dual bonuses to optimal, yet only having 5 turrets, it's going to suffer. Nobody is going to use an Eagle over a Naga--even with the rail buff--since the Naga's raw damage output is going to eclipse the Eagle's medium charge's sig. at that distance.
Either add another turret or--better--they could improve the damage bonus to 10%/level.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:36:00 -
[294] - Quote
How about for the eagle up the optimal range bonus to 20% and replace the second bonus with a rate of fire There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
975
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:37:00 -
[295] - Quote
TheButcherPete wrote:Using HMLs to snipe is kind of silly...
The whole point of medium long range weapons being to make them worth using at decent ranges with decent DPS and YES, Heavy Missiles are the medium long range missiles weapon, therefore needs to be on the line with medium turrets instead of Rapid Lights becoming seriously OP as anti support.
Rapid lights are the weirdest weapon system in the game, those are not small versions nor med versions, just like if you had some sort of middle ground turret in between small and medium with small tracking and medium dps ability, which is silly imho and should be removed from the game or turned in to exclusive defenders (FOF?) launchers with even higher rof
Arty canes are already used as anti support and have such alpha nothing from frigate to destroyer can decently survive to one or two volleys at best from those, with missile mechanics and a ship like Cerberus with those RLM faction ammo/javelins nothing even at 8km/sec can ever approach your fleet to provide warp ins or drop a bubble unless suicide bubbles which is not only stupid as game play but completely uninteresting for whoever plays those. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:37:00 -
[296] - Quote
There still remains the question of "what are HAC's specialized in as a T2 ship"
Even after these changes, it still seems like every one of these HACs (except the Ishtar) is completely outshone by a similar purposed Strategic cruiser, which might cost 1.5-2.5 times as much, but have more tank, DPS, and utility than any of these HACs can dream of.
Successful T2 ship classes have roles that it and only it can fulfill, only dictors can bubble, only Bombers can bomb, only Logistics ships can provide long range reps on a tough platform. As long as HACs are strictly worse than T3s in every aspect besides price, the use of HACs will be limited (and similarly, Command ships are less used because a boosting T3 completely outshines it). HACs should be able to do something that only HACGÇÖs can do, instead of being a T3 for poor people.
How about giving HACs a role bonus to allow them to more easily hold their ground against masses of battleships? AB HACs are GÇ£a thingGÇ¥ so the MWD bonus is poorly suited for tanking battleships fleets, which are often supported by Recons and Tackle T3GÇÖs. Perhaps a 50% reduction from Web and Painter effects, so these ships can get under battleship guns even when webbed and painted. That specific bonus is probably too powerful in brawling situations.
Or failing that give them a MWD cap use bonus on top of the sig reduction to make them kiting ships without peer. Just anything to make them something other than poor-man T3's. I trust CCP Devs to figure a way to make HAC's truly useful. http://themittani.com -á- your one stop site for all News Eve Related |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:37:00 -
[297] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:How about for the eagle up the optimal range bonus to 20% and replace the second bonus with a rate of fire
never suggest a ROF on cap sensitive weapons..... they might just do it!!!! ... damage bonus please instead of resis nonsense bonus on a sniper Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
278
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:38:00 -
[298] - Quote
Enthes goldhart wrote:For the Deimos PLEASE DONT TAKE MY 6TH HIGH SLOT! It desperately needs this for NOS due to the amount of neuts in the game. You did this for the Megathron and it worked as Megathrons always have cap boosters fitted due to the MWD, however with the cap bonus to the MWD the Deimos doesnGÇÖt need a cap booster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown. This would really hurt the passive Deimos setups.
The rest of the changes look good mostly though i feel they might not have gone far enough compared to their T1 and navy counterparts. (I would have liked to see and increase to sensor strength to stop those pesky ecm drones) ooster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown
A medium nos is only an effective counter to 1 small neut, and it uses up pretty much all of your powergrid. Utility highslots are going to continue to be worse than mids/lows for the forseeable future. |
HazeInADaze
L'Avant Garde
55
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:38:00 -
[299] - Quote
Gallente ships seem underwhelming. The diemost still has the MWD cap bonus instead of the tracking bonus. I think I'd rather kitein a thorax. And removing a high slot won't fix the reason why no one fits highs on an Ishtar.... we need more CPU! Especially now that we have CPU hungry drone amps in the low slots. |
Tsubutai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
211
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:38:00 -
[300] - Quote
darius mclever wrote:Tsubutai wrote:I'd rather see the Cerb lose its silly drone bay and have the kinetic damage bonus swapped to an all-flavor damage bonus in exchange, but I think it'll be in a pretty good place overall as long as the double range bonus is applied to light missiles as well as heavies and HAMs, and that it should be a very viable skirmisher. The double range bonus is excessive for heavies, but it's excellent for lights and HAMs. cerb has a drone bay?
The OP wrote: CERBERUS ...
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+15) / 15(+15)
|
|
TheButcherPete
The James Gang SpaceMonkey's Alliance
300
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:42:00 -
[301] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:TheButcherPete wrote:Using HMLs to snipe is kind of silly... The whole point of medium long range weapons being to make them worth using at decent ranges with decent DPS and YES, Heavy Missiles are the medium long range missiles weapon, therefore needs to be on the line with medium turrets instead of Rapid Lights becoming seriously OP as anti support. Rapid lights are the weirdest weapon system in the game, those are not small versions nor med versions, just like if you had some sort of middle ground turret in between small and medium with small tracking and medium dps ability, which is silly imho and should be removed from the game or turned in to exclusive defenders (FOF?) launchers with even higher rof Arty canes are already used as anti support and have such alpha nothing from frigate to destroyer can decently survive to one or two volleys at best from those, with missile mechanics and a ship like Cerberus with those RLM faction ammo/javelins nothing even at 8km/sec can ever approach your fleet to provide warp ins or drop a bubble unless suicide bubbles which is not only stupid as game play but completely uninteresting for whoever plays those.
I was more hinting at the fact that missiles are quite slow, and easily made useless because the target can warp off before you apply your dps.
That would be why, for some ships in PVP, Sentries are prefered, or scout drones. THE KING OF EVE RADIO
ElQuirko is my son |
Colonel Tosh
State Protectorate Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:42:00 -
[302] - Quote
I like most of the changes, but the one change I really wanted was some more CPU for the Ishtar. |
Musashibou Benkei
Combined Imperial Fleet JIHADASQUAD
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:43:00 -
[303] - Quote
I agree with these changes mostly but the ishtar and deimos need serious fitting buffs. Just fitting up a tank on the ishtar was a problem before thinking about guns.
What I'm really hoping is that instead of having the *exact* same role bonus of "50% reduction in sig bloom on mwd" you could make it "xx % reduction in afterburner and microwarp drive activation cost"
This way, you have more of a tech 3-like bonus and the players get bonuses no matter which propulsion type they choose. |
Capqu
Love Squad
145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:44:00 -
[304] - Quote
rise, cerb already has double bonuses on TQ. it's worded like "flight time to assault missiles" but since rapid lights used to be called assault it applies to them. removing lights from the second range bonus would be a nerf
honestly though i think thats okay. if the cerb got double bonuses to rlml that might be a bit too good
the only reason rlmls aren't completely dominating the game atm is there is no really amazing platform for them, if you made one i think that would warp the meta pretty hard. current rlml boats:
tengu +dps (good bonus) -speed (awful mwd speed) -range (no bonus)
caracal average dps (5% rof, only 5 launchers) -capacitor (really low) good range (10% bonus)
scythe fleet +speed (really fast) -dps (4 launchers, 10% bonus) -range (no bonus)
osprey navy +speed (decently fast) -dps (4 launchers, 10% bonus) good range (10% bonus)
if you add cerb in you have
cerb +range (10% bonus) +range (second 10% bonus) +dps (5% kin) +dps (5% rof) +dps (6 launchers) -speed (decent, but a bit slow)
maybe the speed keeps it in check, but it seems a bit strong to me. so i'm happy with you removing the second range bonus from it
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
darius mclever
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:44:00 -
[305] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:darius mclever wrote:Tsubutai wrote:I'd rather see the Cerb lose its silly drone bay and have the kinetic damage bonus swapped to an all-flavor damage bonus in exchange, but I think it'll be in a pretty good place overall as long as the double range bonus is applied to light missiles as well as heavies and HAMs, and that it should be a very viable skirmisher. The double range bonus is excessive for heavies, but it's excellent for lights and HAMs. cerb has a drone bay? The OP wrote: CERBERUS ...
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+15) / 15(+15)
ugh that lol dronebay is annoying on the caracal/sacri atm.
decent drone bay/bandwidth (25/25) or leave it out. imho.
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1672
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:44:00 -
[306] - Quote
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. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1279
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:46:00 -
[307] - Quote
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. What about drones in general? Has that even been brought up during a discussion? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
337
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:47:00 -
[308] - Quote
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. Make sure and chat about its (and other) lol bonuses too!
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:48:00 -
[309] - 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. |
Gustav Mannfred
the bring back canflipping corp
62
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:48:00 -
[310] - Quote
why has the zealot still no dronebay? i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183 |
|
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
242
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:48:00 -
[311] - Quote
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.
I was just about to ask for the stats on how many times Ishtar has been mentioned in this thread compared to the other ships ;-) |
TheButcherPete
The James Gang SpaceMonkey's Alliance
300
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:48:00 -
[312] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard 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. What about drones in general? Has that even been brought up during a discussion?
We, the Gallente, have been forgotten about in regards to our secondary dps type: drones.
The interface hasn't changed at all in how many years? While the guns et all get fancy tooltips and crap. THE KING OF EVE RADIO
ElQuirko is my son |
BadAssMcKill
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
303
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:49:00 -
[313] - Quote
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.
Hey since you're turning the Vaga into an active brawler can you up its cargobay
http://i.imgur.com/6j6cIZE.gif-á |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:49:00 -
[314] - Quote
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.
How about asking them ... whats the differences between HACS and HICS? and then What is the specific specialization of the HAC? and is this better than other options out there? What unique role could we give to HACS? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1099
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:50:00 -
[315] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright I've been pretty busy today but I'm trying to catch up on feedback. Here's some initial thoughts:
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.
Have a look at the fit I posted with the old stats. It is still valid because the CPU has not changed at all. It has ions, a small neut, and a small vamp. And a CPU upgrade unit, a CPU rig, and faction shield extenders, BECAUSE THE CPU ON THE BOAT IS GARBAGE. So who says anything about using all med mods on a ship? The PG and cap would not support it anyway. Plus, will be real interesting trying to fit 4 medium guns in the 4 turret slots on the Ishtar. But are you seriously saying we should not fit med guns to a cruiser hull?
Quote: On a related note: someone commented that because HACs with MWD active have larger sig than battleship gun resolution the role bonus is useless. This is not true and I recommend you hop over to the medium weapon balance thread and read some of the explanation for the way tracking works to find out why.
I am not talking about tracking speed. And yes, I have read the part in Azual Skoll's blog before where he pulls up a formula where the percentage chance of a hit is defined by the inverse square of the sig res of the gun / sig radius of the ship. If you are going to tell me that decreasing the sig of the ship from 600% when the ship has MwD on, to 350% when the MwD is on, when the sig of the ship is STILL LARGER than the sig res of he guns, I remain firmly unconvinced. Oh, and BTW, this older post of Azual's indicates that the ease of tracking a target becomes pretty much irrelevant when the sig of the target is larger than the sig res of the guns. http://www.evealtruist.com/2011/12/truth-about-signature-resolution.html
Quote: Generally on the role of HACs I think theres a lot of disagreement because people seem to have different ideas of what they are supposed to do. The easiest thing to say on this is that they are not supposed to out-perform t1 or faction cruisers in every way. With this role bonus addition we are really emphasizing that they are supposed to be harder to kill than t1 or faction variations, which is true also for Assault Frigs. They have much better effective HP coming from both base HP and resists. This lends them to both large fleets, where they can be very difficult to kill, or small engagements where they provide a great platform for both primary damage and anti-support which isn't nearly as easy to kill as lower tech variations.
So is it your position that HAC's are supposed to have more EHP than their T1 counterparts, and DPS is not a factor? Or are HAC's to be superior to their T1 counterparts in a small gang or solo confrontation, when factoring in survivability and DPS, and tackling capabilities?
How do YOU define the role?
Quote: Keep it coming, glad that a lot of you seem excited
I am sure that Marie Antoinette was "glad that a lot of you seem excited" when she saw the mob coming for her.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1279
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:50:00 -
[316] - Quote
TheButcherPete wrote:Omnathious Deninard 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. What about drones in general? Has that even been brought up during a discussion? We, the Gallente, have been forgotten about in regards to our secondary dps type: drones. The interface hasn't changed at all in how many years? While the guns et all get fancy tooltips and crap. Well I just checked the thread in my sig, it has been around for almost a year now. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
622
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:51:00 -
[317] - Quote
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.
please say your also chatting about the now worst hac the sac OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4058
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:52:00 -
[318] - Quote
All HACs should come with a special ship maintenance bay that holds only the associated AF. So when you die, you are launched out in the AF to immediately seek revenge. . |
Enthes goldhart
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:52:00 -
[319] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Enthes goldhart wrote:For the Deimos PLEASE DONT TAKE MY 6TH HIGH SLOT! It desperately needs this for NOS due to the amount of neuts in the game. You did this for the Megathron and it worked as Megathrons always have cap boosters fitted due to the MWD, however with the cap bonus to the MWD the Deimos doesnGÇÖt need a cap booster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown. This would really hurt the passive Deimos setups.
The rest of the changes look good mostly though i feel they might not have gone far enough compared to their T1 and navy counterparts. (I would have liked to see and increase to sensor strength to stop those pesky ecm drones) ooster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown A medium nos is only an effective counter to 1 small neut, and it uses up pretty much all of your powergrid. Utility highslots are going to continue to be worse than mids/lows for the forseeable future.
I run a small nos and it workes perfectly if it can cycle twice (3 second cycle timer compared to med neut's 12) it allowes you to fire all your guns allowing you to stay in a fight and keep somthing tackled |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:52:00 -
[320] - 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. |
|
David Kir
Tailender
54
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:52:00 -
[321] - Quote
Gustav Mannfred wrote:why has the zealot still no dronebay?
Because it already has the best damage application in the class, as well as one of the best tanks.
Drones would make it overpowered. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:53:00 -
[322] - Quote
Smoking Blunts 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. please say your also chatting about the now worst hac the sac
I would still bet on the eagle being the worst. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
337
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:53:00 -
[323] - Quote
Gustav Mannfred wrote:why has the zealot still no dronebay? Because the Zealot was and is damn-near perfect. Not every ship is meant to be a solo boat.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
278
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:54:00 -
[324] - Quote
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.
You should probably ignore what the CSM say, they're all bad at pvp. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:54:00 -
[325] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Gustav Mannfred wrote:why has the zealot still no dronebay? Because it already has the best damage application in the class, as well as one of the best tanks. Drones would make it overpowered.
The only thing the zealot needs is more speed and a little more dps say 10% damage bonus instead of 5% Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
337
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:55:00 -
[326] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:All HACs should come with a special ship maintenance bay that holds only the associated AF. So when you die, you are launched out in the AF to immediately seek revenge. This would never happen but it's such an awesome idea.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
278
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:55:00 -
[327] - Quote
Enthes goldhart wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Enthes goldhart wrote:For the Deimos PLEASE DONT TAKE MY 6TH HIGH SLOT! It desperately needs this for NOS due to the amount of neuts in the game. You did this for the Megathron and it worked as Megathrons always have cap boosters fitted due to the MWD, however with the cap bonus to the MWD the Deimos doesnGÇÖt need a cap booster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown. This would really hurt the passive Deimos setups.
The rest of the changes look good mostly though i feel they might not have gone far enough compared to their T1 and navy counterparts. (I would have liked to see and increase to sensor strength to stop those pesky ecm drones) ooster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown A medium nos is only an effective counter to 1 small neut, and it uses up pretty much all of your powergrid. Utility highslots are going to continue to be worse than mids/lows for the forseeable future. I run a small nos and it works perfectly. If it can cycle twice (3 second cycle timer compared to med neut's 12) it allows you to fire all your guns allowing you to stay in a fight and keep something tackled. This is one of the few ships a Utility highslot is valuable as a brawler.
Yeah, but a small cap booster with navy 400s gives you infinite cap. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1099
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:57:00 -
[328] - Quote
You know Rise, most people would have been happy with a overall 10-15% increase with EHP/ ship and some small ship specific adjustments / ship (Ishtar CPU as an example), to make them superior to the attack or combat version of the T1 equivalents.
But the approach you are taking is, frankly, simply wrong. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:58:00 -
[329] - Quote
I just think they should keep in the teiricide traditon and make AHAC version and Nano version |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4059
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:58:00 -
[330] - Quote
I would like it if the Sacrilege was a bit more faster and it traded that incredibly fat ass for something more sporty. If it is supposed to be a brawler then it needs the means to get on top of a target to effectively use those HAMs. I would also rather see the new bonus of HML scrapped in favor of HAM flight time or something. . |
|
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
622
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:58:00 -
[331] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Smoking Blunts 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. please say your also chatting about the now worst hac the sac I would still bet on the eagle being the worst.
at least it can have a go at its role, ok needs a little more lock range to actually do it decently but still not looking to bad for it. the sac as a close range brawler needs that extra low. adding hml is just a meh we have to do something to it change and does nothing for a close range brawler.
was looking forward to it finally getting fixed but no, ill have to wait another 5 years OMG when can i get a pic here
|
thorgil
Salvag. INC FEDERATION SOLARIS
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:01:00 -
[332] - Quote
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. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:01:00 -
[333] - Quote
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.
what about the mwd bonus on the diemos... just to settle my mind... will this be looked at... at all?
pretty please with cherry on top... either a tracking or rep bonus. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
337
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:02:00 -
[334] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote:I just think they should keep in the teiricide traditon and make AHAC version and Nano version You can't tiericide T2 ships, since they already represent a specialized "tier." The other specialized "tiers" of crusiers would be Recons, HICs, etc.
So, HAC is a tier (class? is that what they're calling them now?). You'd need both ships to be viable HACs in their own right, with various fitting options, weapon choices, etc.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:04:00 -
[335] - 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.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
123
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:05:00 -
[336] - Quote
Those changes are awesome!
I'm totally **** happy about the deimos 4th mid, that gimmicky Kovorix-vaga-buff and DAT SACRILEDGE!
In all honesty, Sacriledge just looks amazing now, easily fitting med neut/1600/5 HAMs and now even having a drone bay (didn't notice the old one tbh) and THAT MWD BONUS! To me, Sacriledge is the new welpcane :)
\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/\o/ I only correct my own spelling. |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
604
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:05:00 -
[337] - Quote
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 @pmchem on twitter || GARPA || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
606
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:05:00 -
[338] - Quote
I dont get all the people saying the ishtar needs more buffs. Tbqh, you could remove the highslots entirely and it would still be one of the best hacs. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
123
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:06:00 -
[339] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I dont get all the people saying the ishtar needs more buffs. Tbqh, you could remove the highslots entirely and it would still be one of the best hacs.
It's not all that great without links... I only correct my own spelling. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:08:00 -
[340] - 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.
|
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
337
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:10:00 -
[341] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I dont get all the people saying the ishtar needs more buffs. Tbqh, you could remove the highslots entirely and it would still be one of the best hacs. It's not all that great without links... Or modules.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4061
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:11:00 -
[342] - Quote
For the love of all that is holy. You need to seriously rethink the Deimos. It already struggles to have any tank to get close to apply the blaster DPS and you nerf the tank significantly. I could be wrong, but if my memory serves me correctly any other HAC that wants to fit the highest DPS close range weapon system it has bonuses for, MWD and a large plate/extender - does not have to add 3 modules/rigs for the power grid. Most don't have to add any. So please consider unnerfing the EHP you did, look at exchanging the MWD bonus for another +5% to medium hybrid damage/rof and make sure it has the power grid to fit a tank to enable it to get on top of a target and enough power grid to fit the guns needed to apply the DPS when it gets there.
Please, please, please I can't say please enough. Think of all the dangers a blaster Deimos has to endure that most other HACs do not. The Deimos when doing what it was meant to do, be a close range brawler, is subjected to neuts, scrams and webs. If that is its area of operation it should be able to take some punishment there. Maybe changing the MWD bonus to -20% to incoming neutralizer effectiveness would be welcome. . |
Tung Yoggi
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:14:00 -
[343] - Quote
5th mid slot on the vagabond, make it happen.
Nerf it 3 months later when you realize it was not that much of a good idea.
Please, please.
|
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
242
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:16:00 -
[344] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:For the love of all that is holy. You need to seriously rethink the Deimos. It already struggles to have any tank to get close to apply the blaster DPS and you nerf the tank significantly. I could be wrong, but if my memory serves me correctly any other HAC that wants to fit the highest DPS close range weapon system it has bonuses for, MWD and a large plate/extender - does not have to add 3 modules/rigs for the power grid. Most don't have to add any. So please consider unnerfing the EHP you did, look at exchanging the MWD bonus for another +5% to medium hybrid damage/rof and make sure it has the power grid to fit a tank to enable it to get on top of a target and enough power grid to fit the guns needed to apply the DPS when it gets there.
Please, please, please I can't say please enough. Think of all the dangers a blaster Deimos has to endure that most other HACs do not. The Deimos when doing what it was meant to do, be a close range brawler, is subjected to neuts, scrams and webs. If that is its area of operation it should be able to take some punishment there. Maybe changing the MWD bonus to -20% to incoming neutralizer effectiveness would be welcome.
You do know that Rise only fits shield Deimoses right? |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:17:00 -
[345] - 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) |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
559
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:18:00 -
[346] - Quote
I think there is a typo on the Ishtar.
It is listed as having only 125 bay, while the current Ishtar has 375 bay, with no mention of a major nerf there. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
606
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:19:00 -
[347] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote:10% bonus to drone tracking speed and optimal
fixed for you. Or delve inot the **** storm of making heavies useful (the hard way)
Ishtar has that? |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
606
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:19:00 -
[348] - Quote
chatgris wrote:I think there is a typo on the Ishtar.
It is listed as having only 125 bay, while the current Ishtar has 375 bay, with no mention of a major nerf there.
Look at the HAC skill bonus |
Varesk
Origin. Black Legion.
448
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:20:00 -
[349] - Quote
Ivol Kishtani wrote:Does anyone use the Muninn as a long range platform? I would think a 4th mid would be more useful than an additional low.
Yes, the Muninn is used as a long range platform more than a short ranged brawler.
also, please increase the locking range.
|
Ezek Price
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:21:00 -
[350] - Quote
Doed wrote: Muninn, designed for sniping, has a utility high, what? give it a mid instead of the high.
Smartbomb to reduce incoming missile dmg and clear drones. That is all. War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left.
My blog, Civire Commander: http://civre.blogspot.co.uk/ |
|
Andrea Griffin
596
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:21:00 -
[351] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:The Deimos when doing what it was meant to do, be a close range brawler, is subjected to neuts, scrams and webs. If that is its area of operation it should be able to take some punishment there. *cough cough* EWar resistance *cough cough* CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Temuken Radzu
Bendebeukers The Predictables
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:23:00 -
[352] - Quote
I believe the Ishtar is should have something unique for being T2, right now it has the same drone bonuses as the Dominix. I would like to change te tracking/optimal range bonus for this: I also made the Ishtar lose a turret hardpoint
ISHTAR - Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: +5 drone bandwitch and 1 extra drone controlled per lv 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 3 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145
The extra drone that is controlled can either be used for a extra group of light drones at Heavy Assault Cruiser V or for a extra Sentry or Heavy drone. This will make the Ishtar a true T2 ship i believe. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:24:00 -
[353] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:For the love of all that is holy. You need to seriously rethink the Deimos. It already struggles to have any tank to get close to apply the blaster DPS and you nerf the tank significantly. I could be wrong, but if my memory serves me correctly any other HAC that wants to fit the highest DPS close range weapon system it has bonuses for, MWD and a large plate/extender - does not have to add 3 modules/rigs for the power grid. Most don't have to add any. So please consider unnerfing the EHP you did, look at exchanging the MWD bonus for another +5% to medium hybrid damage/rof and make sure it has the power grid to fit a tank to enable it to get on top of a target and enough power grid to fit the guns needed to apply the DPS when it gets there.
Please, please, please I can't say please enough. Think of all the dangers a blaster Deimos has to endure that most other HACs do not. The Deimos when doing what it was meant to do, be a close range brawler, is subjected to neuts, scrams and webs. If that is its area of operation it should be able to take some punishment there. Maybe changing the MWD bonus to -20% to incoming neutralizer effectiveness would be welcome.
Tracking bonus would help rails too... Just saying.... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
797
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:30:00 -
[354] - Quote
Temuken Radzu wrote:10 droans
no. you get way enough DPS as it is. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
606
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:32:00 -
[355] - Quote
Ishtar has battleship dps already |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:36:00 -
[356] - Quote
While im thrilled about HACs finally getting rebalanced, I must admit I'm a bit underwhelmed. Esp. by the blanket MWD bonus, Ishtar's lack of fitting and some sad bonuses (Sac, Ishtar). Also whole class (or at least half of it) could use EHP buff. W-Space Realtor |
Drunken Bum
398
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:37:00 -
[357] - Quote
MORE CPU ON THE ISHTAR. Come on. Its got the cpu of a frigate. After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary. -á-Fozzie |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:43:00 -
[358] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:For the love of all that is holy. You need to seriously rethink the Deimos. It already struggles to have any tank to get close to apply the blaster DPS and you nerf the tank significantly. I could be wrong, but if my memory serves me correctly any other HAC that wants to fit the highest DPS close range weapon system it has bonuses for, MWD and a large plate/extender - does not have to add 3 modules/rigs for the power grid. Most don't have to add any. So please consider unnerfing the EHP you did, look at exchanging the MWD bonus for another +5% to medium hybrid damage/rof and make sure it has the power grid to fit a tank to enable it to get on top of a target and enough power grid to fit the guns needed to apply the DPS when it gets there.
Please, please, please I can't say please enough. Think of all the dangers a blaster Deimos has to endure that most other HACs do not. The Deimos when doing what it was meant to do, be a close range brawler, is subjected to neuts, scrams and webs. If that is its area of operation it should be able to take some punishment there. Maybe changing the MWD bonus to -20% to incoming neutralizer effectiveness would be welcome. You do know that Rise only fits shield Deimoses right? Honestly, the Thorax hull would be MUCH better served by allowing the Thorax to continue using the paper-thin shield tank/high gank blaster setup, and give an extra low to the Deimos and make it a tanky brawler. The Zealot would still project damage better and the MWD bonus, such as it is, on the Deimos would help it to stay in range.
I'd design the Deimos to have 5/3/7 (with one high moved to a low), 4 turrets with one of the bonuses doubled up to 10% (and the other a RoF optimally). That way, the Deimos could do well as an armor tanky brawler and have the fitting space for an additional damage mod or more tank.
Paper thin tank works on the Thorax because it's so cheap. I don't want to paper tank a 200 mil isk ship for a niche max-gank setup and not really have one that excels at being an armor blaster brawler. Besides, if I was going to paper tank a high(er) isk ship, I'd just use a Talos.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Bl0odscream
Homowners
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:44:00 -
[359] - Quote
Is there any chance of increasing the built-in targeting range of some of the ships that currently have 50km ones? With the additional rework being done on the long-range medium-sized weapon systems, it might be a nice fit. There is quite a range of targeting ranges on the current T2 HAC hulls. From 50km all the way up to 80km. The ships that have the lowest targeting range also have the lowest number of mid-slots making fitting the re-worked long range weapons more difficult to rationalize to fit.
"Why fit the long range systems if I can't target that far?"
Bumping up the ones with lower range might help add to the adoption of Beam/Rail/Artillery because you wouldn't need to fit SeBos and such to make the weapons reach their full long range potential. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
244
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:44:00 -
[360] - Quote
Rise, another thing to consider with your sentry love is the skill requirements. For a viable Isthar, you need lights+mediums, heavies, and sentries. That is a hell of a lot of training for the main weapon system. No other HAC has this intense training. It is over 3x the required skill points over turret based weapon systems in order to use all three classes of T2 drones. Please give us more drone loving bonuses. |
|
Temuken Radzu
Bendebeukers The Predictables
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:44:00 -
[361] - Quote
Drunken Bum wrote:MORE CPU ON THE ISHTAR. Come on. Its got the cpu of a frigate.
more CPU is also wanted, unless you go deadspace or faction it has some severe fitting issues. It cant fit cruiser sized weapons like this |
Butzewutze
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:46:00 -
[362] - Quote
I am not to impressed by the changes to be honest. Why doesnt the zealot have a dronebay but the muninn gets one? Why does the muninn get a lowslot instead of a med (that would truly beeing handy on that ship). Why does the Vagabond get a shieldboosting bonus with only 4 mediumslots? MWD + point -> 2 slot loltank?
Quote: afterburner variations that are already very strong
About what setups are you talking? I am curious. |
Chris Roberts
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:47:00 -
[363] - Quote
Changes may be useless to make some of these ships more viable.
Regardless, what happened to the idea of changing T2 ships to more specialised versions of T1 ships, what is the deimos specialised in apart from dying.
T1 and faction ships still look to outperform or match for a lower build difficulty. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
606
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:47:00 -
[364] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:Rise, another thing to consider with your sentry love is the skill requirements. For a viable Isthar, you need lights+mediums, heavies, and sentries. That is a hell of a lot of training for the main weapon system. No other HAC has this intense training. It is over 3x the required skill points over turret based weapon systems in order to use all three classes of T2 drones. Please give us more drone loving bonuses.
You can also run a perfectly good ishtar with hac 1 |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1281
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:49:00 -
[365] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Marcel Devereux wrote:Rise, another thing to consider with your sentry love is the skill requirements. For a viable Isthar, you need lights+mediums, heavies, and sentries. That is a hell of a lot of training for the main weapon system. No other HAC has this intense training. It is over 3x the required skill points over turret based weapon systems in order to use all three classes of T2 drones. Please give us more drone loving bonuses. You can also run a perfectly good ishtar with hac 1 Only because it has ****** T2 bonuses. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
5685
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:49:00 -
[366] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:VAGABOND - Like with the Stabber, we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats... Mobility (max velocity...): 290(+51) Shouldn't it be ~299 m/s (technically 298.75)? 239 * 1.25 = 298.75 You are actually nerfing the Vagabond's speed somewhat with this change. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
66
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:49:00 -
[367] - Quote
Temuken Radzu wrote:I believe the Ishtar is should have something unique for being T2, right now it has the same drone bonuses as the Dominix. I would like to change te tracking/optimal range bonus for this: I also made the Ishtar lose a turret hardpoint
ISHTAR - Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: +5 drone bandwitch and 1 extra drone controlled per lv 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 3 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145
The extra drone that is controlled can either be used for a extra group of light drones at Heavy Assault Cruiser V or for a extra Sentry or Heavy drone. This will make the Ishtar a true T2 ship i believe.
10 dps drones would not be sane. 5 dps drones + 5 Utility/Ewar drones though.. now that is something to consider.
+10 Drone bandwidth and 1 extra combat Utility Drone or Electronic Warfare Drone per level.
|
David Kir
Tailender
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:50:00 -
[368] - Quote
Butzewutze wrote:I am not to impressed by the changes to be honest. Why doesnt the zealot have a dronebay but the muninn gets one? Why does the muninn get a lowslot instead of a med (that would truly beeing handy on that ship). Why does the Vagabond get a shieldboosting bonus with only 4 mediumslots? MWD + point -> 2 slot loltank?
Because the Zealot is almost perfect as it is, and its role does not require a drone bay.
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
606
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:50:00 -
[369] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Marcel Devereux wrote:Rise, another thing to consider with your sentry love is the skill requirements. For a viable Isthar, you need lights+mediums, heavies, and sentries. That is a hell of a lot of training for the main weapon system. No other HAC has this intense training. It is over 3x the required skill points over turret based weapon systems in order to use all three classes of T2 drones. Please give us more drone loving bonuses. You can also run a perfectly good ishtar with hac 1 Only because it has ****** T2 bonuses.
Because its gallente cruiser bonuses are ridiculous |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1281
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:52:00 -
[370] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Marcel Devereux wrote:Rise, another thing to consider with your sentry love is the skill requirements. For a viable Isthar, you need lights+mediums, heavies, and sentries. That is a hell of a lot of training for the main weapon system. No other HAC has this intense training. It is over 3x the required skill points over turret based weapon systems in order to use all three classes of T2 drones. Please give us more drone loving bonuses. You can also run a perfectly good ishtar with hac 1 Only because it has ****** T2 bonuses. Because its gallente cruiser bonuses are ridiculous You are right a 10% optimal an tracking bonus has no place on a cruiser. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Knoppaz
distress signals
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:52:00 -
[371] - Quote
..a shield boost bonus for the Vaga? ..on a 6/4/5 layout? ..really?
__________________________________________________ distressSIGNALS http://distresssignals.tumblr.com
a capsuleer's way to insanity |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:52:00 -
[372] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Marcel Devereux wrote:Rise, another thing to consider with your sentry love is the skill requirements. For a viable Isthar, you need lights+mediums, heavies, and sentries. That is a hell of a lot of training for the main weapon system. No other HAC has this intense training. It is over 3x the required skill points over turret based weapon systems in order to use all three classes of T2 drones. Please give us more drone loving bonuses. You can also run a perfectly good ishtar with hac 1 Only because it has ****** T2 bonuses. Because its gallente cruiser bonuses are ridiculous If by "ridiculous" you mean normal.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Johan March
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:55:00 -
[373] - Quote
Looks good at first glance to me. Some Recommendations:
Bonus all the missile ships to include rapid lights
Don't nerf the Deimos' HP as much as you did. As originally proposed, the Deimos seems slated to be a rail / shield shield role only. I'd kill the MWD capacitor bonus for a general cap recharge bonus or buff capacitor recharge on its own and add a tracking bonus. A Gallente HAC should be able to blaster brawl if we want it to.
I'm also guessing that an ASB fit Vagabond is going to be at least somewhat overpowered.
Also, despite my in-game opponents flying them often, I concur that the Munin needs some more targeting range. Perhaps 60? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1656
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 16:58:00 -
[374] - Quote
So you guys have been on this active tank kick and I like it a lot, and this is a place I am massively confused:
The Sac.
You make it plainly obvious that its cap recharge bonus is somewhat out of place and yet do nothing to lend to the common fitting of the dual rep armor sac. If you were to give it that sweet resist bonus and a 5-7.5% boost to armor reps as well I think you'd put that ship in a fairly nice place for the heavy tackle role you want it to have.
Nobody cares about its drone bay, though the PG boost is super nice, I would strongly urge that you get rid of that 5% cap recharge bonus for an armor rep bonus and then it would be come a fairly strong hac for what people like to do with it. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:02:00 -
[375] - Quote
Butzewutze wrote:I am not to impressed by the changes to be honest. Why doesnt the zealot have a dronebay but the muninn gets one? Why does the muninn get a lowslot instead of a med (that would truly beeing handy on that ship). Why does the Vagabond get a shieldboosting bonus with only 4 mediumslots? MWD + point -> 2 slot loltank? Quote: afterburner variations that are already very strong About what setups are you talking? I am curious.
ahacs There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:03:00 -
[376] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:So you guys have been on this active tank kick and I like it a lot, and this is a place I am massively confused:
The Sac.
You make it plainly obvious that its cap recharge bonus is somewhat out of place and yet do nothing to lend to the common fitting of the dual rep armor sac. If you were to give it that sweet resist bonus and a 5-7.5% boost to armor reps as well I think you'd put that ship in a fairly nice place for the heavy tackle role you want it to have.
Nobody cares about its drone bay, though the PG boost is super nice, I would strongly urge that you get rid of that 5% cap recharge bonus for an armor rep bonus and then it would be come a fairly strong hac for what people like to do with it.
that or a em missile bonus so it could be usefull for fleets.
ahac sac fleets would be nice. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
75
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:05:00 -
[377] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Butzewutze wrote:I am not to impressed by the changes to be honest. Why doesnt the zealot have a dronebay but the muninn gets one? Why does the muninn get a lowslot instead of a med (that would truly beeing handy on that ship). Why does the Vagabond get a shieldboosting bonus with only 4 mediumslots? MWD + point -> 2 slot loltank? Quote: afterburner variations that are already very strong About what setups are you talking? I am curious. ahacs
Ahacs you know, were minmatars go sfi. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
163
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:05:00 -
[378] - Quote
Where's the Minmatar missile HAC? |
muhadin
Origin. Black Legion.
152
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:08:00 -
[379] - Quote
As a long range platform the munin would benefit from a 4th mid slot instead of a 6th lowslot. With the nerf to tracking enhancers, the extra mid allows for another sebo or another tracking computer. While on the otherhand actually being about get somewhat of a tank thats bigger than a piece of paper. "Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love" |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:09:00 -
[380] - Quote
muhadin wrote:As a long range platform the munin would benefit from a 4th mid slot instead of a 6th lowslot. With the nerf to tracking enhancers, the extra mid allows for another sebo or another tracking computer. While on the otherhand actually being about get somewhat of a tank thats bigger than a piece of paper.
its called a sig amp eh. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
213
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:12:00 -
[381] - Quote
I would like to see a real bonus for the ishtar instead of +50 m3 of drones a level. Just give it a 375 m3 like dedicated drone carriers should have and give it a drone velocity bonus or something. The +5 km max range is weak, but at least it's a bonus.
I would also like to see another low on the ishtar. With the addition of drone damage modules the ishtar became a shield ship, I'd like to see more lows so it could be an armor tanked ship and still fit a couple drone damage modules.
The Sacrilege is also a sad. I don't know what to do to make it not suck, the base design seems off. A slow short ranged armor missile brawler just seems to have an off flavor. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
66
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:13:00 -
[382] - Quote
Heck I would have done this for all drone boats
Drone Support Bays. Able to fit Combat Utility Drones, Electronic Warfare drones and Logistic Drones. Cannot hold Combat Drones.
For example. The Ishtar would get the following.
Ishtar.
Stats: Combat Drone Bay Bandwidth 125 Combat Drone Bay Size 125 Utility Drone Bay Bandwidth 75 Utility Drone Bay Size. 75
Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bays (Utility Drone Bay and Combat Drone Bay) per level
Everybody would get to use the extra ewar drones that Nobody uses (such as the Sensor Dampening Drones, Target Painting Drones, Webifier Drones, Tracking Disruptor Drones, Energy Neutralizing Drones).
Heck I would do this to Every Ship, balance out those that have drone bays, move all those ewar drones nobody uses to a specific bay that specific ships can have an actual use for, and be able to use them all. You would at least make the Ishtar a definite differentiating type of droneboat.
Can even apply that to the Myrmidon, Vexors, Dominix, Proteus, Prophecy, Armageddon, Arbirator, etc. Can balance out the extra utility dronebay and allow more drone based moves and combat.
There ya go, Ishtar fixed and made all those useless drones useful now. |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:14:00 -
[383] - Quote
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.
it really DESPERATELY needs CPU. drone modules eat up CPU worse than any other damage mod or ewar, it's ridiculous. Also, having a "bonus" just to give it enough drones to use is...silly/ridiculous. swap drone bay amount for heavy drone MWD speed bonus per level, and give it base 375 m3 drone bay. That should make it more useful against cruisers without having to resort to medium drones.
Two Step wrote:Sac should get some sort of scram/disrutper/web range/strength bonus instead of the mostly useless cap bonus.
CCP Rise wrote:While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun. The drone bay was much welcome! As long as the PG boost allows it to fit a 1600mm plate+hams+mwd+ medium neut, then it can stay. Otherwise it really wants a 6th low slot. The cap bonus is really nice for active tanking, but It really needs the 6th if you active tank it. |
Drunken Bum
398
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:15:00 -
[384] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:So you guys have been on this active tank kick and I like it a lot, and this is a place I am massively confused:
The Sac.
You make it plainly obvious that its cap recharge bonus is somewhat out of place and yet do nothing to lend to the common fitting of the dual rep armor sac. If you were to give it that sweet resist bonus and a 5-7.5% boost to armor reps as well I think you'd put that ship in a fairly nice place for the heavy tackle role you want it to have.
Nobody cares about its drone bay, though the PG boost is super nice, I would strongly urge that you get rid of that 5% cap recharge bonus for an armor rep bonus and then it would be come a fairly strong hac for what people like to do with it. Two tanking bonuses? Come on now lets not be silly. I for one am stoked for the sac.
I love sac.
Sac. After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary. -á-Fozzie |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:20:00 -
[385] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:I would like to see a real bonus for the ishtar instead of +50 m3 of drones a level. Just give it a 375 m3 like dedicated drone carriers should have and give it a drone velocity bonus or something. The +5 km max range is weak, but at least it's a bonus.
.
agreed. how about a sentry drone damage bonus?
from what i understand the reason the ishtar had 15 slot layout even though it was a drone boat was due tot he 50m3 bonus. but if you noticed the ishtar now only get 14 slots which would indicate the 50m3 bonus should go out the door and replaced with something usefull like extra cpu or something of that nature.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1130
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:25:00 -
[386] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.
Do it to the navy cara while you are at it. In fact, why don't you just give all ships that have a missile bonus a bonus to medium missile launchers in general?
You don't see a battlecruiser with a bonus to autocannons and excluding arty... >_> BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
gawrshmapooo
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:26:00 -
[387] - Quote
Two step wrote:Sac should get some sort of scram/disrutper/web range/strength bonus instead of the mostly useless cap bonus.
My dual armor rep wtfpwn tank disagrees. |
Wu Fey
Devil's Evil Spirits The Devil's Warrior Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:27:00 -
[388] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.
5 low slots on an (amarr) armor tanker just feels bad |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1657
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:28:00 -
[389] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised.
Ok so follow me here:
Aside from leaving a cap recharge bonus on a missile ship (the sac called its mad at you) what justifies every buying one of these over an ABC or t1 cruiser?
I know you say you can't help how we feel and blah blah about the ships power levels but these simply do NOT shine above their t1 cruiser and ships like the Tornado/Talos to ever justify putting into use.
They're not really giving pilots or fleets any kind of incentive to put them into play, like take a Deimos for example: who cares, i can fit out 10 thoraxes for the price of one Deimos hull and get nearly the same performance from them and expect largely the same results in a fight.
Same with the Vexor and Ishtar.
The ships are just too close in performance levels currently to justify spending 250 million for a single fitted ship when you can buy 10 of its lower tech counterparts and get nearly the same effect.
I know you guys try not to let price influence your balance choices, and I've even defended you on it after what you did to my titan, but at some point you have to look at the cost to projected effect values and know that HAC's will simply stay shelved as long as things like tornados can easily project more damage at greater ranges than they can for cheaper, and attack cruisers can match or exceed their damage for a pittance of what a hac costs.
They can tank, big deal, you've so skewed the game towards massive alpha at this point that over a certain gang size tanks stopped mattering.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1657
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:30:00 -
[390] - Quote
Drunken Bum wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:So you guys have been on this active tank kick and I like it a lot, and this is a place I am massively confused:
The Sac.
You make it plainly obvious that its cap recharge bonus is somewhat out of place and yet do nothing to lend to the common fitting of the dual rep armor sac. If you were to give it that sweet resist bonus and a 5-7.5% boost to armor reps as well I think you'd put that ship in a fairly nice place for the heavy tackle role you want it to have.
Nobody cares about its drone bay, though the PG boost is super nice, I would strongly urge that you get rid of that 5% cap recharge bonus for an armor rep bonus and then it would be come a fairly strong hac for what people like to do with it. Two tanking bonuses? Come on now lets not be silly. I for one am stoked for the sac. I love sac. Sac.
Exactly what changed to make you so happy? It got a few more drones? Or was it the ability to use the now anemic HMLs?
Nothing about one of the two most useless HACs changed at all.
EDIT: And to be specific, having two tanking bonuses would allow it to specialize in doing SOMETHING well, because at this point in time it doesn't do anything well |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
167
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:30:00 -
[391] - Quote
The Sacrilege suffers a lot from a low count of low slots:
I would suggest bumping up the damage on the launchers, dropping the count to 4, and adding a 6th low slot so that it can actually tank and fit any sort of damage mod on it.
Theoretically, it should be one of the most tanky hac's out there currently, but trying to fit any type of damage mod on there totally inhibits this ability since it reduces tank to 4 or even 3 slots.
I would also leave the power grid as is, and replace the Cap bonus to a 100% per level boost to range and amount of NOSFERATU's only. This way the Sac gets slightly more offense by slightly draining the capacitor off other ships at pretty nice ranges (~60km to cope for HML range), but can't bleed them dry without the Neuts.
If you don't do that, then you're not going to have much counter to perma MWD fit Sacs as the cap bonus is seriously OP when used in conjunction with some other items. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:30:00 -
[392] - Quote
Also people, stop trying to take the cap bonus from my sacrilege, i don't want to fit a damn cap booster on it. Its fine like it is. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
975
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:34:00 -
[393] - Quote
Knoppaz wrote:..a shield boost bonus for the Vaga? ..on a 6/4/5 layout? ..really?
Xl-ASB Vaga was already waaaaaaay good, now will just be in god mode [On] bye bye cynabals (which is also good) *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:39:00 -
[394] - Quote
Ok overall fairly happy with changes and some things are allready being mentioned that I think is correct but.
The Deimos.... why is it so slow? it's clearly only gonna be viable for close range brawling since it has the falloff bonus and yet a easy dps appliable ship like the Cerb will be allmost as fast? ontop of that the Deimos allso has the highest Sig of all the HACs and yet it's a CR Brawler?!?!?! this is even weirder when it's an armor ship! you probably think this ship somehow fills some niche but honestly when I look at it all I see is alot of sub par preformance!
I'd allso like to point out that the Deimos will have the exact same layout as the Exequror Navy has now after it's changes! it's kinda laughable but that falloff bonus is the only MINOR saving grace of the Deimos here... because the Exequror Navy will be superior in: Agility, Velocity and Signature (and more but w/e) and these are the kinds of things I look for in a CR ship and yet I find this ship to be Lacking in all but one thing over the Exequror Navy: The fitting atleast it has that going for it! but then again the Exequror is so hard to fit with the things that I want that this might be a mistake to begin with? lol?
I hope i've made a dent in what you think of the changes to the Deimos I will be reading this thread alot in the near future thats for sure!
Shield Deimos? Something else Deimos? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:42:00 -
[395] - Quote
NinjaStyle wrote: The Deimos.... why is it so slow? it's clearly only gonna be viable for close range brawling since it has the falloff bonus?
go read the long range medium thread... there rise clearly states that the deimos is a rail ship. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Butzewutze
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:42:00 -
[396] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Heck I would have done this for all drone boats
Drone Support Bays. Able to fit Combat Utility Drones, Electronic Warfare drones and Logistic Drones. Cannot hold Combat Drones.
For example. The Ishtar would get the following.
Ishtar.
Stats: Combat Drone Bay Bandwidth 125 Combat Drone Bay Size 125 Utility Drone Bay Bandwidth 75 Utility Drone Bay Size. 75
Max amount of Combat Drones that can be launched, 5 Max amount of Utility/EWAR/LOGI drones able to be launched, 5
Total number of drones that can be launched, 10 (5 combat drones, 5 Utility/ewar/logi drones). (the amount of Ewar/Utility/Logi drones launch-able can be balanced or reduced as needed dependent on the ship size).
Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bays (Utility Drone Bay and Combat Drone Bay) per level
Everybody would get to use the extra ewar drones that Nobody uses (such as the Sensor Dampening Drones, Target Painting Drones, Webifier Drones, Tracking Disruptor Drones, Energy Neutralizing Drones).
Heck I would do this to Every Ship, balance out those that have drone bays, move all those ewar drones nobody uses to a specific bay that specific ships can have an actual use for, and be able to use them all. You would at least make the Ishtar a definite differentiating type of droneboat.
Can even apply that to the Myrmidon, Vexors, Dominix, Proteus, Prophecy, Armageddon, Arbirator, etc. Can balance out the extra utility dronebay and allow more drone based moves and combat.
There ya go, Ishtar fixed and made all those useless drones useful now.
I really like that idea. +1
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
158
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:43:00 -
[397] - Quote
haven't read thread replies, but first impresions:
Cerb has 10 more lock range than any other HAC, why? Why did cerb get drones but Zealot not? (Amarr supposed to be drone secondary race now) Cerb too agile Sac needs more agility Munin should have got a mid instead of low Ishtar has mostly structure hp and got more? for what fitting reinforced bulkheads?.
How are these buffed sniper roles going to mesh with Attack BCs? Will they just outclass ABCs with the new gun buffs? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
302
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:43:00 -
[398] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:NinjaStyle wrote: The Deimos.... why is it so slow? it's clearly only gonna be viable for close range brawling since it has the falloff bonus?
go read the long range medium thread... there raise clearly states that the deimos is a rail ship.
I think Rise needs to read the deimos description again and then compare it too the eagle the supposed sniper and the thorax.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:44:00 -
[399] - Quote
The Ishtar might be cool, the Eagle will definitely be a nullsec fleet concept within 6 months, and the Vaga looks cool (very specialized while still having alternative purposes, excellent work there).
Oh and 4 midslots on the Diemost, that will be exclusively shield tanked from here on foward (but it won't get flown because it costs too much compared to a Thorax).
The main problem with HACs now, and even after the change is that they aren't worth the 500% increase in cost over their T1 counterparts.
The Vaga looks nice, and the Eagle will be a good sniper, but the Diemost won't be worth the jump in cost from a Thorax, the Zealot and a number of other HACs will be in the same boat they were in before, not worth the additional cost.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:44:00 -
[400] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:NinjaStyle wrote: The Deimos.... why is it so slow? it's clearly only gonna be viable for close range brawling since it has the falloff bonus?
go read the long range medium thread... there raise clearly states that the deimos is a rail ship.
Never... just Never.. |
|
Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
97
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:44:00 -
[401] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP Rise...can you give us a view of what niche the HAC is supposed to fill in the Eve patheon of ships? Perhaps we're seeing ITT the first arguments for simply removing an entire class of ships from the game. No more HACs would certainly give the upcoming Command Ships and T3 rebalancing a lot more room to maneuver. Maybe re-role some of the favorite hulls (e.g. Vagabond, Ishtar) into another class while preserving most of their current capabilitites.
Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, and if they're outclassed by some of the Navy hulls and ABCs today, and post-rebalance they still come up short in so many ways.... maybe it's time to retire the HAC as a thing. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1282
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:44:00 -
[402] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Ishtar has mostly structure hp and got more? for what fitting reinforced bulkheads? . No you don't have enough CPU for that. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1491
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:50:00 -
[403] - Quote
Swidgen wrote: Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, and if they're outclassed by some of the Navy hulls and ABCs today, and post-rebalance they still come up short in so many ways.... maybe it's time to retire the HAC as a thing.
What's the chance at large long range weapons hitting HAC's? How well do you think these same HACs will be able to hit ABCs at longer ranges?
What is better to use in an RR situation, a Navy Hull (with no resist bonus, no mwd sig bonus) or an AHAC?
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
303
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:50:00 -
[404] - Quote
Swidgen wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP Rise...can you give us a view of what niche the HAC is supposed to fill in the Eve patheon of ships? Perhaps we're seeing ITT the first arguments for simply removing an entire class of ships from the game. No more HACs would certainly give the upcoming Command Ships and T3 rebalancing a lot more room to maneuver. Maybe re-role some of the favorite hulls (e.g. Vagabond, Ishtar) into another class while preserving most of their current capabilitites. Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, and if they're outclassed by some of the Navy hulls and ABCs today, and post-rebalance they still come up short in so many ways.... maybe it's time to retire the HAC as a thing.
Well basically the only niche left to fill is the vagabond approach of speed and damage projection., a more mobile version of ABC's HICS , bc's, navy bc's navy combat cruisers all do the tanky brawling approach that RISE seems to think these fill.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:52:00 -
[405] - Quote
Swidgen wrote: Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, .
problem with the op is rise does not define in his mind what is the role of a hac.
it seems some are leaning toward a combat and some to paper thin attack...
we need to clearly define what is a hac before we can discuss where they need to go. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
158
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:52:00 -
[406] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me. Do it to the navy cara while you are at it. In fact, why don't you just give all ships that have a missile bonus a bonus to medium missile launchers in general? You don't see a battlecruiser with a bonus to autocannons and excluding arty... >_> yeah lets remove frigates from the game
|
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
380
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:56:00 -
[407] - Quote
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.
Please do, the CPU is so limited that you can't even fit the T2 drone modules that it was designed for as well as guns (of any size) or tank. It's just silly that the modules that are the most effective on the hull, you can't fit because they require too much CPU. |
Balthazar Lestrane
Happy Endings. The Retirement Club
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 17:58:00 -
[408] - Quote
http://media.tumblr.com/514b0a474bf171a599dc19829a3e32bd/tumblr_inline_mq2xw9R6RP1qz4rgp.gif |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
140
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:00:00 -
[409] - Quote
imo the MWD sig bonus is way overrated on the new HACs to the point that it barely matters at all, for a few reasons:
- They can speedtank less than half the stuff an AF can; an AF can speedtank medium and large guns, the new HACs might barely be able to speedtank large guns - They're still far too slow to be used as heavy tackle, with the exception of the vaga - While an AF can run an MWD indefinitely, except for the Sac and deimos the HACs all have horrible capacitors and can only run MWDs in bursts
I was kinda hoping the HACs would be divided along the same lines as the T1 cruisers they directly compete with; one hull with lots of tank and DPS and not much mobility, and one with loads of maneuverability.
Anyway no one's gonna use HACs until they're significantly better than T1 cruisers, which they're not, nor do they adequately fill any niche not currently occupied by a much cheaper ship
PS can a GM please refund my SP from training HAC V, thanks in advance |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1136
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:12:00 -
[410] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me. Do it to the navy cara while you are at it. In fact, why don't you just give all ships that have a missile bonus a bonus to medium missile launchers in general? You don't see a battlecruiser with a bonus to autocannons and excluding arty... >_> yeah lets remove frigates from the game edit - Also lol, Ishtar CPU stays the same. Oh let's fit up the Ishtar with 4 Reinforced bulkheads and a meta 4 DC and basically nothing else but drones 2nd edit - You guys should go back to the beginning on this rebalance. Well, unless you want new fleets of Cerbs to dominate fleet warfare the way the old Drakes did (but at least now people will pay in isk and sp to get that kind of dominance/utility).
Well i guess not giving the drake a rlml bonus is fine.
But all cruisers should have it <.< BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:18:00 -
[411] - Quote
Viribus wrote:imo the MWD sig bonus is way overrated on the new HACs to the point that it barely matters at all, for a few reasons:
- They can speedtank less than half the stuff an AF can; an AF can speedtank medium and large guns, the new HACs might barely be able to speedtank large guns - They're still far too slow to be used as heavy tackle, with the exception of the vaga - While an AF can run an MWD indefinitely, except for the Sac and deimos the HACs all have horrible capacitors and can only run MWDs in bursts
I was kinda hoping the HACs would be divided along the same lines as the T1 cruisers they directly compete with; one hull with lots of tank and DPS and not much mobility, and one with loads of maneuverability.
Anyway no one's gonna use HACs until they're significantly better than T1 cruisers, which they're not, nor do they adequately fill any niche not currently occupied by a much cheaper ship
PS can a GM please refund my SP from training HAC V, thanks in advance
Its a shame too about the mwd ... the ships have too high sig radius too begin with.. AHACS are usually AB fit and shield HACS will balloon as soon as you put extenders and rigs on so CCP are kind of defeating the point of the bonus really... it seems to be more of a token bonus just so it has a role bonus and follows AF's.... some skills too help would be good like 5% sig rad reduction for extenders and mwds.
Also CCP need to realise what works for AF's don't necessarily scale upwards .... there is a reason people use bc's so much for brawling and not cruisers/HACS/HICS/T3's ..... EHP ,cost effectiveness and dps being the main ones.
The only HACS jobs you can't get a bc to do better is anti support things like chasing logi off or frigs things that attack cruisers can even do now.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
77
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:27:00 -
[412] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: SACRILEGE Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 200(+2) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4)
ZEALOT Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+1) / .553 / 12580000 / 9.64s
CERBERUS Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 205(+30) / .463 / 12720000 / 8.17s
EAGLE Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s
DEIMOS Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 220(+12) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875)
ISHTAR Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s
VAGABOND Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 290(+51) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s
MUNINN Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s
It seems to me like all the T1 and Navy cruisers were given an across the board buff to mobility, but these seem to have missed the memo. The Eagle and Ishtar are in a particularly worrisome state.
Here's some current T1 base stats for comparison: Cyclone Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s
Vexor Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 205(+36) / 0.53(-0.04) / 11310000 (+1000000) / 5.6s (+0.1)
I also dislike the fact that the Vagabond is getting it's speed integrated into the hull and an extra bonus, but the Ishtar gets to keep the drone bay as a skill bonus, why not integrate that to the hull as well; you could give the Ishtar a drone MWD bonus like the new destroyers get instead. |
Kesi Raae
Anatidae Rising
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:27:00 -
[413] - Quote
Great job, balance team!
I love the look of the changes and how they look to fit in to the current meta, if you want speed you go for Navy Cruisers, if you want resilience and damage application, you go for HAC's, if you want cheapness you go for T1 Cruisers. Also, please don't listen to the people wanting HAC's to be faster than T1 cruisers, as long as they're noticeably more mobile than BC's and BS's that's fine, you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades.
edit: post above me points out the Cyclone is almost as mobile as the Eagle and Ishtar, that should probably be addressed :p |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
305
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:28:00 -
[414] - Quote
and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
darius mclever
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:32:00 -
[415] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos
did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas? |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
159
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:36:00 -
[416] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me. Do it to the navy cara while you are at it. In fact, why don't you just give all ships that have a missile bonus a bonus to medium missile launchers in general? You don't see a battlecruiser with a bonus to autocannons and excluding arty... >_> yeah lets remove frigates from the game edit - Also lol, Ishtar CPU stays the same. Oh let's fit up the Ishtar with 4 Reinforced bulkheads and a meta 4 DC and basically nothing else but drones 2nd edit - You guys should go back to the beginning on this rebalance. Well, unless you want new fleets of Cerbs to dominate fleet warfare the way the old Drakes did (but at least now people will pay in isk and sp to get that kind of dominance/utility). Well i guess not giving the drake a rlml bonus is fine. But all cruisers should have it <.< Drake is slow, and doesn't have such huge range. Frigates can still burn out and catch a drake before he warps. They won't be able to burn out and catch a Cerb before he warps or wipes them all out. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
152
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:36:00 -
[417] - Quote
Two concerns:
1) The Cerberus still suffers from the "Caldari ships don't need a MWD" problem. The added grid barely covers the added launcher and leaves it suffering from the same problem that you can't fit a MWD and tank at the same time, especially if you want a cap booster to keep your MWD running long enough to finish a fight.
2) If the Vagabond is going to be a shield tanker shouldn't it have more than 4 mids? Moving a low to a mid would make a lot more sense. |
darius mclever
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:37:00 -
[418] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:2) If the Vagabond is going to be a shield tanker shouldn't it have more than 4 mids? Moving a low to a mid would make a lot more sense.
question is if the base resists dont make up for the missing mid slot. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
305
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:37:00 -
[419] - Quote
darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas?
but do they brawl with them? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Predator989
People of Random Nature
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:38:00 -
[420] - Quote
The Ishtar is better now, but the cpu on the ship is completely pitiful.
Please buff this only slightly at least to compare to its T1 Counterpart. |
|
LaserzPewPew
Origin. Black Legion.
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:40:00 -
[421] - Quote
Are we going to see a pirate cruiser rebalance as well?
Namely, the hybrid bonus that was traded for a drone tracking/optimal bonus on the Ishtar would be beautiful to see on the Gila as well as a *moderate* speed increase to match the speed of the Cerberus. |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
149
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:40:00 -
[422] - Quote
Kesi Raae wrote:you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades.
That would make sense if HACs actually filled a different intended role than T1 cruisers, which they don't, and this patch won't do anything to change. They're T1 cruisers that trade mobility for tank and DPS, except they also cost 10 times as much, so no one uses them. For damage application Tier3s are better, for brawling T1 cruisers do nearly the same thing but much cheaper, the only viable HAC in large fleets is the zealot by virtue of its good fleet-oriented bonuses and T2 resists (and because of how bad the Omen is)
HACs either need an entirely new role that they excel at (unlikely, as pretty much every conceivable role in this game is already well-filled), or to be expensive direct upgrades to T1 ships
imo there's nothing inherently wrong with direct upgrades, that's basically what most navy ships and many T2 ships are, and people still fly T1 ships because cost-efficiency is something people care about. The Exequror Navy is a direct upgrade of the Thorax, superior in every way, and guess what? People still fly Thoraxes |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
247
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:43:00 -
[423] - Quote
I like the changes proposed so far.
However, I think that there is one big problem with T2 ships in general.
I totally understand that they should not just be more powerful versions of T1/navy ships. I even agree!
What I don't understand, is why you don't do anything to push their pricetag down to their performance level. It really created false expectations, and ultimately hurts the ships, because they literally won't be worth using over t1 or navy ships. And I'm not even speaking of the HAC vs BC comparison.
So basically, don't give them more bang, but do something about all the bucks they cost please... Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Zilero
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
84
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:44:00 -
[424] - Quote
darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas?
I did. Until this dev post I had no idea people were so ********.
Last I checked, vagabonds were horrible brawlers and you wanted to fight as much as possible in the falloff of your guns, but apparently everyone now flies Vagas with ASBs in order to brawl.. or.. whatever. The CSM that came up with this lame idea needs to be shot (in game).
If I want to brawl and win I'll pick a hull that costs 1/10th the Vaga hull and win over a brawling vaga 90% of the time.
Good riddance.
Also, the MWD bonus is ridiculous, why do you need a bonus when most of the HACs can't even fly with an MWD turned on for more than 1-2 minutes.
HACs are even more dead with this "rebalance" - there is litterally no need to train for HACs at all as most T1 cruisers are better. |
Pic'n dor
Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:44:00 -
[425] - Quote
as you need the racial cruiser at 5 to fly these ship, why don't you put those cruiser racial skill bonus into role bonus class ?
Quote:exemple : Vaga
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount (was 5% bonus to max velocity)
these stats will never be 20% bonus to rate of fire since you need level 5.
Let's do something clear and put them like this :
Quote:Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty 25% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 37.5% bonus to shield boost amount
Unless you guys have a plan to remove the racial cruiser skill 5 from prerequisites ? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
305
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:44:00 -
[426] - Quote
Viribus wrote:Kesi Raae wrote:you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades. That would make sense if HACs actually filled a different intended role than T1 cruisers, which they don't, and this patch won't do anything to change. They're T1 cruisers that trade mobility for tank and DPS, except they also cost 10 times as much, so no one uses them. For damage application Tier3s are better, for brawling T1 cruisers do nearly the same thing but much cheaper, the only viable HAC in large fleets is the zealot by virtue of its good fleet-oriented bonuses and T2 resists (and because of how bad the Omen is) HACs either need an entirely new role that they excel at (unlikely, as pretty much every conceivable role in this game is already well-filled), or to be expensive direct upgrades to T1 ships imo there's nothing inherently wrong with direct upgrades, that's basically what most navy ships and many T2 ships are, and people still fly T1 ships because cost-efficiency is something people care about. The Exequror Navy is a direct upgrade of the Thorax, superior in every way, and guess what? People still fly Thoraxes
indeed also T1 are meant to be the base ships from where navy/pirate and T3 and T2 stem from so make HACS T2 attack cruisers you can still use different bonuses and layout from the T1's to keep uniqueness. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Violet Winters
Angelic Eclipse.
92
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:45:00 -
[427] - Quote
I hope the missile slots on the Deimos are a mistake, omg. Anglic Eclipse.
Lee told me to remove my signature Minmatar and Gallente FW |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:45:00 -
[428] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Swidgen wrote: Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, .
problem with the op is rise does not define in his mind what is the role of a hac. it seems some are leaning toward a combat and some to paper thin attack... we need to clearly define what is a hac before we can discuss where they need to go. moreover we have two tiers of hacs... IMO one should be more combat tanky and one more mobile attack. It seems as though (based on the Tech chart from a while ago and various comments) that CCP envisions HACs as a tankier version of a T1 Attack Cruiser. This idea worked great in the Zealot, because it can mount a significant tank (~+100%) over an Omen, project more damage with its damage bonus (on top of its RoF bonus) AND have better optimals with the +optimal bonus. The Zealot combines the best of Amarr T1 into a T2 hull: strong tank (like a maller) and good damage (like an Omen (old ONI)). Each race has one HAC that is supposed to elevate their T1 Att. Cruiser and then some. Zealot already does this, Deimos should, Vagabond should and Cerebus should (probably does after this pass).
Then, the other ships in the HAC category were racial wildcards. Amarr had Sacrilege (firing HAMs from an armor hull), Gallente had Ishtar (which was supposed to be some sort of super Vexor), Minmatar the Muninn for a specialized long rage Arty boat and Caldari the Eagle for a similar purpose. What happened in the mean time is T3 BCs were released, obsoleting the long range ships and T1/Navy got such boosts that the rest, save from the shining-star Zealot--which really wasn't affected because the package on the ONI is for kiting, just couldn't keep up. Obviously, the Zealot was a beautiful ship, well designed and didn't need to change.
Unfortunately, the other ships weren't at this place. The Deimos isn't a "better" Thorax. The Thorax still tracks better, is faster and puts out the same (or more) damage than it. Eagles will still put down pitiful dps (at range! whoo! /sad) and the same dps as a Moa up close. I have to disagree with CCP that HACs shouldn't be "better" than a T1 ship. Yes, they should be. The Zealot, by all measures, is flat-out better than an Omen and a Maller. HACs should put out more damage with ~60k tank (with an ACR). Command Ships, OTOH, should put out similar damage to their T1 counterparts but have a tankier ship. That'd distinguish CSs with HACs: HACs give you damage and CSs give you tank.
But back to the point: CCP likely wants HACs to be what their name implies: A heavy assau--attack--cruiser. A T1 cruiser with more tank. But that distinguishment will never justify the 10:1 increase in cost, and if they don't balance based on cost, then there's really no point in having these ships cost more just so we can get a marginal increase like extra optimal range. (And besides, Navy ships are already T1 ships with more tank.) These ships have to do more: project damage better, better falloff, better tracking, faster rate of fire, stronger cap, stronger tank, etc. There needs to be a reason to buy one--and a much better reason than a marginal performance increase.
CCP, I urge you to have a hard look at the Zealot and why it's been so successful in the game. Ask yourselves why Deimoses, Eagles and the others have been shelved. Then, once you answer those questions, work in solutions to this line that addresses those answers.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
149
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:49:00 -
[429] - Quote
"guys why should a 150m ship be better than a 10m ship????" -EVE-O scrubs |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
114
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:49:00 -
[430] - Quote
Please have a second look at the agility. Whilst I like some of the changes around slots and bonuses, some of these ships are horrifically slow. Now I don't want these to all end up flat out faster than the T1 cruisers, but please consider putting them in the same ballpark.
Looking at the Zealot as an example. It's a big chunk slower in a straight line than an Omen, whilst taking a few extra seconds to align. If you don't want to make it and the other ranged HACs faster can you consider giving them more fitting - powergrid in particular - so they can actually fit the full size guns, MWD and some tank without needing fitting mods / implant? Looking in EFT, with perfect skills. Can't fit a set of Heavy Beams, meta 4 800mm plate, meta mwd and even a micro cap booster without implants or fitting mods. It just needs a percent more! :p
|
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
221
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:53:00 -
[431] - Quote
Add another to the list of voices shouting for more CPU on the Ishtar.
Seriously, this should have been the first thing that was addressed on the ship. Ishtar has always had crippling fitting. It's like you've never even flown the ship (and I'm fairly certain you have). I am disappointed with you. Your parents probably are too. You should feel bad. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
339
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:54:00 -
[432] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Please have a second look at the agility. Whilst I like some of the changes around slots and bonuses, some of these ships are horrifically slow. Now I don't want these to all end up flat out faster than the T1 cruisers, but please consider putting them in the same ballpark.
Looking at the Zealot as an example. It's a big chunk slower in a straight line than an Omen, whilst taking a few extra seconds to align. If you don't want to make it and the other ranged HACs faster can you consider giving them more fitting - powergrid in particular - so they can actually fit the full size guns, MWD and some tank without needing fitting mods / implant? Looking in EFT, with perfect skills. Can't fit a set of Heavy Beams, meta 4 800mm plate, meta mwd and even a micro cap booster without implants or fitting mods. It just needs a percent more! :p
Agility would certainly be a balancing point vs T1 ships, though. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say that T1 attack crusiers ought to have gotten the MWD bonus to offset somewhat their smallish tank and lack of T2 resists. T2 ships keep their strong tank with better damage application but at the cost of some agility and speed. Makes sense.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:02:00 -
[433] - Quote
This makes HACS better just on conditions. And still... Again t1 variants are more effective in close range... doesnt worth to use t2 (!) and of course in long range other ship class is way better.
T1 cruisers, frigs, battleships got boosted in their EHP, weapons, bonuses while Hacs got some boosting IF you do this and that... or they didnt got any significant boost f.e. zealot, vaga(bonus to tractor beam would be equally funny and you could still claim that there is a boosting).
Not really any change, nothing to see here.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:04:00 -
[434] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas? but do they brawl with them?
Yup
[High Slots] Dual 180mm Autocannon II Small Neut/Nos
[Mid Slots] 10mn Experimental Microwarpdrive 10mn Afterburner II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler
[Low Slots] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internatl Structure II
[Rig Slots]
Medium Ancillary Current Router Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer
Requires a 1% PG implant, 400 DPS without drones MWD - 2700m/s AB - 1000 m/s Slowboat - 408m/s 12k EHP 750 DPS tank with overloaded ASB (Should be closer to 1000 with the new bonus, higher still with crystals)
Can catch kiting ships, can get under battleship guns, works well for what amounts to basically a one slot tank. I think Garmon also did a video with one of these... one of those elite PvPers did a video with it at least.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:05:00 -
[435] - Quote
After a bit more reading and thinking, I have developed my conclusion further.
1) No one understands how strong T2 resists are. Seriously.
2) The Sacrilege would benefit tremendously from going to 4 launchers with a 10% damage bonus and trading a high for a low. This would open up so much viability it's just silly. Rise, please read this and the other Sacri posts. I love this ship, I've flown it forever, and this is our chance to make it work without breaking anything.
3) The Deimos needs a different bonus (replacing the mwd thing) and the Ishtar needs more cpu. These ships are simply not worth using without these changes.
4) All or some of these vessels should have their cost reduced slightly. As many have commented, the investment vs reward for using HACs is very disproportionately high on the investment side.
Hopefully most of you agree with me. I think with these changes, this would be a solid balance pass. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
5488
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:06:00 -
[436] - Quote
Pic'n dor wrote:as you need the racial cruiser at 5 to fly these ship, why don't you put those cruiser racial skill bonus into role bonus class ? Quote:exemple : Vaga
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount (was 5% bonus to max velocity)
these stats will never be 20% bonus to rate of fire since you need level 5. Let's do something clear and put them like this : Quote:Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty 25% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 37.5% bonus to shield boost amount Unless you guys have a plan to remove the racial cruiser skill 5 from prerequisites ? It's probably done that way because that is how the bonus is actually calculated. Showing the bonus in the same way avoids any confusion or misunderstandings that might otherwise arise. A role bonus would be something you can't possibly ever lose once gained, but there are still ways to lose skill levels in the game and fully trained skill are the most likely victims if it happens, so it's perfectly justified to show them as per level bonuses. |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:06:00 -
[437] - Quote
Great changes! Time to go to Jita and sell all HACs... And let me guess, you're going to make them more expensive as well, right? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:08:00 -
[438] - Quote
Its a shame i was thinking of training HAC lv5 and actually buying some HACS ... but alas my cynabal isn't going to be displaced by any HACS ... i would be more likely to use my caracal or get a bellicose nice and cheap and do the same thing as HACS pretty much... or maybe use my SFI for a more armour based setup .. a great frig killer in a RR armour BS fleet. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:08:00 -
[439] - Quote
Kesi Raae wrote:you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades.
Except HACs cost five times as much, so being straight upgrades would actually make them worth it. T1 cruisers for newer players, HACs for older players.
Obviously HACs shouldn't be 5 times better because they cost 5 times as much, but they should be better than their T1 originals.
And what does ABC stand for? A Basic Cruiser? Clearly I've been living in my wormhole for too long since when I went to WH space ABC meant Arknor Bistot Crokite...
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1664
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:08:00 -
[440] - Quote
Basically you made t1 cruisers so good that anything you do to the HACS that cost 10-15 times as much wont be good enough.
Perhaps a drastic reduction in HAC build costs to maybe make them cost in the 50-70 million range and you'd be getting somewhere with your current ideas.
What you're doing right now is wasting time changing stats on ships that will stay shelved because of changes you made to other ships.
EDIT: They need to be cheaper than Talos, Tornado ect hulls which are flat out better at damage projection and more exensive than their fragile t1 brothers, so anywhere in the middle there will bring their use back up, anything else you do short of making them a direct improvement over the t1 hull will leave them sitting on the shelf where they're currently at. |
|
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:09:00 -
[441] - Quote
Raging Beaver wrote:Great changes! Time to go to Jita and sell all HACs... And let me guess, you're going to make them more expensive as well, right?
They worth being more expensive after THAT boosting!
hahahah. Good point bro |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:12:00 -
[442] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas? but do they brawl with them? Yup [High Slots] Dual 180mm Autocannon II Small Neut/Nos [Mid Slots] 10mn Experimental Microwarpdrive 10mn Afterburner II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler [Low Slots] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internatl Structure II [Rig Slots] Medium Ancillary Current Router Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer Requires a 1% PG implant, 400 DPS without drones MWD - 2700m/s AB - 1000 m/s Slowboat - 408m/s 12k EHP 750 DPS tank with overloaded ASB (Should be closer to 1000 with the new bonus, higher still with crystals) Can catch kiting ships, can get under battleship guns, works well for what amounts to basically a one slot tank. I think Garmon also did a video with one of these... one of those elite PvPers did a video with it at least.
interesting fit.... but is it worth using over a cyclone dual ASB 1200 plus tank for a 4th of the price? Which is always an issue if you care about your wallet and your kb... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Adaramyyn
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:12:00 -
[443] - Quote
As an originally-Caldari pilot who trained into Amarr specifically for the Sacrilege (only to learn later that it was a terrible ship at the time), I approve this message. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8583
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:14:00 -
[444] - Quote
Losing hitpoints is a bad thing for brawlers. The Deimos is no exception. Or are you trying to turn the Deimos into a Shield tank now? sort of a Gallente version of the vagabond? the hitpoint reduction makes no sense to me whatsoever. if anything, BUFF the hitpoints! DOES THE SLANG NAME "DIEMOST" MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?
Vagabond's new base speed is 9 m/s slower than current Vagabond with only Minmatar Cruiser 5. Other than that, with the new Shield Booster bonus I reckon it's gonna need a bigger cargo bay as well so it can hold enough capacitor booster charges, and also it's not consistent with the Jaguar, so I wonder where the "consistency" is here. also, brawler role? then what's the speed and falloff bonus for?? And fitting shield boosters on Vagabonds is only popular because Ancillary Shield Boosters are overpowered which made them popular with lots of ships. Yes they ARE overpowered. and yes I do use them because of that and I enjoy the benefits of overpowered shield boosters.
Sacrilege as heavy tackle? isn't the Vagabond better for that, with its higher scan resolution? The bigger drone bay will give the Sac a lot more DPS, in combination with its stronger powergrid allowing for a better tank, will make it a lot more common as it is much more powerful and will probably be able to compete with some Battlecruisers.
tl;dr HAC changes make no sense. And here I thought the HAC rebalancing will add more tank to them. My bad! Sorry! You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
339
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:15:00 -
[445] - Quote
Viribus wrote:Kesi Raae wrote:you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades. That would make sense if HACs actually filled a different intended role than T1 cruisers, which they don't, and this patch won't do anything to change. They're T1 cruisers that trade mobility for tank and DPS, except they also cost 10 times as much, so no one uses them. For damage application Tier3s are better, for brawling T1 cruisers do nearly the same thing but much cheaper, the only viable HAC in large fleets is the zealot by virtue of its good fleet-oriented bonuses and T2 resists (and because of how bad the Omen is) HACs either need an entirely new role that they excel at (unlikely, as pretty much every conceivable role in this game is already well-filled), or to be expensive direct upgrades to T1 ships imo there's nothing inherently wrong with direct upgrades, that's basically what most navy ships and many T2 ships are, and people still fly T1 ships because cost-efficiency is something people care about. The Exequror Navy is a direct upgrade of the Thorax, superior in every way, and guess what? People still fly Thoraxes QFT. The bolded part is what needs to be shouted from the roof tops. T1 ships are very capable, throwaway fun wagons. T2 is what you fly when you're more serious, would prefer to not get killed, and want a better performer.
Besides, if you guys have any designs on nerfing T3s to perform "less," then these ships are going to have to out perform them. As the iteration is now, their dps is still sub-T3, so unless you're going to nerf T3s into oblivion, these HACs have to out-damage (perhaps damage as much as) a T3s post-T3-rebalance and certainly more than their respective T1 counterparts. At the end of the day:
T1: Fastest, agile, high dps, small to med. tank T2: Slower than T1, less agile, highest dps, med tank T3: Middle of T1/T2 speed, middle T1/T2 agility, middle dps, higher tank (but obviously most adaptable) CSs (since they really fit in here, too): Slowest speed, slow agility, ~T1 and a little dps, highest tank.
These are obviously all approximations. The Vaga, for example, is faster than a Stabber, but the overall concept is the same.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
114
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:15:00 -
[446] - Quote
In addition to previous post. +1 to cheaper hacs and more ishtar cpu! |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
342
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:16:00 -
[447] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:Losing hitpoints is a bad thing for brawlers. The Deimos is no exception. Or are you trying to turn the Deimos into a Shield tank now? sort of a Gallente version of the vagabond? the hitpoint reduction makes no sense to me whatsoever. It doesn't make sense to me because the Thorax performs the shield kiting role WAY better than a Deimos will--PLUS, it's got a tracking bonus, making those now-worse tracking medium rails hit better.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:17:00 -
[448] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas? but do they brawl with them? Yup [High Slots] Dual 180mm Autocannon II Small Neut/Nos [Mid Slots] 10mn Experimental Microwarpdrive 10mn Afterburner II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler [Low Slots] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internatl Structure II [Rig Slots] Medium Ancillary Current Router Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer Requires a 1% PG implant, 400 DPS without drones MWD - 2700m/s AB - 1000 m/s Slowboat - 408m/s 12k EHP 750 DPS tank with overloaded ASB (Should be closer to 1000 with the new bonus, higher still with crystals) Can catch kiting ships, can get under battleship guns, works well for what amounts to basically a one slot tank. I think Garmon also did a video with one of these... one of those elite PvPers did a video with it at least. interesting fit.... but is it worth using over a cyclone dual ASB 1200 plus tank for a 4th of the price? Which is always an issue if you care about your wallet and your kb... Also when CS get buffed .. similar price which is more useful to the fleet?
And that is why HACs are bad, even with these changes
I'm also going to point out that a Vaga goes twice as fast and has a lower sig giving it the ability to speed tank. Cyclone is likely superior in most situations though.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Langbaobao
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:25:00 -
[449] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: VAGABOND - Like with the Stabber, we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus. This has nice racial continuity and supports a play-style that has been emerging for the Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler. Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount (was 5% bonus to max velocity)
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 855 PWG, 395 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1750(+97) / 1400(+63) / 980(-4) Capacitor (amount) : 1060(-2.5) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 290(+51) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 330 / 6(+1) Sensor strength: 14 Ladar Signature radius: 115
It's kinda difficult to see the further decline of the Vaga s a kiting ship which I loved so much. The nerfs to TEs were just the last nail in the coffin of a gradual descent into mediocrity and oblivion. I had hoped that the HAC rebalance would have given it some new shine but now I see that idea was unfounded. The decline continues with an additional speed nerf (albeight a slight one) and the addition of an unnecessary bonus to ASBs. I'm quite sure there will be some shmucks that will fit the ASB on it and use it as a close range brawler, I'm quite sure it will still stay a niche, and it will be a poor brawler at that because of a lack of mid slots.
How could have things be different? Well dunno, haven't given it that much though, but maybe if instead of the ASB bonus it was given a stronger speed bonus or some kind of tracking or agility bonus.
PS. If you're so dead set on the the ASB bonus, more CPU and PG will be needed, so at least give it a boost on that side.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
459
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:31:00 -
[450] - Quote
The only complaint I have is about the deimos.
IMHO it is still the die-most with an outdated MWD cap bonus. Either it needs some sort of survivability bonus, or a speed bonus.
I think the coolest bonus to give it would be a 10% increase to MWD overloaded speed per level.
This would mean an MWD would still give a 500% bonus when turned on normally, but when overloading instead of giving a 750% bonus it would be a 875% bonus (a difference of about 400 m/s on a 290 m/s base ship) This would increase the deimos' ability to catch its opponents quickly without increasing its ability to kite forever. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
310
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:32:00 -
[451] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz interesting fit.... but is it worth using over a cyclone dual ASB 1200 plus tank for a 4th of the price? Which is always an issue if you care about your wallet and your kb... Also when CS get buffed .. similar price which is more useful to the fleet?[/quote wrote:
And that is why HACs are bad, even with these changes
I'm also going to point out that a Vaga goes twice as fast and has a lower sig giving it the ability to speed tank. Cyclone is likely superior in most situations though.
It makes me sad that CCP don't seem to get it .. HACS with these changes are stil... what else can i fly that is cheaper and does the same job than a HAC? and besides the zealot its hard too think of any reason to fly a HAC atm even if they made them mostly better than T1 attack cruisers but slightly slower for instance i would still look at ABC's T3's Recons and Navy/pirate cruisers before these HACS.
Maybe in the future they will nerf ABC's, T3's and change pirate cruisers bonuses maybe they might become a genuine go to choice. But in the current climate and the future climate i am still struggling to find a reason beyond the token MWD bonus on a kiting HAC IF they make any of them fast enough and the sig radius isn't the size of a battleship that is. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
975
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:32:00 -
[452] - Quote
Romar Thel wrote:Raging Beaver wrote:Great changes! Time to go to Jita and sell all HACs... And let me guess, you're going to make them more expensive as well, right? They worth being more expensive after THAT boosting! hahahah. Good point bro
Just bring more of T1 versions and accomplish the same job for a fraction of the cost. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:38:00 -
[453] - Quote
Yeah probably t1 will get even more expensive after this change.. Higher demand! lol |
Alsyth
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:42:00 -
[454] - Quote
And just give them their third rig slot, honestly.
You removed the dumb 375 calibration of faction ships, why should T2 still have only 2 rigs when T3 have 3?
That's one of the thing that makes HAC underwhelming when compared to faction cruisers, t3 and BCs. |
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe Seventh Sanctum.
24
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:44:00 -
[455] - Quote
Munin needs more grid/cpu and some may tell me i'm crazy and go screw myself but, the zealot could use a bit more of both also. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1857
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:46:00 -
[456] - Quote
i can't even remember how medium beam lasers sound. Do they wubwub or wub? eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Tankn00blicus
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC The Kadeshi
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:49:00 -
[457] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
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
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145 Right, the Ishtar totally isn't one of the most notoriously CPU-gimped hulls in the game, no need to fix. That previous lack of a 4th turret hardpoint was a major problem though! |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
132
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:51:00 -
[458] - Quote
Lithorn wrote:Munin needs more grid/cpu and some may tell me i'm crazy and go screw myself but, the zealot could use a bit more of both also.
All HACs need more, thats one of the bigger issues facing HAC pilots, the fact that there is NO flexibility in their fittings.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Drunken Bum
406
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:55:00 -
[459] - Quote
Diemos still sucks. Munin doesnt really look good for anything either. I like most of the changes, ishtar meeds more cpu. Deimost and munin just really dont look worth flying for anything really After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary. -á-Fozzie |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
977
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:58:00 -
[460] - Quote
Romar Thel wrote:Yeah probably t1 will get even more expensive after this change.. Higher demand! lol
1 researched BPO of "whatever T1 Cruiser of the month" is cheap, requires little effort to build a couple ones and perform as well as T2, if they become more expensive because offer/demand usual florensiensis dialog blahblahblah players can always build their own for little effort and collect some tears on top.
On topic: as mentioned above there's no reason why T2 cruisers shouldn't have a third rig slot, it's not like if they were really harmful anyway. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Simon BlackWell
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:58:00 -
[461] - Quote
Deimos has been hit fairly hard. 4th mid is nice, but honestly, I've no use for a web for the most part.
Nerfing it's EHP was a bit of a low blow. It can't brawl properly now, not to mention that with the utility highslot gone, there went the ubiquitous small Nos to keep everything running whilst you brawl.
You've changed the Nos mechanics, then begin plucking Utility highslots away from things.
Staaaaahp |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4071
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:58:00 -
[462] - Quote
What are the reasons to choose one of these new HACs over an aBC? . |
Fyrkraag
The Knights Templar
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:00:00 -
[463] - Quote
REserved |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1664
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:00:00 -
[464] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:What are the reasons to choose one of these new HACs over an aBC?
You have too much money and or you dont like flying ships that don't suck
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
977
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:02:00 -
[465] - Quote
Drunken Bum wrote:Diemos still sucks. Munin doesnt really look good for anything either. I like most of the changes, ishtar meeds more cpu. Deimost and munin just really dont look worth flying for anything really
ASB shield extender MWD point, DCU mfs/te nano+Blasters = OMGFCKPOWNMOBILE *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
N9 Tau
Black Carbon Group
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:04:00 -
[466] - Quote
So...Why are we keeping 5% MWD cap bonus for Deimos? Didn't we drop this in Thorax, favoring tracking bonus? I think it would make much more sense to change it to tracking bonus + rebuff the ehp...since armor and hull nerf really took out a large chunk. |
Alundil
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
230
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:10:00 -
[467] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Harvey James wrote:Fr0stle wrote:I'll just add my voice to the group and ask for some more CPU on the Ishtar. It was always CPU gimped and now we have all these new drone modules that are CPU heavy too. More CPU is needed to make this ship viable in it's intended role. that and reducing CPU on all drone mods would make sense ... also add a drone tracking for the lows like a TE for drones. GǪor, hell, just to enforce the whole GǣT2 = specialisationGǥ angleGǪ How about having the Ishtar reduce the CPU need for drone mods? That way, the ship can maintain its limited CPU to keep it from being too versatile, but you can still pack it absolutely full of the very specific set of mods that are related to its niche without making those available to every ship out there. At -10%/level, that would mean Omnilink IIs at 29.5 tf, Drone link IIs at 27.5 tf, and Drone damage amps at 15 tf when you have HAC V. This would be great to be honest.
Clone gameplay enhancements |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
345
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:11:00 -
[468] - Quote
N9 Tau wrote:So...Why are we keeping 5% MWD cap bonus for Deimos? Didn't we drop this in Thorax, favoring tracking bonus? I think it would make much more sense to change it to tracking bonus + rebuff the ehp...since armor and hull nerf really took out a large chunk. Yeah, it'd honestly be better served by--and I can't believe I'm saying this--an armor repair bonus. If there is to be a wasted bonus, of course. TBH, T2 HACs ought to represent a straight-up increase in damage performance over a T1 attack cruiser, so the bonus really should be tracking or rate of fire. (4 turrets, 10% damage, 5% rate of fire, 5 highs and 7 lows to make it effective brawler.) Save the shield kitey to Thorax or Talos--everyone else still will and they'll outperform the Deimos every time. Gallente will have to continue to use Proteii or CSs as tanky brawlers, it seems.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Vic Teishikuro
Rescue Team
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:15:00 -
[469] - Quote
Deimos still needs more Love.
The tho the Sacrilige is nice. it needs more its still something nobodys gunna fly
and a few of the other ships have some CPU and Power grid issues
Deimos, Sacrilige, Munin needs more love
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:16:00 -
[470] - Quote
Posting again to un-**** the Sacrilege for the love of all that is good.
5/4/6 slot layout, 4 launchers, 10% damage bonus. Fitting, tank and utility problems, all solved.
dooooooo eeeeeeet |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
132
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:16:00 -
[471] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:What are the reasons to choose one of these new HACs over an aBC? You have too much money and or you dont like flying ships that don't suck
Ships that don't suck? Have you SEEN the T1 cruisers? They are far superior to HACs when cost is considered. In some cases they are simply better than their T2 variants, cost be damned.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
310
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:18:00 -
[472] - Quote
poor CCP Rise .. i bet he will go home tonight crying WHY me!!!!! .. there all so mean :P they don't give fozzie the same amount of abuse :) Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:18:00 -
[473] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:What are the reasons to choose one of these new HACs over an aBC? You have too much money and or you dont like flying ships that don't suck Ships that don't suck? Have you SEEN the T1 cruisers? They are far superior to HACs when cost is considered. In some cases they are simply better than their T2 variants, cost be damned.
I think you lost one of the negatives in his post |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
32
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:19:00 -
[474] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:
But back to the point: CCP likely wants HACs to be what their name implies: A heavy assau--attack--cruiser. A T1 cruiser with more tank. But that distinguishment will never justify the 10:1 increase in cost, and if they don't balance based on cost, then there's really no point in having these ships cost more just so we can get a marginal increase like extra optimal range. (And besides, Navy ships are already T1 ships with more tank.) These ships have to do more: project damage better, better falloff, better tracking, faster rate of fire, stronger cap, stronger tank, etc. There needs to be a reason to buy one--and a much better reason than a marginal performance increase.
CCP, I urge you to have a hard look at the Zealot and why it's been so successful in the game. Ask yourselves why Deimoses, Eagles and the others have been shelved. Then, once you answer those questions, work in solutions to this line that addresses those answers.
Mr. Floydy wrote:Looking at the Zealot as an example. It's a big chunk slower in a straight line than an Omen, whilst taking a few extra seconds to align. If you don't want to make it and the other ranged HACs faster can you consider giving them more fitting - powergrid in particular - so they can actually fit the full size guns, MWD and some tank without needing fitting mods / implant? Looking in EFT, with perfect skills. Can't fit a set of Heavy Beams, meta 4 800mm plate, meta mwd and even a micro cap booster without implants or fitting mods. It just needs a percent more! :p
Sarkelias Anophius wrote: The Sacrilege would benefit tremendously from going to 4 launchers with a 10% damage bonus and trading a high for a low. This would open up so much viability it's just silly. Rise, please read this and the other Sacri posts. I love this ship, I've flown it forever, and this is our chance to make it work without breaking anything.
These are good enough ideas to repost a few times... |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:21:00 -
[475] - Quote
The Muninn still seems pretty lackluster compared to alternative options if you ask me and the fact that it uses projectiles makes Minmatar the only race not to have a HAC with an alternative primary weapon. E.g.
Deimos - Hybrid, Ishtar - Drones Zealot - Lasers, Sacrilige - Missiles Eagle - Hybrid, Cerberus - Missiles Vagabond - Projectile, Muninn - Projectile?
Seems weird. How about tossing this projectile Muninn nobody's ever cared much for and replacing it with a missile Muninn so those Minmatar missile folks aren't left without a HAC to fly? I'd give it similar bonuses to the Cerb but replace the Flight Time bonus with an explosion radius bonus, giving it a nice edge against smaller ships. Not crazy about the type specific damage bonus, but it'd be weird if the cerb had one and the muninn didn't.
Something like this:
Muninn
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Explosive Missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire |
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
114
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:23:00 -
[476] - Quote
The introduction of 8-turret ABCs was definitely not short-sighted at all. Should be easy as pie to balance every other ship in existence around them. Dunno what the problem is here. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
310
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:23:00 -
[477] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Posting again to un-**** the Sacrilege for the love of all that is good.
5/4/6 slot layout, 4 launchers, 10% damage bonus. Fitting, tank and utility problems, all solved.
dooooooo eeeeeeet
I think all the HACS could use stronger damage bonuses more 10% damage bonuses across the board also that 16th slot would certainly make sense here.. The eagle could do with a 5th low and a 10% damage bonus Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
310
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:25:00 -
[478] - Quote
Aloe Cloveris wrote:The introduction of 8-turret ABCs was definitely not short-sighted at all. Should be easy as pie to balance every other ship in existence around them. Dunno what the problem is here.
I believe they were given fair warning in the ABC balance pass Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Jureth22
the unified Negative Ten.
104
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:28:00 -
[479] - Quote
please kil2 for the love of god give zealot drones.thanks |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
345
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:29:00 -
[480] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:The Muninn still seems pretty lackluster compared to alternative options if you ask me and the fact that it uses projectiles makes Minmatar the only race not to have a HAC with an alternative primary weapon. E.g.
Deimos - Hybrid, Ishtar - Drones Zealot - Lasers, Sacrilige - Missiles Eagle - Hybrid, Cerberus - Missiles Vagabond - Projectile, Muninn - Projectile?
Seems weird. How about tossing this projectile Muninn nobody's ever cared much for and replacing it with a missile Muninn so those Minmatar missile folks aren't left without a HAC to fly? I'd give it similar bonuses to the Cerb but replace the Flight Time bonus with an explosion radius bonus, giving it a nice edge against smaller ships. Not crazy about the type specific damage bonus, but it'd be weird if the cerb had one and the muninn didn't.
Something like this:
Muninn
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Explosive Missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire It'd be a great idea to have missile ships represented--even using the sort of dual damage bonus a Scythe FI gets, but I think it's too tricky to bake that into a hull that gets 4x damage/application bonuses. I think the stat overload on have 4x missile bonuses and 4x projectile bonuses would be too much visually, too much to balance around, etc. I'm fairly certain that the Claymore changes (making it into a missile boat) is what CCP is going to say is the "interim" missile boat for Minmatar, along with the aforementioned Scythe FI, of course (and likely an updated Huginn I'd wager (Super Bellicose, anyone?).
Besides, the two Minmatar HACs do represent two aspects of Minmatar playstyle: one is a fast, kitey monster (which is absolutely Minmatar), while the other performs well as a high range, high alpha arty monster. Notice, though, that they both are monsters :)
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
Syrias Bizniz
Carnivore Company
191
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:32:00 -
[481] - Quote
I really like the changes, however the Ishtar is the only ship i'm not happy with.
It stays a heavy drone boat like it was before. Like every other dedicated droneboat on cruiser scale and up. Navy Vex? 125mbit! Domi? 125mbit! Armageddon? 125mbit! Gila? 125mbit! And i'll just assume that the Eos will have that 125mbit, too.
It's all the same, there's no difference in the droneboats except for stats that aren't related to the drones - tank, mobility, utility.
I'd really like to see the Tech 2, the specialised ships, to actually be specialised in drone combat - different from the 'general' approach. What might be interesting for example is lowering their bandwidth to 100 mbit or 75 mbit, but giving them a Skillbonus (on Tech2 skill) for +1 controlled drone. I'm aware that this might bring up incredible powerful setups, so maybe tweak it with lesser(no) drone damage bonus, for example. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4372
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:32:00 -
[482] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU Bingo...The Ishtar has always had huge CPU issues, and this does nothing to change that. And forget about the Ishtar being used in action that requires high speed. You can't kite with it, and you can't close with it to brawl. It would also seem that CCP Rise has a Sentry drone fetish, this is twice now we get a bonus that pretty much applies only to sentry drones. And that is weird considering the MWD role bonus all the HAC got. Not at all, especially when you consider the size of it's drone bay.
Drop sentries and then kite your opponent around them. If your opponent gets out of your sentries range, either close distance or warp out, abandon the old set and launch a new set. This is the classic use of sentry drones with a hull smaller than a BS. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Alundil
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
230
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:34:00 -
[483] - Quote
Butzewutze wrote:I am not to impressed by the changes to be honest. Why doesnt the zealot have a dronebay but the muninn gets one? Why does the muninn get a lowslot instead of a med (that would truly beeing handy on that ship). Why does the Vagabond get a shieldboosting bonus with only 4 mediumslots? MWD + point -> 2 slot loltank? Quote: afterburner variations that are already very strong About what setups are you talking? I am curious.
Basically the vast majority of the Zealot comps currently used in 0.0 is AB fit. Period. Small gang Zealots I'm not too sure of. But in large AHAC fleets, between armor boosts/links and the AB + small sig they are very powerful as is. Not without counters, mind, but very powerful as a group.
Clone gameplay enhancements |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
132
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:36:00 -
[484] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: It'd be a great idea to have missile ships represented--even using the sort of dual damage bonus a Scythe FI gets, but I think it's too tricky to bake that into a hull that gets 4x damage/application bonuses. I think the stat overload on have 4x missile bonuses and 4x projectile bonuses would be too much visually, too much to balance around, etc. I'm fairly certain that the Claymore changes (making it into a missile boat) is what CCP is going to say is the "interim" missile boat for Minmatar, along with the aforementioned Scythe FI, of course (and likely an updated Huginn I'd wager (Super Bellicose, anyone?).
Besides, the two Minmatar HACs do represent two aspects of Minmatar playstyle: one is a fast, kitey monster (which is absolutely Minmatar), while the other performs well as a high range, high alpha arty monster. Notice, though, that they both are monsters :)
Muninn is definitely not a monster, its terrible, the Tornado outclasses it and its alpha is weak at best.
The Vagabond is a kiting superfast monster? One word: Cynabal.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
238
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:38:00 -
[485] - Quote
Some notes:
- velocity of some HACs seems too low for cruiser size ships
- Isthar CPU seems a bit too small
- MWD fitted cruisers generally have capacitor problems, so to make full use of new MWD bonus it would not hurt if you'd increased capacitor amount for all HACs Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows... |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
310
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:39:00 -
[486] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote: It'd be a great idea to have missile ships represented--even using the sort of dual damage bonus a Scythe FI gets, but I think it's too tricky to bake that into a hull that gets 4x damage/application bonuses. I think the stat overload on have 4x missile bonuses and 4x projectile bonuses would be too much visually, too much to balance around, etc. I'm fairly certain that the Claymore changes (making it into a missile boat) is what CCP is going to say is the "interim" missile boat for Minmatar, along with the aforementioned Scythe FI, of course (and likely an updated Huginn I'd wager (Super Bellicose, anyone?).
Besides, the two Minmatar HACs do represent two aspects of Minmatar playstyle: one is a fast, kitey monster (which is absolutely Minmatar), while the other performs well as a high range, high alpha arty monster. Notice, though, that they both are monsters :)
Muninn is definitely not a monster, its terrible, the Tornado outclasses it and its alpha is weak at best. The Vagabond is a kiting superfast monster? One word: Cynabal.
yes the tornado phenomenon has come about because muninns are very niche and unexceptional ... even after the buffs to muninn and medium arties i don't see much changing until ABC's get a proper rebalance (nerf). Also large Arties alpha is insanely OP which doesn't help much either Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Legion40k
ZOMBIEBEACHPARTYPATROL Circle-Of-Two
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:41:00 -
[487] - Quote
so to justify using an ASB Vagabond to take advantage of the new bonus it'll have to be an XL..
and break the ship
i was so hopeful they'd make HAC's absolute beasts too
diemost will now diemore!?
=/ |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4372
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:41:00 -
[488] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:What are the reasons to choose one of these new HACs over an aBC? You have too much money and or you dont like flying ships that don't suck Ships that don't suck? Have you SEEN the T1 cruisers? They are far superior to HACs when cost is considered. In some cases they are simply better than their T2 variants, cost be damned. Apparently the applied damage with the buffed medium weapons will be superior to the applied damage from an ABC's large guns vs medium/small targets To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:45:00 -
[489] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:It'd be a great idea to have missile ships represented--even using the sort of dual damage bonus a Scythe FI gets, but I think it's too tricky to bake that into a hull that gets 4x damage/application bonuses. I think the stat overload on have 4x missile bonuses and 4x projectile bonuses would be too much visually, too much to balance around, etc. I'm fairly certain that the Claymore changes (making it into a missile boat) is what CCP is going to say is the "interim" missile boat for Minmatar, along with the aforementioned Scythe FI, of course (and likely an updated Huginn I'd wager (Super Bellicose, anyone?).
Besides, the two Minmatar HACs do represent two aspects of Minmatar playstyle: one is a fast, kitey monster (which is absolutely Minmatar), while the other performs well as a high range, high alpha arty monster. Notice, though, that they both are monsters :)
I wouldn't do a double damage type because HACs are specialized boats, not just superior. Two weapon systems moves away from their specialized nature.
And I have to second some of the other posts here, the muninn is NOT a monster. Show me a fit for a Muninn and I'll show you another ship that does whatever it's trying to do better. I've tried to make it work, it just doesn't. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:45:00 -
[490] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote: It'd be a great idea to have missile ships represented--even using the sort of dual damage bonus a Scythe FI gets, but I think it's too tricky to bake that into a hull that gets 4x damage/application bonuses. I think the stat overload on have 4x missile bonuses and 4x projectile bonuses would be too much visually, too much to balance around, etc. I'm fairly certain that the Claymore changes (making it into a missile boat) is what CCP is going to say is the "interim" missile boat for Minmatar, along with the aforementioned Scythe FI, of course (and likely an updated Huginn I'd wager (Super Bellicose, anyone?).
Besides, the two Minmatar HACs do represent two aspects of Minmatar playstyle: one is a fast, kitey monster (which is absolutely Minmatar), while the other performs well as a high range, high alpha arty monster. Notice, though, that they both are monsters :)
Muninn is definitely not a monster, its terrible, the Tornado outclasses it and its alpha is weak at best. The Vagabond is a kiting superfast monster? One word: Cynabal.
ASB Vaga > Cynabal. |
|
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
75
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:46:00 -
[491] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas? but do they brawl with them? Yup [High Slots] Dual 180mm Autocannon II Small Neut/Nos [Mid Slots] 10mn Experimental Microwarpdrive 10mn Afterburner II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler [Low Slots] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internatl Structure II [Rig Slots] Medium Ancillary Current Router Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer Requires a 1% PG implant, 400 DPS without drones MWD - 2700m/s AB - 1000 m/s Slowboat - 408m/s 12k EHP 750 DPS tank with overloaded ASB (Should be closer to 1000 with the new bonus, higher still with crystals) Can catch kiting ships, can get under battleship guns, works well for what amounts to basically a one slot tank. I think Garmon also did a video with one of these... one of those elite PvPers did a video with it at least.
Lol and this fit is better then a cyclone? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1667
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:47:00 -
[492] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:What are the reasons to choose one of these new HACs over an aBC? You have too much money and or you dont like flying ships that don't suck Ships that don't suck? Have you SEEN the T1 cruisers? They are far superior to HACs when cost is considered. In some cases they are simply better than their T2 variants, cost be damned. Apparently the applied damage with the buffed medium weapons will be superior to the applied damage from an ABC's large guns vs medium/small targets
Idk who thought this would happen but thats not whats going to happen.
You bring in a t2 hac snip fleet adn the other guy brings in a t3 ABC snipe fleet and you trade shots, at the end of the day your t2 dead hac fleet is worth 5 times the same amount of dead t3 ABCs, and the result will be the same as now: people will simply fly t3 ABCs because you're GOING to die eventually.
I understand that price can't be the sole balancing factor but if CCP can't admit that in some cases players will always take price into account then the balancing they're doing on t2 ships is simply a waste of time.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
133
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:52:00 -
[493] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:What are the reasons to choose one of these new HACs over an aBC? You have too much money and or you dont like flying ships that don't suck Ships that don't suck? Have you SEEN the T1 cruisers? They are far superior to HACs when cost is considered. In some cases they are simply better than their T2 variants, cost be damned. Apparently the applied damage with the buffed medium weapons will be superior to the applied damage from an ABC's large guns vs medium/small targets
I'm skeptical, look at the EFT damage graph. 135m sig and 1750m/s? Thats not a reasonable speed for that sig (MWD speed without MWD sig?)
Plus a Muninn has about a 3k alpha, vs a 1400 Nado you get about 15k
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
164
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:52:00 -
[494] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles. Why do the devs still think that missiles are a good sniping weapon? They're not. Flight time delay means that you lose a significant amount of dps after your target dies. Nobody needs or wants 160km range on HMLs (~16s travel time).
Take one of the range bonuses off the Cerb and switch it to a tanking bonus. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
133
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:53:00 -
[495] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas? but do they brawl with them? Yup [High Slots] Dual 180mm Autocannon II Small Neut/Nos [Mid Slots] 10mn Experimental Microwarpdrive 10mn Afterburner II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler [Low Slots] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internatl Structure II [Rig Slots] Medium Ancillary Current Router Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer Requires a 1% PG implant, 400 DPS without drones MWD - 2700m/s AB - 1000 m/s Slowboat - 408m/s 12k EHP 750 DPS tank with overloaded ASB (Should be closer to 1000 with the new bonus, higher still with crystals) Can catch kiting ships, can get under battleship guns, works well for what amounts to basically a one slot tank. I think Garmon also did a video with one of these... one of those elite PvPers did a video with it at least. Lol and this fit is better then a cyclone?
Situationally, yes. Normally, no.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
133
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:54:00 -
[496] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote: It'd be a great idea to have missile ships represented--even using the sort of dual damage bonus a Scythe FI gets, but I think it's too tricky to bake that into a hull that gets 4x damage/application bonuses. I think the stat overload on have 4x missile bonuses and 4x projectile bonuses would be too much visually, too much to balance around, etc. I'm fairly certain that the Claymore changes (making it into a missile boat) is what CCP is going to say is the "interim" missile boat for Minmatar, along with the aforementioned Scythe FI, of course (and likely an updated Huginn I'd wager (Super Bellicose, anyone?).
Besides, the two Minmatar HACs do represent two aspects of Minmatar playstyle: one is a fast, kitey monster (which is absolutely Minmatar), while the other performs well as a high range, high alpha arty monster. Notice, though, that they both are monsters :)
Muninn is definitely not a monster, its terrible, the Tornado outclasses it and its alpha is weak at best. The Vagabond is a kiting superfast monster? One word: Cynabal. ASB Vaga > Cynabal.
Show me the ASB kiting vaga that beats the kiting Cynabal. (Legitimate request, I would like to run the numbers, and I haven't seen an ASB kiting vaga that wouldn't get alpha'd by any ABC)
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Aliventi
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 20:57:00 -
[497] - Quote
Are we going to see a cost rebalance? Using the CCP Fozzie's patented "Linear power increase for exponential cost" balancing theorem they should be more expensive for their power increase. But 10x T1 cost is a little much IMO for the power increase over t1. Maybe 5-6x the T1 price and these will be heavily used. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Gyttfryd
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:01:00 -
[498] - Quote
Why not change the MWD sig bonus to an AB % boost amount bonus similar to the fual catalyst sub on T3s ? it would greatly benefit HACs for sigtanking, especially the "brawler" HACs such as sac and diemost which'll end up scrammed and a sitting duck very often.
It has been brought up before, why don't the HACs have more slots as their T1 variants (they currently only have 1 more, whereas AFs currently have +2 compared to their t1 bretheren) ? Maybe giving them all 16 slots would justify their not really good cost/performance factor a bit more.
If you really want the sac in the role as a tanky brawler, which by all means is fine by me, please consider giving it a 6th lowslot/swapping slots around since it's in dire need of it.
|
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:01:00 -
[499] - Quote
Why is the Deimos so fat? 160m sig radius (Zealot 125m; Muninn 130m). For a traditional close range brawler under neuts, scrams, webs, every ewar type under the sun, etc. you really believe it needs to be significantly easier to track/get kicked in the nuts by rage/fury missiles as well? |
Syrias Bizniz
Carnivore Company
191
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:02:00 -
[500] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Are we going to see a cost rebalance? Using the CCP Fozzie's patented "Linear power increase for exponential cost" balancing theorem they should be more expensive for their power increase. But 10x T1 cost is a little much IMO for the power increase over t1. Maybe 5-6x the T1 price and these will be heavily used.
Thanks to fittings making up a lot of the cost of small and medium ships right now, the hull cost is not the factor to measure shipcosts with. For example, a Thorax hull is like what, 10m? fitted and rigged it's ~40m. So thats 30m for the fitting, which will also apply to HACs. So a HAC will cost what, 160m for the hulll, + 30m fit, which makes them ~200m? Oh would you look at that, 5 times the price of a tech 1 cruiser! |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
345
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:05:00 -
[501] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:It'd be a great idea to have missile ships represented--even using the sort of dual damage bonus a Scythe FI gets, but I think it's too tricky to bake that into a hull that gets 4x damage/application bonuses. I think the stat overload on have 4x missile bonuses and 4x projectile bonuses would be too much visually, too much to balance around, etc. I'm fairly certain that the Claymore changes (making it into a missile boat) is what CCP is going to say is the "interim" missile boat for Minmatar, along with the aforementioned Scythe FI, of course (and likely an updated Huginn I'd wager (Super Bellicose, anyone?).
Besides, the two Minmatar HACs do represent two aspects of Minmatar playstyle: one is a fast, kitey monster (which is absolutely Minmatar), while the other performs well as a high range, high alpha arty monster. Notice, though, that they both are monsters :)
I wouldn't do a double damage type because HACs are specialized boats, not just superior. Two weapon systems moves away from their specialized nature. And I have to second some of the other posts here, the muninn is NOT a monster. Show me a fit for a Muninn and I'll show you another ship that does whatever it's trying to do better. I've tried to make it work, it just doesn't. The dual weapons system idea was (bolded and underlined) the type of bonus where it's either/or. Obviously, no one would be advocating for a split weapons system where you have to use both to apply effective dps.
The Muninn totally has its place in the long range field when you want a smaller sig radius, high alpha platform. Does this mean that there aren't other ships that can perform sniping roles? Of course not. I'm aware that Nado fleets (called something?) can wreck ships from sniping distances. It doesn't invalidate a Muninn fleet, however. Is a Muninn a monster on its own, solo? Of course not. But Arty alpha at Muninn distances with the smaller sig of the cruiser hull and the Muninn isn't as terrible as some posters are making it out to be.
Besides, my post wasn't particlarly speaking to Muninn's effectiveness should these changes go through. I was more pointing out that an either/or weapons system would be a messy option on a hull with 4x bonuses and that it's not so terrible, all things considered.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Aliventi
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:08:00 -
[502] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Aliventi wrote:Are we going to see a cost rebalance? Using the CCP Fozzie's patented "Linear power increase for exponential cost" balancing theorem they should be more expensive for their power increase. But 10x T1 cost is a little much IMO for the power increase over t1. Maybe 5-6x the T1 price and these will be heavily used. Thanks to fittings making up a lot of the cost of small and medium ships right now, the hull cost is not the factor to measure shipcosts with. For example, a Thorax hull is like what, 10m? fitted and rigged it's ~40m. So thats 30m for the fitting, which will also apply to HACs. So a HAC will cost what, 160m for the hulll, + 30m fit, which makes them ~200m? Oh would you look at that, 5 times the price of a tech 1 cruiser! Doesn't matter that fitting makes up a lot of the cost. CCP Fozzie noted that BS hulls were 5 times the cost of a BC hull using the Linear power increase for exponential cost increase theorem. Feel free to dig for the quote. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Syrias Bizniz
Carnivore Company
191
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:11:00 -
[503] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Syrias Bizniz wrote:Aliventi wrote:Are we going to see a cost rebalance? Using the CCP Fozzie's patented "Linear power increase for exponential cost" balancing theorem they should be more expensive for their power increase. But 10x T1 cost is a little much IMO for the power increase over t1. Maybe 5-6x the T1 price and these will be heavily used. Thanks to fittings making up a lot of the cost of small and medium ships right now, the hull cost is not the factor to measure shipcosts with. For example, a Thorax hull is like what, 10m? fitted and rigged it's ~40m. So thats 30m for the fitting, which will also apply to HACs. So a HAC will cost what, 160m for the hulll, + 30m fit, which makes them ~200m? Oh would you look at that, 5 times the price of a tech 1 cruiser! Doesn't matter that fitting makes up a lot of the cost. CCP Fozzie noted that BS hulls were 5 times the cost of a BC hull using the Linear power increase for exponential cost increase theorem. Feel free to dig for the quote.
...
You said 'If HACs cost like 5 times more than Tech 1s they will be heavily used, but 10 times is to much!!1'. I showed you how HACs basically cost only 5 times the price of a Tech 1 cruiser. I don't care what a battleship costs, it fulfills a whole different role than a battlecruiser - Being able to take heavy fire and survive in fleet fights. |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:15:00 -
[504] - Quote
I don't think anyone suggested an either/or weapon system for the Muninn. Again, that directly contradicts the specialized nature of the Muninn. I think you're arguing with thin air, if that's what you're arguing against.
Would love to see some of your Muninn killmails, Maximus Andendare, otherwise I think you're EFT-warrioring instead of telling us about your actual experiences with the ship.
I'd still rather have a Hurricane any day of the week. |
Oh My Boobs
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:19:00 -
[505] - Quote
Please give 4 meds to the muninn.
Not only it needs it but its kinda odd that the T1 counter part (the rupture) has more meds than the T2 version. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:19:00 -
[506] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sarkelias Anophius wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote: It'd be a great idea to have missile ships represented--even using the sort of dual damage bonus a Scythe FI gets, but I think it's too tricky to bake that into a hull that gets 4x damage/application bonuses. I think the stat overload on have 4x missile bonuses and 4x projectile bonuses would be too much visually, too much to balance around, etc. I'm fairly certain that the Claymore changes (making it into a missile boat) is what CCP is going to say is the "interim" missile boat for Minmatar, along with the aforementioned Scythe FI, of course (and likely an updated Huginn I'd wager (Super Bellicose, anyone?).
Besides, the two Minmatar HACs do represent two aspects of Minmatar playstyle: one is a fast, kitey monster (which is absolutely Minmatar), while the other performs well as a high range, high alpha arty monster. Notice, though, that they both are monsters :)
Muninn is definitely not a monster, its terrible, the Tornado outclasses it and its alpha is weak at best. The Vagabond is a kiting superfast monster? One word: Cynabal. ASB Vaga > Cynabal. Show me the ASB kiting vaga that beats the kiting Cynabal. (Legitimate request, I would like to run the numbers, and I haven't seen an ASB kiting vaga that wouldn't get alpha'd by any ABC)
I'd check out the fit that's been posted, I'm on my phone so I can't give you one. Bear in mind that my comment is based on the forthcoming changes; with those in mind, a LASB or XLASB Vaga will have half the sig and half again the active tank of a Cinnabon. I'm pretty sure they both get alpha'd horribly by abcs, but I could be wrong. |
Aliventi
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:20:00 -
[507] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote: You said 'If HACs cost like 5 times more than Tech 1s they will be heavily used, but 10 times is to much!!1'. I showed you how HACs basically cost only 5 times the price of a Tech 1 cruiser. I don't care what a battleship costs, it fulfills a whole different role than a battlecruiser - Being able to take heavy fire and survive in fleet fights.
The theorem is not fulfilled by ship and fitting, it is fulfilled by hull itself. Fitting cost doesn't matter. You clearly don't understand that. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
346
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:21:00 -
[508] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:I don't think anyone suggested an either/or weapon system for the Muninn. Again, that directly contradicts the specialized nature of the Muninn. I think you're arguing with thin air, if that's what you're arguing against.
Would love to see some of your Muninn killmails, Maximus Andendare, otherwise I think you're EFT-warrioring instead of telling us about your actual experiences with the ship.
I'd still rather have a Hurricane any day of the week. My argument is that you seemed to wanted to switch the Muninn to a missile boat. I countered that there is racial flavor in having both Minmatar HACs be projectile boats, but if one was to go missile, it could do so using an either/or weapon system, though that in itself would cause problems due to the 4x damage bonuses. This would likely not happen, since ScyFI, (rebalanced) Claymore and (rebalanced) Huginn will likely be effective as Minmatar missile boats, solving the "where's my Minmatar missile boat?" question. Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't advocating in making the Muninn a missile boat, though, for the record.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Syrias Bizniz
Carnivore Company
191
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:24:00 -
[509] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Syrias Bizniz wrote: You said 'If HACs cost like 5 times more than Tech 1s they will be heavily used, but 10 times is to much!!1'. I showed you how HACs basically cost only 5 times the price of a Tech 1 cruiser. I don't care what a battleship costs, it fulfills a whole different role than a battlecruiser - Being able to take heavy fire and survive in fleet fights.
The theorem is not fulfilled by ship and fitting, it is fulfilled by hull itself. Fitting cost doesn't matter. You clearly don't understand that.
So you're demanding that Tech 2 cruisers are as cheap as, ... i don't know, a battlecruiser? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4372
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:24:00 -
[510] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:What are the reasons to choose one of these new HACs over an aBC? You have too much money and or you dont like flying ships that don't suck Ships that don't suck? Have you SEEN the T1 cruisers? They are far superior to HACs when cost is considered. In some cases they are simply better than their T2 variants, cost be damned. Apparently the applied damage with the buffed medium weapons will be superior to the applied damage from an ABC's large guns vs medium/small targets I'm skeptical, look at the EFT damage graph. 135m sig and 1750m/s? Thats not a reasonable speed for that sig (MWD speed without MWD sig?) Plus a Muninn has about a 3k alpha, vs a 1400 Nado you get about 15k I'm just taking the information at face value. I'm not going to make any judgements myself until I have a chance to test it.
I think a lot of the equation will boil down to what the target is and how it's fitted/being used. Back in the day I used to enjoy flying Munin's in specialized gangs on occasion, even when they were fairly problematic. I'd really like for this to give them new life in certain roles.
The same goes for the Eagle and the Cerb.
We'll see. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Christopher Newport
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:26:00 -
[511] - Quote
I'm curious about the decision with the Vaga to give it an active shield tanking bonus when it's already a weak capacitor boat. Does anyone actually fly them with an active shield tank? |
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
118
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:26:00 -
[512] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote: I'm on my phone
Sarkelias Anophius wrote: half the sig and half again the active tank of a Cinnabon.
haha |
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
118
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:26:00 -
[513] - Quote
doublepost |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:28:00 -
[514] - Quote
Aloe Cloveris wrote:doublepost
wat |
Anaphylacti
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:28:00 -
[515] - Quote
can we get some more speed on eagle and munin 175-185 compared to the next lowest at 205... |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
264
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:29:00 -
[516] - Quote
Anaphylacti wrote:can we get some more speed on eagle and munin 175-185 compared to the next lowest at 205...
i completely disagree with this |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
389
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:32:00 -
[517] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:Sacrilege changes are not enough, it is still bad. do something else with it or it will now have replaced the eagle as the worst hac
rest are decent changes though
Yeah Sacrileges are really bad. Need some buff more. Ditch the capacity bonus and give it explosion radius or velocity one. BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:33:00 -
[518] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:XvXTeacherVxV wrote:I don't think anyone suggested an either/or weapon system for the Muninn. Again, that directly contradicts the specialized nature of the Muninn. I think you're arguing with thin air, if that's what you're arguing against.
Would love to see some of your Muninn killmails, Maximus Andendare, otherwise I think you're EFT-warrioring instead of telling us about your actual experiences with the ship.
I'd still rather have a Hurricane any day of the week. My argument is that you seemed to wanted to switch the Muninn to a missile boat. I countered that there is racial flavor in having both Minmatar HACs be projectile boats, but if one was to go missile, it could do so using an either/or weapon system, though that in itself would cause problems due to the 4x damage bonuses. This would likely not happen, since ScyFI, (rebalanced) Claymore and (rebalanced) Huginn will likely be effective as Minmatar missile boats, solving the "where's my Minmatar missile boat?" question. Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't advocating in making the Muninn a missile boat, though, for the record.
The cyclone, talwar, breacher, bellicose and typhoon (not to mention the hound) are now all dedicated missile boats without split weapon systems. I think the Minmatar missile flavor has changed drastically in the past few updates so I'd vehemently disagree than any Minmatar missile boat has to be an either/or system (that is false on the face of it).
So.... where' my Minmatar missile HAC? |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
264
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:33:00 -
[519] - Quote
Anaphylacti wrote:can we get some more speed on eagle and munin 175-185 compared to the next lowest at 205...
troll post please ignore him |
Sakura Nihil
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
296
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:33:00 -
[520] - Quote
On the whole, I like this. However, it feels like the Deimos is getting nerfed more than boosted.
Noticeably, it's losing its utility highslot (which is normally a small Nos) right before the Nos are likely to get boosted, as well as loosing a substantial amount of armor and hull HP. For a ship that's already tough to keep alive, charging into a brawl to apply high DPS, this is only going to make it riskier and discourage its traditional role. Glory |
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:35:00 -
[521] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:XvXTeacherVxV wrote:I don't think anyone suggested an either/or weapon system for the Muninn. Again, that directly contradicts the specialized nature of the Muninn. I think you're arguing with thin air, if that's what you're arguing against.
Would love to see some of your Muninn killmails, Maximus Andendare, otherwise I think you're EFT-warrioring instead of telling us about your actual experiences with the ship.
I'd still rather have a Hurricane any day of the week. My argument is that you seemed to wanted to switch the Muninn to a missile boat. I countered that there is racial flavor in having both Minmatar HACs be projectile boats, but if one was to go missile, it could do so using an either/or weapon system, though that in itself would cause problems due to the 4x damage bonuses. This would likely not happen, since ScyFI, (rebalanced) Claymore and (rebalanced) Huginn will likely be effective as Minmatar missile boats, solving the "where's my Minmatar missile boat?" question. Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't advocating in making the Muninn a missile boat, though, for the record. The cyclone, talwar, breacher, bellicose and typhoon (not to mention the hound) are now all dedicated missile boats without split weapon systems. I think the Minmatar missile flavor has changed drastically in the past few updates so I'd vehemently disagree than any Minmatar missile boat has to be an either/or system (that is false on the face of it). So.... where' my Minmatar missile HAC?
In purgatory with the Loki missile sub. |
Aliventi
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:35:00 -
[522] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:So you're demanding that Tech 2 cruisers are as cheap as, ... i don't know, a battlecruiser? No. A BC costs around 45 mil isk. I am looking for them to cost around 75-85 mil isk. It is a specialized Hull. It does have significant abilities a Cruiser doesn't. However a BC has abilities a HAC doesn't. Namely in fitting and tank. It still retains its pain cost when lost. It is just a little more reasonably priced for it's effectiveness. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1667
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:35:00 -
[523] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Aliventi wrote:Syrias Bizniz wrote: You said 'If HACs cost like 5 times more than Tech 1s they will be heavily used, but 10 times is to much!!1'. I showed you how HACs basically cost only 5 times the price of a Tech 1 cruiser. I don't care what a battleship costs, it fulfills a whole different role than a battlecruiser - Being able to take heavy fire and survive in fleet fights.
The theorem is not fulfilled by ship and fitting, it is fulfilled by hull itself. Fitting cost doesn't matter. You clearly don't understand that. So you're demanding that Tech 2 cruisers are as cheap as, ... i don't know, a battlecruiser?
Yes, otherwise BCs and t1 cruisers will be used instead as the performance increase for the price you're asked to pay just isn't there at all.
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:38:00 -
[524] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Syrias Bizniz wrote:Aliventi wrote:Syrias Bizniz wrote: You said 'If HACs cost like 5 times more than Tech 1s they will be heavily used, but 10 times is to much!!1'. I showed you how HACs basically cost only 5 times the price of a Tech 1 cruiser. I don't care what a battleship costs, it fulfills a whole different role than a battlecruiser - Being able to take heavy fire and survive in fleet fights.
The theorem is not fulfilled by ship and fitting, it is fulfilled by hull itself. Fitting cost doesn't matter. You clearly don't understand that. So you're demanding that Tech 2 cruisers are as cheap as, ... i don't know, a battlecruiser? Yes, otherwise BCs and t1 cruisers will be used instead as the performance increase for the price you're asked to pay just isn't there at all.
At the very least they need to come down to the 80-90m range. Otherwise they're just not worth getting.
I won't discuss how many are in my hangar, though.
|
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
92
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:38:00 -
[525] - Quote
I love the new mid on the Deimos, but is it really supposed to be slower with less applied dps than a Thorax (because of no tracking bonus)? And a little tiny bit extra CPU so you can fit an extra ewar mod in the mid would go a long way. Dropping the small nos or neut in the utility high means you're down about 5-6 cpu to fit anything useful on a standard armor Deimos.
And what's with the HP nerf? These things are marginally flimsy enough already. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
346
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:43:00 -
[526] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:XvXTeacherVxV wrote:I don't think anyone suggested an either/or weapon system for the Muninn. Again, that directly contradicts the specialized nature of the Muninn. I think you're arguing with thin air, if that's what you're arguing against.
Would love to see some of your Muninn killmails, Maximus Andendare, otherwise I think you're EFT-warrioring instead of telling us about your actual experiences with the ship.
I'd still rather have a Hurricane any day of the week. My argument is that you seemed to wanted to switch the Muninn to a missile boat. I countered that there is racial flavor in having both Minmatar HACs be projectile boats, but if one was to go missile, it could do so using an either/or weapon system, though that in itself would cause problems due to the 4x damage bonuses. This would likely not happen, since ScyFI, (rebalanced) Claymore and (rebalanced) Huginn will likely be effective as Minmatar missile boats, solving the "where's my Minmatar missile boat?" question. Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't advocating in making the Muninn a missile boat, though, for the record. The cyclone, talwar, breacher, bellicose and typhoon (not to mention the hound) are now all dedicated missile boats without split weapon systems. I think the Minmatar missile flavor has changed drastically in the past few updates so I'd vehemently disagree than any Minmatar missile boat has to be an either/or system (that is false on the face of it). So.... where' my Minmatar missile HAC? It's likely going to come in the form of the rebalanced Huginn, rebalanced Cyclone and Scythe Fleet Issue when fitted with missiles.
And you're still mistaking the either/or argument. The either/or is because it's extremely unlikely to see the Muninn changed to be a dedicated missile boat. It'll keep its long range projectile niche, and so in order to accommodate a long-range arty Muninn AND make it a missile boat, it'd have to go to an either/or missile boat. But I agree this isn't likely nor is it likely it would lose its long-range projectile niche.
Instead, it's far more likely that the Huginn and Claymore will fill the missile boat role for Minmatar T2 and it's likely the Loki sub that is currently dual damage will go to strictly missile when T3s have their pass through the wringer.
P.S. If you note in your list above, there is no "traditional" Minny missile cruiser, since the Bellicose is technically a disruption cruiser. It's similar to how Amarr's only drone boat is technically a disruption cruiser as well, despite them having a drone destroyer, BC and laserboat-turned-drone BS.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4372
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:49:00 -
[527] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:Sacrilege changes are not enough, it is still bad. do something else with it or it will now have replaced the eagle as the worst hac
rest are decent changes though Yeah Sacrileges are really bad. Need some buff more. Ditch the capacity bonus and give it explosion radius or velocity one. That would be good, although to be honest I can think of some handy uses for that capacitor recharge rate.
It also got a nice boost going from 3 lights to 5 medium drones. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:55:00 -
[528] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: MUNINN - The Muninn will lose one of its highs and gain a low, which should fit its role as a long range platform extremely well. It also gains a little speed.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
Slot layout: 6H(-1), 3M, 6L(+1); 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-2) Fittings: 1160 PWG, 355 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6) Capacitor (amount) : 1250 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 294 / 6(+1) Sensor strength: 14 Ladar(+1) Signature radius: 130
I do have one question regarding the Muninn. Since the armor is considerably heavier than shield, and for a shield tanker having just three mid slots is.. pretty weak, is there any chance that the Muninn will get Tech 2 resists reflected on their armor resist stats instead of shield resists? |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
220
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 21:59:00 -
[529] - Quote
My initial impressions are positive-ish with this, the Deimos tank nerf was pretty derp and unwaranted I'm still formulated opinions on Eagles and Cerbs but so far good thoughts overall.
However;
Dat Vaga;
A shield boost bonus on a ship with four mids, terrible base buffer, poor fitting and terrible cap.
What were you possibly thinking with that, its genuinely one of the most stupid decisions I have seen in a balance pass, not only will it be largely pointless for anything other than lolnicheXLASB Vagas (And no, just because you flew them Kill2 doesnt mean they are the norm, or better than a normal vaga in most cases) it doesn't fix the actual issues with the hull which are it has Anemic DPS generally, but particularly out to range despite its range bonus.
It also doesnt fix the fact that the Cyna is still better in every way, even if you wanted to XLASB it the Vaga is worse, just use that spare mid on the Cyna for an SBA and magically you have a better hull, again.
|
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:01:00 -
[530] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:If you note in your list above, there is no "traditional" Minny missile cruiser, since the Bellicose is technically a disruption cruiser. It's similar to how Amarr's only drone boat is technically a disruption cruiser as well, despite them having a drone destroyer, BC and laserboat-turned-drone BS.
There's no "traditional" Amarr missile cruiser, and yet they have a Missile HAC. Thoughts?
Maximus Andendare wrote: it's extremely unlikely to see the Muninn changed to be a dedicated missile boat. It'll keep its long range projectile niche, and so in order to accommodate a long-range arty Muninn AND make it a missile boat, it'd have to go to an either/or missile boat.
Why? Because you just say so or because you don't think CCP knows how to change their minds? See industrial rebalance thread. In fact, see every EVE rebalance thread ever. You are simply guessing and the fact that you're suggesting it would have to be an either/or system before a dedicated missile system is based on what exactly? Precedent? The precedent is in the middle of being totally revamped in case you didn't notice. |
|
Dirk Morbho
Mindstar Technology Fatal Ascension
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:04:00 -
[531] - Quote
Chop F*****ing Chop.
Give us 1.1 already |
theelusiveyoda
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:12:00 -
[532] - Quote
yes, yes, yes, a million times yes! |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:12:00 -
[533] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:My initial impressions are positive-ish with this, the Deimos tank nerf was pretty derp and unwaranted I'm still formulated opinions on Eagles and Cerbs but so far good thoughts overall.
However;
Dat Vaga;
A shield boost bonus on a ship with four mids, terrible base buffer, poor fitting and terrible cap.
What were you possibly thinking with that, its genuinely one of the most stupid decisions I have seen in a balance pass, not only will it be largely pointless for anything other than lolnicheXLASB Vagas (And no, just because you flew them Kill2 doesnt mean they are the norm, or better than a normal vaga in most cases) it doesn't fix the actual issues with the hull which are it has Anemic DPS generally, but particularly out to range despite its range bonus.
It also doesnt fix the fact that the Cyna is still better in every way, even if you wanted to XLASB it the Vaga is worse, just use that spare mid on the Cyna for an SBA and magically you have a better hull, again.
I'm pretty sure the point is that the Vaga is buffed by the sig bonus, retains its former capabilities, and can now mount a fierce ASB tank to help with solo work. It lost nothing and gained some neat stuff.
I'm not sure I agree that Cinnabons are better in every way. I personally prefer the Vaga's pricetag. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
220
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:17:00 -
[534] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:My initial impressions are positive-ish with this, the Deimos tank nerf was pretty derp and unwaranted I'm still formulated opinions on Eagles and Cerbs but so far good thoughts overall.
However;
Dat Vaga;
A shield boost bonus on a ship with four mids, terrible base buffer, poor fitting and terrible cap.
What were you possibly thinking with that, its genuinely one of the most stupid decisions I have seen in a balance pass, not only will it be largely pointless for anything other than lolnicheXLASB Vagas (And no, just because you flew them Kill2 doesnt mean they are the norm, or better than a normal vaga in most cases) it doesn't fix the actual issues with the hull which are it has Anemic DPS generally, but particularly out to range despite its range bonus.
It also doesnt fix the fact that the Cyna is still better in every way, even if you wanted to XLASB it the Vaga is worse, just use that spare mid on the Cyna for an SBA and magically you have a better hull, again.
I'm pretty sure the point is that the Vaga is buffed by the sig bonus, retains its former capabilities, and can now mount a fierce ASB tank to help with solo work. It lost nothing and gained some neat stuff. I'm not sure I agree that Cinnabons are better in every way. I personally prefer the Vaga's pricetag.
Price cannot be used as a balancing factor, yes the sig bonus helps but being able to avoid damage and tanking was never its issue, its DPS and projection were, which are not being resolved.
It also cant fit an XLASB and still mount a decent ranged kiting fit, so I dont really see the bonus having any point at all beyond lolscramXLASB vagas.
Edit; that seems to fit into the general trend towards making all PVP sub ABC being Approach>Heat>Scram/Web>Hope your numbers are better. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:29:00 -
[535] - Quote
The zealot needs either another high/mid or at least a flight of light drones plz.
You did that for the stabber so why not now ? :D IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
130
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:32:00 -
[536] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:The zealot needs either another high/mid or at least a flight of light drones plz.
You did that for the stabber so why not now ? :D Are you really asking why Winmatar and Amarr aren't treated the same? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1667
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:32:00 -
[537] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Price cannot be used as a balancing factor, yes the sig bonus helps but being able to avoid damage and tanking was never its issue, its DPS and projection were, which are not being resolved.
Normally I agree with you 100%, but if they dont take price into consideration now then the HAC's will stay where they are on the dusty shelf of non use because they will still be outclassed or matched by several options that are significantly cheaper, so in this case talking about price is actually a thing that needs to happen.
The Goal: Make HACs viable in EVE again.
The Result with these changes: t1 cruisers, bcs, and ABC's (tier 3 bcs) still do all the jobs they do at a lower cost so they wont be used, just like now.
Lower the hull cost in most cases by 100-150% (to between 50-80 million, somewhere in that ball park) and you'll see competition in ship usage between t1 cruisers, regular Bc's, tier 3 bc's, and hacs. Leave them as is price wise, and nothing will change in the current ship META because these changes do nothing to promote any change from the 'what is good'.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1146
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:33:00 -
[538] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:What are the reasons to choose one of these new HACs over an aBC? You have too much money and or you dont like flying ships that don't suck Ships that don't suck? Have you SEEN the T1 cruisers? They are far superior to HACs when cost is considered. In some cases they are simply better than their T2 variants, cost be damned. Apparently the applied damage with the buffed medium weapons will be superior to the applied damage from an ABC's large guns vs medium/small targets Idk who thought this would happen but thats not whats going to happen. You bring in a t2 hac snip fleet adn the other guy brings in a t3 ABC snipe fleet and you trade shots, at the end of the day your t2 dead hac fleet is worth 5 times the same amount of dead t3 ABCs, and the result will be the same as now: people will simply fly t3 ABCs because you're GOING to die eventually. I understand that price can't be the sole balancing factor but if CCP can't admit that in some cases players will always take price into account then the balancing they're doing on t2 ships is simply a waste of time.
indeed if angular velocity = 0 then tracking/sig resolution are moot. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Violet Winters
Angelic Eclipse.
92
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:40:00 -
[539] - Quote
Deimos is the only ship I like in this whole set of "buffs".
The vaga is just a ship Korovix and fanboys can fly around with, instead you should of given a better bonus supporting it's role of being a terrible cynabal. Obviously now it's just a "bringing solo back" waste of a hull.
Overall: Meh. Anglic Eclipse.
Lee told me to remove my signature Minmatar and Gallente FW |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
221
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:40:00 -
[540] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: SNIP
indeed if angular velocity = 0 then tracking/sig resolution are moot.
Well, your right.
But for the wrong reasons.
In larger scale engagements every "sniper" composition is heavily comped with Huginns, so tracking and applied damage are less of an issue, sheer DPS is usually the deciding factor, and in that the ABCs still have an advantage. |
|
Drunken Bum
407
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:44:00 -
[541] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:My initial impressions are positive-ish with this, the Deimos tank nerf was pretty derp and unwaranted I'm still formulated opinions on Eagles and Cerbs but so far good thoughts overall.
However;
Dat Vaga;
A shield boost bonus on a ship with four mids, terrible base buffer, poor fitting and terrible cap.
What were you possibly thinking with that, its genuinely one of the most stupid decisions I have seen in a balance pass, not only will it be largely pointless for anything other than lolnicheXLASB Vagas (And no, just because you flew them Kill2 doesnt mean they are the norm, or better than a normal vaga in most cases) it doesn't fix the actual issues with the hull which are it has Anemic DPS generally, but particularly out to range despite its range bonus.
It also doesnt fix the fact that the Cyna is still better in every way, even if you wanted to XLASB it the Vaga is worse, just use that spare mid on the Cyna for an SBA and magically you have a better hull, again.
Agreed. It'll still get flown simply because the muninn is so terrible, but really, I agree completely. After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary. -á-Fozzie |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:45:00 -
[542] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:My initial impressions are positive-ish with this, the Deimos tank nerf was pretty derp and unwaranted I'm still formulated opinions on Eagles and Cerbs but so far good thoughts overall.
However;
Dat Vaga;
A shield boost bonus on a ship with four mids, terrible base buffer, poor fitting and terrible cap.
What were you possibly thinking with that, its genuinely one of the most stupid decisions I have seen in a balance pass, not only will it be largely pointless for anything other than lolnicheXLASB Vagas (And no, just because you flew them Kill2 doesnt mean they are the norm, or better than a normal vaga in most cases) it doesn't fix the actual issues with the hull which are it has Anemic DPS generally, but particularly out to range despite its range bonus.
It also doesnt fix the fact that the Cyna is still better in every way, even if you wanted to XLASB it the Vaga is worse, just use that spare mid on the Cyna for an SBA and magically you have a better hull, again.
I'm pretty sure the point is that the Vaga is buffed by the sig bonus, retains its former capabilities, and can now mount a fierce ASB tank to help with solo work. It lost nothing and gained some neat stuff. I'm not sure I agree that Cinnabons are better in every way. I personally prefer the Vaga's pricetag. Price cannot be used as a balancing factor, yes the sig bonus helps but being able to avoid damage and tanking was never its issue, its DPS and projection were, which are not being resolved. It also cant fit an XLASB and still mount a decent ranged kiting fit, so I dont really see the bonus having any point at all beyond lolscramXLASB vagas. Edit; that seems to fit into the general trend towards making all PVP sub ABC being Approach>Heat>Scram/Web>Hope your numbers are better.
Couldn't really argue the point, if I kite I fly a Loki. Devil's advocate aside, I believe you have a valid argument. |
Joelleaveek
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
242
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:49:00 -
[543] - Quote
i am sad that the Ishtar kept the drone bay bonus, the the Deimos kept the MWD cap bonus instead of picking up a tracking bonus and i'm sad that the Sac is still stuck with a cap bonus. These all feel like pure bonus wasters. Meanwhile the Vaga gets rid of its useless bonus and gets something it doesn't really need, though it is kinda cool. |
gawrshmapooo
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 22:52:00 -
[544] - Quote
Vic Teishikuro wrote:Deimos still needs more Love. its in the worst shape of them all.. why would you lower its tank? its tank already sucks.. still i think more needs to be done to it rather than just buffing its tank cause its still a pretty useless ship
The tho the Sacrilige is nice. it needs more its still something nobodys gunna fly CCP you have really made a mess of it thinking you can just leave the cap bonus on there.
it really should have either a missle velocity or explosion radius/velocity bonus anything really just not some useless cap bonus. its a armor tanked missle boat so it already wont be using alo of cap. and it no long has a highslot for utility a neut which my justify it at all.
and a few of the other ships have some CPU and Power grid issues
Deimos, Sacrilige, Munin needs more love
CCP I will say that you have done well with the Eagle. The Zealot has always been pretty goodn, The Vaga is nice as always. and I like that the ishtar has the same stats as a dominix lol. with drones now
Do you even dual armor rep bro? My current Sacrilege SOP: 1: Stagger both reppers 2: leave them on because sexy sexy cap 3: Kill everything (A bit slowly because my dps sucks.)
In my experience it's basically the only Amarr ship WITHOUT horrific cap issues.
Better HACS: Dps needs to go up Cost needs to go down Tank needs a slight to moderate boost. At 240mil a pop...come on.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1146
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:00:00 -
[545] - Quote
Joelleaveek wrote:i am sad that the Ishtar kept the drone bay bonus, the the Deimos kept the MWD cap bonus instead of picking up a tracking bonus and i'm sad that the Sac is still stuck with a cap bonus. These all feel like pure bonus wasters. Meanwhile the Vaga gets rid of its useless bonus and gets something it doesn't really need, though it is kinda cool.
indeed that and hacs need 16 slot layout not 15 and give the ishtar back 15.
that will help deal with loss of ehp but give options to add tackle/dps
i would like to see the ishtar get bonus to combat utility/ELECTRONIC WARFARE drones of 20% per level
so that would mean a Berserker SW-900 gets a 40% max velocity bonus. or a Wasp 900 25 sensor strength
the sac needs a 10% to em missile damage per level
the diemos needs a tracking bonus of 7.5% per level There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Pic'n dor
Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:06:00 -
[546] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Pic'n dor wrote:as you need the racial cruiser at 5 to fly these ship, why don't you put those cruiser racial skill bonus into role bonus class ? Quote:exemple : Vaga
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount (was 5% bonus to max velocity)
these stats will never be 20% bonus to rate of fire since you need level 5. Let's do something clear and put them like this : Quote:Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty 25% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 37.5% bonus to shield boost amount Unless you guys have a plan to remove the racial cruiser skill 5 from prerequisites ? It's probably done that way because that is how the bonus is actually calculated. Showing the bonus in the same way avoids any confusion or misunderstandings that might otherwise arise. A role bonus would be something you can't possibly ever lose once gained, but there are still ways to lose skill levels in the game and fully trained skill are the most likely victims if it happens, so it's perfectly justified to show them as per level bonuses.
Well, if you lose the racial 5, you can't board the ship anymore so... you got full racial bonus or you don't fly it cuz you can't, sounds like role bonus...
|
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:08:00 -
[547] - Quote
DEIMOS is my favorite ship, I can suggest these bonuses. First the bonus Thorax Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty- for short-range weapons 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff - for long range weapons
I lose a damage bonus but is more versatile ship. |
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Transcendent Sedition Dustm3n
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:10:00 -
[548] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Joelleaveek wrote:i am sad that the Ishtar kept the drone bay bonus, the the Deimos kept the MWD cap bonus instead of picking up a tracking bonus and i'm sad that the Sac is still stuck with a cap bonus. These all feel like pure bonus wasters. Meanwhile the Vaga gets rid of its useless bonus and gets something it doesn't really need, though it is kinda cool. indeed that and hacs need 16 slot layout not 15 and give the ishtar back 15. that will help deal with loss of ehp but give options to add tackle/dps i would like to see the ishtar get bonus to combat utility/ELECTRONIC WARFARE drones of 20% per level so that would mean a Berserker SW-900 gets a 40% max velocity bonus. or a Wasp 900 25 sensor strength the sac needs a 10% to em missile damage per level the diemos needs a tracking bonus of 7.5% per level
While I agree a 16 slot layout would be very very useful and go a long way, and that the Deimos needs a tracking bonus to make it compete, I disagree with the EM Damage Bonus for the Sac you suggest.
This would limit its damage too much to one side of the spectrum in my opinion. As a matter of fact I think all missile boats should give omni damage to missiles so they have better capibility to hit resist holes and make them very versitile (would probably go a long way to making a Pheonix become much more useful on the Capital Stage). Edit: Except stealth bombers, giving all of them Omni Damage Bonus would probably make them very similar and bland.
As for ECM Drone Bonus... yes I would enjoy our new Falcon.. I mean Ishtar overlords.. -Bl+¦d
Wormholes are the best Space.. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:11:00 -
[549] - Quote
JEFFRAIDER wrote:Anaphylacti wrote:can we get some more speed on eagle and munin 175-185 compared to the next lowest at 205... i completely disagree with this
JEFFRAIDER wrote:Anaphylacti wrote:can we get some more speed on eagle and munin 175-185 compared to the next lowest at 205... troll post please ignore him
You should get out of your Nyx and fly subcaps more often. Its a cruiser hull that moves like a slow BC, they need more speed
Voith wrote: Are you really asking why Winmatar and Amarr aren't treated the same?
Winmatar got screwed with the HAC rebalance here, the Vaga is still worse than the Cynabal (*HINT, HINT CCP!* the T2 Specialized cruiser should not be worse than the generic Faction one.)
And the Muninn is still not a good sniper, it is completely outclassed by the Nado (Superior range cancels the tracking difference, plus look at the numbers used in the damage graph, nothing goes that fast with an MWD bloom, which wasn't considered)
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
980
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:18:00 -
[550] - Quote
gawrshmapooo wrote:Do you even dual armor rep bro? My current Sacrilege SOP: 1: Stagger both reppers 2: leave them on because sexy sexy cap 3: Kill everything (A bit slowly because my dps sucks.)
In my experience it's basically the only Amarr ship WITHOUT horrific cap issues.
Better HACS: Dps needs to go up Cost needs to go down Tank needs a slight to moderate boost. At 240mil a pop...come on.
Using EIPH for the sake of some close to reality numbers and let's assume it's a non researched T2 BPC production cost is about 175Million isk, average price sell in Hita is 168M
168M (without fit) for a ship having good bonus for the job is supposed to do is OK, the reason why it has been the most used HAC for years.
Now if I pick Deimos, Munin, Eagle (just for these) for what they're worth for on the battlefield it's a pure waste of minerals and components, what are those supposed to do actually compared to the Zealot?-ho arty munins against caracals are quite good ... and die horribly to those too, for one munin pop you need to kill about 4 to 5 caracals that are not only as good in dps terms but also in tank, so why bring Munins under my Caracals missiles?
Aren't those supposed to have the same role and do the same job differently?-yes they are but they can't.
The current med weapons changes will help a bit, some minor changes on the hulls will help a bit and make them better than before but doesn't mean they will be able to compete vs Zealot nor vs T1 versions and this is what is boring me a bit. They're undoubtedly better at current numbers but if this step forward is jut to put again the Zealot 2 steps ahead then it's kinda sad for the greater good of the game. Some testing is needed, even if I doubt any majors alliances will go on Sisi make huge HAC fights so CCP gathers numbers
Anyway why is Deimos loosing armor? -because it's intended to be shield fitted someone is telling me or at least no one could come with a decent armor version able to achieve his task. It gets killed before getting in range to apply dmg with blasters (in fleets dies pretty), it's slow it's so dam slow after getting scram and double web it's a fleet slot waste when a scorch pulse Zealot wouldn't have half the issues and actually do dmg.
For small gangs/solo these changes look good, for fleets I'm not sure. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
72
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:18:00 -
[551] - Quote
Think that Sacrilege does need some additional work, but it's not about with cap bonus. Actually resist bonus with cap bonus create a very nice and unique solo machine. The problem with sac is in the DPS - it can't kill stuff quickly enough. So maybe a little bigger damage bonus - like 7.5% per level will make it viable. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Paragon Blitz
542
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:19:00 -
[552] - Quote
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.
An enemy is just a friend that you stab in the front. |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
264
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:21:00 -
[553] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:JEFFRAIDER wrote:Anaphylacti wrote:can we get some more speed on eagle and munin 175-185 compared to the next lowest at 205... i completely disagree with this JEFFRAIDER wrote:Anaphylacti wrote:can we get some more speed on eagle and munin 175-185 compared to the next lowest at 205... troll post please ignore him You should get out of your Nyx and fly subcaps more often.
you misspelled 3 erebus and 2 aeons |
Walter Stine
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
157
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:22:00 -
[554] - Quote
JEFFRAIDER
#airhorn |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:23:00 -
[555] - Quote
JEFFRAIDER wrote: you misspelled 3 erebus and 2 aeons
My point stays the same Tell you what, come to my WH I'll solo your Aeons and Erebus'
Edit: where do I know you from...
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
91
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:23:00 -
[556] - Quote
In terms of exploration -
* Ishtar superiority vastly increased
* Couple others (looking at you Muninn) no longer viable due to removal of 2nd utility high
Very sad |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
264
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:29:00 -
[557] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:JEFFRAIDER wrote: you misspelled 3 erebus and 2 aeons
My point stays the same Tell you what, come to my WH I'll solo your Aeons and Erebus' Edit: where do I know you from...
wow u talk big ps i spent last 2 days in wormholes and guess what?
you're all pussies go buy some supercaps (oh wait u can't cuz you're poor) |
Kane Fenris
NWP
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:31:00 -
[558] - Quote
the vaga is non contradictory ship as purposed.
id rather see it comepletly in the old role with pg for fitting for arty tracking instead of falloff so you can kite with its speed as before while useing arty to shred your opponent
and eventually some increase in longpoint (exclueding scram! so you cant use scram/acs for same purpose and abuse it) range about 20% would suffice but could easily be op so im not sure about that |
Alexander McKeon
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:33:00 -
[559] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Lol @ all these wormhole guys thinking T3s don't need to be massively nerfed/deleted entirely It's not T3's specifically that we're attached to: it's that you need a certain DPS / Mass ratio in order to effectively project firepower into other people's solar systems. We don't have the option of using battleships in large numbers, and will often have to fight against capitals without capital support of our own and only a couple battleships.
Do you really see a 20 man ahac gang taking out a couple of carriers with 10-man subcap support? That's the sort of fight I've gotten into; you need neuts, DPS, jams, etc. When you don't have the option of bringing battleships, or dropping your own caps (due to mass limits on intervening holes), the armor T3 is really the only game in town.
I'd love to see the Deimos come closer to the Proteus' point-blank DPS and awesome tank, or the Cerberus have enough tank to handle WH PvE. I don't think a lot of nullsec folks appreciate that it takes six to eight large shield transporters to keep a well-tanked Tengu alive during ordinary PvE combat sites; nerf the tank on T3s a lot (remember that battleships aren't a viable option) and people will only be able to do PvE in their home star systems, to say nothing about hunting captials. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:36:00 -
[560] - Quote
JEFFRAIDER wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:JEFFRAIDER wrote: you misspelled 3 erebus and 2 aeons
My point stays the same Tell you what, come to my WH I'll solo your Aeons and Erebus' Edit: where do I know you from... wow u talk big ps i spent last 2 days in wormholes and guess what? you're all pussies go buy some supercaps (oh wait u can't cuz you're poor)
Clearly you were in the wrong wormholes.
1) Lol you think WHers are poor 2) I don't feel the need to overcompensate by expensive buying internet spaceships
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:37:00 -
[561] - Quote
NorthCrossroad wrote:Think that Sacrilege does need some additional work, but it's not about with cap bonus. Actually resist bonus with cap bonus create a very nice and unique solo machine. The problem with sac is in the DPS - it can't kill stuff quickly enough. So maybe a little bigger damage bonus - like 7.5% per level will make it viable.
The drone bay will help with this. However, I will again post what I believe the best solution to the Sacrilege's problems are:
in addition to the current changes, give the Sacrilege a 5/4/6 slot layout, a 10% damage bonus, and 4 launchers. It wil lose a small amount of native damage, but gain much-needed fitting flexibility and utility.
I think this would give the Sacrilege a whole new lease on life. |
Janeway84
Masters Of Destiny Pride Before Fall
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:41:00 -
[562] - Quote
Very intresting changes, although as someone who have tried fitting ishtars i demand more cpu! it really needs more cpu if its gonna be able to be properly fit in the future..
Also remove the drone bay size bonus and implent it into its stats.
not sure about the rest, would be fun if you gave the gallente ships a bonus to repair bonus when using the ancillary armor repper |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
252
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:47:00 -
[563] - Quote
Horrible changes.
You disappoint me. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
158
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:47:00 -
[564] - Quote
What I would have liked to have seen.
Unique and interesting role bonuses
Increased electronics superiority in the form of much better lock ranges and sensor strengths, this is something more subtle that really could have lifted T2 ships over navy pirate faction ships.
Deimos - given the changes this will be a shield tanked platform, the extra mid is nice but I am unconvinced over the role bonus, this is still a chaser or a kiter.
The role bonus effectiveness I think will vary greatly yet is applied to all ships. So many other bonuses such as reduction in mass of armour plates or increase in overheat effect off propulsion modules (keeps them slower but allows a temporary burst of speed to catch other faster kiting ships off guard) perhaps would have been better for some of these ships.
Ishtar - CCP have done a really god job of keeping drone ships fairly unique, this feels weaker and not yet different than the Navy Vex, it is also a very confused ship.
Loses a slot, this was always expected but it has less base drone bay than Navy Vex, Myrm, Prophecy and gila give it the drone bay and free up the bonus.
Optimal and control range bonus suggests sentry but without the DomiGÇÖs lows for tank and DDAGÇÖs and not being able to reposition via microjump it just does not feel right in this role. This also clashes with the role bonus as mobility would be very limited and therefore the sig reduction not useful. If a medium class drone ship ends up with the optimal bonus It should be left for the EOS, if command ships are to be moved on grid they will still best be left at range and itGÇÖs e-war support role would be better complemented by sentry dps at range.
How to make it unique compared to Navy vex and Domi
Double Damage Bonus
This is an example of what I would suggest. I have tweaked sensor strength, CPU and targeting range, swapped bonuses, it only has five lows compared to Navy Vex so I feel the second damage bonus is justified, the drones will be slower but hit harder.
Still feel gallente ships should lean towards hybrids, three turrets but bonused will be easier on fittings.
Role Bonus: 50% increase in the overheat effect of propulsion modules
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 5% bonus to drone Tracking and Damage (I went for 5% the way it stacks this gives 1.875 damage multiplier)
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 3 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 300(+15) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+10km) / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 22(+6) Magnetometric Signature radius: 145
|
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
264
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:48:00 -
[565] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:JEFFRAIDER wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:JEFFRAIDER wrote: you misspelled 3 erebus and 2 aeons
My point stays the same Tell you what, come to my WH I'll solo your Aeons and Erebus' Edit: where do I know you from... wow u talk big ps i spent last 2 days in wormholes and guess what? you're all pussies go buy some supercaps (oh wait u can't cuz you're poor) Clearly you were in the wrong wormholes. 1) Lol you think WHers are poor 2) I don't feel the need to overcompensate by expensive buying internet spaceships
HOW MANY TITANS U OWN?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
0 |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:51:00 -
[566] - Quote
JEFFRAIDER wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:JEFFRAIDER wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:JEFFRAIDER wrote: you misspelled 3 erebus and 2 aeons
My point stays the same Tell you what, come to my WH I'll solo your Aeons and Erebus' Edit: where do I know you from... wow u talk big ps i spent last 2 days in wormholes and guess what? you're all pussies go buy some supercaps (oh wait u can't cuz you're poor) Clearly you were in the wrong wormholes. 1) Lol you think WHers are poor 2) I don't feel the need to overcompensate by expensive buying internet spaceships HOW MANY TITANS U OWN? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 0
Titans suck, they're only good for bridging and drivebys
Back to the topic at hand... Muninn, I am disappoint.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 23:59:00 -
[567] - Quote
MAKE OMNI DIRECTIONALS & DRONE SPEED MODS HIGH SLOT MODS |
elitatwo
Congregatio
88
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:05:00 -
[568] - Quote
Hmm... I'm a bit puzzled so I need to ask, if you took the proposed HAC changes for an unskilled or a level 5 skilled hull?
IF the Deimos shows the changes for an unskilled character, I say OMG But it wouldn't hurt or break EVE to give her 200 armor hp back.
It is a sacrilege that the Scarilege is a bit too slow for a nice kiting boat, so she could need a tiny bit more base speed and just a tiny bit more cpu, maybe +20 cpu would be enough.
The Ishtar on the other hand needs a tiny bit more cpu, maybe +40 cpu and maybe +100 powergrid. I like dat tracking bounus - its anti-support time
The Zealot looks like before and still won't- oh I'm sorry cannot- fit heavy beam lasers + an armor tank that can be called tank.
I thought only Gallente boats are hull tanking...
Hmm, I guess I won't be undocking my Cerberus any time soon, so she can stay my golden ship spinning hull. If only the Cerberus would get a tanking bonus so she doesn't have to stay a recon ship.
Eagle my Eagle, well she is too expensive for me to undock and my Moa can almost do the same, just at a gimped range. But hey, I can my own Moa's and don't need to buy them
So far I would like to have all HACS the same speed as the tech1 hull and maybe a really tiny advance over tech1 hulls at a low value like +5% base speed or even lower, so they don't powercreep too much and the tech1 hulls stay viable.
And if you have time, I'd like to test them on sisi |
Arec Bardwin
997
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:06:00 -
[569] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU This. That boat is stupidly hard to fit.
|
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:09:00 -
[570] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The only complaint I have is about the deimos.
IMHO it is still the die-most with an outdated MWD cap bonus. Either it needs some sort of survivability bonus, or a speed bonus.
I think the coolest bonus to give it would be a 10% increase to MWD overloaded speed per level.
This would mean an MWD would still give a 500% bonus when turned on normally, but when overloading instead of giving a 750% bonus it would be a 875% bonus (a difference of about 400 m/s on a 290 m/s base ship) This would increase the deimos' ability to catch its opponents quickly without increasing its ability to kite forever.
******. Teh End |
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:15:00 -
[571] - 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. |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
264
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:21:00 -
[572] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: Titans suck, they're only good for bridging and drivebys
Back to the topic at hand... Muninn, I am disappoint.
KNOCK KNOCK?
WHO IS THERE?
A POOR |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:22:00 -
[573] - 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 |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
1260
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:33:00 -
[574] - Quote
There are some very large signature radii for the AHACs. I don't know how effective that 50% MWD penalty reduction is going to be with the likes of 140m, 145m, 150m, and even 160m signatures. Add in shield tanking and yikes. |
Domer Pyle
Northern Flemish Bastards Inc Yulai Federation
74
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:34:00 -
[575] - Quote
thank god the vaga will be largely the same. i'm ok with these changes. "Imagine if the bars to your prison were all you had ever known. Then one day, someone appears and unlocks the door. If they have the power to do this, then are they really the liberator? You never remembered who it was that closed you in." - Ior Labron |
MrDiao
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
27
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:34:00 -
[576] - Quote
CCP Rise, I'm not sure if you realized a hilarious fact:
Q: "What is the most popular ship bonus in EVE online?" A: "10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage dealt by drones."
Myrmidon, Prophecy Dominix, Navy Dominix, Armageddon, Rattlesnake, Sin Arbitrator, Vexor, Navy Vexor, Gila Dragoon, Algos Ishtar, Curse, Pilgrim
I feel a lack of imagination to use one bonus as the solution for most of the drone ships.
How about something like "15% bonus to medium and light drone damage and 25% to medium and light drone hitpoints"?
or "100% bonus to EW drone effectiveness"? |
Gneeznow
L'Avant Garde
77
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:34:00 -
[577] - Quote
Muninn is still a more expensive, crappier tornado, it needs a total rethink. I've not seen a muninn in about 4 years and I don't think they'll be spotted much after 1.1 either. |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
601
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 00:49:00 -
[578] - Quote
You already know how I feel about the others, but I'll just say a few key things here. The Sacrilege is replacing the Deimos as the brawling champ (assuming you don't **** with it anymore), and the Deimos is now a useless pile of **** that you always seemed to want it to be.
WTF is wrong with you people. Gallente is NOT a shield race, yet you're giving the once PERFECT blaster hull a completely useless change while reducing its armor and structure.
**** cap injectors. **** lack of utility highs. **** making every goddamn ship the ******* same.
Stop ******* with things that aren't broken.
The Zealot is fixed for fleet logi combo usage only. The NOmen and Oracle do everything else better. The Sac is the only ship you've done right. It was fat and slow, now it's not.
The Cerb needed speed AND cap. It's still going to cap itself out in no time (faster now since you've got less potential fitting) The Eagle needed a wave of light drones and working rails to compete, NOT a removal of its extra high.
The Muninn will still be suffering from the Minmatarmor plague. The lack of extra damaging high means you're still going to be stuck with either a lame tank, or roughly the same damage output from before. The Muninn should be the Mimir. It needs to be AGILE not FAST. You HAVE fast with the Vagabond. The Vagabond gets a useless bonus that plays to people who run links/implants.
The Ishtar needed more fitting (esp after armor tank buff), and you overlooked that somehow. The Deimos. You took the top qualities of the Deimos, and made it a 150m POS Thorax.
The Vexor > the Thorax in every way except glass turret ganking. Lets see how many people do that in their Deimos', because that's exactly what's going to happen. I can already give you an answer; it's the same number of people who do that in Vigilants. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Joe D'Trader
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
175
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:05:00 -
[579] - Quote
The Diemost still feels a little bit weak, but I'll give it a go |
Rn Bonnet
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:06:00 -
[580] - Quote
You have a core problem here with the entire plan. You are relying on the medium ranged weapons buff to fix to make the HAC hulls more viable. The problem is you are also buffing the T1 and T3 hulls.
None, NONE of these hulls will even approach the T3 ship equivalent in the intended role. A sniper Tengu will be: 10% faster 50% more Agile Do 20% more DPS Do 20% more volley Have 35% more base lock range Have 200% more EHP And have an extra rig slot than an Eagle.
You don't "fix" the T2's in anyway. Look at the numbers above, really look at them and tell me you don't see the problem. Those numbers apply to every hull. You need to bring that ship in its specialized role on par with the T3 ship to even make them useful. |
|
Olivia Hume
Hoover Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:09:00 -
[581] - Quote
People who complain about T2 HP, I think get it wrong. When comparing ehp of T1 to faction, T2 and T3 for a comparable role:
- faction have better HP with T1 resists; better ehp. - T2 get better resist with T1 HP: better ehp, easy to rep. - T3 get better HP and resists; crazy ehp, easy to rep.
It worked quite well for exploration or recon since they are more specialised regardless of the better tank and dps of T3 equivalent . But it didn't work for HACs; they couldn't rely shine compare to T3 in their role since tank and dps is very much part of their role. I hope that new role bonus is enough of buff. |
Rn Bonnet
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:11:00 -
[582] - Quote
Not to mention the 37 extra base cpu 16 extra base pg. |
Rn Bonnet
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:14:00 -
[583] - Quote
Olivia Hume wrote:People who complain about T2 HP, I think get it wrong. When comparing ehp of T1 to faction, T2 and T3 for a comparable role:
- faction have better HP with T1 resists; better ehp. - T2 get better resist with T1 HP: better ehp, easy to rep. - T3 get better HP and resists; crazy ehp, easy to rep.
It worked quite well for exploration or recon since they are more specialised regardless of the better tank and dps of T3 equivalent . But it didn't work for HACs; they couldn't rely shine compare to T3 in their role since tank and dps is very much part of their role. I hope that new role bonus is enough of buff.
Yeah I will take 200% more EHP over 50% sig radius every day of the week and twice on tuesday considering one unbonused target painter "cures" your sig radius bonus. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
123
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:24:00 -
[584] - Quote
My 2 isk
Sacrilege:
You are really not doing much to this ship that is noteworthy. Since the HML nerf, HAM's / HML's have a super difficult time applying damage to targets with out bonused painters / hard tackle. Sacrilage is so slow, and is not going to be able to catch T1 cruisers / Navy cruisers. It is going to suffer the exact same problems as it does now. It is slow, has no DPS projection / application and is generally going to be used for armor brawling fleets only. You have done nothing with the ship in terms of new / interesting game play. While i respect the attempt at giving it an active armor bonus (thanks to the cap / resist) Its 50% MWD sig radius bonus is completely wasted. Sacrilege is not running down anything, and if it does it needs to get into scram web range. In the end you are completely wasting the 50% sig bonus on this ship, and arguably the cap use bonus as well if you are flying with logi. The sac is going to drop reps in favor of more resistance. Considering that it uses a weapon system that does not use energy, I am really trying hard to come up with a reason for this bonus.
If on the other hand your idea was to make this ship a viable self repping platform, I feel that the cap bonus is again wasted. You are not giving the ship enough cap regen to allow the removal of a mid slot cap booster. The ship is still going to need one.these changes are disappointing, as they do nothing to address the problems of the sac, and the new bonues do not in any way contribute to different fitting styles due to a freed mid slot.
Zealot:
Again nothing of note in the changes. The zealot is still far and away much slower than the Omen / Nomen. Infact the zealot is one of the slowest HAC's. It is slower than all of the T1 cruisers, and most of the hacs. This kiting platform will simply be run down and killed by anything that fits an MWD. The zealot suffered from having a capacitor issue. You have done nothing to address this in the patch. While this ship actually will gain something from the Sig bonus, again you are forcing it into an MWD role if you want to take full advantage of the ship. Zealot has known cap issues. However even though it is now almost pigion holed into an MWD role, you have done nothing to address the need for the Mid slot cap booster.
So the zealot will be forced into going towards an active armor tanked setup for small gang / Solo. This places it exactly in the same position as it was before the patch- which is a slower, slightly more DPS Nomen.
With the increasing speeds of all T1 cruisers, and considering the fact that the Zealot is one of the slowest HAC's there is no reason to use this ship over then nomen when it comes to kiting. Perhaps in huge fleets, but in any other situation this ship will be outclassed.
Again I am not impressed, as you have done absolutely nothing to fix or help the zealot along after the T1 cruiser / Navy cruiser buff. It is Obsolete in the current iteration.
Cerberus:
Currently the cerberus / tengu share the crown as the best RLM (which are now the only viable missile choice for kiting) ships. However they are both bad. The reason why is because, both of these ships are slow as sin, and will simply be ran down and killed while MWD fit. While this patch has made the DPS output of the cerberus nearly equal to that of the RLM Tengu, you have again missed the entire point of a kiting ship- Speed. The cerberus is again, slower than every single T1 cruiser, and navy cruiser. So I am very interested to hear from you what types of ships you are planning to kite. You specifically quote in the ship description that the cerb is now a kiting boat. So I am curious.
In the case of the cerb, like the zealot- the MWD sig bonus would fit well into the kiting role. However like the zealot, the cerberus is to slow to kiting anything, and therefor is worthless when you look at the Caracal / Scythe Fleet / Osprey Navy.
Eagle:
With its optimal range bonus, one would think that this would be used as a rail sniper boat. With the upcoming changes, the med rail guns might actually be useful. But then I start looking at the 4% shield resist bonus, and I think well ok maybe its a close range brawling blaster boat. However I keep reading and again notice that it has a 50% MWD sig bonus. So now I am thinking sweet! It has an optimal bonus, so rail fit it with an MWD, and kite with an active tank! Great I think. But then I notice the speed. 175.
Are you kidding me????
This thing is so slow that it can't kite for ****. You have some how made something slower than both the sacrilage, zealot, and cerb. So then I ask myself- where does this ship fit in, where you can take advantage of all its bonuses? If you are going in to brawl, certainly more damage / tracking / falloff would be more useful for a blaster boat. Also why does a brawling ship need an MWD sig bonus? its in scram and web range. its too slow to run anything down, so it can't be for 'closing the gap'. If you fit it as a sniper boat, your wasting the 4% shield resits, and the 50% resits to MWD.
So no matter how you fit it, this new eagle, like the old one- is sup par to other ships. It cannot fit into any role where it can utilize the bonuses you have given it. Again, you have done nothing new, and the eagle will not change.
Deimos:
This ship, with its slot layout and fittings actually makes sense. Its fast enough to run things down / brawl, and thanks to its MWD bonus it can do that, or kite very effectively. This ship has the speed to keep up in the current meta, and considering the new rail changes, might actually be more useful than its T1 cousin.
|
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
264
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:24:00 -
[585] - Quote
hey also bosses these changes are not good
gotta make them worth it over a 2m t1 cruiser and a 75m T1 ABC but without unbalancing them for fleets
GL
o7 |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4081
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:36:00 -
[586] - Quote
"Guys a Deimos just landed on grid with me, orders?" -Average BC Pilot
"Really? Well just tackle it and we will be there in a few minutes." -Friends Docked Up Several Jumps Away
"OK, he is tackled. Got a scram, web and even a neut on him. My tank is doing ok considering he is using blasters." -Average BC Pilot
"Nice. We are undocking and should be there..." -Friends Docked Up Several Jumps Away
"AHAHAHA!!! Holy **** I was trying to pull damage so you guys could kill mail ***** on it, but he dipped into armor and just exploded. Strange. He even had a damage control fit too." -Average BC Pilot
"Poor son of a *****. Well launch your salvage drones and salvage the wreck. About all the Diemost is good for anyways." -Friends Docked Up Several Jumps Away
"No kidding. Wait, aBC on scan now. Should I..." -Average BC Pilot
"WARP OUT! I repeat warp out!!!... Do you copy?!" -Friends Docked Up Several Jumps Away . |
Golden Hart
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:39:00 -
[587] - Quote
Simon BlackWell wrote:Deimos has been hit fairly hard. 4th mid is nice, but honestly, I've no use for a web for the most part.
Nerfing it's EHP was a bit of a low blow. It can't brawl properly now, not to mention that with the utility highslot gone, there went the ubiquitous small Nos to keep everything running whilst you brawl.
You've changed the Nos mechanics, then begin plucking Utility highslots away from things.
Staaaaahp
CouldnGÇÖt agree with you more leave the utility slots alone gallente need them! |
Mukun
The Shadow Plague Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:39:00 -
[588] - Quote
as a close combat ship,why deimos has the highest sig radius? does it do any good to help it get clost to target or avoid damage? or you re too focus on rework it to a railplatform? and also, where is the 7.5% tracking bonus from thorax? |
Chimpface Holocaust
Zarnfell
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:42:00 -
[589] - Quote
I just did the math on the Vagabond speed bonus and it would have to be 298m/s to cover the max velocity lost by replacing the bonus |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
124
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:52:00 -
[590] - Quote
Ishtar:
It's no secret, I hate drone boats. Drones are horrible, and cannot be used as a primary damage source for PvP small gang. They etch out some kind of usefulness in scram / web armor brawling- but that's about it. Sentry sniping for PvP is a joke. Any ship that uses drones as its primary weapon system is really a waste. The ishtar is slow, has a useless MWD sig bonus. However the rest of the bonuses make sense for a drone hull. Still completely outclassed by the navy vexor, because unlike the Ishtar- the Nvexor can do things other than just brawl.
Vagabond:
AC boats were already struggling. Then the TE nerf happened, and all AC boats took a nose dive when trying to apply damage outside of scram / web range. The vaga shares the same 10% increase in falloff as its stabber cousin, and just like the stabber cannot kite. Even though this is considered a kiting ship- its pathetic DPS at range means that it is outclassed by other ships. The MWD sig bonus makes sense here, and the vaga is certainly fast enough. However what I don't understand is the active tanking bonus. The vaga is a 'kiting' ship that according to you, should have the ability to get up close in scram / web and face ****. The active tanking bonus (while nice) is really going to shut down the vagas play style.
It seems that you are really encroaching on the SFI's world, of fast, hard tackle. In fact the vaga may do the job even better, so what would be the point of ever flying an SFI anymore? The idea of a 290m/s base speed cruiser with the ability to run a really powerful dual LASB tank with an MWD scram, is simply going to be a nightmare for any solo / small gang pilots. SFI's were annoying enough, but adding in a ship that has this nice speed, and a secondary tanking bonus is going to make this ship really, really difficult for players to fly against- as nothing can run from it.
Muninn:
This ship has (along with the new Arty changes) Taken a step in the right direction. It is doing all of the things it did before, however it is doing them much better- and all of its bonuses, and slot reworking make complete sense when added into its desired play style. Good work.
About the HAC's in general:
I am getting confused on what you are doing with HAC's. If you truly want to make some of them into the pinnacle of kiting boats, than you need to buff the speed on many of the 'kiting hulls'. The T1 cruisers / Navy cruisers are just so fast now- that any kiting cruiser is going to need to keep up with that pack, if they are going to stand a chance.
Over all I am really confused the the Eagle hulls, vaga, sacrilage, cerberus. They simply don't make sense. Or if the ship does perform well, will do its job so well that it will eclipse others / make other play styles extremely difficult.
Here is a quick speed chart:
New Vagabond / Stabber: 290<<<< The fastest cruiser in the game has an active tanking bonus. You are not worried about the proliferation of scram vagas? They can catch everything, and hold it down- and now the have a nice tank, and better projection- with a Sig bonus. What is the point of the SFI? Scythe Fleet: 280 Nomen: 265 Nosprey: 260 Exequror Navy: 255 SFI: 250<<<<< Help me!!!!! Scythe: 250 Exequror: 240 Thorax: 240 Omen: 235 Caracal: 230 New Deimos: 220 Vexor Navy Issue: 220 Augoror Navy Issue: 215 Augoror Navy: 210 Caracal Navy: 210 New Zealot: 210<<<< Again? How is this an upgrade from the Nomen? New Muninn: 210 Vexor: 205 New Cerberus: 205<<<<< this is your idea of a kiting boat? Osprey: 200 New Sacrilage: 200<<<<< Why is the MWD sig bonus on a ship this slow useful? Maller: 195 New Ishtar: 185<<<< So slow. New Eagle: 175<<<< Again MWD sig bonus? |
|
CaldariCitizen 3924833
Throw More Dots Verge of Carebearing
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:56:00 -
[591] - Quote
SACRILEGE
Minus 1 highslot + 1 lowslot please |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
999
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:59:00 -
[592] - Quote
I'm not really thrilled that all the t2 frigates and cruiser get the same role bonus.
I realize null sec pilots may like this bonus but as a low sec pilot its very limited in value.
Scram removes the bonus and sig tanking generally means you are in scram (and neut) range. In low sec flying any of these expect a bunch of frigates to get under your guns while you die with your role bonused mwd turned off.
Some variety would be good ccp. Not all t2s need to have the same "role" of sig tanking battleship sized guns while your bubbled. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
gawrshmapooo
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:02:00 -
[593] - Quote
My shitfit Vexor: 20k ehp without damage control. 300dps
My Carefully fit Sacrilege: 8.8k ehp 260 dps.
My shitfit Vexor isk cost: 25mil My carefully fit Sacrilege cost: 300mil
Don't even tell me that's okay. |
Flex Carter
Caldari Independant Mining Association
80
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:05:00 -
[594] - Quote
CCP, please show me on the doll where my Diemos touched you guys to warrant this drastic change. Geez |
Lunaleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:14:00 -
[595] - Quote
These changes are underwhelming, but I'm glad you chose HACs for 1.1!
I just don't see the theme with HACs like I've seen with other classes. Are they combat or attack? It just feels like their role is "use mwd and try to find a useful spot on the battlefield" rather than something more tangible.
I think you should choose to have 1 line follow the vagabond speed/dmg (attack) line of thinking and the other line follow the Eagle/lomg range sniper line of thinking.
Maybe a role bonus that scrams don't shut down MWD...that would do well to set these ships apart. |
Apocryphal Noise
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
67
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:20:00 -
[596] - Quote
Great, another minidominix to abuse drone assign.
Are you ok with how drone assign works? |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1106
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:22:00 -
[597] - Quote
What is truly scary is that Rise has said that he will consult with the CSM (groan) then get back to us.
Here's a concept. Throw these ships on Sisi tomorrow. Start with what you have suggested with these changes.
Allocate some area Sisi for ship testing. Even use the existing thunderdome area on Sisi.
Make many public posts encouraging people to heavily test them. Now, and this is the hard part for CCP, ACTUALLY listen to the feedback and tweak accordingly, and OFTEN!!!! Don't do what fozzie did in the drone nerf, and ignore 60 pages of feedback, or have another situation like ignoring the warnings about the UI. Maybe give away SP ON tranquility, not Sisi, for the best suggestions that evolve into the final changes.
And something else that is hard for CCP, TAKE YOUR TIME. Do it right. State that any changes to the HAC class won't be introduced on TQ until the Dec release.
The player base is the best asset you have to design these ships and test them, morph them into something useful. Use that asset. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Tankn00blicus
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:26:00 -
[598] - Quote
Flex Carter wrote:CCP, please show me on the doll where my Diemos touched you guys to warrant this drastic change. Geez They wanted to make absolutely sure that the people who haven't already switched from Diemosts to superior-in-almost-every-way Taloses do so now. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1299
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:27:00 -
[599] - Quote
So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
5686
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:38:00 -
[600] - Quote
Apocryphal Noise wrote:Great, another minidominix to abuse drone assign.
Are you ok with how drone assign works? For the sake of this game I sure hope the answer is "no". -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel. |
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
89
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:51:00 -
[601] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s
...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... |
Rn Bonnet
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:52:00 -
[602] - Quote
Oh BTW since the t1 cruiser hulls are often 50% faster than there base hull for a lot of these ships the MWD sig bonus just puts them on par with the t1 hull in terms of tracking. Make them all at least as fast as the t1 hull and we will be talking. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:53:00 -
[603] - Quote
Unsure about Deimos changes.
Armor deimos can fit a web and not lose the cap booster, which makes up for not having a neut. But armor Deimoses are still Diemosts.
Shield Deimos either gets more tank, cap stability or can also fit a web to make up for not having a neut. but TE nerf already hit it pretty hard and even before the TE nerf it was only projecting damage roughly as well as a 425mm Auto Hurricane. I was really hoping for the Thorax's tracking bonus to transfer to the Deimos. As it stands the Thorax's better damage application under 10km seems to make it better as an anti-tackle ship.
ASB bonus on vaga is GREAT for my vaga fits, but to be honest it's borderline overpowered. What the Vaga really needed was a capacitor bonus. At the moment it's almost compulsory to fit a deadspace mwd to be able to fly around for any significant amount of time. I'm personally happy for you to keep the ASB bonus on the vaga because I will be having a complete ball with my Vagas, but from a balance perspective... yeah. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1300
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:54:00 -
[604] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s ...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... because a MWD will work so much better Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
In Spirit
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:57:00 -
[605] - Quote
Quote: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.
Spoken like someone who has clearly never attempted to fit an Ishtar for it's purpose, a drone boat. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
89
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:08:00 -
[606] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s ...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... because a MWD will work so much better
Nope they won't help either, since most of the time you want to be in scram range anyway.
Thing is, I still don't know what a good bonus for HACS would be but some of the afore mentioned ideas sound more promising than an ab bonus without a significant base speed buff. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
89
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:10:00 -
[607] - Quote
In Spirit wrote:Quote: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. Spoken like someone who has clearly never attempted to fit an Ishtar for it's purpose, a drone boat.
I did but I am going to sell it and buy two NOMENs instead.. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1670
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:13:00 -
[608] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s ...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... because a MWD will work so much better nah you'll have tons of time cause some idiot tried to tackle you in a cloaky huggin instead of the rapier meaning he has a severe scan res penalty so the entire line of thought is moot. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1301
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:14:00 -
[609] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s ...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... because a MWD will work so much better Nope they won't help either, since most of the time you want to be in scram range anyway. Thing is, I still don't know what a good bonus for HACS would be but some of the afore mentioned ideas sound more promising than an ab bonus without a significant base speed buff. With a MWD bouns the Diemos will go 102.4 m/s under web and scram. With an AB bouns the Diemos will go 448 m/s under web and scram. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Noisrevbus
463
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:15:00 -
[610] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We can't control how you feel, we can only control how powerful the ships are, and they're quite powerful.
Compared to what, in what scenario?
A quick glimpse at the released data would assume that you are looking to poke a few more ships into the 'AHAC role' to compete with the Zealot, shift another couple of ships into some sort of play-at-war brawling (Blaster Eagles, ASB Vagas etc.) for the Amamake crowd and the broad overall objective seem to be cautiously reinforcing the old 'SHAC role' with the new role-bonus (burning a bonused MWD outside of immidiate web-scram ranges).
How do you envision these expensive ships standing up defensively in the face of modern budget sniping options such as Caracals, BC3 and similar?
The range come with the upside of avoiding Loki webs (and the only ships being able to web them from an onset is yet again Recons with their more managable buffers while things like Painters will face falloff-values). Having framed the setting with that dull lead-in: How powerful would you envision these ships to be against considerably larger gangs with cheaper ships firing at them on stacked, unbonused Painters in falloff? I understand that it's a ridiculous "What if" scenario, but I have a feeling that it's going to be a common one and much of a make-or-break scenario. Would it be possible to grab a bunch of these expensive ships without imidiately entering into a trading-blows scenario with less expensive options?
You may not be able to control how we'd feel, but there's usually some sort of logic and elegiability behind how we feel.
Alot of the early calculations done within the community today is simply a "critical mass" overview to the alpha of common ships (ie., you'd need this many Talwars, Caracals or Megathrons to volley ship X on either ideal, average or common accuracies). That's obviously not the end-all measurment of a ship's performance and likely appeal but it's a good starting point and overview. In this case I think it's more prudent than usual since what will make or break the use of these ships is not wether they can kill stuff but wether the risk involved with their price-tag will warrant any use against common gangs.
You didn't have those issues revamping Frigates for example, because Tech II Frigates are still cheap enough in the general span of Tech I subcaps.
|
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:18:00 -
[611] - 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? |
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
909
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:31:00 -
[612] - Quote
Honestly, I haven't really chewed through the other changes that much yet, but the Vagabond change seems completely stupid to me off the bat. I've been flying the ship since pre-nanonerf, and no, this change is going to drastically change how the ship is going to be flown.
You've essentially made a ship that, at its core, was an excellent kiting ship that did very well in small/medium gang scenarios, and turned it into a flying brick waiting for anyone whose competent to shut it down. The ASB vagabond is a special snowflake setup that has far too few practical uses in ~real pvp~ outside of very controlled scenarios. The traditional vagabond has already been slightly hamstringed by the changes to TEs. You're essentially pushing any good vagabond pilot to just give up on the hull and fly a Cynabal, which just does the current vaga's job a whole lot better as a pirate hull.
You're essentially slapping a useless shield booster skill onto a hull that already suffers, like a good kiting minnie hull, from cap issues. Please, for the love of god and keeping that ship anywhere near useable, do a sensible bonus like projectile falloff or something appropriate for the hull, not some stupid bonus for the special snowflakes that will make the hull completely useless outside of some very specific scenarios. Toshiro Ozuwara > GOon cowards come fight Toshiro Ozuwara > Oh wait, you only camp when you got numberssss
I would fully support account bans by ccp for meta type stuff like this. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
124
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:52:00 -
[613] - Quote
Please give me a hull that is from the ground up designed to be a true kiting boat.
Give at least one ship in the HAC line a pure kiting bonused kit. (Vaga, Zealot, Cerberus, Diemos)
Speed- In the current T1 cruiser meta, faster than 2400m/s unlinked, unsnaked, and using only 1/2 nanos
Projection- Give us something that can shoot, and hit out to 35K+ using Pulse, AC's, RLMs, Blasters would obviously need some tweaking on the deimos hull. Either make the ranger shorter to compensate blasters, or give the diemos something that would help out its use of rails.
DPS- I am not asking for a lot here. Just give us an edge over the current T1 cruiser / Navy faction varients at projected and applied DPS at range.
Tank- I am not asking for a lot here. Just enough tank to be able to pull range, or warp out from heavy blob DPS fire. I don't need an active bonus, I don't need resitance bonus. Just give me the base EHP to work with, or the fitting room.
If you can make a ship that has the ability to do these 4 things, inside of its fitting room- you have succeeded. You have created something, that while not always better than a T1 cruiser, will specialize a hull farther into the kiting role (Which many of the T1, and all of the navy cruisers can already do to some extent.)
There are currently no / very few cruisers in the game that are able to do the 4 listed objectives. Why don't you make that the HAC's intended goal? |
Gorion Wassenar
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
65
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:38:00 -
[614] - Quote
So....
Why did you think it was a good idea to take the Vagabond, the ship that is supposed to be a high speed skirmish ship, and then give it a tanking bonus and make it about 100m/s slower under MWD? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4086
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:39:00 -
[615] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s ...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... A Huggin decloaks you say? . |
Mr Ignitious
Aperture Harmonics K162
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:44:00 -
[616] - Quote
All of these changes rock my world.
EXCEPT THE ISHTAR. I'm actually aghast with it. I'm convinced it will really suck in comparison to all the other cruisers. It's getting SLOWED DOWN? What? Why?! You're making it a kiting ship with **** agility and now worse speed? It'll be the 2nd slowest HAC. I don't understand this at all. It's slot layout means it can just about do nothing well. It's not a good sniper because sentry mechanics still suck.
I really hate the stupid bonus to drone control range, i mean it now has 2 bonuses to drone sniping... which is the most ******* worthless thing I've ever heard.
I'm actually seriously disgusted with the design for the ishtar. It will do nothing well. If you want a sniper hac you are better off with an eagle or zealot or muninn by FAR which all have better resist profiles, are faster, and CAN MOVE during engagements. It's going to SUCK for being dual prop or close range brawler because it's DPS is getting **** on. I really REALLY hate this. So ******* dumb. |
Joelleaveek
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
244
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:47:00 -
[617] - Quote
The term "Heavy Attack Cruiser" implies to me some kind of damage dealing and tanking machine. Yet here were are molding them into tankless kiters. I was expecting something better from this. |
Kai Lae
hirr RAZOR Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:47:00 -
[618] - Quote
Couple of things here. First, deimos. What are you thinking in reducing it's armor, hull, and boosting it's shields? This has got to be one of the weirdest things I've seen since the last time you tried to turn it into a bigger turkey than it is now. Unless you're running a 1600mm buffer setup (which suck, because they take away too much agility and speed) your overall tank, right now, is about 30k EHP. This is obviously so powerful that you felt the need to reduce it? I would love to hear the explanation of why you think this is necessary. Second you've left the MWD bonus. This is just a bad bonus - which your own staff at CCP has already admitted to (though I won't be surprised if you don't remember this as it was probably before any of you were hired). The last deimos "rebalance" which turned the ship into a active tanked armor rep ship removed the MWD bonus and simply increased the base cap to compensate was the only positive idea to come out of the last attempt. How about this proposal, instead of changing the shield/armor/hull amounts just leave them alone, remove the MWD bonus, increase total cap, and add tracking. This will allow use of void in more situations due to the tracking hit being not as severe, while assisting against attacking ships using single unbonused TD's as a defense. You should also consider asking why a close range, in your face HAC has the highest signature radius of any HAC, because this does not make sense either - and greatly limits it's use or utility in an AHAC fleet.
Ishtar: CPU on this ship is critically low and always has been. When it had 15 slots you could claim it was to balance out the fact that it had 15 instead of 14. But this is no longer the case, and in addition, the amount of CPU that drone modules use is extremely high, making it very difficult to use these in any kind of practical setup. Also the previous comment in the thread that having drone space added as a bonus on a ship that now only can use drones is much like having a zealot that adds a gun slot for every HAC level is quite astute. It makes no sense and makes me concerned exactly what your plan is with regards to the Eos, in that you may be planning on retaining it for this ship as well. In addition the bonuses added are quite useful for sentries, but are much less useful for non sentry setups. I strongly advise you to consider adding the drone space into the hull as a default amount, then changing the bonus to drone MWD speed to make non sentry drones more viable for kiting setups, or any setup that plans on relying on heavy drones to kill targets.
Long ranged HAC's overall: Consider increasing the lock range of these ships.
Last, another important point which has already been brought up, HAC cost. In no way, shape or form will HAC's that cost 150-180m ever be commonly used when you have T1 cruisers which can nearly do the job as well, but for a small fraction of the cost. You could buy 10 of them for 1 HAC. The situation is easy to see in today's meta where once you saw vagas, now you see SFI's - as vagas cost 160m and SFI's only 60. It used to be that HAC's cost 70-100m, which was reasonable given their performance. I believe that this as an overall price point for these ships is a good idea and that you should consider reducing the build requirements of these ships to achieve this overall cost, as without it they will unlikely ever be competitive in the overall meta against T1 cruisers/navy cruisers/T1 BC hulls. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3121
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:50:00 -
[619] - Quote
Why on earth did you have to ruin the Ishtar.
One less slot for drone ships is the most ******** thing in EVE, what is the reason for that? Because your main damage can be destroyed? Because it is slow to apply?
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:54:00 -
[620] - Quote
Well, gratz to HAC Tiericide. I will stay out of this one mostly, but I find most of the stuff way too shiny. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1301
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:59:00 -
[621] - Quote
Roime wrote:Why on earth did you have to ruin the Ishtar.
One less slot for drone ships is the most ******** thing in EVE, what is the reason for that? Because your main damage can be destroyed? Because it is slow to apply? Because, in this case, you can give up almost all your damage to use some pathetic unbounded support or e-war drone that die way to easy. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Senn Denroth
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
86
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:05:00 -
[622] - Quote
So ummm... let me just throw this out there... Why the hell would anyone waste A LOT of time training for HACs at all when navy cruisers are better?
What is so HEAVY about these heavy assault ships you speak of?
Except the cerb.... so OP. LOVE IIIIT!!! |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3121
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:12:00 -
[623] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:YAYYYY Alright so for HACs (Heavy Assault Cruisers) we had a few goals: Increase viability for the worst ships (Eagle, Cerberus, Sacrilege especially) Support rather than disrupt current uses (AHACs) Make room for new uses when possible 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. We feel this is a really nice fit because it doesn't boost afterburner variations that are already very strong, but it does add to resilience for most other uses. On top of that, many of the ships have gotten significant changes to slot layout or bonus. Also be sure to check out the MEDIUM WEAPON REBALANCE as it will have a big impact on HAC perfromance. Small note: All the weird tiny stat tweaks are just to make the numbers more even (originally a lot of arbitrary randomness was added for the sake of "realism" and we are just cleaning some of that up, which we've done for all the recent rebalances. ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships. Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty 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 Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145
What new use does this nerf open? How can the Ishtar with that CPU fit four railguns that it could benefit from?
When will you fix drones, as you seem hellbent on turning all the good drone boats into PVE-only piles of crap?
Things that made the Ishtar great: dual damage bonus and slot layout.
Thanks.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
609
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:13:00 -
[624] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s
AB Bonuses are BAD. I thought we went through this the last time with the Assault Frigates
And just to sum up the thread; Leave the ******* Deimos as it is right now. If you need to make a change to it, give it more agility and stop ******* with it . -áwww.promsrage.com |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
556
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:32:00 -
[625] - Quote
A few remarks:
1. If you want useful feedback, post your modded version of Pyfa so that people can actually experiment with fitting the proposed ships. We are not computers and can't make sense of a vomited text-list of base ship stats.
2. Stop removing utility high-slots-- it makes the ships less useful and more predictable. It's a stupid idea.
3. One of the Sac's biggest problems is it's total inability to do decent damage to anything using any weapon system available to it. Your proposal does nothing to address that (though you did a good job of nerfing its ability to active tank with the -1% resist change). How does this solve anything?
4. Your comment regarding the speed increase on the Cerb is downsy: it is ships that have a narrow damage projection envelope that rely on good speed / agility to kite. Something that can start more than 100km from its targets can afford to run away relatively slowly. Personally I have a hatred for slow ships, so I won't complain about this change, but your reasoning there kind of sucks.
5. I don't know, these ships look pretty crappy to be honest. Thanks for buffing T1 stuff to death while giving us next to no reason to fly ships that cost 10x as much. I guess the AFK ratting crowd will be pleased with the Ishtar change. Oh, and way to go with that Vaga change-- I really look forward to everyone and their dog becoming an elite, solo-PVP hero by using the new Vaga in conjunction with the already-ridiculous ASBs. You know, because those setups needed a boost (get it? A boost? See what I did there?).
My bottom line: if you're going to maintain a class of cruiser that costs 10x as much as a T1 cruiser, but you don't want to contribute to power creep by giving them massive tanking or DPS output increases, then at least give them a more flexible slot layout. There has to be some compelling reason to fly these things over cheaper T1 options: there's a reason I haven't flown a HAC in several years, and I don't see these changes doing anything to change that. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1303
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:33:00 -
[626] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s AB Bonuses are BAD.I thought we went through this the last time with the Assault Frigates And just to sum up the thread; Leave the ******* Deimos as it is right now. If you need to make a change to it, give it more agility and stop ******* with it . And yet with the MWD bonus they are neither fast enough to speed tank nor small enough to sig tank. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
chris elliot
EG CORP Mass Overload
215
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:41:00 -
[627] - Quote
When is all this scheduled to hit the test server so we can fiddle with it and break it? |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1300
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:51:00 -
[628] - Quote
Considering the state of HACs going into this, I find the initial proposed changes fairly underwhelming.
THE SAC: T2 specialized not generalized: so why expand it's weapon bonus to short/long range weapons instead of just making it better at short range? T2 HAMs already have an acceptable kiting range if the user so desires to fly their sac that way. The issue with the Sac is that its DPS loss and sig increase over the Zealot are a steep price to pay for tank it gets in trade. Also, why is it getting SLOWER?
I dont know about other Sac pilots, but i was hoping to see the Heavy Assault Missile bonus kicked up to 7.5 and either a speed increase or sig reduction.
ZEALOT: Not much changed, but if it's to be MWD fit it might need a little love in the capacitor since it's an almost unacceptable sacrifice to fit a cap booster
CERB: Cool it has more speed so it can stay at extremely long ranges. You know, the ranges where missiles are rendered nearly useless. Nothing WRONG with that change but it doesn't address the Cerb's underlying problem: 200+km heavy missiles just aren't very compelling.
Replacing the flight time bonus with a second missile velocity bonus would give it a niche as the fastest time-to-target missile boat (and it could use some lock range). Another option could be to address it's grid problems and move it into a HAM mid-range brawler role.
EAGLE: The new Eagle is a much better brawler. For the sniping variant to really come back with those new rail changes i think it could use more lock range and scan res to make use of the Eagles immense range potential and it's niche of sniping against low sig targets.
DEIMOS: Giving it an extra mid while taking away armor in favor of shields is a pretty good indicator you want this GALLENTE BLASTER BOAT to be a shield ship? I had thought the balance team was trying to move Gallente ships away from that.
Switch the + and the - on those HP changes.
ISHTAR: I love the bonus change. The speed nerf, though slight, seems a really needless kick to the dog though.
VAGA: Rather than the little Sleiphnir that could, I think most Vaga pilots just want the vaga to do what it already does a tad better. A little more HP, a little more capacitor, perhaps a second falloff bonus. In light of the T1 Stabber, it could do with being a bit faster.
MUNINN: Grid and HP buff, consider it. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
609
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:56:00 -
[629] - Quote
@Alek How exactly is the new Eagle a better brawler? You're not gaining much hp, since you now need to fit an injector instead of a nos.
The blaster damage output is still sub-par, because it doesn't have the grid to sport bigger guns AND a comparable tank. The Cerb should lose those drones, and the Eagle should remain how it is but gain 5 lights and some grid.
This whole *buff* is all over the map, I can't even begin to comprehend where the Devs' heads are at. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1300
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:56:00 -
[630] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s AB Bonuses are BAD.I thought we went through this the last time with the Assault Frigates And just to sum up the thread; Leave the ******* Deimos as it is right now. If you need to make a change to it, give it more agility and stop ******* with it . And yet with the MWD bonus they are neither fast enough to speed tank nor small enough to sig tank. Also, this might be a legit issue. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
|
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:59:00 -
[631] - Quote
ZEALOT needs drones!!! What about Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 ???? Also it required more capacitor. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3122
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:05:00 -
[632] - Quote
Btw HACs needed more speed and EHP.
There's really no reason to fly a Deimos over a Proteus. Ishtar was worth flying instead of the Proteus, because it was more versatile. Was.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
83
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:10:00 -
[633] - Quote
I've posted modified data files for EFT containing new HACs + med turret changes here: http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?11380-Odyssey-Changes-Rebalanced-Navy-Cruisers-T1-Cruisers-%28and-EFT-files%29&p=748288&viewfull=1#post748288
My thoughts on it:
Sacrilege:
God, this is a sexy ship now. (Sadly, not sexy enough to dethrone Legions though.)
The five medium drones provide either extra DPS OR some ECM, the extra grid makes it a lot easier to do HAM fits with a plate, and it's a hair more mobile. And it retains its option high. The capacitor, which was already ridiculously good, is now even better. I'd almost say that this is the new Deimos.
The HML bonus is a cute idea, but it's ultimately not useful -- the total DPS for an HML fit with 3x BCS goes up from 250dps to 300dps. This isn't enough to matter at either small gang or fleet sizes. HAMs or GTFO.
Unfortunately, as good as the Sacri's tank is, it's still not good enough for fleet work. The HAM Legion will still probably dominate fleets -- in large gang for its tank, and in small gang for its massive neut bonus (i.e. Rote's Heropig comp).
Zealot:
Not much has changed. It's still cheap and decent en masse for small-to-medium gang. Large fleets will still prefer the Legion due to its superior tank. Soloers will continue to skip on it due to its lack of drones, lack of option high, and only three mids.
About the only thing of note is that the Shield Beam Zealot does a little more alpha now -- however, it's actually worse at blapping frigs due to the tracking nerf. (And as far as I know, that was the only role that this fit was currently serving.)
Cerb:
It's interesting, but the changes are ultimately ineffectual. No reason to use it over a Tengu, save for cost.
The extra launcher gives it some real DPS (with CN ammo: 425 @ 140km with HMLs, 590 @ 45km with HAMs) -- about the same as a five-launcher Tengu. The addition of three light drones is nice, I suppose. However, the tank is still thin as hell -- 40k EHP for a single-LSE MWD kiting fit, 50k EHP for a double-LSE AB doctrine fit. The capacitor is still an issue too; an MWD kiting fit can only burn around for about one minute nonstop. Soloers might get a kick out of it, but I suspect that small fleets will continue to prefer skirmish-range turret ships, and large fleets will continue to prefer the Tengu for its additional tank and higher DPS.
Eagle:
First big WTF in this list.
First off, they've killed the Beagle. Dead in the water, it's done. It already was kinda iffy with no drones, but now that it has no neut or nos, it's absolutely done.
So, let's talk rail fits. First off, it's grid ****** -- can't fit a full rack of 250mm guns without a ACR or PDS. (PDS ends up being ideal -- the added ROF on medium rails means increased cap draw, and the Eagle's cap was already ****** before the changes.) From there, one asks -- what is this ship's role? It's certainly not alpha. With the biggest medium rails and 3x MFSes, you're putting down 1400 alpha with CNAM at 50km. So Eagle is certainly not a frig-swatter.
As far as I can tell, the ideal for the new Eagle is to be a 60-70km skirmisher. Fit a MWD, double LSE, double invuln, load up Thorium, and put out ~375dps per ship at 70-80km, with better tank and effective tracking than a Naga/Rokh but half the damage.
Frankly, though, I don't buy it. Ultimately, given the isk and SP cost for an Eagle, you are ultimately better off getting a Tornado, Talos, or Naga. Yes, these ships have worse tracking due to the increased target signature (400m vs 125m). But, what is the shape of the field when you're fighting a skirmishing fleet? Skirmishers are kiting -- they're pulsing MWD to maintain 70km distance and drawing their enemy out behind them. Transversals in a skirmishing fleet are intentionally kept minimal. Look at the wrecks left behind on the field whenever skirmishers fight -- you can draw a line straight through them.
Ultimately, the constraints of FCing mean that tracking really isn't an issue for skirmishing fleets in practical use. As long as this is the case, the T3 BCs are going to continue to wipe the floor with comparable medium-turret ships. Especially in the case of the Eagle, which struggles to remain capstable while kiting, and has to use Thorium to reach out to skirmish range. "But the Eagle tracks better" is an argument that is both A) true, and B) irrelevant to Eve reality.
Deimos:
RISE, WHY ARE YOU DESTROYING MY FAVORITE SHIPS. :(
So, it's a little bit faster now. It gains a fourth mid, but loses the option high. What does this get us?
First off, blaster deimos is a little more hairy. It continues to be grid-******, so you struggle to fit a 1600mm plate + prop mod + ions. The option slot loss makes armor setups a lot less useful: * With no medium neut, it's a lot less useful to gangs. * With no medium nos to help counteract neuts / run MAARs, it's a lot less useful to soloers -- and you don't have the grid for a medium injector unless you switch to an 800mm plate and/or electrons.
In theory, you can use the fourth mid for a double-LSE shield blaster boat. This is pretty sexy, other than the fact that you have a 0% EM shield resist (i.e. two T2 anti-em rigs are mandatory) and you're instantly dead in the water if you get neuted.
Shield rail deimoses are viable now, but the medium rail tracking nerf, plus the fact that the Deimos has no tracking bonus, makes them unlikely. On TQ today, you can fit up a 250mm rail Deimos and orbit at 20km, and you won't be able to hit a stationary target; the tracking nerf to medium rails will only make that worse.
Armor rail deimoses will require two ACRs. Not even thinking about it. |
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
83
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:11:00 -
[634] - Quote
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
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
83
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:13:00 -
[635] - Quote
As for the Vagabond:
PART I: F**K YOUR TANK BONUS
First off, the Vaga's worse for conventional tackling than it was before. They didn't fully roll the speed bonus in.
Old Vagabond: 239m/s base + (0.05 * 5) = 298.75m/s New Vagabond: 290m/s
It's a ~100m/s loss under MWD -- from 2746m/s to 2665m/s. On top of that, the cap is a tiny hair weaker.
PART II: BRINGING BACK (DYING WHILE TRYING TO) SOLO
I took Kovorix's old dualprop vaga fit -- add a Standard Bluepill, and pray you don't get the shield-hp or tracking penalties. (If you do, just dock up and come back to Eve in an hour, because this ship needs both.)
Buffer: 13k EHP with a big explosive hole. (78/65/63/56). Active tank: 1222dps. Boosts 1778 raw HP per cycle, which is about 75% of your raw shield HP.
It's, to say the least, a knife-edge. Your shield buffer is 6.2k EHP, so realistically, you're repping 5K of pre-resist damage every 4 seconds. It has the same problem as the Kovorix vaga: you have to worry about someone bleeding into your armor with some off-cadence DPS. Except, it's now a little worse, because if you hit your XLASB any earlier than 25% shield, you're wasting the bonus.
So, it's a ridiculously knife-edge tank, and one that you can run for ~50 seconds before you hit your reload -- at which point, you collapse like a flan in a cupboard. And trust me, you'll need that full 50 seconds: the Kovorix vaga can only pack D180mm ACs with two Gyros, so you're putting out 400-500dps max at 500m.
VARIATIONS ON SUICIDE
Can we do anything else? We've got four mid slots. We don't have the cap to run a normal XLSB, even with a medium injector. That means that we only really have three possible layouts that use the active tank bonus:
1) Dualprop, scram, XLASB. (Kovorix fit)
See above.
2) Single prop mod, scram, DG or deadspace LSB, med injector. 2x T2 resist rigs to patch kin/exp holes.
This is capstable as long as you have injector charges... but it only tanks 475dps overheated. And a medium nos (even a faction or deadspace one) isn't sufficient to keep a DG LSB, so we can't swap out the injector for an invuln. It's just not enough mitigation. Rejected.
3) Single prop mod, scram, XLASB, and LSE or invuln
This has some minor potential... but not enough.
If you take an LSE instead of the dualprop, that bumps your buffer up to 20k EHP and allows you to drop to 50% instead of 25% instead... but it's still the same pile of bones in the end. You've got moderate close-range DPS at best, you boost like a madman for 50 seconds, and if the target isn't dead by then, you die. (If there's a single Tornado on the field, or more than 1500dps on the field, then you just proceed straight to dying, do not pass go, do not upload to youtube.)
If you go to Invuln, you need a 3% cpu implant; your buffer goes up to 15k EHP, and your effective tank with bluepill starts approaching 1900dps. However, you're still vulnerable to alpha or to high enough DPS.
Plus, with both of the above variations, you're giving up dualprop for that extra tank, so you have less non-tank mitigation. Either you fit AB (in which case you can't reapproach gate or rush into scram range), or you fit MWD (in which case, once you apply scram, you can't sigtank).
It just doesn't work, unless you're doing 1v1s with someone in a same-size or larger ship. There's a reason that Kovorix stopped flying his dualprop ASB vagas once they nerfed XLASBs.
As an aside: Any XLASB Vagabond needs to be compared with a Cyclone. The Cyclone's cheaper, has five mids (meaning more tactical options for tank and tackle), has a lot more buffer, has two option highs and the grid to use them, and it has more DPS that isn't tracking-sensitive.
PART III: THE ELEPHANTITIS IN THE ROOM
If the active tanks fits all suck... in theory, it's still a viable heavy tackler. Except: did they do anything to the Vagabond to make it compare favorably with the Cynabal?
NOPE.
Cynabals are 200M. Vagabonds are 165M.
Forget PL and URINE, because Cynabals are the REAL Kings of Lowsec.[/quote] |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1670
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:18:00 -
[636] - Quote
Stop calling the Sac the new Deimos, the Deimos sucks, I dont care if 3 guys get 1 or 2 good solo fights out of them a year its a trash ship relegated to the gutter and literally called the DIEmos for a reason.
Why do people (not just you) keep calling it the new Diemos like thats a good thing, its not, stop it. |
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
87
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:22:00 -
[637] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Stop calling the Sac the new Deimos, the Deimos sucks, I dont care if 3 guys get 1 or 2 good solo fights out of them a year its a trash ship relegated to the gutter and literally called the DIEmos for a reason.
Why do people (not just you) keep calling it the new Diemos like thats a good thing, its not, stop it. It went from "lol why are you flying that" to "slightly suboptimal."
Don't get me wrong: I would be shocked if anyone seriously flew any of the new HACs. The changes will do nothing to make these ships relevant. But I'm trying to be constructive here -- and the Sacrilege changes, no matter how insufficient, are at least a step in the right direction.
(Unlike the Vagabond changes, which are just mind-boggling.) |
Arushia
Nova Labs New Eden Research.
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:24:00 -
[638] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
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
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145
And it's still inferior to the Gila in almost every way. Ishtar wastes a bonus slot to get a 375m3 drone bay. Gila has a 400m3 drone bay built in. Ishtar gets a built-in drone link augmentor II. Gila has an accessory high so it can fit a drone link augmentor II. Gila has a tank bonus. Ishtar has none.
If anything, build the ridiculous drone bay size bonus into the hull, and give it a rep bonus, as well as +1 low, -1mid so it can fit a decent armor tank and drone damage amps.
I want to fly an Ishtar over the Gila for its sexy paint job, but without real buffs I have a hard time seeing why I should switch.
Tired of lab queues in high-sec? Check out New Eden Research |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
423
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:25:00 -
[639] - Quote
This mwd role bonus is so silly.These are not AC-s where you can run your mwd nonstop and sigtank nearly every enemy as you orbit between scam and point range. What ships would use it out other than the vaga and maybe sac? The role bonus contradicts with its name,as it doesnt help hacs to do their role,btw what is their role ?:O Probably Im not the only one who have no idea what these ships general role is as they are so different.
So this role bonus only helps the vaga which was one of the best hac to begin with besides zealot the other hacs are so crappy atm. And the overpowered cynabal is the reason why people dont use the vaga, cause cynabal does everything just a little better at the same price range. Except super em resist for some very niche role.
The others HACs kite from longer ranges or just goes into scram range where they cant rely on mwd running all the time. Why give hac-s a role bonus which only helps 1-2 hacs in their jobs and just marginally good for the others?
Imho just find a different role bonus for HACs , or just drop the idea of the role bonus and give each one a different treatment. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1670
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:30:00 -
[640] - Quote
Namamai wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Stop calling the Sac the new Deimos, the Deimos sucks, I dont care if 3 guys get 1 or 2 good solo fights out of them a year its a trash ship relegated to the gutter and literally called the DIEmos for a reason.
Why do people (not just you) keep calling it the new Diemos like thats a good thing, its not, stop it. It went from "lol why are you flying that" to "slightly suboptimal." Don't get me wrong: I would be shocked if anyone seriously flew any of the new HACs. The changes will do nothing to make these ships relevant. But I'm trying to be constructive here -- and the Sacrilege changes, no matter how insufficient, are at least a step in the right direction. (Unlike the Vagabond changes, which are just mind-boggling.)
Its super insulting that they're calling these balance passes. The Sac was my first hac, i spent billions fitting one out back when the Nano Sac was the unloved king of the sky, its still to this day my favorite ship in EVE, I even ran around in dual rep armor sacs for a while after the change, but its just not got that hitting power to kill things off.
Sadly my next favorite ship is the Pilgrim, and I'm absolutely terrified about how they might 'improve' it after these things were posted.
|
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1670
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:31:00 -
[641] - Quote
Also all this talk about how the Gila is better than an Ishtar just means they'll nerf the hell out of it when they do the pirate ship balance pass.
So i'd stop. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Paragon Blitz
543
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:35:00 -
[642] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote: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.
Sentries are worthless at close range.
Which is where I personally like to use an Ishtar. Burn close, double web, overheat guns (if against a player, otherwise just shoot) and sick five Ogre 2's on the target. Kill them before their backup arrives.
I understand there are other ways to use the Ishtar as a medium-long range sentry sniper platform and that these changes make it better at that niche. However, the Navy Vexor fills that role perfectly too.
An enemy is just a friend that you stab in the front. |
Goran Konjich
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
62
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:39:00 -
[643] - Quote
Damn. You killed Ishtar. Where should i complain ?
Also you obviously forgot +30 cpu on "almost forgotten" Ishtar.
C'mon CCP you can do it better i know. I'm a diplomat. Sometimes i throw 425mm wide briefcases at enemy. Such is EVE. |
Ciba Lexlulu
Stay Frosty.
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:46:00 -
[644] - Quote
Roime wrote:Btw HACs needed more speed and EHP.
There's really no reason to fly a Deimos over a Proteus. Ishtar was worth flying instead of the Proteus, because it was more versatile. Was.
Hmm ... wait until they decide to nerf all T3s to death... you may be forced to fly Diemost.. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3124
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 06:54:00 -
[645] - Quote
Ciba Lexlulu wrote:Roime wrote:Btw HACs needed more speed and EHP.
There's really no reason to fly a Deimos over a Proteus. Ishtar was worth flying instead of the Proteus, because it was more versatile. Was.
Hmm ... wait until they decide to nerf all T3s to death... you may be forced to fly Diemost..
Did you mean Navy Exeq? Because it's faster, more agile, better sensors and does more damage with equal tank while being cheaper.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
72
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 07:01:00 -
[646] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:NorthCrossroad wrote:Think that Sacrilege does need some additional work, but it's not about with cap bonus. Actually resist bonus with cap bonus create a very nice and unique solo machine. The problem with sac is in the DPS - it can't kill stuff quickly enough. So maybe a little bigger damage bonus - like 7.5% per level will make it viable. The drone bay will help with this. However, I will again post what I believe the best solution to the Sacrilege's problems are: in addition to the current changes, give the Sacrilege a 5/4/6 slot layout, a 10% damage bonus, and 4 launchers. It wil lose a small amount of native damage, but gain much-needed fitting flexibility and utility. I think this would give the Sacrilege a whole new lease on life. Well those drones are more or less laughable. Usually for solo you'll carry 2 sets of lights, so DPS increase is really small in fact.
North
|
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 07:17:00 -
[647] - Quote
Ciba Lexlulu wrote:
Hmm ... wait until they decide to nerf all T3s to death... you may be forced to fly Diemost..
i think we'll all stick to Thoraxes and Ruptures after that
|
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
213
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 07:36:00 -
[648] - Quote
I honestly think the new cerb is pretty good for the people that do caracal and tengu fleets. The increased range on heavy assault missiles (68 km javs, 45 km normal) and the same damage as a 5 launcher tengu may make this ship a competitor as a doctrine ship. I scratched out a quick fit today, and if I didn't mess my math up I figured that it can go all tech II as a HAM/AB fit except for 2x meta 4 LSE's.
It all depends on if that extra ~22km on jav heavy assault missiles is worth it. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3125
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 07:40:00 -
[649] - Quote
Quote:DEIMOS:
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531)
It was widely accepted that Deimos had way too much tank, earning it the nickname "Everlast", I'm very happy to see this defect addressed.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1671
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 07:40:00 -
[650] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:I honestly think the new cerb is pretty good for the people that do caracal and tengu fleets. The increased range on heavy assault missiles (68 km javs, 45 km normal) and the same damage as a 5 launcher tengu may make this ship a competitor as a doctrine ship. I scratched out a quick fit today, and if I didn't mess my math up I figured that it can go all tech II as a HAM/AB fit except for 2x meta 4 LSE's.
It all depends on if that extra ~22km on jav heavy assault missiles is worth it.
Just so you understand what you're suggesting, an AB HAM Cerb and an AB HAM Caracal are separated by 3 m/s, 19khp, and a little under 200 dps.
For that staggering increase in power (<-this is sarcasm) you pay 15x the cost of the Caracal.
Oh, and for 200 million more and less training time, you could just buy a Tengu which outclasses the Cerb in EVERY SINGLE WAY.
|
|
Ja'ho sun
puyg
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 07:43:00 -
[651] - Quote
im glad to see the changes aren't to extreme. I was truly worried about how ccp was going to change the cerb when the hac change came around. I love the cerb as it is now and u just made it that much better with this buff.
it does however need a bit more PG since as it stands now it wont be able to use the 6th launcher without omg wtf pwn fitting skills, which I am glad I have. thanks for the drones btw was hoping I would get those.
moving on to the sac. it does not push the dps it should with hams. it should at least push 475 dps (without drones as they really are wild card dps) with the tank to support it, which it seems to have. the cap bonus is very nice on active tank setups, but again, it lacks the dps. plz change the dps output.
Ishtar is a lovely ship.with the buff u have given so far it will indeed apply dps better. although it would be nice to have the base 375 m3 drone bay and the 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level skill bonus replaced. 7.5% rep amount would be awesome. I understand not giving it the speed bonus to drones as it would step over the VNI. the drop in speed for the Ishtar was not needed, put it back, its an armor tank so the ships is not the fastest to begin with. fitting wise it needs more PG and CPU the ship is VERY tight.
munin needs a mid slot, not a low slot.
the vaga would get more from a 5 mid WITHOUT the shield booster bonus 4 slots are not enough to tank it and 5 slots are steping into the slieps tank domain. that will make it OP. don't really fly the ship but I can tell u for sure its not an active brawler. ppl just fit it active to tank better at range, as its a kiting ship. however I do like the idea of active tank bonus.
its going to be fun to see wat these ships can do when they hit SISI. looking forward to it. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
5488
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 07:58:00 -
[652] - Quote
@OP You couldn't fit a great drone Ishtar even if you used small guns, so I would personally gladly trade another high or the turret slots for more fitting space, since currently you don't have the fitting to put anything decent there anyway.
Namamai wrote:
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.
There should definitely be creeping fear rising in T3 users right about now. In the new ship balance plan T2 ships are supposed to perform better in their areas of specialization then T3s. T3 users could previously still tell themselves their ships won't get nerfed by clinging to the hope, that the T2 rebalance will make ships like HACs significantly more powerful, so T3 abilities will seem more balanced in comparison. After seeing the actual T2 changes come to light they should be starting to sweat liquid fear, since there is still no performance reasons to use the buffed T2s compared to existing T3s.
|
light heaven
JUST SET TIMES
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 08:02:00 -
[653] - Quote
DEIMOS:
move a slot from high to med and reduce armor and hull, but increase shields. Buffed med railgun about 35% DPS
Ok I see shield tank railgun deimos would be nice choice for current changes. Now I know it is right gallent style warfare which means to use Caldari attack and defend weapons! |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3126
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 08:10:00 -
[654] - Quote
light heaven wrote:DEIMOS:
move a slot from high to med and reduce armor and hull, but increase shields. Buffed med railgun about 35% DPS
Ok I see shield tank railgun deimos would be nice choice for current changes. Now I know it is right gallent style warfare which means to use Caldari attack and defend weapons!
Why fix armor tanking brawlers when you just go with the shield kiting flow and avoid all the hard things.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Ciba Lexlulu
Stay Frosty.
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 08:13:00 -
[655] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: Oh, and for 200 million more and less training time, you could just buy a Tengu which outclasses the Cerb in EVERY SINGLE WAY.
No worries.. after they nerf Tengu to no better than Caracal (+1000x the price) .. you will thank CCP that you have the 'new' Cerberus... |
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
234
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 08:14:00 -
[656] - Quote
Drone bay on the ishtar....why is that still a thing? This is a relic from before bandwidth existed....it was a much better bonus back then.
Just go the way of the vaga and its speed nerf....fold the drone bay bonus into the hull and put something useful there. Also, drone speed added into the optimal/tracking bonus is a no-brainer, why was this not done? Giving it bonuses for sentries only is like giving a ship bonuses for artillery, but not autocannons...I mean wtf? thhief ghabmoef |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
613
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 08:23:00 -
[657] - Quote
Quote: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
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Now, I have been happy with and defended every balance pass since the beginning of tiercide, but this is just wrong.
You built the speed bonus of the Vagabond into the hull, but the Ishtar still has a dronebay bonus? - Replace it with a 5% drone MWD speed bonus and give 375m-¦ base dronebay.
Operation range is sort of strange as well, and I think it creates a problem you are trying to limit by keeping the low CPU; 1000 dps, 250mm Railgun, Garde II snipers. - We have drone range highslot modules! If we want to snipe, make us have to use those and limit our dps that way! Maybe reduce the range bonus on that module so we have to fit more of them as well. But what to put there instead of this bonus? Hmm... What about -5% Heavy and Medium drone mass? At least Ogre's are slow as crap, even with a speedboost. Mass reduction would help them even more with this issue. Light drones can't handle more speed, and I'm not sure about the power of that much speed on mediums, but heavies should get some speed love. |
Lugia3
Pirates Incorporated
466
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 08:31:00 -
[658] - Quote
Sacrilege will be left in the dust, and the Muninn is still crap.
Other than that, the improved Vagabond looks badass. Yarr |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 08:54:00 -
[659] - Quote
The Sacrilege needs more DPS output, besides the change to HML (that will solve the range problem but will agravate the DPS one) a solution would be add a 6th laucher to be on pair with the other hacs out there. On the trade off reduce the drone bandwit from the proposed 50 to 25.
Lets be honest you are proposing 6 lauchers to the cerberus that will have the the hability to kite the damage. The sacrilege will not have that hability but it will have the armor bonus , but again misses the 6th launcher. |
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
90
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 08:58:00 -
[660] - Quote
One more rant:
---
The main issue I have with the MWD role bonus for HACs is that the Eve tracking equation is a game of thresholds.
Any given size of gun is going to have a target signature resolution: * 40m for small turrets * 125m for medium turrets * 400m for large turrets
If the target's signature radius exactly equals that resolution, your chance-to-hit is directly proportional to angular velocity divided by tracking speed. If your sig radius is larger than the gun's resolution, the chance-to-hit increases exponentially -- e.g. transversal gives less damage mitigation than usual. If your sig radius is smaller than the gun's resolution, the chance-to-hit decreases exponential -- e.g. transversal gives more damage mitigation than usual.
The AF role bonus is useful because it straddles the resolution of medium turrets. * A normal frigate with its MWD on has 200-225m sig radius -- well above the target resolution for a medium gun. Med guns will track it slightly better than expected for a given transversal velocity. * An assault frigate with its MWD on has 100-130m sig radius -- below or equal to the target resolution. Med guns will track them worse than expected.
In general, AFs are more successful at upengaging than a comparable T1 frigate. But how about HACs? Do they straddle the sig resolution of a large turret (400m)? * A prepatch AHAC has a 750-950m signature with its MWD on. * A postpatch AHAC has a 440-575m signature with its MWD on.
Despite the bonus, the sig is still big enough that large turrets will have better-than-expected results at tracking an MWDing HAC. (And certainly, medium turrets will have no trouble whatsoever hitting it.)
It's the lack of "straddling" that makes the proposed HAC role bonus of marginal value. Their immediate competition (Naga/Talos/Tornado) will have no problem hitting them despite the HAC bonus. If the role bonus is to be meaningful, it must be strong enough to bring the sig radius significantly below 400m.
Better yet, abandon it, and come up with role bonuses that are actually useful to people who don't have time to research the dark corners of Eve's chance-to-hit / quality-of-hit equation. There's a reason that DND abandoned THAC0. |
|
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
33
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:01:00 -
[661] - Quote
Yeah the Sac is actually nerf'd. Loses 1% resistance and gaining useless HMLs when its designed as a close range heavy tackle. Drone bay is nice but it needs something else. Explosion velocity maybe (like the Heretic to stick with Khanid), small EHP bonus (like Damnation but less), small rep bonus (probably be OP tbh), 6th launcher?
I'm not sure but I agree it wont be enough. |
Dread Operative
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:03:00 -
[662] - Quote
I wonder if anyone at CCP actually HAS EFT? They must not with these "buffs".... |
Jori McKie
Friends Of Harassment
80
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:11:00 -
[663] - Quote
I have to agree with Grath and Malcanis on every post they made in this topic. The current perfomance/price ratio of any HAC is utterly bad in comparison to T1 Cruiser and their navy variants.
I like the idea of a unique bonus for HACs but the 50% sig bonus while MWDing isn't cutting it. Sure it's nice to have it on some occasions (real 1v1) but in any skirmish fleet fights the transversal/angular is negligible and the sig bonus has no usefulness at all.
What i would like to see is a bonus against ECCM (Falcons, etc) or E-War in general. Make the HACs unique in a way they can withstand ECCM to a certain degree or even deflect it back. I can gurantee noone would care then if the HACs perfomance/price ratio is bad, anybody would happily trade it for a better chance not to be jammed. |
Crysantos Callahan
EntroPrelatial Industria Here Be Dragons
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:11:00 -
[664] - Quote
I like the changes, although I'd love to see a speed bonus for ab instead of mwd, two posts above me describe the issue with the mwd and large turrets ;)
If you're at it, I have 2 major points I'd like to see changed - first of all the HAC skills prerequisite to have energy grid upgrades to 5... why? Can't you do something more useful for players, like AWU, Signal Analysis or something like that. It's just weird that this postpones your HAC times a lot with no reason to ever fit energy upgrades on the ahac anyway.
The second thing is, please give it a 3rd rig slot. Why should the HAC have one less compared to T1/faction cruisers?
P.S.: The Ishtar could use more CPU, I like the "new" muninn :) |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
630
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:14:00 -
[665] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:I honestly think the new cerb is pretty good for the people that do caracal and tengu fleets. The increased range on heavy assault missiles (68 km javs, 45 km normal) and the same damage as a 5 launcher tengu may make this ship a competitor as a doctrine ship. I scratched out a quick fit today, and if I didn't mess my math up I figured that it can go all tech II as a HAM/AB fit except for 2x meta 4 LSE's.
It all depends on if that extra ~22km on jav heavy assault missiles is worth it. Just so you understand what you're suggesting, an AB HAM Cerb and an AB HAM Caracal are separated by 3 m/s, 19khp, and a little under 200 dps. For that staggering increase in power (<-this is sarcasm) you pay 15x the cost of the Caracal. Oh, and for 200 million more and less training time, you could just buy a Tengu which outclasses the Cerb in EVERY SINGLE WAY.
its ok the tech3 balance will soon screw the tengu over anyhow OMG when can i get a pic here
|
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:24:00 -
[666] - Quote
Give sacra another low, replace cap recharge bonus with armor rep bonus or 5% damage to all missiles per lvl? |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
733
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:25:00 -
[667] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:....ZEALOT - Zealot is arguably the most functional currently of the entire group and so it gets the least change.... In AHAC blobs only, since when did CCP adopt blobby gameplay as the baseline for balancing? .. just askin'
Take a Zealot out solo or in small numbers without access to unlimited reps and links out the wazoo and it is suddenly so far below par that one is better off using something, anything, else. - Give it 25m3 drones and be done with it .. either that or tweak it so it can have a 4th mid or tracking bonus. The reason for the above is its complete lack of fight control making the paper its DPS is written on soggy like used diapers.
Sacrilege looks good .. until one sees the Cerberus ... hahahahaha. That thing will be broken beyond belief, doubly so when you get around to sorting eWar and TP's get their renaissance. Fifty kilometer HAM spam with super speed missiles doing in excess of 500 dps (TP's, remember?), now add the capless ASB .. what could possibly go wrong .. - Increase Sacrilege damage bonus to 7.5% or go Khanid on its ass with a base cap boost and replacing recharge with neut/not amount
Rest are about the same, better due to laxer fittings and improved medium guns .. Muninn will be tasty as either Arty sniper or Auto slugger which is good.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10905
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:29:00 -
[668] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:CCP Rise wrote:....ZEALOT - Zealot is arguably the most functional currently of the entire group and so it gets the least change.... In AHAC blobs only, since when did CCP adopt blobby gameplay as the baseline for balancing? .. just askin' Take a Zealot out solo or in small numbers without access to unlimited reps and links out the wazoo and it is suddenly so far below par that one is better off using something, anything, else. - Give it 25m3 drones and be done with it .. either that or tweak it so it can have a 4th mid or tracking bonus. The reason for the above is its complete lack of fight control making the paper its DPS is written on soggy like used diapers. Sacrilege looks good .. until one sees the Cerberus ... hahahahaha. That thing will be broken beyond belief, doubly so when you get around to sorting eWar and TP's get their renaissance. Fifty kilometer HAM spam with super speed missiles doing in excess of 500 dps (TP's, remember?), now add the capless ASB .. what could possibly go wrong .. - Increase Sacrilege damage bonus to 7.5% or go Khanid on its ass with a base cap boost and replacing recharge with neut/not amount Rest are about the same, better due to laxer fittings and improved medium guns .. Muninn will be tasty as either Arty sniper or Auto slugger which is good.
Don't forget that the (beam) zealot just got a 20% DPS buff.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
33
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:35:00 -
[669] - Quote
raawe wrote:Give sacra another low, replace cap recharge bonus with armor rep bonus or 5% damage to all missiles per lvl? Even just to EM missiles. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:36:00 -
[670] - Quote
Mr Doctor wrote:raawe wrote:Give sacra another low, replace cap recharge bonus with armor rep bonus or 5% damage to all missiles per lvl? Even just to EM missiles.
Caldari usually got 10% bonus to only kinetic, legion has 5% to all damage types, as for sacra even 2-3% damage per level would be good |
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
561
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:39:00 -
[671] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Don't forget that the (beam) zealot just got a 20% DPS buff.
Oh good, I'm glad we've upgraded from "causes a slight tickling sensation in the fingertips" to "mild discomfort" levels of damage. You CSM guys are real heroes, convincing CCP to give us these massive buffs. |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:42:00 -
[672] - Quote
When you going to adjust phantasm? TBH this ship have grate hull - but it is useless.
Phantasm
I know that this never happen - but allowing this ship to fit covert ops cloaking device would be grate - you could make your own incursion :) Or better - bonus to speed in cloack like BO , and give it a 3LY jump range and fuel bay.
Player made incursions here we come!
- |
Crysantos Callahan
EntroPrelatial Industria Here Be Dragons
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:43:00 -
[673] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:[quote=CCP Rise].......
Don't forget that the (beam) zealot just got a 20% DPS buff.
Wow, which will make the Beamalot... still bad. Pulses just work way better, I can't imagine to see either a beamalot gang or even a solo zealot with that. Another mid slot, a drone bay, etc. would work way better for it (or what it should do) - every other hac will work way better on range than the zealot.
And I still vote for an ab bonus ;)
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
502
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:44:00 -
[674] - Quote
290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? G££ <= Me |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
423
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:44:00 -
[675] - Quote
Crysantos Callahan wrote:Malcanis wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:[quote=CCP Rise].......
Don't forget that the (beam) zealot just got a 20% DPS buff. Wow, which will make the Beamalot... still bad. Pulses just work way better, I can't imagine to see either a beamalot gang or even a solo zealot with that. Another mid slot, a drone bay, etc. would work way better for it (or what it should do) - every other hac will work way better on range than the zealot. And I still vote for an ab bonus ;) just remove role bonus and give them +1 mid or low slots + some fitting |
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:47:00 -
[676] - Quote
Quote: SACRILEGE - Highlights here would be the increased drone bay, increased PG, and the addition of HML to the Cruiser damage bonus. Hopefully the result is a ship that can more comfortably fulfill its heavy tackle/utility HAC role without sacrificing quite as much as it used to when compared to combat BCs or other HACs. We concede that the cap recharge bonus is a bit strange, but feel the ship actually doesn't need another standard bonus like damage application or range to make it work.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (added heavy missiles) 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+120), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2100(+12) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount) : 1650(+25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 200(+2) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 15 Radar Signature radius: 140
look interesting but, why to keep the 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time bonus.
Perhaps change this bonus to something more interesting, if you would like to make this ship in close range. Had some bonus on the neutralizer (last high slot). |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1307
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:49:00 -
[677] - Quote
Is odyssey 1.1 a special exception CCP Rise, or can we expect to see a round 2 of all your future balance threads? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:52:00 -
[678] - Quote
now it can barely fit small neut, adding bonus to it means you will need to lose some tank/damage to make room for medium one. I still vote for missile damage or rep bonus, but something still needs to be changed. Drones are nice addition but will not make this ship any better then it's now (sacra) |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
709
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 09:58:00 -
[679] - Quote
Instead of repeating what most have said so far, crying or screaming at you CCP Rise, I will leave this here for you to think about:
Quote:If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
GÇò W.C. Fields
Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-) |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Yulai Federation
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 10:23:00 -
[680] - Quote
VAGABOND - Like with the Stabber, we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus.
You know that this one is a blanked change, because you have absolutely no idea what to do with that bonus-slot? The vagabond never ever been an actively tanked ship, and giving it an active tank bonus is just terribad. Please check out actually what that ship is good for, what are its usecases, and find an actually useful bonus. This shield boost is just horrible. |
|
Robotic Lincoln
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 10:26:00 -
[681] - Quote
Please reconsider the shield boost bonus to the vagabond. Unlike many of the HACs, the vagabond had a niche already, but it was squeezed out of it by better ships. A bonus which allows it to become competitive again in its old role - tracking would be lovely - would be vastly better than something which (poorly) nudges it into a new role. More generally, Minmatar and Gallente pilots are developing Active Tanking Fatigue; it's more fun to choose from the range of tanking options than to have your ship's bonuses make the decision for you. I understand the argument for SOME ships having these bonuses. But for pity's sake, please not the vagabond.
You guys have done a great job with the balancing project overall, but iconic ships should remain what they are. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 10:27:00 -
[682] - Quote
Magic Crisp wrote:VAGABOND - Like with the Stabber, we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus.
You know that this one is a blanked change, because you have absolutely no idea what to do with that bonus-slot? The vagabond never ever been an actively tanked ship, and giving it an active tank bonus is just terribad. Please check out actually what that ship is good for, what are its usecases, and find an actually useful bonus. This shield boost is just horrible.
Shield resistance would make more sense 4% bonus per level or even tracking bonus. |
Bilaz
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 10:27:00 -
[683] - Quote
SACRILEGE does not benefit from large dronebay. drones are shiity damage system - too slow and unreliable unless using ecm. I think that 25 band with 50 dronebay would be super both for solo and for gang. BUT what it lacks is speed and more importanly - agility. how on earth an armor hac can be heavy tackler when it has no speed no agility and most likely would have plate and/or armor rigs?
Ok maybe i'm asking too much - dont make it as fast as other hacs but why not make it super-agile (compared to its super-slow state). Think of it as an alligator that can jump out of river and drag unsuspecting vagabong to the bottom of despair with its web, scram and hams, but unable to do harm if that jump failed and its a running contest. wouldnt that be interesting - something that such ship could be famous for? becouse now its much more boring than that when kiting armor-tanked folks.
As for heavy missile bonus - they are suboptimal now, so two-three years ago it would have been nice, now its "meh".
And how about third rig slot - t3 have it why not t2 (esp. since t1 got boost) ? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
442
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 10:27:00 -
[684] - Quote
Sorry if has been discussed. But I am at work and cannot read 33 pages.
FIrst, glad we are finally here .
Second.
Vagabond changes feel awkward. Shield boost with 4 mids feels too forced. Since the ship cannot fit a cap injector its basically forcing the ship into an ASB. And that raises HUGE CPU issues.
Anyway a shipo with a Shield boost bonus should NOT be 4 mids. That goes along with the effects of TE nerf last patch, now having lots of low slots is not so much useful for vaga.
Please consider +1 Mid -1 Low. Would make the vaga a more concise ship and help it to be the Fast brawler while keeping the speeding nuts role to the Cynabal.
IF I had made this rebalance I would have moved the falloff bonus to the CRUISER skill bonus. And the HAC skill woudl be something like 4% signature per level.
The others feel less awkward , and some even great like cerberus and deimos.
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1300
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 10:30:00 -
[685] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:@Alek How exactly is the new Eagle a better brawler? You're not gaining much hp, since you now need to fit an injector in that free mid instead of a nos.
You could use an injector or fit more more tackle or more tank. It increases the versatility. ABs, remote cap transfer, low cap ammo. The nos was not critical to the blaster eagle concept. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
442
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 10:37:00 -
[686] - Quote
Altrue wrote:290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ?
a Missile boat at vagabond level speed woudl be simply INSANE! |
David Kir
Tailender
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:01:00 -
[687] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Malcanis wrote: Don't forget that the (beam) zealot just got a 20% DPS buff.
Oh good, I'm glad we've upgraded from "causes a slight tickling sensation in the fingertips" to "mild discomfort" levels of damage. You CSM guys are real heroes, convincing CCP to give us these massive buffs.
If that's what you think about the Zealot, you damn sure shouldn't fly one. 400+ dps at any range below 40 km, instantly changeable ammo, 70+k ehp tank (sans links/boosters/environmental effects) with an awesome resist profile.
|
David Kir
Tailender
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:03:00 -
[688] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Altrue wrote:290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? a Missile boat at vagabond level speed woudl be simply INSANE!
We already have linked LM Condors stomping on everything else in FW, no more high speed missile boats please. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
442
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:04:00 -
[689] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:The Sacrilege needs more DPS output, besides the change to HML (that will solve the range problem but will agravate the DPS one) a solution would be add a 6th laucher to be on pair with the other hacs out there. On the trade off reduce the drone bandwit from the proposed 50 to 25.
Lets be honest you are proposing 6 lauchers to the cerberus that will have the the hability to kite the damage. The sacrilege will not have that hability but it will have the armor bonus , but again misses the 6th launcher.
The funny thing is.. Sacriledge that almost dont use cap.. has a cap bonus. While amarr laser boats... like apoc do not anymore :/
strange days we live in... |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:07:00 -
[690] - Quote
Alright, I did some EFTwarrioring today.
The Cerberus' grid is pretty low. 2x LSE fits are pretty much mandatory on cruiser-sized shield ships. It should be possible on the main shield HAC.
The Eagles' grid is a bit low too. A rack of Railguns + LSE needs a 3% PWG implant. Of course you can downgrade the railguns but then you lose 10km range.
The shield RailDeimos is interesting. It still needs a 3% PWG implant to fit even with meta 4 LSEs. You get a 22+32km range. A slight PWG bump would help the Deimos' case and wouldn't be a powercreep.
Regarding the Ishtar...well, CPU really is an issue. PWG isn't really optimal either.
The Sacrilege is good.
The blasterDeimos is ok too. But I still think the speed gap between the Vagabond's speed and the Deimos' speed is too large. The Deimos goes at 1.8km/s, the Vagabond goes at 2.4km/s. The Deimos should go at about 2.1km/s imo.
More feedback to come when I get back home. |
|
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:09:00 -
[691] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:DeadDuck wrote:The Sacrilege needs more DPS output, besides the change to HML (that will solve the range problem but will agravate the DPS one) a solution would be add a 6th laucher to be on pair with the other hacs out there. On the trade off reduce the drone bandwit from the proposed 50 to 25.
Lets be honest you are proposing 6 lauchers to the cerberus that will have the the hability to kite the damage. The sacrilege will not have that hability but it will have the armor bonus , but again misses the 6th launcher. The funny thing is.. Sacriledge that almost dont use cap.. has a cap bonus. While amarr laser boats... like apoc do not anymore :/ strange days we live in...
I only saw dual rep fits but cap recharge bonus is not that strong there. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:11:00 -
[692] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Alright, I did some EFTwarrioring today.
......
The Sacrilege is good.
......
What fit did you use? I always seem to miss some cpu
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
442
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:11:00 -
[693] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Alright, I did some EFTwarrioring today.
The Cerberus' grid is pretty low. 2x LSE fits are pretty much mandatory on cruiser-sized shield ships. It should be possible on the main shield HAC.
The Eagles' grid is a bit low too. A rack of Railguns + LSE needs a 3% PWG implant. Of course you can downgrade the railguns but then you lose 10km range.
The shield RailDeimos is interesting. It still needs a 3% PWG implant to fit even with meta 4 LSEs. You get a 22+32km range. A slight PWG bump would help the Deimos' case and wouldn't be a powercreep.
Regarding the Ishtar...well, CPU really is an issue. PWG isn't really optimal either.
The Sacrilege is good.
The blasterDeimos is ok too. But I still think the speed gap between the Vagabond's speed and the Deimos' speed is too large. The Deimos goes at 1.8km/s, the Vagabond goes at 2.4km/s. The Deimos should go at about 2.1km/s imo.
More feedback to come when I get back home.
Deimos DPS is WAYYYYYY larger than vagabond. It woudl need to loose DPS to get that extra speed. |
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:13:00 -
[694] - Quote
ISHTAR
The proposed changes make this easily the most overpowered subcapital for fleet fights that has been since the nano ages. It is a Dominix class focused damage projector with enough speed/sig to make it untouchable for anything except for other HACs, with damage projection unrivaled by the other HAC fleets. It can drop the assisted sentries in patterns that are not vulnerable to bombs thanks to the speed that allows wide distance between drone drops.
The only thing holding Ishtar back from complete dominance is CPU now. If the changes go live as is, CO-processors will see use. Buffing that CPU would be a mistake.
|
Perihelion Olenard
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:18:00 -
[695] - Quote
Prices of HACs begin to soar. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Regat Kozovv
Alcothology
29
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:19:00 -
[696] - Quote
With regards to HACs in a sniper role, would a bonus to scan resolution not be unreasonable? (in the place of the MWD bonus?)
Replacing speed bonus with the ability to get off the first shot (or shots) gives it a viable sniper role against small targets, and could quite possibly create a nice conflict pitting the skills of a fast tackler against the quick, long reach of a rapid-locking sniper.
Might be a direction to consider instead of the brawling/speeding angle. |
Naoru Kozan
The humbleless Crew
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:28:00 -
[697] - Quote
Guys, just because a ship fits an XLASB does not mean it has to brawl! Shocking I know.
The new Vaga looks interesting. But after having a play with it in EFT it is crying out for a tiny bit more CPU and power grid. The damage application feels rather weak since the TE nerf. Maybe boost the falloff bonus by a few % points?
Have to say overall the changes look good and actually have me excited about the prospect of flying HACs again |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1731
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:42:00 -
[698] - Quote
Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1308
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:46:00 -
[699] - Quote
Will drones as a whole ever see a balance pass? I am sure it makes it quite hard to try to balance drone ships with such a broken and neglected weapon system. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
David Kir
Tailender
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:51:00 -
[700] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Then please do so. Most of us do not really see where does the Eagle fit in, as well as many other HACs. |
|
The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:52:00 -
[701] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:DeadDuck wrote:The Sacrilege needs more DPS output, besides the change to HML (that will solve the range problem but will agravate the DPS one) a solution would be add a 6th laucher to be on pair with the other hacs out there. On the trade off reduce the drone bandwit from the proposed 50 to 25.
Lets be honest you are proposing 6 lauchers to the cerberus that will have the the hability to kite the damage. The sacrilege will not have that hability but it will have the armor bonus , but again misses the 6th launcher. The funny thing is.. Sacriledge that almost dont use cap.. has a cap bonus. While amarr laser boats... like apoc do not anymore :/ strange days we live in...
It was a massive active tanking laser ship a few years ago, basically a maller with twice the tank. I in general like the extreme good cap on the Sac, because it lets you run mwd, active tank or even 100mn AB fittings without the cap booster, what frees up a med slot, that most other hacs have to spend on a cap booster.
However as long as it overlaps the role of the HAM drake it will be not worth the cost, like posted a few pages ago, role in the cap bonus, give it 15-20% missile velocity for HAMs per level, remove the damage bonus for HMs, add a 6. launcher or a bit higher damage bonus(in exchange for the drones) and maybe make it a little faster(since it is very slow once you plate fit and armor rig it). It wasn't bad a HAM ship before the HAM range nerf, it just has no real role to fill what other ships can't fill cheaper and better currently. While tanky HAC with ok dps at 20-40km range might be not the most frequent to fill role in eve, but it was a lot better than close range hac with A no tank or B no dps. Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|
Akimo Heth
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:54:00 -
[702] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Shocking that a Gallente ship is the first to be looked at (judging from your previous post). Their BS's were immediately fixed in their tieracide while the other races went 100+ pages with no meaningful iteration. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
442
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:03:00 -
[703] - Quote
The same CPU issue will arise in the vagabond if you try to use the cap boost bonus.. |
The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:04:00 -
[704] - Quote
For clarification:
Sacrilege
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault Missile damage 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 15% velocity to Heavy Assault Missiles 7.5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+120), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2300(+212) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount)\Recharge : 1650(+25) / 214s(-54) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+17) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15 / 15 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 15 Radar Signature radius: 140
Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:05:00 -
[705] - Quote
Chessur wrote: Vagabond:
AC boats were already struggling. Then the TE nerf happened, and all AC boats took a nose dive when trying to apply damage outside of scram / web range. The vaga shares the same 10% increase in falloff as its stabber cousin, and just like the stabber cannot kite. Even though this is considered a kiting ship- its pathetic DPS at range means that it is outclassed by other ships. The MWD sig bonus makes sense here, and the vaga is certainly fast enough. However what I don't understand is the active tanking bonus. The vaga is a 'kiting' ship that according to you, should have the ability to get up close in scram / web and face ****. The active tanking bonus (while nice) is really going to shut down the vagas play style.
It seems that you are really encroaching on the SFI's world, of fast, hard tackle. In fact the vaga may do the job even better, so what would be the point of ever flying an SFI anymore? The idea of a 290m/s base speed cruiser with the ability to run a really powerful dual LASB tank with an MWD scram, is simply going to be a nightmare for any solo / small gang pilots. SFI's were annoying enough, but adding in a ship that has this nice speed, and a secondary tanking bonus is going to make this ship really, really difficult for players to fly against- as nothing can run from it.
ill quote myself here:
Kane Fenris wrote:the vaga is non contradictory ship as purposed.
id rather see it comepletly in the old role with pg for fitting for arty tracking instead of falloff so you can kite with its speed as before while useing arty to shred your opponent
and eventually some increase in longpoint (exclueding scram! so you cant use scram/acs for same purpose and abuse it) range about 20% would suffice but could easily be op so im not sure about that
when you make arty useable you should provide us with a ship to use it.
and dont tell me we have the munin for this... munin will suck if it does not get reinvented (not reworked!)
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
224
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:09:00 -
[706] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Chessur wrote: Vagabond:
AC boats were already struggling. Then the TE nerf happened, and all AC boats took a nose dive when trying to apply damage outside of scram / web range. The vaga shares the same 10% increase in falloff as its stabber cousin, and just like the stabber cannot kite. Even though this is considered a kiting ship- its pathetic DPS at range means that it is outclassed by other ships. The MWD sig bonus makes sense here, and the vaga is certainly fast enough. However what I don't understand is the active tanking bonus. The vaga is a 'kiting' ship that according to you, should have the ability to get up close in scram / web and face ****. The active tanking bonus (while nice) is really going to shut down the vagas play style.
It seems that you are really encroaching on the SFI's world, of fast, hard tackle. In fact the vaga may do the job even better, so what would be the point of ever flying an SFI anymore? The idea of a 290m/s base speed cruiser with the ability to run a really powerful dual LASB tank with an MWD scram, is simply going to be a nightmare for any solo / small gang pilots. SFI's were annoying enough, but adding in a ship that has this nice speed, and a secondary tanking bonus is going to make this ship really, really difficult for players to fly against- as nothing can run from it.
ill quote myself here: Kane Fenris wrote:the vaga is non contradictory ship as purposed.
id rather see it comepletly in the old role with pg for fitting for arty tracking instead of falloff so you can kite with its speed as before while useing arty to shred your opponent
and eventually some increase in longpoint (exclueding scram! so you cant use scram/acs for same purpose and abuse it) range about 20% would suffice but could easily be op so im not sure about that
when you make arty useable you should provide us with a ship to use it. and dont tell me we have the munin for this... munin will suck if it does not get reinvented (not reworked!)
While I agree that the Muninn isnt very good and the Vaga change is ****, making another Arty boat just because the current one is **** is derp, the Vaga should always be an AC boat, it just needs some improvement in that role. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:16:00 -
[707] - Quote
The Djego wrote:..... give it 15-20% missile velocity for HAMs per level, remove the damage bonus for HMs, add a 6. launcher or a bit higher damage bonus(in exchange for the drones) and maybe make it a little faster(since it is very slow once you plate fit and armor rig it). It wasn't bad a HAM ship before the HAM range nerf, it just has no real role to fill what other ships can't fill cheaper and better currently. While tanky HAC with ok dps at 20-40km range might be not the most frequent to fill role in eve, but it was a lot better than close range hac with A no tank or B no dps.
Not a bad suggestion actually.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
166
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:18:00 -
[708] - Quote
Add me to the chorus of folks calling for more CPU for the Ishtar. Apart from that, I like the changes to that ship. As someone with HAC V and all racial cruiser skills to V I am excited about these changes to one of my favorite ship classes. Not totally thrilled about the MWD dig radius bonus - I'd rather see a bonus to AB's. |
Kimentor
Bite Me inc Bitten.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:19:00 -
[709] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Sounds like an excellent time to do some remove-ECM balancing
#yolobalancing #ccprisingswag |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:20:00 -
[710] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Take your time imo. Your nightmares make me inclined to sleep very well, knowing now that Ishtar fitting will be reviewed.
I would love to read the high level strategy stuff as well - I always find it the most interesting of your folks posts on balancing. Thanks for all your hard work! |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
734
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:24:00 -
[711] - Quote
David Kir wrote:...400+ dps at any range below 40 km, instantly changeable ammo, 70+k ehp tank (sans links/boosters/environmental effects) with an awesome resist profile... And then you run into a frigate that knows just how bad HPII w. Scorch tracks and has a clue about approach .. or any ship with a spare mid (ie. essentially all non-Amarr hulls) with a TD .. or any ship with utility neut .. or ... (been there, done that .. on both sides of the fence )
Zealot is quite awesome provided it is allowed to do its thing without its numerous weak crippling-points being abused .. that is partly why it works so well in swarms, the individual ship has the chance to do what it does best, project hurt. Zealot remains one of, if not the, best balanced HAC as it has tremendous potential with massive holes for an enemy to exploit. But it should not be the only one with that kind of balance, either buff it to be level with the rest or introduce achilles heels on all the other hulls .. guess which will get the most traction around here. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
66
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:27:00 -
[712] - Quote
Akimo Heth wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info. Shocking that a Gallente ship is the first to be looked at (judging from your previous post). Their BS's were immediately fixed in their tieracide while the other races went 100+ pages with no meaningful iteration.
Cause the gallente boats were literally THAT BAD |
Capqu
Love Squad
163
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:37:00 -
[713] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
hi rise, can you confirm whether or not you intentionally removed light missiles from the 4th bonus on the cerb (assault & heavy missile flight time on TQ - this includes lights)
i don't think the cerby really needs a nerf http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Ral en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:40:00 -
[714] - Quote
Vagabond Dead... was fun wile it was usable. That's prior TE changes and Now THIS ...
After TE nerf, nor cynabal nor the vaga can be called a frig killer ... What are they good for then ?
Changes now: 7.5% shield boost bonus.??? Why? The one hac that has big cap problems when using MWD module, now gets Active Tank bonus... Active tanking vs ship that can take you out in two shots, its just not possible! (Talos anyone... ) I think it useless to put Active tanking bonuses on frigate and cruiser size ships at all.
Deimos MORE SPEED PLEASE
Can someone please explain to me the roles thing again... I just can not understand how T2 ship can be worse then it's T1 variant! Or maybe we should only use hacs with armor and AB, so we can use that extra resists.
I am disappointed ...
|
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
71
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:46:00 -
[715] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Typical CCP putting things off and not committing and breaking things! I demand an ice cube tray in my pod as compensation! *rabblerabblerabble*
(I thought this thread could use some more emo rage, fake as it is) CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty...
|
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:48:00 -
[716] - Quote
About sacrilege really i have try to make a lot of fitting but i really think this ship is not terrible.
It's no bad but also not good in all.
Perhaps to remove one high slot (turret slot and add one low), like deimos, or give to them some better sig or speed.
But now the tanking is not terrible, the dps very low or very short range the speed not very good and the sig a little high.
I believe you need to increase one this point (not all).
Personally i believe they can be a very nice short range ship .
But in this case you need to increase a little the speed to be near of the vagabbon. But you keep the bonus only on the heavy assult missile.
Quote: SACRILEGE - Highlights here would be the increased drone bay, increased PG, and the addition of HML to the Cruiser damage bonus. Hopefully the result is a ship that can more comfortably fulfill its heavy tackle/utility HAC role without sacrificing quite as much as it used to when compared to combat BCs or other HACs. We concede that the cap recharge bonus is a bit strange, but feel the ship actually doesn't need another standard bonus like damage application or range to make it work.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault Missile 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+120), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2100(+12) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount) : 1650(+25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250(+52) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 15 Radar Signature radius: 130
|
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:55:00 -
[717] - Quote
Altrue wrote:290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ?
^ This.
If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster.
Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1109
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:56:00 -
[718] - Quote
Arushia wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
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
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145
And it's still inferior to the Gila in almost every way. Ishtar wastes a bonus slot to get a 375m3 drone bay. Gila has a 400m3 drone bay built in. Ishtar gets a built-in drone link augmentor II. Gila has an accessory high so it can fit a drone link augmentor II. Gila has a tank bonus. Ishtar has none. If anything, build the ridiculous drone bay size bonus into the hull, and give it a rep bonus, as well as +1 low, -1mid so it can fit a decent armor tank and drone damage amps. I want to fly an Ishtar over the Gila for its sexy paint job, but without real buffs I have a hard time seeing why I should switch.
The Gila has not been nerfed..yet.
I have realized that these HAC's will start looking OK once CCP gets done trashing the pirate versions and the T3's. Which just means everyone will fly the vanilla or Navy versions.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:02:00 -
[719] - Quote
CCP Rise
Are there any manufacturer changes for these ships? Cerb should be kaalakoita it would look nice being black and red Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:04:00 -
[720] - Quote
Gnoshia wrote:Altrue wrote:290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? ^ This. If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster. Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty.
Indeed i think CCP need to give up the ghost on trying to not make them T2 attack cruisers .. yes you can keep the T1 attack cruisers as the faster option but you cannot handicap HACS with combat cruiser speed and lower .. not if you want people to take you seriously
OR fly them Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
442
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:10:00 -
[721] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Gnoshia wrote:Altrue wrote:290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? ^ This. If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster. Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty. Indeed i think CCP need to give up the ghost on trying to not make them T2 attack cruisers .. yes you can keep the T1 attack cruisers as the faster option but you cannot handicap HACS with combat cruiser speed and lower .. not if you want people to take you seriously OR fly them
Must be careful there. Cerberus can kit at mUch longer ranges with heavy missiles and never misses (the vagabond speed means it cannot orbit target or it will miss all shots)
If you make a cerberus go near vagabond speed. it will be completely super overpowered by orbiting larger ships with MWD signature reduciton and never missing shots. |
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:16:00 -
[722] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Harvey James wrote:Gnoshia wrote:Altrue wrote:290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? ^ This. If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster. Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty. Indeed i think CCP need to give up the ghost on trying to not make them T2 attack cruisers .. yes you can keep the T1 attack cruisers as the faster option but you cannot handicap HACS with combat cruiser speed and lower .. not if you want people to take you seriously OR fly them Must be careful there. Cerberus can kit at mUch longer ranges with heavy missiles and never misses (the vagabond speed means it cannot orbit target or it will miss all shots) If you make a cerberus go near vagabond speed. it will be completely super overpowered by orbiting larger ships with MWD signature reduciton and never missing shots.
try to make the vagabbon in afterburner, you have very low sig and very good speed, your tanking is really really good.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:19:00 -
[723] - Quote
JEFFRAIDER wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: Titans suck, they're only good for bridging and drivebys
Back to the topic at hand... Muninn, I am disappoint.
KNOCK KNOCK? WHO IS THERE? A POOR
Titans and Supers are what is wrong with nullsec, just because you need htem to wave your ego around at everyone doesn't mean I have the same issues you do.
MrDiao wrote:"100% bonus to EW drone effectiveness"?
No. No. No no no. No. Reason: ECM drones, as if they aren't too good already.
Anyone else notice CCP is systematicly killing off Winmatar? The ships still work, but they are outclassed by other races in: Frigates, Cruisers, HACs, AFs. The Cyclone is a good dual XLASB BC.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:21:00 -
[724] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Harvey James wrote:Gnoshia wrote:Altrue wrote:290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? ^ This. If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster. Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty. Indeed i think CCP need to give up the ghost on trying to not make them T2 attack cruisers .. yes you can keep the T1 attack cruisers as the faster option but you cannot handicap HACS with combat cruiser speed and lower .. not if you want people to take you seriously OR fly them Must be careful there. Cerberus can kit at mUch longer ranges with heavy missiles and never misses (the vagabond speed means it cannot orbit target or it will miss all shots) If you make a cerberus go near vagabond speed. it will be completely super overpowered by orbiting larger ships with MWD signature reduciton and never missing shots.
indeed but you only have too look at the caracal vs stabber speeds to get a picture of where the cerb should be say minus 10% of caracal and thats roughly where the cerb should be at for speed and 5% heavier mass. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Luwc
Easy Co. Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:35:00 -
[725] - Quote
I don't mean to be a ***** but the sacrilege already kicks ass.
Just look at the active tanking variants of it.
By all means , Buffing it more will make it op as f*ck |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
34
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:35:00 -
[726] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Swidgen wrote: Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, .
problem with the op is rise does not define in his mind what is the role of a hac. it seems some are leaning toward a combat and some to paper thin attack... we need to clearly define what is a hac before we can discuss where they need to go. moreover we have two tiers of hacs... IMO one should be more combat tanky and one more mobile attack. It seems as though (based on the Tech chart from a while ago and various comments) that CCP envisions HACs as a tankier version of a T1 Attack Cruiser. This idea worked great in the Zealot, because it can mount a significant tank (~+100%) over an Omen, project more damage with its damage bonus (on top of its RoF bonus) AND have better optimals with the +optimal bonus. The Zealot combines the best of Amarr T1 into a T2 hull: strong tank (like a maller) and good damage (like an Omen (old ONI)). Each race has one HAC that is supposed to elevate their T1 Att. Cruiser and then some. Zealot already does this, Deimos should, Vagabond should and Cerebus should (probably does after this pass). Then, the other ships in the HAC category were racial wildcards. Amarr had Sacrilege (firing HAMs from an armor hull), Gallente had Ishtar (which was supposed to be some sort of super Vexor), Minmatar the Muninn for a specialized long rage Arty boat and Caldari the Eagle for a similar purpose. What happened in the mean time is T3 BCs were released, obsoleting the long range ships and T1/Navy got such boosts that the rest, save from the shining-star Zealot--which really wasn't affected because the package on the ONI is for kiting, just couldn't keep up. Obviously, the Zealot was a beautiful ship, well designed and didn't need to change. Unfortunately, the other ships weren't at this place. The Deimos isn't a "better" Thorax. The Thorax still tracks better, is faster and puts out the same (or more) damage than it. Eagles will still put down pitiful dps (at range! whoo! /sad) and the same dps as a Moa up close. I have to disagree with CCP that HACs shouldn't be "better" than a T1 ship. Yes, they should be. The Zealot, by all measures, is flat-out better than an Omen and a Maller. HACs should put out more damage with ~60k tank (with an ACR). Command Ships, OTOH, should put out similar damage to their T1 counterparts but have a tankier ship. That'd distinguish CSs with HACs: HACs give you damage and CSs give you tank. But back to the point: CCP likely wants HACs to be what their name implies: A heavy assau--attack--cruiser. A T1 cruiser with more tank. But that distinguishment will never justify the 10:1 increase in cost, and if they don't balance based on cost, then there's really no point in having these ships cost more just so we can get a marginal increase like extra optimal range. (And besides, Navy ships are already T1 ships with more tank.) These ships have to do more: project damage better, better falloff, better tracking, faster rate of fire, stronger cap, stronger tank, etc. There needs to be a reason to buy one--and a much better reason than a marginal performance increase. CCP, I urge you to have a hard look at the Zealot and why it's been so successful in the game. Ask yourselves why Deimoses, Eagles and the others have been shelved. Then, once you answer those questions, work in solutions to this line that addresses those answers.
Perfect! |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
442
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:36:00 -
[727] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Harvey James wrote:Gnoshia wrote:Altrue wrote:290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? ^ This. If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster. Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty. Indeed i think CCP need to give up the ghost on trying to not make them T2 attack cruisers .. yes you can keep the T1 attack cruisers as the faster option but you cannot handicap HACS with combat cruiser speed and lower .. not if you want people to take you seriously OR fly them Must be careful there. Cerberus can kit at mUch longer ranges with heavy missiles and never misses (the vagabond speed means it cannot orbit target or it will miss all shots) If you make a cerberus go near vagabond speed. it will be completely super overpowered by orbiting larger ships with MWD signature reduciton and never missing shots. indeed but you only have too look at the caracal vs stabber speeds to get a picture of where the cerb should be say minus 5% of caracal and thats roughly where the cerb should be at for speed and 5% heavier mass.
Needs to be a bit worse (not as much as now altough) because cerberus has amplified firepower and range.. multiplying the effect of speed, while vagabond has same range as stabber. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10909
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:40:00 -
[728] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: If you make a cerberus go near vagabond speed. it will be completely super overpowered by orbiting larger ships with MWD signature reduciton and never missing shots.
Just for laughs, fit up a dual nano Typhoon with 6 cruise missile launchers, and then fit up a cerb and pretend it has 6 launchers too.
Now tell me again why a faster cerb is a problem.
1 Kings 12:11
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:42:00 -
[729] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:Prices of HACs begin to soar.
They better not, they already cost too much for such **** poor performance.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Max Zerg
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:46:00 -
[730] - Quote
Dear CCP Rise
Please add more CPU resource to Ishtar
Thanks in advance |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1147
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:52:00 -
[731] - Quote
this is the eagle i want to see
EAGLE -
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 4L; 6 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 1050 PWG(+175), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25m3/25mb Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 125 There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Mara Jango
Trident Tactical Group The Unthinkables
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:52:00 -
[732] - Quote
Please add more CPU to the Ishtar! You have added some nice mods for drones recently but they are cpu heavy and make the ishtar nearly impossible to fit. Please. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
984
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:58:00 -
[733] - Quote
Ral en Thielles wrote:Vagabond Dead... was fun wile it was usable. That's prior TE changes and Now THIS ... After TE nerf, nor cynabal nor the vaga can be called a frig killer ... What are they good for then ? Changes now: 7.5% shield boost bonus.??? Why? The one hac that has big cap problems when using MWD module, now gets Active Tank bonus... Active tanking vs ship that can take you out in two shots, its just not possible! (Talos anyone... ) I think it useless to put Active tanking bonuses on frigate and cruiser size ships at all.
Because the current ASB Vaga is already a very good ship with ASB fit and with that bonus will be a much better Cynabal than Cynabal
Ral en Thielles wrote:Deimos MORE SPEED PLEASE Can someone please explain to me the roles thing again... I just can not understand how T2 ship can be worse then it's T1 variant! Or maybe we should only use hacs with armor and AB, so we can use that extra resists. I am disappointed ...
Because Diemost is now faster/tankier AND dps wise shield fitted for solo/small gang work, with armor retains same issues while using blasters but will probably be a bit more used in armor fleets with rails competing with scorch pulse Zealots.
Zealot was already the only viable HAC, it's just getting better and I will not complain about, can fly them all so I'll fly the next pownmobile (pulse Zealots most probably) *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Valterra Craven
49
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:01:00 -
[734] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Just for ***** and giggles why don't you do us a favor and throw out the design strat and then do this:
Put down all the ship hulls in the cruisers group down on paper. (T1, Navy, Faction, T2, T3) (make sure to include lvl 5 SP train time on all of them for any skills that affect the performance of the ship as well the cost of the hull/rigs/ammo/mods etc)
Compare all of them to each other (slots, fittings, bonuses)
Decide a percentage base of how much better t2 hulls should be over their t1 counterpoints
Make that happen across the board for all ships
Dust your hands and clap for yourself as you are cheered and loved for your changes... |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:02:00 -
[735] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Because the current ASB Vaga is already a very good ship with ASB fit and with that bonus will be a much better Cynabal than Cynabal
Except Minmatar aren't brawlers, they are fast kiting ships. The Vaga is supposed to be a kiting ship, except it sucks because the Cynabal outclasses it in every way.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
66
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:03:00 -
[736] - Quote
You know what, just add a slot to every ship and don't change the powergrid/cpu of them at all, and let the people try to balance it out. The HAC creators managed to overslot the ships, but could not get them to produce any extra powergrid or cpu to cover the overslotting, allowing for creative endeavors to be done with them.
Change the Role Bonus to 10% hit points (shield,armor and hull) and 4% resistances (shield and armor). People will either try to overtank it, or just decide that it has enough health, lets add speed rigs, damage rigs, etc). (this is flat, not per level)
Zealot. Extra High, Utility Slot Sacrelige. Extra low (no extra cpu or powergrid)
Deimos. Extra low (damn thing needs to get in range, in addition if they want to rail fit it, they can and give it enough speed to do it) Ishtar. Extra Mid (the CPU and Powergrid would have to be checked on this ship, as it is SO tight)
Eagle. Extra Mid (Yep 7 mids, no extra cpu/powergrid). Cereberus (Extra Low) (can nano or overdrive the ship, giving it its needed speed, or heck if your crazy armor tank the damn thing)
Vagabond. Extra Mid (yep 6/5/5) (no extra grid/cpu) Muninn. Extra Mid (6/4/6).
Absolutely no thought of balance, reasoning for why the slot allotment was selected, or any type of care of your feelings were taken into account for the above proposal.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:04:00 -
[737] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:this is the eagle i want to see
EAGLE -
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 4L; 6 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 1050 PWG(+175), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25m3/25mb Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 125
I would like to see it with 220m/s and a stronger damage bonus and an extra low would be really handy, i think HACS are being short changed on having only 15 slots. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:06:00 -
[738] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Because the current ASB Vaga is already a very good ship with ASB fit and with that bonus will be a much better Cynabal than Cynabal
Except Minmatar aren't brawlers, they are fast kiting ships. The Vaga is supposed to be a kiting ship, except it sucks because the Cynabal outclasses it in every way.
An interesting alternative bonus to ASB could be a 5% sig radius reduction per level on the HAC side switch it with the damage bonus they could increase to a 10% damage bonus Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:08:00 -
[739] - Quote
So about new role bonus against large guns with 400m resolution
zealot- 438 sac - 490 cerb - 473 eagle - 525 ishtar - 508 deimos - 560 muninn- 455 vaga- 403
So how helpful will this bonus be actually?
Those are numbers without links and any shield modules, so in reality for shield ships it will be way bigger
As for links...don't even start |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:12:00 -
[740] - Quote
Schmell wrote:So about new role bonus against large guns with 400m resolution
zealot- 438 sac - 490 cerb - 473 eagle - 525 ishtar - 508 deimos - 560 muninn- 455 vaga- 403
So how helpful will this bonus be actually?
Those are numbers without links and any shield modules, so in reality for shield ships it will be way bigger
As for links...don't even start
Indeed they really need to come up with either a stronger bonus or severely reduce the sig radius of these ships. Also some new skills to help reduce the penalties of mwd and shield extenders wouldn't go amiss Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
123
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:25:00 -
[741] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Zealot was already the only viable HAC, it's just getting better and I will not complain about, can fly them all so I'll fly the next pownmobile (pulse Zealots most probably)
Deimos has a base sig radius literally halfway between a Zealot and a bloody Talos battlecruiser (Z = 125m; D = 160m; T= 200m). Pretty terrible for AHAC gangs who rely on small sigs to foil tracking. Deimos remains a liability and Zealots continue to dominate AHAC fleet comps I guess. Fantastic!
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1147
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:28:00 -
[742] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:this is the eagle i want to see
EAGLE -
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 4L; 6 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 1050 PWG(+175), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25m3/25mb Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 125 I would like to see it with 220m/s and a stronger damage bonus and an extra low would be really handy, i think HACS are being short changed on having only 15 slots.
indeed. so what 6 high 5 mid and 5 low?
and how about the damage bonus replaced with a rate of fire? that would increase dps by 33% vrs 25%... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
984
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:30:00 -
[743] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Because the current ASB Vaga is already a very good ship with ASB fit and with that bonus will be a much better Cynabal than Cynabal
Except Minmatar aren't brawlers, they are fast kiting ships. The Vaga is supposed to be a kiting ship, except it sucks because the Cynabal outclasses it in every way.
And the Vigilant outclasses Deimost for dozens miles, Gilas are better than Eagles and so on, but the real issue with Cynabal is not really the tank or dps ability, it's rather the stupid agility and speed this thing brings to the table and that's what needs to get nerf to bring it at reasonable kitting/escaping abilities.
Right now an ASB Cyna can get in scram web range and still manage to GTFO unless under heavy fire, it's clearly the OP mobility that makes it that good. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Ryans Revenge
The Armed Syndicate
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:31:00 -
[744] - Quote
Why does every HAC get a mobility increase apart from the Ishtar that gets a mobility decrease!? It's one of the slowest already and you make it even slower!? That's full on bullshit :( |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1001
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:32:00 -
[745] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Schmell wrote:So about new role bonus against large guns with 400m resolution
zealot- 438 sac - 490 cerb - 473 eagle - 525 ishtar - 508 deimos - 560 muninn- 455 vaga- 403
So how helpful will this bonus be actually?
Those are numbers without links and any shield modules, so in reality for shield ships it will be way bigger
As for links...don't even start Indeed they really need to come up with either a stronger bonus or severely reduce the sig radius of these ships. Also some new skills to help reduce the penalties of mwd and shield extenders wouldn't go amiss
The shield extenders and mwds work well because you range tank with them. The reason this bonus is bad is it tries to make you sig tank with them. Given that sig tanking involves getting under guns, usually by getting within scram and neut range (unless you are dealing with larger classed guns) this will not really be beneficial. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Noisrevbus
466
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:34:00 -
[746] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Considering the state of HACs going into this, I find the initial proposed changes underwhelming. I get that power creep is a big concern I don't get why people keep saying this...
CCP bit the pony with power creep when instead of making BC more expensive they decided to "fix all the ships so they can compete with BC". They can't be concerned with power creep now after introducing it patch after patch for two years.
Remember when they tried to deal with "Drakes" by revitalizing mobile sniping and introducing BC3? Let them fly twice as fast, do twice as much damage, tank twice as much etc. Yet cost 1/10 while cost-effect was the reason Drakeblobs were everywhere, not their awesome 80km sphere of missiles. Now they're being conservative after introdocing a bunch of 200% bonuses to every ship in the game with full insurance coverage?
You could roll back all these changes to pre-BC3, and then go "BC twice as expensive" and you'd have a much better balance than today.
It's like they don't want us to lose ISK by flying things that actually cost something . |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1001
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:34:00 -
[747] - Quote
CCP Please show us a bit more creativity, and make the hacs a bit more interesting rather than giving them all the same role bonus as the assault frigates.
Pulled from the last 10 pages
Jori McKie wrote: I like the idea of a unique bonus for HACs but the 50% sig bonus while MWDing isn't cutting it. Sure it's nice to have it on some occasions (real 1v1) but in any skirmish fleet fights the transversal/angular is negligible and the sig bonus has no usefulness at all. .
Namamai wrote: The main issue I have with the MWD role bonus for HACs is that the Eve tracking equation is a game of thresholds. .
Omnathious Deninard wrote: And yet with the MWD bonus they are neither fast enough to speed tank nor small enough to sig tank.
elitatwo wrote: Nope they won't help either, since most of the time you want to be in scram range anyway.
...
Zarnak Wulf wrote:There are some very large signature radii for the AHACs. I don't know how effective that 50% MWD penalty reduction is going to be with the likes of 140m, 145m, 150m, and even 160m signatures. Add in shield tanking and yikes.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1001
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:35:00 -
[748] - Quote
Rn Bonnet wrote: Yeah I will take 200% more EHP over 50% sig radius every day of the week and twice on tuesday considering one unbonused target painter "cures" your sig radius bonus.
Alticus C Bear wrote:What I would have liked to have seen.
Unique and interesting role bonuses
Harvey James wrote: Indeed they really need to come up with either a stronger bonus or severely reduce the sig radius of these ships. Also some new skills to help reduce the penalties of mwd and shield extenders wouldn't go amiss
Schmell wrote:So about new role bonus against large guns with 400m resolution
zealot- 438 sac - 490 cerb - 473 eagle - 525 ishtar - 508 deimos - 560 muninn- 455 vaga- 403
So how helpful will this bonus be actually?
Those are numbers without links and any shield modules, so in reality for shield ships it will be way bigger
As for links...don't even start
Also I like the idea of making the vaga something other than a worse cynabal but it needs an extra mid.
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Anyway a shipo with a Shield boost bonus should NOT be 4 mids. That goes along with the effects of TE nerf last patch, now having lots of low slots is not so much useful for vaga.
Please consider +1 Mid -1 Low. Would make the vaga a more concise ship and help it to be the Fast brawler while keeping the speeding nuts role to the Cynabal.
+1 Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
186
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:36:00 -
[749] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: MUNINN - The Muninn will lose one of its highs and gain a low, which should fit its role as a long range platform extremely well. It also gains a little speed.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
Slot layout: 6H(-1), 3M, 6L(+1); 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-2) Fittings: 1160 PWG, 355 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6) Capacitor (amount) : 1250 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 294 / 6(+1) Sensor strength: 14 Ladar(+1) Signature radius: 130
Is it possible for muninn to have two DAMAGE bonuses? For example.
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range
This will reduce its dps for increased alpha, which would create a nice role for muninn. Some additional PG would be also welcome :P
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
289
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:37:00 -
[750] - Quote
RLML bonus on sacrilege please. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:43:00 -
[751] - Quote
Deerin wrote:CCP Rise wrote: MUNINN - The Muninn will lose one of its highs and gain a low, which should fit its role as a long range platform extremely well. It also gains a little speed.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
Slot layout: 6H(-1), 3M, 6L(+1); 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-2) Fittings: 1160 PWG, 355 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6) Capacitor (amount) : 1250 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 294 / 6(+1) Sensor strength: 14 Ladar(+1) Signature radius: 130
Is it possible for muninn to have two DAMAGE bonuses? For example. Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range This will reduce its dps for increased alpha, which would create a nice role for muninn. Some additional PG would be also welcome :P
Tracking is one of the better parts of the Muninn, Arties don't have good tracking so it does increase the applied alpha. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
124
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:44:00 -
[752] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:ight now an ASB Cyna can get in scram web range and still manage to GTFO unless under heavy fire, it's clearly the OP mobility that makes it that good.
Bitchout-on-a-whim ability and being able to fit the biggest everything - 425s, LSEs, dual-prop, ASBs, med neut, multiple gyros/TEs etc. Vigilant, Gila, that piece of crap whose name eludes me atm actually have to make small sacrifices to improve performance in either tank or damage output.
|
Noisrevbus
466
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:49:00 -
[753] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Because the current ASB Vaga is already a very good ship with ASB fit and with that bonus will be a much better Cynabal than Cynabal
Which has what real application exactly?
It's better in a fitting where you and your m8m8 decide beforehand to test each other's tanks on a station undock or "halp top belt" where he doesn't even try killing you?
The Vagabond used to be a roaming ship that spread emergent content throughout EVE, not some play-at-war test-dummy for dudes doing SiSi in Lowsec. |
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:53:00 -
[754] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:RLML bonus on sacrilege please.
Simplify: any Launcher - how many Cruise/Torpedoes could you fit anyway ?
If this is sacrilege, well Sacrilege.
|
Tasha Saisima
State War Academy Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:54:00 -
[755] - Quote
Rip small gang ahac fleets |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:59:00 -
[756] - Quote
Tasha Saisima wrote:Rip small gang ahac fleets
Those used to exist? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
104
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:01:00 -
[757] - Quote
Cerberus just became the only choice for DED 4/10s. So much for the idea of removing Tengus from them. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
370
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:03:00 -
[758] - Quote
So I think this rebalancing has missed the mark somewhat, and I think what has hamstrung it the most is the desire to retain existing "niches". The thing is, none of these "niches" really exist - people only occasionally fly the zealot because they cant afford a legion, the deimos is currently only used by fanbois (and is anyway neutered by the loss of the utility high) etc.
HACs havent had a role for several years due to probing changes, EHP increases, the nano nerf, and most of all the introduction of tier 3 BCs and tech 3 cruisers.
The improvements to t1 cruisers and navy/faction cruisers just cement this lack of niche.
The conclusion is that HACs cannot be balanced by tweaking their stats alone. They really need a new role bonus, perhaps something unique, and a very specific niche to fill.
I personally favour this being a degree of web immunity, something to counter neuts (perhaps an inbuilt bonus like cap batteries get) and orienting them around 0 - 15km brawling. This suits their name, is a unique niche, and provides a nice counter to some of the current fleet metas |
Noisrevbus
467
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:03:00 -
[759] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Tasha Saisima wrote:Rip small gang ahac fleets Those used to exist?
In 2011, yes. I remember a handful groups who would roam far and wide with AHACs.
Since then they have "upgraded" to cheap Battlecruisers (and Capitals) and stay in their immidiate region or in Lowsec . |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
132
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:05:00 -
[760] - Quote
Akimo Heth wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info. Shocking that a Gallente ship is the first to be looked at (judging from your previous post). Their BS's were immediately fixed in their tieracide while the other races went 100+ pages with no meaningful iteration. Well... if they designed for Gallente ships weren't blatantly half-assed to begin with they wouldn't need a second iteration. |
|
Ju0ZaS
Mentally Assured Destruction
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:05:00 -
[761] - Quote
Ishtar need more fitting resources. Compared to other cruiser sized ships it's terrible. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
371
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:06:00 -
[762] - Quote
PS CCP REALLY needs to nerf tier 3 BC tracking. (-25% role penalty, ala old destroyers) |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
985
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:14:00 -
[763] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Because the current ASB Vaga is already a very good ship with ASB fit and with that bonus will be a much better Cynabal than Cynabal
Which has what real application exactly? It's better in a fitting where you and your m8m8 decide beforehand to test each other's tanks on a station undock or "halp top belt" where he doesn't even try killing you? The Vagabond used to be a roaming ship that spread emergent content throughout EVE, not some play-at-war test-dummy for dudes doing SiSi in Lowsec.
You clearly haven't fought one of these yet, they can be pretty nasty but yes have to pick their fights, those are not pownmobiles just because they can fit an XL-ASB
I might be in the minority side thinking this bonus isn't bad but in certain situations will make it clearly op specially considering when lowering the ASB size the ship can fit bigger guns.
Now if you're implying this is not a fleet ship with that bonus I agree, just like I agree majority active rep bonus are crap if it's not a shield ship because :ASBpwnsALL:
Thing is, what are we arguing about? -what is the specific role these ships are meant to fill from CCP philosophy (Gäó) or are arguing from personal points of view?
If AHAC/SHAC is meant to be ZDE DPS specialised cruiser then this rebalance is failing terribly, no one seems to agree what they need to achieve their task and when I look at many bonus + med LR guns changes all I can say is that they'll be better, more dps better bonus is always better, not necessarily the exact buffs they need but they'll be better after all. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
81
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:21:00 -
[764] - Quote
The problem with the Eagle and Munnin on today's battlefield is that both are completely outmoded by the Tier 3 (Attack) Battlecruisers, which do BS-level damage with very high range potential and have a staggering degree of mobility for their hull size. Compared to these ships, Sniper-HACs are simply not cost-effective (both in pure isk cost and in training time). As a result, the Eagle has become the go-to for blaster brawling with a shield buffer, while the Munnin is... ignored completely.
The Cerberus is similarly plagued. Kiting isn't very effective if your enemy decides not to try and run you down, and since a HAC cannot point at the same range a Cerb can engage at, you'll either end up being chased down by something which you can't kill, or your target will warp out (wasting ammo). The only thing I fly a Cerb for is anti-frigate support in HAC gangs, by fitting Rapid Light Missile Launchers (which are simply devastating to small craft, at much higher target velocities than medium guns can typically manage). Unfortunately, the Cerb also has a very weak tank compared to other HACs, largely because of the EM hole which forces a hardener to be fit in the mids.
So, what these ships need:
The listed changes for the Eagle are perfectly fine. With the Optimal Range bonuses, you can engage reliably at 20-30km with Null M (or 10-15km with Void M), making the only realistic utility high option (a small neut/NOS) pointless, which subsequently makes the extra mid much more useful.
The Munnin needs to be re-optimized for close combat. Where the Vagabond is a highly mobile, "strike and fade," type ship, the Munnin should be an armed-to-the-teeth brick. Less maneuverable, but nasty once in range.
The Cerberus should play to its only current strength as well: Killing small craft. Drop the Flight Time bonus in favor of an Explosion Radius buff, and consider making the Kin damage bonus an un-typed one. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
329
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:24:00 -
[765] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:this is the eagle i want to see
EAGLE -
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 4L; 6 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 1050 PWG(+175), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25m3/25mb Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 125 I would like to see it with 220m/s and a stronger damage bonus and an extra low would be really handy, i think HACS are being short changed on having only 15 slots. indeed. so what 6 high 5 mid and 5 low? and how about the damage bonus replaced with a rate of fire? that would increase dps by 33% vrs 25%...
yes and no to ROF unless it gets a right big cap boost to compensate the cap usage Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
330
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:36:00 -
[766] - Quote
What i would love to hear CCP RISE say is..
HACS are T2 Attack cruisers that sacrifice a little mobility for more tank and dps.... and as a result all HACS beside Vaga will get increased speed and lower mass.. and all HACS will get a sig radius reduction so that 50% mwd role bonus is actually worth something.. so all ships will have lower sig radius than 400 sig res of BS guns.
Also adding skills that reduce sig radius penalty on MWD's and shield extenders by 5% a level Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule Test Alliance Please Ignore
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:43:00 -
[767] - Quote
First let me say, thank you for looking at HACs. This has been a long time coming. The following criticism and suggestions are meant to be constructive.
SACRILEGE - This ship doesn't have enough low slots to take advantage of its great defense and cap bonuses. In skirmish warfare it should be able to fit active armor reps. In larger fights it should have enough lows to be very tough.
However, 4 mid slots is a good thing and fits it's role as a utility ship. So what should be done? I suggest removing its extra high slot. This means players that want to focus more on utility through neutralizers will need to give up a bit of damage to do it. At the same time the ship will get enough lows to armor tank properly. The new improved drone bay will mitigate some of the issues here, as well.
Suggestion: Change the slot load out to 5H, 4M, 6L
ZEALOT - Its working as intended. The new MWD bonus will make it even better.
CERBERUS - This ship is getting a much needed damage boost with 6 launchers. Its high slots are no longer wasted.
However, the kinetic missile bonus is legacy in nature. This ship needs to be able to pack a punch equally well with any of the four damage types.
The second issue is a combination of slot load out and targeting range. This ship was designed to "poke" from very long distances. However the Cerb's targeting range simply doesn't match its design. This has been a problem for a long time. Additionally, to get the targeting range you need you give up those much needed mid slots, or worse get less efficient results by using low slots while giving up damage. This ship doesn't get any kind of resist bonus and needs enough mids to withstand some punishment. Furthermore, HAM fits should be an option. with only 5 mids close range fits are risky.
I suggest giving up a low slot for an additional mid and boosting the base targeting range. With the new speed boost this ship will be able to race about the battle field firing missiles from long ranges, or burn up close and dish out punishment with HAMs while having decent survivability.
Suggestions: Change the slot load out to 6H, 6M, 3L. Change the base targeting range to (at least) 100km (even more would not hurt). Change the kinetic damage bonus to a flat missile damage bonus.
EAGLE - I think the overall changes here are good. The biggest problem with the current Eagle is actually fitting. The PG buff aims to address this. Increasing its slot efficiency is also a much needed improvement.
However, this ship suffers from the exact same problem as the Cerb -serious targeting range issues.
Suggestion: Increase the base targeting range to at least 100km.
DEIMOS - I'm excited to see the results of these changes. No more worthless high slot and more speed is good. The new role bonus is going to benefit the Deimos immensely.
One huge problem for the Deimos was fitting. Its PG was abysmal. We'll have to see if 40 PG is enough (probably so).
ISHTAR - More gun slots with less specialization in guns and more focus on drones -great!
The question still remains how in the world we're suppose to actually use those gun slots with such terrible a PG, but that's a good drawback for this ship.
Honestly this was what the Navy Vexor should have been. The new Ishtar totally overshadows the Navy Vexor and officially makes it worthless. I suggest revisiting that ship when you have a chance.
VAGABOND - This is an interesting change. It doesn't do a thing to the old style of Vaga combat, but adds new options. Large ASB, anyone? We'll have to see how this plays out.
MUNINN - This is another ship I believe will immensely benefit from the new HAC role bonus. It will be faster with a better slot spread. I think it will become a staple in kiting HAC gangs. Again, we'll have to see how this plays out.
I am excited to see the end results of the HAC changes. Thanks again!
|
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Transcendent Sedition Dustm3n
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:44:00 -
[768] - Quote
And here I am thinking T2 were suposed to specialize at things, all I am seeing here is an uncoordinated mess.
Amarr Sac - This should be your heavy brawler, specialized in heavy tank, active or buffer, altho I think a good buffer on this ship should be higher than a Battlecruiser while still doing some reasonable DPS (6th low please!) Zealot - Your standard AHAC fleet ship, fill the role fairly well now, altho a slight bump in speed could be nice and maybe damage
Caldari Cerb - Not sure what to make of it to be honest, Rise says it should kite, but that is just plain foolish if he thinks it can do that with such a low speed. If I want kite I will go with a NOmen, Vaga, or hell a Navy Osprey even. I could MAYBE see this be the begining of a SHAC fleet ship.. maybe.. Eagle - Shield tank version of the Sac I think it should be able to tank and do reasonable DPS with Rails OR Blasters, if you roll the double range bonus into one 15-20% Bonus and fill the extra Bonus Slot with a tracking bonus I think it find a very nice role of picking smaller ships off at range. Or with blasters it can brawl if it wanted to
Gallente Diemost - How dare you.. just.. why.. you want to turn this **** into a rail boat? wtf is wrong with you? I think this would suit a much better role having a solid tank (seriously.. don't nerf the tank) and swap MWD bonus for a Tracking bonus (buff cap if you want to composate). Keep the 4th mid, this will allow you to fit a standard DoubleWeb/Scram/MWD in mids and make it act as a fast reasonable tackle in a cruiser size. May want to buff the speed just a bit. Ishtar - I like the drone bonuses, altho I think you should roll the Drone Bay into the hull and give it a Drone Speed so Ogres are not so damn slow. Oh and a CPU buff.
Minmatar Vagabond - I feel like you didn't know what to put in the bonus slot after you rolled the speed boost into the hull. I would have thought a tracking bonus would have been good for a kiting ship at high speeds. The thought of brawling with it is very odd I must say. I won't comment too much on it because I don't fly them, it just seemed odd. Muninn - Seems like an Armor Eagle, long range arties to pick off smaller ships? Looks interesting but not changed that much.
In Conclusion, it looks a lil underwhelming in the theme of 'specialization.' These ships don't look like they are specialized into roles as much as they should, unless I missed a memo and that was intended and T2s are no longer specialized. -Bl+¦d
Wormholes are the best Space.. |
Noisrevbus
469
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:45:00 -
[769] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: You clearly haven't fought one of these yet, they can be pretty nasty but yes have to pick their fights, those are not pownmobiles just because they can fit an XL-ASB
I might be in the minority side thinking this bonus isn't bad but in certain situations will make it clearly op specially considering when lowering the ASB size the ship can fit bigger guns.
I don't think you're getting it mate, but that's my fault for using sarcasm.
- EVE Online is a sandbox MMO.
- It's not designed around 1v1, it's designed around PvX.
- I don't mind if there is a duelling culture or similar in the game. It's a sandbox, any creative way to play is good.
- However, if we start designing the game around 1v1 (or any similar targetted setting) we are in deep water.
- What is "clearly OP" to you in a duel-setting is clearly not OP if you decide to take on more difficult odds.
- Even if you prefer flying alone, a solo gameplay does not mean you don't fight larger groups 1vX.
This is similar to when we have to lecture PvE players on the principle that PvE in a sandbox means PvX where you are meant to conduct your PvE in a setting of both PvE and PvP (ie., PvX).
Many of the new-school PvP players are just as stupid and seclusionist as the empire PvE players they like to mock.
I've never had any issue with PvE players, I only growl a little bit when it comes to seclusionists with entitlement issues.
Entitlement issues like "the Vagabond is good for what i do with it, where i pick my fights and don't travel around". |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3143
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:47:00 -
[770] - Quote
Deimos sig is closer to Nado sig than to Vaga sig. With MWD on, it has bigger sig than Exequror has.
Fair and balanced, like Fox news <3
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
985
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:54:00 -
[771] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: You clearly haven't fought one of these yet, they can be pretty nasty but yes have to pick their fights, those are not pownmobiles just because they can fit an XL-ASB
I might be in the minority side thinking this bonus isn't bad but in certain situations will make it clearly op specially considering when lowering the ASB size the ship can fit bigger guns.
I don't think you're getting it mate, but that's my fault for using sarcasm.
- EVE Online is a sandbox MMO.
- It's not designed around 1v1, it's designed around PvX.
- I don't mind if there is a duelling culture or similar in the game. It's a sandbox, any creative way to play is good.
- However, if we start designing the game around 1v1 (or any similar targetted setting) we are in deep water.
- What is "clearly OP" to you in a duel-setting is clearly not OP if you decide to take on more difficult odds.
- Even if you prefer flying alone, a solo gameplay does not mean you don't fight larger groups 1vX.
This is similar to when we have to lecture PvE players on the principle that PvE in a sandbox means PvX where you are meant to conduct your PvE in a setting of both PvE and PvP (ie., PvX). Many of the new-school PvP players are just as stupid and seclusionist as the empire PvE players they like to mock. I've never had any issue with PvE players, I only growl a little bit when it comes to seclusionists with entitlement issues. Entitlement issues like "the Vagabond is good for what i do with it, where i pick my consentual fights without travelling".
Don't take me wrong I do understand all the points you made but I still think options and alternatives can't hurt pvp in any shape or form be it for solo small gang or massive fights.
I have a lot more experience in large fleets fights be it as dumb F1 BS shooter as dictor as inty or anti support pilot (I have logis skills but I don't fly them I hate them all so hard you can't imagine, remove them from the game dammit !!), not good but rather nice experience in roaming gangs but absolutely terrible in 1vs1 fights and will not excuse my lack of skills in this playing area because I don't use OGB despite being able to.
Back to the point about Vaga, I still think this isn't a very bad change and fits quite well in the "emergent content" ability of Vaga, now for fleets if you ask me this bonus is absolutely terrible, horrible, does nothing and I'll take an SFI over the Vaga every time. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors Insidious Empire
71
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:58:00 -
[772] - Quote
Why does the Deimos still have the MWD cap thing when most in EvE agree it's hilarious for the wrong reasons. Why not throw in tracking or if you want to troll, some kind of repair bonus. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4094
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:00:00 -
[773] - Quote
I still think a fleet of aBC will dumpster the **** out of a fleet of the current and even newly proposed HACs. For a fraction of the cost too.
CCP Rise - If the MWD bloob sig role bonus is necessary enough to warrent then perhaps you should just reduce the sig of the HACs base down from the start. Then you can look into giving each HAC unique role bonuses that can open the door to make them not just 'better' T1 cruisers, but good at doing 'something'. Something that an aBC can't do and a T1 cruiser can't do. . |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
985
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:03:00 -
[774] - Quote
ConranAntoni wrote:Why does the Deimos still have the MWD cap thing when most in EvE agree it's hilarious for the wrong reasons. Why not throw in tracking or if you want to troll, some kind of repair bonus.
Schhhhhhhht !!!
Don't, just don't !!
Vaga got it so don't give any idea like this or it might happen !! *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. ROFL Citizens
96
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:03:00 -
[775] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
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
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145
how about instead of 5k range bonus, +1 extra Drone controlled per level. on the heavy assault cruiser? :) the Ishtar is a drone boat after all :) |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
985
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:09:00 -
[776] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:how about instead of 5k range bonus, +1 extra Drone controlled per level. on the heavy assault cruiser? :) the Ishtar is a drone boat after all :)
Because this would make it completely out of whack.
6 DPS drones + 4 ECM drones = I win machine. NO, really this is an awful idea.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Noisrevbus
470
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:14:00 -
[777] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Don't take me wrong I do understand all the points you made but I still think options and alternatives can't hurt pvp in any shape or form be it for solo small gang or massive fights.
I have a lot more experience in large fleets fights be it as dumb F1 BS shooter as dictor as inty or anti support pilot (I have logis skills but I don't fly them I hate them all so hard you can't imagine, remove them from the game dammit !!), not good but rather nice experience in roaming gangs but absolutely terrible in 1vs1 fights and will not excuse my lack of skills in this playing area because I don't use OGB despite being able to.
Back to the point about Vaga, I still think this isn't a very bad change and fits quite well in the "emergent content" ability of Vaga, now for fleets if you ask me this bonus is absolutely terrible, horrible, does nothing and I'll take an SFI over the Vaga every time.
First off, thank you for a continued good discussion.
I agree that alternatives don't hurt. That's the issue here though, what does this new bonus provide an alternative to?
Others have said it, you say it yourself. It's supposed to provide an alternative to what the Cyna, SFI and other ships do better.
In fact, i'd stretch it as far as to say that i'd expect the HAC's to do those things much better, because that sort of emergent gameplay is lacking in EVE on a broad level. Roaming is good for the game, that's why it should be encouraged, not discouraged by the targetted design of things into themeparks. If roaming was in a strong position and the Vaga was a strong roaming ship then I wouldn't have any issues with an active bonus as an alternative if you wanted to play around with some odd ideas. I love odd ideas. It's just that now they come at the expense of something very fundamental in the game - encouraging people to roam around and fight undermanned.
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:16:00 -
[778] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Chessur wrote: Vagabond:
AC boats were already struggling. Then the TE nerf happened, and all AC boats took a nose dive when trying to apply damage outside of scram / web range. The vaga shares the same 10% increase in falloff as its stabber cousin, and just like the stabber cannot kite. Even though this is considered a kiting ship- its pathetic DPS at range means that it is outclassed by other ships. The MWD sig bonus makes sense here, and the vaga is certainly fast enough. However what I don't understand is the active tanking bonus. The vaga is a 'kiting' ship that according to you, should have the ability to get up close in scram / web and face ****. The active tanking bonus (while nice) is really going to shut down the vagas play style.
It seems that you are really encroaching on the SFI's world, of fast, hard tackle. In fact the vaga may do the job even better, so what would be the point of ever flying an SFI anymore? The idea of a 290m/s base speed cruiser with the ability to run a really powerful dual LASB tank with an MWD scram, is simply going to be a nightmare for any solo / small gang pilots. SFI's were annoying enough, but adding in a ship that has this nice speed, and a secondary tanking bonus is going to make this ship really, really difficult for players to fly against- as nothing can run from it.
ill quote myself here: Kane Fenris wrote:the vaga is non contradictory ship as purposed.
id rather see it comepletly in the old role with pg for fitting for arty tracking instead of falloff so you can kite with its speed as before while useing arty to shred your opponent
and eventually some increase in longpoint (exclueding scram! so you cant use scram/acs for same purpose and abuse it) range about 20% would suffice but could easily be op so im not sure about that
when you make arty useable you should provide us with a ship to use it. and dont tell me we have the munin for this... munin will suck if it does not get reinvented (not reworked!) While I agree that the Muninn isnt very good and the Vaga change is ****, making another Arty boat just because the current one is **** is derp, the Vaga should always be an AC boat, it just needs some improvement in that role.
keeping the vaga a ac boat wil just mean it will suck at its old role.... look at it you have to use barrage to do any damage at kite range and then dmg is still pretty low and the te nerf did not improve this.
now on the other hand with improved arty you can youse a variety of amo still get good but noch to huge dps ath the range you want to fight AND you can be countered by ships manageing to get close. (a trade off to the old ac setup which would allow some buff like the extended longpoint range is sugested)
if you want a ac boat make the munin dedicated ac brawler with some kind of special trade that distinguishes it from other brawlers but remove that useless sniper role. |
Shari Evan
New Republic The Initiative.
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:17:00 -
[779] - Quote
I dunno, Deimos looks more like a try to build a 'mighty combat vessel' by a mining corporation like deep core inc. Srsly, the signature of a BC, no real focus on anything but guns and focus on MWD even though this ship is used as a A-HAC nowadays, reduced Armor and Hull Basehitpoints. At the moment a thorax is better than a deimos, if this change is goes life the Thorax will be better and the deimos is considerable useless. |
Vega Umbranox
Eternal Darkness. Fatal Ascension
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:17:00 -
[780] - Quote
CCP here is an idea how about remove bay size from ishtar and give them a bonus that reduces drone sig radius per level? maybe only applied to sentry/heavies and maybe mediums |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
331
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:18:00 -
[781] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Is odyssey 1.1 a special exception CCP Rise, or can we expect to see a round 2 of all your future balance threads?
He might need a round 3 at this rate much like the battleships are still waiting for there turn again... christ those poor battleships.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
331
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:21:00 -
[782] - Quote
would anyone else like the Vagabond shield boost bonus changed to a 5% sig reduction to mwd usage? Kind of a mini Talwar bonus really Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
443
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:22:00 -
[783] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: If you make a cerberus go near vagabond speed. it will be completely super overpowered by orbiting larger ships with MWD signature reduciton and never missing shots.
Just for laughs, fit up a dual nano Typhoon with 6 cruise missile launchers, and then fit up a cerb and pretend it has 6 launchers too. Now tell me again why a faster cerb is a problem.
Need I explain you basic concepts like SIGNATURE RADIUS? Specially with a 50% BONUS whitl MWD is ON?
It would be a ship almost IMMUNE to medium and large guns while able to deliver very long range or very high dps (dependign if HM or HAM being used) |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Tribal Band
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:23:00 -
[784] - Quote
Honestly heavy missiles on Sac doesn't make much sense for the ship, maybe 5% damage+flighttime/velocity to HAMs to level would work better. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1005
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:28:00 -
[785] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Noisrevbus wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: You clearly haven't fought one of these yet, they can be pretty nasty but yes have to pick their fights, those are not pownmobiles just because they can fit an XL-ASB
I might be in the minority side thinking this bonus isn't bad but in certain situations will make it clearly op specially considering when lowering the ASB size the ship can fit bigger guns.
I don't think you're getting it mate, but that's my fault for using sarcasm.
- EVE Online is a sandbox MMO.
- It's not designed around 1v1, it's designed around PvX.
- I don't mind if there is a duelling culture or similar in the game. It's a sandbox, any creative way to play is good.
- However, if we start designing the game around 1v1 (or any similar targetted setting) we are in deep water.
- What is "clearly OP" to you in a duel-setting is clearly not OP if you decide to take on more difficult odds.
- Even if you prefer flying alone, a solo gameplay does not mean you don't fight larger groups 1vX.
This is similar to when we have to lecture PvE players on the principle that PvE in a sandbox means PvX where you are meant to conduct your PvE in a setting of both PvE and PvP (ie., PvX). Many of the new-school PvP players are just as stupid and seclusionist as the empire PvE players they like to mock. I've never had any issue with PvE players, I only growl a little bit when it comes to seclusionists with entitlement issues. Entitlement issues like "the Vagabond is good for what i do with it, where i pick my consentual fights without travelling". Don't take me wrong I do understand all the points you made but I still think options and alternatives can't hurt pvp in any shape or form be it for solo small gang or massive fights. I have a lot more experience in large fleets fights be it as dumb F1 BS shooter as dictor as inty or anti support pilot (I have logis skills but I don't fly them I hate them all so hard you can't imagine, remove them from the game dammit !!), not good but rather nice experience in roaming gangs but absolutely terrible in 1vs1 fights and will not excuse my lack of skills in this playing area because I don't use OGB despite being able to. Back to the point about Vaga, I still think this isn't a very bad change and fits quite well in the "emergent content" ability of Vaga, now for fleets if you ask me this bonus is absolutely terrible, horrible, does nothing and I'll take an SFI over the Vaga every time.
This guy gets it. Vaga is currently a worse cynabal. SFI is also competition. Allowing the vaga to do something else better than both of them is a good thing for this ship. The shield boost fits well with the minmatar resists. But it needs an extra mid.
If you want the old vaga fly a cynabal. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:28:00 -
[786] - Quote
Delicate subject nonetheless.
The quick stuff:
Sticking with the HEAVY Assault/Attack Cruiser part
Since we're likely to stick with how the ships are now - There needs to be a choice on certain aspects, in my opinion. Either all HACs in general should be really tanky, resilient - OR fast and hard to catch. But not both.
About Role: 50% reduction to MWD sig bloom I find this contradicts with the use of the AB, making AB even less desired for. Of course, this is just an impression. I really find the AB very weak in its aspects. Even with the webbing and scramming, MWD still tend wins the day. Again, just an impression.
Other than that, I think it is better to give individual special role bonuses than just "all gets this thing". I'd be more for applying rare and awkward/unusual bonuses. I don't know, capable fitting Torp launchers, lower penalties to fitting and using 100mn Afterburner modules, migation to web/slowing debuffs - stuff like that. You know, unique traits.
Commentary:
The major problem I see with HACs has always been the mentality of them needing to do everything, deal monstrous dmg and be able to escape out of the mess at any given time - just seeing that from the last pages.
I for one would rather stay out of the theorycraft and debate as I do not use HACs anymore, somewhat for the reason mentioned above - (plus who gives a damn what I do or say ;D!).
Nevertheless, I find that there is too much of a comparisons focusing on making the ships more powerful than they already are. Yes, the very point of Tiericide is to get all ships the dreaded accessibility/utility they needed. However, I can still smell cookie cutter all over this one. While cookie cutters are not a serious issue, I can see that HACs in general will continue to be ships that will be spammed to oblivion from here on.
I'm probably sidetracking, so I'll get to the point I wanted to throw in:
I think there needs to be short thoughtful rehash on the traits and weaknesses of the HAC concept. Right now, it looks too messy. *Dramatization* All ships are just getting the best stats best bonuses etc, and then are just blindly being compared to each other in fashion of "wah wah, other ship has better stuff than mine".
Imo, there should be more focus on the racial/lore philosophies. In this case, I'd really REALLY would suggest Vaga being a bit more paper and therefore a really fast ship. I know personal impressions are not asked for, but to me it has more of a "Strike Cruiser" - now that sounds the same as HAC, but prior- to the nano/speed nerfs, it was pretty much good in driveby shootings, or like some STUKA plane. But now, most of the time I see it just being a flimsy boat frightened to get tackled. It is the pilot of course who controls the ship, but it is just due to that reason of the speed nerf etc.
Taking the Vagabond as an example for others, I'd say, make it vulnerable, therefore faster. I'd even go as far and say remove drones and make it even faster, therefore less HP. But I know that is unlikely to happen as everybody prefer this current behemoth version.
My other bizarre suggestion would be to bring in another set of ships; one having the new Vaga model, the other the older one - so we players could choose on the playstyle we prefer. We'd have the more vulnerable-yet-swift version and the more tankier/bruiser sort. But that is unlikely to happen.
In the end, I can only repeat what somebody recently said about the Tier3 BCs; these being capable of applying extreme dmg while at the same time being way too mobile. Sure, they're paper in the sense as I'd imagine it, but regarding their extreme stacking of BS-turrets - They're way too efficient.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Warcalibre
FDA Shipwrights Tri-Star Galactic Industries
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:30:00 -
[787] - Quote
I don't get what the HAC roles are supposed to be. Why shouldn't I just fly ABC or navy?
Looking forward to next revision! |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:30:00 -
[788] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote: how about instead of 5k range bonus, +1 extra Drone controlled per level. on the heavy assault cruiser? :) the Ishtar is a drone boat after all :)
... Are you trolling? Or do you want the Ishtar to be an OP OMGWTFPWNMOBILE doing 2000 DPS? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1005
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:33:00 -
[789] - Quote
Warcalibre wrote:I don't get what the HAC roles are supposed to be. Why shouldn't I just fly ABC or navy?
Looking forward to next revision!
I'm not sure what the role is either.
But it seems the role is very limitted and exactly same for every ship. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:33:00 -
[790] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:Honestly heavy missiles on Sac doesn't make much sense for the ship, maybe 5% damage+flighttime/velocity to HAMs to level would work better.
Actually it does... the sacrilege screems for damage range since it's slow. It was alright before the HAM pre nerf in wich could hit at 75KM with Javelin Missiles, but now Javelins hit at 30Km max in theory. With a 5% flight/velocity would hit at 37,5Km. wich is a laugh.
|
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:35:00 -
[791] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Travasty Space wrote:Honestly heavy missiles on Sac doesn't make much sense for the ship, maybe 5% damage+flighttime/velocity to HAMs to level would work better. Actually it does... the sacrilege screems for damage range since it's slow. It was alright before the HAM pre nerf in wich could hit at 75KM with Javelin Missiles, but now Javelins hit at 30Km max in theory. With a 5% flight/velocity would hit at 37,5Km. wich is a laugh.
If people want to trade the range for damage they can do it but give the sacrilege the hability to at least hit at medium range with a slight chance of actually kill anyhting
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
987
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:38:00 -
[792] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:Others have said it, you say it yourself: It does not. It's supposed to provide an alternative to what the Cyna, SFI and other ships do better. Yet even the Cyna and SFI are in dire positions overall.
Indeed and afterthought maybe a tracking bonus would be much better for this ship and useful in every pvp situations:
The 10% tracking bonus on the SFI is absolutely fantastic, alpha with arties is good for a cruiser, dps with autos and tank is also pretty good imho and puts this ship on the right spot.
Now to make our Vaga a bit more interesting this tracking bonus would probably be the best bonus choice over the shield boost one and at the same time offer a larger window of pvp possibilities. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
352
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:39:00 -
[793] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:Honestly heavy missiles on Sac doesn't make much sense for the ship, maybe 5% damage+flighttime/velocity to HAMs to level would work better. The Sac should have its 5th turret removed, move that high to a low (5/4/6) layout, 10%/lvl damage (vs. 5%) and the capacitor bonus to a HAM flight time, explosion velocity, or similar damage application bonus. Nobody is going to use a heavy armor ship for HMLs and kiting, though. Please realize that heavy armor is not really compatible with the "kiting" philosophy of agility and speed, and especially not an Amarr heavy armor ship (Gallente are somewhat compensated with higher agility and speed that they strip away when fitting armor).
Same for the Deimos. Definitely give it an additional low (or keep the utility high) and change the MWD bonus (which, again, gets wasted if you fit an AB (must be the theme of Gallente bonuses to go wasted)) to a tracking or optimal bonus (something with damage application), and give it a purpose. I'm not sure if you realize, but there aren't many Gallente pilots screaming for a rail-leaning kiting platform. Yes, it is going to be AWESOME to have to the choice to use rails and them not suck, but we know when we fly big green that we are committing to the fight when we close in to use our blasters: either they die or we do. And I guess if we're on the subject anyway, the Thorax will do a much better job at kiting with its higher agility and speed combined with its tracking bonus, making those rails that-much-better.
Besides, there's much better ships that kite out there, and I certainly wouldn't pick a Deimos (with its poor tank (now with more nerf!), big sig and slow speed) over a Zealot, Vaga, Cynabal, or similar (and that's not even talking about the ABCs that are great kiters as well).
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:44:00 -
[794] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I still think a fleet of aBC will dumpster the **** out of a fleet of the current and even newly proposed HACs. For a fraction of the cost too.
CCP Rise - If the MWD bloob sig role bonus is necessary enough to warrent then perhaps you should just reduce the sig of the HACs base down from the start. Then you can look into giving each HAC unique role bonuses that can open the door to make them not just 'better' T1 cruisers, but good at doing 'something'. Something that an aBC can't do and a T1 cruiser can't do.
This. Remove the mwd bonus, reduce sig of each HAC by 25%, then add specific role bonuses for each one. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4103
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:46:00 -
[795] - Quote
"If I'm supposed to be a close range brawler, why do I have a bonus for a long range weapon?" - Sacrilege . |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
333
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:46:00 -
[796] - Quote
I think the major problem here is that all the HACS are treated differently to each other rather than a unified approach..
Vaga - is clearly 20km skirmish kitey ship and very fast but ls slower than the stabber and cynabal despite its description claiming it is the fastest cruiser
Eagle - is slow as hell sniper yet is also a brawler apparently .. ishtar, muninn and zealot are very similar but more speed
Deimos- is what exactly? brawler ot railboat? shield or armour?
Cerberus - a 200km missile sniper .... this is good how? .. a HAM slower but tankier and more dps heavy version of caracal would work nicely here
Sacrilege - is a brawler it seems but lacks enough lows to tank properly and is slow
So these are all very different to each other .. which is why people are asking what is the role of a HAC because looking at these they are all a bit random ..
I think people would prefer a more vaga approach than a sacrilege approach as brawling is very risky too put a 200mil ship into a fight when its likely to be outclassed in tank and dps by any bc for a fraction of the cost.
Also with the upcoming CS buff and navy bc's costing a similar amount but with battleship like tank and more dps why would you want a brawling HAC? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
140
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:47:00 -
[797] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I still think a fleet of aBC will dumpster the **** out of a fleet of the current and even newly proposed HACs. For a fraction of the cost too.
CCP Rise - If the MWD bloob sig role bonus is necessary enough to warrent then perhaps you should just reduce the sig of the HACs base down from the start. Then you can look into giving each HAC unique role bonuses that can open the door to make them not just 'better' T1 cruisers, but good at doing 'something'. Something that an aBC can't do and a T1 cruiser can't do. This. Remove the mwd bonus, reduce sig of each HAC by 25%, then add specific role bonuses for each one.
Yes.
One brawler one sniper for each race: 50% range bonus for the snipers, 50% damage bonus for the brawlers? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4103
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:50:00 -
[798] - Quote
"If I'm supposed to be a rail gun kitting ship, why would someone fly me instead of the Eagle?" - Deimos . |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4103
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:52:00 -
[799] - Quote
"If I'm supposed to be a drone specialized ship, why don't I have CPU for drone upgrade modules?" - Ishtar . |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
443
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:57:00 -
[800] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:"If I'm supposed to be a rail gun kitting ship, why would someone fly me instead of the Eagle?" - Deimos
Well Deimos is a BLASTER boat :P |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
352
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:57:00 -
[801] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:"If I'm supposed to be a close range brawler, why do I have a bonus for a long range weapon?" - Sacrilege It seems CCP is on this trend to give every race every possible playstyle in some fashion. I guess they wanted to be all-inclusive for the noobs that picked Amarr and are "stuck" with a Sacrilege. So what do you do to win that player over and not have them filled with weeks of regret and remorse for their racial ship line choice? Include the ability to use HMLs. Granted, Amarr ships are all about high agility, quick speed, light tank and long range and kiting, so it makes complete sense. For example, when I fly--and I want the fastest kiting ship--I totally think "AMARR!!!" ;) As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
119
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:57:00 -
[802] - Quote
Disagree with anyone saying the Sacrilege shouldn't get the HML bonus. Why on earth not? Yes it is a slow ship that is better suited to HAM, but why should that mean it must be locked down to a single weapon type. Every other ship bonus can apply to both long and short range weapons of the class. A missile spewing, smallish sig, tanky armour ship able to fly at range could potentially be a nice ship to have. Who cares if it is slow - it's not like the Drake was ever bought for it's speed!
I'd like CCP to consider some other more unique role bonuses to make these more interesting. Also more interesting bonuses - I like the faction ships with the bonuses that are larger than 5-10%, just makes them a bit more interesting. Few random ideas without much thought into them... (probably all flawed ideas, but they stand out a bit) -Resistance to webs? -Role bonus that gave double damage but half rate of fire for better ammo/cap usage. -Afterburner speed bonus -Sig reduction on weaponry fitted? -Role Bonus - not affected by negative effects from Armourplates/shield extenders and rigs?
Think outside the box! :) |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
140
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:58:00 -
[803] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:"If I'm supposed to be a rail gun kitting ship, why would someone fly me instead of the Eagle?" - Deimos Well Deimos is a BLASTER boat :P
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=260025&find=unread
CCP intends for a Diemost to fit rails and snipe. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:59:00 -
[804] - Quote
3 MAJOR problems here:
1: The zealot needs a drone bay. You are not giving it a tracking bonus, so it can still be kited and killed by a t1 frigate. This is entirely unacceptable. Why not give it both? Swapping optimal range bonus for tracking speed would work, and giving it a drone bay comparable to the t1 omen would make it an excellent close-range brawler.
2: The sacrilege continues to suffer from the lack of an additional fitting slot. If all of the new HAC loadouts had +1 slot, a 6th lowslot would currently solve all the issues it has in regards to balancing tank and dps.
3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard. |
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:01:00 -
[805] - Quote
Syri Taneka wrote:The problem with the Eagle and Munnin on today's battlefield is that both are completely outmoded by the Tier 3 (Attack) Battlecruisers, which do BS-level damage with very high range potential and have a staggering degree of mobility for their hull size. Compared to these ships, Sniper-HACs are simply not cost-effective (both in pure isk cost and in training time). As a result, the Eagle has become the go-to for blaster brawling with a shield buffer, while the Munnin is... ignored completely.
The Cerberus is similarly plagued. Kiting isn't very effective if your enemy decides not to try and run you down, and since a HAC cannot point at the same range a Cerb can engage at, you'll either end up being chased down by something which you can't kill, or your target will warp out (wasting ammo). The only thing I fly a Cerb for is anti-frigate support in HAC gangs, by fitting Rapid Light Missile Launchers (which are simply devastating to small craft, at much higher target velocities than medium guns can typically manage). Unfortunately, the Cerb also has a very weak tank compared to other HACs, largely because of the EM hole which forces a hardener to be fit in the mids.
So, what these ships need:
The listed changes for the Eagle are perfectly fine. With the Optimal Range bonuses, you can engage reliably at 20-30km with Null M (or 10-15km with Void M), making the only realistic utility high option (a small neut/NOS) pointless, which subsequently makes the extra mid much more useful.
The Munnin needs to be re-optimized for close combat. Where the Vagabond is a highly mobile, "strike and fade," type ship, the Munnin should be an armed-to-the-teeth brick. Less maneuverable, but nasty once in range.
The Cerberus should play to its only current strength as well: Killing small craft. Drop the Flight Time bonus in favor of an Explosion Velocity buff, and consider making the Kin damage bonus an un-typed one OR drop the damage bonus altogether in favor of a shield resist bonus.
I don't much care for pigeon holing the Cerberus into an anti-frigate ship. I think just adding a rapid light missiles to the current missiles bonuses now is sufficient. The ship just needs a buff to its base stats, particularly speed and fitting and maybe boost the tank some and it'll be in a good spot. Un-typing the damage bonus though would be a good change I'll give you that. |
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:05:00 -
[806] - Quote
Mirei Jun wrote:First let me say, thank you for looking at HACs. This has been a long time coming. The following criticism and suggestions are meant to be constructive.
SACRILEGE - This ship doesn't have enough low slots to take advantage of its great defense and cap bonuses. In skirmish warfare it should be able to fit active armor reps. In larger fights it should have enough lows to be very tough.
However, 4 mid slots is a good thing and fits it's role as a utility ship. So what should be done? I suggest removing its extra high slot. This means players that want to focus more on utility through neutralizers will need to give up a bit of damage to do it. At the same time the ship will get enough lows to armor tank properly. The new improved drone bay will mitigate some of the issues here, as well.
Suggestion: Change the slot load out to 5H, 4M, 6L
ZEALOT - Its working as intended. The new MWD bonus will make it even better.
CERBERUS - This ship is getting a much needed damage boost with 6 launchers. Its high slots are no longer wasted.
However, the kinetic missile bonus is legacy in nature. This ship needs to be able to pack a punch equally well with any of the four damage types.
The second issue is a combination of slot load out and targeting range. This ship was designed to "poke" from very long distances. However the Cerb's targeting range simply doesn't match its design. This has been a problem for a long time. Additionally, to get the targeting range you need you give up those much needed mid slots, or worse get less efficient results by using low slots while giving up damage (or speed). This ship doesn't get any kind of resist bonus and needs enough mids to withstand some punishment. Furthermore, HAM fits should be an option. with only 5 mids close range fits are risky.
I suggest giving up a low slot for an additional mid and boosting the base targeting range. With the new speed boost this ship will be able to race about the battle field firing missiles from long ranges, or burn up close and dish out punishment with HAMs while having decent survivability.
Suggestions: Change the slot load out to 6H, 6M, 3L. Change the base targeting range to (at least) 100km (even more would not hurt). Change the kinetic damage bonus to a flat missile damage bonus.
EAGLE - I think the overall changes here are good. The biggest problem with the current Eagle is actually fitting. The PG buff aims to address this. Increasing its slot efficiency is also a much needed improvement.
However, this ship suffers from the exact same problem as the Cerb -serious targeting range issues.
Suggestion: Increase the base targeting range to at least 100km.
DEIMOS - I'm excited to see the results of these changes. No more worthless high slot and more speed is good. The new role bonus is going to benefit the Deimos immensely.
One huge problem for the Deimos was fitting. Its PG was abysmal. We'll have to see if 40 PG is enough (probably so).
ISHTAR - More gun slots with less specialization in guns and more focus on drones -great!
The question still remains how in the world we're suppose to actually use those gun slots with such terrible a PG, but that's a good drawback for this ship.
Honestly this was what the Navy Vexor should have been. The new Ishtar totally overshadows the Navy Vexor and officially makes it worthless. I suggest revisiting that ship when you have a chance.
VAGABOND - This is an interesting change. It doesn't do a thing to the old style of Vaga combat, but adds new options. X-Large ASB, anyone? We'll have to see how this plays out.
MUNINN - This is another ship I believe will immensely benefit from the new HAC role bonus. It will be faster with a better slot spread. I think it will become a staple in kiting HAC gangs. Again, we'll have to see how this plays out.
I am excited to see the end results of the HAC changes. Overall it still seems like these ships aren't strong enough over the T1 versions to justify the significantly higher cost. I, for one will be doing a lot of testing when the changes go live.
Thanks again!
Some good suggestions here, I approve.
+1 |
Major Killz
SniggWaffe
225
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:07:00 -
[807] - Quote
For about a year or so I've been making jokes about CCP possibly introducing a signature bonus to heavy assault cruisers. You know, when ever conversation on "HACS" come up. Which I find silly because I believe introducing signature bonuses to assault frigates was a mistake. *Cant wait to see what kind of signature changes they'll do to interceptors *
So I was literary bombarded with mails about how I should be working for CCP. I'll put signature bonuses on EVERYTHING and make bank while doing nothing really. This thread is stupid and just about all ship changes bar tech 1 cruisers and Navy cruisers since 2011 have been RTARDO.
Things on the frigate level has been so CRAP it's ridiculous. In an attempt to make all frigates viable CCP reduced it to a handful when there was MUCH MORE competition. In fact I see the same with tech 1 cruisers and battle-cruisers.
I mean if you're not flying a Vexor or Caracal/Bellicose what are you really doing? Remember the changes to damps and tracking disruptor's? SO BAD ITS AMAZING and the funny thing is that those modules were hella OP anyway. The only thing back then was not many people used them. There were dudes using damp celetis and damps on random ships in fleets back then but not as much as now.
Hurricane died because of Teir 3 battle-cruisers and p much the same for the Harbinger and not so much the Drake. I really don't like the Cyclone with HAms. I like how CCP replaced the drake with the armour Drake too (prophecy). So its safe to say the performance scaling of many classes of ships are just REALLY fuc*ed.
Also! Maybe the Vagabond should have a bonus to shield AMOUNT instead of boosting or whatever? Even removing the high slot for another mid even though no neut would be interesting. I've flown all the HACS solo and I'd be interested in the Mumin solo with the changes suggested so far and the same with sacrilege and Cerberus. Can I get some more grid out of the Ishtar and another Low slot please?
Anyway. Good luck with trying to figure this out because I find it difficult myself. The thing is CCP has made this game even more imbalanced. There's serious overlap between Caldari and Minmatar missile ships and the same between amarr and Gallente drone ships. There has been a serious random effort to ignore power creep. Tech 1 frigates that have more damage and tank than tech 2 frigates. The same with tech 1 cruisers and the Overlap between teir 3 battle-cruisers and battleships. CCP seems not to even notice. In fact they suggested they would make changes and ignore these things and come back later on. Well to me its clear there is no intent on doing so and its not even noticed or maybe ignored. With the current meta you would have to do some serious OP to make HACS worth it over tech 1 cruisers much less navy cruisers. You may notice that the proposed ishtar is not much better than a Vexor Navy issue. Infact all the proposed Hacs seem to be on par with or worse than FACTION NAVY CRUISERS.
TDLR: Power creep and overlap needs to be LOOKED AT NOW. FACTION NAVY CRUISERS ARE AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN THE proposed HAC CHANGES. BATTELCRUISERS BAR TIER 3 ARE IN A STRANGE PLACE BAR PROPHECY WHICH IS THE NEW DRAKE (drake still good). Why is CCP's ANSWER TO EVERYTHING A SIGNATURE BONUS?
- Killz
Combat Video Log: http://www.youtube.com/user/kdsalmon/videos - Pantaloon (June 13, 2013) - Pantaloon II: Violins (Jun 23, 2013) |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:10:00 -
[808] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote: 3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.
Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids.
Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore.
I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
140
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:16:00 -
[809] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote: 3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.
Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids. Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore. I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids.
Thing is the brawling isn't what a Vaga is for! Vagabonds, or should I say Minmatar, are the skirmish warfare race.
What the Vaga ACTUALLY needed was more EHP and grid (to beat out the Cynabal) and instead of a shield boost bonus (which is ignored on all Minmatar ships except the Cyclone) a bonus to tracking or agility or something that helped its kiting ability.
A 5th mid would also be called for
All HACs should have 16 slots [except the Ishtar,15 slots] How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
987
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:25:00 -
[810] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote: 3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.
Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids. Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore. I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids.
+2 mids would make it a bit too powerfull when you think about fitting possibilities and how much out of whack shield modules are for a fast kiting ship, but 5 indeed is a must have for any decent shield ship.
The question is, is Vaga really a shield ship or an armor one? current bonus says shield but slots numbers....lol ? *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:26:00 -
[811] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Cearain wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote: 3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.
Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids. Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore. I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids. Thing is the brawling isn't what a Vaga is for! Vagabonds, or should I say Minmatar, are the skirmish warfare race. What the Vaga ACTUALLY needed was more EHP and grid (to beat out the Cynabal) and instead of a shield boost bonus (which is ignored on all Minmatar ships except the Cyclone) a bonus to tracking or agility or something that helped its kiting ability. A 5th mid would also be called for All HACs should have 16 slots [except the Ishtar,15 slots]
I disagree the vaga needs to "beat out" the cynabal at the same role. I'm more interested in variety.
I would be happy if it is no longer fixed into the function of being a kiter. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
443
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:38:00 -
[812] - Quote
That post does not state in ANY form that they intend the deimos to have that role. Just points that is CAN with certain specific capabilities.
Incredible how people like to over interpret things. |
Drunken Bum
411
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:40:00 -
[813] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:3 MAJOR problems here:
1: The zealot needs a drone bay. You are not giving it a tracking bonus, so it can still be kited and killed by a t1 frigate. This is entirely unacceptable. Why not give it both? Swapping optimal range bonus for tracking speed would work, and giving it a drone bay comparable to the t1 omen would make it an excellent close-range brawler.
2: The sacrilege continues to suffer from the lack of an additional fitting slot. If all of the new HAC loadouts had +1 slot, a 6th lowslot would currently solve all the issues it has in regards to balancing tank and dps.
3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard. 1 the zealots fine
2 the new sac looks awesome. I love sac.
3 agreed. After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary. -á-Fozzie |
Merii Kha'sen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:44:00 -
[814] - Quote
The Sacrilege needs the "spare" high moved to a lowslot. This means that it can be an even more insane active-tank brick, even if it does terrible damage because of missiles being terrible.
Zealot is fine as is. It could use some more CPU or PG (5% of each?) but overall it's fine.
Vagabond needs to be slowed down so it's not the end-all uncatchable invulnerable ASB'ed HAC. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:44:00 -
[815] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:"If I'm supposed to be a close range brawler, why do I have a bonus for a long range weapon?" - Sacrilege
So a inty like a stiletto can not hold him forever, since a sacrilege simply doesn't have the range to hit it due to lack of range.... and it's the only one in it's class with that problem... |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
341
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:45:00 -
[816] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Yes.
One brawler one sniper for each race: 50% range bonus for the snipers, 50% damage bonus for the brawlers?
This is amazing and I love it.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
141
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:45:00 -
[817] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:That post does not state in ANY form that they intend the deimos to have that role. Just points that is CAN with certain specific capabilities. Incredible how people like to over interpret things.
Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.
Cearain wrote:
I disagree the vaga needs to "beat out" the Cynabal at the same role. I'm more interested in variety.
I would be happy if it is no longer fixed into the function of being a kiter.
If the Vaga is a T2, specialized, ship, and the Cynabal is a generic faction ship, the T2 ship should be better at its specalized role than the faction ship.
If the Vaga had more shield HP and grid it would work better as a kiting ship AND as a brawling ship. Tto fit an XL ASB and Dual 180s an ancillary rig is required. Dual 180s, not even 220s.
And with the shield boost bonus an overheated XL ASB reps almost the entire capacity of the Vaga's shields, which is just ludicrous. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
EXIA MIKOSZ
Strike Birds Zero
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:49:00 -
[818] - Quote
CCP if you want give SACRILEGE a chance in these changes put 1 low slot!!!! |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
443
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:50:00 -
[819] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:[
Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.
Implication in this case come smuch more from your mind than anything else.
I coudl state that the reason he decided to use this ship was because the Talos is also gallente. And my assertion would have the same level of assurance or insanity as yours. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
142
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:59:00 -
[820] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:[
Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.
Implication in this case come smuch more from your mind than anything else. I coudl state that the reason he decided to use this ship was because the Talos is also gallente. And my assertion would have the same level of assurance or insanity as yours.
Eagle and Diemost both use hybrids, Talos uses hybrids, if they wanted to compare a sniper ship to a Talos they could have used the Eagle and made more sense.
Also I recall someone saying the Diemost was to be a sniper, which I found ridiculous... How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Gorgoth24
Sickology
36
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:01:00 -
[821] - Quote
I don't like the change of the ishtar to a sentry boat as it was most used as a brawler. Really feel it has the same role as the navy vexor with the same fitting issues.
No matter how the sac is bonused I still see them camping gates for most of their usage. But maybe that's just me. Ship seems fine as it is
I'm not quite sure about buffing the vaga, but I'll defer to you guys since it's an active buff.
But, overall, nice stuff |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:02:00 -
[822] - Quote
good thing the eagle is a long range death machine. its a little too ugly to be within viewing range. |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
81
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:05:00 -
[823] - Quote
vaga desperately needs 5 mids if its going to be an active tanker (the ASB isn't the only kind of shield booster you know...)
Not sure the best place to borrow the slot from,but I agree with some previous posts that the Hawk has 5. MWD, hardener point and booster isn't good enough for a ship to get an entire dedicated boost bonus. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:06:00 -
[824] - Quote
any reason why the caldari are so focused on long range now? just curious |
Arazel Chainfire
Sons Of 0din The Unthinkables
207
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:06:00 -
[825] - Quote
I spent a few hours looking at these changes and theorycrafting a little to see what could potentially happen with these changes. Overall, I'm rather unimpressed. Note, I am not looking at having them outshine T1 cruisers as much as they had before teiricide. However, their role is far too similar to the roles of BC's, and the only ship that may actually be viable after these changes that wasn't before is the cerb. Everything else either doesn't have a role that it shines in, or has its role enchroached on too much by other ships (namely, BC's).
Addressing the ships point by point:
Sacrilege:
Currently, it isn't flown. Basically, at all, by anyone. If you want HAM's, you use either a drake, a tengu, or a caracel. If you want heavies, you are an idiot.
With these changes, we have a bit more powergrid, though powergrid never really was a problem. We have a bit more capacitor and hp, but not enough to significantly change things. We have a smidge more speed and agility, but again, not really any significant changes. As we have more drone bay/bandwidth. Basically, the changes only boil down to the role bonus, more powergrid, more drone bay, and bonuses affecting heavy missiles as well.
As for fits, there are currently 3 "viable" fits for the sac. There is passive armor tank, active armor tank, and passive shield buffer.
The shield buffer fit is rather poor, as you have gaping EM/therm resist holes, but you can fit a MWD, point, 2 extenders, and nano's/BCU's in the lows. After these changes, this fit will be slightly more viable, but again it will only be used by people who can't fly a caracel, because the caracel fills that role better, for significantly cheaper.
The passive armor tank fit right now fits HAM's, 1 1600mm plate, 2 EANM's, a thermic plate, BCU, and then has 3 mids for scram/web/point/else. After these changes, it will still only have 65-70k EHP, because the additional powergrid doesn't allow it to fit more plates. It will be slightly more survivable under MWD. But to give any real benefit to this build, the ship would need more CPU.
The active armor tank, which runs off of a pair of medium armor reps, also really isn't improved. This fit had plenty of spare powergrid, and again was only really suffering from low CPU. It can't fit a large cap battery because of CPU, but it can fit a medium cap booster just fine right now.
Overall, the changes to the sac don't really give it any boost. And the sac is desperately in need of something to make it useful and useable. As it is right now, its only real role is that of a brawler, and it drastically outshined by all the t1 BC's. If you want a HAM brawler, the drake is still better. If you want an armor brawler, both the prophecy and the harb ar still better. And if you want either a HAM or HM nano/kite ship, the caracel is still better. This ship either needs more tank, more dps, or more manuverability, or it is going to continue to be unused, and outshined in every role.
Zelot: Right now, the zelot is in a fine place for AHAC gangs. Admittedly, AHAC gangs is the only place it is useful, but it is pretty much the only HAC that is actually used right now. The changes made to it basically consist of making round numbers for its defense and mobility, meaning that the only change that comes in is the MWD sig radius reduction. Sadly for it, it doesn't really have the CPU to actually fit a MWD, without making pretty significant compromises elsewhere. If you are happy with the zelot remaining only used in AHAC gangs, that is fine. But if you wanted it to be viable for any other role, it could use a bit of a buff.
Cerberus: The cerb gets another launcher, a fairly nice buff to its CPU and powergrid, a minor buff to its capacitor, a pretty decent buff to its speed, a smidge of drone bay, and its hp's rounded to whole numbers. The powergrid buff is basically enough to allow it to actually fit its new 6th launcher, while the CPU buff gives enough for the launcher and a bit more besides.
Overall, these changes give it a nice bonus to being a kiting HAM ship, with HAM's able to hit out to 45km using standard missiles. Combined with the recent buffs to HAM's, and this ship actually becomes an upgrade to the caracel. In this role, the cerberus gets a 200dps boost, a 15km range boost, and a 15k ish EHP boost over the caracel. Adding to this the bonus for sig radius using MWD, and we may actually see Cerbs in use. The heavy missile build for the cerb still has unnecessarily excessive range, and after the recent changes does fairly pitiful damage. It may still see niche useage, but with the great range the cerb has with HAM's, it probably won't be seen often. I would call this a good change.
-continued- |
Arazel Chainfire
Sons Of 0din The Unthinkables
207
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:08:00 -
[826] - Quote
-continued-
Eagle: The eagle looses a high for a mid, gets a decent amount more powergrid, but does loose a smidge of CPU, gains a nice amount of shield, and a smidge of speed. The eagle has two viable fits, a railgun fit and a blaster fit.
For the blaster fit, it already had plenty of spare CPU. It has nice range but the dps isn't particularly spectacular. These changes will give this fit a bit more tank, but nothing spectacular. It has less dps and ehp than any brawling BC, but it does at least have more manuverability. The changes here won't really change the viability of the blaster eagle much, but it does give it a small bonus.
For the railgun fit, it gets a bit more EHP and some much needed pwergrid, but these changes don't really affect its viability all that much. However, the changes to medium railguns give it a massive boost, giving it a 35% boost to its dps. Since it can hit out to 40km using antimatter without any range mods, and now can potentially do so with near 500dps, this might actually be the change it needs to become viable.
Overall, I would want the eagle to get a bit more speed. Aside from that, these balance changes at least make it potentially viable.
Deimos: At the moment, there is a reason why the deimos is called the diemost. It basically has no role at all that doesn't get it killed, or that can't be done much more viably by other ships for cheaper.
These changes would swap a utility high for a mid, give it a smidge of powergrid, a smidge of cap, and some shield in exchange for massive nerfs to its armor and hull. The extra mid may allow the deimos to be able to run a shield buffer.
So we have the shield blaster fit, which is fast, but squishy. With null loaded, it can effectively hit out to point range. However, it will be completely incapable of moving in to brawling range with anything. Looking at the armor blaster fit, it doesn't have the cap to run armor reps, or the powergrid to support that. Running a buffer fit, it doesn't do anything that a brutix can't do better, and it doesn't have the buffer to survive trying to get into range. So if you want to run blasters, the only fit you are really going to see is the shield null kite fit.
Moving on to railguns, the boost to medium railguns will potentially make the ahac deimos viable. Using 2 magstabs, it will be able to break 500dps at 22+34 with faction antimatter. It will be lacking a bit in tank compared to the zelot, but it is at least viable. Finishing up with the shield railgun deimos, with the buff to medium railguns this could potentially be the best version of this ship. You can fit it with MWD, 2 extenders and point, with 2 magstabs, 2 TE, and 2 nano's, and have over 500 gun dps with javelin or antimatter with decent tracking in point range. And of course, you would be able to hit hard at longer ranges as well just by swapping ammo out.
Overall, it would be nice if the deimos could get some more CPU, and it still isn't really a viable blaster ship. However, the changes to medium railguns may make it potentially viable there.
Ishtar: Right now, the ishtar is just plain bad. It has the lowest CPU of any cruiser in the game, with the only exceptions being the augoror and the exequror - both of which are T1 armor logi cruisers. It also suffers from pathetic powergrid, again, the lowest of any HAC. Lastly, right now, drones suck. The UI is horrible and clunky, heavy drones are fairly useless, and the only type of drone that is used much are sentries, because then you don't have to worry about travel time. However, the ishtar is a HAC, and it has to remain mobile, which doesn't work well with how sentries are stationary.
With the proposed changes, the ishtar gets teh bonus to drone tracking and optimal range from the dominix. This basically gives it the exact same T1 bonuses as the domi. The HAC bonuses though are unimpressive. You get a bonus to control range, which is ok, but matched by a single 55CPU highslot mod. The bonus to drone bay amount is also uninspiring, on the same level as the cap usage bonuses that have been getting phased out on the amarr line. That being said, because of how the ship is designed, it has to have that drone bay, because there is no other way that this ship is accomplishing anything.
Overall, this is a buff to the ishtar. However, I do not feel that it is a buff that would get it to see any more use. The ship is too uninspiring in all other ways for that to happen.
Vagabond: It swaps the speed bonus to a shield boost amount, and the speed bonus gets built in to the ship. The vaga however had already had its space, and didn't really need much of a buff. The shield boost bonus will help it a little bit, and the role bonus will also help it a lot. Overall, the changes here are just fine.
-continued- |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1140
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:10:00 -
[827] - Quote
Vaga is silly.. Its a shield ship with five lows and four mids (Clearly designed around the XLASB fits)
Also why is the Vaga allowed to be so fast? I get that it used to be a part of its bonus but now it basically has five bonuses.. It goes 700 m/s faster then a cerb... SEVEN HUNDRED. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4110
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:13:00 -
[828] - Quote
Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. . |
Arazel Chainfire
Sons Of 0din The Unthinkables
207
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:14:00 -
[829] - Quote
-continued-
Muninn: Right now, the only real use for the muninn is the arty with 2 shield extenders. The proposed changes would swap a high for a low, and the rest of the changes are pretty insignificant.
Ignoring everything else, it seems that getting a 6th low would allow the muninn to armor tank, and be an armor brawler. However, it won't have the EHP to actually be a brawler, and it is hampered by having poor kinetic/explosive armor resists. Theoretically, it could fit into AHAC gangs, and with the change it could match the deimos's EHP, but doing so it would max at over 100 less dps at range with arty fitted. So you have less dps than the deimos, less EHP than the zelot, and a poor resist profile.
Shield wise, nothing will really change, though the MWD+extender fits will be a little bit more surviable with the role bonus. However, the best change that would boost this would be to take the highslot and put it in as a mid instead of a low. Doing that would give it a firm role that it would take, instead of trying to halfass it into an armor lineup.
Overall, I would call these changes a minor boost to the muninn, but not really enough to make it viable.
To conclude, the caldari ships are actually benefiting from these changes, and the deimos may actually see some usage. For the rest of the changes, the ships are still too uninspiring compared to other options available. The HAC line has been needing a buff for years to give it a role that hasn't been thoroughly stomped all over by the BC's. The changes proposed here leave us with the zelot shoehorned into the AHAC role, the cerb potentially becoming a viable HAM ship, the vagabond still having its niche, and the muninn maintaining its role as a maneuverable shield midrange sniper. The deimos may have been buffed into viability, and same with the eagle. But the ishtar and the sac will both remain useless.
Good first attempt at balancing, but I recommend you go back and decide what role HAC's are actually supposed to fit into, and then try to actually put them there, instead of trying to slip them into the tiny gap between T1 cruisers and T1 BC's.
-Arazel |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
68
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:17:00 -
[830] - Quote
Going to quote myself for a moment, then jump on the bandwagon Phoenix Jones wrote:You know what, just add a slot to every ship and don't change the powergrid/cpu of them at all, and let the people try to balance it out. The HAC creators managed to overslot the ships, but could not get them to produce any extra powergrid or cpu to cover the overslotting, allowing for creative endeavors to be done with them.
Change the Role Bonus to 10% hit points (shield,armor and hull) and 4% resistances (shield and armor). People will either try to overtank it, or just decide that it has enough health, lets add speed rigs, damage rigs, etc). (this is flat, not per level)
Zealot. Extra High, Utility Slot Sacrelige. Extra low (no extra cpu or powergrid)
Deimos. Extra low (damn thing needs to get in range, in addition if they want to rail fit it, they can and give it enough speed to do it) Ishtar. Extra Mid (the CPU and Powergrid would have to be checked on this ship, as it is SO tight)
Eagle. Extra Mid (Yep 7 mids, no extra cpu/powergrid). Cereberus (Extra Low) (can nano or overdrive the ship, giving it its needed speed, or heck if your crazy armor tank the damn thing)
Vagabond. Extra Mid (yep 6/5/5) (no extra grid/cpu) Muninn. Extra Mid (6/4/6).
Absolutely no thought of balance, reasoning for why the slot allotment was selected, or any type of care of your feelings were taken into account for the above proposal.
Everybody is basically asking for this. We want the ships to be worth 150 million isk, but they aren't much different from the 10 million isk version. Instead of trying to finagle a reason why, or chopping ship cost, just add a extra slot to them. The value of the spare slot increases the usefulness of the ship, but the restrictiveness of the grid and CPU really hampers the " omg wtf pwn" fits. I'm sure someone could fit the ships above and make them awesome. Good, let them put a 100 mil isk plate on the ship to meet grid, that's the concious choice. The above gives the ships fitter a choice on what to do with the ships, while making the ships more unique and useful, but not overbearing the t1 versions because they still have to work within the grid.
|
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
988
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:20:00 -
[831] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Vaga is silly.. Its a shield ship with five lows and four mids (Clearly designed around the XLASB fits)
Also why is the Vaga allowed to be so fast? I get that it used to be a part of its bonus but now it basically has five bonuses.. It goes 700 m/s faster then a cerb... SEVEN HUNDRED.
Because as a specialized ship there's no reason why Cynabal is faster and agile, one or the other but not both and believe me I don't want to see Faction cruisers loose their tr+ál+ál+á because they're so awesome to fly it would be bad for the game to break them down to oblivion.
However I don't care Vaga being the fastest ship in the game, at all. This is exactly what this ship should be about, 5mids 4 lows 5 Turrets and zip zap all around, however to achieve this over the Cynabal and as all T2 cruisers are in desperate need a third rig slot is mandatory, not an option but simply mandatory and Cynabal must get a nef to agility after this but not keep and the speed and the interceptor agility. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
352
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:22:00 -
[832] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Have all my likes.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
988
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:23:00 -
[833] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Have all my likes.
Good idea indeed. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
334
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:26:00 -
[834] - Quote
for the deimos to get more viability out of blasters i think it needs a stronger falloff bonus or a second falloff bonus and more tank.
DEIMOS - Like the Thorax, Deimos now has 4 mids and gives up the extra high. It also goes faster and aligns faster.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 10% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 1030 PWG(+40), 380 CPU (+30) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1550(+390) / 2200(+160) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount) : 1500(+125) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 15 Magnetometric Signature radius: 110 Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1148
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:30:00 -
[835] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I still think a fleet of aBC will dumpster the **** out of a fleet of the current and even newly proposed HACs. For a fraction of the cost too.
CCP Rise - If the MWD bloob sig role bonus is necessary enough to warrent then perhaps you should just reduce the sig of the HACs base down from the start. Then you can look into giving each HAC unique role bonuses that can open the door to make them not just 'better' T1 cruisers, but good at doing 'something'. Something that an aBC can't do and a T1 cruiser can't do.
the only problem i see in reducing base sig radius is ahacs are already viable... you dont want to make them op. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
352
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:30:00 -
[836] - Quote
Arazel Chainfire wrote:Ishtar: Right now, the ishtar is just plain bad. It has the lowest CPU of any cruiser in the game, with the only exceptions being the augoror and the exequror - both of which are T1 armor logi cruisers. It also suffers from pathetic powergrid, again, the lowest of any HAC. Lastly, right now, drones suck. The UI is horrible and clunky, heavy drones are fairly useless, and the only type of drone that is used much are sentries, because then you don't have to worry about travel time. However, the ishtar is a HAC, and it has to remain mobile, which doesn't work well with how sentries are stationary.
With the proposed changes, the ishtar gets teh bonus to drone tracking and optimal range from the dominix. This basically gives it the exact same T1 bonuses as the domi. The HAC bonuses though are unimpressive. You get a bonus to control range, which is ok, but matched by a single 55CPU highslot mod. The bonus to drone bay amount is also uninspiring, on the same level as the cap usage bonuses that have been getting phased out on the amarr line. That being said, because of how the ship is designed, it has to have that drone bay, because there is no other way that this ship is accomplishing anything. It would have been really neat to see the standard "+10% Drone Hitpoints and Damage per level" bonus changed during the tiericide initiative and varied the bonuses on some of these ships. For example, the Ishtar should have had that ridiculous +50 m3 drone bay/level changed to the Nexor's +5% Drone Speed/lvl. Then, the ship would have been viable as *the* drone ship. It would have bonuses supporting lights, meds and heavies, in addition to sentry-themed bonuses of tracking/optimal and drone control range.
Then, you separate the Nexor out as +12.5%/lvl Drone damage and 10% Drone hp/lvl and only give it 50 mb/s. It'd be a specialty boat tailored to medium and lights.
* * *
And just sort of an OT comment, can someone please explain the -1 slot per ship for drone ships? The part I don't understand is that if I choose to use ewar drones--which is the reason I've heard the most for the lack of a slot--then I don't get to do damage. So, THAT IS THE TRADEOFF. NO DAMAGE at all! If anything, it would seem that ships that have "regular" weapon bonuses AND have a drone bay ought to be the ones with the -1 slot, since they DON'T have to trade their damage for ewar. They get to use ewar drones as effectively and still put out their full damage. Why is it the other way around?? It sounds just like an old mindset or way of thinking, or something that is "because that is the way it has been done." As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
352
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:32:00 -
[837] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Actually, if we're going down this route, can we make the role bonus "Able to fit MJD"??? It always made much more sense that smaller, brawly ships would use MJDs to close the gap and brawl.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1687
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:33:00 -
[838] - Quote
None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
443
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:35:00 -
[839] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:[
Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.
Implication in this case come smuch more from your mind than anything else. I coudl state that the reason he decided to use this ship was because the Talos is also gallente. And my assertion would have the same level of assurance or insanity as yours. Eagle and Diemost both use hybrids, Talos uses hybrids, if they wanted to compare a sniper ship to a Talos they could have used the Eagle and made more sense. Also I recall someone saying the Diemost was to be a sniper, which I found ridiculous...
Surely you are joking... your line of tough is even weaker than the one that CCP used to explain why Incarna was a wonderful expansion! |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
24
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:38:00 -
[840] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense.
I will like this as well, that would make game play alot more interesting.
Here are my thoughts.
Deimost : will still Never Be flown, it needs to either have a little more of everything including tank "in your face brawler" or it should be re-designed all together
Ishtar: is good as always... could use a bit more CPU after running tests in EFT
Cerberus: is better it would be nice to see a close range brwaler missle boat for caldari Raven is long range Rohk is long range drake is meduim range Cerb is long range Eagle is long range naga is long range
It would be nice to have a caldari ship that got some better damage mods and was made to be an in your face brawler.
Eagle is nice for what it does
Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus.
Zealot is ok as is, maybe a few tweks could be done
Vaga is now a monster, its gunna make solo PvP very interesting
Munin though has gotten better still could take more looking at. still dont see why people would fly it over alot of the other HACs
|
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1148
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:38:00 -
[841] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:[
Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.
Implication in this case come smuch more from your mind than anything else. I coudl state that the reason he decided to use this ship was because the Talos is also gallente. And my assertion would have the same level of assurance or insanity as yours. Eagle and Diemost both use hybrids, Talos uses hybrids, if they wanted to compare a sniper ship to a Talos they could have used the Eagle and made more sense. Also I recall someone saying the Diemost was to be a sniper, which I found ridiculous...
if the deimos had a tracking bonus then javelin with 250's and some te's would be nice. that could be the ahac setup for the ship. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
24
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:40:00 -
[842] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost.
this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together
price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater.
make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1148
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:41:00 -
[843] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost.
i remember when a eagle was 70 million isk... is your problem more a supply demand thing rather then a build cost thing?
good way to ofset build cost could be adding moon goo to hauler drops... this could help flood the market and reduce build costs...
lets say if ccp did a blanket build cost reduction and then later in the year also did something to saturate tech II production mods in the market then hacs would be silly cheap and tech I would never be used. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1141
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:41:00 -
[844] - Quote
Baren wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. I will like this as well, that would make game play alot more interesting. Here are my thoughts. Deimost : will still Never Be flown, it needs to either have a little more of everything including tank "in your face brawler" or it should be re-designed all together Ishtar: is good as always... could use a bit more CPU after running tests in EFT Cerberus: is better it would be nice to see a close range brwaler missle boat for caldari Raven is long range Rohk is long range drake is meduim range Cerb is long range Eagle is long range naga is long range It would be nice to have a caldari ship that got some better damage mods and was made to be an in your face brawler. Eagle is nice for what it does Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus. Zealot is ok as is, maybe a few tweks could be done Vaga is now a monster, its gunna make solo PvP very interesting Munin though has gotten better still could take more looking at. still dont see why people would fly it over alot of the other HACs
Dude, the Sac is already borderline overpowered. You don't need to give it another bonus. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1148
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:44:00 -
[845] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense.
cool now i will take my hac and run lev v mission. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:44:00 -
[846] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Baren wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. I will like this as well, that would make game play alot more interesting. Here are my thoughts. Deimost : will still Never Be flown, it needs to either have a little more of everything including tank "in your face brawler" or it should be re-designed all together Ishtar: is good as always... could use a bit more CPU after running tests in EFT Cerberus: is better it would be nice to see a close range brwaler missle boat for caldari Raven is long range Rohk is long range drake is meduim range Cerb is long range Eagle is long range naga is long range It would be nice to have a caldari ship that got some better damage mods and was made to be an in your face brawler. Eagle is nice for what it does Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus. Zealot is ok as is, maybe a few tweks could be done Vaga is now a monster, its gunna make solo PvP very interesting Munin though has gotten better still could take more looking at. still dont see why people would fly it over alot of the other HACs Dude, the Sac is already borderline overpowered. You don't need to give it another bonus. He lost me when he said Ishtar is good as always. Obviously never fit one.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
989
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:45:00 -
[847] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:for the deimos to get more viability out of blasters i think it needs a stronger falloff bonus or a second falloff bonus and more tank.
DEIMOS - Like the Thorax, Deimos now has 4 mids and gives up the extra high. It also goes faster and aligns faster.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 10% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 1230 PWG(+240), 380 CPU (+30) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1550(+390) / 2200(+160) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount) : 1500(+125) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 15 Magnetometric Signature radius: 110
I'm gonna be honest with you and keep track on my view of AHACs, that MWD capacitor bonus clearly needs to get thrown down the toilets, flushed to oblivion and deleted from data base forever.
Once that is done, increase ship fittings accordingly but most important, for this sip to ever achieve what he's meant to while fitting the shortest range weapons in the game is either:
-speed without competing with Vaga and we're close to so no more speed !!
-buffer through resist profile: and option here and replace the mwd bonus for a 3%armor resist? -silly, it's Amarr domain.
-increase armor HP? -hell yes! -replace mwd bonus for 5% armor bonus and agility (compensation for mass addition)
-wet dream: increase hull repairer effectiveness for 10% HAC skill and cycle for 37.5% % per level.
Woosh sry for the wet thingy *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
143
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:46:00 -
[848] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:[
Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.
Implication in this case come smuch more from your mind than anything else. I coudl state that the reason he decided to use this ship was because the Talos is also gallente. And my assertion would have the same level of assurance or insanity as yours. Eagle and Diemost both use hybrids, Talos uses hybrids, if they wanted to compare a sniper ship to a Talos they could have used the Eagle and made more sense. Also I recall someone saying the Diemost was to be a sniper, which I found ridiculous... if the deimos had a tracking bonus then javelin with 250's and some te's would be nice. that could be the ahac setup for the ship.
At 250km an enemy fleet could probe and warp straight to the AHAC sniper Deimos's, without having to ping.
Sounds good but would fail when faced with nullsec fleet tactics. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Fallacies
Hedion University Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:48:00 -
[849] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. THIS!!! |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
143
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:48:00 -
[850] - Quote
Baren wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost. this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater. make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable
People wouldn't fly HACs either, WHers would be utterly screwed, and nobody flies T3s in lowsec/nullsec anyway! (Outside of the occasional Loki fleet, CFC Tengu fleet has been dumpstered) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1688
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:49:00 -
[851] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost. i remember when a eagle was 70 million isk... is your problem more a supply demand thing rather then a build cost thing? good way to ofset build cost could be adding moon goo to hauler drops... this could help flood the market and reduce build costs... lets say if ccp did a blanket build cost reduction and then later in the year also did something to saturate tech II production mods in the market then hacs would be silly cheap and tech I would never be used.
And I remember when pilgrims were 50 million, they still needed a buff, but at this point buying an Eagle for 220-250 million after fit is silly when you can get similar or better performance out of a Naga for a fraction of the cost
The problem isn't limited to supply and demand, its the usefulness of the ship, versus the cost, compared to the ability to get that or near that performance out of another cheaper hull.
I get it, power creep is a thing they want to deal with and not have it wreck the game, but you can't have these things cost enormous amounts of money to build when you can get the same from something cheaper, and still expect them to be used at all.
The build costs for these HACs needs to be lowered universally to around 70 -90 million (around ABC prices) in addition to the proposed changes or people simply wont fly them in any meaningful manner. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1148
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:50:00 -
[852] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:MeBiatch wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:[
Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.
Implication in this case come smuch more from your mind than anything else. I coudl state that the reason he decided to use this ship was because the Talos is also gallente. And my assertion would have the same level of assurance or insanity as yours. Eagle and Diemost both use hybrids, Talos uses hybrids, if they wanted to compare a sniper ship to a Talos they could have used the Eagle and made more sense. Also I recall someone saying the Diemost was to be a sniper, which I found ridiculous... if the deimos had a tracking bonus then javelin with 250's and some te's would be nice. that could be the ahac setup for the ship. At 250km an enemy fleet could probe and warp straight to the AHAC sniper Deimos's, without having to ping. Sounds good but would fail when faced with nullsec fleet tactics.
250 mm is not 250km duder.
and jav is the close range ammo that looses 75% range but gets a 25% tracking and does more damage then antimater.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:50:00 -
[853] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Baren wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. I will like this as well, that would make game play alot more interesting. Here are my thoughts. Deimost : will still Never Be flown, it needs to either have a little more of everything including tank "in your face brawler" or it should be re-designed all together Ishtar: is good as always... could use a bit more CPU after running tests in EFT Cerberus: is better it would be nice to see a close range brwaler missle boat for caldari Raven is long range Rohk is long range drake is meduim range Cerb is long range Eagle is long range naga is long range It would be nice to have a caldari ship that got some better damage mods and was made to be an in your face brawler. Eagle is nice for what it does Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus. Zealot is ok as is, maybe a few tweks could be done Vaga is now a monster, its gunna make solo PvP very interesting Munin though has gotten better still could take more looking at. still dont see why people would fly it over alot of the other HACs Dude, the Sac is already borderline overpowered. You don't need to give it another bonus. He lost me when he said Ishtar is good as always. Obviously never fit one.
Ishtar doesn't have enough CPU still. If it gets enough CPU to fit a tank+maybe use something in some of its other fuckin slotsJust from my EFTing,
Eagle becomes useable, sporting roughly 140k tank w/ 500 dps@50, Railgu isn't just a bad lossmail on Maka's killboard, Ishtar, if it got about 50-100 more base CPU becomes the ohh my god where have you been all my life droneboat. Diemost still sucks dicks, Vigilant with new guns gets some pretty **** DPS at more than 4km. Sacs still fuckin useless. Cerb is still a ****** missile boat. Vaga/Zealot/Muninn don't really change in use at all.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4118
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:51:00 -
[854] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. cool now i will take my hac and run lev v mission. I suggest you check with those who have tried doing that with a BS first and see how they faired. . |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1688
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:52:00 -
[855] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Baren wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. I will like this as well, that would make game play alot more interesting. Here are my thoughts. Deimost : will still Never Be flown, it needs to either have a little more of everything including tank "in your face brawler" or it should be re-designed all together Ishtar: is good as always... could use a bit more CPU after running tests in EFT Cerberus: is better it would be nice to see a close range brwaler missle boat for caldari Raven is long range Rohk is long range drake is meduim range Cerb is long range Eagle is long range naga is long range It would be nice to have a caldari ship that got some better damage mods and was made to be an in your face brawler. Eagle is nice for what it does Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus. Zealot is ok as is, maybe a few tweks could be done Vaga is now a monster, its gunna make solo PvP very interesting Munin though has gotten better still could take more looking at. still dont see why people would fly it over alot of the other HACs Dude, the Sac is already borderline overpowered. You don't need to give it another bonus.
Yea, being slow and having trouble getting damage on target sure does make it overpowered. This is a joke i assume, because you're the first person to ever think of the Sac as overpowered.
that medium flight capable drone bay will be two flighs of lights (one dps one ewar) for most serious pilots and it still suffers from the same problems that the Sac has always had - Its fat and slow, and its damage is easily mitigated by just about anything that tries.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
143
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:52:00 -
[856] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost. i remember when a eagle was 70 million isk... is your problem more a supply demand thing rather then a build cost thing? good way to ofset build cost could be adding moon goo to hauler drops... this could help flood the market and reduce build costs....
It woudl be better to just reduce build costs.. instead of adding some weird moongoo hauler spawn...
Its definitely a build cost, since Eagles are 170m right now and unless there is some massive speculation underway, there is no way that is because of demand. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1148
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:53:00 -
[857] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. cool now i will take my hac and run lev v mission. I suggest you check with those who have tried doing that with a BS first and see how they faired.
well if that bs happened to be a rattlesnake There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
143
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:54:00 -
[858] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: 250 mm is not 250km duder.
and jav is the close range ammo that looses 75% range but gets a 25% tracking and does more damage then antimater.
Derp, my bad I can't read apparently. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
989
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 18:55:00 -
[859] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Baren wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost. this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater. make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable People wouldn't fly HACs either, WHers would be utterly screwed, and nobody flies T3s in lowsec/nullsec anyway! (Outside of the occasional Loki fleet, CFC Tengu fleet has been dumpstered)
Because people want to do weird things after smoking bizarre stuff or drinking even harder stuff.
200K EHP Tengus with 25km range? -what is silly here, the 200K EHP or the inability to adapt?
Do Lokis have 200k EHP and shoot at 100km? no they don't Can a decently fitted Tengu shoot at same distances with an equivalent tank? -yes it can but :effort:
T3's are not OP, not more op than were Drakes 3 years ago before everyone starts flying them, players uses however bring to the spot light the real issues and causes to effect, the main problem being to make some of them take their blinders off and use a bit their brains instead. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
145
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:05:00 -
[860] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Baren wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost. this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater. make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable People wouldn't fly HACs either, WHers would be utterly screwed, and nobody flies T3s in lowsec/nullsec anyway! (Outside of the occasional Loki fleet, CFC Tengu fleet has been dumpstered) Because people want to do weird things after smoking bizarre stuff or drinking even harder stuff. 200K EHP Tengus with 25km range? -what is silly here, the 200K EHP or the inability to adapt? Do Lokis have 200k EHP and shoot at 100km? no they don't Can a decently fitted Tengu shoot at same distances with an equivalent tank? -yes it can but :effort: T3's are not OP, not more op than were Drakes 3 years ago before everyone starts flying them, players uses however bring to the spot light the real issues and causes to effect, the main problem being to make some of them take their blinders off and use a bit their brains instead. Edit: and these AHAC/SHAC changes while making them better wont make them as specialized ships as they're supposed to, better? yes of course but on their right spot? -no way, more changes are needed.
Exactly. Some subsystems on some T3s are OP, but T3s as a whole are not a problem
Legions, Proteus can fit 150k EHP with 600+ DPS, their tanks could be dropped from 10% bonus to 5% bonus and they would be on par with a Loki, and the problem would be gone.
Some selective changes I would support, but they need to be very selective... How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
355
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:06:00 -
[861] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Baren wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost. this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater. make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable People wouldn't fly HACs either, WHers would be utterly screwed, and nobody flies T3s in lowsec/nullsec anyway! (Outside of the occasional Loki fleet, CFC Tengu fleet has been dumpstered) Very true. If we can't turn to HACs for dps, T3s for dps/tank or Command Ships--well, we certainly can't fly T1 attack cruisers and battleships cause mass problems. Besides, those Moroses would utterly destroy fat-sig BSs.
And it's not like we can just cyno in more support, get podded and fly back, or bridge some backup from the titan. What we have on the field is, for all intents and purposes, it. That's it. That's all she wrote. I was genuinely hoping that CCP would go the route where:
HACs become high dps, low* tank and middle speed T3s are middle-ground dps, middle tank tank, high speed CSs are below-T3 dps, high tank, low(er) speed
That way, you can choose if you need really tanky, middle-of-the-road, or high dps. Now, a T3 combines all these roles into high dps, high tank, high speed. Some diversity would be nice (necessary, yes, but my fellow wspace denizens and I would be saddened), and it'd make real choices in ship selection, gameplay type, etc.
*comparatively speaking; something in the 50-60k ehp zone.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
145
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:13:00 -
[862] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Baren wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost. this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater. make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable People wouldn't fly HACs either, WHers would be utterly screwed, and nobody flies T3s in lowsec/nullsec anyway! (Outside of the occasional Loki fleet, CFC Tengu fleet has been dumpstered) Very true. If we can't turn to HACs for dps, T3s for dps/tank or Command Ships--well, we certainly can't fly T1 attack cruisers and battleships cause mass problems. Besides, those Moroses would utterly destroy fat-sig BSs. And it's not like we can just cyno in more support, get podded and fly back, or bridge some backup from the titan. What we have on the field is, for all intents and purposes, it. That's it. That's all she wrote. I was genuinely hoping that CCP would go the route where: HACs become high dps, low* tank and middle speed T3s are middle-ground dps, middle tank tank, high speed CSs are below-T3 dps, high tank, low(er) speed That way, you can choose if you need really tanky, middle-of-the-road, or high dps. Now, a T3 combines all these roles into high dps, high tank, high speed. Some diversity would be nice (necessary, yes, but my fellow wspace denizens and I would be saddened), and it'd make real choices in ship selection, gameplay type, etc. *comparatively speaking; something in the 50-60k ehp zone.
I wouldn't say that T3s have high speed, I'd say they have low speed... medium DPS, high to med tank CSs should have High DPS, med to high tank (fleet boosters should have a high tank), middle to low speed HACs should have med DPS, low* tank, medium to high speed
* you're definition of low is what HACs should have How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1141
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:16:00 -
[863] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Baren wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. I will like this as well, that would make game play alot more interesting. Here are my thoughts. Deimost : will still Never Be flown, it needs to either have a little more of everything including tank "in your face brawler" or it should be re-designed all together Ishtar: is good as always... could use a bit more CPU after running tests in EFT Cerberus: is better it would be nice to see a close range brwaler missle boat for caldari Raven is long range Rohk is long range drake is meduim range Cerb is long range Eagle is long range naga is long range It would be nice to have a caldari ship that got some better damage mods and was made to be an in your face brawler. Eagle is nice for what it does Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus. Zealot is ok as is, maybe a few tweks could be done Vaga is now a monster, its gunna make solo PvP very interesting Munin though has gotten better still could take more looking at. still dont see why people would fly it over alot of the other HACs Dude, the Sac is already borderline overpowered. You don't need to give it another bonus. Yea, being slow and having trouble getting damage on target sure does make it overpowered. This is a joke i assume, because you're the first person to ever think of the Sac as overpowered. that medium flight capable drone bay will be two flighs of lights (one dps one ewar) for most serious pilots and it still suffers from the same problems that the Sac has always had - Its fat and slow, and its damage is easily mitigated by just about anything that tries.
Its a fatarse but you're wrong on everything else. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:23:00 -
[864] - Quote
The question that came to my mind when I read the proposed changes was "What do they think these ships DO?"
With the rest of the tiericide initiative, there has been clear roles assigned to hull groupings; you have logi hulls, attack(DPS) hulls, combat(tank) hulls, EWAR, etc. The changes to hulls based upon their defined 'role' were well done (imo).
However, looking at these proposed changes, I'm left wondering. Is there any sort of unified 'vision' for the roles that HACs should fill? The scattered, seemingly random bonuses imply that this is not the case...
I for one, would like to see CCP step back, determine actual Roles (capital 'R') for these hulls and then give them bonuses that allow them to excell IN THAT ROLE. I'd rather see it done right than see 2/3 of a promising hull class go unused. I can be patient. I really can.
40+ pages makes for a lot of reading, and I'm sorry if these suggestions have been made before, but perhaps they're worth re-stating:
1) Why do the HACs not get the same +2 slots that the AFs got over the T1 linup? +2 slots would go toward fitting consistency, and be an attractive gain to offset the increased training time and ISK cost of the hull.
2) The blanket "make MWD awesome" role bonus makes me sad, and doesn't make MWD awesome. I'd much rather see a "+100% to AB speed" if you feel a compelling need to have some sort of speed boost bonus. NONE of them (seriously, go look) have sigs that are smaller than their T1 variants (only the Ishtar manages to break even). Even with the proposed sig bloom reduction, the modified sig is easily large enough to be whelped by large guns. At least with an AB speed bonus, then sig returns as a factor. The "smaller and faster" argument only works if the ship is actually smaller AND faster. Instead of a blanket speed/sig bloom bonus though, it would be nice to see a more interesting Role bonus - immune to webs, 50% reduction in enemy energy neut effectiveness, or some individual role bonus tailored to the hull.
3) There's two (obvious) roles that present themselves: 'Damage' and 'Tank'. Each race should have one of each, but there is no reason why they would fulfil the roles the same way from race to race.
Let's take a look at the 'Damage' role. Ships in this role should either do more damage than their T1 or Navy variant, OR have better damage projection. All other areas should be roughly equivalent to T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Damage' role: Zealot - Damage Projection (And already pretty balanced, I think everyone will agree.) You can add an extra utility high slot to bring it up to 16. Cerberus - Damage Amplification. As a weapons system, missiles have plusses and minuses when compared to turrets, but a specialized Missile damage platform should be able to trade-off the delayed damage application inherent in missiles for extra-large fireworks. An extra low slot or utility high for the 16th. Deimos - Damage Amplification. A blaster-fit Diemos should be terrifying once it get's into range, a rail-fit Deimos should hit like a brick. Why not 6 highs with 6 turrets to rain death? Munin - Damage Amplification. Decent base speed, good gunship-oriented bonuses already. The specialization that I'd like to see would be +1 high slot and +1 turret.
Keeping in mind the "specialized" nature of these hulls, the 'Tank' role would excell at either repairing or absorbing damage, but not have much better stats in all other areas over the T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Tank' role: Sacrilege - Super-heavy; cap recharge bonus (love it) lends itself well to dual armor reppers. Already does anemic DPS, so no issue there. The drones can be set at 1 flight of lights, and add the 6th low slot. Eagle - Rail buffs will provide the same DPS as other rail hulls, could replace one of the optimal bonuses for a shield HP bonus, or a shield boost bonus. You can leave the utility high slot in to bring the slot count to 16, which gives some versatility to the hull. Ishtar - The oddball of the group, I have to agree that the +50m3 drone bay bonus is... well, kinda dumb. This could easily be switched to an armor HP bonus or a drone MWD speed boost without losing the ideal of the "completely dedicated drone carrier". +1 low slot and FFS +some CPU! PLEASE! Vagabond - Part speed tank, part shield tank (soon), let's see +1 mid slot to harden things up. I'm not going to compare to the Cynabal, since the faction cruisers have yet to be re-balanced, and everyone already knows.
There's more I could add, but I think I've taken up enough of your time for right now. Thanks for all the good work! |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:24:00 -
[865] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Baren wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. I will like this as well, that would make game play alot more interesting. Here are my thoughts. Deimost : will still Never Be flown, it needs to either have a little more of everything including tank "in your face brawler" or it should be re-designed all together Ishtar: is good as always... could use a bit more CPU after running tests in EFT Cerberus: is better it would be nice to see a close range brwaler missle boat for caldari Raven is long range Rohk is long range drake is meduim range Cerb is long range Eagle is long range naga is long range It would be nice to have a caldari ship that got some better damage mods and was made to be an in your face brawler. Eagle is nice for what it does Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus. Zealot is ok as is, maybe a few tweks could be done Vaga is now a monster, its gunna make solo PvP very interesting Munin though has gotten better still could take more looking at. still dont see why people would fly it over alot of the other HACs Dude, the Sac is already borderline overpowered. You don't need to give it another bonus. Yea, being slow and having trouble getting damage on target sure does make it overpowered. This is a joke i assume, because you're the first person to ever think of the Sac as overpowered. that medium flight capable drone bay will be two flighs of lights (one dps one ewar) for most serious pilots and it still suffers from the same problems that the Sac has always had - Its fat and slow, and its damage is easily mitigated by just about anything that tries. Its a fatarse but you're wrong on everything else.
Lol im sure you fly it all the time and have a few in your hanger right?
The sac has a great tank we can all agree but **** dps.... i'll able to tank my enemy for hours but itll take me hours to kill him anyways with the **** dps the sac puts out.
and its slow as f*ck |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1148
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:28:00 -
[866] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost. i remember when a eagle was 70 million isk... is your problem more a supply demand thing rather then a build cost thing? good way to ofset build cost could be adding moon goo to hauler drops... this could help flood the market and reduce build costs... lets say if ccp did a blanket build cost reduction and then later in the year also did something to saturate tech II production mods in the market then hacs would be silly cheap and tech I would never be used. And I remember when pilgrims were 50 million, they still needed a buff, but at this point buying an Eagle for 220-250 million after fit is silly when you can get similar or better performance out of a Naga for a fraction of the cost The problem isn't limited to supply and demand, its the usefulness of the ship, versus the cost, compared to the ability to get that or near that performance out of another cheaper hull. I get it, power creep is a thing they want to deal with and not have it wreck the game, but you can't have these things cost enormous amounts of money to build when you can get the same from something cheaper, and still expect them to be used at all. The build costs for these HACs needs to be lowered universally to around 70 -90 million (around ABC prices) in addition to the proposed changes or people simply wont fly them in any meaningful manner.
point and match... sorry guys i got laid last night... i am like george from Seinfeld... not at my sharpest with a lady in life. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
355
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:30:00 -
[867] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:I wouldn't say that T3s have high speed, I'd say they have low speed... medium DPS, high to med tank CSs should have High DPS, med to high tank (fleet boosters should have a high tank), middle to low speed HACs should have med DPS, low* tank, medium to high speed
* you're definition of low is what HACs should have Surely you're joking! (Sorry, couldn't resist :P) Proteus can get over 1000 dps (unheated--1130 heated) with 150k ehp and travel at a brisk 1750 m/s oh. This most certainly is high dps, high tank and--ok, I'll give it to you--medium speed.
I think: take these figures and distribute them among the ships that perform similar function (of putting out damage). HACs are a natural fit for the damage, trading damage for tank, CSs should get the tank both to perform as command ships and tanky damage dealers, but of course, giving up damage and being lowest of the three, and T3s, due to their chameleon nature, should come somewhere in the middle of the rest. I mean, I think T3s would have to be looked at, since the high penalty for their superior performance now is losing a skill--actual physical real-world training time--so it does make some sense to have them in their current state. So maybe a heavy nerf would necessitate them losing that feature. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:31:00 -
[868] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:The question that came to my mind when I read the proposed changes was "What do they think these ships DO?"
With the rest of the tiericide initiative, there has been clear roles assigned to hull groupings; you have logi hulls, attack(DPS) hulls, combat(tank) hulls, EWAR, etc. The changes to hulls based upon their defined 'role' were well done (imo).
However, looking at these proposed changes, I'm left wondering. Is there any sort of unified 'vision' for the roles that HACs should fill? The scattered, seemingly random bonuses imply that this is not the case...
I for one, would like to see CCP step back, determine actual Roles (capital 'R') for these hulls and then give them bonuses that allow them to excell IN THAT ROLE. I'd rather see it done right than see 2/3 of a promising hull class go unused. I can be patient. I really can.
40+ pages makes for a lot of reading, and I'm sorry if these suggestions have been made before, but perhaps they're worth re-stating:
1) Why do the HACs not get the same +2 slots that the AFs got over the T1 linup? +2 slots would go toward fitting consistency, and be an attractive gain to offset the increased training time and ISK cost of the hull.
2) The blanket "make MWD awesome" role bonus makes me sad, and doesn't make MWD awesome. I'd much rather see a "+100% to AB speed" if you feel a compelling need to have some sort of speed boost bonus. NONE of them (seriously, go look) have sigs that are smaller than their T1 variants (only the Ishtar manages to break even). Even with the proposed sig bloom reduction, the modified sig is easily large enough to be whelped by large guns. At least with an AB speed bonus, then sig returns as a factor. The "smaller and faster" argument only works if the ship is actually smaller AND faster. Instead of a blanket speed/sig bloom bonus though, it would be nice to see a more interesting Role bonus - immune to webs, 50% reduction in enemy energy neut effectiveness, or some individual role bonus tailored to the hull.
3) There's two (obvious) roles that present themselves: 'Damage' and 'Tank'. Each race should have one of each, but there is no reason why they would fulfil the roles the same way from race to race.
Let's take a look at the 'Damage' role. Ships in this role should either do more damage than their T1 or Navy variant, OR have better damage projection. All other areas should be roughly equivalent to T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Damage' role: Zealot - Damage Projection (And already pretty balanced, I think everyone will agree.) You can add an extra utility high slot to bring it up to 16. Cerberus - Damage Amplification. As a weapons system, missiles have plusses and minuses when compared to turrets, but a specialized Missile damage platform should be able to trade-off the delayed damage application inherent in missiles for extra-large fireworks. An extra low slot or utility high for the 16th. Deimos - Damage Amplification. A blaster-fit Diemos should be terrifying once it get's into range, a rail-fit Deimos should hit like a brick. Why not 6 highs with 6 turrets to rain death? Munin - Damage Amplification. Decent base speed, good gunship-oriented bonuses already. The specialization that I'd like to see would be +1 high slot and +1 turret.
Keeping in mind the "specialized" nature of these hulls, the 'Tank' role would excell at either repairing or absorbing damage, but not have much better stats in all other areas over the T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Tank' role: Sacrilege - Super-heavy; cap recharge bonus (love it) lends itself well to dual armor reppers. Already does anemic DPS, so no issue there. The drones can be set at 1 flight of lights, and add the 6th low slot. Eagle - Rail buffs will provide the same DPS as other rail hulls, could replace one of the optimal bonuses for a shield HP bonus, or a shield boost bonus. You can leave the utility high slot in to bring the slot count to 16, which gives some versatility to the hull. Ishtar - The oddball of the group, I have to agree that the +50m3 drone bay bonus is... well, kinda dumb. This could easily be switched to an armor HP bonus or a drone MWD speed boost without losing the ideal of the "completely dedicated drone carrier". +1 low slot and FFS +some CPU! PLEASE! Vagabond - Part speed tank, part shield tank (soon), let's see +1 mid slot to harden things up. I'm not going to compare to the Cynabal, since the faction cruisers have yet to be re-balanced, and everyone already knows.
There's more I could add, but I think I've taken up enough of your time for right now. Thanks for all the good work!
I DO LIKE WHERE YOUR GOING WITH THIS
I hope CCP is reading this thread
Making a setting clear and distinct roles for the ships would make sense, and would follow CCP's Tiericide approach.
NOTHING CCP IS DOING WITH THE HACS IS FOLLOWING THE TIERICIDE APPROACH
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4121
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:39:00 -
[869] - Quote
I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. . |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1142
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:41:00 -
[870] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:One thing first:
Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.
70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's... increase it to 85km or more
Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead.
Can you try to convice CCP to make someone rebalance the ABC's that doesn't have a massive hardon for the Talos? BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
|
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
84
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:42:00 -
[871] - Quote
I have to concur that the HAC changes could definately look at being totally reworked. I liked the suggestion about an AB bonus, rather than a MWD bonus. generally speaking, there seem not ot be a defined line of HAC's from attack cruisers to attack HACs, and from combat cruisers to combat HACs.
Many good ideas from rise and fozzie, but i think you could definately do much better!
Cudos though, I know HACs are kind of out of both of your comfort zones, as i know for certain Rise commented that he doesn't fly HAC's much back in his podcasts. |
Sol Mortis
An Heroes
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:43:00 -
[872] - Quote
These changes are just okay. Biggest problems:
Deimos! Why does it still have the stupid microwarpdrive cap penalty bonus. You got rid of that bonus on the thorax and just made its cap better. if you are rolling the Vaga speed bonus into its base speed like you did with the Stabber you should roll the MWD cap bonus into the Deimos like you did with the Thorax and give it a tracking bonus instead.
Also I don't like the Vaga shield boost bonus, it should be tracking instead. I might seem a little tracking crazy, but it is a trait that can really help these ships be more maneuverable in comparison to the similarly priced superior brawlers that are faction battlecruisers. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
356
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:43:00 -
[873] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. There would almost have to be some shift in the costs, considering that they wouldn't (many aren't) be worth the cost they currently are or will be post rebalancing. 10:1 increase in cost over a T1 for similar performance won't cut it.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Nabuch Sattva
The Green Cross Spaceship Samurai
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:43:00 -
[874] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense.
Most interesting proposal so far. +1
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
335
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:46:00 -
[875] - Quote
Blastil wrote:I have to concur that the HAC changes could definately look at being totally reworked. I liked the suggestion about an AB bonus, rather than a MWD bonus. generally speaking, there seem not ot be a defined line of HAC's from attack cruisers to attack HACs, and from combat cruisers to combat HACs.
Many good ideas from rise and fozzie, but i think you could definately do much better!
Cudos though, I know HACs are kind of out of both of your comfort zones, as i know for certain Rise commented that he doesn't fly HAC's much back in his podcasts.
The annoying thing is the combat role is a waste of time for HAC's there is already HIC's that follow the T1 combat cruisers... the only line not followed is the T2 Attack cruiser line.
Also there is a list of ships that perform the combat role better and for less cost than HAC's ... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
146
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:47:00 -
[876] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:I wouldn't say that T3s have high speed, I'd say they have low speed... medium DPS, high to med tank CSs should have High DPS, med to high tank (fleet boosters should have a high tank), middle to low speed HACs should have med DPS, low* tank, medium to high speed
* you're definition of low is what HACs should have Surely you're joking! (Sorry, couldn't resist :P) Proteus can get over 1000 dps (unheated--1130 heated) with 150k ehp and travel at a brisk 1750 m/s oh. This most certainly is high dps, high tank and--ok, I'll give it to you--medium speed. I think: take these figures and distribute them among the ships that perform similar function (of putting out damage). HACs are a natural fit for the damage, trading damage for tank, CSs should get the tank both to perform as command ships and tanky damage dealers, but of course, giving up damage and being lowest of the three, and T3s, due to their chameleon nature, should come somewhere in the middle of the rest. I mean, I think T3s would have to be looked at, since the high penalty for their superior performance now is losing a skill--actual physical real-world training time--so it does make some sense to have them in their current state. So maybe a heavy nerf would necessitate them losing that feature.
Sorry, rephrased that to be clearer.
Don't worry about the pun, we get that a lot, and we use it whenever we do something stupid (We evicted a guy with a Phoenix cause our FC decided he liked it.)
CSs should be a bit worse than T3s are now, and T3s should be about where the Loki is now. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
335
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:49:00 -
[877] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Malcanis wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:One thing first:
Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.
70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's... increase it to 85km or more
Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead. Can you try to convice CCP to make someone rebalance the ABC's that doesn't have a massive hardon for the Talos?
I would definitely like to see ABC's get the nerf they should have got first time around.. also encourage them to make them T2 please... you know it makes sense :) Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
90
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:49:00 -
[878] - Quote
Baren wrote:nikar galvren wrote:The question that came to my mind when I read the proposed changes was "What do they think these ships DO?"
With the rest of the tiericide initiative, there has been clear roles assigned to hull groupings; you have logi hulls, attack(DPS) hulls, combat(tank) hulls, EWAR, etc. The changes to hulls based upon their defined 'role' were well done (imo).
However, looking at these proposed changes, I'm left wondering. Is there any sort of unified 'vision' for the roles that HACs should fill? The scattered, seemingly random bonuses imply that this is not the case...
I for one, would like to see CCP step back, determine actual Roles (capital 'R') for these hulls and then give them bonuses that allow them to excell IN THAT ROLE. I'd rather see it done right than see 2/3 of a promising hull class go unused. I can be patient. I really can.
40+ pages makes for a lot of reading, and I'm sorry if these suggestions have been made before, but perhaps they're worth re-stating:
1) Why do the HACs not get the same +2 slots that the AFs got over the T1 linup? +2 slots would go toward fitting consistency, and be an attractive gain to offset the increased training time and ISK cost of the hull.
2) The blanket "make MWD awesome" role bonus makes me sad, and doesn't make MWD awesome. I'd much rather see a "+100% to AB speed" if you feel a compelling need to have some sort of speed boost bonus. NONE of them (seriously, go look) have sigs that are smaller than their T1 variants (only the Ishtar manages to break even). Even with the proposed sig bloom reduction, the modified sig is easily large enough to be whelped by large guns. At least with an AB speed bonus, then sig returns as a factor. The "smaller and faster" argument only works if the ship is actually smaller AND faster. Instead of a blanket speed/sig bloom bonus though, it would be nice to see a more interesting Role bonus - immune to webs, 50% reduction in enemy energy neut effectiveness, or some individual role bonus tailored to the hull.
3) There's two (obvious) roles that present themselves: 'Damage' and 'Tank'. Each race should have one of each, but there is no reason why they would fulfil the roles the same way from race to race.
Let's take a look at the 'Damage' role. Ships in this role should either do more damage than their T1 or Navy variant, OR have better damage projection. All other areas should be roughly equivalent to T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Damage' role: Zealot - Damage Projection (And already pretty balanced, I think everyone will agree.) You can add an extra utility high slot to bring it up to 16. Cerberus - Damage Amplification. As a weapons system, missiles have plusses and minuses when compared to turrets, but a specialized Missile damage platform should be able to trade-off the delayed damage application inherent in missiles for extra-large fireworks. An extra low slot or utility high for the 16th. Deimos - Damage Amplification. A blaster-fit Diemos should be terrifying once it get's into range, a rail-fit Deimos should hit like a brick. Why not 6 highs with 6 turrets to rain death? Munin - Damage Amplification. Decent base speed, good gunship-oriented bonuses already. The specialization that I'd like to see would be +1 high slot and +1 turret.
Keeping in mind the "specialized" nature of these hulls, the 'Tank' role would excell at either repairing or absorbing damage, but not have much better stats in all other areas over the T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Tank' role: Sacrilege - Super-heavy; cap recharge bonus (love it) lends itself well to dual armor reppers. Already does anemic DPS, so no issue there. The drones can be set at 1 flight of lights, and add the 6th low slot. Eagle - Rail buffs will provide the same DPS as other rail hulls, could replace one of the optimal bonuses for a shield HP bonus, or a shield boost bonus. You can leave the utility high slot in to bring the slot count to 16, which gives some versatility to the hull. Ishtar - The oddball of the group, I have to agree that the +50m3 drone bay bonus is... well, kinda dumb. This could easily be switched to an armor HP bonus or a drone MWD speed boost without losing the ideal of the "completely dedicated drone carrier". +1 low slot and FFS +some CPU! PLEASE! Vagabond - Part speed tank, part shield tank (soon), let's see +1 mid slot to harden things up. I'm not going to compare to the Cynabal, since the faction cruisers have yet to be re-balanced, and everyone already knows.
There's more I could add, but I think I've taken up enough of your time for right now. Thanks for all the good work! I DO LIKE WHERE YOUR GOING WITH THIS I hope CCP is reading this thread Making a setting clear and distinct roles for the ships would make sense, and would follow CCP's Tiericide approach. NOTHING CCP IS DOING WITH THE HACS IS FOLLOWING THE TIERICIDE APPROACH
Dude, your caps lock key is broken but I agree.
Dear CCP, tell us what we are supposed to kill with HACS so we could give you better answers to "can those ships do it or not?" |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
146
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:51:00 -
[879] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit.
100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good.
With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
90
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:54:00 -
[880] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. 100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good. With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship.
Funny facts, The baseprice of HACS was supposed to at > 40m isk but nullsec alliences are like forth world countries and all inhabitants die of starvation on a daily basis... |
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:59:00 -
[881] - Quote
Giving the ships an extra slot might make them worth it. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2400
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:00:00 -
[882] - Quote
Role Bonus: +1 slot, defined as high/med/low at manufacture time. (Picked by the builders, or the blueprint)
Each one version gets a fancy skin from a different NPC corporation. (3 skins per ship)
Then fix the glaring errors with Ishtar CPU, and other little things in this thread, and call it a day.
(I also liked the MJD idea)
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
147
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:00:00 -
[883] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. 100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good. With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship. Funny facts, The baseprice of HACS was supposed to at > 40m isk but nullsec alliences are like forth world countries and all inhabitants die of starvation on a daily basis...
...what? Only the first part of that post made any sense.
Nullsec alliances are hardly poverty stricken, they almost all run massive SRP programs.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
86
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:02:00 -
[884] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: there is already HIC's that follow the T1 combat cruisers...
just... no.
HICs aren't combat cruisers. They're highly specialized ships that literally trade DPS for anti-capital support. attempting to turn them into combat cruisers would be a real mistake. HACS are the place where we'll get to see both ship lines extended properly.
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
91
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:04:00 -
[885] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:elitatwo wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. 100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good. With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship. Funny facts, The baseprice of HACS was supposed to at > 40m isk but nullsec alliences are like forth world countries and all inhabitants die of starvation on a daily basis../sarcasm ...what? Only the first part of that post made any sense. Nullsec alliances are hardly poverty stricken, they almost all run massive SRP programs.
Damn site ate my post |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
336
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:06:00 -
[886] - Quote
Blastil wrote:Harvey James wrote: there is already HIC's that follow the T1 combat cruisers... just... no. HICs aren't combat cruisers. They're highly specialized ships that literally trade DPS for anti-capital support. attempting to turn them into combat cruisers would be a real mistake. HACS are the place where we'll get to see both ship lines extended properly.
combat doesn't always mean high dps ... high tank is what combat ships normally have.. HIC's are the tankiest cruisers and also they have 16 slots.... they are easily buffed to have more dps too Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Vic Teishikuro
Rescue Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:07:00 -
[887] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:elitatwo wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. 100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good. With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship. Funny facts, The baseprice of HACS was supposed to at > 40m isk but nullsec alliences are like forth world countries and all inhabitants die of starvation on a daily basis... ...what? Only the first part of that post made any sense. Nullsec alliances are hardly poverty stricken, they almost all run massive SRP programs.
its ok M1k3y, surely he was joking about calling null sec alliances poor |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
1263
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:07:00 -
[888] - Quote
I don't relish the task of balancing these ships. You have to find a happy spot while competing with Combat BC, ABC, T3 cruisers, T1 Cruisers, and even navy and faction Cruisers.
HACS should be the go to cruisers for DPS and Tank. That is their specialization. They should bring more to the table in this arena then a strategic cruiser. To put it another way they should almost have the firepower and tank of a combat BC. They should be more mobile then that but less then the T1 cruisers. Lastly, any area where there is an overlap in function between ABC and HACs the latter should be repurposed.
I'm loath to throw numbers or bonuses around as there is too much of that going on in this thread. If I had to give an example though I'd pick Minmatar -
Vaga - swap the shield boost bonus for a shield resist bonus - ala Broadsword Muninn - swap the optimal bonus for a second damage bonus.
Just examples and not anything I'm particularly attached to. |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
86
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:13:00 -
[889] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Blastil wrote:Harvey James wrote: there is already HIC's that follow the T1 combat cruisers... just... no. HICs aren't combat cruisers. They're highly specialized ships that literally trade DPS for anti-capital support. attempting to turn them into combat cruisers would be a real mistake. HACS are the place where we'll get to see both ship lines extended properly. combat doesn't always mean high dps ... high tank is what combat ships normally have.. HIC's are the tankiest cruisers and also they have 16 slots.... they are easily buffed to have more dps too
right, this suggestion is exactly the suggestion I'm trying to shoot down. HIC's are perfectly fine right now, beyond the fact that the active rep bonus is kind of useless on a HIC for the two which have them. HICs shouldn't have damage. They would become ridiculously OP solo ships if that happened. (yes, i personally would fly an infinity point, dual webbed, tanked to **** Phobos in 0.0 ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over any other ship) |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:15:00 -
[890] - Quote
IMO
Hacs should have better tank and dps than navy faction cruisers, but generally not as agile or fast.
Pirate faction are even faster than navy faction, same dps as hacs but perhaps not the tank
Hacs faster and more agile than bcs but not quite the dps and tank.
The resist bonuses mean hacs are a good choice for active tanking bonuses.
This applys to frigates as well. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Alivea Starborn
Trade Consortium
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:16:00 -
[891] - Quote
So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus?
There's an Amarr HAC with an armor resistance bonus, a Caldari HAC with a shield resist bonus, and a Minmatar HAC with a shield boost bonus, but no Gallente repair bonus. |
Cardavet
Jester's Hole
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:17:00 -
[892] - Quote
and i thought the negativity over the indy changes were bad. so when can we expect the revised/round 2 of the hac changes? |
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Transcendent Sedition Dustm3n
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:18:00 -
[893] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Malcanis wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:One thing first:
Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.
70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's... increase it to 85km or more
Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead. Can you try to convice CCP to make someone rebalance the ABC's that doesn't have a massive hardon for the Talos? I would definitely like to see ABC's get the nerf they should have got first time around.. also encourage them to make them T2 please... you know it makes sense :)
I'd have to agree ABCs needed a nerf, namely removing the Talos' Drone Bay, none of the others have them and blasters already have the best tracking in the game, bullshit in my opinion. -Bl+¦d
Wormholes are the best Space.. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
91
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:20:00 -
[894] - Quote
Cardavet wrote:and i thought the negativity over the indy changes were bad. so when can we expect the revised/round 2 of the hac changes?
CCP Rise said after the weekend because they are busy with the tournament at the moment. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
390
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:22:00 -
[895] - Quote
The Djego wrote:For clarification:
Sacrilege
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault Missile damage 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 15% velocity to Heavy Assault Missiles 7.5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+120), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2300(+212) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount)\Recharge : 1650(+25) / 214s(-54) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+17) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15 / 15 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 15 Radar Signature radius: 140
This is a nice suggestion
BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Ben Yahtzee Croshaw
Drop Down Menus Raisin Bread Dragons
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:25:00 -
[896] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Easily the best idea by far. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1144
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:27:00 -
[897] - Quote
Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote:Harvey James wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Malcanis wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:One thing first:
Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.
70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's... increase it to 85km or more
Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead. Can you try to convice CCP to make someone rebalance the ABC's that doesn't have a massive hardon for the Talos? I would definitely like to see ABC's get the nerf they should have got first time around.. also encourage them to make them T2 please... you know it makes sense :) I'd have to agree ABCs needed a nerf, namely removing the Talos' Drone Bay, none of the others have them and blasters already have the best tracking in the game, bullshit in my opinion.
They should also have a tracking penalty.. moving at more than 1500 m/s can already negate almost all possible transversal. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:29:00 -
[898] - Quote
Ben Yahtzee Croshaw wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Easily the best idea by far.
Continuing to run with the idea of roles, why not have the 'combat/tank' hulls have the Target Spectrum Breaker role, and the 'attack/DPS' hulls have a role bonus to fit MJD? This allows combat hulls to engage multiple targets, and attack roles to Hit&Run effectively.
EDIT: minor typo |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
858
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:39:00 -
[899] - Quote
Well these changes clearly show that t3 is going to be almightily nerfed. If you took T3 out the game most of these hacs would have a role and purpose. Of course they wont take it out of the game, but they will nerf it hard while probably making it more adaptable (i.e. easier to change subs/rigs etc). |
Chimpface Holocaust
Zarnfell
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:42:00 -
[900] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:The question that came to my mind when I read the proposed changes was "What do they think these ships DO?"
With the rest of the tiericide initiative, there has been clear roles assigned to hull groupings; you have logi hulls, attack(DPS) hulls, combat(tank) hulls, EWAR, etc. The changes to hulls based upon their defined 'role' were well done (imo).
However, looking at these proposed changes, I'm left wondering. Is there any sort of unified 'vision' for the roles that HACs should fill? The scattered, seemingly random bonuses imply that this is not the case...
I for one, would like to see CCP step back, determine actual Roles (capital 'R') for these hulls and then give them bonuses that allow them to excell IN THAT ROLE. I'd rather see it done right than see 2/3 of a promising hull class go unused. I can be patient. I really can.
40+ pages makes for a lot of reading, and I'm sorry if these suggestions have been made before, but perhaps they're worth re-stating:
1) Why do the HACs not get the same +2 slots that the AFs got over the T1 linup? +2 slots would go toward fitting consistency, and be an attractive gain to offset the increased training time and ISK cost of the hull.
2) The blanket "make MWD awesome" role bonus makes me sad, and doesn't make MWD awesome. I'd much rather see a "+100% to AB speed" if you feel a compelling need to have some sort of speed boost bonus. NONE of them (seriously, go look) have sigs that are smaller than their T1 variants (only the Ishtar manages to break even). Even with the proposed sig bloom reduction, the modified sig is easily large enough to be whelped by large guns. At least with an AB speed bonus, then sig returns as a factor. The "smaller and faster" argument only works if the ship is actually smaller AND faster. Instead of a blanket speed/sig bloom bonus though, it would be nice to see a more interesting Role bonus - immune to webs, 50% reduction in enemy energy neut effectiveness, or some individual role bonus tailored to the hull.
3) There's two (obvious) roles that present themselves: 'Damage' and 'Tank'. Each race should have one of each, but there is no reason why they would fulfil the roles the same way from race to race.
Let's take a look at the 'Damage' role. Ships in this role should either do more damage than their T1 or Navy variant, OR have better damage projection. All other areas should be roughly equivalent to T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Damage' role: Zealot - Damage Projection (And already pretty balanced, I think everyone will agree.) You can add an extra utility high slot to bring it up to 16. Cerberus - Damage Amplification. As a weapons system, missiles have plusses and minuses when compared to turrets, but a specialized Missile damage platform should be able to trade-off the delayed damage application inherent in missiles for extra-large fireworks. An extra low slot or utility high for the 16th. Deimos - Damage Amplification. A blaster-fit Diemos should be terrifying once it get's into range, a rail-fit Deimos should hit like a brick. Why not 6 highs with 6 turrets to rain death? Munin - Damage Amplification. Decent base speed, good gunship-oriented bonuses already. The specialization that I'd like to see would be +1 high slot and +1 turret.
Keeping in mind the "specialized" nature of these hulls, the 'Tank' role would excell at either repairing or absorbing damage, but not have much better stats in all other areas over the T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Tank' role: Sacrilege - Super-heavy; cap recharge bonus (love it) lends itself well to dual armor reppers. Already does anemic DPS, so no issue there. The drones can be set at 1 flight of lights, and add the 6th low slot. Eagle - Rail buffs will provide the same DPS as other rail hulls, could replace one of the optimal bonuses for a shield HP bonus, or a shield boost bonus. You can leave the utility high slot in to bring the slot count to 16, which gives some versatility to the hull. Ishtar - The oddball of the group, I have to agree that the +50m3 drone bay bonus is... well, kinda dumb. This could easily be switched to an armor HP bonus or a drone MWD speed boost without losing the ideal of the "completely dedicated drone carrier". +1 low slot and FFS +some CPU! PLEASE! Vagabond - Part speed tank, part shield tank (soon), let's see +1 mid slot to harden things up. I'm not going to compare to the Cynabal, since the faction cruisers have yet to be re-balanced, and everyone already knows.
There's more I could add, but I think I've taken up enough of your time for right now. Thanks for all the good work!
+1
This is the best, most concise assessment of the current flaws in the proposed HAC rebalance in the whole thread.
CCP, if you read and take direction from one post here, make it this one.
However, I would like to reverse the roles of the Vagabond and the Munin, replace the shield boost bonus on the Vagabond with a second dmg or refire bonus making it a fast High-dps close-range brawler and add a 7th low slot instead of the extra turret on the Munin for a decent armor tank
|
|
BadAssMcKill
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
303
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:44:00 -
[901] - Quote
Blastil wrote:Harvey James wrote:Blastil wrote:Harvey James wrote: there is already HIC's that follow the T1 combat cruisers... just... no. HICs aren't combat cruisers. They're highly specialized ships that literally trade DPS for anti-capital support. attempting to turn them into combat cruisers would be a real mistake. HACS are the place where we'll get to see both ship lines extended properly. combat doesn't always mean high dps ... high tank is what combat ships normally have.. HIC's are the tankiest cruisers and also they have 16 slots.... they are easily buffed to have more dps too right, this suggestion is exactly the suggestion I'm trying to shoot down. HIC's are perfectly fine right now, beyond the fact that the active rep bonus is kind of useless on a HIC for the two which have them. HICs shouldn't have damage. They would become ridiculously OP solo ships if that happened. (yes, i personally would fly an infinity point, dual webbed, tanked to **** Phobos in 0.0 ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over any other ship)
None of the hictors have an active tank bonus, they've all got resist bonuses
http://i.imgur.com/6j6cIZE.gif-á |
The Great Leader
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:44:00 -
[902] - Quote
kil2 m8
Give the 'fleet' HACs +1 mids and an mjd, desperately need something to set them apart from scrub variants. The voice of truth. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4128
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:45:00 -
[903] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:Ben Yahtzee Croshaw wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Easily the best idea by far. Continuing to run with the idea of roles, why not have the 'combat/tank' hulls have the Target Spectrum Breaker role, and the 'attack/DPS' hulls have a role bonus to fit MJD? This allows combat hulls to engage multiple targets, and attack roles to Hit&Run effectively. EDIT: minor typo Definitely. I think the role bonus is the key to unlocking a role for HACs that is not easily done by another ship class. If the reduction of MWD is so important than just reduce the sig of all the HACs to compensate. Or give HACs two role bonuses if they are worried about AB HACs becoming too OP. . |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
149
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:46:00 -
[904] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Well these changes clearly show that t3 is going to be almightily nerfed. If you took T3 out the game most of these hacs would have a role and purpose. Of course they wont take it out of the game, but they will nerf it hard while probably making it more adaptable (i.e. easier to change subs/rigs etc).
If T3s were removed WHers would be screwed, but more to the point, HACs would still be utter ****
Nobody is looking at these changes going "Wow these suck, I'll keep flying my Loki/Proteus/Legion Fleet" because T3s aren't overpowered (outside of boosting)
HACs suck now, with these changes they will continue to suck, nerfing T3s into purgatory won't make HACs better. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:57:00 -
[905] - Quote
[quote=Arazel Chainfire]I Cerberus: The cerb gets another launcher, a fairly nice buff to its CPU and powergrid, a minor buff to its capacitor, a pretty decent buff to its speed, a smidge of drone bay, and its hp's rounded to whole numbers. The powergrid buff is basically enough to allow it to actually fit its new 6th launcher, while the CPU buff gives enough for the launcher and a bit more besides.
Overall, these changes give it a nice bonus to being a kiting HAM ship, with HAM's able to hit out to 45km using standard missiles. Combined with the recent buffs to HAM's, and this ship actually becomes an upgrade to the caracel. In this role, the cerberus gets a 200dps boost, a 15km range boost, and a 15k ish EHP boost over the caracel. Adding to this the bonus for sig radius using MWD, and we may actually see Cerbs in use. The heavy missile build for the cerb still has unnecessarily excessive range, and after the recent changes does fairly pitiful damage. It may still see niche useage, but with the great range the cerb has with HAM's, it probably won't be seen often. I would call this a good change.
[quote]
the cerb has always had this ability and its more of a 75 maybe 100 dps boost not 200. the PG boost is not eough to fit the new launcher fit . it would need another 5 PG to make it fit (barely). |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1011
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:58:00 -
[906] - Quote
Ben Yahtzee Croshaw wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Easily the best idea by far.
I'm personally not a fan of this idea. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
916
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:58:00 -
[907] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:If T3s were removed WHers would be screwed, but more to the point, HACs would still be utter ****
Nobody is looking at these changes going "Wow these suck, I'll keep flying my Loki/Proteus/Legion Fleet" because T3s aren't overpowered (outside of boosting). Name one T3 that does worse at the HAC role than the current HACs.
Proteus - does amazingly better than a deimos Legion - does faily similarly to a zealot Tengu - ...cerberusAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Loki - better vagabond/muninn
T3s are meant to be modular, and not specifically good at anything. They currently work exceptionally better than the T2 counterparts in almost all scenarios. T3s need a nerf back to the original design point of being able to do everything, but not amazingly well. Toshiro Ozuwara > GOon cowards come fight Toshiro Ozuwara > Oh wait, you only camp when you got numberssss
I would fully support account bans by ccp for meta type stuff like this. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
337
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:59:00 -
[908] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Ben Yahtzee Croshaw wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Easily the best idea by far. I'm personally not a fan of this idea.
i also think its a waste of a bonus Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1491
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:01:00 -
[909] - Quote
Alivea Starborn wrote:So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus? Please don't screw us Gallente pilots over again. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
359
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:05:00 -
[910] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Ben Yahtzee Croshaw wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Easily the best idea by far. I'm personally not a fan of this idea. I think it's a good, unique and interesting idea. I don't like that the spectrum breaker is indiscriminate in breaking locks of friendly logi or enemies. You may break a lock at an inopportune time and get popped. I really prefer allowing HACs to fit MJDs. At least then kiters could jump away and brawlers could jump in close.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
149
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:06:00 -
[911] - Quote
Lykouleon wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:If T3s were removed WHers would be screwed, but more to the point, HACs would still be utter ****
Nobody is looking at these changes going "Wow these suck, I'll keep flying my Loki/Proteus/Legion Fleet" because T3s aren't overpowered (outside of boosting). Name one T3 that does worse at the HAC role than the current HACs. Proteus - does amazingly better than a deimos Legion - does faily similarly to a zealot Tengu - ...cerberusAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Loki - better vagabond/muninn T3s are meant to be modular, and not specifically good at anything. They currently work exceptionally better than the T2 counterparts in almost all scenarios. T3s need a nerf back to the original design point of being able to do everything, but not amazingly well.
Name one role that T3s replace the T2 variant. I dare you. (Again, boosters aside, I agree T3 boosters need a nerf.)
There isn't one. HACs are replaced by their T1 counterparts or battlecruisers. People don't fly T3s often because of their cost, and people don't fly HACs often because they suck. HACs need an actual buff that makes them worth the price before they will get some use. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:06:00 -
[912] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Alivea Starborn wrote:So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus? Please don't screw us Gallente pilots over again.
I agree 100% I would be more in favor of the other 3 ships with a tanking bonus to have it removed for a diff bonus. |
Leppales Beddelver
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:11:00 -
[913] - Quote
The Ishtar really needs more base targeting range. Right now its max targeting range is 75km while with scout drones operation to 5 and e-war drone interfacing and HACs to 4 you get 77km drone control range. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
223
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:11:00 -
[914] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Alivea Starborn wrote:So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus? Please don't screw us Gallente pilots over again. Eh.... Armor repair bonus on the Ishtar wouldn't be bad (if it had the PG/CPU to support it). Would certainly be better than the "oh hai! ur even moar of a PvE/Blob boat now!". Granted, there are tons better bonuses it could get, but repair is still better than the tracking, control range, or drone bay bonuses.
|
The Ironfist
Nordgoetter Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:17:00 -
[915] - Quote
ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
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
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Slot layout: 3H(-2), 5M), 6L(+1); 3 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 355 CPU(+70) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145
A slot layout like this and the CPU to actually support a drone boat would make it viable for more then just PVE crapfits.
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Alivea Starborn wrote:So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus? Please don't screw us Gallente pilots over again. Eh.... Armor repair bonus on the Ishtar wouldn't be bad (if it had the PG/CPU to support it). Would certainly be better than the "oh hai! ur even moar of a PvE/Blob boat now!". Granted, there are tons better bonuses it could get, but repair is still better than the tracking, control range, or drone bay bonuses.
No local rep bonus's suck ass because they have no place in fleet pvp at all and I doubt anybody gives a **** about a few people that might use it for solo pvp. |
Arsikere
Karman Lines Syndicate HELM Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:24:00 -
[916] - Quote
I seem to be one of the few here who is actually glad about the new Sac changes. I use it as a PVE ship against angels in lowsec and this makes it quite a bit better than what it is now. There are some situations in which I cant brawl, for the DPS is wayyy too high, and so i swap to heavy missiles. With this new bonus (plus the drone bay increase, THANK YOU!) this is going to be an even more effective PVE ship for what I use it for.
I appreciate the changes to the Deimos as well. It's a ship I've always wished was a bit better, and with the MWD sig decrease, plus the extra mid, it's actually going to be something that I wont tell myself not to buy :P
Good changes guys. It's these little tweaks that make the game, for me, still worth playing. Not just to ships, per se, but little tweaks in general. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1694
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:24:00 -
[917] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Name one role that T3s replace the T2 variant. I dare you. (Again, boosters aside, I agree T3 boosters need a nerf.)
There isn't one. HACs are replaced by their T1 counterparts or battlecruisers. People don't fly T3s often because of their cost, and people don't fly HACs often because they suck. HACs need an actual buff that makes them worth the price before they will get some use.
You are so completely out of touch with the game that I dont even know where to start.
T3's outclass hacs in every single possible way. There is no HAC that does the role of DPS or tank better than a T3 cruiser configured to do the same.
And as for them not being flown often, well...
Aside from the full fleets of t3's that are really common (legions lokis proteus and tengus all have very common large fleet appearances) this BR from yesterday called and said you should probably get a clue:
http://zkillboard.com/related/31002460/201307182200/
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:36:00 -
[918] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
That's because the game design team's whole notion of "T1: generalists, T2: specialists" is crap. First you un-generalized T1 stuff by turning their formerly-generalized bonuses (to RoF or damage, for example) into more specialist bonuses (like falloff on the Stabber, which naturally caters to AC fits rather than arty-- just to give an example) while buffing the **** out of them.
Now that you have basically pigeon-holed the T1 ships into certain fitting paradigms while buffing them a lot, what do T2 ships have to offer? HACs are geared for the same types of setups as their T1 cousins now, only you refuse to allow them to actually perform significantly better in those roles, because that would constitute "power creep."
If a more expensive hull can't do the "same" things significantly better than the T1 hulls, then they need to provide some other kind of benefit, like increased flexibility. Just turning HACs into 10% improvements over a T1 cruiser-- while maintaining their price difference of around 10x-- doesn't offer any compelling reason to use them over a T1 or Navy cruiser. Your balancing strategy sucks.
On the other hand, if HACs performed similarly to a T1 cruiser in terms of primary stats (DPS output, range, speed, EHP, etc) but gained T2 resists (making them better for active tanking and receiving reps) and more flexible fitting options (read: more slots than T1 and more grid / CPU to work with), that might represent a compelling reason to drop 200M isk. They wouldn't be much better at ~*fill in the blank*~ than their T1 equivalents, but maybe you could do ~*blank*~ while also fitting a NOS or a cloak, or a target painter in your extra mid-slot. Whatever.
If you're not really going to allow specialization, then make HACs more adaptable. Alternatively, actually make them good at some specific thing. Hint: a useless role bonus that drops their sig radius from "gigantic" to "huge" while MWDing isn't the right answer. |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:38:00 -
[919] - Quote
It would be better to use the class role as a fine balancing tool rather than having the same flat bonus on all HAC's. Something like Sacrilege needing a little bit more range for HAM's, Ishtar a MWD drone bonus, a signature size reduction for the the brawling Deimos, speed for Vaga & Cerberus and tracking for Eagle & Muninn.
The Deimos is one of the ships that need most help tbh. It's true you can now shield fit one, but the big signature size will make it easier to hit while trying to get close to the opponent. You could replace the MWD capacitor bonus with a repair amount or armor hitpoints bonus (fit 800mm plate so it dosen't make it too slow). |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4128
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:46:00 -
[920] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Cearain wrote:Ben Yahtzee Croshaw wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Easily the best idea by far. I'm personally not a fan of this idea. i also think its a waste of a bonus It is a hundred times better use of a role bonus compared to a mjd bonus. . |
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:48:00 -
[921] - Quote
Also, just a thought, but some of the ships on this list just suck so horribly that they should probably just be re-imagined from scratch. I know you guys love the word "iterate," but maybe a little reincarnation would be more appropriate in some of these instances. I think you guys need to sit down and actually try and remember how EVE combat works and actually design ships that cater to roles which actually exist. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
69
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:48:00 -
[922] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:It would be better to use the class role as a fine balancing tool rather than having the same flat bonus on all HAC's. Something like Sacrilege needing a little bit more range for HAM's, Ishtar a MWD drone bonus, a signature size reduction for the the brawling Deimos, speed for Vaga & Cerberus and tracking for Eagle & Muninn.
The Deimos is one of the ships that need most help tbh. It's true you can now shield fit one, but the big signature size will make it easier to hit while trying to get close to the opponent. You could replace the MWD capacitor bonus with a repair amount or armor hitpoints bonus (fit 800mm plate so it dosen't make it too slow).
It needs a tank if its a blaster fit, a huge one. Rail fit I think it will be ok, though still questionable |
Major Killz
SniggWaffe
226
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:50:00 -
[923] - Quote
When CCP introduced tier 3 battle-cruiser. Many pilots like myself saw how they'd be used and suggested that CCP should limit tier 3 battle-cruisers to ONLY USING LONG RANGE TURRETS. Of course CCP did not listen.
Inf act I suggested destroyers be limited to long range turrets also. At-least tier 2 destroyers should (Thrasher, Coercer, Catalyst, Cormorant)
CCP is not in fact trying to deal with "power creep" at all and all the cheer leaders who fanned them ON don't seem as happy as they once were with all this "change for the better".
What about overlap? I'm not the only one who notices a Bellicose is as good as a Caracal and same for the Cyclone and Drake. Why is the Talwar better than a Corex with standard missile launchers? Why is the Prophecy and Armageddon overlapping with the Myrmidon and Dominix?
What is imbalance and power-creep? All Frigate and Cruiser ship classes. Since the changes to Navy cruisers why would anyone fly pirate cruisers? Why do tech 1 frigates out preform pirate, navy and tech 2 counterparts?
If these changes were introduced as is; what is the main difference between a Navy Vexor and Ishtar? Resistance however after fitting you'd obtain similar effective hit-points and resistance and SUBSTANTIALLY different hit points. The Navy Vexor has near twice the effective hit-points of the Ishtar and does the SAME THING.
Why would I really purchase a Sacrilege over a Navy Augoror? What about a Vagabond over a Stabber Fleet Issue or Scythe Fleet issue? In fact the Sycthe fleet issue has creped very close to the Cynabal in performance for FAR less of the Cost.
Reducing building cost would not be a bad idea as some have suggested but it would have to be significant. Also I like how players bring up the Zealot they are GOD SENT. AHACS were good back in the war in the borth with the OLD NC and when battleship fleets flew with little to no support. Unlike now with so many webbing ships being fielded. AHACS are a novelty and large fleet of HACS become effective. I've been in and lead Deimos, Sacrilege, Ishtar, Zealot, Cerberus and Eagle fleets. Fun fact. Provided you engage enough ret@rds any fleet concept can be successful and there's an endless supply of terrible in this game. What is the point of all those words? Give the Zealot and all HACS at-least 25mb in drones and the abil to use them. EVERYONE OF THEM (zealot is sh!t and so are most HACS).
Serious question. Is CCP going to use a signature bonus in all future changes to tech 2 ships? Is that the COP OUT NOW? Is that whats HAWT ON THE STREETS THESE DAYS? - Killz
Combat Video Log: http://www.youtube.com/user/kdsalmon/videos - Pantaloon (June 13, 2013) - Pantaloon II: Violins (Jun 23, 2013) |
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
157
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:53:00 -
[924] - Quote
Going to make an argument about the role bonus from a different angle.
I'm not sure that the HAC role bonus will have a useful effect as implemented now, especially on the Vagabond.
For everyone else: A ship's signature radius factors into the turret tracking equation -- a decrease in sig radius has the same effect as an equally proportional increase in transversal, for purposes of determining chance-to-hit (and quality of hits). So, taking the Vagabond as an example, an orbit with a 2km/s transversal post-patch will have the same evasive qualities as a 3.5km/s transversal today.
This is basically a free set of Snakes/Halos for purposes of damage mitigation. However, given the typical targets that compete with Vagabonds today, I don't think this constitutes a meaningful change -- especially given the Vagabond's relatively thin tank and engagement range.
For example, most dual-TE Vagabonds firing Barrage have to be within 20km or less to put reasonable damage on target. Imagine that we're engaging a blaster Talos using our Vagabond -- what type of damage we take? Assume we're in an 18km orbit with 2km/s transversal velocity.
On TQ today: * If it loads Null, the Talos has a 78% chance to hit per shot; expected average output of 685dps. * If it loads CNAM, the Talos has a 62% chance to hit per shot; expected average output of 688dps.
After the proposed HAC changes: * If it loads Null, the Talos has a 51% chance to hit per shot; expected average output of 440dps. * If it loads CNAM, the Talos has a 48% chance to hit per shot; expected average output of 535dps.
So, on paper, the role bonus gives us a ~30% reduction in incoming damage. This isn't anything to cough at! However, it's also missing the point -- 450dps incoming is still more than what the Vaga is putting out (~69% chance to hit, expected output of 340dps), and it's more than what the Vaga can tank with its 21k EHP of buffer. It will be forced to disengage.
In short, the proposed role bonus doesn't really change the engagement profile -- i.e. what ships I can't and can't safely engage in a Vagabond. If a ship can currently force a Vaga to disengage on TQ today, they will continue to be able to do so after the patch. The fact that the Vaga takes ~30% less damage is nice... but the remaining 70% is still more than sufficient to drive the Vagabond off. As such, it will continue to be passed over in favor of ships that can engage at longer ranges (i.e. Cynabal) or that have enough tank to make that 30% damage reduction worthwhile (i.e. Deimos).
The AF role bonus gives a similar effective reduction, but their base incoming damage was already small enough -- and their tanks powerful enough -that the role bonus visibly improved the class by virtue of increasing the set of ships they could safely engage. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1318
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:01:00 -
[925] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Harvey James wrote:Cearain wrote:Ben Yahtzee Croshaw wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Easily the best idea by far. I'm personally not a fan of this idea. i also think its a waste of a bonus It is a hundred times better use of a role bonus compared to a mjd bonus. I personally think a 100% AB velocity bonus would be well served on these ships, makes them quite fast while keeping the signature radius low Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Dev Tesla
Autumn Interval
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:06:00 -
[926] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:The question that came to my mind when I read the proposed changes was "What do they think these ships DO?"
With the rest of the tiericide initiative, there has been clear roles assigned to hull groupings; you have logi hulls, attack(DPS) hulls, combat(tank) hulls, EWAR, etc. The changes to hulls based upon their defined 'role' were well done (imo).
However, looking at these proposed changes, I'm left wondering. Is there any sort of unified 'vision' for the roles that HACs should fill? The scattered, seemingly random bonuses imply that this is not the case...
I for one, would like to see CCP step back, determine actual Roles (capital 'R') for these hulls and then give them bonuses that allow them to excell IN THAT ROLE. I'd rather see it done right than see 2/3 of a promising hull class go unused. I can be patient. I really can.
40+ pages makes for a lot of reading, and I'm sorry if these suggestions have been made before, but perhaps they're worth re-stating:
1) Why do the HACs not get the same +2 slots that the AFs got over the T1 linup? +2 slots would go toward fitting consistency, and be an attractive gain to offset the increased training time and ISK cost of the hull.
2) The blanket "make MWD awesome" role bonus makes me sad, and doesn't make MWD awesome. I'd much rather see a "+100% to AB speed" if you feel a compelling need to have some sort of speed boost bonus. NONE of them (seriously, go look) have sigs that are smaller than their T1 variants (only the Ishtar manages to break even). Even with the proposed sig bloom reduction, the modified sig is easily large enough to be whelped by large guns. At least with an AB speed bonus, then sig returns as a factor. The "smaller and faster" argument only works if the ship is actually smaller AND faster. Instead of a blanket speed/sig bloom bonus though, it would be nice to see a more interesting Role bonus - immune to webs, 50% reduction in enemy energy neut effectiveness, or some individual role bonus tailored to the hull.
3) There's two (obvious) roles that present themselves: 'Damage' and 'Tank'. Each race should have one of each, but there is no reason why they would fulfil the roles the same way from race to race.
Let's take a look at the 'Damage' role. Ships in this role should either do more damage than their T1 or Navy variant, OR have better damage projection. All other areas should be roughly equivalent to T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Damage' role: Zealot - Damage Projection (And already pretty balanced, I think everyone will agree.) You can add an extra utility high slot to bring it up to 16. Cerberus - Damage Amplification. As a weapons system, missiles have plusses and minuses when compared to turrets, but a specialized Missile damage platform should be able to trade-off the delayed damage application inherent in missiles for extra-large fireworks. An extra low slot or utility high for the 16th. Deimos - Damage Amplification. A blaster-fit Diemos should be terrifying once it get's into range, a rail-fit Deimos should hit like a brick. Why not 6 highs with 6 turrets to rain death? Munin - Damage Amplification. Decent base speed, good gunship-oriented bonuses already. The specialization that I'd like to see would be +1 high slot and +1 turret.
Keeping in mind the "specialized" nature of these hulls, the 'Tank' role would excell at either repairing or absorbing damage, but not have much better stats in all other areas over the T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Tank' role: Sacrilege - Super-heavy; cap recharge bonus (love it) lends itself well to dual armor reppers. Already does anemic DPS, so no issue there. The drones can be set at 1 flight of lights, and add the 6th low slot. Eagle - Rail buffs will provide the same DPS as other rail hulls, could replace one of the optimal bonuses for a shield HP bonus, or a shield boost bonus. You can leave the utility high slot in to bring the slot count to 16, which gives some versatility to the hull. Ishtar - The oddball of the group, I have to agree that the +50m3 drone bay bonus is... well, kinda dumb. This could easily be switched to an armor HP bonus or a drone MWD speed boost without losing the ideal of the "completely dedicated drone carrier". +1 low slot and FFS +some CPU! PLEASE! Vagabond - Part speed tank, part shield tank (soon), let's see +1 mid slot to harden things up. I'm not going to compare to the Cynabal, since the faction cruisers have yet to be re-balanced, and everyone already knows.
There's more I could add, but I think I've taken up enough of your time for right now. Thanks for all the good work!
Bump for a good post to keep it from getting buried.
|
Mutiny Within
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:07:00 -
[927] - Quote
For the love of god please give the Ishtar a little bit more CPU...... |
Tesseya
SUB ZERO. Legion of xXDEATHXx
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:21:00 -
[928] - Quote
Mutiny Within wrote:For the love of god please give the Ishtar a little bit more CPU...... agreed, very-very hard fit ishtar, especially shield. or give one low-slot, anyway place for co-processor. |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:25:00 -
[929] - Quote
Also, serious question time. If they ACTUALLY decided to give the Deimos 4 mids (cringe), what would be the downside to exchanging the (now useless) 5% mwd cap bonus for a 75% reduction in cap battery fitting bonus? That would mean a large T2 battery would take 25cpu & 69pg instead of 100/275, and a medium would be 19/19. Keep in mind, batteries also have a neut reduction bonus (12.5% on large).
This would be the functional equivalent to a nos, but with a large reserve in cap. People who want to shield tank can shield tank. People who want to inject can inject. And people who like flying the way I do (brawling w/ nos), can continue doing so.
Seems like a fair deal IMO. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
339
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:25:00 -
[930] - Quote
Perhaps with the ishtar you could give it a unique role focused on medium drones. Ofc you would have to increase medium drone engagement range to allow for the range increase and add a drone falloff skill.
ISHTAR Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal and falloff range to medium drones(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 20% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage to medium drones
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to medium Drone operation range per level 20% bonus to medium drone orbit velocity and mwd velocity
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 6L(+1); 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 200 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145 Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:29:00 -
[931] - Quote
Rise, whatever you do with sacriledge, make sure to add 1 more low slot. It's supposed to be brawler and it cant fit tank and spank properly to use bonuses. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:35:00 -
[932] - Quote
Ok CCP Rise, so your telling me that the reason that HACs have been shuned for years was becuase of alittle grid here and there, alittle to many utility highs and not enough tank and most of all not having a MWD sig radious bonus? thats what has been wrong eh?
I think your wrong, and i think these changers are poor.
ONE: reduce their sigs across the board, these are cruisers not crummy BCs.
TWO: seperate them into tanky and kity liek you have with T1 cruisers and navy cruisers. Give kity cruisers all a role bonus that suits kiting, like 30% reduction in MWD cap usage. And give the tanky ones a role bonus to suit brawling, like a 25% bonus to the trackign of their respected weapon system.
THREE: give all the brawling Hacs a bonus to tank, That means the Diemost should get a 7.5% bonus to armor HP per lvl, and the munion should get a 7.5% bonus to shield HP per lvl (oh and move that new low to a mid plz, and remove that crazy shield tankign bonus from the vaga, that is a very very nitch roll ship, bonuses should be strived to be used, not only used in rare fits)
FOUR: increase the speed of all the kity HAcs to slightly above their T1 variant. Make the Vagas extra bonus a fall off bonus, yeah the vaga seriosuly needs more range to fight since the TE nerf.
FIVE: the mostimportant is fidle with the build requirements to bring their price down so its about 125mil instead of 175mil. at 125 its still about 50mil more than a faction cruiser and way more expensive than a T1, but its a bit farther away from command ship conts and three hacs will cost the same as a T3 rather than two hacs.
|
Warcalibre
FDA Shipwrights Tri-Star Galactic Industries
71
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:37:00 -
[933] - Quote
What about giving two role bonuses, one for MWD and one for AB, making them great dual prop boats? I don't think any other type of ship has that, so that would make them different.
Also, I realize that we are supposed to get linear increase in strength for exponential increase in cost, but in this iteration it looks like logarithmic increase in strength for super-exponential cost. |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:41:00 -
[934] - Quote
raawe wrote:Rise, whatever you do with sacriledge, make sure to add 1 more low slot. It's supposed to be brawler and it cant fit tank and spank properly to use bonuses.
It does this just fine. The HAM boost from a few months back means you can actually use Rage ammo. The Sac is well into the 600dps range now (before heat), even if you just have a single BCU.
The Sac changes are the best of the lot, and it doesn't need to be adjusted further. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Tiber Ibis
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
88
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:41:00 -
[935] - Quote
Looks like some really nice changes there. All good changes as far as I can see. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1319
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:45:00 -
[936] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Perhaps with the ishtar you could give it a unique role focused on medium drones. Ofc you would have to increase medium drone engagement range to allow for the range increase and add a drone falloff skill. and a drone orbit velocity skill would be nice too. Although looking at medium drones optimal and falloff ranges they could use a big buff there .. well that drone overhaul would be handy about now anyway.
ISHTAR Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal and falloff range to medium drones(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 20% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage to medium drones
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to medium Drone operation range per level 20% bonus to medium drone orbit velocity and mwd velocity
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 6L(+1); 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 200 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145 Sorry Harvey this ship would be a fail big time, it is under DPSed it has a bonus that won't work with the ship, it MWD velocity would make light drones overshoot there target providing 0 DPS. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
mama guru
Thundercats The Initiative.
132
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:48:00 -
[937] - Quote
Ishtar badly needs like +30 CPU and 1 low or about +400 armor if it's gonna be 1 less slot than all the others. ______
EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's too hard you are too weak. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
299
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:49:00 -
[938] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.
You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost.
You nailed the hell out of that one.
|
Maxemus Payne
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:50:00 -
[939] - Quote
I don't think the changes are good enough to warrant being the T2 counterparts of the existing T1s. The strengths of the T1 are too simliar to that of the T2 and do not justify the price increase. Just a thought. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
340
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:52:00 -
[940] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Perhaps with the ishtar you could give it a unique role focused on medium drones. Ofc you would have to increase medium drone engagement range to allow for the range increase and add a drone falloff skill. and a drone orbit velocity skill would be nice too. Although looking at medium drones optimal and falloff ranges they could use a big buff there .. well that drone overhaul would be handy about now anyway.
ISHTAR Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal and falloff range to medium drones(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 20% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage to medium drones
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to medium Drone operation range per level 20% bonus to medium drone orbit velocity and mwd velocity
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 6L(+1); 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 200 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145 Sorry Harvey this ship would be a fail big time, it is under DPSed it has a bonus that won't work with the ship, it MWD velocity would make light drones overshoot there target providing 0 DPS.
well you seem to have missed something there light drones aren't mentioned in my post :) also i think you would still get a good 500 dps or more on top of any dps from rails Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Noisrevbus
471
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:52:00 -
[941] - Quote
I see that Grath Telkin is laying down the law .
The only thing I have to add to what he's been schooling you on for the past five odd pages is this ...
T2 may need to be made less expensive relative T1.
However, it's not that T2 need to be cheaper overall or that T3 need to be nerfed to T2 levels.
It's that all the T1 stuff need to be made more expensive. In tune with their performance of course.
The overarching problem is not that T2 and T3 (or Capitals, or Supers) are too expensive. The problem is that most T1 subcaps are too inexpensive, to the point where losing them has become trivial and meaningless in combat. Most of the T1 subcaps are far too effective for their current pricetag. It's one of those "shortest route" things again. You can start dropping the prices and performance of every other class you revisit, but the bottom is BS and BC, that's where the balance issue originated and where it's suspended right now.
You'd think someone would realize the problem when losing multiple fleets of ships and the largest drawback is the game-wide production's ability to refill the Jita stock. It's not "oops we lost too many Rokhs so we're poor", no it's "oops we lost too many Rokhs so we have to wait for the market to bounce back, while our nonsensical war drags out into eternity and is determined by who grows bored with the game first". Killing a ship should impact it's player, killing a fleet should impact it's alliance or coalition.
So how do you lose at EVE in 2013? The game-wide supplies couldn't keep up or we got bored losing free ships. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
299
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:53:00 -
[942] - Quote
Maxemus Payne wrote:I don't think the changes are good enough to warrant being the T2 counterparts of the existing T1s. The strengths of the T1 are too simliar to that of the T2 and do not justify the price increase. Just a thought.
I agree.
Not to mention that they are still going to be stomped all over by the attack BCs
There simply isn't enough of a departure from the T1 cruisers, and anything that is going actually brawl is generally done better by battlecruisers at the small gang level. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1319
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:57:00 -
[943] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Perhaps with the ishtar you could give it a unique role focused on medium drones. Ofc you would have to increase medium drone engagement range to allow for the range increase and add a drone falloff skill. and a drone orbit velocity skill would be nice too. Although looking at medium drones optimal and falloff ranges they could use a big buff there .. well that drone overhaul would be handy about now anyway.
ISHTAR Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal and falloff range to medium drones(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 20% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage to medium drones
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to medium Drone operation range per level 20% bonus to medium drone orbit velocity and mwd velocity
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 6L(+1); 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 200 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145 Sorry Harvey this ship would be a fail big time, it is under DPSed it has a bonus that won't work with the ship, it MWD velocity would make light drones overshoot there target providing 0 DPS. well you seem to have missed something there light drones aren't mentioned in my post :) also i think you would still get a good 500 dps or more on top of any dps from rails The idea being medium drones could orbit said target at say 9 or 10km and do solid dps along with the ship firing rails Orbit range is 1k on drones period, the optimal range is irrelevant. Small drones are used you know when frigates are present. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
299
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:59:00 -
[944] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Perhaps with the ishtar you could give it a unique role focused on medium drones. Ofc you would have to increase medium drone engagement range to allow for the range increase and add a drone falloff skill. and a drone orbit velocity skill would be nice too. Although looking at medium drones optimal and falloff ranges they could use a big buff there .. well that drone overhaul would be handy about now anyway.
ISHTAR Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal and falloff range to medium drones(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 20% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage to medium drones
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to medium Drone operation range per level 20% bonus to medium drone orbit velocity and mwd velocity
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 6L(+1); 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 200 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145 Sorry Harvey this ship would be a fail big time, it is under DPSed it has a bonus that won't work with the ship, it MWD velocity would make light drones overshoot there target providing 0 DPS. well you seem to have missed something there light drones aren't mentioned in my post :) also i think you would still get a good 500 dps or more on top of any dps from rails The idea being medium drones could orbit said target at say 9 or 10km and do solid dps along with the ship firing rails Orbit range is 1k on drones period, the optimal range is irrelevant. Small drones are used you know when frigates are present.
Small drones are used because they may actually make it to the target.
Overshoot is really hear nor there, the simple fact is that as a primary weapon system drones are so so at best, and taking off the second high slot is even more pants on head, because that means using a link augmentor and a repper is out of the question.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4130
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:01:00 -
[945] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Also, serious question time. If they ACTUALLY decided to give the Deimos 4 mids (cringe), what would be the downside to exchanging the (now useless) 5% mwd cap bonus for a 75% reduction in cap battery fitting bonus? That would mean a large T2 battery would take 25cpu & 69pg instead of 100/275, and a medium would be 19/19. Keep in mind, batteries also have a neut reduction bonus (12.5% on large).
This would be the functional equivalent to a nos, but with a large reserve in cap. People who want to shield tank can shield tank. People who want to inject can inject. And people who like flying the way I do (brawling w/ nos), can continue doing so.
Seems like a fair deal IMO. Because they should just reduce the module fitting needs across the board so they are viable for a lot of ships instead of just one. . |
Fibian Virpio
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:02:00 -
[946] - Quote
The changes I propose should by no means be taken literally, all the numbers I have made are arbitrary but the ideas behind them are not. Obligatory: "You're a noob sftu."
After looking at the HAC's and what they mean to me i came to a conclusion. Keeping the line for specialization but also making each unique, this is what i propose. Each faction line group should get a heavy brawler up close in your face and a kiting ship that keeps range from the fight and apply DPS at a safe distance. Without further wait. . .
AMARR Slow ships that have more armor than the rest. Lower damage
Sacrilege Amarr's up close and tackler with a healthy tank and minimal dps. Role Bonus: 50% Reduction in EWAR effectiveness against this ship. Amarr Cruiser Skill: 10% Armor and 5% rate of fire for HAM's per level Heavy Assault Cruiser: 5% reduction in cap recharge and 4% armor resists per level
Zealot Built around keeping range Role Bonus: 50% Reduction in MWD sig radius increase Amarr Cruiser: 10% reduction to medium beams cap usage and 5% medium beam damage per level. Heavy Assault Cruiser: 10% bonus to beam optimal range and 5% tracking speed per level.
Caldari For shield i wanted them to be slower but more EHP, lower damage
Cerebus Giving the ship some needed love. I wanted to make the missiles reach their target quickly without sacrificing the range of heavy missiles Role Bonus: 50% Reduction in MWD sig radius increase Caldari Cruiser: 10% Kinetic heavy missile damage and 15% heavy missile velocity per level. Heavy Assault Cruiser: 5% reduction in mwd cap usage and 5% heavy missile rate of fire.
Eagle Role Bonus: 50% Reduction in EWAR effectiveness against this ship. Caldari Cruiser: 10% shield hp and 15% bonus to blaster range per level Heavy Assault Cruiser: 4% shield resists and 5% bonus blaster damage per level
Gallente A little fun for the gallente folks. more DPS focused
Deimos Just applying that DPS from range Role Bonus: 50% Reduction in MWD sig radius increase Gallente Cruiser: 10% bonus medium railgun damage and 5% increase to MWD capacitor bonus per level. Heavy Assault Cruiser: 10% bonus to medium railgun falloff and 5% medium rail tracking per level.
Ishtar Close range brawler that relys on drones for damage and increased scram range to keep people in place. Role Bonus: 50% Reduction in EWAR effectivness against this ship. Gallente Cruiser: 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage per level Heavy Assault Cruiser: 10% warp scram range bonus and 10% armor repair bonus per level.
Minmatar: Very quick ships that have more fire power than the others.
Muinn I wanted to keep the minmatar more open and versatile Role Bonus: 50% Reduction in EWAR effectiveness against this ship. Minmatar Cruiser: 5% bonus to medium projectile rate of fire and 10% bonus to shield booster per level Assault Cruiser: 10% bonus to autocannon rate of fire and 10% bonus to stasis webifier power.
Vagabond Shoot all the things, but weak tank (lower resists) Role Bonus: 50% Reduction in MWD sig radius increase Minmatar Cruiser: 15% bonus to medium projectile damage per level Assault Cruiser: 10% bonus to medium projectile rate of fire and 10% increase to MWD capacitor bonus per level. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
340
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:02:00 -
[947] - Quote
mm.. medium drones orbit at 2km ... easily changed i would have thought Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
149
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:05:00 -
[948] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Name one role that T3s replace the T2 variant. I dare you. (Again, boosters aside, I agree T3 boosters need a nerf.)
There isn't one. HACs are replaced by their T1 counterparts or battlecruisers. People don't fly T3s often because of their cost, and people don't fly HACs often because they suck. HACs need an actual buff that makes them worth the price before they will get some use.
You are so completely out of touch with the game that I dont even know where to start. T3's outclass hacs in every single possible way. There is no HAC that does the role of DPS or tank better than a T3 cruiser configured to do the same. And as for them not being flown often, well... Aside from the full fleets of t3's that are really common (legions lokis proteus and tengus all have very common large fleet appearances) this BR from yesterday called and said you should probably get a clue: http://zkillboard.com/related/31002460/201307182200/
T3s outclass HACs in every way, but also cost 3x more and have an SP penalty. That is called "balancing".
I'm currently working on a way to tell you why your linking of a W-Space battle report to prove T3s are op is bad, but whatever I type sounds like an incoherent rant because of how inexpressibly bad that logic is. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:06:00 -
[949] - Quote
I'm personally of the opinion that the key to making the HAC lineup attractive to more pilots is not to reduce the cost, or overpower them relative to T1/T3/ABCs. Call me crazy, but I don't think that cost is a significant deterrent for hull usage - look at the proliferation nullsec T3 blob doctrines. I think that the HAC lineup could be made relevant simply by giving them a role that no other ship fills, or *at least* that no other cruiser fills.
One example that I've seen cited in this thread is the HICs - no other hull can fit an infinipoint, thus guaranteeing a place in anti-super ops. Only the Stealth Bombers can bomb. I personally like the idea of allowing only the 'Attack' HACs the option of fitting a MJD, giving them the mobility that no other hull can boast. I like the idea of allowing the 'Combat' HACs the option of fitting Capital sized weapons, thus making them tanky anti-cap ships. I like the Target Spectrum Breaker idea, but I'm not certain that that bonus would be enough to get me to fly one. I like role bonuses that make the hull class unique.
I want to hear what role bonuses YOU want though. What would you like your HAC to do that no other cruiser can do? |
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Asgard Ammunitions
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:07:00 -
[950] - Quote
What role does a HAC have?
It is not an PvE ship! T3s does that a lot better. It is not a good mining ship. (sorry couldn*t resist). It is a PvP ship.
It should be an specialisation of Attack and Combat Cruisers. Against whom?
T3 Fleets? T1 Cruiser Fleets? Battleships?
Fleet Doctrin in big fleets include enough webbers to make all signature tanking void. The 50% MWD signature reduction on Assault Frigs is nice, but AFs are not "fleet" ships, they are roamers.
So, while T1 Cruisers can become fleet ships, thanks to cost effective, T2 cannot. The MWD signature increase makes only sense if you are beyond Webber Range (60km). But for snipping, the Naga/Oracle are far superior, while cheaper and can be insured.
+ + + + + + + + + + The 50% MWD signature reduction is useless on Cruiser hulls, used for fleet duties. + + + + + + + + + +
1. Change Let all T2s become insureable. That stuff is expensive. T1 is to close in performance and completly superior cost-effectie through insurance. It is an outdated Idea.
2. In case, no insurrance, HACs need an rolebonus that helps them specialises against their natural enemy. The Battleship-Fleet with webber support. The enemy of signature tanking is the webber. So, rolebonus, Webber are only 25% effective against the HAC.
Harsh, but for ships costing close to an BS with no insurance, there must be some specilisation as BS hunters. You can even split up the HACs in a Fleet and a Roaming HAC Line. One with MWD Signature reduction, one with Webber-resistance. |
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:13:00 -
[951] - Quote
so I've come to the conclusion that HACS should be on par with t1BCs in therms of tank including t2 resists and in damage but be not quite as fast as t1 and navy cruisers (~-10%)
I see no way around this(apart from nerfing navy cruisers and BC) since some navy cruisers are already very close to those specs at a lower cost and skill requirement compared to HACS (exceptions prove the rule)
example: augoror having slightly more ehp then harbinger, while harbinger has about a 5th more dps, augoror being way more maneuverable
verxor navy issue having a bit less then 3/4ths the ehp of myrmidon while having slightly more dps and again being way more maneuverable Fits
since HACS substantially more expensive and require more skill training HACS are obliged to be better then navy cruisers at least in some way Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
340
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:17:00 -
[952] - Quote
Well i view HAC's as either lonewolfs or a pack of wolves if in a fleet ...
so a web resistance role bonus along with the MWD role bonus would be great as a anti recon ship.. Also nerf scrams, webs and OP recon bonuses and links.
I would also suggest making dual prop much easier to fit on these ships aswell as buffing AB's
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:30:00 -
[953] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:raawe wrote:Rise, whatever you do with sacriledge, make sure to add 1 more low slot. It's supposed to be brawler and it cant fit tank and spank properly to use bonuses. It does this just fine. The HAM boost from a few months back means you can actually use Rage ammo. The Sac is well into the 600dps range now (before heat), even if you just have a single BCU. The Sac changes are the best of the lot, and it doesn't need to be adjusted further.
just out of curiosity would you not use at least halve the drone bay for some ecm drones?
also maybe far into 500 1bcu + rage + 5xhammer II =569 1bcu + rage + 5xhob II =509
Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4131
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:36:00 -
[954] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote:raawe wrote:Rise, whatever you do with sacriledge, make sure to add 1 more low slot. It's supposed to be brawler and it cant fit tank and spank properly to use bonuses. It does this just fine. The HAM boost from a few months back means you can actually use Rage ammo. The Sac is well into the 600dps range now (before heat), even if you just have a single BCU. The Sac changes are the best of the lot, and it doesn't need to be adjusted further. just out of curiosity would you not use at least use halve the drone bay for some ecm drones? also maybe far into 500 1bcu + rage + 5xhammer II =569 1bcu + rage + 5xhob II =509 EW drones should be removed completely from the game, but I guess that is for another thread. . |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
149
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:41:00 -
[955] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: EW drones should be removed completely from the game, but I guess that is for another thread.
I, along with thousands of other players, would support this move. Definitely a whole different thread[nought]. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
341
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:46:00 -
[956] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: EW drones should be removed completely from the game, but I guess that is for another thread.
I, along with thousands of other players, would support this move. Definitely a whole different thread[nought].
well at the very least nerf ecm drones and maybe make e-war drones more specific to e-war ships that could bonus them and have specific e-war drone-bays. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1012
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:47:00 -
[957] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Well i view HAC's as either lonewolfs or a pack of wolves if in a fleet ...
so a web resistance role bonus along with the MWD role bonus would be great as a anti recon ship.. Also nerf scrams, webs and OP recon bonuses and links.
I would also suggest making dual prop much easier to fit on these ships aswell as buffing AB's....
What if the role bonus was that these ships were specially rigged so that their mwd had a higher warp core strength.
It could work lots of different ways:
1) mwd could turn into an ab if scrammed (t2 mwd=t2 ab)
2) MWD might work at half efficiency if 1 scram and be turned off by 2 scrams. The sig bloom might remain full if its half turned off. Or it might be halved.
3) some other variation on the theme.
edit: the amount of cap it requires could be changed as well. Also it might still get some inherent reduction to sig bloom and perhaps mass increase from mwd. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:48:00 -
[958] - Quote
making more drone bays is not the answer |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
608
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 00:27:00 -
[959] - Quote
My take:
Cerb is still too slow for effective nano work- compare it to the t1 or faction cruisers, which are all way faster
Eagle- why does caldari need 2 long range hacs? Change eagle to a blaster brawler. Give it back its utility slot and swap 1 range bonus for a tracking bonus
Vaga- shield boost bonus is basically just playing into a single fit that you like, and its a very strange addition to a long range 4 mid ship. Instead, give it 5% mwd sig bloom reduction per level, so at level 5 it gets -75% sig (compared to the -50% the rest get)
The others I think are pretty good.
However,
Zealot needs more differentiation from the nomen
Sac needs a reason to use it over a hamdrake (or ham navy drake)
Ishtar is doing like twice the dps of any other hac with more range. Sure drones have their own problems, but still, its doing 800 dps with with ogres that track cruisers easily. |
Baron Wikkheiser
Fluffy Bunny Patrol
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 00:34:00 -
[960] - Quote
Roime wrote:Quote:DEIMOS:
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) It was widely accepted that Deimos had way too much tank, earning it the nickname "Everlast", I'm very happy to see this defect addressed.
Good thing this was addressed. I was beginning to worry that the balance pass might have some positive effect on HAC usage. Better nickel and dime those hitpoints even more when you've already HACs are already some of the most expensive yet comparatively fragile hulls in the game. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1149
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 00:37:00 -
[961] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: EW drones should be removed completely from the game, but I guess that is for another thread.
I, along with thousands of other players, would support this move. Definitely a whole different thread[nought]. well at the very least nerf ecm drones and maybe make e-war drones more specific to e-war ships that could bonus them and have specific e-war drone-bays.
Indeed ewar drones are like multispecs of old. Remove genaric ecm drones and replace with race specific drones... Like white noise ecm 300 or ladar ecm 600... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
1545
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 00:49:00 -
[962] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote: CCP Fozzie's Navy Vexor > CCP Rise Ishkur
OMG will you stop calling it the Ishkur. It's hard to take you seriously when you can't even talk about the correct ship. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1319
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 00:50:00 -
[963] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: EW drones should be removed completely from the game, but I guess that is for another thread.
I, along with thousands of other players, would support this move. Definitely a whole different thread[nought]. well at the very least nerf ecm drones and maybe make e-war drones more specific to e-war ships that could bonus them and have specific e-war drone-bays. Indeed ewar drones are like multispecs of old. Remove genaric ecm drones and replace with race specific drones... Like white noise ecm 300 or ladar ecm 600... An excellent suggestion, if I may I will add it to the List. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1319
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 00:52:00 -
[964] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: CCP Fozzie's Navy Vexor > CCP Rise Ishkur
OMG will you stop calling it the Ishkur. It's hard to take you seriously when you can't even talk about the correct ship. Wow, blinded by rage. Good catch Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1695
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 00:54:00 -
[965] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Name one role that T3s replace the T2 variant. I dare you. (Again, boosters aside, I agree T3 boosters need a nerf.)
There isn't one. HACs are replaced by their T1 counterparts or battlecruisers. People don't fly T3s often because of their cost, and people don't fly HACs often because they suck. HACs need an actual buff that makes them worth the price before they will get some use.
You are so completely out of touch with the game that I dont even know where to start. T3's outclass hacs in every single possible way. There is no HAC that does the role of DPS or tank better than a T3 cruiser configured to do the same. And as for them not being flown often, well... Aside from the full fleets of t3's that are really common (legions lokis proteus and tengus all have very common large fleet appearances) this BR from yesterday called and said you should probably get a clue: http://zkillboard.com/related/31002460/201307182200/ T3s outclass HACs in every way, but also cost 3x more and have an SP penalty. That is called "balancing". .
A t2 fitted hac runs around 250 million, a t2 fitted t3 runs 500 million, if that, more like 275, so its barely twice as much for a platform that outshines the hac in every conceivable way, one might even argue that t3 Cruisers are what HACs should be.
Just because you spend an extra billion on your fit when you can get a really good strong fit from a t3 with just t2 items doesn't mean you get to skew the stay with it. The vanilla fit still outclasses the HAC in every way for barely double the cost, if even double in some cases.
Stop making things up and this will go along a lot better.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
360
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 00:57:00 -
[966] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:EW drones should be removed completely from the game, but I guess that is for another thread. This wouldn't be such a problem if there wasn't this huge proliferation of drone bays on EVERY ship. I honestly don't understand why nearly EVERY ship needs to have a drone bay of some kind. How does that differentiate ships when they all have a drone bay and they'll nearly all be using EC-300s???
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
150
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 01:00:00 -
[967] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Name one role that T3s replace the T2 variant. I dare you. (Again, boosters aside, I agree T3 boosters need a nerf.)
There isn't one. HACs are replaced by their T1 counterparts or battlecruisers. People don't fly T3s often because of their cost, and people don't fly HACs often because they suck. HACs need an actual buff that makes them worth the price before they will get some use.
You are so completely out of touch with the game that I dont even know where to start. T3's outclass hacs in every single possible way. There is no HAC that does the role of DPS or tank better than a T3 cruiser configured to do the same. And as for them not being flown often, well... Aside from the full fleets of t3's that are really common (legions lokis proteus and tengus all have very common large fleet appearances) this BR from yesterday called and said you should probably get a clue: http://zkillboard.com/related/31002460/201307182200/ T3s outclass HACs in every way, but also cost 3x more and have an SP penalty. That is called "balancing". . A t2 fitted hac runs around 250 million, a t2 fitted t3 runs 500 million, if that, more like 275, so its barely twice as much for a platform that outshines the hac in every conceivable way, one might even argue that t3 Cruisers are what HACs should be. Just because you spend an extra billion on your fit when you can get a really good strong fit from a t3 with just t2 items doesn't mean you get to skew the stay with it. The vanilla fit still outclasses the HAC in every way for barely double the cost, if even double in some cases. Stop making things up and this will go along a lot better.
Stop discussing an area of EVE which you don't understand and this will go better. T3s aren't OP, they aren't flown often outside of W-Space.
HACs suck, that is why they aren't flown. If HACs were buffed to a poitn where they are worth the cost then they would be used. Get your head on straight, its not a T3 issue, its a HAC issue.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
361
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 01:08:00 -
[968] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Name one role that T3s replace the T2 variant. I dare you. (Again, boosters aside, I agree T3 boosters need a nerf.)
There isn't one. HACs are replaced by their T1 counterparts or battlecruisers. People don't fly T3s often because of their cost, and people don't fly HACs often because they suck. HACs need an actual buff that makes them worth the price before they will get some use.
You are so completely out of touch with the game that I dont even know where to start. T3's outclass hacs in every single possible way. There is no HAC that does the role of DPS or tank better than a T3 cruiser configured to do the same. And as for them not being flown often, well... Aside from the full fleets of t3's that are really common (legions lokis proteus and tengus all have very common large fleet appearances) this BR from yesterday called and said you should probably get a clue: http://zkillboard.com/related/31002460/201307182200/ T3s outclass HACs in every way, but also cost 3x more and have an SP penalty. That is called "balancing". . A t2 fitted hac runs around 250 million, a t2 fitted t3 runs 500 million, if that, more like 275, so its barely twice as much for a platform that outshines the hac in every conceivable way, one might even argue that t3 Cruisers are what HACs should be. Just because you spend an extra billion on your fit when you can get a really good strong fit from a t3 with just t2 items doesn't mean you get to skew the stay with it. The vanilla fit still outclasses the HAC in every way for barely double the cost, if even double in some cases. Stop making things up and this will go along a lot better. Stop discussing an area of EVE which you don't understand and this will go better. T3s aren't OP, they aren't flown often outside of W-Space. They ARE often flown in W-Space due to the number of limiting factors in W-Space PVP. HACs suck, that is why they aren't flown. If HACs were buffed to a poitn where they are worth the cost then they would be used. Get your head on straight, its not a T3 issue, its a HAC issue. To this I'd add to have a look at the Zealot. It's widely used (as HACs go) because it offers a compelling package: strong tank, good damage projection over a T1 cruiser, not out-of-whack OP. Then I'd look at the others and see why they're failures. Eagle doesn't do more/better damage than a Moa. Ishtar is crippled by weak CPU. Deimos can't mount good tank/good agility/strong damage or even damage projection. SFI is nearly as good as a Vagabond, and even a regular Stabber does a fairly good job with 220s.
And about T3s: people bling out their fits because when you die, you lose skill points. Think about that. You have to spend your "real life" time training back for a lost skill. There's no way to grind it back up, sell PLEX, etc. I know I'm personally going to give that T3 the best chance of surviving when those cards are on the table. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Tribal Band
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 01:19:00 -
[969] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Disagree with anyone saying the Sacrilege shouldn't get the HML bonus. Why on earth not? Yes it is a slow ship that is better suited to HAM, but why should that mean it must be locked down to a single weapon type. Every other ship bonus can apply to both long and short range weapons of the class. A missile spewing, smallish sig, tanky armour ship able to fly at range could potentially be a nice ship to have. Who cares if it is slow - it's not like the Drake was ever bought for it's speed!
Lore(khanid) and diversity. |
Farrell Jay
Hoover Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 01:41:00 -
[970] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Stop discussing an area of EVE which you don't understand and this will go better. T3s aren't OP, they aren't flown often outside of W-Space. They are often flown in W-Space because T3s are the only ship that fit the requirements WH alliances need. You, a nullsec blobber with EVE's largest supercap fleet behind you, do not understand W-Space PVP, so do not pretend to have knowledge in this area. .
Yeah, T3s aren't used much outside of wormhole space, and yet Goons(CFC)/NC./-DD-/Test/SOLAR/PL all currently use (and in some cases have used for several years) a T3 doctrine. |
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
67
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 01:43:00 -
[971] - Quote
Demanding more eHP just because of Cynabal this and that won't help either. And to add along: "balance/tradeoffs" must prevail; you can't just give huge raw eHP without some tradeoff. Anyone asking for big stuff for nothing of a tradeoff should just be ashamed.
Quote:There isn't one. HACs are replaced by their T1 counterparts or battlecruisers. People don't fly T3s often because of their cost, and people don't fly HACs often because they suck. HACs need an actual buff that makes them worth the price before they will get some use.
That HACs were "replaced" by T1s was solely due to Tiericide hitting T1 first. However I must say that T2 ships are specialized ships. They do not have to always mean "I WIN" just because their more expensive.
I'd say focus more on the exact buffs that you want with plausible reasonings. Granted, comparing for instance Vaga with SFI and Cynabal is one thing, but I'd really suggest focusing on things that make the Vaga more viable. Same can apply for the other HACs.
Which brings me back to why it would be interesting to see unique Role bonuses, like AB Bonus for Vaga and another ships, as well as all these other interesting role bonuses that could make the HACs versatile despite the T2 specialization aspect.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 01:44:00 -
[972] - Quote
I definatly wouldnt mind if the HACs got a role bonus along the lines of decrase to effectiveness of webs, or some sort of other ewar, make them harder to counter, which could be their nitch strength. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
67
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 02:05:00 -
[973] - Quote
Yeah. It would be a clear difference vs other ships, because we never really have seen much of "anti-crowdcontrol" (excluding using ECM/E-drones). The only one anti-CC I've seen so far was the nullifier.
Anything around that subject could give HACs that advantage over the current debate about T1/SFI/Cynab being "better". Certainly would be something different. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Ivan Krividus
Photon Scorpions
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 02:17:00 -
[974] - Quote
It seems to me that a mineral bay is a lot more useful than an ammo bay...
I do, however, really like the HAC changes. Can't wait to try out the Muninn in 1.1 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
170
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 02:34:00 -
[975] - Quote
I will reiterate a couple of points here with some reasoning:
Vagabond needs its utility high moved to a mid slot, it also needs some more powergrid and cpu so it can fit artillery to kite with, just because Kovorax used an ASB brawler before the ASB nerf doesn't mean everyone wants to. It's currently bad at auto kiting because of the TE nerf. If you remove the utility high it won't really have protection against mwd scram web frigs, that and the shield bonus would differentiate it from the Cynabal. It needs about 1125 base PG to do it's job and let you fit the long range weapons. An extra 5 base CPU wouldn't go astray as well.
I killed an asb vaga in my unbonused dual rep vexor the other day, it needs a lot of buffs, being able to run away really quickly doesn't let you kill things, it's the same problem the stabber had/has.
The Muninn needs another turret slot in that utility high, it's alpha is just soo much less than the Loki it's not worth it. It needs to be able to fit 720s and a 1600 plate with only one fitting rig or it's not really worth anything. To do this it needs an extra 130 base pg currently, plus an extra 180 base to fit the extra turret, so that's 1470 base pg against it's current 1160. It's a specialist long range artillery platform and unless the loki will be getting a HUGE nerf, the muninn will be a no trick pony without the extra turret and fitting. An extra 10-20km base lock range would be nice, so it could actually do its role.
The Deimos needs more damage, it's damage is terrible for a blaster boat, if you say it's supposed to be shield rail fit I have one word for you, TALOS, it's not one and a Talos does it way better. Change the ****** mwd cap bonus into another damage bonus or a tracking bonus. The signature radius on the Deimos is way way too big, there's simply no reason for it, the Ishtar as well. How do you expect these things to mitigate damage whilst mwd'ing if their sig is so large?
It needs enough powergrid to fit 1600 plate, mwd and neutrons with one ACR, the Zealot can, why can't the deimos?
Ishtar obviously needs more cpu, about 35 base extra should do it, that'll bring it up around the Vexor. It's also way too slow, why the hell did you nerf it? It shouldn't be slower than the T1 counterpart, since these things are specialist mwd attack ships. Integrate the drone bay bonus and put in a drone MWD speed bonus, it's a specialist drone ship after all. I like Trouser's idea of a 20% damage/lvl bonus and a 50 Mbit BW limit so can get good damage from mediums.
The SAC needs more damage, it's pathetic, change the cap bonus to a damage or missile speed bonus (at least then it gets damage projection). Integrate the cap bonus into the hull.
The eagle and cerb I leave to people who know them better, but I will say the cerb looks way too slow to kite.
Lastly, as I said before, they all need a capacitor boost, seriously how can you run your mwd and use the sig bonus if you have no cap? To the role bonus add a reduction in MWD capacitor usage or give them all much better cap recharge.
Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1150
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 02:43:00 -
[976] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:I definatly wouldnt mind if the HACs got a role bonus along the lines of decrase to effectiveness of webs, or some sort of other ewar, make them harder to counter, which could be their nitch strength.
what if scrams did not turn off the hacs mwd? that would be a nifty bonus eh?
that would make them unique and worth the isk investment over comparable alternatives... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Vic Teishikuro
Rescue Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 02:46:00 -
[977] - Quote
Soo guys if CCP reads this thread and wants to know what the main revisions are we need to come to some sort of agree ment..
Make sure you are liking the posts you stringly agree with
And for me I think we can all agree that
Hac's need to follow the tiercide appraoch.. with two distinct roles for each race. |
Arazel Chainfire
Sons Of 0din The Unthinkables
214
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 02:49:00 -
[978] - Quote
Ja'ho sun wrote:Arazel Chainfire wrote: Cerberus: The cerb gets another launcher, a fairly nice buff to its CPU and powergrid, a minor buff to its capacitor, a pretty decent buff to its speed, a smidge of drone bay, and its hp's rounded to whole numbers. The powergrid buff is basically enough to allow it to actually fit its new 6th launcher, while the CPU buff gives enough for the launcher and a bit more besides.
Overall, these changes give it a nice bonus to being a kiting HAM ship, with HAM's able to hit out to 45km using standard missiles. Combined with the recent buffs to HAM's, and this ship actually becomes an upgrade to the caracel. In this role, the cerberus gets a 200dps boost, a 15km range boost, and a 15k ish EHP boost over the caracel. Adding to this the bonus for sig radius using MWD, and we may actually see Cerbs in use. The heavy missile build for the cerb still has unnecessarily excessive range, and after the recent changes does fairly pitiful damage. It may still see niche useage, but with the great range the cerb has with HAM's, it probably won't be seen often. I would call this a good change.
the cerb has always had this ability and its more of a 75 maybe 100 dps boost not 200. the PG boost is not eough to fit the new launcher fit . it would need another 5 PG to make it fit (barely).
Note, I stated it is a 200dps boost over the Caracal (the T1 cruiser, not the current Cerb). Over the current cerb, it is a 99dps increase using CN scourge, t2 HAM's, max skills, and 3 BCU 2's. With max skills, a T2 HAM is 101.7pg. Once skills are added in, the cerb gets 106 more powergrid, and as it is right now it can fit 5 HAM 2's, a MWD, and a T2 large shield extender without any fitting mods. After the changes, you can fit 6 HAM 2's, 1 10mn MWD, 1 large extender, 3 hardeners, 3 BCU 2's, and a DCU 2, as well as two extender rigs, without needing any fitting mods or implants. This fit would put out 593dps with max skills, using navy scourge, with a range of 45km. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 03:03:00 -
[979] - Quote
Arazel Chainfire wrote:Ja'ho sun wrote:Arazel Chainfire wrote: Cerberus: The cerb gets another launcher, a fairly nice buff to its CPU and powergrid, a minor buff to its capacitor, a pretty decent buff to its speed, a smidge of drone bay, and its hp's rounded to whole numbers. The powergrid buff is basically enough to allow it to actually fit its new 6th launcher, while the CPU buff gives enough for the launcher and a bit more besides.
Overall, these changes give it a nice bonus to being a kiting HAM ship, with HAM's able to hit out to 45km using standard missiles. Combined with the recent buffs to HAM's, and this ship actually becomes an upgrade to the caracel. In this role, the cerberus gets a 200dps boost, a 15km range boost, and a 15k ish EHP boost over the caracel. Adding to this the bonus for sig radius using MWD, and we may actually see Cerbs in use. The heavy missile build for the cerb still has unnecessarily excessive range, and after the recent changes does fairly pitiful damage. It may still see niche useage, but with the great range the cerb has with HAM's, it probably won't be seen often. I would call this a good change.
the cerb has always had this ability and its more of a 75 maybe 100 dps boost not 200. the PG boost is not eough to fit the new launcher fit . it would need another 5 PG to make it fit (barely). Note, I stated it is a 200dps boost over the Caracal (the T1 cruiser, not the current Cerb). Over the current cerb, it is a 99dps increase using CN scourge, t2 HAM's, max skills, and 3 BCU 2's. With max skills, a T2 HAM is 101.7pg. Once skills are added in, the cerb gets 106 more powergrid, and as it is right now it can fit 5 HAM 2's, a MWD, and a T2 large shield extender without any fitting mods. After the changes, you can fit 6 HAM 2's, 1 10mn MWD, 1 large extender, 3 hardeners, 3 BCU 2's, and a DCU 2, as well as two extender rigs, without needing any fitting mods or implants. This fit would put out 593dps with max skills, using navy scourge, with a range of 45km.
I pretty surre the Arazel knows what she's talking about...
he Cebr still needs more PWD and CPU
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1698
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 03:09:00 -
[980] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Name one role that T3s replace the T2 variant. I dare you. (Again, boosters aside, I agree T3 boosters need a nerf.)
There isn't one. HACs are replaced by their T1 counterparts or battlecruisers. People don't fly T3s often because of their cost, and people don't fly HACs often because they suck. HACs need an actual buff that makes them worth the price before they will get some use.
You are so completely out of touch with the game that I dont even know where to start. T3's outclass hacs in every single possible way. There is no HAC that does the role of DPS or tank better than a T3 cruiser configured to do the same. And as for them not being flown often, well... Aside from the full fleets of t3's that are really common (legions lokis proteus and tengus all have very common large fleet appearances) this BR from yesterday called and said you should probably get a clue: http://zkillboard.com/related/31002460/201307182200/ T3s outclass HACs in every way, but also cost 3x more and have an SP penalty. That is called "balancing". . A t2 fitted hac runs around 250 million, a t2 fitted t3 runs 500 million, if that, more like 275, so its barely twice as much for a platform that outshines the hac in every conceivable way, one might even argue that t3 Cruisers are what HACs should be. Just because you spend an extra billion on your fit when you can get a really good strong fit from a t3 with just t2 items doesn't mean you get to skew the stay with it. The vanilla fit still outclasses the HAC in every way for barely double the cost, if even double in some cases. Stop making things up and this will go along a lot better. Stop discussing an area of EVE which you don't understand and this will go better. T3s aren't OP, they aren't flown often outside of W-Space. .
Yea, theres definitely not pure loki fleets, pure tengu fleets, and armor hacs fleets composed almost entirely of legions, and my alliance definitely hasn't had fairly stellar fights and even killed supers in some or all of those, nobody outside of a wormhole ever flies t3 cruisers, and every 0.0 block walking doesn't have a fleet comp thats composed entirely of t3 Cruisers.
What game are you even playing kid? |
|
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Asgard Ammunitions
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 03:23:00 -
[981] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:
what if scrams did not turn off the hacs mwd? that would be a nifty bonus eh?
Role Bonus: Micro Warp Drive immune to Warp Scrambler
that would make them unique and worth the isk investment over comparable alternatives...
Scram-Immunity helps only HACs using MWD. That would only be viable for an Roaming-Role HAC (Vagabond). For an fleet-HAC, we need something different.
Different approach: For the fleet-hac would be an big resistance increase Role Bonus for the fleet-hac an different approach, that is only viable against Large and XL Weapons. Maybe even fixed Resistance values against Large/XL weapons. Which would offer FCs to use HACs only with Plates/Shield Extenders and more speed/damage slots, but with the risk that an BC/Cruiser fleet does a lot more damage or more well rounded fittings with resistance modules.
|
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 03:23:00 -
[982] - Quote
Is it possible to have the HAC role bonus changed to something like a 50% AB velocity increase? Or an across the board role bonus of 25-50% damage increase to emphasize the heavy ASSAULT role? Just something that will benefit all ships in the class |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 03:25:00 -
[983] - Quote
I agree with My PL friend up top
Even Nulli has a few T3 fleet doctrines ready to be used..
that being said, with their total cost with goof fit being over 500mil , they require more sp to fly, and you lose sp when you die in one. I feell they should always better better in every way then t2's....
that being said... CCP rise I hopes reads all these posts soon and see that the T2's need more... CPU and PWD especially amoung other things. Let see the tiercide and roles given the Hacs like all other ships |
Trinkets friend
T.R.I.A.D
1042
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 03:56:00 -
[984] - Quote
Yeesh. Some good, some bad.
Deimos. Clearly you are trying to bludgeon this ship into a rail-kite setup. The new 50% off discount on MWD sig penalty, plus better rail DPS, and a MWD cap use bonus looks good on paper. We will see if it is, indeed, good for this role given the Thorax will also receive an equal boost from medium rail buff and is already a decent (if niche) rail kite option.
Vaga won't benefit greatly with this new role bonus in a brawling setup. Kiting...sure, a bonus to sig radius will help reduce its already bloated MWD sig and help it's tank.
Regarding your buff to the Ishtar? 2008's sniper sentry concept called and wants lack of mobility and lack of Attack BC's back. Also, lack of loki boosts, lack of T3's, lack of MJD's. I like things retro - 1950's housewife chic is good. But the role of this ship as a drone sniper is just gone. The meta has moved on.
The Ishtar also, as said a million times earlier in the thread, REALLY needs a CPU buff.
Sac changes are good. But then, any changes to the Sac would be good. Here the cap recharge bonus is clearly aimed at active tank brawlers, or to help with prolonged kiting. Not sure that it will be good at either. Again, the Scythe Fleet or even Caracal make brutal 600 DPS HAM brawlers.
Munnin and Eagle both suffer from the advent of Attack BC's. The Munnin has been obsoleted also by the advent of the Arty Scythe Fleet which does its job much better. AC fit Munnin AHACs...well, maybe. Stronger armour tank is going to see the Munnin slot in with a few sig tanking gangs.
Zealot is still going to be good. Especially now, with shield beam Zealot gangs being a really, really sweet concept to go along with shield rail Thoraxes.
Cerb...well, its an improvement. The missile velocity bonus will not so much help apply HML damage at 200km faster than your enemy gets to warp out, but will actually make HAM snipers viable. Altogether, looks interesting.
I think this is overall a missed opportunity. Concepts I'd have liked explored: - EWAR drone bonuses on the Ishtar. 20% per level bonus to EWAR drone effectiveness? Make large neut drones and TD and SD drones...useful?? - MWD speed drone bonus. You can kite like a monster, and get tackled by a Slasher and be unable to escape. What a great way to spend 270M ISK. - EWAR bonuses. I mean, these ships are supposed to be assault ships. They go into battle...and then promptly try kiting instead of attacking. Yep. I'm going to be more afraid of a Navy cruiser, a T3 or an Attack BC than these things, or a Geddon tbh. At least a Geddon is a) cheaper b) tankier c) has neuts. And d) you can plaster on a MJD and try your luck.
I'll be sticking to my Scythe Fleets, Stabber Fleets and Navy Omens. Indigently pwning indifferently. Some sucker buy me a Naglfar. http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Major Killz
SniggWaffe
226
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 04:43:00 -
[985] - Quote
You know what? I would be interested in seeing a 150 - 350% increase bonus to afterburner velocity
I'd also boost each heavy assault cruiser signature to at-least 200m or more. I'm more interested in the ship being unaffected by warp scramblers. This would shake up a lot of things in medium, and small scale engagements. Mind you though. In large scale engagements where there are a sh!t load of support ships it wouldn't mean much. 2 - 3 stasis webifier applied from any ship would see to that.
v0v
NO? What about something CCP state that this game is and has not really achieved? Focus on standardizing, increasing and or lowering base slot amount for each ship class. Remove all silly bonuses and focus entirely on RACIAL or weapon system focused bonus threw all ship classes.
This would mean all blaster focused ships receive a tracking and damage bonus; all auto-cannon focused ships receive falloff and rate of fire bonuses; all drone ships receive drone damage and hit-point bonuses; all Missile ships receive a rate of fire and missile velocity bonus.
The real differences would be in TOTAL SLOT LAYOUT and various BASE STATS. That would mean NO resistance bonuses or bonuses to shield boost and armour amount bonuses. So instead of a resistance bonus like the sacrilege has now. The ship would have it embedded like YOUR TEAM is already attempting to do (can do the same for the Abaddon too). This would leave much of how its ultimately used to the players like it already does but more so.
This would free you (CCP/your team) from all the ADDED bonuses dilemma you're clearly in. More importantly have a road map of what you'd like each class of ship to be relative to one another and NERF tech 1 frigates and cruisers to below thier tech 2 counterparts in effectiveness. Do things like limit attack battle-cruisers to using LONG RANGE turrets ONLY and the same with tier 2 destroyers (Thrasher, Coercer, Cormorant, Catalyst). - Killz
Combat Video Log: http://www.youtube.com/user/kdsalmon/videos - Pantaloon (June 13, 2013) - Pantaloon II: Violins (Jun 23, 2013) |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 04:47:00 -
[986] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:I'm personally of the opinion that the key to making the HAC lineup attractive to more pilots is not to reduce the cost, or overpower them relative to T1/T3/ABCs. Call me crazy, but I don't think that cost is a significant deterrent for hull usage - look at the proliferation nullsec T3 blob doctrines. I think that the HAC lineup could be made relevant simply by giving them a role that no other ship fills, or *at least* that no other cruiser fills.
One example that I've seen cited in this thread is the HICs - no other hull can fit an infinipoint, thus guaranteeing a place in anti-super ops. Only the Stealth Bombers can bomb. I personally like the idea of allowing only the 'Attack' HACs the option of fitting a MJD, giving them the mobility that no other hull can boast. I like the idea of allowing the 'Combat' HACs the option of fitting Capital sized weapons, thus making them tanky anti-cap ships. I like the Target Spectrum Breaker idea, but I'm not certain that that bonus would be enough to get me to fly one. I like role bonuses that make the hull class unique.
I want to hear what role bonuses YOU want though. What would you like your HAC to do that no other cruiser can do? MJD Vagabond would be rather annoying to catch. But otherwise I actually like this idea. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1012
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 04:48:00 -
[987] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:I definatly wouldnt mind if the HACs got a role bonus along the lines of decrase to effectiveness of webs, or some sort of other ewar, make them harder to counter, which could be their nitch strength. what if scrams did not turn off the hacs mwd? that would be a nifty bonus eh? Role Bonus: Micro Warp Drive immune to Warp Scrambler that would make them unique and worth the isk investment over comparable alternatives...
I think there are lots of people thinking along these lines. The ships cost a relatively high amount of isk so make them a bit elusive.
Making the mwd immune to scrams might be a bit much but I proposed sort of a compromise.
Cearain wrote:
What if the role bonus was that these ships were specially rigged so that their mwd had a higher warp core strength.
It could work lots of different ways:
1) mwd could turn into an ab if scrammed (t2 mwd=t2 ab)
2) MWD might work at half efficiency if 1 scram and be turned off by 2 scrams. The sig bloom might remain full if its half turned off. Or it might be halved.
3) some other variation on the theme.
edit: the amount of cap it requires could be changed as well. Also it might still get some inherent reduction to sig bloom and perhaps mass increase from mwd.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
371
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 04:56:00 -
[988] - Quote
Sacrilege could use another low... A properly fit dual rep Sacrilege does barely any DPS. |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 05:17:00 -
[989] - Quote
Baren wrote:Arazel Chainfire wrote:Ja'ho sun wrote:Arazel Chainfire wrote: Cerberus: The cerb gets another launcher, a fairly nice buff to its CPU and powergrid, a minor buff to its capacitor, a pretty decent buff to its speed, a smidge of drone bay, and its hp's rounded to whole numbers. The powergrid buff is basically enough to allow it to actually fit its new 6th launcher, while the CPU buff gives enough for the launcher and a bit more besides.
Overall, these changes give it a nice bonus to being a kiting HAM ship, with HAM's able to hit out to 45km using standard missiles. Combined with the recent buffs to HAM's, and this ship actually becomes an upgrade to the caracel. In this role, the cerberus gets a 200dps boost, a 15km range boost, and a 15k ish EHP boost over the caracel. Adding to this the bonus for sig radius using MWD, and we may actually see Cerbs in use. The heavy missile build for the cerb still has unnecessarily excessive range, and after the recent changes does fairly pitiful damage. It may still see niche useage, but with the great range the cerb has with HAM's, it probably won't be seen often. I would call this a good change.
the cerb has always had this ability and its more of a 75 maybe 100 dps boost not 200. the PG boost is not eough to fit the new launcher fit . it would need another 5 PG to make it fit (barely). Note, I stated it is a 200dps boost over the Caracal (the T1 cruiser, not the current Cerb). Over the current cerb, it is a 99dps increase using CN scourge, t2 HAM's, max skills, and 3 BCU 2's. With max skills, a T2 HAM is 101.7pg. Once skills are added in, the cerb gets 106 more powergrid, and as it is right now it can fit 5 HAM 2's, a MWD, and a T2 large shield extender without any fitting mods. After the changes, you can fit 6 HAM 2's, 1 10mn MWD, 1 large extender, 3 hardeners, 3 BCU 2's, and a DCU 2, as well as two extender rigs, without needing any fitting mods or implants. This fit would put out 593dps with max skills, using navy scourge, with a range of 45km. I pretty surre the Arazel knows what she's talking about... he Cebr still needs more PWD and CPU
at no point did I say he didn't know wat he was talking about. i'm taking into account those that don't have max skills the 5 extra PG is needed to fit the ship and it doesn't need anymore cpu, the ship has plenty. on the other hand I cant see why any1 would fit 3 hardeners on a cerb. truly lost on that. guess that's the null sec mind at play. as that kind of fit leaves no room for point and imo way over tanked. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
361
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 06:14:00 -
[990] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:nikar galvren wrote:I'm personally of the opinion that the key to making the HAC lineup attractive to more pilots is not to reduce the cost, or overpower them relative to T1/T3/ABCs. Call me crazy, but I don't think that cost is a significant deterrent for hull usage - look at the proliferation nullsec T3 blob doctrines. I think that the HAC lineup could be made relevant simply by giving them a role that no other ship fills, or *at least* that no other cruiser fills.
One example that I've seen cited in this thread is the HICs - no other hull can fit an infinipoint, thus guaranteeing a place in anti-super ops. Only the Stealth Bombers can bomb. I personally like the idea of allowing only the 'Attack' HACs the option of fitting a MJD, giving them the mobility that no other hull can boast. I like the idea of allowing the 'Combat' HACs the option of fitting Capital sized weapons, thus making them tanky anti-cap ships. I like the Target Spectrum Breaker idea, but I'm not certain that that bonus would be enough to get me to fly one. I like role bonuses that make the hull class unique.
I want to hear what role bonuses YOU want though. What would you like your HAC to do that no other cruiser can do? MJD Vagabond would be rather annoying to catch. But otherwise I actually like this idea. Yeah but don't forget: you'd be able to jump out and if he does, then he's 100km away, and you won't have to worry anymore anyway.
Plus, since it'd be limited to HACs, it'd differentiate the Vaga from the Cynabal that much more. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
268
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 06:45:00 -
[991] - Quote
an excellent idea was suggested.
put the cap bonus in the sac ship stats and give it another missile bonus.
bad about the sac: it doesnt have enough slots to be the best active tank. it doesnt have enough dps to be the best dps doesnt have enough to have the best alpha one of the slowest very close range with hams (missils will help) missiles useless against quick targets must choose between damage projection or tank.
possible solutions: another launcher. make it the opposite of the cerb, armor vs shield tank give it an active tank bonus like the vaggy or paladin. give it the bonus of the stealth bomber or phoon so it can smack smaller targets. give it the armor increase like the damnation give it a burner bonus. +10% bonus to burner (only) speed. its not a fast ship, but under assistance, it can catch others. either mwd bonus, or burner bonus. without either, its a slow pig.
or a 10% per level neut/nos reflection bonus. amarr are (or were) the masters of the capacitor. we still have the cap bonus on the sac.
also, the mwd bonus needs to be larger on all hacs. maybe 67.5% or so (i havent looked at the numbers).
its weird having resist bonuses on a sniper ship. they usually dont get hit. change the eagle resist bonus (to something else favourable).
the vexor wanna be needs more cpu or a eduction in cpu need for drone stuff.
|
Deirdre Anethoel
Antimatter Delivery Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 07:00:00 -
[992] - Quote
Zealot is mostly fine in it's role as a pulse boat. Maybe a slight buff to make it viable compared to navy omens in small gangs, but it's perfectly viable in larger engagements. One sad thing is the fact that it still doesn't really support beams, with their massive fitting requirements and the fact that it isn't really suited for sniping/kiting (3 mids, not that fast). But I think that it's more a problem of beams than a problem related to the zealot. Beams have awful T2 munitions compared to the goodness of scorch and conflagrate. A standard shield beam fit will only hit at around 300 dps with aurora. Not speaking of shorter range munitions in a kiting configuration, because they are overshadowed by scorch pulses. A buff to beam range in addition to damage would maybe make it viable. Or Aurora damage ratio. Because right now there is no way this would compare to tier3 BCs (they are a huge problem to balance any other sniper ship).
The sacrilege already have a net advantage compared to other options (ham drakes). It can sig tank. But the fact that it's a very slight improvement in damage compared to the zealot for a MASSIVE loss in how easy it is to apply this damage is sad. I think it should get a slight damage buff to compensate and make it into a viable fleet option by making it worthwhile to embark the needed target painters and web in fleet. Also add RLM damage bonus, because why not? Also, the capacitor bonus is pretty bad, I think. the only reason you would have to need it would be active tanking, and if you active tank a sacrilege, you use cap boosters, because one repper isn't going to save your life. If you want to push the sacrilege as a solo boat instead of a fleet boat (which sounds awkward on a HAM boat, since HAMs really need ton of support to become effective, HM do not need reppers, only speed to kite, and sacrileges lack any rapid light missile bonus), you should add a repper bonus instead of a cap bonus. Or a repper cap consumption bonus, that would be new and interesting! And also make RLM bonused on it, since they're awesome for solo/small gang.
Cerb is way too slow, but if you make it faster, it will just overshadow caracal/navy caracals. Instead, I think it should be a cruiser sized missile brawler, a role that isn't filled right now, since caracals and navy caracals are way too fragile. Remove all range bonuses, swap the resist bonus with the eagle and add a damage or explosion velocity/radius bonus.
For the same reason, the eagle should not become a blaster/short range railgun brawler. This role is already filled by a lot of ships. Instead, it should be a long range railgun platform at cruiser size, something new. Remove the resist bonus, add something like an agility bonus (while keeping it slow if they want to make it into a sniper and not a kitter, or they could fix the speed to enable both roles). It should have an overwhelming agility advantage compared to tier3 cruisers to make up for the lost damage. The same observations I did for the beam zealot applies here: you either have an awful range for a sniper/kiter (CN AM) with short range munitions, and don't even have decent dps to go with it, or you have decent range (contrary to beams and the zealot, you at least can reach a good range), but sacrificing all your dps. The problem is still tier3 BCs. No way you could compare with them with those stats. I really think the way to balance sniper hacs is to nerf tier3 BCs really hard. They should not be close in term of agility and speed. At all. They should be heavier than other BCs, not lighter. Unless you fix tier3 BCs, there is no way you can fix sniper hacs without breaking the balance somewhere else with med long range guns being used at closer range. Of course, sniper hacs should not have more damage than tier3 BCs, but they should be made competitive by giving them a ton of mobility compared to those. We're comparing a BC and a cruiser here. An eagle and a naga have roughly the same speed. How is this even conceivable?
All the problems I talked about for the eagle and beam zealot applies to the munnin. But if those are fixed, the munnin should go the same way the eagle goes, but with less damage/range and more alpha. Buff it's agility by a ton to make it a viable option by allowing it to warp quickly where you want it to be on the battlefield.
The vagabond was pretty okay as a nano gang ship, and the added shield boost also pushes it as a very viable solo ship. Maybe a tad bit too much.
The deimos should become fine in small gangs (awesome with blasters, able to zip around with MWD on), and competitive in larger fleets because of it's range flexibility compared to a zealot when fitted with railguns. Didn't need that utility high anyway. I think the mwd capacitor bonus should be switched to a generic propulsion capacitor bonus, though, because you should have the choice of propulsion. Not that a reduction in AB capacitor consumption would be massive, but right now, it seems like you're only pushing MWD play on it.
The ishtar is mostly fine as a smaller sig dominix, the swap towards drone tracking is going to make it into a fleet staple, like for the dominix. Pretty happy about this one, since it was never designed for small scale anyway. Massive up for pve too, though. And ishtar multiboxing may have been already a bit too good there. Should become used a lot more. Sad that non-sentry drones aren't pushed at all, though. Could add a drone speed & warp speed in addition to tracking & optimal, maybe by pushing the drone bay into base stats.
But to be fair, this should be posted in a tier3 BC rebalance thread, not in a hac one. Those are the main problem with hacs viability right now. I think we should go back to them before jumping into tech2 rebalance, because they play a huge role in hacs rebalance. Before their introduction, the medium guns change could have been enough to push the eagle, beam zealot and muninn into use... |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 07:06:00 -
[993] - Quote
a role bonus to the MJD is not bad. it doesn't make HACs OP, it in fact opens up more options in pvp. it would require a reduction in fitting cost similar to the way tier3 BCs role bonus for fitting large guns.
this idea behind HACs being immune or having reduced ecm effects against them is silly. HACs are not super caps with extreme cost and effort to build to warrant such a role. |
Shadow McGregor
Trident Tactical Group The Unthinkables
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 07:25:00 -
[994] - Quote
Please CCP add more CPU to the Ishtar! |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3162
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 07:33:00 -
[995] - Quote
It would really be best to rethink HACs on a wider scale, then lay out a plan how to place them in that niche, and only then start adjusting the ships.
What is presented in the OP is not rebalancing, it's random tweaking of stats without any cohesion or direction.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
280
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 08:02:00 -
[996] - Quote
T2 ships are supposed to be specialized. Recons, interceptors, bombers, dictors, hictors, EAFs, logistics, command ships, and black ops all possess unique capabilities - specialized Ewar, enhanced tackling, unique weapons, etc - that give you a theoretical reason to use them over T1 ships. Paying 200 million isk for a cruiserthat gets 60km webs is not outrageous. Paying 200 million isk for a cruiser that's a moderately more powerful (but also fatter) version of a regular cruiser is problematic, especially when I can pay a third that for a moderately more powerful version of a regular cruiser that is also faster and/or tougher.
CCP really ought to sit down and figure what unique capabilities they want for Assault Ships/Heavy Assault Ships before they rework them. Then they need to make sure that the intended roles are viable when inserted into the present metagame. Unique capabilities do not necessarily need to be represented by hull-limited modules or weird role bonuses, but bringing out a T2 ship should be something you do because you can't do the job properly with a T1 ship. |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 08:06:00 -
[997] - Quote
Deirdre Anethoel wrote:
The sacrilege already have a net advantage compared to other options (ham drakes). It can sig tank. But the fact that it's a very slight improvement in damage compared to the zealot for a MASSIVE loss in how easy it is to apply this damage is sad. I think it should get a slight damage buff to compensate and make it into a viable fleet option by making it worthwhile to embark the needed target painters and web in fleet. Also add RLM damage bonus, because why not? Also, the capacitor bonus is pretty bad, I think. the only reason you would have to need it would be active tanking, and if you active tank a sacrilege, you use cap boosters, because one repper isn't going to save your life. If you want to push the sacrilege as a solo boat instead of a fleet boat (which sounds awkward on a HAM boat, since HAMs really need ton of support to become effective, HM do not need reppers, only speed to kite, and sacrileges lack any rapid light missile bonus), you should add a repper bonus instead of a cap bonus. Or a repper cap consumption bonus, that would be new and interesting! And also make RLM bonused on it, since they're awesome for solo/small gang.
Cerb is way too slow, but if you make it faster, it will just overshadow caracal/navy caracals. Instead, I think it should be a cruiser sized missile brawler, a role that isn't filled right now, since caracals and navy caracals are way too fragile. Remove all range bonuses, swap the resist bonus with the eagle and add a damage or explosion velocity/radius bonus.
The deimos should become fine in small gangs (awesome with blasters, able to zip around with MWD on), and competitive in larger fleets because of it's range flexibility compared to a zealot when fitted with railguns. Didn't need that utility high anyway. I think the mwd capacitor bonus should be switched to a generic propulsion capacitor bonus, though, because you should have the choice of propulsion. Not that a reduction in AB capacitor consumption would be massive, but right now, it seems like you're only pushing MWD play on it.
why shouldn't the cerb over shadow its t1 counter parts, it is after all an upgraded version of the caracal. it has better range, better dps output and higher base resists. it should out shine them. the cerb is a very fast ships as it stands right now. plus caldri are not meant to be the fastest of ships given missile range ability. however if CCP does make it faster then the 205 base they have it slated for, by all means do so. taking away its current range bonus would make it silly to fly. it simply doesn't have the tank HP to work. give the explosion velocity/radius bonus to the sac so it can hit targets, let that be the brawl ship. this is not to say the cerb shouldn't brawl, because it can to a degree. its just a better ship to fly under its current bonuses.
I agree on the deimos should have options to use both micro and AB, however I don't think its something CCP will do since its just an underwhelming bonus. not sure tracking should be there something to replace the micro bonus, as the ship right now can just run the micro forever chasing down ships like the cerb or vaga with their weaker cap.
the real issue with the sac is when active tanked it can't push the dps like a active Ishtar can. its a case of "ha I got u webbed and scramed now im going to watch a movie till ur dead." the dps is just not there when rep fit. under buffer though its a whole other story. wont go into detail there ofc. as for its range with missiles, I don't think a brawler needs to hit out as for as 30k. the current 20 km range using faction ammo and the 16 km range with t2 high dmg ammo work fine. it just needs to apply it better. |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch OLD MAN GANG
538
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 08:47:00 -
[998] - Quote
i do not think that eagle will be any better with these changes, no one will use it anyway.
it is just too slow for any use. |
Sirinda
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire
193
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 08:48:00 -
[999] - Quote
This makes me so glad I trained HACs as a prerequisite for Command Ships back in the day. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
225
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 08:56:00 -
[1000] - Quote
All these people crying out for the Vaga to be an arty platform, why?
The Muninn just needs to become less ****, keep the Vaga as an AC platform.
Just to reiterate though, the changes to the Vagabond are **** and only make it worse, it loses a little speed and gains a **** bonus that will only be used in a heavy tackle role, all the Vaga needs is a DPS and projection buff, possibly add like 30 grid to make it a little less of a ***** to fit, you dont need to change anything else on it. |
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
216
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 09:17:00 -
[1001] - Quote
decent changes i just dont like the active shield tanking bonus on the vaga expecially considering it doesnt get any fitting boost to make an use of that |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1749
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 09:27:00 -
[1002] - Quote
Hey guys, another short update.
Spent most of the day yesterday on prep for the Alliance Tournament and of course today and tomorrow will be spent on 64 total AT matches. Fozzie and I are still talking a lot about this rebalance and have some good ideas going forward but because of the tournament you will have to wait until the start of the work week.
Check out the AT in the meantime =) |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1322
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 09:32:00 -
[1003] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, another short update.
Spent most of the day yesterday on prep for the Alliance Tournament and of course today and tomorrow will be spent on 64 total AT matches. Fozzie and I are still talking a lot about this rebalance and have some good ideas going forward but because of the tournament you will have to wait until the start of the work week.
Check out the AT in the meantime =) Any chance of putting these ships up to 16 slots like HICs and T3 ships? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
173
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 10:34:00 -
[1004] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:All these people crying out for the Vaga to be an arty platform, why?
The Muninn just needs to become less ****, keep the Vaga as an AC platform.
Just to reiterate though, the changes to the Vagabond are **** and only make it worse, it loses a little speed and gains a **** bonus that will only be used in a heavy tackle role, all the Vaga needs is a DPS and projection buff, possibly add like 30 grid to make it a little less of a ***** to fit, you dont need to change anything else on it.
I'd like to fit arties because of the superior damage projection on offer. I don't care about the tracking loss because the Vaga is fast, negating transversal.
The tracking enhancer nerf reduced the falloff of a 425 vaga by 6km effectively forcing you to use barrage when you're at the edge of heated point range.
CCP apparently doesn't want short range guns shooting out to long range, though Autos were the ones most affected by the TE nerf.
If nothing else it needs a pg buff, you can't even fit 425's and two meta LSE's without being over on pg, the Cynabal can fit 720s, lse's a neut and have leftover. An extra 5% falloff/level wouldn't go astray if they don't give it enough powergrid for artillery. It really does need its utility high put in a mid slot though.
I'd like HACS to all get an extra slot, but I don't think that's going to happen. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 10:37:00 -
[1005] - Quote
Generally I have been a big fan of tiercide so far, particularly the T1 cruiser changes (and even the battleships) but I find it hard to adequately express my disappointment in these proposed changes. It could prove to be such a missed opportunity.
Firstly it has been stated many times that tiercide is about giving ships roles and that T2 should be specialised rather than a strict upgrade from T1. There is no clear vision of what the role of this ship class is meant to be. Also I don't understand why you didn't go with attack and combat HACs making attack HACs fast, dps machines with moderate tank that can be gank support in small gangs or rapid deployment high dps in fleets, and combat HACs could be slower and tankier with more cap (or EWAR) resiliance for protracted engagements. You could even give them different role bonuses (MWD bloom for attack and maybe AB speed/EWAR defense for combat).
Both should have a sig that makes them able to mitigate a meaningful proportion of large gun weapon damage and attack HACs would need to be fast enough to catch ABCs, they would then become their natural predator bringing some welcome balance to the meta. There is a good post (on another site) as to why the MWD bloom bonus with the current sigs is of no use.
Basically these ships need to be as fast as the tech 1 counterparts and the MWD bonus needs to be meaningful when it comes to engaging ABCs or battleships allowing for up scaling in the ship sizes they can engage. Currently no-one uses them because have no role that can't be done better (and usually cheaper) by something else. After these change they will still have no role. |
Bigg Gun
Flying Bags Inc. Bulgarian Space Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 11:12:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Moar cowbells !!! |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 11:13:00 -
[1007] - Quote
Dysgenesis wrote:
Basically these ships need to be as fast as the tech 1 counterparts and the MWD bonus needs to be meaningful when it comes to engaging ABCs or battleships allowing for up scaling in the ship sizes they can engage. Currently no-one uses them because have no role that can't be done better (and usually cheaper) by something else. After these change they will still have no role.
This TBH. What about a 20% reduction per level in sig radius penalty when using a mwd? At level 5 the sig penalty will be inexistent making the HACS really ideal for their true role of fast attack ships. Of course the Deimos will have to gain other bonus to substitute mwd one.
But like this we will have a true reason to fly HACS instead of navy cruisers, or tec3 ships. They will not have the tec3 fexibility or the ratio of price/performance of the navy cruisers but they will have a specific advantage over all the other ships.
Of course CCP will have to review very fast the missile mechanics beucause they will be hurted by this proposed change but CCP already stated that they are going to do it. |
Capqu
Love Squad
171
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 11:22:00 -
[1008] - Quote
how about giving each race an anti-capital assault cruiser?
for example
Zealot Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Energy Turret capacitor use and 5% bonus to Energy Turret rate of fire per level Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Energy Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to Energy Turret damage per level
Role Bonus: Can fit one Extra Large Energy Turret, reduced PG need for that weapon by 100% and capacitor use by a further 25%.
this would be cool. give them a sort of "main cannon" that's only really effective against capitals and sometimes battleships
yeah just a stupid suggestion, i know. but i really think you need a role for these hacs, not just making them slightly better (haha jk half of them are worse) t1 cruisers for 5x the price http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 11:51:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Overslot the HAC's and let the People Decide how they want to fly them.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3365961#post3365961 |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
991
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:04:00 -
[1010] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, another short update.
Spent most of the day yesterday on prep for the Alliance Tournament and of course today and tomorrow will be spent on 64 total AT matches. Fozzie and I are still talking a lot about this rebalance and have some good ideas going forward but because of the tournament you will have to wait until the start of the work week.
Check out the AT in the meantime =) Any chance of putting these ships up to 16 slots like HICs and T3 ships?
Fck 16 slots, give them a 3rd rig slot and 400 calibration !! *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2164
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:11:00 -
[1011] - Quote
NONE of these changes are good enough tbh.
HACs don't just need their slots moved around and stats tweaked, they need slots added and their stats buffed. Even after these changes, the tier 3 BCs will still be better at long range stuff and kiting and people will continue to not use HACs over far cheaper T1 ships that do their job just as well for much less.
HACs need more slot across the board. they need better fittings they need 3 rig slots. (or at least the slots to make up for a lack of rig room.)
if these are the only changes made, HACs will continue to be an obsolete ship class.
PS: yes, the med gun changes will make them better, but they also make the T1 ships better by the same amount. |
Trinkets friend
T.R.I.A.D
1044
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:13:00 -
[1012] - Quote
The HAC is a ship class with a special role, looking for that special role.
EWAR is the domain of the combat recons. DPS for reasonable ISk is T1 or Navy cruisers. OMGWFTBBQ is for T3's (for now). Bait tanking is for BSs. Dying to cynos is for BSs.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but as said before, a decent role for them needs to be crafted and abilities given to them which doesn't break the game, but which gives them something unique.
How about a role bonus of +1 scram strength, to stop MJD equipped BS's from getting off the field, with a dissy? This will only step on the toes of scripted HIC infinipoint gate campers - and instead of fearing a cyno going up, a BS pilot will suddenly have to fear a HAC turning up on field.
May minimally affect faction point prices.
Indigently pwning indifferently. Some sucker buy me a Naglfar. http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:18:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Capqu wrote:how about giving each race an anti-capital assault cruiser?
for example
Zealot Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Energy Turret capacitor use and 5% bonus to Energy Turret rate of fire per level Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Energy Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to Energy Turret damage per level
Role Bonus: Can fit one Extra Large Energy Turret, reduced PG need for that weapon by 100% and capacitor use by a further 25%.
this would be cool. give them a sort of "main cannon" that's only really effective against capitals and sometimes battleships
yeah just a stupid suggestion, i know. but i really think you need a role for these hacs, not just making them slightly better (haha jk half of them are worse) t1 cruisers for 5x the price
It's idiotic but I like it. Artillery :-) |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:25:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Capqu wrote:how about giving each race an anti-capital assault cruiser?
for example
Zealot Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Energy Turret capacitor use and 5% bonus to Energy Turret rate of fire per level Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Energy Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to Energy Turret damage per level
Role Bonus: Can fit one Extra Large Energy Turret, reduced PG need for that weapon by 100% and capacitor use by a further 25%.
this would be cool. give them a sort of "main cannon" that's only really effective against capitals and sometimes battleships
yeah just a stupid suggestion, i know. but i really think you need a role for these hacs, not just making them slightly better (haha jk half of them are worse) t1 cruisers for 5x the price *Only* of the main cannon had zero tracking and fired out the front of the ship a bit like a bomb but as one big forward pulse doing damage relative to sig so that it would only do 100 or so DPS to even a BS (perhaps increased DPS to ships of the same XL cruiser variety to force formation flying). Not only could that be an interesting mechanic but it would also look incredibly badass with a coordinated strike. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
155
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:27:00 -
[1015] - Quote
Farrell Jay wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Stop discussing an area of EVE which you don't understand and this will go better. T3s aren't OP, they aren't flown often outside of W-Space. They are often flown in W-Space because T3s are the only ship that fit the requirements WH alliances need. You, a nullsec blobber with EVE's largest supercap fleet behind you, do not understand W-Space PVP, so do not pretend to have knowledge in this area. .
Yeah, T3s aren't used much outside of wormhole space, and yet Goons(CFC)/NC./-DD-/Test/SOLAR/PL all currently use (and in some cases have used for several years) a T3 doctrine.
Tengu fleets were eliminated with the HML nerf, the Goon Tengu fleet we saw recently in Fountain was dropped when it became too expensive in SP and ISK (which is what balances out the T3s)
Loki fleets, while they exist, are rarely used.
T3s are used in armor fleets like Hellcats for ewar support, but that is because of the (relatively) pathetic tank on Recons. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
91
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:28:00 -
[1016] - Quote
While the tournament is about to start in a few hours, I would had really liked the Deimos get the stats from an Adrestia *cough* and become a Deimos on steroids.
The stats could also be hammered on the other HACS and they become solo-WFT-PWN-BBQ-INSTADEATH mobiles.
New HAC role bonus: OMG its a HAC!!!! run everybody, just run. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
155
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:32:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: Yea, theres definitely not pure loki fleets, pure tengu fleets, and armor hacs fleets composed almost entirely of legions, and my alliance definitely hasn't had fairly stellar fights and even killed supers in some or all of those, nobody outside of a wormhole ever flies t3 cruisers, and every 0.0 block walking doesn't have a fleet comp thats composed entirely of t3 Cruisers.
What game are you even playing kid?
And yet how often are those fleets used? Rarely. Look at Fountain. What concepts are used? Space Potatoes, bombers, Megas, and Caracals. Look at CFC VS Dotbros in Tribute. AHAC superiority, Rokhs, Maels, some Hellcats.
T3 fleets exist, but are rare. And PL is the only alliance to use AHAC Legions to any effect, and you guys use Foxcats now anyway, so your argument of "Huuurrrrr look at all the T3 fleets" is invalid. T3 fleets exist, but are rare outside of Wormholes.
I'm playing EVE, what game you're playing I don't have a clue. Stick to something you know about, like blobbing ratting carriers with a dozen Aeons. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
991
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:40:00 -
[1018] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:PS: yes, the med gun changes will make them better, but they also make the T1 ships better by the same amount.
This is so true, thx to third rig slot bonus and slots layout T1 cruisers will still be the best option because T2's will bring nothing interesting over T1 versions, the MWD bonus is terrible and often second bonus is not good enough except once again for the only AHAC that was already very good: Zealot
Despite this, a Navy Omen will be a very good choice over Zealot, drones add very nice options. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Alsyth
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:40:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Extra slot sound nice actually, because being double the price of a faction cruiser for generally: -less EHP (but better resistances I admit) -much less speed (except vaga/SFI) -no improvement on dps (but some damage application buff I admit) -no improvement on slots -one less rig slot
Really feels bad. Why use them except for big fleets with lots of logis?
While additional slots and the much needed 3rd rig would allow to fit them in many different ways, shield and armor, nano or not.
Amarr: +1 mid to zealot, +1 low to sacrilege Caldari: +1 low to both (allow to properly nano, or switch to armor tank!) Minnie: +2 med -1 hi to munnin, vaga will be hard to tweak though, +1 med probably a bit OP Gallente: +1 med or low to deimos, +1 med or low to ishtar
That would be a welcome change in my opinion... (HAC 5 but never bothered using any other than Vaga and Zealot, but would fly most of them given such a change)
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
991
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 12:53:00 -
[1020] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, another short update.
Spent most of the day yesterday on prep for the Alliance Tournament and of course today and tomorrow will be spent on 64 total AT matches. Fozzie and I are still talking a lot about this rebalance and have some good ideas going forward but because of the tournament you will have to wait until the start of the work week.
Check out the AT in the meantime =)
Meanwhile let me quote my self and maybe give you some better ideas about AHACS role:
Quote:My question after T1 cruisers rebalance, after ABCs rebalance is, and legitimate I think: what are AHAC/SHAC supposed to be specialized at? Being expensive with no real benefit over T1 versions nor good enough to compete with ABC's? -what's the point?
Of course this is only my version and vision of AHAC's/SHAC's but ihmo for a very specialized ship they need to get the special role they're meant to and most important the tools to achieve their task:
-be dam fast with a nasty small signature and tank (via resist profile), 0 sign bloom when MWD or change bonus to 100% AB speed eventually even bigger to catch MWD speeds
-deliver average 650dps SR at least (BC dps for a T2 specialized cruiser isn't OP) with in disruption/web range without requiring additional range modules
-get a 3rd rig slot !! this is clearly important and there's no reason they shouldn't have it to increase the interest over T1's
With these changes the natural way to balance those bonus is to force those ships to resist profile tank rather than buffer
->very small signature with good speed and nasty resist profile and only after------->DPS *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
302
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 13:00:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:Extra slot sound nice actually, because being double the price of a faction cruiser for generally: -less EHP (but better resistances I admit) -much less speed (except vaga/SFI) -no improvement on dps (but some damage application buff I admit) -no improvement on slots -one less rig slot
Really feels bad. Why use them except for big fleets with lots of logis?
While additional slots and the much needed 3rd rig would allow to fit them in many different ways, shield and armor, nano or not.
Amarr: +1 mid to zealot, +1 low to sacrilege Caldari: +1 low to both (allow to properly nano, or switch to armor tank!) Minnie: +2 med -1 hi to munnin, vaga will be hard to tweak though, +1 med probably a bit OP Gallente: +1 med or low to deimos, +1 med or low to ishtar
That would be a welcome change in my opinion... (HAC 5 but never bothered using any other than Vaga and Zealot, but would fly most of them given such a change)
I disagree with a lot of this.
I DO like the idea of adding the MWD bonus to the hulls by level, let it cap out at like -80% or some such THEN jack up the weapon bonuses, add a rig slot, loosen the fitting restrictions.
With T3s and ABCs in the game there will be no niche unless the HACs do a LOT more damage than they currently do, sig tanking is cool and all but it only takes a nub in a bellicose and you aren't sig tanking a damn thing. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
161
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 13:08:00 -
[1022] - Quote
I like the micro jump idea but I am wary of it's proliferation into smaller ship classes. Also you still need normal prop plus point, it would become tricky on the lower midslot HACs. I would save that role bonus for command ships.
Not as useful for lowsec but they could be made interdiction nullified, the T3 version has a slot disadvantage and is generally slower than a HAC would be.
Still feels like there are combat HACs and attack HACs and the role bonus could vary accordingly.
Also the slower HACS still need a burst if speed option and that a propulsion module overheat effect would still be useful.
Zealot, Vaga, Deimos, Cerb - 50% reduction in microwarpdrive sig radius.
Sac, Munin, Ishtar, Eagle - 50% bonus to overheat effect of propulsion modules. (1600mm plated sac/ishtar should then hit near 2400+ overheated)
|
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2167
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 13:09:00 -
[1023] - Quote
I've had a think about what i'd actually expect a HAC to do in order for be to pick it over a T1 cruiser or BC for a close range PVP role and here's a list:
at least as much DPS as a BC. ~60-65k EHP on the HACs without a resist bonus. fitting room to fit said tank with largest racial close range guns with at most 1 fitting rig. comparable speed to cruisers. probably slightly slower is fine but probably 90% as fast at least.
as they are now and will be with these changes they do not meet any of those criteria. they do a lot less DPS than BCs, have crappy EHP, are slower that cruisers by a lot, have terrible fitting room.
as a class, each race also needs a close range and a long range HAC. the only ones that have this at the moment are amarr and gallente reasonably well. minmatar and caldari dont have any up close options at all. yes, cerb and munin can fit close range setups but their state are a joke for that role.
eagle should be changed into a blaster boat, munin into a close range AC boat, while tweaking the vaga to make it more long range suitable rather than than just a kiter. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
161
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 13:23:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Not sure about third rig slot or extra slots in general but more calibration on all T2 ships could enable more T2 rig choices especially when a T2 DPS rig is 300.
Maybe 500. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
130
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 13:30:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Are heavy assault cruisers supposed to be inferior to navy cruisers at heavily assaulting stuff? Assuming Navy ships are supposed to be improved "generalists" of T1 boats and T2 HACs are meant to be specialized in assaulting (killing stuff?), I would expect HACs to be at least slightly better at it.
they need more ooomph W-Space Realtor |
Zinn Azna
Cabeki Edicto
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 13:37:00 -
[1026] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Finally much needed boost to the HACS.
Nice to see sacrilege changes really. They were the only ship unable to shoot at more then 40Km without loosiing a bonus.
TBH since you are giving sacrilege bonuses to the HML you should boost the cpu available also since the HML eat a lot of cpu.
Last but not the least you should rethink the cap recharge bonus and replace it by a explosion velocity or explosion radius bonus.
I too like the changes to the Sacrilege. DeadDuck has expressed an excellent point. Get rid of the cap bonus and give the Sacrilege another missile bonus. The Sacrilege is a dedicated missile boat and the bonuses should reflect this.
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
992
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 13:42:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Alticus C Bear wrote:Not sure about third rig slot or extra slots in general but more calibration on all T2 ships could enable more T2 rig choices especially when a T2 DPS rig is 300.
Maybe 500.
The third rig slot on Hacs is not only needed but should even be the first thing they get on this balance.
Notice I'm not saying all T2 cruisers and for a reason:
-Logistics are already way too powerful and need a nerf bat
-Reccons can point stuff at stupid ranges with faction modules, yes those are weak tanks but since logistics are totally OP...
-HICs can already fit a huge nasty tank (active with uber ASB) bubble, infinite point and a web
These don't need a 3rd rig slot because logi/Ewar/bble are already far too strong but HACs clearly need it or if they don't then more slots more cpu and pg and better bonus. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 14:21:00 -
[1028] - Quote
Quote: Amarr: +1 mid to zealot, +1 low to sacrilege Caldari: +1 low to both (allow to properly nano, or switch to armor tank!) Minnie: +2 med -1 hi to munnin, vaga will be hard to tweak though, +1 med probably a bit OP Gallente: +1 med or low to deimos, +1 med or low to ishtar
I also disagree with this in some points
I think the eagle would get a lot more out of another high and a 6th gun this would also allow it to drop a mag for a nano and still do good dps 6 gun 3 mag it would be 534dps(with 200s) then being much more competitive with cerberus and the gallente hulls(its basically like the change to the ferox)
the vagabond also needs another high + gun above all else with the TE nerf its dps at range has been decreased by alot and it also will have to compete with the cerb and the buffer long range weapons
the deimos would get hardly anything from a 5th med slot much rather id have a spare high to fit a nos again or a low which is probably the most powerful option giving it more tank or spank
the ishtar absolutely needs another low the ishtar really can't spare more then one low for a DDA making it far inferior in dps to the gila Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1375
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 15:18:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU
Because the Vexor is T1 and the Ishtar is T2. Are you insisting that a higher tech ship should be better than a ship a noob can fly??!?
Right....
It's become clear to me that the great ship rebalancing has very little to do with ship balance or more to do with nerfing SP.
T1 ships got significant buffs. T2's get lip service buffs and some nerfs. T3's, getting nerfed. And BS's & BC's get adjusted to effectively force them into more simplified fits.....utility slots get removed or pg gets removed to make utility usage limited at best.
See the pattern? HTFU!...for the children! |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
159
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 15:32:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU Because the Vexor is T1 and the Ishtar is T2. Are you insisting that a higher tech ship should be better than a ship a noob can fly??!? Right.... It's become clear to me that the great ship rebalancing has very little to do with ship balance or more to do with nerfing SP. T1 ships got significant buffs. T2's get lip service buffs and some nerfs. T3's, getting nerfed. And BS's & BC's get adjusted to effectively force them into more simplified fits.....utility slots get removed or pg gets removed to make utility usage limited at best. See the pattern?
Its annoying because what is there to train for then. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2143
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 15:38:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU Because the Vexor is T1 and the Ishtar is T2. Are you insisting that a higher tech ship should be better than a ship a noob can fly??!?
They're porting the clone-cost penalty over to ships - now you don't just have to pay more for your clones for being a loyal subscriber, you also get to fly the worse ships whilst paying 15x the price for them. \o/
Seriously - as with the BS rebalance, the changes are underwhelming. The main problem with HACs during the past few years has always been the fact that they're outperformed by BCs, especially since the introduction of Tier 3 BCs or being worse at their specified role than a supposedly 'more generalized' T3.
With these changes, I ca't see that change.
And the MWD bonus - great - the only viable HAC doctrines relied on AB sig tanking - so yeah - an MWD sig size bonus is totally what they needed... You know... morons. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1857
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 15:38:00 -
[1032] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, another short update.
Spent most of the day yesterday on prep for the Alliance Tournament and of course today and tomorrow will be spent on 64 total AT matches. Fozzie and I are still talking a lot about this rebalance and have some good ideas going forward but because of the tournament you will have to wait until the start of the work week.
Check out the AT in the meantime =)
excuses. CCP veritas can rebalance things while moderating using two keyboards. Its on youtube so it is true. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1376
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 15:46:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:
They're porting the clone-cost penalty over to ships - now you don't just have to pay more for your clones for being a loyal subscriber, you also get to fly the worse ships whilst paying 15x the price for them. \o/
I would not doubt if CCP began including clone costs in km's so the noobs can rejoice when they kill a 5 yr old toon in his highly skilled t2/BS/t3 with their velator.
HTFU!...for the children! |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
345
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 16:20:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Are heavy assault cruisers supposed to be inferior to navy cruisers at heavily assaulting stuff? Assuming Navy ships are supposed to be improved "generalists" of T1 boats and T2 HACs are meant to be specialized in assaulting (killing stuff?), I would expect HACs to be at least slightly better at it.
they need more ooomph
I think this post is spot on here the name needs to be represented correctly by the ships themselves .. -make HACS more dps heavy give double damage bonuses and give us the 16th slot we need either in highs or lows whichever is needed most on each ship.
The role of the HAC should be to heavily assault ships..so more dps is needed .. just look at why ABC's are so popular.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 16:40:00 -
[1035] - Quote
I have outlined what is wrong with the HACs in my other posts earlier in this discussion.
The thing that CCP / Rise have to realize is that curently there is no overarching quick fix to the HAC problem. Each HAC needs to be looked at from an individual basis and it should be balanced upon its self / other fits competing in the same role.
Speaking about roles, the HAC's currently od not have a role.
So many people in this topic think that HAC's are supposed to be high damage high tank cruises. I feel that this is a horrible position to place them in. BC's play that role. Don't try and stuff HAC's into it.
What HAC's should be is the final word in kiting platorms. A cruiser hull that foces on speed and projection does not exsit in game as a class. A cruiser hull would fit perfectly into this position. Cruisers are fast, and should have no problem outpacing anything other than a frig. This way the HAC can be different from BC's slower / higher EHP / lower projection. Secondly the push to move HAC"s into a purely kiting role also makes sure that they are not being shadowed by ABC's. The HAC will be faster, have better / equal projection- but will be using med guns. This gives the HAC a unique advantage, because unlike the ABC's it can outrun other cruisers, and have an easier time shedding light tackle.
The HAC role bonus should reflect this kiting mindset. There are a few options you should give:
1. MWD Cap bonus 2. MWD / AB Speed bonus 3. MWD Sig bonus (would need to be more than 50% however) 4. Ability for webs / scram to not slow down the HAC as much as other ships 5. Icreased Long point range 6. Flat projection bonuses to optimal / falloff- I cannot stress this enough for blaster / ac / arty boats 7. Flat speed bonus
Lastly- if the HAC's are going to fufill a kiting role, give them more low slots for the addional space to throw in nanos / tracking enhancers / damage mods. 4 lows on a HAC is too little. Given them more low slots to help them really slip into a role as a kiting based cruiser. |
Cabooze Skadoosh
Corpus Alienum Game 0f Tears
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 16:41:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Why is the Ishtar not getting some fitting buff, the vexor has +100 power grid and +15 CPU Because the Vexor is T1 and the Ishtar is T2. Are you insisting that a higher tech ship should be better than a ship a noob can fly??!? Right.... It's become clear to me that the great ship rebalancing has very little to do with ship balance or more to do with nerfing SP. T1 ships got significant buffs. T2's get lip service buffs and some nerfs. T3's, getting nerfed. And BS's & BC's get adjusted to effectively force them into more simplified fits.....utility slots get removed or pg gets removed to make utility usage limited at best. See the pattern? Every vet with a clue should be raging right now. Thanks CCP for giving me a Rubix cube and telling me to go F*** myself.
LoL. 8D
Plas won +1 |
Warcalibre
FDA Shipwrights Tri-Star Galactic Industries
72
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 16:47:00 -
[1037] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, another short update.
Spent most of the day yesterday on prep for the Alliance Tournament and of course today and tomorrow will be spent on 64 total AT matches. Fozzie and I are still talking a lot about this rebalance and have some good ideas going forward but because of the tournament you will have to wait until the start of the work week.
Check out the AT in the meantime =)
Will CCP Frank make his debut? |
Linistitul
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 16:50:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Careful not to obsolete T1 cruisers again while rebalancing HACs'. Just give them a proper role like no mwd stop while scrammed and a small sig radius, good DPS for hit and run tactics and better sensor strength for a little more ECM resistance. |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1348
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 17:15:00 -
[1039] - Quote
God, please, change that Muninn completely. It's still a totally crap layout for a ship like this. How does another low slot make it a better sniper? You nerfed Tracking enhancers. Really you want another mid for another Tracking Computer.
I really feel like these changes aren't really addressing an overall issue with the HACs. Where I am. |
Legion40k
ZOMBIEBEACHPARTYPATROL Circle-Of-Two
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 17:40:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Alrighty so here's what id love to see the Deimos get
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus 5% increase in Medium Hybrid Turret tracking per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1) 6H, 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 1030 PWG(+40), 350 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1160(+190) / 2250(-290) (+210) / 2000(-531)
These points are a hot topic by the looks of things.
- The Deimos needs to keep its utility high for a Nos (remember you're changing those and making them better CCP?) Drop the MWD cap bonus, people will deal with it by using a Nos - Tracking speed bonus really screams out to me here. If you intend the Deimos to kite, well tracking with Rails will be /more/ viable if thats what you want to do. It complements CCP's changes there admirably. Blaster fits still work and are monsters, like they should be
The nerf to HP is such a bad idea because being a T2 ship it's gotta tank better than a Thorax. C'mon. A little buff to its HP from what it is now on TQ would be lovely, nerf the structure if you think itll be OP and leave the shield as is.
What do you reckon ladels and jellyspoons? Im still tearing my hair out with the Vagabond so maybe post later with that |
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
68
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 17:43:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Akturous wrote:[quote=Danny John-Peter]All these people crying out for the Vaga to be an arty platform, why?
The Muninn just needs to become less ****, keep the Vaga as an AC platform.
Just to reiterate though, the changes to the Vagabond are **** and only make it worse, it loses a little speed and gains a **** bonus that will only be used in a heavy tackle role, all the Vaga needs is a DPS and projection buff, possibly add like 30 grid to make it a little less of a ***** to fit, you dont need to change anything else on it.
One fun factor of Vaga is being pesky. Granted, putting on 425s with Barrage and whatever mods to push the range can work, but with the TE nerf, you can get into some trouble now that the range has been adjusted/lowered. Arty on the other hand lets you reach out and touch somebody while keeping the target somewhat at bay of they chase you. Anyhow, it is about playstyle. There are a few people who rather use a rare and fun playstyle than the usual cookie cutter ones that keep asking for more and more tank.
Another thing is that if you get tackled while flying a Vaga in most situations, you're likely to lose it, so it doesn't always matter how you fit it as it is somewhat "Once caught, you're likely dead". Sure, not all situations are the same but most of the time, that is what I've seen.
Quote: I'd like to fit arties because of the superior damage projection on offer. I don't care about the tracking loss because the Vaga is fast, negating transversal.
The tracking enhancer nerf reduced the falloff of a 425 vaga by 6km effectively forcing you to use barrage when you're at the edge of heated point range.
CCP apparently doesn't want short range guns shooting out to long range, though Autos were the ones most affected by the TE nerf.
If nothing else it needs a pg buff, you can't even fit 425's and two meta LSE's without being over on pg, the Cynabal can fit 720s, lse's a neut and have leftover. An extra 5% falloff/level wouldn't go astray if they don't give it enough powergrid for artillery. It really does need its utility high put in a mid slot though.
I'd like HACS to all get an extra slot, but I don't think that's going to happen.
Exactly. QFT. :)
I'm actually fine with the Vaga not being able to fit each and everything. I'm more the type who'd want more special modules and traits/roles that would allow us to put different fits than the usual 2xLSE. Giving it and other HACs way too much leeway in tank would just make the 0.0/pvp part of the game very dull. This "having everything" feature is the main reason why we see T3 fleet doctrines and other common ones be spammed around. Same why Supercarriers/Motherships were once so annoying.
Nonetheless, keeping things interesting should be main focus. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Subtarian
The Flying Dead Insidious Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 17:44:00 -
[1042] - Quote
I disagree with the muninn change. How is losing a high slot which decreases the DPS and the Volley of the ship rebalancing ? that seems like a huge nerf. One more low slot does nothing for it. This will get the enitre mobile shield sniper muninn fleet trashed. Also the resist are best on the shields yet you decrease the shields also instead of buffing it??..I am confused ? This really is a significant nerf Fozzie. Please take another look at that.
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 19:05:00 -
[1043] - Quote
Subtarian wrote:I disagree with the muninn change. How is losing a high slot which decreases the DPS and the Volley of the ship rebalancing ? that seems like a huge nerf. One more low slot does nothing for it. This will get the enitre mobile shield sniper muninn fleet trashed. Also the resist are best on the shields yet you decrease the shields also instead of buffing it??..I am confused ? This really is a significant nerf Fozzie. Please take another look at that.
You do relise the Muninn just lost a utility high not a turet slot right? |
Legion40k
ZOMBIEBEACHPARTYPATROL Circle-Of-Two
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 19:09:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Alright so the Vagabond. hrm. The main problem I have with the change to its bonus is the quirk it gave the ship. The 5% bonus per level to Max Velocity did some strange things when you bolt on an MWD, giving it a further speed boost above and beyond what your calculator would say (EVE Maths). This removal puts the altered hull at least 100m/s disadvantage to what it is now.
-_-
so ill suggest this
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
7.5% bonus to shield boost amount 5% bonus to max velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M (+1), 5L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 855 PWG, 395 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1650(+97) (-3) / 1400(+63) / 980(-4) Capacitor (amount) : 1080(-2.5)(+17.5) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 260(+51) (+21) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 330 / 6(+1)
More hot topics of debate! - Give it the max velocity bonus back. This ship will benefit more from being quicker than boosting its shields. ASB shield Vagabond won't happen because 2x LSE buffers the ship from large volleys which is important with the role of the ship to dart in and out of fleets, catching vulnerable support ships. No buffer = blapped - Ill even propose to slightly improve the ships top speed a little. This increase goes a long way with the MWD and Max Velocity bonus so we'll see how that goes - 5 Medium Slots. Yup. Currently you have to make the critical decision of either dual LSE MWD + Disruptor or drop an LSE for a Web. Its a fair option for more utility but what throws this balance out the window? Stabber Fleet and Cynabal, outperforming in Armour and Shield respectively. Everyone is loving the Faction ships right now - More Capacitor because it struggles at the best of times
To give the Vagabond back its edge, it needs these changes otherwise it is simply inferior
=[ |
Steve Spooner
Mordu's Military Industrial Command Circle-Of-Two
100
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 19:26:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Legion40k wrote:Alright so the Vagabond. hrm. The main problem I have with the change to its bonus is the quirk it gave the ship. The 5% bonus per level to Max Velocity did some strange things when you bolt on an MWD, giving it a further speed boost above and beyond what your calculator would say (EVE Maths). This removal puts the altered hull at least 100m/s disadvantage to what it is now.
-_-
so ill suggest this
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
7.5% bonus to shield boost amount 5% bonus to max velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M (+1), 5L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 855 PWG, 395 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1650(+97) (-3) / 1400(+63) / 980(-4) Capacitor (amount) : 1080(-2.5)(+17.5) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 260(+51) (+21) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 330 / 6(+1)
More hot topics of debate! - Give it the max velocity bonus back. This ship will benefit more from being quicker than boosting its shields. ASB shield Vagabond won't happen because 2x LSE buffers the ship from large volleys which is important with the role of the ship to dart in and out of fleets, catching vulnerable support ships. No buffer = blapped - Ill even propose to slightly improve the ships top speed a little. This increase goes a long way with the MWD and Max Velocity bonus so we'll see how that goes - 5 Medium Slots. Yup. Currently you have to make the critical decision of either dual LSE MWD + Disruptor or drop an LSE for a Web. Its a fair option for more utility but what throws this balance out the window? Stabber Fleet and Cynabal, outperforming in Armour and Shield respectively. Everyone is loving the Faction ships right now - More Capacitor because it struggles at the best of times
To give the Vagabond back its edge, it needs these changes otherwise it is simply inferior
=[
How did you pass reading comprehension? The Vagabond got an ADDITIONAL BONUS because the 5% velocity per level is now PART OF THE HULL so regardless of your minmatar cruiser level it is 25% faster (irrelevant since it has to be 5, but still) |
Legion40k
ZOMBIEBEACHPARTYPATROL Circle-Of-Two
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 19:31:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Steve Spooner wrote:
How did you pass reading comprehension? The Vagabond got an ADDITIONAL BONUS because the 5% velocity per level is now PART OF THE HULL so regardless of your minmatar cruiser level it is 25% faster (irrelevant since it has to be 5, but still)
If the calculator lies, fair enough, but as I explained theres a quirk with this bonus and prop mods to achieve such a high speed. Take a look, its..odd |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
215
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 19:39:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Subtarian wrote:I disagree with the muninn change. How is losing a high slot which decreases the DPS and the Volley of the ship rebalancing ? that seems like a huge nerf. One more low slot does nothing for it. This will get the enitre mobile shield sniper muninn fleet trashed. Also the resist are best on the shields yet you decrease the shields also instead of buffing it??..I am confused ? This really is a significant nerf Fozzie. Please take another look at that.
The muninn is going from a 5 turret 2 utility high slot layout to a 5 turret 1 utility slot layout. The DPS loss is...minimal.
No one (except you) is whining about the high slot loss, they're complaining that they added a low slot instead of a mid slot. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
632
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 19:52:00 -
[1048] - Quote
Legion40k wrote:Steve Spooner wrote:
How did you pass reading comprehension? The Vagabond got an ADDITIONAL BONUS because the 5% velocity per level is now PART OF THE HULL so regardless of your minmatar cruiser level it is 25% faster (irrelevant since it has to be 5, but still)
If the calculator lies, fair enough, but as I explained theres a quirk with this bonus and prop mods to achieve such a high speed. Take a look, its..odd
im pretty sure 239 x 1.25 is 298.75 m/s not 260m/s like stated in the new base stats of the vaga, so unless there is some other special dev maths going on its going to be a little slower OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
68
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 19:56:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Something else that came to mind - though something close to what I said much earlier.
While the freedom of how these ships are used remains in the hands of the players and how it is amassed for doctrines, I'm still not sure about the goal behind the HAC tiericide.
Is each HAC to be a specialized soloing ship or is it to be more of a essential fleet entity?
I'm sure everybody wants both, but whlie thinking stuff up I keep bouncing between that question. Having both aspects would make them overpowered.
As an example, we have Force Recons and we have Combat Recons - with the stealthy variant being clearly more viable for "Solo'ing" and picking your own fights. Now this can be done with virtually every ship, but only a few specific ones can actually do stuff.
HACs currently have the desirable brawler, damagedealing monster -- and a long range aka sniper variant. Without arguing with anybody about the uses, I just find it a bit difficult to figure what suggestions to focus on.
For me at the moment, it is hard to suffice ideas like "more speed/soloer" and other traits of the factions when we have the big bloc boys asking for better AHACs/Fleet HACs (which tells me we should probably see some alternative HAC that can support other playstyles we would like to have).
Looking back on HACS, we have several ways of playing them. There's AHACs and other fitting choices.
/edit friggin' typoes. I tried... Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 20:04:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Nyancat Audeles wrote:Sacrilege could use another low... A properly fit dual rep Sacrilege does barely any DPS.
|
|
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 21:07:00 -
[1051] - Quote
Still waiting for the OPs 'just kidding' resolution.
These changes are the most ridiculous farce I've seen in eve and makes the ferrogel 'exploit' look like a much needed balancing factor. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 21:29:00 -
[1052] - Quote
Rise, can you update us on balance status concerning our inquiries? |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
68
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 22:01:00 -
[1053] - Quote
raawe wrote:Rise, can you update us on balance status concerning our inquiries?
He is currently busy :)!
CCP R I S E wrote: Hey guys, another short update.
Spent most of the day yesterday on prep for the Alliance Tournament and of course today and tomorrow will be spent on 64 total AT matches. Fozzie and I are still talking a lot about this rebalance and have some good ideas going forward but because of the tournament you will have to wait until the start of the work week.
Check out the AT in the meantime =)
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Christopher Multsanti
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 22:03:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Ah the vaga. The ship I have a lot of fond memories of. So please forgive any bias.
I probably will not be brawling with the vaga. I don't mind the changes too much but the vaga, to me, is all about nano and tackling and roaming etc.
But What I would like to see Is some sort of cap reduction mwd bonus that the rax and Deimos get. Although personally I think these ships don't need this bonus and the vaga does, especially when not brawling:
- A Deimos needs to burn its mwd for a few cycles to get in range and then spam it occasionally to keep range for blasters.
- A vaga operating in its original role of fast attack/fast tackle need to burn its mwd constantly with disrupter to keep target pointed so that it can keep up its transversal to tank, while doing less damage than a Deimos.
Which leads me onto my second topic:
- The Vaga needs more damage!!
- Vaga as close range brawler v Deimos comes out at 170dps less with full rack of 425/Neutrons with Close range t2 ammo and 2 damage mods.
- With 2 damage mods fitted on Deimos and Vaga this leaves the first with 4 tanking slots.
Which leads me onto my third topic:
The MWD and SCRAM = -2 mid slots leaving two slots for tank on an active tanking brawler ship!
I think overall we need more vaga dps, more cap stability to roaming and tackling vagas, and for the love of god we need more mids!!! |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
346
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 22:12:00 -
[1055] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:Ah the vaga. The ship I have a lot of fond memories of. So please forgive any bias. I probably will not be brawling with the vaga. I don't mind the changes too much but the vaga, to me, is all about nano and tackling and roaming etc. But What I would like to see Is some sort of cap reduction mwd bonus that the rax and Deimos get. Although personally I think these ships don't need this bonus and the vaga does, especially when not brawling:
- A Deimos needs to burn its mwd for a few cycles to get in range and then spam it occasionally to keep range for blasters.
- A vaga operating in its original role of fast attack/fast tackle need to burn its mwd constantly with disrupter to keep target pointed so that it can keep up its transversal to tank, while doing less damage than a Deimos.
Which leads me onto my second topic:
- The Vaga needs more damage!!
- Vaga as close range brawler v Deimos comes out at 170dps less with full rack of 425/Neutrons with Close range t2 ammo and 2 damage mods.
- With 2 damage mods fitted on Deimos and Vaga this leaves the Deimos with 4 tanking slots.
Which leads me onto my third topic:The MWD and SCRAM = -2 mid slots leaving two slots for tank on an active tanking brawler ship!I think overall we need more vaga dps, more cap stability to roaming and tackling vagas, and for the love of god we need more mids!!!
The vaga is the archetypal HAC and should remain as such not some ASB Frankenstein there are a couple of alternative bonuses i could think of to replace the velocity bonus - 5% mwd sig reduction -5% agility -5% tracking or just buff its damage bonuses to 10% er's in exchange so only 3 bonuses but much stronger .. but i think double damage bonuses are kind of needed on HACS as basic now anyway..it also needs a 5th mid.
On the deimos i don't think the brawling role is worth its time ... a more vaga style approach would be better a second falloff bonus would be better here maybe shrink the other falloff bonus down so you have two 7.5% bonuses instead. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 23:59:00 -
[1056] - Quote
CCP Rise, once again, you have disappointed me thoroughly with your fist pass at balancing. This is Gallente BS pass one all over again, poorly thought out and poorly understood.
HACs as a class need a reconsideration, and by crushing their power scale comparatively to navy and t1 cruisers, you remove their ingame value in almost its entirety. This is especially with the FW changes that enable the procurement of navy cruisers at such minimal cost to those involved in FW.
While I understand the power spike that needs to be shifted down scale in order to enable younger pilots to compete competitively in EVE at less cost in order to keep them in the game, we need not **** so heavily on the higher skilled and higher requirement ships to do this. In 6-9months time, when these newb pilots have worn out their 'kiddie' ships, they will want something powerful and worth their money to get into. Your proposed changes completely remove that option for them.
Seriously, lets take a look at this legitimately and intelligently, like people who have jobs about this and not kids on the playground goofing around.
First: -50% MWD sig reduction role bonus Are you mental? This is a practically useless bonus. I can think of 2 ships in all 8 that will make legitimate enough use of this for it to even be considered slightly helpful. Old Vagabond and old Cerberus. Deimos doesnt run its MWD long enough to consider it useful. Ishtar just picks up sentries and warps, or its brawling you with ogres anyway. Muninn warps to a new tac and alphas you from it. Eagle will warp to a new tac and rail you from there. Zealots never use MWDs, and a Sacrilege acts like a Deimos with its MWD. This role bonus is ridiculous, frivolous and quite honestly, an insult. What works for AFs will not necessarily work for HACs or any other class for that matter. What this should be is: [one of the following] -25% reduction in efficiency of EWAR modules against you [webs, tps, damps, ecm, tds] -50% reduction in efficiency of opposing racial EWAR modules against you [min=TD, amarr=web, gal=ECM, cal=damp] +10% to received fleet bonuses +15% to incoming remote assistance modules {reserved for other ideas}
Sacrilege: To be frank, these changes are not badddd, but they dont fix or solve any of its issues either. A dual rep sac with the current changes to MAR, can easily fit a MWD, med cap booster, med neut, 5x HAM II, 2x MAR II and a Med Aux Pump rig with plenty of grid to spare. The sacrilege does not need more grid. If anything a touch more cpu, 15-25 points, would be far more beneficial, especially now that the CPU intensive HMLs are available weapon choices. The cap recharge bonus is a diamond in the rough. I flew the ship for a long while, and the bonus is excellent and shows greatly during actual play and combat. Perma-running a MWD or med neut off cap regen alone, while maintaining tackle is not to be underestimated by the masses of fools that have no experience in the ship. I would personally keep all the current changes to it, except perhaps modifying the amount of grid it is given and compensating with a slight CPU increase. The mass reduction is good as well. However, sig should be reduced to attack cruiser level, as benefits a HAC, not a t1 combat cruiser. Zealot: You didnt touch it, so you couldnt f--- it. What aint broke, dont fix.
Cerberus: WHOOHOOO 6TH LAUNCHER THAT WE DONT HAVE THE FITTINGS FOR! Seriously, I'm starting to use the meme :Rise: for anything that lacks common logic amongst my EVE friends, and they get it and laugh. The cerberus seriously lacked a moderately effective tank to even start with, and now you give us less fittings than the new launcher will cost and expect us to field a better or equal tank with less resources to do it with. I are disappoint. Around 150ish more PG instead of 85, 50 CPU should be fine. Consider a straight 10% dmg bonus on CalCruiser and think about an explo velocity bonus instead of the RoF bonus. Heavier volley, slightly less dps, far better applied dps. Eagle: Extra mid + rail changes mean only good things for this ship (if only you hadnt slapped rails with that horrid tracking nerf, more on that in the relevant thread). However, the absolutely paltry/pathetic speed with which you have bestowed this ship appears more insult to injury than the changes do good. A pathetic 175m/s? What are we expecting, the enemy to be perma-webbed by something that may never actually be there? Give it at LEAST 195m/s, and reduce the sig while you're at it. This may be the t2 combat cruiser, but that doesnt mean it should be as bad as its t1 counter-part at its actual job. I'd also suggest a 15-20% optimal bonus per level on CalCruiser and perhaps a tracking bonus on HAC in place of the 2nd optimal bonus.
Deimos: YAY, speed! YAY, extra mid! YAY, I just lost 10% armor! YAY, I just lost 20% structure! ...Wait, what? God no. This is not just a "thorax with better resists and an extra bonus or two," THIS is a exponentially more expensive, SP intensive nich t2 thorax. However, you seem to prefer the former, while making the Nexequror better. :gg: Replace the lost armor and structure at least, consider a tracking bonus instead of the MWD, consider making the MWD cap bonus inherent (like Vaga's speed bonus, that you stealth nerfed), increase the fitting heavily. Deimos SHOULD be able to do Neutrons +1600 + MWD with just enough grid for the rest of the slots (no capbooster, double web) @V skills. < |
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 00:00:00 -
[1057] - Quote
Ishtar: Sentry bonuses? Not bad.... Still that paltry bay bonus? **sigh** Give the Ishtar either a 375m3 bay flat with 10m3/lvl or a 300m3 flat with 25m3/level. Or better yet, a flat 400-450m3 bay base, with a drone velocity bonus instead. The ishtar should be the epitome of drone ships, make it so. Reduce sig, it should be better than its t1 counter part in this. Also, GIVE IT A FAT WAD OF CPU. At least 100 points is required, I would personally say a bit more than that. Grid would not go wrong consider the unbonused extra turret you gave us so frivolously. Not bad changes, but definitely needs some refinement and work, THATs for sure.
Vaga: {to be continued} |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 00:28:00 -
[1058] - Quote
Overall a step in the right direction but the meat and bones of some of the details of some of the changes worry me a bit.
For instance the diemos I've always considered slightly under tanked for the role, dropping it back even further doesn't make sense to me - not a great fan of it losing the utility high either but the extra mid wouldn't go amiss. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 00:48:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Sacrilege H/M/L 6/4/6
Zealot H/M/L 5/4/7
Cerberus H/M/L 6/6/4
Eagle H/M/L 5/6/5
Deimos H/M/L 6/4/6
Ishtar H/M/L 4/5/6 (6th low might be abit over the top, but a 5th high is kinda silly.)
Vagabond H/M/L 6/5/5
Muninn H/M/L 6/4/6
I honestly think these ships need an extra slot over what they have now, I havn't flown many of the hacs as of late on any of my toons but they just seem mostly meh atm. Apart from Zealot really.
Fix mainly cpu issues on a few ships, again. Ishtar is obv the biggest concern here.
Deimos is too flimsy
Eagle is still abit too slow. and a tiny 15/15 dronebay or something wouldn't hurt much I think |
AstraPardus
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
265
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 00:55:00 -
[1060] - Quote
Dang, pretty much all of this makes me smile. Would have liked keeping the 5th highslot on the Ishtar and encouraged getting rid of turret slots, to go along with the dropping of the hybrid damage...otherwise...yes, yes, yes, and yes!! Every time I post is Pardy time! :3 |
|
Aglais
Liberation Army
301
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 02:01:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Somebody please tell me how these changes actually benefit the Caldari HACs. At all. Because I'm not really seeing it right now, especially in the case of the Eagle. I mean, maybe the additional speed the Cerberus gets will help it... somehow? But it still has atrociously low power grid (which is one of the main problems with it- please tell me exactly how it is that you'll get valid tank on something that, fittingwise, seems to be the same as the Navy Caracal, which you CANNOT fit all six launchers, tank, and a MWD on simultaneously without massive rigging/DPS loss). |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1099
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 03:03:00 -
[1062] - Quote
A bit late to the party. I'm not really WOW'd by these changes, but mostly because the balance team seems to have become a victim of its own success. T1 frigs saw tons of ****** frigs just get completely changed into new, exciting, fun roles. Same for T1 cruisers. T1 BS, which were largely fine, got some /completely/ new bonuses and designs. So I was sitting on the edge of my seat hoping for some FANCY PANTS changes to complete dumpster babby ships that haven't really ever been used (I'm looking at you, Eagle, Sacrilege, and Cerberus).
But instead we get this really pragmatic, functional, and probably really good set of changes - but they're boring. It's a stupid criticism, I know, but I still feel like it's boring. Maybe I was hoping for something like a Cruiser MJD that only HACs can use, bomb-immunity (holy **** how cool would that be), or something that I didn't even know I wanted - like the changes to the Geddon. I had no idea I wanted it to be a neut-range drone boat, but I apparently wanted it something fierce.
AFs - completely changed the way small-ship PvP was played Tier-3 BC - pumped life into the dying "roaming" gameplay, added sniping gameplay T1 rebalance + tier 2 destroyers- essentially created a deep, meaningful, low-isk alternative to PvP. Made lowsec fun, made getting drunk and roaming around a reality, allowed lower-SP players not only be relevant but powerful in all stages of combat. Battleship rebalance - completely changed the face of nullsec PvP. Like, completely. Almost nobody is flying what they used to be flying any more. HAC changes - will creep into the tier-3 BC wheelhouse, will probably be really enjoyable, and nullsec PvP may add a Sacrilege or Cerberus doctrine to replace the dead Drake doctrine.
The Sacrilege, Ishtar, and Cerberus are big winners here. The Vaga, Deimos, Muninn, class will still be good. Zealot will still be the Zealot...I don't actually think it's very good currently and now it's going to be really interesting fitting beams and an MWD. Eagle may be cool with the Hybrid changes, will have to put some time in when the changes hit SiSi to see how it flies rather than stare at numbers and try to imagine.
Either way - changes look like an all-around improvement on a ship class that is looking more and more out of date by the day. Can't wait to try them on SiSi
PS you can have the bomb-immune and cruiser MJD ideas free of charge. ~ |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1154
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 03:29:00 -
[1063] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:A bit late to the party. I'm not really WOW'd by these changes, but mostly because the balance team seems to have become a victim of its own success. T1 frigs saw tons of ****** frigs just get completely changed into new, exciting, fun roles. Same for T1 cruisers. T1 BS, which were largely fine, got some /completely/ new bonuses and designs. So I was sitting on the edge of my seat hoping for some FANCY PANTS changes to complete dumpster babby ships that haven't really ever been used (I'm looking at you, Eagle, Sacrilege, and Cerberus).
But instead we get this really pragmatic, functional, and probably really good set of changes - but they're boring. It's a stupid criticism, I know, but I still feel like it's boring. Maybe I was hoping for something like a Cruiser MJD that only HACs can use, bomb-immunity (holy **** how cool would that be), or something that I didn't even know I wanted - like the changes to the Geddon. I had no idea I wanted it to be a neut-range drone boat, but I apparently wanted it something fierce.
AFs - completely changed the way small-ship PvP was played Tier-3 BC - pumped life into the dying "roaming" gameplay, added sniping gameplay T1 rebalance + tier 2 destroyers- essentially created a deep, meaningful, low-isk alternative to PvP. Made lowsec fun, made getting drunk and roaming around a reality, allowed lower-SP players not only be relevant but powerful in all stages of combat. Battleship rebalance - completely changed the face of nullsec PvP. Like, completely. Almost nobody is flying what they used to be flying any more. HAC changes - will creep into the tier-3 BC wheelhouse, will probably be really enjoyable, and nullsec PvP may add a Sacrilege or Cerberus doctrine to replace the dead Drake doctrine.
The Sacrilege, Ishtar, and Cerberus are big winners here. The Vaga, Deimos, Muninn, class will still be good. Zealot will still be the Zealot...I don't actually think it's very good currently and now it's going to be really interesting fitting beams and an MWD. Eagle may be cool with the Hybrid changes, will have to put some time in when the changes hit SiSi to see how it flies rather than stare at numbers and try to imagine.
Either way - changes look like an all-around improvement on a ship class that is looking more and more out of date by the day. Can't wait to try them on SiSi
PS you can have the bomb-immune and cruiser MJD ideas free of charge.
good read... still hoping like the bs balance we will see hac mrk II witht that wow factor you talked about. like a diemos with a tracking bonus and 6 high 4 mid 6 low slots. or the ishtar loosing the silly 50m3 bonus and replaced with a electronic/utility drone effectiveness bonus of 20% Though marlona came up with the mjd idea... i am still partial to mwd scram immunity as the role bonus. think about a bunch of hacs that dont have to worry about scrams turning off thier mwd... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
341
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 03:35:00 -
[1064] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:bomb-immunity
Do want |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1154
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 03:39:00 -
[1065] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:bomb-immunity Do want
cant say i support that idea... even as cool as it sounds... bombs are essential anti blob weapons... they are critical. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1329
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 03:48:00 -
[1066] - Quote
Deimos 6-4-6 (+1 High Slot) Gallente Curiser +5% Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level +5% Armor HP per level (Yes a Armor HP bonus, would make one want to use this over a Proteus) Heavy Assault Ship +5% Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level +7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking per Level Role Bonus +100% bonus to the Velocity Factor of Afterburners
Ishtar 4-5-6 Drone Bay 375m^3 Gallente Cruiser +10% Drone Damage and HP per Level +5% Drone MWD Velocity Heavy Assault Ship +10% Drone Tracking and Optimal +10% EW Drone Strength and Logistic Drone Strength Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1154
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 04:07:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Deimos 6-4-6 (+1 High Slot) Gallente Curiser +5% Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level +5% Armor HP per level (Yes a Armor HP bonus, would make one want to use this over a Proteus) Heavy Assault Ship +5% Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire per Level +7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking per Level Role Bonus Micro warp drive immune to Warp Scambler
Ishtar 4-5-6 Drone Bay 375m^3 Gallente Cruiser +10% Drone Damage and HP per Level +5% Drone MWD Velocity and activation range Heavy Assault Ship +10% Drone Tracking and Optimal +20% EW Drone Strength and Combat Utility
i like the idea... though i would prefer more in this direction... IMO ab setups are fine... its the mwd that needs the cool bonus and a warp scram immunity would do the trick. though just my opinion... still like your ideas too. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1329
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 04:15:00 -
[1068] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Deimos 6-4-6 (+1 High Slot) Gallente Curiser +5% Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level +5% Armor HP per level (Yes a Armor HP bonus, would make one want to use this over a Proteus) Heavy Assault Ship +5% Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire per Level +7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking per Level Role Bonus Micro warp drive immune to Warp Scambler
Ishtar 4-5-6 Drone Bay 375m^3 Gallente Cruiser +10% Drone Damage and HP per Level +5% Drone MWD Velocity and activation range Heavy Assault Ship +10% Drone Tracking and Optimal +20% EW Drone Strength and Combat Utility i like the idea... though i would prefer more in this direction... IMO ab setups are fine... its the mwd that needs the cool bonus and a warp scram immunity would do the trick. though just my opinion... still like your ideas too. It has been brought up that the MWD sig reduction bonus does not make the ships small enough to sig tank aBC guns and they are not fast enough to speed tank them either. With an AB bonus they can sig and speed tank vs the aBC but are still able to be hit from a regular cruiser making them the ideal anti-BS and aBC ship. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1100
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 05:25:00 -
[1069] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:XXSketchxx wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:bomb-immunity Do want cant say i support that idea... even as cool as it sounds... bombs are essential anti blob weapons... they are critical.
Currently AHACs are essentially bomb immune (tiny sig). MWDing AHACs, however, even with the 50% sig reduction from MWD would still have battleship sized signature, but with really thin tanks (comparatively)
To put things in perspective, a post-patch MWD Zealot would die to 9 bombs (assuming both loki links and legion links). Currently the standard AB Zealot needs 47 bombs to die.
That said, most of my balance ideas are ****** so bomb immunity may not be cool. But that doesn't mean something new and fancy that I never thought of can't be added ~ |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 06:03:00 -
[1070] - Quote
NetheranE wrote:
First: -50% MWD sig reduction role bonus Are you mental? This is a practically useless bonus. I can think of 2 ships in all 8 that will make legitimate enough use of this for it to even be considered slightly helpful. Old Vagabond and old Cerberus. Deimos doesnt run its MWD long enough to consider it useful. Ishtar just picks up sentries and warps, or its brawling you with ogres anyway. Muninn warps to a new tac and alphas you from it. Eagle will warp to a new tac and rail you from there. Zealots never use MWDs, and a Sacrilege acts like a Deimos with its MWD. This role bonus is ridiculous, frivolous and quite honestly, an insult. What works for AFs will not necessarily work for HACs or any other class for that matter. What this should be is: [one of the following] -25% reduction in efficiency of EWAR modules against you [webs, tps, damps, ecm, tds] -50% reduction in efficiency of opposing racial EWAR modules against you [min=TD, amarr=web, gal=ECM, cal=damp] +10% to received fleet bonuses +15% to incoming remote assistance modules {reserved for other ideas}
Cerberus: WHOOHOOO 6TH LAUNCHER THAT WE DONT HAVE THE FITTINGS FOR! Seriously, I'm starting to use the meme :Rise: for anything that lacks common logic amongst my EVE friends, and they get it and laugh. The cerberus seriously lacked a moderately effective tank to even start with, and now you give us less fittings than the new launcher will cost and expect us to field a better or equal tank with less resources to do it with. I are disappoint. Around 150ish more PG instead of 85, 50 CPU should be fine. Consider a straight 10% dmg bonus on CalCruiser and think about an explo velocity bonus instead of the RoF bonus. Heavier volley, slightly less dps, far better applied dps.
Deimos: YAY, speed! YAY, extra mid! YAY, I just lost 10% armor! YAY, I just lost 20% structure! ...Wait, what? God no. This is not just a "thorax with better resists and an extra bonus or two," THIS is a exponentially more expensive, SP intensive nich t2 thorax. However, you seem to prefer the former, while making the Nexequror better. :gg: Replace the lost armor and structure at least, consider a tracking bonus instead of the MWD, consider making the MWD cap bonus inherent (like Vaga's speed bonus, that you stealth nerfed), increase the fitting heavily. Deimos SHOULD be able to do Neutrons +1600 + MWD with just enough grid for the rest of the slots (no capbooster, double web) @V skills. <
the cost and effort to build HACs does not warrant the need for reduced effects of ecm. the 10% to fleet bonus is just silly, as well as the remote assistance idea. plus the reduced sig bloom to micro is awesome. instead of getting hit for just about full dng every time, incoming dps has now dropped just about 30%. that's with just the role bonus alone. not a useless role bonus.
the cerb needs only 5 more grid to fit the extra launcher. 150 more PG is just too much and leaves me thinking, wtf are u trying to fit on the damn thing. dropping the ROF bonus would cripple the cerb, and the ship does enough dps to melt faces that much more with the new launcher slot. CCP Rise just expanded its already great ability that much more.
I agree on the diemos it needs to have its hp back. I mean really its not a shield tanked ship its armor plz fix this |
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 06:40:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Drop the mwd sig bonus role ... it is crappy. |
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 06:51:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Ja'ho sun wrote:NetheranE wrote: *snippage* <
the cost and effort to build HACs does not warrant the need for reduced effects of ecm. the 10% to fleet bonus is just silly, as well as the remote assistance idea. plus the reduced sig bloom to micro is awesome. instead of getting hit for just about full dng every time, incoming dps has now dropped just about 30%. that's with just the role bonus alone. not a useless role bonus. the cerb needs only 5 more grid to fit the extra launcher. 150 more PG is just too much and leaves me thinking, wtf are u trying to fit on the damn thing. dropping the ROF bonus would cripple the cerb, and the ship does enough dps to melt faces that much more with the new launcher slot. CCP Rise just expanded its already great ability that much more. I agree on the diemos it needs to have its hp back. I mean really its not a shield tanked ship its armor plz fix this
the cost of HACs is EXACTLY what warrants this kind of powerhouse bonus. A 10% fleet bonus would simply give ~3% more resistance, or ~5% more tackle range, and ~2.5% smaller sig. very small bonuses that should simply compile to pull them over their t1 and navy counter parts (which are still better with these changes, dont you see a problem there?) The RR bonus would actually give flesh to the ships, as their minuscule tanks are a critical problem to their use and success. The EWAR bonus is simply something that doesnt make them immune, as its a RESISTANCE, but give them an advantage in gang and fleet warefare. A 25% resistance to webs simply means instead of being 60% webbed you get 45% webbed. So you're still slowed, you're just not :gg: slowed like a thorax would be. Also, at ~1000-1500% the cost of a t1 cruiser, they had better be at LEAST 100% better.
what kind of fool are you? do you leave your MWD running permanently in a fight? As I specifically listed, there are practically no HACs that leave their MWD running sufficiently long to warrant a reduction in their sig bloom. Most HACs wont even be under fire most of the time before their MWDs are off, so the amount of actual time that the bonus is even applicable is negligible. l2logic
have you TRIED to fit a cerb with more than 1 large shield extender WITHOUT a bunch of cap-gobbling hardeners? I assume not. I dont have my EFT on this computer, otherwise is throw fit after fit at you until your dense skull has accepted the obvious. Dropping the RoF bonus, WHILE gaining 5% MORE damage per level would not cripple the cerb, but simply shift its damage style. Rather than a constant flow of dps, it has spaced hammering volleys, which is perfectly fine. How about you learn to read, come back to my post, and try to take it all in at once, before you start picking more of my statements out of context and generally missing the entire point of my post?
kthnxbye |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 07:20:00 -
[1073] - Quote
Like many others in the soon to be threadnaught, I'm not overwhelmed by these proposed changes for a few reasons.
The first reason is cost. As CCP has made it abundantly clear, we should pay hundreds of millions for 2% gains; however, people aren't happy with that after the success of T1 and faction cruisers' rebalancing. If I have a fully fit thorax for 50mil vs a fully fit deimos for 250mil when the differences in their ability is marginal, I would rather fly 5 thoraxes over 1 Deimos. These price tags have to be worth it or people still won't fly them.
The second reason is that some of the ships glaring problems haven't been addressed or have actually been made worse. For example, the CPU issues on the Ishtar, the fitting and tank requirements on a Deimos, Cerberus, and Eagle, and viability outside of large fleet engagments for the Munin. These are very specialized ships that should be easy to fit once you get lvl 5 skills, I.e force recons at Recon Lvl 5 . These fitting issues need to be addressed or people will just continue to fly T1 and navy faction.
The third reason deals with the idea behind niche roles. With the advent of ABCs into Eve, HACs seem to have lost their place. However, CCP's catch all role bonus isn't good enough. As some have mentioned , this role bonus only truly benefits a few HACs, and it's also very lazy of CCP. These cruisers are T2 and need to be specialized in some way to make them viable again.
Here are some ideas on how to make them fill those niche roles and become specialized again: As the name implies, Heavy Assault Cruisers should be rolling beast in terms of their tanks. The first step should be increasing their base resist to make them more resilient. Not a large change, but buffing a Deimos's explosive hole to a base 30% as opposed to the current 10%. Also buffing their electronics and sensor strengths to make them more resilient to Ewar might be another viable option.
The next step is that replacing that sweeping role bonus. None of these ships have the same role even though they're all the same ship class. This is good, it's call diversity and makes the game more fun. That being said, instead of a broad, useless role bonus these HACs should receive individual role bonuses that build on their native strengths. For example, the Ishtar is subject to follow the VNI and Dominix and become a pure drone boat (yawn....very boring btw) and relies only on drone DPS. Bring a few smart bombs and your Ishtars are dead in the water. So the new Ishtar would receive a role bonus similar to something like this: 25% bonus to drone HP. Now the Ishtar can focus on doing what it's meant to do. Now on the other hand, if we look at the Deimos which is notorious for being the "Diemost blaster brawler" where one neut will ruin its day, we can add a role bonus that helps the Deimos brawl at scram/web ranges. New role bonus: 25% reduction of incoming energy neut amounts. TL:DR these HACs should have individual role bonuses that should support their niche role.
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
426
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 08:14:00 -
[1074] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote: TL:DR these HACs should have individual role bonuses that should support their niche role.
yes
why give them all the same , which only benefits vaga ?:O makes no sense at all |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
226
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 08:49:00 -
[1075] - Quote
I really dont think the Vaga needs a 5th mid as a lot of people are suggesting, its slot layout is currently fine it just needs a buff in the DPS and Projection areas.
At the moment AC kiting ships are pretty terrible as is, even the Cyna is relatively terrible, they need better applied DPS at range and need a general DPS buff.
I like the idea of individual roam bonuses but before any of that they need to fix the (currently terrible) balance pass for the Vaga, no improvement to its DPS and projection a slight speed loss and a **** bonus which nobody can or will use for anything other than heavy tackling for gangs. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
216
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 08:53:00 -
[1076] - Quote
vagabond changes are rubbish, it will be slower than the actual one for a useless bonus no one will ever use (no fitting to make use of that),first if you really insist on rolling the speed bonus on the hull then the base speed should be 300 not 290, second any other bonus will be better than a brawling bonus wich doesnt suit the vaga at all (tracking, mass or sig reduction, capacito,r damage or whatever) |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 09:01:00 -
[1077] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:bomb-immunity Do want
Well I don't. "Waiste" a role or bonus because it might be important for big battles ? It's the same like that idea of the Lock breker bonus. Only suits a very specific situtation when most of the times Hacs will be (hopefully) used in day to day fights. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
60
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 09:25:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Can't say I've flown an HAC since my terrible experience in an eagle in 2010, not that I wanted to train the skill in the first place but it was just another roadblock on the way to command ships. After looking over the changes, I still wouldn't fly any of them on the basis that the increase over T1/navy just isn't enough to justify the expendature.
Trying to fit an entire line of ships with a single role bonus is suicidal and needs to be ****canned. Cmon guys, use more than 1 brain cell to do this. I could go into a list of reasons why this particular rebalance initiative is currently sucking it's own left ball but I think the people before me made a very good case on why.
Throw away the cookie cutter and get specific with each ship. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
737
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 10:14:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Assuming we manage to cause the wanted snowstorm in hell and convince Rise to discard the idea of "one bonus for all", what would work (staying within racial flavour of course)?
Amarr: 2x all benefits gained from batteries. Caldari: Half cap use of all eWar? Gallente: Sig bloom free MWD use (ie. -100%) Minmatar: Double artillery tracking (and tweaking hull bonuses (not fittings) towards AC)?
The MWD sig bonus sort of made sense on AFs as they have poor weapon ranges and they survive by not being hit at all due to relatively low EHP, but it makes no sense on HACs. |
Chimpface Holocaust
Zarnfell
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 10:23:00 -
[1080] - Quote
VAGABOND - This is the only ship in which the role bonus would actually make a difference, however most of the rest of the changes are entirely useless.
I've switched the active tank bonus for a resistance or buffer bonus increased the RoF bonus to 7.5% added a 5th mid increases the cap to 1070 increased max velocity to 298
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 4% bonus to shield resistances [or] 10% bonus to shield capacity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 5L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 855 PWG, 395 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1750(+97) / 1400(+63) / 980(-4) Capacitor (amount) : 1070(+7.5) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 298(+59) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 330 / 6(+1) Sensor strength: 14 Ladar Signature radius: 115
This should allow the Vagabond to make good use of the MWD bonus while still doing decent dps at close range and the tank to stick around and apply the dps without being torn through like tissue paper |
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
121
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 10:44:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Read through the last pages. Agree with the vast majority of comments. No-one is going to fly these when they hit TQ. T1 cruisers are faster, massively cheaper, have the same damage application and bar the resist profiles - only a slightly worse tank.
Roll on pass 2... |
Steel Dragon
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:33:00 -
[1082] - Quote
Why do you force Cald to use kinetic damage types? Please remove the % to Kinetic damage missiles on the cerb and just make it +%damage to HMLs and HAMs. With it being to kinetic only anyone who knows your flying a cerb knows to tank out kin (not that it isn't already) and your useless. You made the change from damage type specific on the TI why would you leave it on the T2 which is supposed to be better? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1148
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:33:00 -
[1083] - Quote
To mare wrote:vagabond changes are rubbish, it will be slower than the actual one for a useless bonus no one will ever use (no fitting to make use of that),first if you really insist on rolling the speed bonus on the hull then the base speed should be 300 not 290, second any other bonus will be better than a brawling bonus wich doesnt suit the vaga at all (tracking, mass or sig reduction, capacito,r damage or whatever)
You know almost everyone fits their vaga's with XLasb's now right? BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
36
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:41:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Steel Dragon wrote:Why do you force Cald to use kinetic damage types? Please remove the % to Kinetic damage missiles on the cerb and just make it +%damage to HMLs and HAMs. With it being to kinetic only anyone who knows your flying a cerb knows to tank out kin (not that it isn't already) and your useless. You made the change from damage type specific on the TI why would you leave it on the T2 which is supposed to be better? No its supposed to be specialised. One damage type is specialised. |
AskariRising
8th Day
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:45:00 -
[1085] - Quote
CCP Rise can you confirm that you are changing/fixing the Cerb's missile flight time bonus? currently it applies to ALL missiles, including rapid assault missiles, which is very nice. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
92
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:48:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Mr Doctor wrote:Steel Dragon wrote:Why do you force Cald to use kinetic damage types? Please remove the % to Kinetic damage missiles on the cerb and just make it +%damage to HMLs and HAMs. With it being to kinetic only anyone who knows your flying a cerb knows to tank out kin (not that it isn't already) and your useless. You made the change from damage type specific on the TI why would you leave it on the T2 which is supposed to be better? No its supposed to be specialised. One damage type is specialised.
This sounds almost like a cry for matar can only shoot phased plasma, now they are special too.. |
Max Zerg
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:57:00 -
[1087] - Quote
Dear CCP
Being rather new to the game i can only discuss Ishtar vs. Navy Vexor
1st column Ishtar 2nd column Navy Vexor PG: 700 800 CPU: 285 310 CAP: 1125 1500 Turrets: 3 4 MED: 5 4 LOW: 5 6 SIG: 145 135 Scan: 294 285 Drones 125 125
PRICE: 175kk 95kk (plus the indirect price increase because it's impossible to fit Istar reasonably without the fraction modules)
New proposed improvement is to make Ishtar the mini-Dominix e.g. sentry boat why do i need MWD bonus in this case - should i orbit my sentries faster ? What do i benefit from this ?
Ishtar would be preferrable for me for PVE over Navy Vexor if you 2) add more CPU 1) FIX THAT TERRIBLE 10% explosive armor resist hole - yes, instead of adding that useless MWD bonus
Would you, please, explain your vision of rebelanced HACs roles and recommend non-exotic scenarios when the rebelanced HACs shine compared to their T1 counterparts ?
Thanks |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1156
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 12:40:00 -
[1088] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:MeBiatch wrote:XXSketchxx wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:bomb-immunity Do want cant say i support that idea... even as cool as it sounds... bombs are essential anti blob weapons... they are critical. Currently AHACs are essentially bomb immune (tiny sig). MWDing AHACs, however, even with the 50% sig reduction from MWD would still have battleship sized signature, but with really thin tanks (comparatively) To put things in perspective, a post-patch MWD Zealot would die to 9 bombs (assuming both loki links and legion links). Currently the standard AB Zealot needs 47 bombs to die. That said, most of my balance ideas are ****** so bomb immunity may not be cool. But that doesn't mean something new and fancy that I never thought of can't be added
and this people is why i voted for you last year... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1156
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 12:41:00 -
[1089] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Yun Kuai wrote: TL:DR these HACs should have individual role bonuses that should support their niche role.
yes why give them all the same , which only benefits vaga ?:O makes no sense at all
i can support this... or perhaps one bonus to the attack version and one bonus for the combat versions? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
162
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 12:55:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:To mare wrote:vagabond changes are rubbish, it will be slower than the actual one for a useless bonus no one will ever use (no fitting to make use of that),first if you really insist on rolling the speed bonus on the hull then the base speed should be 300 not 290, second any other bonus will be better than a brawling bonus wich doesnt suit the vaga at all (tracking, mass or sig reduction, capacito,r damage or whatever) You know almost everyone fits their vaga's with XLasb's now right?
And its ridiculously easy to alpha. Needs a 5th mid and more raw shield HP for ASB fits to be viable.
MeBiatch wrote:one bonus to the attack version and one bonus for the combat versions?
^ This How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
92
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 12:58:00 -
[1091] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Yun Kuai wrote: TL:DR these HACs should have individual role bonuses that should support their niche role.
yes why give them all the same , which only benefits vaga ?:O makes no sense at all i can support this... or perhaps one bonus to the attack version and one bonus for the combat versions?
Wow this makes almost sence..
They should definately make a role of a role and all problems are fixed
Role 1 combat heavy assult Role 2 attack heavy assult
Man, I thought heavy assault was a role, something like ship assaults small gang and takes a lot of punishment on the way. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
737
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 13:08:00 -
[1092] - Quote
Mr Doctor wrote:...No its supposed to be specialised. One damage type is specialised. "Supposed" being the operative word. Those grand plans went out the window as far as I am concerned when they placed the Navy Omen into a niche so narrow that you'd need Tech 6-7 hulls to warrant it.
The super-kiting ultra niche would have been perfect for the the T2 Zealot, but had no place on a T1 hull, yet that is where it ended up.
PS: Probably more a case of CCP coming up blank when they think about the what/where/why of Amarr, having primarily Winmatar and Gallente jockeys in their staple, but even so I would not put too much faith into their willingness/ability to follow their own grand design (ie. T1 - T2 - T3 focus differences). |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
133
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 13:47:00 -
[1093] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Yun Kuai wrote: TL:DR these HACs should have individual role bonuses that should support their niche role.
yes why give them all the same , which only benefits vaga ?:O makes no sense at all Are you really surprised that CCP only thinks of Minmatar when redesigning ships? |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
162
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 14:48:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Voith wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Yun Kuai wrote: TL:DR these HACs should have individual role bonuses that should support their niche role.
yes why give them all the same , which only benefits vaga ?:O makes no sense at all Are you really surprised that CCP only thinks of Minmatar when redesigning ships?
Uh, what? Vaga is still outclassed by the Cynabal. It needed another mid that it didn't get. The Muninn remains completely outclassed by tornados.
Look at AFs, Jaguar is no longer the king of AFs Look at frigates, cruisers, Rupture is no longer the best, and the rifter is no longer king of the hill.
Plus the tracking enhancer nerf.
So yea, no CCP does not think only of Minmatar when rebalancing. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Broxus Maximas
Shadow State Fatal Ascension
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 15:16:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Wow same terrible changes to the ISHTAR as the Domi. Why did the ISHTAR just lose a slot and gain really nothing? Why is it the only HAC with 14 slots? I understand that they gained an extra slot in their high to put a weapon but that's just to offset the nerf to their hybrids. They should have gotten a slot added to their lows to give them a total of 15 slots like many of the other ships not be at 14 in a nerf class of its own. Also, as everyone has asked can you please change the optimal range buff for drones to a MWD bonus or anything else more interesting. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 15:20:00 -
[1096] - Quote
I'm glad I can spend 5x as much on a HAC and get a minimal return on my investment as compared to T1 cruisers.
Be men and make T2 cruisers outright better than their T1 and Navy/Pirate counterparts. At least then you'll have to make a decision as to whether you want to spend more for increased performance or fly cheap and risk less isk - but know you can be outclassed by the majority of T2s.
As proposed changes stand, HACs are not worth the effort. The only reason I train any cruiser up to 5 is for the logistics ship and the recons. The only reason I even need logistics is for the increased base tank they have... if you could just throw a couple more resist %s on the t1 logi counterparts we could obsolete a whole other line of ships.
Thanks |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1012
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 15:37:00 -
[1097] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:To mare wrote:vagabond changes are rubbish, it will be slower than the actual one for a useless bonus no one will ever use (no fitting to make use of that),first if you really insist on rolling the speed bonus on the hull then the base speed should be 300 not 290, second any other bonus will be better than a brawling bonus wich doesnt suit the vaga at all (tracking, mass or sig reduction, capacito,r damage or whatever) You know almost everyone fits their vaga's with XLasb's now right?
Actually to the extent people fly vagas anymore they do fit asbs.
Everyone flys cynabals for the role that to old vaga used to fill.
This change is a very good change for the vagabond. It is dumb to have two almost identical ships (cynabal and vaga) that are going for the exact same role. Vaga is the better choice for a brawler asb boost due to its resists.
Vaga needs an extra mid or 2, possibly some more fitting room and it is fixed.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Athena Themis
Biohazard.
130
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 15:39:00 -
[1098] - Quote
These changes are underwhelming.
The MWD sig role bonus is an absolute joke. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
350
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 16:10:00 -
[1099] - Quote
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. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 16:12:00 -
[1100] - Quote
Legion40k wrote:Steve Spooner wrote:
How did you pass reading comprehension? The Vagabond got an ADDITIONAL BONUS because the 5% velocity per level is now PART OF THE HULL so regardless of your minmatar cruiser level it is 25% faster (irrelevant since it has to be 5, but still)
If the calculator lies, fair enough, but as I explained theres a quirk with this bonus and prop mods to achieve such a high speed. Take a look, its..odd
the vagas problem is not the sped but the ****** dmg projection at its desired fiting range. if we could have good enough tracking arty on the boat it would fix the problem a la "i have to use barrage and 2-3 tes to even do low dmg" |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
303
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 16:26:00 -
[1101] - Quote
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
|
Major Trant
The Flowing Penguins Iron Oxide.
180
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 16:54:00 -
[1102] - Quote
I really don't get the Sacrilege changes
I've got one which I've fitted up with a full rack of HAMs, Dual Prop and 1600mm plate. I've got bags of PG to spare without any fitting mods and it is cap stable.
So you are given it 120 more PG - what for? Especially now that you have removed the option of guns. It needs CPU not PG.
As for Cap, that cap bonus is completely useless.
So after acknowledging that it is sub par to the other HACs, all you've really done is give it a fair-average drone bay. Not counting the MWD bonus that they all get. |
Chimpface Holocaust
Zarnfell
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 17:04:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:I really don't get the Sacrilege changes
I've got one which I've fitted up with a full rack of HAMs, Dual Prop and 1600mm plate. I've got bags of PG to spare without any fitting mods and it is cap stable.
So you are given it 120 more PG - what for? Especially now that you have removed the option of guns. It needs CPU not PG.
As for Cap, that cap bonus is completely useless.
So after acknowledging that it is sub par to the other HACs, all you've really done is give it a fair-average drone bay. Not counting the MWD bonus that they all get.
I think the cap and PG bonus are for dual rep SACs |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 17:10:00 -
[1104] - 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? |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors Insidious Empire
74
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 17:18:00 -
[1105] - Quote
Rabble rabble rabble AHAC DOESN'T WORK FOR MY PERSONAL PLAYSTYLE IMMA CRY TILL CCP LISTENS TO ME BITCHING RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 17:27:00 -
[1106] - 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
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 17:29:00 -
[1107] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:I really don't get the Sacrilege changes
I've got one which I've fitted up with a full rack of HAMs, Dual Prop and 1600mm plate. I've got bags of PG to spare without any fitting mods and it is cap stable.
So you are given it 120 more PG - what for? Especially now that you have removed the option of guns. It needs CPU not PG.
As for Cap, that cap bonus is completely useless.
So after acknowledging that it is sub par to the other HACs, all you've really done is give it a fair-average drone bay. Not counting the MWD bonus that they all get.
The cap bonus is actually lolzy - cap stable with one rep and medium neut, booster and AAR for tight spots. However, I still firmly hold my position that the Sac needs to drop a high for a low, drop to 4 launchers, and get a bigger damage/RoF bonus. The dronebay is nice, but the extra fitting from dropping a launcher while retaining a utility high would seriously solve every problem I have with this ship.
5/4/6 slot layout. 4 launchers. 7.5% damage AND RoF bonuses. Fix the Sacrilege, for great justice!
CCP Rise, pllllleeaaaaaassse |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1151
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 17:41:00 -
[1108] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:To mare wrote:vagabond changes are rubbish, it will be slower than the actual one for a useless bonus no one will ever use (no fitting to make use of that),first if you really insist on rolling the speed bonus on the hull then the base speed should be 300 not 290, second any other bonus will be better than a brawling bonus wich doesnt suit the vaga at all (tracking, mass or sig reduction, capacito,r damage or whatever) You know almost everyone fits their vaga's with XLasb's now right? And its ridiculously easy to alpha. Needs a 5th mid and more raw shield HP for ASB fits to be viable. MeBiatch wrote:one bonus to the attack version and one bonus for the combat versions? ^ This
Oh yea, obviously, a 4 mid 5 low shield tanker is ******* ********. Rise basically balanced the vaga around a lolfit. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 18:01:00 -
[1109] - Quote
So... do any of the old or (proposed) new HACs not suck? |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 18:23:00 -
[1110] - 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, I think my (continually edited) Sacrilege counterchanges are productive.
Beyond that, however, the role bonus is useless unless base sig is reduced to t1 cruiser size, and some other valid issues with ships I care less about have been brought up. When I'm not on my phone I may compile a post of the best ideas I've seen. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
352
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 18:35:00 -
[1111] - Quote
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? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
163
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 18:39:00 -
[1112] - 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.
0/10 troll. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 18:56:00 -
[1113] - 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 -
[1114] - 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... |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
353
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 19:17:00 -
[1115] - Quote
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? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 19:26:00 -
[1116] - 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. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 19:51:00 -
[1117] - 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?
So what, just bomb/smartbomb.
I've spent a large amount of time on the receiving end of domi and slowcat fleets. Other than boring the pilots to death they aren't all that.
Sure they track like mad for a BS weapon system but there are issues
1) can't ******* move, because of this you basically fly around the drone herd 2) bombs/smart bombs can basically neuter a domi fleet, the joy a re-assigning drones with the crappy interface means you are loosing a lot of DPS time everytime you have to pull and relaunch your drones 3) can really only be used defensively (see #1) 4) Boring boring boring |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 19:51:00 -
[1118] - Quote
all i said was gardes are OP combined with domis bonuses.... you kicked up the fuss mate Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 19:58:00 -
[1119] - Quote
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. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:06:00 -
[1120] - Quote
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 Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:11:00 -
[1121] - 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
No it isn't mainly because its permanently counterable. You have to dock up or scoop more drones in space. There is no otherway to refill the drone bay.
|
Christopher Multsanti
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:22:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Ok for all of you who didn't watch the alliance tournament, Fozzie and Rise commented on this thread and Rise said that in regard to the feedback everyone has given, he is going to look again at the hacs as he initially he is a bit conservative when making changes to ships in eve.
So my advice would start posting coherent arguments on changes you want to see. Because there will be changes. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:27:00 -
[1123] - Quote
Onictus 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 No it isn't mainly because its permanently counterable. You have to dock up or scoop more drones in space. There is no otherway to refill the drone bay. and garde range is nothing close to 1400mm arty range, more like 720, their big advantage is sig radius.....tracking is really a secondary concern.
Bias is blinding ... it even beats a scorch Apoc for range unless the apoc fits 3 TC's with op range but still easily outracks the Apoc Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:28:00 -
[1124] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:Ok for all of you who didn't watch the alliance tournament, Fozzie and Rise commented on this thread and Rise said that in regard to the feedback everyone has given, he is going to look again at the hacs as he initially he is a bit conservative when making changes to ships in eve.
So my advice would start posting coherent arguments on changes you want to see. Because there will be changes.
He only really said their resilience will be boosted which isn't what most people actually want the most Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Christopher Multsanti
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:33:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:He only really said their resilience will be boosted which isn't what most people actually want the most
He is hardly going to mention every single change he might have planned in 30 seconds.
|
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Tribal Band
24
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:37:00 -
[1126] - Quote
With T2 ships being more specialized, why not buff the weapon bonuses on all of them(5% becomes 7.5%, 10% becomes 12.5%) but limit this to one weapon. HAMs for Sac, Pulses(or Beams if think that'd be better) for Zealot etc. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:46:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:With T2 ships being more specialized, why not buff the weapon bonuses on all of them(5% becomes 7.5%, 10% becomes 12.5%) but limit this to one weapon. HAMs for Sac, Pulses(or Beams if think that'd be better) for Zealot etc.
makes sense cos atm HAC's aren't looking very specialist in any which way you look at it
if they were all limited to short range weapons and were all vaga style ships that mwd would actually make sense as a role bonus but atm half the ships are only going to be AB fits. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:47:00 -
[1128] - 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 |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:52:00 -
[1129] - Quote
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
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1338
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:05:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:gardes are better than heavy drones
Only because Ogres have absolute **** for MWD velocity. All drones need reworked, this is not that. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Christopher Multsanti
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:06:00 -
[1131] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:loads of words about domis or something
Stop shit posting and start talking about hacs. Thanks in advance. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
69
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:08:00 -
[1132] - Quote
So tech 2 ships are supposed to be specialized for a specific role,
adding a 50% reduction in Signature Radius Penalty from Microwarp Drives is marginally acceptable for the HAC role
What is not acceptable however is making the Eagle stand or fall by railgun changes, the ship needs to be improved,
if you going to depend the Eagle to specialize through railgun changes at least add some drones for close encounters man ! Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/13cGuW0 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
738
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:15:00 -
[1133] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote: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 So the thread lamenting about assigned sentries in null blob warfare a few weeks ago was written by a prescient, seeing as it is only an AT phenomenon?
There is very little one can do to survive an assigned sentry swarm, the one thing that comes to mind is not being there to be mauled, hardly an enticing option and a rather bad sign balance wise. Problem surfaced now (after last patch) as the amount of ships fielding full sets has increased and we now have drone damage mods/rigs.
Sentry drones, and drones in general for that matter, should have capacitor values and drain from weaponry to make them vulnerable to primarily voids but also regular neuting. One should be able to jam/td/damp a full set of five by applying the eWar to any of the five (use host ships stats for ease of implementation).
In return the sentry abusers/lovers can get the "return command" for their pets so one doesn't have to haul ass all over creation to gather them up. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:19:00 -
[1134] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:Harvey James wrote:loads of words about domis or something Stop sh it posting and start talking about hacs. Thanks in advance.
i have posted probably more than anyone on HACS in this thread... also ishtar is going to be mini domi so it is relevant to the thread Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:22:00 -
[1135] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:gardes are better than heavy drones
Only because Ogres have absolute **** for MWD velocity. All drones need reworked, this is not that.
Come on help me out here you're a fellow droney you tell me if gardes tracking aswell as ogres makes sense? and that with a domi and 3 omnis you can make them track aswell as autocannons but with 80km optimal range is balanced? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:32:00 -
[1136] - 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
Confirmed.
All fights on tranquility happen in a 125km ring.
...and you ever try switching triggers with 250 people in fleet?
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:34:00 -
[1137] - Quote
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
By people that have never fought a slowcat fleet. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:34:00 -
[1138] - Quote
I love the way people can't answer a straight question.. it tells you a lot about someone Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:35:00 -
[1139] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I love the way people can't answer a straight question.. it tells you a lot about someone
I told you four times that drones are fine, hull bonuses or not. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1155
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:39:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Onictus 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 By people that have never fought a slowcat fleet.
Thats more due to something that costs that little and has that much EHP being able to do that much damage.
Thats more of a carrier problem then a drone one. Sentries are pretty much fine as a powerful but gimpy weapon, they are just really good with a ton of carriers or in a locked up arena. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
|
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:41:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Major Trant wrote:I really don't get the Sacrilege changes
I've got one which I've fitted up with a full rack of HAMs, Dual Prop and 1600mm plate. I've got bags of PG to spare without any fitting mods and it is cap stable.
So you are given it 120 more PG - what for? Especially now that you have removed the option of guns. It needs CPU not PG.
As for Cap, that cap bonus is completely useless.
So after acknowledging that it is sub par to the other HACs, all you've really done is give it a fair-average drone bay. Not counting the MWD bonus that they all get.
Indeed. I really like the ship and got some 20fits for it and on each and every one i got PG to spare while cpu is at 100% |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:49:00 -
[1142] - Quote
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)? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:50:00 -
[1143] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:I love the way people can't answer a straight question.. it tells you a lot about someone I told you four times that drones are fine, hull bonuses or not. I also pointed out that tracking isn't what makes gardes dangerous, its the native SIGNATURE RADIUS that makes them lethal, you skipped over that part too.
sig radius of a sentry is irrelevant... sig resolution is 400 like battleship guns i assume you are talking about. and gardes are obviously not fine ...... 1.0 rads with 80km optimal range is insanely OP it does the Apoc role much better .. as i recall Rise saying the Apoc should swat small ships but actually gardes can do it better than pulse lasers can..
sentries are meant to be like LR guns but gardes track similar to pulses Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:58:00 -
[1144] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:I love the way people can't answer a straight question.. it tells you a lot about someone I told you four times that drones are fine, hull bonuses or not. I also pointed out that tracking isn't what makes gardes dangerous, its the native SIGNATURE RADIUS that makes them lethal, you skipped over that part too. sig radius of a sentry is irrelevant... sig resolution is 400 like battleship guns i assume you are talking about. and gardes are obviously not fine ...... 1.0 rads with 80km optimal range is insanely OP it does the Apoc role much better .. as i recall Rise saying the Apoc should swat small ships but actually gardes can do it better than pulse lasers can.. sentries are meant to be like LR guns but gardes track similar to pulses
stfu about sentries.
**** on these proposed changes more, or just spam quote my wall-o-text of suggested changes. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:58:00 -
[1145] - Quote
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 Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:59:00 -
[1146] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:[quote=Onictus]
Thats more of a carrier problem then a drone one. Sentries are pretty much fine as a powerful but gimpy weapon, they are just really good with a ton of carriers or in a locked up arena.
Exactly my point.
I only mentioned slows because if you want to talk about the most powerful application of a sentry drone, try it when you are dropping them 12-13 per ship.
Now back to .....well ~HAC~ discussions. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:00:00 -
[1147] - Quote
NetheranE wrote:Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:I love the way people can't answer a straight question.. it tells you a lot about someone I told you four times that drones are fine, hull bonuses or not. I also pointed out that tracking isn't what makes gardes dangerous, its the native SIGNATURE RADIUS that makes them lethal, you skipped over that part too. sig radius of a sentry is irrelevant... sig resolution is 400 like battleship guns i assume you are talking about. and gardes are obviously not fine ...... 1.0 rads with 80km optimal range is insanely OP it does the Apoc role much better .. as i recall Rise saying the Apoc should swat small ships but actually gardes can do it better than pulse lasers can.. sentries are meant to be like LR guns but gardes track similar to pulses stfu about sentries. **** on these proposed changes more, or just spam quote my wall-o-text of suggested changes.
I think everything has already been said about HAC's on this thread until Rise posts again... also sentries are relevant to the ishtar ... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
738
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:01:00 -
[1148] - Quote
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 long as it doesn't mean the high EHP one gets to waste a bonus on it like the ludicrous +% crap .. would make sense to have a brawler and a projector, as long there is some way to mix it up at a price should one choose to (ex. HAMs or HMLs on Sac).
|
AstraPardus
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
270
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:08:00 -
[1149] - Quote
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)?
The Pardy sees reason in this... Every time I post is Pardy time! :3 |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:09:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida 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 long as it doesn't mean the high EHP one gets to waste a bonus on it like the ludicrous +% crap .. would make sense to have a brawler and a projector, as long there is some way to mix it up at a price should one choose to (ex. HAMs or HMLs on Sac).
None of the HACs are really that heavily tanked to start with (ok the Sac is), certainly not when compared with battle cruisers or tech threes. Both of which are quite capable of comparable damage.
The ABCs stomp all over them in the sniping roll for half of the price.
...and none of these changes are doing much besides removing utility highs. |
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:10:00 -
[1151] - 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 -
[1152] - Quote
* I think |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:18:00 -
[1153] - 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 |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:20:00 -
[1154] - Quote
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. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:25:00 -
[1155] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote: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
I agree i would like HACS to be variations on the vaga playstyle with 3 role bonuses - 70% mwd sig reduction -40% web resistance -50% Overheat damage reduction Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
169
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:27:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Christopher Multsanti wrote:Ok for all of you who didn't watch the alliance tournament, Fozzie and Rise commented on this thread and Rise said that in regard to the feedback everyone has given, he is going to look again at the hacs as he initially he is a bit conservative when making changes to ships in eve.
So my advice would start posting coherent arguments on changes you want to see. Because there will be changes. He only really said their resilience will be boosted which isn't what most people actually want the most
And EHP boost would be a HUGE bonus to some of these HACs. I'm looking at you Vagabond.
While further changes would be required beyond an EHP boost, it is a start.
Breaking HACs into two distinct groups, each with its own role bonus, would be an excellent idea. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1159
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:27:00 -
[1157] - Quote
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)?
i would support this...
have a light assault crusier (the attack version)
then heavy assault crusier (the combat version)
though that would require more skills and that just might upset some people but i say **** it... lets get it done. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1340
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:31:00 -
[1158] - Quote
MeBiatch 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)? i would support this... have a light assault crusier (the attack version) then heavy assault crusier (the combat version) though that would require more skills and that just might upset some people but i say **** it... lets get it done. There would be no reason for a new skill set, just look at force recons and combat recons, same skill 2 different styles of the same ship Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:32:00 -
[1159] - 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. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:36:00 -
[1160] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote:
Not quite. Tier 3's are indeed skirmishy but also a one trick pony and pretty susceptible to tackle. Also they do that better NOW. That's because HACS haven't kept pace to the point they are no longer the best option for skirmishing (90 % due to being to slow)
...and the rest being iffy damage application.
You spend a lot of isk for not a lot of performance, and higher skill cap if you want to come back with the ship. Run slow on an align or a rewarp and you are pretty screwed pretty quickly.
That being said I use munnins for station gaming, but that is most because of lock speed.
|
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:37:00 -
[1161] - 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 |
Kynric
Sky Fighters Mass Overload
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:39:00 -
[1162] - Quote
I am disappointed with these changes in that they do not deliver specialized ships. I had imagined that a T1 ship would be delivered to a naval architect who is then given a specific mission/engagment profile and the instructions to carve off everything not essential to that purpose while greatly enhancing the characteristics that are central to that purpose. Drones, speed, mass, agility, scan res, max targets, sensor strength, shield, armor, hull, slots, bonuses and all of the other characteristics that make up our ships would be examined. Those that are needed for the ships purpose would be enhanced while those not essential would be compromised to make room for the enhancements.
For example, a fast attack cruiser would lose drones as they are not useful for kiting. Perhaps the ships lock time would be penalized while the sensor strength is decreased as well as those also are not eseential to kiting, but the locking range might be increased as that is useful for a kite. At a different shipyard an architect might squeeze the damage and tank of a battlecruiser into the cruiser hull, but at the cost of having the mids to tackle, the drones which so often mean operational flexibility and the scan res to lock quickly. This ship would be as good as a battleruiser at damage, be as mobile as crusier yet lack enough of what a battlecruiser does that it could not possibly be a replacement for either the battlecruiser or the alternative t1 cruiser in general usage. Another architect might create a screening ship which retains or even enhances scan res, has great projection and effectiveness against frigate sized vessels but at the cost of raw damage. Yet another shipyard might take up the task of creating a ship that could dance and weave through an enemy camp with confidence because it is less vulnerable to the scrams and webs which stop other ships. Each of these examples would be a useful ship for a specialized purpose while retaining the need for the more generalized T1 ship.
In the rock-paper-scissors world of eve each of these ships would have a purpose and be very good at that purpose, while having compromised the ability to be good or even passable at other tasks. This is what specialized means to me. The current batch of ships is neither particularly interesting nor particularly specialized. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:40:00 -
[1163] - Quote
MeBiatch 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)? i would support this... have a light assault crusier (the attack version) then heavy assault crusier (the combat version) though that would require more skills and that just might upset some people but i say **** it... lets get it done.
Intriguing though they would have to have different role bonuses .. Would be interesting if CCP would consider doing this and they could add extra ships to help fufill them so there are 2 ships per class... or just split them up so 1 per class.. an option
light assault cruiser ... Vaga plus 7
heavy assault cruiser ... the rest of them :) plus 1 to replace vaga
would be interesting to add missile minnie and drone amarr ships. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
354
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:44:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Kynric wrote:I am disappointed with these changes in that they do not deliver specialized ships. I had imagined that a T1 ship would be delivered to a naval architect who is then given a specific mission/engagment profile and the instructions to carve off everything not essential to that purpose while greatly enhancing the characteristics that are central to that purpose. Drones, speed, mass, agility, scan res, max targets, sensor strength, shield, armor, hull, slots, bonuses and all of the other characteristics that make up our ships would be examined. Those that are needed for the ships purpose would be enhanced while those not essential would be compromised to make room for the enhancements.
For example, a fast attack cruiser would lose drones as they are not useful for kiting. Perhaps the ships lock time would be penalized while the sensor strength is decreased as well as those also are not eseential to kiting, but the locking range might be increased as that is useful for a kite. At a different shipyard an architect might squeeze the damage and tank of a battlecruiser into the cruiser hull, but at the cost of having the mids to tackle, the drones which so often mean operational flexibility and the scan res to lock quickly. This ship would be as good as a battleruiser at damage, be as mobile as crusier yet lack enough of what a battlecruiser does that it could not possibly be a replacement for either the battlecruiser or the alternative t1 cruiser in general usage. Another architect might create a screening ship which retains or even enhances scan res, has great projection and effectiveness against frigate sized vessels but at the cost of raw damage. Yet another shipyard might take up the task of creating a ship that could dance and weave through an enemy camp with confidence because it is less vulnerable to the scrams and webs which stop other ships. Each of these examples would be a useful ship for a specialized purpose while retaining the need for the more generalized T1 ship.
In the rock-paper-scissors world of eve each of these ships would have a purpose and be very good at that purpose, while having compromised the ability to be good or even passable at other tasks. This is what specialized means to me. The current batch of ships is neither particularly interesting nor particularly specialized.
An interesting and more thorough approach than CCP takes they tweak a few stats/bonuses and call it an overhaul .. Lol .. like they would know one if it hit them in the face Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Blue Absinthe
Fur Industries
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:45:00 -
[1165] - Quote
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.
Might be too late to comment here, but....
The biggest issue with the Ishtar is it's deeply unsatisfying due to design flaws which are being propagated forward here. It's anti-fun. It's better to have to have a ship with 1 high, medium and low slot that you can fit than a ship with 100 slots that you can't fit anything in. It's really unsatisfying to leave slots empty, or have no flexibility in fitting, it'd be better just to remove slots. If you're worried about the strength of the ship you should find a better way to constrain that than giving it hardly any CPU. People legit fit civilian lasers onto Ishtars as a fairly standard imodule.... you can't want that surely.
Secondary issue is that drone bay bonus. Someone hit the nail on the head when they said it'd be like having a single turret hard point ship that gains one turret point per skill level. Again just feels really bad, better to give it a bigger bay and no bonus.
Half the problem is you're using a really unfun and dissatisfying mechanic to gate the power of the ship and the rest is that the presentation is bad. I really think even with a few changes you could have exactly the same ship/fits that you're looking at in testing and people would get excited about the ship (as an example, remove the drone bay bonus and split the range/tracking of the drone bonus into two - it would be the same ship but people would feel better about it.. Maybe remove a high slot and give it some CPU.) |
Christopher Multsanti
State Protectorate Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 22:57:00 -
[1166] - Quote
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 Hacs
Cerb Zealot Vaga Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.
Assault Frig Hacs
Eagle Muninn Sac Vexor <- again, unsure on this one
And give each class bonuses to operate each role. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
355
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 23:02:00 -
[1167] - Quote
Just thinking if HAC's remain at 15 slots.. then recons will be reduced to 14 slots i would assume following the pattern on from disruption cruisers 13 slots.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1160
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 23:05:00 -
[1168] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:MeBiatch 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)? i would support this... have a light assault crusier (the attack version) then heavy assault crusier (the combat version) though that would require more skills and that just might upset some people but i say **** it... lets get it done. There would be no reason for a new skill set, just look at force recons and combat recons, same skill 2 different styles of the same ship
ok rename the skill to assault cruiser then... cuss having a light heavy assault cruiser would sound oxymoronic. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
169
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 23:05:00 -
[1169] - 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 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... How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Kynric
Sky Fighters Mass Overload
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 23:10:00 -
[1170] - 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.
I am not sure I like this. Lately in my opinon amongst the forrum posts there has been too much emphasis on symmetry between the races. I would like to see each race get cool things but they need not be symmetrical.
In fact I would be happier with a much greater asymmetry if for example next update one race got a third recon, while another got a third hac, someone else got another battleship and someone else got something new that doesnt currently exist at all like a destroyer that allowed the other ships to move drones from their cargo to their drone bay in the field, an industrial that was optimized for moving ships or a stealth bomber that uses blaters instead of torps.
The current idea that everyone gets one of this, two of that, three of something else seems rather crippling. Along those lines there are probably many different purposes for a hac and each races answer need not have an equivalent version. It is more important that we have interesting new ships than to have ships that fit neatly into sets of four.
|
|
Christopher Multsanti
State Protectorate Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 23:17:00 -
[1171] - 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...
Exactly as I meant yep :)
And the choice of having deimos as kiter rather than brawler is a bit strange for me as I still love my 1600 plate blasterax but as you say I think it's to hard to kite with drones which is why i chose the Ishtar as Brawler.
But I have never flown either ship in pvp ever so I would not have a fecking clue about either of those ships lol.
|
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Tribal Band
24
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 23:19:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Heavy Assault Cruisers, what this says to me is that they need to do good damage and good tank and then also have either good speed with the bonus only affecting short range weapons(Sac/HAMs) or good projection only affecting long range weapons(Zealot/Beams) |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
268
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 23:55:00 -
[1173] - Quote
if these are some of the kewl things planned for marauders, i fear for the future of my eve playing...
omg, these are SO underwhelming.
a ship we train 2 months for=crap.
i have an idea, if this is the future of t2 ships, give us the sp for ewar, AF, HACS, Reconn, hics, command, Marauders and everything else t2 back and let us apply it to something useful like civilian mining drones or something.
t2 are made after they see whats wrong with t1. the navy then gets it, and then beefs it up. ONLY THEN, do they make the t2 and fix all the problems with t1 and make the specialize in 1 area.
all i have to say is wow...yawn.
i was SO excited when i read the news, i went and took a nap... =\
if this is what we have to look forward too, please, dont publish command ship changes. they are bad enough |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
994
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:02:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Alivea Starborn wrote:So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus?
There's an Amarr HAC with an armor resistance bonus, a Caldari HAC with a shield resist bonus, and a Minmatar HAC with a shield boost bonus, but no Gallente repair bonus.
Those already have problems fitting highest tier guns and all the stuff without fittings rigs/mods, give them one repair bonus and it's another wasted bonus.
Ishtar? can't fir drone mods properly already
Deimos? can't make any decent fit without at least 1 fitting rig
Don't give Rise bad ideas like this one plz or he might as well do it *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:12:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Mole Guy wrote:if these are some of the kewl things planned for marauders, i fear for the future of my eve playing...
omg, these are SO underwhelming.
a ship we train 2 months for=crap.
i have an idea, if this is the future of t2 ships, give us the sp for ewar, AF, HACS, Reconn, hics, command, Marauders and everything else t2 back and let us apply it to something useful like civilian mining drones or something.
t2 are made after they see whats wrong with t1. the navy then gets it, and then beefs it up. ONLY THEN, do they make the t2 and fix all the problems with t1 and make the specialize in 1 area.
all i have to say is wow...yawn.
i was SO excited when i read the news, i went and took a nap... =\
if this is what we have to look forward too, please, dont publish command ship changes. they are bad enough You obviously don't understand the integral philosophy of this game. Tech 2 is a specialization, nothing more |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:15:00 -
[1176] - 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. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
313
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:22:00 -
[1177] - Quote
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.
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:23:00 -
[1178] - 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 -
[1179] - 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 -
[1180] - 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. |
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1013
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:42:00 -
[1181] - Quote
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)?
I think the navy cruisers should generally be higher speed and lower sig.
But really eve is about creative fittings. Most ships shouldn't have set "roles" ccp should give them some reasonable bonuses, slots and stats for the cost and let the players figure out how to use them. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
169
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:52:00 -
[1182] - Quote
Cearain 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)? I think the navy cruisers should generally be higher speed and lower sig. But really eve is about creative fittings. Most ships shouldn't have set "roles" ccp should give them some reasonable bonuses, slots and stats for the cost and let the players figure out how to use them.
Yes, but at the same time T2 ships are created to fulfill a role, like Black Ops, Bombers, Recons, Interceptors, Hictors/Dictors.
HACs should be the same thing, they should be designed with a role in mind, but then left open enough beyond that role's bonuses to allow the players to decide how to best fit and apply the role bonus. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 01:39:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Cearain wrote: I think the navy cruisers should generally be higher speed and lower sig.
But really eve is about creative fittings. Most ships shouldn't have set "roles" ccp should give them some reasonable bonuses, slots and stats for the cost and let the players figure out how to use them.
For base stats T1 then Navy then Pirate. T2 and T3 are completely separate but should be around T1 & Navy for raw stats, their power coming through hull and subsystem bonuses |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 04:42:00 -
[1184] - Quote
The issue with the Deimos is not quite the ship itself, but its lack of counter to the two specific ewar that decimate it, that being a scram and a web. While this tends to screw most ships up, this ship in addition really does not have the tank to deal with being point blank under webs.
I would set the afterburner module to have a innate web resistance bonus. Similar to how vampires have a resistance to neuts. It would give afterburners there real nitch and would really cause people to think, do I prop mod the afterburner or microwarp... |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
166
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 06:59:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Firstly I appreciate leaving the deimos' MWD bonus intact. I was sad to see it disappear from the thorax, and it's been one of the reasons why I love my deimos on the odd occasion I fly it in a level 4 mission.
That said, the ishtar... I like that the hybrid damage bonus was replaced with the same range/tracking bonus that the dominix got, but I don't like the lack of a buff to the ishtar's CPU or the drone bay bonus remaining there.
As it stands an "all medium fit" ishtar built to try to maximize the potential of its drones, or at least packing 4 DDAs, is going to run short on CPU. While the removal of the hybrid damage bonus and the subsequent implied obligation to fit medium guns has been removed fitting small guns on the ishtar just doesn't feel right. Unfortunately with the ship using 317tf out of 356.25tf (even with using only a medium shield booster) there isn't much room for anything larger than small guns.
Giving the ishtar another 40tf probably wouldn't make it overpowered compared to the other HACs, and at that point the only HAC with less CPU output would be the zealot by a whole 5tf base.
I've also never been keen on drone bay bonuses, and would frankly rather see the bonus rolled into the core ship capacity, in part or in whole, and the bonus replaced with a bandwidth bonus. Drone bay bonuses, for many players, do little more than enhance ship utility while a bandwidth bonus would enhance functionality. Even if you did have to nerf said bandwidth first it would, to me at least, be nicer to have HAC training raise the ishtar's bandwidth from 75mb to 125mb instead of its bay space from 125m3 to 375m3.
Along those lines the drone "control range" bonus is also a bit underwhelming. it's nice, and 25km is nothing to sneeze at in a sentry build and especially in light of the optimal/tracking bonus which would conceivably let an ishtar punch out 800 rDPS at 50km+, but it doesn't scream out "train HAC past level 1 nao!!!" like some of the other HAC bonuses do. In point of fact it's about the only HAC that really doesn't require you to train the skill past level 1 for maximum functionality.
Frankly while I don't expect the drone bay bonus to disappear or be swapped out for a bandwidth bonus and related base ship attribute changes what I would like to see here is the range/tracking bonus swapped for either the bay space bonus or the "control range" bonus. Rearranging the skills like this wouldn't alter the ship's performance at all with HAC5 trained, but it would at least provide players incentive for training HAC past level 1.
Speaking of the control range bonus... Since skills are being renamed and regrouped is there any chance of having "drone control range" changed to something that more accurately reflects what it does? I mean given that it's the distance from your ship that the target has to be, and not your drones, in order for you to order your drones to interact with it, or rather control your drones, saying it's "drone control range" is a bit of a misnomer. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 07:04:00 -
[1186] - Quote
i think there is no need to divide ships any further between HACs, what they need is nice bonuses to make them work properly and some slot distribution. |
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 09:36:00 -
[1187] - Quote
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 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
738
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 09:48:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I think the navy cruisers should generally be higher speed and lower sig.
But really eve is about creative fittings. Most ships shouldn't have set "roles" ccp should give them some reasonable bonuses, slots and stats for the cost and let the players figure out how to use them. That is T1 territory, T2 is supposed to take one and amplify it at the cost of other options without removing said options entirely .. question is if CCP are still playing by those guidelines as there are several T1 revisions that would be more appropriate on T2 and vice versa,
Vegine wrote:...This will make it more a closer range brawling ship viable with heavies, like heavy assault ships are suppose to be.... So HAC's are meant to be brawling high-resist fast cruisers with BS weaponry that behaves like cruiser ditto? You don't think that might, oh I don't know, break something?
Droneboats have always been major points of contention, the middle ground is but a sliver of dirt and they tend to either be "OMG OP!" or "What a waste!". Revision of drones and the associated skills are no longer merely required but mandatory and should be factored into the droneboat passes if you ask me.
|
Konfuchie
Shadow Legion X Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 10:05:00 -
[1189] - Quote
Insufficient almost cosmetic changes to ships that cost 3 times mroe that t1 BC and can do the josb just 10% better.
Arty Huricane is still more cost efficient and do almost same job as a Muninn
Naga will still see more usage than Eagle
No one will be flying Deimos it has just a bit more tank and damage than Thorax and costs 6x to fit
Vagabond will not be able to tank any better to be able to brawl close range with anything that has 600+ dps, and it will still be flown passive tanked
Zealot is so bad compared to Legion or Oracle that it will still be used only for ahacs pilots that have no money or skills to fly a Legion.
T2 cruisers should be superior to navy and pirate T1 cruisers, and they should justifie their cost compared to T1 battlecruisers in a similar role.
Discussion should go further because extensive changes to battleships made in Odissey 1.0 are also useless cuz 2 BC together cost 60% of a BS and still can own his soul, which could never happen back in the days of just one version of a battlecruiser when BS actually had a huge place in eve. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
444
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 10:31:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:Ok for all of you who didn't watch the alliance tournament, Fozzie and Rise commented on this thread and Rise said that in regard to the feedback everyone has given, he is going to look again at the hacs as he initially he is a bit conservative when making changes to ships in eve.
So my advice would start posting coherent arguments on changes you want to see. Because there will be changes.
Conservative? HE was not that conservative with the poor Armageddon :P |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
444
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:03:00 -
[1191] - Quote
Baren wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. I will like this as well, that would make game play alot more interesting. Here are my thoughts. Deimost : will still Never Be flown, it needs to either have a little more of everything including tank "in your face brawler" or it should be re-designed all together Ishtar: is good as always... could use a bit more CPU after running tests in EFT Cerberus: is better it would be nice to see a close range brwaler missle boat for caldari Raven is long range Rohk is long range drake is meduim range Cerb is long range Eagle is long range naga is long range It would be nice to have a caldari ship that got some better damage mods and was made to be an in your face brawler. Eagle is nice for what it does Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus. Zealot is ok as is, maybe a few tweks could be done Vaga is now a monster, its gunna make solo PvP very interesting Munin though has gotten better still could take more looking at. still dont see why people would fly it over alot of the other HACs
Vagabond is not a monster. 4 mid slots and lack of CPU to fit a good ASB (Because no way you can use nromal booster with 4 slots).
This change means ZERO.. NADA to vagabond. Good vagabond pilots avoid damage.. and the increase in tank potential... is not worth the risk . |
To mare
Advanced Technology
218
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:22:00 -
[1192] - Quote
seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
445
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:24:00 -
[1193] - Quote
To mare wrote:seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs
I would have given the following bonus to vagabond
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% Signature radius reduction per level 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
359
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:32:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:To mare wrote:seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs I would have given the following bonus to vagabond Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% Signature radius reduction per level 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
The problem with that bonus is you could argue quite rightly that should be included in its profile much like the max velocity one was .. so a mwd sig reduction would make more sense Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
359
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:34:00 -
[1195] - Quote
It look s to me like these are just going to end up as slightly quicker versions of navy bc's minus the hefty tank and sig radius and dps.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
123
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:47:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Internet Explorer ate my post. Will edit later. I only correct my own spelling. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1001
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:47:00 -
[1197] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote: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
And no matter how good you'll make them for solo/small skirmish work they'll be stupidly OP in larger numbers.
Yes they need bonus tweaks and fittings adjustments, more CPU PG and either +1 slot or +1 rig slot -I'd rather see another rig but wouldn't mind rig+slot.
Eve is about numbers no matter how much we argue about who's right or not, CCP dev's already said it many times and even delivered videos where comment starts "Eve is about numbers" so no need to consider solo snowflakes.
Pick the T1 version:
-make it tankier ? hell yes -higher dps and range application? -hell yes
-give them better fittings so they don't have to use fitting rigs or mods? again yes !! *a huge chunk of interest is given away to T1's advantage at each fitting rig/mod fitted to the hull, which is not much of a problem in small skirmish/solo job because they're not really bad at this but when you stack numbers the drawback becomes exponential for little gain over T1 ships
Then add med long range weapons changes, for the sake of a good example who will end terribly is rails change, first rails changes they got about 15% tracking, some rof taken away and given a better dmg multiplier on top of fittings. Now the best bonus rails need to ever apply dmg is being taken away (tracking) add some rof and dmg but nullifies the dmg increase because of lower tracking which means without several TE's and TC's making the poor ship even worst than a T1 he will not be able to compete with T1 versions.
This is the current silliness: T1's in numbers with support can easily kill same numbers of T2's which should be possible by fleet tactics and players/FC's awareness but not because T2 HACs are simply terrible, and for each T2 HAC you kill they need to kill about 6 T1 versions, there's no T2 HAC currently that can deal with as much DPS from 6 T1's, this ratio needs to be lowered at 1:3 at least which means T2 versions are in need of huge changes and not the simple ones proposed. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
359
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:53:00 -
[1198] - Quote
I massively dislike trying to make all ships blob doctrines... what happened to encouraging small gangs ... HAC's should be the ultimate in small gang skirmish warfare ..... we don't need more fleet ships we have plenty of those. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
218
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:53:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:To mare wrote:seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs I would have given the following bonus to vagabond Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% Signature radius reduction per level 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage make sense because it get the same bonus of the T1 version for the cruiser skill, but would like to see something more assault-ish then a sig bonus still dont know what. would love to see a -5% mass per level but yeah i know its not gonna happen |
Xiamar
Bite Me inc Bitten.
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:55:00 -
[1200] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised.
OK...so I as I understand it CCP's vision is to make these things DPS boats and then they plan to balance (for balance read nerf the ever living s**t out of) T3's, so that they offer more flexibility, but do less DPS than a HAC.
So as proposed this is supposed to be a baseline for the coming T3 nerf...I think I may have stumbled upon a small problem here, most of these ships with the obvious exception of the Deimos do very little dps, certainly they offer a minimal improvement over T1 or navy faction cruisers, because when you balanced those (for balance read made retardedly over powered), you gave them far too much DPS.
I live in w-space and mostly fly T3s because they are the most effective mass to weight ship in the game, if your vision is to make T3's have less effective dps than a HAC, so it is marginally better than a T1 cruiser, what am I supposed to fly as an alternative if I want to pump out some dps? It isn't HACs as you currently envision them, they're too fragile are absurdly ineffective for their price tags and have too little dps.
If I'm supposed to fly this instead of T3s in the future, you need to increase the dps across the board by at least 20% and restore the resist bonus to 5% per level, the ships as proposed, are weak on dps, weak on tank and just generally weak.
You might have been shouting at the top of your lungs that T2 was not going to get buffed as much as T1s were, but how about listening with your ears? These ships need a DPS buff, they need a tank buff, we need a reason to fly them and at the moment you just haven't given us one.
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
445
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 11:58:00 -
[1201] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:To mare wrote:seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs I would have given the following bonus to vagabond Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% Signature radius reduction per level 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage The problem with that bonus is you could argue quite rightly that should be included in its profile much like the max velocity one was .. so a mwd sig reduction would make more sense
Nope.. because the bonus would apply over the total sgianture radius... AFTER you added the extenders and rigs. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:14:00 -
[1202] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus.
Nice idea, something like vaga speed bonus that was built into hull. If they do that and give another missile bonus this will be pure brawl ship |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1158
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:17:00 -
[1203] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:To mare wrote:seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs I would have given the following bonus to vagabond Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% Signature radius reduction per level 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
I don't want a linky vaga that can sig tank frigates thank you very much. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:21:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Xiamar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised. OK...so I as I understand it CCP's vision is to make these things DPS boats and then they plan to balance (for balance read nerf the ever living s**t out of) T3's, so that they offer more flexibility, but do less DPS than a HAC. So as proposed this is supposed to be a baseline for the coming T3 nerf...I think I may have stumbled upon a small problem here, most of these ships with the obvious exception of the Deimos do very little dps, certainly they offer a minimal improvement over T1 or navy faction cruisers, because when you balanced those (for balance read made retardedly over powered), you gave them far too much DPS. I live in w-space and mostly fly T3s because they are the most effective mass to weight ship in the game, if your vision is to make T3's have less effective dps than a HAC, so it is marginally better than a T1 cruiser, what am I supposed to fly as an alternative if I want to pump out some dps? It isn't HACs as you currently envision them, they're too fragile are absurdly ineffective for their price tags and have too little dps. If I'm supposed to fly this instead of T3s in the future, you need to increase the dps across the board by at least 20% and restore the resist bonus to 5% per level, the ships as proposed, are weak on dps, weak on tank and just generally weak. You might have been shouting at the top of your lungs that T2 was not going to get buffed as much as T1s were, but how about listening with your ears? These ships need a DPS buff, they need a tank buff, we need a reason to fly them and at the moment you just haven't given us one. ^^this
currently HACs do have somewhat better tank and marginally better dps but still they don't justify their price. Btw i really liked T1 rebalance they did and was hoping they'll do the same with T2...
|
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
225
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:21:00 -
[1205] - Quote
Am i the only one that thinks that its kind of strange that Caldari have both missile and hybrid HAC, Gallente have drone and hybrid HAC, but there is no drone HAC for Amarr and no missile HAC for Minmatar?
Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:27:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Am i the only one that thinks that its kind of strange that Caldari have both missile and hybrid HAC, Gallente have drone and hybrid HAC, but there is no drone HAC for Amarr and no missile HAC for Minmatar?
Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente.
Amarr doesn't need another drone boat after prophecy and armageddon but minmatars could have traditional split weapon system |
Alsyth
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:27:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente.
Gallente keep whining about their 2 BCs having tanking bonuses... For a good reason. Let's not gimp Ishtar or Deimos with a bad active armor rep bonus please. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1347
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:29:00 -
[1208] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente. Gallente keep whining about their 2 BCs having tanking bonuses... For a good reason. Let's not gimp Ishtar or Deimos with a bad active armor rep bonus please. A nice armor HP bonus would be a nice addition to one of the Gallente ships. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
359
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:33:00 -
[1209] - Quote
raawe wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Am i the only one that thinks that its kind of strange that Caldari have both missile and hybrid HAC, Gallente have drone and hybrid HAC, but there is no drone HAC for Amarr and no missile HAC for Minmatar?
Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente. Amarr doesn't need another drone boat after prophecy and armageddon but minmatars could have traditional split weapon system
Maybe muninn could be HAM boat split with Arties .. even the Sacrilege could get a drone bonus to replace its cap recharge bonus would have same drone capability as the gnosis but could be given extra dronebay for spares. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
446
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:41:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:To mare wrote:seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs I would have given the following bonus to vagabond Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% Signature radius reduction per level 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage I don't want a linky vaga that can sig tank frigates thank you very much.
Such stupid statement should basically ensure that anything you post will be disregarded from now on. And If you fail to understand why, you should check the signature resolution of small weapons against vagabond signature.... |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
446
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 12:43:00 -
[1211] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Am i the only one that thinks that its kind of strange that Caldari have both missile and hybrid HAC, Gallente have drone and hybrid HAC, but there is no drone HAC for Amarr and no missile HAC for Minmatar?
Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente.
Because homogenization is BAD. Amarr have missile and laser.... other division. Matari have AC focused and arti focused.. another clear division. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 13:03:00 -
[1212] - 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 |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
226
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 13:11:00 -
[1213] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:To mare wrote:seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs I would have given the following bonus to vagabond Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% Signature radius reduction per level 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage I don't want a linky vaga that can sig tank frigates thank you very much.
Because basing all ship balance on solo pilots having links is a really good idea.
I swear to god I dont understand anybody wanting anything happen to the Vaga other than it getting its DPS and Range bumped up, it doesnt need more mids, it doesnt need a tanking bonus, it doesnt need anything other than to actually be able to apply a decent amount of DPS to range.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
314
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 13:15:00 -
[1214] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I massively dislike trying to make all ships blob doctrines... what happened to encouraging small gangs ... HAC's should be the ultimate in small gang skirmish warfare ..... we don't need more fleet ships we have plenty of those.
The issue being that hac don't skirmish better than battle cruisers.
You generally arent going to tank medium weapons. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
170
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 13:21:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: Maybe muninn could be HAM boat split with Arties ..
Nope.gif
CCP scrapped split weapons systems for a reason. It took a while to get to the Naglfar, but they finallly finished, lets not gimp another ship.
Konfuchie wrote: Zealot is so bad compared to Legion or Oracle that it will still be used only for ahacs pilots that have no money or skills to fly a Legion.
To be fair, all HACs are bad compared to any other ship. Comparing an insufficiently buffed HAC to a ship that hasn't been rebalanced (I'm talking about the Oracle as much as I am the Legion, again, careful with those T3s CCP!)
CCP needs to buff HACs so that they are worth the higher cost over T1 cruisers, which were so overbuffed... How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1113
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 13:33:00 -
[1216] - Quote
raawe wrote:Xiamar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised. OK...so I as I understand it CCP's vision is to make these things DPS boats and then they plan to balance (for balance read nerf the ever living s**t out of) T3's, so that they offer more flexibility, but do less DPS than a HAC. So as proposed this is supposed to be a baseline for the coming T3 nerf...I think I may have stumbled upon a small problem here, most of these ships with the obvious exception of the Deimos do very little dps, certainly they offer a minimal improvement over T1 or navy faction cruisers, because when you balanced those (for balance read made retardedly over powered), you gave them far too much DPS. I live in w-space and mostly fly T3s because they are the most effective mass to weight ship in the game, if your vision is to make T3's have less effective dps than a HAC, so it is marginally better than a T1 cruiser, what am I supposed to fly as an alternative if I want to pump out some dps? It isn't HACs as you currently envision them, they're too fragile are absurdly ineffective for their price tags and have too little dps. If I'm supposed to fly this instead of T3s in the future, you need to increase the dps across the board by at least 20% and restore the resist bonus to 5% per level, the ships as proposed, are weak on dps, weak on tank and just generally weak. You might have been shouting at the top of your lungs that T2 was not going to get buffed as much as T1s were, but how about listening with your ears? These ships need a DPS buff, they need a tank buff, we need a reason to fly them and at the moment you just haven't given us one. ^^this currently HACs do have somewhat better tank and marginally better dps but still they don't justify their price. Btw i really liked T1 rebalance they did and was hoping they'll do the same with T2...
CCP made it VERY clear at Fanfest that they never planned on people living in wh's fulltime, and they, and most of the null sec dominated CSM, have zero use for anything a wh player says or cares about (how many years did wh people have to endure not being able to switch mods at a POS, and are STILL dealing with the huge refining penalty?).
I am sure the 2 wh reps are screaming blue murder at all the proposed nerfs they are seeing, but it won't matter. T3's will be destroyed as a viable ship class, because CCP will use these anemic HAC's as a baseline for DPS.
I have a Loki and a Proteus, and just enjoying them as much as I can now, before they are turned into garbage. I also have my beloved Ishtar, that is STILL garbage. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
449
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 13:39:00 -
[1217] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:To mare wrote:seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs I would have given the following bonus to vagabond Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% Signature radius reduction per level 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage I don't want a linky vaga that can sig tank frigates thank you very much. Because basing all ship balance on solo pilots having links is a really good idea. I swear to god I dont understand anybody wanting anything happen to the Vaga other than it getting its DPS and Range bumped up, it doesnt need more mids, it doesnt need a tanking bonus, it doesnt need anything other than to actually be able to apply a decent amount of DPS to range.
My point on the mids was. IF they are adamant on keepign shield boost bonus. Then it needs a 5th mid. |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:13:00 -
[1218] - Quote
Your math on the Vagabond speed is wrong. 239*1.25 rounded is 300, not 290. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
123
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:26:00 -
[1219] - Quote
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) I only correct my own spelling. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
170
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:31:00 -
[1220] - Quote
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". How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
227
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:40:00 -
[1221] - Quote
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. |
Nightfox BloodRaven
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis Dragonaors
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:47:00 -
[1222] - Quote
I honestly wouldnt fly any of these overpriced ****** ships.. Navy cruiser cheaper and way better.. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:49:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Quote: am sure the 2 wh reps are screaming blue murder at all the proposed nerfs they are seeing, but it won't matter. T3's will be destroyed as a viable ship class, because CCP will use these anemic HAC's as a baseline for DPS.
I have a Loki and a Proteus, and just enjoying them as much as I can now, before they are turned into garbage. I also have my beloved Ishtar, that is STILL garbage.
Regarding T3, I'm sure it has the same problem other MMOs like WoW had. They bring in ship or whatever that was meant for PvE, something that can be used however in PvP as well. It causes in somewhat balance issues in PvP. Things need to be adjusted (read: nerfed) due to the PvP balance but PvE is the one that actually takes a bigger hit.
Not the first time I'll be seeing that one. However, I must say then again, it is just like back then with the pre-nerfed Dramiel. It was just too good at everything. I too wished the other frigates and such could have been buffed closer to its potentials, but in the end, CCP chose to bring it down, for the better.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
738
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 14:56:00 -
[1224] - Quote
raawe wrote:Nice idea, something like vaga speed bonus that was built into hull. If they do that and give another missile bonus this will be pure brawl ship Would rather the freed up bonus be neut/nos amount to deepen the target pool when brawling and give it the option of something other than secondary dps in a gang.
But if HACs are really meant to be nothing more than slightly souped up T1 cruisers then all our wishes will be for naught and the majority of the ships will never see significant use, what with tier3 BCs not getting the deserved nerf and T1 cruisers being top performers in the cost/benefit index.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
171
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:09:00 -
[1225] - 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.
The DPS is bad too, yes, but if CCP wants us to ASB it then it needs enough HP to not get alpha'd whenver an ABC gets on the field (nerf those things, take two guns off or something but they're ridiculous. The Talos is one of the reasons they nerfed TEs, when they could have just nerfed the Talos instead.) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:11:00 -
[1226] - Quote
i think we should not compare new hacs to tech 3 cause what ccp said about what they want to do to t3 is to make em more flexible but performe less in specialized fits.
so i think we should focus on getting ships in a state where they are worth to be flown regardless if hteres a t3 that does the same thing better. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
171
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:22:00 -
[1227] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:Quote: am sure the 2 wh reps are screaming blue murder at all the proposed nerfs they are seeing, but it won't matter. T3's will be destroyed as a viable ship class, because CCP will use these anemic HAC's as a baseline for DPS.
I have a Loki and a Proteus, and just enjoying them as much as I can now, before they are turned into garbage. I also have my beloved Ishtar, that is STILL garbage. Regarding T3, I'm sure it has the same problem other MMOs like WoW had. They bring in ship or whatever that was meant for PvE, something that can be used however in PvP as well. It causes in somewhat balance issues in PvP. Things need to be adjusted (read: nerfed) due to the PvP balance but PvE is the one that actually takes a bigger hit.
Booster T3s and Command ships should have their bonuses swapped. Other than that, some mild EHP nerf on the Proteus and Legion, a mild DPS nerf on the Proteus maybe, that is all.
The problem with T3s is that there isn't one. They aren't replacing HACs, and they aren't over used. (Wormholes are different from the rest of EVE.)
If T3s were as OP as everyone claims they would be topping the evekill top 20, but they aren't. Nobody ever gives a specific problem with T3s, they just say they're OP. If someone can give me some actual EVIDENCE as to what is OP and why T3s are suddenly so OP, I'll reconsider my views. But until then, T3s are [mostly] fine (except the boosting subsystem). How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
449
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:33:00 -
[1228] - 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.
U understand the concept of the word "IF". If you do.. read my post.. its pretty clear... |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
449
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:34:00 -
[1229] - Quote
Witchking Angmar wrote:Your math on the Vagabond speed is wrong. 239*1.25 rounded is 300, not 290.
Hey that is REALLY important!!!!
Any words on that RISE? |
Vtra
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:34:00 -
[1230] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vayn Baxtor wrote:Quote: am sure the 2 wh reps are screaming blue murder at all the proposed nerfs they are seeing, but it won't matter. T3's will be destroyed as a viable ship class, because CCP will use these anemic HAC's as a baseline for DPS.
I have a Loki and a Proteus, and just enjoying them as much as I can now, before they are turned into garbage. I also have my beloved Ishtar, that is STILL garbage. Regarding T3, I'm sure it has the same problem other MMOs like WoW had. They bring in ship or whatever that was meant for PvE, something that can be used however in PvP as well. It causes in somewhat balance issues in PvP. Things need to be adjusted (read: nerfed) due to the PvP balance but PvE is the one that actually takes a bigger hit. Booster T3s and Command ships should have their bonuses swapped. Other than that, some mild EHP nerf on the Proteus and Legion, a mild DPS nerf on the Proteus maybe, that is all. The problem with T3s is that there isn't one. They aren't replacing HACs, and they aren't over used. (Wormholes are different from the rest of EVE.) If T3s were as OP as everyone claims they would be topping the evekill top 20, but they aren't. Nobody ever gives a specific problem with T3s, they just say they're OP. If someone can give me some actual EVIDENCE as to what is OP and why T3s are suddenly so OP, I'll reconsider my views. But until then, T3s are [mostly] fine (except the boosting subsystem).
Only people that ***** about the boosting T-3's are the ones that do not have access to one plain and simple.... stop it! |
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1016
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:40:00 -
[1231] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Cearain wrote:I think the navy cruisers should generally be higher speed and lower sig.
But really eve is about creative fittings. Most ships shouldn't have set "roles" ccp should give them some reasonable bonuses, slots and stats for the cost and let the players figure out how to use them. That is T1 territory, T2 is supposed to take one and amplify it at the cost of other options without removing said options entirely .. question is if CCP are still playing by those guidelines as there are several T1 revisions that would be more appropriate on T2 and vice versa,
I'm not really seeing what you say with the t2 frigates versus navy frigates.
The frigate/destroyer classes may not be perfect but they work well, and they follow the general guideline I gave.
Navy frigates generally are faster than t2 but t2 offers more dps and tank. Pirate ships tend to be even faster than the navy frigates and have the same dps as t2 but not the tank.
Destroyers are sort of like the bcs. They are bigger and slower than the t2 frigates. But they tend to have about the same tank and dps. Their slow speed is compensated by being more affordable than the t2 frigates.
The same general model can be followed for cruisers.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
360
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:41:00 -
[1232] - Quote
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... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:47:00 -
[1233] - Quote
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...
if you want compare ships by sipmple numbers atleast do it right and use "applied dps / ehp"
and yes im aware it does not work like that which is the reason for this post |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:54:00 -
[1234] - 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 |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
173
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:55:00 -
[1235] - Quote
Vtra wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vayn Baxtor wrote:Quote: am sure the 2 wh reps are screaming blue murder at all the proposed nerfs they are seeing, but it won't matter. T3's will be destroyed as a viable ship class, because CCP will use these anemic HAC's as a baseline for DPS.
I have a Loki and a Proteus, and just enjoying them as much as I can now, before they are turned into garbage. I also have my beloved Ishtar, that is STILL garbage. Regarding T3, I'm sure it has the same problem other MMOs like WoW had. They bring in ship or whatever that was meant for PvE, something that can be used however in PvP as well. It causes in somewhat balance issues in PvP. Things need to be adjusted (read: nerfed) due to the PvP balance but PvE is the one that actually takes a bigger hit. Booster T3s and Command ships should have their bonuses swapped. Other than that, some mild EHP nerf on the Proteus and Legion, a mild DPS nerf on the Proteus maybe, that is all. The problem with T3s is that there isn't one. They aren't replacing HACs, and they aren't over used. (Wormholes are different from the rest of EVE.) If T3s were as OP as everyone claims they would be topping the evekill top 20, but they aren't. Nobody ever gives a specific problem with T3s, they just say they're OP. If someone can give me some actual EVIDENCE as to what is OP and why T3s are suddenly so OP, I'll reconsider my views. But until then, T3s are [mostly] fine (except the boosting subsystem). Only people that ***** about the boosting T-3's are the ones that do not have access to one plain and simple.... stop it!
Except they're stronger than Command ships, and T3s aren't supposed to be better than their T2 counterparts I honestly think T3s should be compared to Command ships, not HACs How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Vtra
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:59:00 -
[1236] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vtra wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vayn Baxtor wrote:Quote: am sure the 2 wh reps are screaming blue murder at all the proposed nerfs they are seeing, but it won't matter. T3's will be destroyed as a viable ship class, because CCP will use these anemic HAC's as a baseline for DPS.
I have a Loki and a Proteus, and just enjoying them as much as I can now, before they are turned into garbage. I also have my beloved Ishtar, that is STILL garbage. Regarding T3, I'm sure it has the same problem other MMOs like WoW had. They bring in ship or whatever that was meant for PvE, something that can be used however in PvP as well. It causes in somewhat balance issues in PvP. Things need to be adjusted (read: nerfed) due to the PvP balance but PvE is the one that actually takes a bigger hit. Booster T3s and Command ships should have their bonuses swapped. Other than that, some mild EHP nerf on the Proteus and Legion, a mild DPS nerf on the Proteus maybe, that is all. The problem with T3s is that there isn't one. They aren't replacing HACs, and they aren't over used. (Wormholes are different from the rest of EVE.) If T3s were as OP as everyone claims they would be topping the evekill top 20, but they aren't. Nobody ever gives a specific problem with T3s, they just say they're OP. If someone can give me some actual EVIDENCE as to what is OP and why T3s are suddenly so OP, I'll reconsider my views. But until then, T3s are [mostly] fine (except the boosting subsystem). Only people that ***** about the boosting T-3's are the ones that do not have access to one plain and simple.... stop it! Except they're stronger than Command ships, and T3s aren't supposed to be better than their T2 counterparts I honestly think T3s should be compared to Command ships, not HACs
Agreed the bonus's should be swapped and that should be the end of it. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
173
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 16:03:00 -
[1237] - Quote
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...
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] How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
5500
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 16:06:00 -
[1238] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vtra wrote:
Only people that ***** about the boosting T-3's are the ones that do not have access to one plain and simple.... stop it!
Except they're stronger than Command ships, and T3s aren't supposed to be better than their T2 counterparts I honestly think T3s should be compared to Command ships, not HACs That's fine, but then they need to lose their cruiser speed, mass, agility and sig radius. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 16:11:00 -
[1239] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vtra wrote:
Only people that ***** about the boosting T-3's are the ones that do not have access to one plain and simple.... stop it!
Except they're stronger than Command ships, and T3s aren't supposed to be better than their T2 counterparts I honestly think T3s should be compared to Command ships, not HACs That's fine, but then they need to lose their cruiser speed, mass, agility and sig radius.
Wouldn't be worth the cost then.
Command ship EHP/DPS Cruiser mobility
Then it would be worth the 400m plus SP loss. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 16:26:00 -
[1240] - Quote
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] |
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 16:39:00 -
[1241] - 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). |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 16:43:00 -
[1242] - Quote
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]
this is such a terrible comparison with cherry picked and distorted numbers, and probably a guideline on "how not to compare things".
-you are comparing the DPS from a Void shooting blaster ship to a faction shooting AC ship, at least use Hail in the comparison
-You do not lose levels in strategic cruiser from dying, only subsystems, so the worst case scenario for SP loss is 4 days, and only one if you lise a 4>3
-the typical price of a rigged T2 fit thorax is approximately 30-40 million, not 10.
-It's impossible to have a full rack of neutron blasters on an armor thorax without making extensive use of fitting mods, so your "example" must either use 2 ACR and a 800mm plate, or be a shield thorax (which you can't really compare to an armor Loki). either way, the EHP of the thorax will not top 20k. The more common armor thorax fits use ion blasters, and only have 1 magstab, dropping their DPS to 400
If you want to compare a thorax to a T3, compare it to a similar armor blaster proteus, rather than a loki.
DPS, Ion blasters for thorax, Neutron Blasters for Proteus, both shooting void.
Thorax - 532 with a flight of Valkyrie II drones Proteus - 737
Tank
Thorax - 28k Proteus - 147k
the price for the fits used in the comparison and 35mil and 450mil respectively, so for a 13 fold increase in price, the Proteus gets 50% more DPS and 5 times more tank. http://themittani.com -á- your one stop site for all News Eve Related |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3174
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 16:44:00 -
[1243] - Quote
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.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 16:49:00 -
[1244] - Quote
NetheranE wrote:Ja'ho sun wrote:NetheranE wrote: *snippage* <
the cost and effort to build HACs does not warrant the need for reduced effects of ecm. the 10% to fleet bonus is just silly, as well as the remote assistance idea. plus the reduced sig bloom to micro is awesome. instead of getting hit for just about full dng every time, incoming dps has now dropped just about 30%. that's with just the role bonus alone. not a useless role bonus. the cerb needs only 5 more grid to fit the extra launcher. 150 more PG is just too much and leaves me thinking, wtf are u trying to fit on the damn thing. dropping the ROF bonus would cripple the cerb, and the ship does enough dps to melt faces that much more with the new launcher slot. CCP Rise just expanded its already great ability that much more. I agree on the diemos it needs to have its hp back. I mean really its not a shield tanked ship its armor plz fix this the cost of HACs is EXACTLY what warrants this kind of powerhouse bonus. A 10% fleet bonus would simply give ~3% more resistance, or ~5% more tackle range, and ~2.5% smaller sig. very small bonuses that should simply compile to pull them over their t1 and navy counter parts (which are still better with these changes, dont you see a problem there?) The RR bonus would actually give flesh to the ships, as their minuscule tanks are a critical problem to their use and success. The EWAR bonus is simply something that doesnt make them immune, as its a RESISTANCE, but give them an advantage in gang and fleet warefare. A 25% resistance to webs simply means instead of being 60% webbed you get 45% webbed. So you're still slowed, you're just not :gg: slowed like a thorax would be. Also, at ~1000-1500% the cost of a t1 cruiser, they had better be at LEAST 100% better. what kind of fool are you? do you leave your MWD running permanently in a fight? As I specifically listed, there are practically no HACs that leave their MWD running sufficiently long to warrant a reduction in their sig bloom. Most HACs wont even be under fire most of the time before their MWDs are off, so the amount of actual time that the bonus is even applicable is negligible. l2logic have you TRIED to fit a cerb with more than 1 large shield extender WITHOUT a bunch of cap-gobbling hardeners? I assume not. I dont have my EFT on this computer, otherwise is throw fit after fit at you until your dense skull has accepted the obvious. Dropping the RoF bonus, WHILE gaining 5% MORE damage per level would not cripple the cerb, but simply shift its damage style. Rather than a constant flow of dps, it has spaced hammering volleys, which is perfectly fine. How about you learn to read, come back to my post, and try to take it all in at once, before you start picking more of my statements out of context and generally missing the entire point of my post? kthnxbye
so not needed to insult ppl to get ur point across. the cost does not warrant the need. period. if u cant see that then what else can I say.
in regard to the fleet bonus, it not just the 3% resists the armor will give that is of concern here, its the other bonuses that can effect it as well for example loki links. I think ppl rage enough about them. even if u were to limit link types, the duel rep setups would become an issue. 3% may not seem like much, but when put in the right hands it becomes something u just don't fight without loads of ppl.
with ships like the vaga, cerb and shield Ishtar, the micro bonus is again not lost. these ships need to keep range when under fire or not. how can u expect some1 who is getting shot, trying to stay at range to just cut their micro so their sig goes down? this will lead to a dead kiting ship. before u go on to say anything about perms micro in a kiting ship, no1 should do this and I doubt any1 does if they know what they are doing.
taking this into account when running micro with this boost u will be able to reduce the damage by flying right. at this point in time, if ur in range of a talos no matter wat u do u wil get hit for just about full damage. the cerb should not fit 2 extenders, its a cruiser not a BC. removing the ROF bonus on the cerb will make heavies pointless to fit. as it is atm (pre-patch) u can only push at max 440 dps before heat, a little more the 500 with heat. it gets worse with HAC lvl 4. this is the same with hams, there reason for ROF on ham boats. hams don't have the volley and heavies don't have the ROF.
the exception to this rule is the drake due to its excessive tank ability.
|
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
636
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 16:51:00 -
[1245] - Quote
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 OMG when can i get a pic here
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:02:00 -
[1246] - 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." |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:06:00 -
[1247] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote: ~Stuff about how T3s are OP~
I call BS on your tank numbers. A T2 fit Proteus will have 114k EHP, not 147k EHP. To get that 147k EHP, T2 trimarks and faction resist modules would be required.
If a Thorax costs 30m, and a Proteus costs 400m, you get 50% more DPS and 4x more tank, for thirteen times the cost, PLUS you risk your SP every time you fly it.
Given the unique SP loss and the extreme jump in cost, that seems quite balanced. The only change I would make is change the Proteus's tank bonus from 10% per level to 5% per level, since that's what the Loki has. I'd do the same thing to the Legion's armor HP bonus. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:08:00 -
[1248] - Quote
I wanted to take the time to add my piece.
These changes are utterly disappointing. I've been looking forward to the hac buff for years. Everyone's known they needed something new and something to make them exciting for the longest time. This is a chance to do that, and instead were getting anywhere from no buff to something that makes them a tiny bit better at what they already do.
This isn't what anyone wants, and it'd be such a horrible waste to do only this to hacs. Have an inch of creativity, please |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:16:00 -
[1249] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Honestly, stop calling for a T3 nerf until after HACs get a reasonable buff. This is just the first pass, they will make another pass, and that better have more EHP/DPS.
This (one of the sanest arguments thus far). |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
177
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:17:00 -
[1250] - Quote
Roime wrote:
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.
What I want to know is where are you that a Thorax costs 40m?
5x Ions = 6.5m Scram, Web, MWD, utility mid, = 4m DCU, 800mm, 2x EANM, Mag Stab, = 5m 3x Trimarks = 8.1m Thorax Hull = 10m
Total = 33.6m Stop exagerating the price of a T1 cruiser.
Now the Proteus DPS, 845 DPS with 3 T2 magstabs, 6x Neutrons witih Void
Cost difference ~ 12 times as much
Stop exaggerating the DPS and cost difference to advance your position.
HACs suck. This buff is not enough. Look at the other comments, no one is happy with these changes, they are insufficient. You are comparing T3s, which are fine and not at all overused, to the single worst ship class in EVE.
Stop being a bad.
Now maybe we should discuss buffing HACs? After all, this is a HAC buff thread. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1161
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:25:00 -
[1251] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Now maybe we should discuss buffing HACs? After all, this is a HAC buff thread.
no its not a buff thread its a balance thread... some stuff get a buff others get thier balls cutt of and worn around rises head. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
269
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:25:00 -
[1252] - Quote
power creep!
its NOT power creep when u are rebalancing. you set t1 cruiser power level, not set t2 HEAVY ASSAULT cruisers at their power level. things have grown up around these tech 2 critters and gotten more powerful in general.
they need to follow the path set aside for them already.
i DO understand that these ships are specialists. they specialize in dps and survival. recon specialize in ewar and/or stealth. logi, healing.
hacs tho...HEAVE ASSAULT SHIPS. they dish out damage. they survive encounters. they have massive training times compaired to t1 cruisers, therefore should be masters of their trade (which is bringin the pain). |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
177
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:36:00 -
[1253] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Now maybe we should discuss buffing HACs? After all, this is a HAC buff thread.
no its not a buff thread its a balance thread... some stuff get a buff others get thier balls cutt of and worn around rises head.
Balance thread? Lets be honest, it needs to be a buff thread. Even if Rise is determined to break some HACs (dat shield booster bonus on the Loki) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
SkyMeetFire
The Rising Stars The Initiative.
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:42:00 -
[1254] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.
So I have a question about the Sacrilege and about Khanid ships in general. I'll try to keep it brief since I know you have plenty of other comments to read.
Comparing the Vaga to the Sacrilege, why does the Vaga, an already popular and powerful ship, get its previous bonus rolled into the hull and a second bonus to buff an already powerful configuration (ASB w/ABs), while the Sacrilege, which I'd guess is rather unpopular, does not. I can understand a second tanking bonus being overpowered, but isn't there other options with damage application (such as missile explosion velocity bonus) or mobility control (perhaps a weak web bonus?) that would help its role or current shortcomings better?
Regarding Khanid Ships, why is it considered balanced in the design that they have predominately received only a bonus to the damage of the short range variant of the weapon system? This is a feature not found on any race in the game (Stealth Bombers are the only other ships with a short only bonus, which are consistent across races), and it only serves to reinforce Amarrs relative lack of flexibility compared to the other races. Or is the removal of this feature on the new Sacrilege an admission that it is not actually balanced? I would not mind seeing the Heretic, Vengence, Malediction, and the new combat oriented Damnation following this trend.
Oh and a question to pass along to the art/lore guys - Why is the Purifier manufactured by Vizam and not Khanid? It seems as far as lore it would make more sense, and I think a Khanid skin would look incredible on the new Purifier model.
Other than my reservations on the Sacrilege, I think you are doing a great job with the balancing pass. Keep up the good work, and I eagerly anticipate your revised balancing proposals. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:50:00 -
[1255] - Quote
The sacrilege would make sense with a missile velocity bonus .. maybe a 5% too keep cerb as the more kitey one.
On the cerb i was really hoping that flight time would be removed for a explosion velocity bonus .. like a big corax as no one uses the cerb for sniping . Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3176
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:54:00 -
[1256] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: What I want to know is where are you that a Thorax costs 40m?
5x Ions = 6.5m Scram, Web, MWD, utility mid, = 4m DCU, 800mm, 2x EANM, Mag Stab, = 5m 3x Trimarks = 8.1m Thorax Hull = 10m
Total = 33.6m Stop exagerating the price of a T1 cruiser.
Now the Proteus DPS, 845 DPS with 3 T2 magstabs, 6x Neutrons witih Void
Cost difference ~ 12 times as much
Stop exaggerating the DPS and cost difference to advance your position.
HACs suck. This buff is not enough. Look at the other comments, no one is happy with these changes, they are insufficient. You are comparing T3s, which are fine and not at all overused, to the single worst ship class in EVE.
Stop being a bad.
Now maybe we should discuss buffing HACs? After all, this is a HAC buff thread.
You said Thorax only costs 10mil?
Anyway, EFT land, where the price of that setup is 38.7mil. My Thorax lossmails are closer to 50mil.
Proteus has a flight of Hammers, like Thorax- which incidentally does only 367dps without drones, less than half.
Yes, I obviously agree that this HAC rebalancing effort was terrible and CCP needs to go back to the drawing board, but that doesn't change the fact that T3s are indeed OP- compared to any other ship class in EVE, not just HACs. And these two cannot be looked into in isolation, HACs and T3s in HAC fits share the exact same role.
Unless they are given a distinctly separate role, and T3s adjusted further from that, these two will always compete from the same role and the one with more dps and tank wins. Buffing HACs to compete with current T3s just results in new, massively OP ships.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1162
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 17:56:00 -
[1257] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:The sacrilege would make sense with a missile velocity bonus .. maybe a 5% too keep cerb as the more kitey one.
On the cerb i was really hoping that flight time would be removed for a explosion velocity bonus .. like a big corax as no one uses the cerb for sniping .
i think allot of the sacs problems would be fixed if ccp just added te/tc to work on missiles. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
177
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 18:00:00 -
[1258] - Quote
Roime wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: ~Snip~
You said Thorax only costs 10mil? Anyway, EFT land, where the price of that setup is 38.7mil. My Thorax lossmails are closer to 50mil. Proteus has a flight of Hammers, like Thorax- which incidentally does only 367dps without drones, less than half. Yes, I obviously agree that this HAC rebalancing effort was terrible and CCP needs to go back to the drawing board, but that doesn't change the fact that T3s are indeed OP- compared to any other ship class in EVE, not just HACs. And these two cannot be looked into in isolation, HACs and T3s in HAC fits share the exact same role. Unless they are given a distinctly separate role, and T3s adjusted further from that, these two will always compete from the same role and the one with more dps and tank wins. Buffing HACs to compete with current T3s just results in new, massively OP ships.
Thorax hull costs 10m And in Jita, a Thorax costs 33.9m, so EVE's pricing system is off again. It probably averages all the regions, and that brings the cost up.
Anyway, Thorax does 400 DPS without drones.
Again, you cannot give me examples of how a T3 is OP! You can say it all you want but you have to give examples, beyond just Thorax VS Proteus.
One overtanked T3 doesn't mean ALL T3s are OP.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 18:14:00 -
[1259] - Quote
Oh SHUT UP!
/reset thread. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
177
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 18:20:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Mr Doctor wrote:Oh SHUT UP!
/reset thread.
I second this
Any word from CCP if they have time before the next weekend of the Alliance Tournament to make changes? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Felix Leclerc
Murgle Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 18:46:00 -
[1261] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: HACs and T3s share a similar role, but T3s cost more and have SP penalties, so they had better have better performance than HACs, otherwise nobody would fly them.
No. T3s cost should be justified by their modularity and ability to outperform a T1 hull in a particular area when fitted for that role. They absolutely should not outperform a T2 (specialist!) hull when fitted for the same role in which the T2 is specialized... Otherwise the T2 becomes somewhat pointless. |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 18:53:00 -
[1262] - Quote
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. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
178
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 18:54:00 -
[1263] - Quote
Felix Leclerc wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: HACs and T3s share a similar role, but T3s cost more and have SP penalties, so they had better have better performance than HACs, otherwise nobody would fly them.
No. T3s cost should be justified by their modularity and ability to outperform a T1 hull in a particular area when fitted for that role. They absolutely should not outperform a T2 (specialist!) hull when fitted for the same role in which the T2 is specialized... Otherwise the T2 becomes somewhat pointless.
Someone needs to make a "nerf T3s" thread.
Modularity doesn't make up for cost, since you can only have one fit at a time, and since rigs can't be removed without destroying them, saying you can change the subsystems and the fit means nothing. To change the fit you need to destroy the rigs (which are often T2, and therefore run about 100m total). This, combined with not being able to swap subs in a POS, means that the modulaity of T3s is somewhat reduced.
T3s don't outclass T3 ships, the one exception is T3 boosting subsystem, which I have said before needs to be brought in line with Command ships.
HACs suck, so if T3s are worse than HACs T3s wouldn't be worth the 400m+ they cost.
Buff HACs, rebalance Command ships THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT T3s. CCP stated they are going to start at the bottom and work their way up, so let them finish with T2 ships first, then we can work on T3s. After all, how can you rebalance T3s to not be better than T2s without knowing how good T2 ships will be?
This isn't a nerf T3s thread, so lets finish with HACs before we jump on the T3 bandwagon. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1162
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 18:58:00 -
[1264] - Quote
ccp rise we need you bro. this thread is turning into a logical fallacy... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 19:07:00 -
[1265] - 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 |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1491
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 19:21:00 -
[1266] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Given the unique SP loss and the extreme jump in cost, that seems quite balanced. T So, none of you eject before your T3 ship goes down?
|
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 19:27:00 -
[1267] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Felix Leclerc wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: ...stuff...
...more stuff... Someone needs to make a "nerf T3s" thread. ...yet more stuff... This isn't a nerf T3s thread, so lets finish with HACs before we jump on the T3 bandwagon.
I agree with the last point. This isn't a nerf T3s thread. It'll be a lot easier for Rise to get the right message from us if we keep it constructive and on topic. Everyone knows that T3s are going to be looked at, Command ships are coming Soon(TM), and :Cynabal:. The issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that the rebalancing passes so far have left the HACs even more 'out in the cold' than they were before the tiericide initiative began.
Everyone knows that HACs currently are stupidly overpriced for the performance. Gains in T1 'value for ISK' have far outstripped them in almost every aspect. My concern is not what these hulls end up costing, it's whether or not the re-balancing creates hulls that are worth buying at all. Over on Jesters Trek Ripard has a post called "Twice as expensive, 25% better." I suggest that you go give it a read, if you haven't already. It pretty much sums up the financial concerns that have arisen from the rebalancing that has been done to date.
We understand that T2s are not meant to be straight-up BETTER in every way than T1/Navy, but they NEED some compelling advantage that makes the hull worth the a) training time and b) 8-10x cost increase. It's sad that several of the proposed 'balanced' HACs STILL underperform to the Navy variants which cost half as much. No, not sad: PATHETIC.
When most pilots look at the Heavy Assault Cruiser lineup, they immediately think about raw combat capability. With very few exceptions ( :cough: Zealot! :cough:) the ability to effectively assault in these hulls is no more inspiring than in the new T1s. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
36
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 19:31:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Felix Leclerc wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: HACs and T3s share a similar role, but T3s cost more and have SP penalties, so they had better have better performance than HACs, otherwise nobody would fly them.
No. T3s cost should be justified by their modularity and ability to outperform a T1 hull in a particular area when fitted for that role. They absolutely should not outperform a T2 (specialist!) hull when fitted for the same role in which the T2 is specialized... Otherwise the T2 becomes somewhat pointless.
LOL tell me again about SPECIALIZED ROLE of HACS are and how they have CLEAR and DEFINED ROLES lol
lol I dont think people would buy T3`s if the only ship they out preform are T1 hulls lol. once you chose your subsystems your basically suck with that configeration unless you want to destroy you rigs.
If they nerf T3`s at all, people might as well just use T2 cruisers, they are cheaper and will do the job better, plus they require less SP to fly, not to mention you wont loss SP when you die. _____________________________________________________________________
From the changes we are seeing.. they are not follow the tiercide approach at all. CCP need to make clear roles for both hacs in in each
Take recon for example: You have Combat Recon: Rook Covert Recon: Falcon
CCP should Make two Roles for HAC and the ships with fill 1 each from each race.
AND NO CCP RISE the SACrilige is not fine the way it is..... and you will disappointed at how few people still will not use it.
|
ManiacZX
Shadowfire Exploration and Security Rura-Penthe
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:18:00 -
[1269] - Quote
An example of a T3 dominating the HAC equivalent is the HAM Legion vs the Sacrilege.
This is not a "T3s are so OP" post but to show how the "specialization" of a HAC is being neutralized by the "generalized" ship.
Sacrilege bonuses (including the proposed changes): Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Assault Missile damage 4% bonus to all armor resistances per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire per level
HAM Legion: Amarr Strategic Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% Reduction in the amount of heat damage absorbed by modules per level
Legion Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter 4% bonus to all armor resistances per level 10% bonus to remote armor repair system effectiveness per level
Legion Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix 5% bonus to capacitor recharge time per level
Legion Offensive - Assault Optimization 5% bonus to heavy assault missile damage per level 5% bonus to missile launcher rate of fire per level
Legion Propulsion - Wake Limiter 5% reduction in microwarpdrive signature radius penalty per level
Legion Electronics - Tactical Targeting Network 15% bonus to scan resolution per level
So the Legion is able to have every single bonus the Sacrilege has and at the same amounts (excluding the new MWD bonus which would be 25% on the Legion and 50% given to the Sacrilege) along with additional bonuses for remote reps and scan resolution (or any of the other Electronics subsystems, I chose this one for slot layout reasons that will follow).
Going beyond the bonuses you'll see the Legion comes out ahead in most stats also:
Sacrilege vs Legion (using all 5s for skills) 6 vs 6 High Slots 4 vs 4 Mid Slots 5 vs 6 Low Slots 2 vs 3 Rig Slots 5 vs 5 Launcher Hardpoints 500 vs 550 CPU 1437.50 vs 1612.50 Powergrid 1,750 vs 2,875 Shield HP 2,625 vs 4,250 Armor HP 2,113 vs 2,443 Hull HP Resists are equal 2,578.13 vs 2,906.25 Capacitor Capacity 251.25 vs 239.06 Capacitor Recharge Time (Smaller is better and with the larger cap pool it makes this even greater) 62,500m vs 75,000m Max Targeting Range 390mm vs 557.81mm Scan Resolution 140m vs 154m Signature Radius (advantage Sacrilege) .382725 vs .380025 Inertia Modifer 11,750,000 vs 12,815,000 Mass (advantage Sacrilege) 6.23 vs 6.75 seconds calculated Warp Align Time (advantage Sacrilege) 250 vs 218.75 m/s Max Velocity (advantage Sacrilege) 615 vs 300 m3 Cargo Capacity (advantage Sacrilege) 50 vs 0 m3 Drone Bay Capacity (advantage Sacrilege) 50 vs 0 Drone Bandwidth (advantage Sacrilege)
The Sacrilege does come out with an advantage in the mobility and supporting up to a flight of Medium drones but falls short in the remaining numbers.
The Legion gets all of the Sacrilege bonuses plus additional ones.
I have difficulty spotting the Specialty vs Generalization here.
This is all just the hull vs hull/subsystems so there is no faction modding being taken into account here. The Legion is still more expensive, would be about 2-3x the price.
Cost and SP risk should be considered and I'm not saying the Sacrilege should beat out the HAM Legion by any means, just that there needs to be some role variation between the two otherwise it comes down to just money and SP which is not good balancing.
Looking at the other HACs vs T3 subsystems it looks like the same general issue remains. The T3s can match the HAC bonuses and carry more along with.
Zealot Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire per level Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage per level
Legion Offensive - Liquid Crystal Magnifier (not a perfect match losing the RoF for a larger Damage bonus but very close and only a single Subsystem needed to do it, leaving the 4 others open to whatever you want) 10% bonus to medium energy turret capacitor use per level 10% bonus to medium energy turret damage per level 10% bonus to medium energy turret optimal range per level
Cerberus Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity per level Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Assault Missile and Heavy Missile flight time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire per level
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay (again one Subsystem close to a full match of a whole ship, you lose some flight time but get higher Rate of Fire) 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile Damage per level 7.5% bonus to Heavy, Heavy Assault and Rapid Light missile launcher rate of fire per level 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault missile velocity per level
Eagle it does take 2 subsystems but all bonuses are matched Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range per level 4% bonus to shield resistances per level. Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level
Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding 4% bonus to all shield resistances per level 10% bonus to shield transporter effectiveness per level Tengu Offensive - Magnetic Infusion Basin 5% bonus to medium hybrid turret damage per level 20% bonus to medium hybrid turret optimal range per level
Proteus and Loki subsystems look to not match up as much to their racial HACs but still have options for similar bonuses and often again only take 1 of the 5 subsystems to do so.
So since HACs are the ones getting the attention, as others have stated, they need to be given a role that makes them stand out from the other ship choices. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:18:00 -
[1270] - Quote
My Proposal for the balanced HACs:
16 module slots on each, except the Ishtar at 15. Create 2 variants of the HAC: "Assault" and "Strike."
The Assault variant is optimized for tanking damage through -slightly- better than average T2 resists and resist bonuses. OP? maybe, but they get no bonuses to mobility or ewar capability, average damage, and fairly poor sig radius. The Strike variant is optimized for kiting/skirmishing, with damage projection bonuses, good base speed and low sig. Damage is not especially high, but damage projection is. raw hit points are only slightly higher than T1, but T2 resists helps.
Assault:
SACRILEGE: The Amarr premier brawling platform, the specially engineered Sacrilege armor has been hardened to extreme levels. (Roll the Cap recharge bonus into the hull.)
ROLE BONUS: +50% to Armor HP
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault, Heavy Missile and Rapid Light Missile damage 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Armor Hit Points 4% to all Armor Resistances
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 6L; Max velocity: 180 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25(+10) / 25(+10) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 312 / 6 Sensor strength: 14 Radar Signature radius: 175
EAGLE: The Caldari have spent significant resources developing the Eagle into their go-to Assault platform.
ROLE BONUS: +50% to Shield HP
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and 5% to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Shield Hit Points 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 6M, 4L; Max velocity: 175 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric Signature radius: 165
ISHTAR: The Gallente pulled out all the stops, and authorized CreoDron to do "whatever is necessary" to make the Ishtar the best drone carrier available in the sub-capital line.
Role Bonus: 50% to Drone microwarp velocity
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 5% to Armor Hit Points
Slot layout: 4H, 5M, 6L; Fittings: 700 PWG, 345 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Max velocity: 165 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 350 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 170
MUNIN: The Minmatar republic commissioned updates to the Munin to decisively respond to leaked intelligence regarding the upgraded Sacrilege
Role Bonus: 50% reduction Armor Plate Mass Penalty and fitting requirements
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
Slot layout: 6H, 3M, 7L; Max velocity: 190 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 294 / 6 Sensor strength: 14 Ladar Signature radius: 160
Let me know what you think! |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:30:00 -
[1271] - Quote
They would end up tanking better than T3's do now ... OP to say the least Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
36
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:43:00 -
[1272] - Quote
I really do like that ASSULT and STRIKE Concept. Maybe lower the HP bonus to 20%
AS for T3 guys, how about be agree to stop talking about them and when the t3 balance thread comes we will discuss then because we arent basing any of the crruent HAC changes on what T3s can do. |
Felix Leclerc
Murgle Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:46:00 -
[1273] - Quote
Baren wrote:I really do like that ASSULT and STRIKE Concept. Maybe lower the HP bonus to 20%
AS for T3 guys, how about be agree to stop talking about them and when the t3 balance thread comes we will discuss then because we arent basing any of the crruent HAC changes on what T3s can do.
Only mentioned it to underline how woefully inadequate the HAC proposal and role definition is. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:47:00 -
[1274] - Quote
EAGLE Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 5L(+1); 5 turrets, 0 launchers(-2) Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+51) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 20 / 20 (+20) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 125 (-25)
I'm really hoping Rise buffs the eagle something like this to make a blaster version worth using it shouldn't be pinned to Rails forever straining to get free. :)
And maybe fix the gaping EM hole would be nice with all those extra resists it has access too just spread them more evenly please along with all the other T2 ships especially having 90% EM resist on some minnie hulls is insane. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:49:00 -
[1275] - Quote
Continuing the proposal:
Strike:
ZEALOT: The Amarr military recommended the Zealot be be upgraded to the latest engine and signature reduction technology to maximize the already impressive weapon guidance systems.
Role Bonus: 150% Incease to Afterburner speed bonus
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 3M, 7L; Max velocity: 240 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 306 / 5 Sensor strength: 14 Radar Signature radius: 120
CERBERUS: The Caldari Navy has repurposed the Cerberus into a fast stike platform, optimized for hit & run tactics
Role Bonus: 150% Incease to Afterburner speed bonus
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Assault, Heavy Missile and Light Missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Max Velocity 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 6M, 4L; Max velocity: 220 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km / 282 / 5 Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric Signature radius: 125
DEIMOS: The Gallente pulled out all the stops in creating their quest for the ultimate fast Hybrid platform. (Roll the MWD capacitor bonus into the hull.)
Role Bonus: -80% to MicroWarpdrive signature Radius Penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% to Agility
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 6L; 6 turrets Mx velocity: 210 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 (+1 turret) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 270 / 5 Sensor strength: 14 Magnetometric Signature radius: 120
VAGABOND: Formerly the king of skirmishing, recent advances forced the Minmatar scientists to completely redesign the Vagabond's propulsion system. The results were stunning. (Roll the max speed into the hull.)
Role Bonus: 80% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Optimal
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 5L; Max velocity: 299 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 330 / 5 Sensor strength: 14 Ladar Signature radius: 110
Thoughts? |
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:51:00 -
[1276] - Quote
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. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:51:00 -
[1277] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:They would end up tanking better than T3's do now ... OP to say the least
Tank better, but average damage and less mobility. Final word is up to CCP, but they need to do SOMETHING well... |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
36
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:53:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Ya you would need to lower the hp a bit to something like this
SACRILEGE: The Amarr premier brawling platform, the specially engineered Sacrilege armor has been hardened to extreme levels. (Roll the Cap recharge bonus into the hull.)
ROLE BONUS: +20% to Armor HP
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault, Heavy Missile and Rapid Light Missile damage 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Armor Hit Points 5% to Missle Launcher Rate of Fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 6L; Max velocity: 180 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25(+10) / 25(+10) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 312 / 6 Sensor strength: 14 Radar Signature radius: 175
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 20:55:00 -
[1279] - 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 |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
172
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 21:02:00 -
[1280] - Quote
Keep these changes, add an immunity to webs... the end. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 21:03:00 -
[1281] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote: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
Hopefully CCP Rise will think ooohhh.. we can combine the resilience obsession they have with the Vaga style combat we want and some extra dps on top as god knows they need these things badly. Especially the Eagle it wants to be a blaster Vaga really come on Rise you know you want to ... maybe it will give the Talos some competition..
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1016
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 21:06:00 -
[1282] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:
VAGABOND: Formerly the king of skirmishing, recent advances forced the Minmatar scientists to completely redesign the Vagabond's propulsion system. The results were stunning. (Roll the max speed into the hull.)
Role Bonus: 80% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Optimal
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 5L; Max velocity: 299 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 330 / 5 Sensor strength: 14 Ladar Signature radius: 110
I'm not sure what your going for here.
The shield boost bonus was great on this ship, as long as it gets at least 1 more mid, a bit more shield buffer, and enough fitting room.
I would prefer that to what you posted here.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Tribal Band
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 21:07:00 -
[1283] - Quote
Quote: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.
Something I've been trying to point out in my last (or forelast) post regarding what these HACs should be focusing on.
Thing is we can't really have every single ship have +4 med slots.
I have no clue how CCP in general sees stuff, but I'm guessing we're sometimes to fly without a tackling module - as silly as it sounds. While a +20km warp disruptor is most of the time a must for a ship like Vagabond, I'm guessing we're to neither always see the Vaga itself as a solo-pwn boat nor as a ship that always has to tackle something.
I understand tha propulsion module + three modules won't help much either.
But as a different example. I often fly ships without the fancy cookie cutter tanks, like the common 2xLSE on Vaga. Brawling with BufferTank is one thing, but you can also be useful by dropping the point and other tanky stuff for better DPS support. Let the Interceptors in the gang do the tackling. Of course, if you get aggro, you will of course die fast without LSEs.
This is just to show however that you do not have to use the same old fit all the time just to suffice asking for more medslots.
But in the end, there has to be something done with the role bonus - and to figure if that new Shield-bonus is really that useful.
*
As somebody else and I already suggested, there should probably be a breakdown in what is "Assault" and what is "Strike", because those are seriously two different aspects. These ships are called HEAVY ASSAULT but right now, even with these changes, that name is mostly just cosmetic and to make it sound more awesome than they actually are. Don't get me wrong, you can still kick bum with them - but yeah, 64 pages here say other stuff.
It is indirectly why I also say specifically for the Vaga, make it lighter/faster, better dmg projection if necessary - therefore not so tanky and a bit fragile. That however is more of a "Strike Cruiser" mentality than a Heavy Assault one. Since it is likely too complicated for most to imagine anything around that, it is imo easier to suggest a role bonus and give to each HAC an individually awesome one.
Such as that AB bonus and all those other rare and fancy stuff, like anti-web and whatever may suit your taste or be missing on your favorite HAC. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 21:11:00 -
[1284] - Quote
Cearain wrote:nikar galvren wrote:
VAGABOND: Formerly the king of skirmishing, recent advances forced the Minmatar scientists to completely redesign the Vagabond's propulsion system. The results were stunning. (Roll the max speed into the hull.)
Role Bonus: 80% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Optimal
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 5L; Max velocity: 299 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 330 / 5 Sensor strength: 14 Ladar Signature radius: 110
I'm not sure what your going for here. The shield boost bonus was great on this ship, as long as it gets at least 1 more mid, a bit more shield buffer, and enough fitting room. I would prefer that to what you posted here.
Going for the "Strike" theme. This proposal was focused on damage projection without pigeon holing the Vaga into a shield tank. I don't want to say that I'm against the shield tank idea, but I like the thought of being able to project damage far enough out to really make use of the speed. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
161
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 21:26:00 -
[1285] - Quote
I would now go for two role bonuses.
Zealot, Cerberus, Vagabond and Deimos
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty and Capacitor usage. (I would say I was ok with most of the changes to these but they need more Microwarpdrive run time, expanding the role bonus should satisfy this without buffing cap excessively) Role Bonus: Immunity to non-targeted interdiction.
These are borrowed from the strategic cruiser subs which cannot do all three at once and will not be as fast as a HAC. I think this gives them strategic level small gang mobility and perhaps using the strategic cruiser bonuses will lessen any need for a nerf there later.
As a side not on the Vaga I would support the shield boost bonus, people need to do the math with the sig reduction and a LASB (will be better than an LSE II with extender rig) rather than a XL it is still a great skirmisher but it has some options.
Sac, Ishtar, Eagle and Munin I would call these Heavy Combat Cruisers (same skill but split a bit like recons) and buff the EHP by a margin.
Role Bonus: 50% bonus to overheat effects of propulsion modules. (Still think this allows them to catch faster ships off guard (not being able to do this is why I no longer fly an Ishtar as it or gives a better chance to crash back to the gate where needed) Role Bonus: Immunity to non-targeted interdiction.
Other changes needed are general fitting tweaks and I still believe Sensor strength and lock ranges should be buffed.
Role the Ishtar bay bonus into the hull and give it a second 5% Drone damage and tracking bonus. This boosts its damage compared to all other drone boats especially with one less low than others.
Combine the EagleGÇÖs optimal bonus (like the tengu) and give it a 7.5% tracking bonus.
|
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
36
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 21:41:00 -
[1286] - Quote
SO We are all IN Agree ment?
HACs shoulw have two roles, whith each Role having a unique Bonus?
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 21:50:00 -
[1287] - Quote
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.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
228
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 21:55:00 -
[1288] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I'm not sure what your going for here. The shield boost bonus was great on this ship, as long as it gets at least 1 more mid, a bit more shield buffer, and enough fitting room. I would prefer that to what you posted here.
The Vaga is **** with a shield bonus.
It does nothing to help the problems of the hull and addresses a non problem on the hull. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 22:17:00 -
[1289] - Quote
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.
I think we can agree that the intuitive direction to take them would be to create two general roles. Whether it is better for the roles have a specific bonus, or the bonus is done hull-by-hull will depend on what the exact role/bonus ends up being.
As for hulls being better or not, a well thought out balance pass and clearly defined purpose for the hulls will go a long way to changing the meta to make them viable. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
227
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 22:19:00 -
[1290] - Quote
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
Now all that is left to do for CCP is to define "Specialization", "Generalization" and "Improvement". Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
|
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
67
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 22:47:00 -
[1291] - Quote
so basically keep flying the cynabal if you want a badass kite ship.... gotcha shield boost bonus waaaaay out of place, you can barely fit 220mm and tank with the grid that it has, how the **** are we going to fit asb's to it? not the mention only 4 ******* mids..... really?
horrid changes, back to the drawing board for the vaga rise
-carb |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
129
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 22:55:00 -
[1292] - Quote
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 |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
178
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 23:08:00 -
[1293] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Given the unique SP loss and the extreme jump in cost, that seems quite balanced. T So, none of you eject before your T3 ship goes down?
Read patch notes, you can't eject from a ship with player aggression, therefore when PVPing in a T3 you can't eject to avoid SP loss. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 23:11:00 -
[1294] - 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
LOL good thing your not in charge making all hacs kitting ships
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
178
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 23:15:00 -
[1295] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:They would end up tanking better than T3's do now ... OP to say the least
Honestly, I think the brawler fits should tank slightly better than BCs, and the kiting ships should tank slightly worse than BCs.
Can't compare to T3s, since T3s haven't been hit by tiercide. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 23:38:00 -
[1296] - 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? |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Tribal Band
24
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 23:44:00 -
[1297] - Quote
We want specialization in HACs? the best way to do this is as I've put before have all HACs weapon bonuses apply to only one weapon(Sac as a current example). The counter balance to that is the bonuses are stronger and or they get more, using the Sac again giving having say 7.5% Missile Damage and Flight-time of HAMs per level and 6% Cap recharge and Cap max per level Along with the role bonus of 50% MWD sig penalty reduction. Take this idea and apply to all HACs and you get HACs that will be strong in their role(Specialization) while still allowing some creativity with the fits.
Also on the Assault/Skirmish I like the general idea. Heavy Assault Cruisers should be modeled on the Sac with extra speed, Short range weapons with strong damage and strong tank and the MWD role bonus. And then Heavy Skirmish Cruisers going modeled on the a Beam Zealot with the same speed or even a bit less, Strong tank, good projection bonuses and a role bonus for reduction of E-war effectiveness. |
Naoru Kozan
The humbleless Crew
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 00:32:00 -
[1298] - 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
+1 |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1005
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 00:37:00 -
[1299] - Quote
Roime wrote: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.
How so?
Because once I got Gallente cruiser 5 all i needed was a couple days for Heavy Assault Cruiser.
Then I had to train Strategic cruiser and subs but still couldn't make any use of decent point without related skills, so I trained propulsion jamming to 5, wait it's the same than all other ships...
Then I tried, and maybe a bit too hard, to give reps with my Proteus. Short story, my buddy ship died and my ship was cap out on single activation of rep modules.
Then I tried to launch bombs with but there was no sub for that, left disappointed.
Then I tried to bble with and once again, left disappointed
I also tried to point at 109km with my Proteus like I can do with my ... Lachesis guess what? - left disappointed
Then someone told me "Dude Proteus is a beast, push 800k EHP and hits like a battleship" -I tried, donu how many times but I really tried hard and once I got max EHP with full plates resists T2 rigs yadaya, well my Thorax has more DPS so once again left disappointed.
Then I tried it with drones and said to my self "yey!! I'm playing Gallente character, dude, DRONES ARE OUR THING !!" Guess what? -left disappointed
I'll continue tomorrow for more decepticons. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1008
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 00:55:00 -
[1300] - Quote
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. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
315
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 01:00:00 -
[1301] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:They would end up tanking better than T3's do now ... OP to say the least Honestly, I think the brawler fits should tank slightly better than BCs, and the kiting ships should tank slightly worse than BCs. Can't compare to T3s, since T3s haven't been hit by tiercide.
There are no tiers for T3s, there is only one hull per race in the class. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
178
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 01:08:00 -
[1302] - Quote
Onictus wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:They would end up tanking better than T3's do now ... OP to say the least Honestly, I think the brawler fits should tank slightly better than BCs, and the kiting ships should tank slightly worse than BCs. Can't compare to T3s, since T3s haven't been hit by tiercide. There are no tiers for T3s, there is only one hull per race in the class.
Tiercide is just the word they used when they were balancing the T1 ships, since there is no other term out there I just used it for T3s How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
315
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 01:14:00 -
[1303] - Quote
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. |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
79
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 01:25:00 -
[1304] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:... you're buffing the Vagabond?
What, were people not using them or something?
I like the Ishtar change and about half the Deimos change. I wish you'd replaced the MWD capacitor bonus with something useful though, maybe tracking? Yep, people were not using them. Really.
Pretty much this. When you can use a Stabber or an SFI for much less ISK and almost same performance why would you pay 4x for a Vaga? Don't get me wrong. I have three Vagas that have been sitting around gathering dust waiting for a buff but it doesn't look like it's going to get any real love. Kil2 used a Vaga differently than most that I know and the new enhancements seem to fit his play style. :( |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
316
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 01:30:00 -
[1305] - Quote
Thorvik wrote:David Kir wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:... you're buffing the Vagabond?
What, were people not using them or something?
I like the Ishtar change and about half the Deimos change. I wish you'd replaced the MWD capacitor bonus with something useful though, maybe tracking? Yep, people were not using them. Really. Pretty much this. When you can use a Stabber or an SFI for much less ISK and almost same performance why would you pay 4x for a Vaga? Don't get me wrong. I have three Vagas that have been sitting around gathering dust waiting for a buff but it doesn't look like it's going to get any real love. Kil2 used a Vaga differently than most that I know and the new enhancements seem to fit his play style. :(
True, I haven't undocked in my Vaga in months. My SFI remains one of my favorite general goof around ships. |
Baali Tekitsu
Herrscher der Zeit Test Alliance Please Ignore
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 01:43:00 -
[1306] - Quote
I would say going hand in hand with the med sniper buff have the Vaga/Zealot/Deimos/Cerberus a massive tracking bonus to those systems (50% ?) and at the same time remove the damage bonus for the close range systems and there you have a specialised role. The Munnin/Sacrilege/Ishtar/Eagle should get instead of their sig radius bonus a cap bonus on active tank modules, a MASSIVE sensor strength and there you have another specialised role. And maybe have mercy with the Ishtar and Grant it another low slot. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 02:03:00 -
[1307] - 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. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
319
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 02:13:00 -
[1308] - Quote
For me I would say break up the rolls.
Sac
Toss the laser bonus, give armor resist (hell even the 5% they just nerfed) then big boosts to flight time, and damage ROF. Pull a mid add a low and make the utility high a launcher slow as well
Now you have nasty in your face HAM brawler that can active tank, buffer tank, do traditional AHAC (AB fit) and have usefull mids for EWAR
Zealot
Isn't bad, the proposed MWD buff loosen the fitting so that fitting heavy beams isn't a chore move a low to a high, leave the bonuses, boost the damage to 10% ...maybe the ROF (more number crunching then I want to do at the moment) increase the capacitor to account for the increased ROF.
I'd actually be tempted to say move two lows, one medium one high...and reduce the mass of the hull a lot.
that lets you fit a shield tank and you have a low sig beam scirmisher, or a relatively fast pulse brawler four mids would let you shield tank with beams and with the rest of the bonuses it would be a pretty good match for the oracle,
Ishtar
FOR THE LOVE OFF EVERYTHING SPACE NERD GIVE THIS THING SOME CPU, LIKE A LOT OF IT
As long as it is tried to its drones it has enough disadvantages, gimping any reasonable fit just makes it terrible I have tried for years to live that hull. Toss the drome bay bonus (roll it into the hull) and give it the prorposed bonuses/slot sets and the traditional gallente active tanking bonus and it would be a workable ship from solo, to skirmish, to null blop.
Deimost
This frigging thing, just roll the MWD bonus into the hull, give it the MWD sig and jack the hull speed up to vaga/stabber levels. Make the last high a turret move a low to a mid damage optimal and ROF all at 10%
etc etc. These have to compare in performance with both T3s AND battlecruisers. Its done well with every other line of T2 cruiser......the HACs are a mess. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1016
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 02:51:00 -
[1309] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:Cearain wrote:nikar galvren wrote:
VAGABOND: Formerly the king of skirmishing, recent advances forced the Minmatar scientists to completely redesign the Vagabond's propulsion system. The results were stunning. (Roll the max speed into the hull.)
Role Bonus: 80% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Optimal
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 5L; Max velocity: 299 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 330 / 5 Sensor strength: 14 Ladar Signature radius: 110
I'm not sure what your going for here. The shield boost bonus was great on this ship, as long as it gets at least 1 more mid, a bit more shield buffer, and enough fitting room. I would prefer that to what you posted here. Going for the "Strike" theme. This proposal was focused on damage projection without pigeon holing the Vaga into a shield tank. I don't want to say that I'm against the shield tank idea, but I like the thought of being able to project damage far enough out to really make use of the speed.
Ok even though we don't agree I think you make a good points and we may sort of epitomize a split in thinking.
I think in terms of low sec small ship pvp. You might think in terms of null sec larger ships.
In low sec hacs are going to be larger ships since there are so many dessies and frigates.
So the mwd will quickly get turned off from a frigate flying under my guns. As a low sec pilot I must be able to address that or I am not taking the ship out.
You think in terms of speed to allow you to snipe. I think speed in terms of being able to increase or (just as important) decrease transversal. The whole mwd reduced sig won't help because I will be scrammed and my mwd will be turned off. this is why I don't take hacs out in low sec.
Yes that bonus will be nice in null sec bubbles where you can zip around and large battleship guns won't hit well. But in low sec your no drone vaga just dies to a few fast frigates with scrams.
I would like a hac that Is slippery enough that I can decrease transversal against scram frigates and not just sit there and slowly die like a sick cow.
I will spend 200 mill if that ship gives me the chance of clearing out the 10 dessies and frigates that might jump in at me. (even if I just end up killing some) But if I know that one frigate will scram me then the whole fight will end with me killing only one if I am lucky I am not going to spend the isk.
With 8 different hacs there is no reason we can't both get something.
I think this is the sort of practical problems players need to start posting about instead of abstract stuff about potential roles.
For me the ability to still reduce the transversal so I can hit smaller ships will be a big plus. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1116
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 05:44:00 -
[1310] - Quote
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.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
173
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 06:31:00 -
[1311] - Quote
How about an actual role for hacs such as this:
2 types:
Type 1: Close range brawlers that have very limited range no matter what weapon system they fit. Higher tanks and damage than currently possible on hacs, but very susceptible to kitting even at low ranges.
Role Bonus: -60% range on all weapon systems Role Bonus: +25% resistance
+ 2 slots naturally or reduce gun count and add another role bonus to damage.
+ agility +base hp +signature - lock range
High damage bonuses No Drones whatsoever No free high slots whatsoever without trading a weapon for utility
Type 2:
Kiting ship/range damage dealer. Much more proficient at projecting damage at range than the harder hitting teir 3 BC's due to the drastically faster lock time and range, comparable range, but lower overall dps.
Role Bonus: +60% optimal range Role Bonus: +150% damage
- 2 high slots/weapon systems
No drones whatsoever
+ speed - agility +base lock range + Capacitor and recharge Very tight on fittings to limit tanking
4 bonuses alligned toward long range warfare: + targeting range lvl +scan resolution per lvl +10% tracking per lvl + 10% optimal per lvl
The only real question with this concept is how you would utilize the Ishtar. I think it's quite possible to place into either category, but it would require range limitations to affect drones.
Basically, you have one variety very good in close, one variety very good at long range, neither capable in mid range warfare. |
Zetak
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:17:00 -
[1312] - Quote
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. |
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:27:00 -
[1313] - Quote
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). |
Kane Fenris
NWP
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:36:00 -
[1314] - 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.
i do like the falloff idea because i see the range beeing the problem too
|
Farrell Jay
Hoover Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:42:00 -
[1315] - Quote
Vagabond changes don't make sense, I've never really heard of anyone using an active Vaga. Either way it needs another mid to be viable as a "close range active brawler", 4 mids just isn't enough and would be limiting you to using an ancillary booster fit rather than giving you more options to experiment. |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 07:53:00 -
[1316] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:So many words It pains me almost to the point of puking on my keyboard to say this, but your suggestion is better than what ccp is bringing to the plate here- At least you are propsing to do something.
Fiddling stats and making niches was enough for battleships, because they were inherently fine and their role in the eve universe is perfectly fine. They are widely used, strong and good for many reasons. Hacs have major problems, and attempting to just fiddle around with them a bit will leave their same glaring flaws in place. Something that makes them stand out and say fly me is what they need, and there's absolutely none of that in the suggested changes. A plethora of good to horrible ideas has been spewed out in this thread, and I would take almost any one of them over ~some stats~. |
Geanos
V I R I I Ineluctable.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 08:53:00 -
[1317] - Quote
Don't touch Ishtar's gun damage, leave it in place, HAC's should be high damage ships for small hit and run gangs. You can replace the drone bay capacity bonus with the drone tracking bonus if you really want to make the Ishtar similar to T1 ships but I think that a drone MWD speed would work better on it and it would make it different from the T1 versions of the ship.
And for God's sake, if you insist to keep the Diemost as an expensive glass cannon, just give it a proper role, like no MWD stop when scrammed, webs and travel time are enough of a danger. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:07:00 -
[1318] - Quote
Rise said (during AT) that he will update thread sometime this week |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:09:00 -
[1319] - 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 -
[1320] - 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
|
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1350
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:17:00 -
[1321] - Quote
Geanos wrote:Don't touch Ishtar's gun damage, leave it in place. Try simple math, 3 x 1.25 = 3.75 < 4 Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
123
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:22:00 -
[1322] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:So you guys have been on this active tank kick and I like it a lot, and this is a place I am massively confused:
The Sac.
You make it plainly obvious that its cap recharge bonus is somewhat out of place and yet do nothing to lend to the common fitting of the dual rep armor sac. If you were to give it that sweet resist bonus and a 5-7.5% boost to armor reps as well I think you'd put that ship in a fairly nice place for the heavy tackle role you want it to have.
Nobody cares about its drone bay, though the PG boost is super nice, I would strongly urge that you get rid of that 5% cap recharge bonus for an armor rep bonus and then it would be come a fairly strong hac for what people like to do with it. Agreed.
Although maybe the thought crossed their minds but if you remember the shitstorm that got kicked up over the gallente battlecruisers about how active armor rep bonuses are the worst bonus you can give any ship, I'm not terribly surprised to see the devs steering clear of more of the same. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:23:00 -
[1323] - 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. |
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch The Empty Mirror
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:26:00 -
[1324] - Quote
HAC's could benefit greatly by a improved afterburner speed bonus. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3180
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:35:00 -
[1325] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Geanos wrote:Don't touch Ishtar's gun damage, leave it in place. Try simple math, 3 x 1.25 = 3.75 < 4
Fun fact: most people struggle to fit a single medium turret on their Ishtars, somehow magicking 4 railguns on it as suggested by Rise is frankly ridiculous idea.
Losing all utility slots for 0.25 more purely theoretical damage is just ****, and is my main gripe with the suggested Ishtar. Yes, utility highs don't matter in blob warfare, where the new Ishtar will actually be very good. For my use, solo and small gang, it lost a major part of it's appeal, which was versatility.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
231
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:42:00 -
[1326] - Quote
Roime wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Geanos wrote:Don't touch Ishtar's gun damage, leave it in place. Try simple math, 3 x 1.25 = 3.75 < 4 Fun fact: most people struggle to fit a single medium turret on their Ishtars, somehow magicking 4 railguns on it as suggested by Rise is frankly ridiculous idea. Losing all utility slots for 0.25 more purely theoretical damage is just ****, and is my main gripe with the suggested Ishtar. Yes, utility highs don't matter in blob warfare, where the new Ishtar will actually be very good. For my use, solo and small gang, it lost a major part of it's appeal, which was versatility. Ishtar doesnt have any bonuses to hybrids anymore, so if you cant fit rails - fit Artis or ACs like on Myrm. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1350
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 09:48:00 -
[1327] - Quote
Roime wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Geanos wrote:Don't touch Ishtar's gun damage, leave it in place. Try simple math, 3 x 1.25 = 3.75 < 4 Fun fact: most people struggle to fit a single medium turret on their Ishtars, somehow magicking 4 railguns on it as suggested by Rise is frankly ridiculous idea. Losing all utility slots for 0.25 more purely theoretical damage is just ****, and is my main gripe with the suggested Ishtar. Yes, utility highs don't matter in blob warfare, where the new Ishtar will actually be very good. For my use, solo and small gang, it lost a major part of it's appeal, which was versatility. I will leave this here for you.
CCP Rise wrote: I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots.
Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3180
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:00:00 -
[1328] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris I fit blasters on the Myrm as well, balancing ships to use off-racial weapons is really not a concept that should be taken seriously.
Omnathious Deninard wrote:I will leave this here for you. CCP Rise wrote: I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots.
And I don't think drones are viable as the single damage source in small gang PVP with their current stats, mechanics and UI.
Which were supposed to be looked at along with the Domi changes.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
450
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:06:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:Quote: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. Something I've been trying to point out in my last (or forelast) post regarding what these HACs should be focusing on. Thing is we can't really have every single ship have +4 med slots. I have no clue how CCP in general sees stuff, but I'm guessing we're sometimes to fly without a tackling module - as silly as it sounds. While a +20km warp disruptor is most of the time a must for a ship like Vagabond, I'm guessing we're to neither always see the Vaga itself as a solo-pwn boat nor as a ship that always has to tackle something. I understand tha propulsion module + three modules won't help much either. But as a different example. I often fly ships without the fancy cookie cutter tanks, like the common 2xLSE on Vaga. Brawling with BufferTank is one thing, but you can also be useful by dropping the point and other tanky stuff for better DPS support. Let the Interceptors in the gang do the tackling. Of course, if you get aggro, you will of course die fast without LSEs. This is just to show however that you do not have to use the same old fit all the time just to suffice asking for more medslots. But in the end, there has to be something done with the role bonus - and to figure if that new Shield-bonus is really that useful. * As somebody else and I already suggested, there should probably be a breakdown in what is "Assault" and what is "Strike", because those are seriously two different aspects. These ships are called HEAVY ASSAULT but right now, even with these changes, that name is mostly just cosmetic and to make it sound more awesome than they actually are. Don't get me wrong, you can still kick bum with them - but yeah, 64 pages here say other stuff. It is indirectly why I also say specifically for the Vaga, make it lighter/faster, better dmg projection if necessary - therefore not so tanky and a bit fragile. That however is more of a "Strike Cruiser" mentality than a Heavy Assault one. Since it is likely too complicated for most to imagine anything around that, it is imo easier to suggest a role bonus and give to each HAC an individually awesome one. Such as that AB bonus and all those other rare and fancy stuff, like anti-web and whatever may suit your taste or be missing on your favorite HAC.
Sorry but I disagree. THe non snipe hacs should all be able to fit tackle. OTherwise they are useless. IF you want to bring simply firepower support you are better with an attack BC> HAcs need to be able to tackle to have ANY usage over those. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1350
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:06:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Roime wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris I fit blasters on the Myrm as well, balancing ships to use off-racial weapons is really not a concept that should be taken seriously. Omnathious Deninard wrote:I will leave this here for you. CCP Rise wrote: I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots.
And I don't think drones are viable as the single damage source in small gang PVP with their current stats, mechanics and UI. Which were supposed to be looked at along with the Domi changes. I have been asking for drones to be looked at for a year now, still no word. As far as the Ishtar fitting goes I have asked about that too and that was CCP Rise's response. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
7318
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:08:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Roime wrote:
And I don't think drones are viable as the single damage source in small gang PVP with their current stats, mechanics and UI.
Which were supposed to be looked at along with the Domi changes.
Drones are shockingly effective these days. I know AT isn't a great example of small gang fights but god damn those domi are effective. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1350
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:11:00 -
[1332] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Roime wrote:
And I don't think drones are viable as the single damage source in small gang PVP with their current stats, mechanics and UI.
Which were supposed to be looked at along with the Domi changes.
Sentries are shockingly effective these days. I know AT isn't a great example of small gang fights but god damn those sentry domi are effective. Fixed that for you. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
226
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:12:00 -
[1333] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote: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. Well in his defense, I don't really think he was addressing fighting much larger gangs. The gist of his post seems to be more along the lines of small gang fights of relatively equal numbers... not so much being the classic Hydra Reloaded hero soloing endless scores of hapless opponents that in true lemming-like fashion feed themselves into the meat-grinder of your awesomeness. Though I have to admit, small gang fights of relatively equal numbers don't happen nearly as most would like.
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
94
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:19:00 -
[1334] - Quote
I think you made a good point here that we small gang fights don't happen as much as we would like.
So CCP Rise, bring us solo back |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
231
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 10:27:00 -
[1335] - Quote
Roime wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris I fit blasters on the Myrm as well, balancing ships to use off-racial weapons is really not a concept that should be taken seriously.
I dont think that balancing mobile cruiser sized ship around immobile battleship-sized weapons (sentries) is a correct path either. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:23:00 -
[1336] - Quote
The statement that HACs should be split into two roles was probably the best piece of advice said so far.
Change the skill name to "Assault Cruiser," and add in the lore of the two sets of respective AC's that they are either a HEAVY assault cruiser or a SKIRMISH assault cruiser.
Skirmish assault cruisers should be all about hit-and-run or guerilla warfare combat, using their racial specific weapon sets. They would need to be able to get in, do good damage and get out; or be able to dictate against their opponents while applying consistently against them. They should ~20% more base HP points than their t1 counterparts, and be about 25% faster base (Vagabond being slightly faster than this @ ~35%). Heavy assault cruisers would be fleet doctrine based. While slower and less projecting/applying than their skirmish breathern, their staying power and EWAR resilience is literally unmatched. If there was ever a ship type to put most fleets in their place, these are the ships you want.
**NOTE** I don't have the capacity to do the raw math on the actual attributes of the ships themselves, so I'm going to put down a fitting that should be realistic with each ship and you can do all the hard math work on your end. I'll try to keep them in-hand myself, as I dont suddenly want a Deimos being able to 1v1 a Megathron handily as bad as you Rise.
Skirmish Assault Cruisers: Deimos, Vagabond, Cerberus, Zealot *OPTION 1* Role Bonus: Immune to non-direct interdiction, No drawback for Astronautic Rigs *OPTION 2* Role Bonus: -80% Microwarpdrive Signature Bloom Penality, No drawback for Astronautic Rigs
>Deimo Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: [roll the MWD cap bonus into the hull, a large cap pool is a powerful asset to this ship] 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret Rate of Fire \ Heavy Neutron Blaster Cannon II x5 \\ 10MN Microwarpdrive II \\ Warp Scrambler II \\ Stasis Webifier II \\ Small Cap Booster II \\\ Damage Control II \\\ 800mm Steel Reinforced Plate II \\\ Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer \\\ Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II \\\ Magnetic Field Stabilizer II x2 / Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I x2 // Hammerhead II x5 Signature should be less than 130, velocity should be ~280 base (slower than vaga, but 2nd fastest)
Vagabond Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking (was 5% bonus to max velocity) Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 15% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage \ 425mm Autocannon II x5 \ [empty high slot] \\ 10MN Microwarpdrive II \\ Large Shield Extender II \\ Large Ancillary Shield Booster \\ Warp Disruptor II \\\ Damage Control II \\\ Gyrostabilizer II x2 \\\ Tracking Enhancer II x2 / Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I / Medium Engine Thermal Shielding I // Warrior II x5 Signature should remain as is, should be faster than all other Skirmish HACs, but slightly less agile than the Deimos base.
Cerberus Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage, 5% to Explosive, EM and Thermal Missile Damage 20% bonus to Missile velocity Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Missile Explosion Velocity 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire \ Heavy Missile Launcher II x6 \\ 10MN Microwarpdrive II \\ Large Shield Extender II \\ EM Field Ward II \\ Adaptive Invulerability Field II \\ Large Ancillary Shield Booster \\ Warp Disruptor II \\\ Damage Control II \\\ Ballistic Control System II x2 \\\ Power Diagnostic System II / Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I x2 // Warrior II x3 This fitting should BARELY fit in both CPU and PG, so to fit HAMs, one would need to lose a BCU and upgrade the PDS to a RCU. This would balance between the two weapon systems. Signature should be ~Deimos, and this should be the least agile/speedy of the Skirmish HACs, but by no more than 5% from its nearest competitor in both categories. Forcing the loss of the LASB for 3 BCSs or LASB+RCU+2 BCSs is a fair option as well. Mass should also be reduced to similar with the Vagabond.
Zealot Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: [roll the laser cap bonus into the hulls base capacitor, all of it] 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret tracking 7.5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage \ Heavy Pulse Laser II x5 \\ 10MN Microwarpdrive II \\ Warp Scrambler II \\ Stasis Webifier II \\ Small Cap Booster II \\\ Damage Control II \\\ 800mm Steel Reinforced Plate II \\\ Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer \\\ Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II x2 \\\ Heat Sink II x2 / Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I x2 // Warrior II x2 Signature should remain at 125, 3rd on agility and speed amongst the 4. |
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:23:00 -
[1337] - Quote
// heavy assault cruisers \\ |
Linistitul
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:24:00 -
[1338] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots.
No offence but CCP Rise is not even half as good at balancing as CCP Fonzie was. |
Ral en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:25:00 -
[1339] - Quote
HAC rebalance is all wrong!
How hard can it be? 1. You want to get HAC class to be usable again 2. You want em to be better then T1 (or it looks like players want that, not ccp Rise)
Point.1 To be usable again, well find them a role! Ex. Heavy tackler: able to chase and tackle ships much larger and more powerful then him, ex, Battle Cruisers, Battles Ships, Capitals... Heavy dmg dealer: able to do avrg. 600+ DPS, this is the avrg dps in the upper ship class the Battle Cruiser.
Point 2 Better then T1, like why the hell did I spend all that time learning all those skills if a T1 alternative is 10 times cheaper and BETTER! ? ?
It all about the BASE! Current changes proposed are twiks over the current HAC ships. This is the WRONG approach, because T1 cruiser got so heavily reshaped.
Example: Frigates vs Assault Frigates
Ship: Rifter vs Jaguar and Wolf Most DPS : Jaguar and Wolf ( twice as much dps ) Most Tank: Jaguar and Wolf (Twice the amount of the t1 hull) Speed: Rifter (up to 20% faster)
Ship: Incursus vs Ishkur and Enyo Most DPS: Enyo and Ishkur (again even that incursus can do 260+ dps, the dps of the t2 hull is much higher, in the avrg range of the upper hull class) Most Tank: Enyo and Ishkur (twice the amount of the t1 hull) Speed: Incursus (up to 20% faster)
So now CCP Rise if you do something different, then what have already been done in the lower frigate class, you are saying that frigate re-balance was Wrong!? Was it ?
Example why current approach is wrong: 1. Zealot, Sacrelige, Vagabond, Munin, Cerberus ... all of them are avrg. dps around 400 . This is T1 Cruisers and t2 frigets avrg dps 2. Deimos can do 600 dps, but so does the Torax !
So Start from the BASE: T1 Crusers. Add Twice more Tank Add Twice more DPS Leave them just a little bit slower then the T1 hull
You can not go wrong with that approach...
Or create entirely new roll for those ships! Current roles are: 1x high dps close range and 1x high thank and 1x mid range kite-er / sniper for each race
Whit the introduction of the Tier 3 BCs, you have killed the mid range versatility I Do not see a point in a HAC that will be good at 50 + km range, kite-in etc. Since we have Tier 3 BC that can hit harder, at even better ranges and are even FASTER then the lower hull class ... How ever the micro warp drive bonus + good tank and dps. might change that!...
P.S. Taking away tracking from medium class long range guns, means you can not do dmg to the Lower class ships, the frigate! Are we going to see the same done for the Large Guns!!! So That long range Tier 3 BCs can not hit crusers and hacs ?
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1011
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:31:00 -
[1340] - Quote
Roime wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris I fit blasters on the Myrm as well, balancing ships to use off-racial weapons is really not a concept that should be taken seriously. Omnathious Deninard wrote:I will leave this here for you. CCP Rise wrote: I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots.
And I don't think drones are viable as the single damage source in small gang PVP with their current stats, mechanics and UI. Which were supposed to be looked at along with the Domi changes.
Pretty much agree with Roime on this point.
For solo/small gang work drones are bad with travel time easy to kill (who doesn't kill drones vs a drone ship?), now if the idea is to make all drones ships to be fleet ships dropping drones and assign them to one person then be it but this will take a lot of interest for this ship to be used in smaller engagements which adds nothing interesting to the game.
This ship should be able to fit either guns and not have enough CPU without fitting mods to ad a DDA or fit DDA's and not able to fit all highs with med guns but giving these options to players doesn't make the ship out of whack nor bad, it's just good for everyone. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Trinkets friend
T.R.I.A.D
1060
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:36:00 -
[1341] - Quote
The gripes about sentry domi fleets is not relevant to the discussion of HACs. Yes, assigning mass sentries in blobs is terribly effective - but that is also being done in FW with Tristans and Warrior I's. It is a gripe by people who haven't worked out a tactic for their F1-mashing lemmings to fight the lemmings who've assigned their drones to an FC.
The meaty discussion about the Ishtar in small gang work is that it is incredibly difficult to justify dropping 5 sentries in a mobile battle because you have to go back to get them. If you don't go back to get them, to swap drones requires a clunky and horrible menu fiddle to abandon the sentries. Then you need to launch, eg, warriors because you got, eg, scrammed and are eg, dying horribly with your lack of CPU an kite fit rendering you web-less and vulnerable.
People can and do assign drones outside of Ishtars and Domis and Tristans. It is one of the only ways to ***** onto kills while a logi. It is a way of gaining instant DPS from a small gang or fleet on the warp-in of a FW plex. It is not however a reason to balance ANY ship.
Hell, you can chuck sentries into Dragoons, Myrms, Vexors, etc. You can assign them to anyone, at any range, at any time, in sufficient numbers to make it OP. What you cannot so with any of these ships (unlike the Ishturd) is control that drone at 80km (if you train EW drone interfacing V).
This is a unique ability, but it's not enough of a lynchpin to hang an otherwise lacklustre ship around. The Ishtar needs mobility, DDA's, Omnilinks to fit happily alongside a tank and defensive highslot weapons (and at least one or two neuts!), in order to shine outside of blobs. In blobs, even Tristans work with drone assignation. In small gangs the sentry DPS is not enough to make up for a gimped fit and the cumbersome interface. Indigently pwning indifferently. Some sucker buy me a Naglfar. http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1770
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 11:55:00 -
[1342] - Quote
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. |
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3181
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:02:00 -
[1343] - Quote
Well that's an A class dev response there :)
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Maximilian Akora
It's just business.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:05:00 -
[1344] - 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.
Please don't listen too much to the "make it work in blobs" folks, thanks. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
301
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:07:00 -
[1345] - Quote
Epic thread so apologies if mentioned:
Colour me confused - but I still dont see a "point" to the eagle. Not next to the new Ishtar.
If it's longass range sniping, the Ishtar is *surely* a better platform?
I dont have new EFT files so forgive me if this is wildly out. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1011
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:10:00 -
[1346] - Quote
Maximilian Akora wrote: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. Please don't listen too much to the "make it work in blobs" folks, thanks.
Thing is that whatever you do to make them good for solo small gang they will be exponentially better when you stack 150+, like it or not but you should think about previous Drakes without a single change becoming from one year of "terrible worthless ship" to "Drakes are OP"
However, changes considering stacking numbers and fleet fights will always profit to smaller engagements and even make solo work a lot better/healthy. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:15:00 -
[1347] - 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.
Yaay for update :D |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
231
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:17:00 -
[1348] - 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.
There is another possible approach to Ishtar to think about:
Role Bonus: w/e
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to effectiveness of armor repair modules 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage 5% bonus to drone speed and tracking
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 275 Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
Linistitul
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:27:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 275 The Ishtar has 125 bandwidth. You should had known that. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1351
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:39:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Linistitul wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 275 The Ishtar has 125 bandwidth. You should had known that. The proposed suggestion has a double damage bonus which would make 125mbps OP. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:41:00 -
[1351] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Linistitul wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 275 The Ishtar has 125 bandwidth. You should had known that. The proposed suggestion has a double damage bonus which would make 125mbps OP.
TBH this idea is really fringe and quite ridank. Its just an uber VNI, while the Ishtar should be... Something more? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
361
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:47:00 -
[1352] - Quote
NetheranE wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Linistitul wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 275 The Ishtar has 125 bandwidth. You should had known that. The proposed suggestion has a double damage bonus which would make 125mbps OP. TBH this idea is really fringe and quite ridank. Its just an uber VNI, while the Ishtar should be... Something more?
They should make the ishtar unique rather than hashing out bonuses other ships like the domi has..
A emphasis on medium drones would make sense as a specialization just give the Ishtar double damage bonuses and orbit velocity bonus/tracking bonus Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1352
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 12:54:00 -
[1353] - Quote
NetheranE wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Linistitul wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 275 The Ishtar has 125 bandwidth. You should had known that. The proposed suggestion has a double damage bonus which would make 125mbps OP. TBH this idea is really fringe and quite ridank. Its just an uber VNI, while the Ishtar should be... Something more? This is my suggestion for the Gallente ships.
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Deimos 6-4-6 (+1 High Slot) Gallente Curiser +5% Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level +5% Armor HP per level (Yes a Armor HP bonus, would make one want to use this over a Proteus) Heavy Assault Ship +5% Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level +7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking per Level Role Bonus +100% bonus to the Velocity Factor of Afterburners
Ishtar 4-5-6 (+1 Low) Drone Bay 375m^3 Gallente Cruiser +10% Drone Damage and HP per Level +5% Drone MWD Velocity Heavy Assault Ship +10% Drone Tracking and Optimal +10% EW Drone Strength and Logistic Drone Strength Role Bonus +100% to the velocity factor of afterburners Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
178
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:08:00 -
[1354] - Quote
Dysgenesis wrote: 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 Vaga's speed bonus was on Minmatar Cruiser 5, so that bonus was already at 25% just to fly the hull. This made no sense, so it was rolled into the hull's base stats.
They did the same thing with the stabber, so this makes sense. They should have rolled the Sac's cap recharge bonus into the hull and given it another missile bonus, its DPS is awful.
Morgan North wrote:HAC's could benefit greatly by a improved afterburner speed bonus.
I think this is where the roll bonus needs to split, "Combat" HACs could be brawlers with an AB speed bonus, and "Attack" HACs could be kiters with the MWD bonus.
A Vaga with an AB bonus would be a disappointingly wasted bonus.
elitatwo wrote:So CCP Rise, bring us solo back
And Rise, an ASB Vagabond does not count, not in its current incarnation. (Needs more HP, a bit more speed, a 5th mid, and most importantly, not a shield boost bonus ) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Maximilian Akora
It's just business.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:09:00 -
[1355] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Maximilian Akora wrote: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. Please don't listen too much to the "make it work in blobs" folks, thanks. Thing is that whatever you do to make them good for solo small gang they will be exponentially better when you stack 150+, like it or not but you should think about previous Drakes without a single change becoming from one year of "terrible worthless ship" to "Drakes are OP" However, changes considering stacking numbers and fleet fights will always profit to smaller engagements and even make solo work a lot better/healthy.
Not really, all blobbers care for is EHP and damage projection. Solo or small gang pvpers can look beyond that very limited view of F1 pushing. |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet Cerberus Unleashed
86
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:22:00 -
[1356] - Quote
If someone would ask me what are the best HACs NOW, I'd say: depends on what you want, probably Vagabond for solo action and Zealot/Ishtar in fleets. Especially the Ishtar you see quite often these days.
Now while the Zealot remains the same, Vaga and Ishtar are supposed to be changed in a way that I would consider a huge buff. Vaga: + "5th" bonus, Ishtar: split weapon bonus removed which makes the drone focus even stronger.
Is that really a good idea? Especially the Vagabond really looks very powerful.
While I appreciate the attempts to make Cerberus/Sacrilege/Eagle more viable, they will still lack in comparison to the new Vaga (although a direct comparison is dificult since they fill somewhat different roles).
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
293
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:31:00 -
[1357] - 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.
ishtar rep bonus plx |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3182
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:35:00 -
[1358] - Quote
Is there really some super important reason to mess with the Ishtar that much?
Come up with a meaningful prop-related role bonus for all HACs, up their EHP across the line, then buff Ishtar CPU and mobility to be on par with the others and call it a day. There's six broken HACs to unfuck, Ishtar and Zealot are the least derpy ones so I really see no need for any major changes to either.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:37:00 -
[1359] - Quote
Maximilian Akora wrote:
Not really, all blobbers care for is EHP and damage projection. Solo or small gang pvpers can look beyond that very limited view of F1 pushing.
Whatever, small gang you look for SPEED eHP and damage projection.....except you have to do your own point.
Don't act like small gang is some magically twitch dependant all skiller no filler, its just a smaller blob that you might have to point for youself. |
T1nyMan
Interstellar Solutions Agency
75
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:46:00 -
[1360] - 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.
Did you hear that children? Now grow up and learn how to write constructive posts |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1164
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:53:00 -
[1361] - 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.
Please CCP.
I know Fozzie and Rise are quality commentators compared to most but please..
Keep them locked up until they finish nerfing gang links.. Just make someone less qualified do it >=[
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 13:58:00 -
[1362] - 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 |
Maximilian Akora
It's just business.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 14:13:00 -
[1363] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Maximilian Akora wrote:
Not really, all blobbers care for is EHP and damage projection. Solo or small gang pvpers can look beyond that very limited view of F1 pushing.
Whatever, small gang you look for SPEED eHP and damage projection.....except you have to do your own point. Don't act like small gang is some magically twitch dependant all skiller no filler, its just a smaller blob that you might have to point for youself.
If you can't see the rather massive differences between fleet/blob fits and solo/small gang fits then there's not much to discuss tbh. Case in point; blobbers dislike the changed drake and its missiles, solo and small gang folks realise it's actually a buff. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 14:15:00 -
[1364] - 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.
Considering he prolly put a lot of work into the first balance and knows he`ll prolly need to do a big portion of it over again I think this was a very good response. I give it a 9/10
As for the balancing. I would be carefull taking to the CSMs the guys in null will want stuff to make their blobs better, the people in high/low sec will want changes to make blobs and alahp fleet less effect. and everyone doesn`t PvP enough to even have a valid opinion.
CCP Rise Please make two clear roles classes for the HACs.... so we can actually give you proper feed back
|
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1352
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 14:17:00 -
[1365] - Quote
Comment highlights ::
Marcel Devereux wrote: For the Deimos, can you roll some of that that MWD bonus up into the ship by increasing the recharge and replace it with something else. It is another archaic bonus that looks out of place. Compare the bonuses to the Muninn: double damage bonus (dmg+rof), optimal range bonus, and tracking bonus. Deimos: double damage bonus, fall-off bonus, MWD bonus. Can you replace the MWD bonus with the tracking bonus that is found on the Thorax?
Agreed. You removed it from the Thorax, I think this should be done here as well and give it something more appropriate.
Harvey James wrote:Also a vaga shield tanking with 4 mids still..... i was expecting another mid here also more cpu might help with cpu hungry ASB's also it could do with a little more dps say a 10% damage bonus.
Agreed. The CPU on the Vaga is laughable for a shield fit. And with 4 mids, what are you going to shield tank exactly? Especially for an active tank. I like the idea, but honestly, it seems like you're "plugging" the vagabond into a shield role, when it maybe should stay much more versatile?
Akturous wrote:Taking a second look at fitting on the Muninn, this thing is still very very bad. You need 2 ACR's to fit 720s and a 1600 plate with a 10mn AB and you get 3120 alpha and 355 dps (not including the changes) with 2 gyros (so lows would be DC, RAR, Explosive and Kin hardener, 1600 plate).
This is pretty pathetic alpha with close range ammo on a specialist arty platform considering the Loki manages 4.5k alpha and double the tracking with the same fitting. I think the Muninn needs another turret and the fittings to fit a full rack of 720s and a 1600 with AB with 1 ACR, then it might see some use outside of BL novelty/old times sake gangs.
I haven't liked the Muninn in a long time. It needs a serious review of its whole application. It can't do anything well really, and the only thing it's good at is popping frigates in one shot. That's a really awesome (read: pathetic) use for a HAC.
Overall, you need to review the hull bonuses and remove archaic ones and add more creative ones.
Overall, you need to review the viable fittings for these setups.
Being specialized shouldn't mean "You can only fit this one fitting idea we have in mind, kthxbai!!"
Being specialized should mean that they have a clear and distinct advantage over OTHER ships, including battleships, at this part of their specialty.
I'm not seeing that here at all. Can you clarify exactly how each of these ships is specialized and how they're superior to all other ships in that specialty? Where I am. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 14:26:00 -
[1366] - Quote
As a goof we decided to do a ahac roam. I decided to go with the Ishtar (cause why not).
A few glaring things I noticed once I fit it out.
1) The CPU and Powergrid is horridly crappy if you fit a 1600 plate to it. Now you can fit a different item but see #2.
2), the Hit Points were absurdly cruddy even with the 1600 plate on it.
One of the other guys brought a Navy Vexor with him. It had a extra low slot to it. Now we fit the same tank (1600mm plate, eam, damage control, Active Explosive). With my 5th, I put a drone damage amplifier, in his 5th AND 6th Slot, he put 2 Drone Damage Amplifiers.
Now barring skill differences, while my resists were higher, my EHP was 8,000 to 10,000 less than his. Mine was around 35,000 (that is with a T2 Trimark and a T1 Ancillary). His, roughly 50,000.
Yes my resists are higher, but he has a MUCH larger tank. Why? My Native Hull Armor and Shield hit points are HALF of the Navy Vexors (ishtar's roughly 1600, Navy Vexor's 3000).
But wait I forgot about the signature. Yes the Navy Vexor's sig is LOWER than the Ishtar.
Navy Vexor Cost, 107 mil jita prices, Ishtar, 177 mil.
Dps? Navy Vexor does more damage with drones than the Ishtar, but the Ishtar does more damage with guns (navy was 99 damage, Ishtar was 160 damage, gun related) Drones balanced it out, but to sum it up... they did the same damage too.
The ONLY difference I can actually see, is that the Ishtar can field more backup drones. Not that it matters cause it will be dead, alongside the Diemost.
I really could not figure out how to get that ship to an acceptable level, with the Navy Ship has a higher tank, smaller signature, stronger sensor strength, more Tracking on drones, Equal Damage, and has 3 rig slots.
I'm completely puzzled about that. |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
81
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 14:38:00 -
[1367] - Quote
IMHO, HACs should be small gang and solo ships. Groups of 4-6 max scouring the space lanes and able to go on longer stints in enemy space, if needed. They should not be active tanked. Cargohold should be loaded with ammo not booster charges. As solo ships they need to be able to take a few hits and hold on to their prey. Vaga, specifically, should not be active tanked and forget the shield boost bonus. Add another mid slot for a disruptor as the engagement range should be around 20km.
A group of HACs should be used for rapid deployment. Hit and move. Muninn, Zealot and friends can be the close range armor brawlers. Again, 4-6 of them with a Guardian or an Auguror to keep them alive. No active tanks but fitting potential for good resists. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
434
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 14:44:00 -
[1368] - Quote
space lanes?:O what are those ah the tech 1 jump portals... only poor fellas use those ,nothing worth ganking |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 14:45:00 -
[1369] - Quote
Maximilian Akora wrote:Onictus wrote:Maximilian Akora wrote:
Not really, all blobbers care for is EHP and damage projection. Solo or small gang pvpers can look beyond that very limited view of F1 pushing.
Whatever, small gang you look for SPEED eHP and damage projection.....except you have to do your own point. Don't act like small gang is some magically twitch dependant all skiller no filler, its just a smaller blob that you might have to point for youself. If you can't see the rather massive differences between fleet/blob fits and solo/small gang fits then there's not much to discuss tbh. Case in point; blobbers dislike the changed drake and its missiles, solo and small gang folks realise it's actually a buff.
Yeah the HAM changes (and bonus changes) did GREAT things for the HAM drake......you have NO idea the deaths of my hated for the pre HML nerf fleet drake, none. That being said its a matter of application, in small gangs the drake is fine, where they there are 400 combat hulls on field its damage projection is ****. So when you come out low sec the value to the hull nose dives. When HMLs go knocked back down into the realm of all of the other medium long range weapon I was thrilled.
As it relates there there is no application where you really want to use a Cerb over that HAM drake. The range is cool and all with the cerb, but if you fart at the Cerb it goes boom.......for another 100 million, for that matter you can do near the same thing with a caracal for 50mil.
|
Ryans Revenge
The Armed Syndicate
61
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 15:03:00 -
[1370] - Quote
Please read Kil2.
Ok so anyone who has ever seen my streams knows I pretty much religiously fly the nano ishtar and have done so since about 2009. You lose a lot of isk from leaving drones behind but they are extremely versatile if flown right which balances them out.
Please let the Vexor Navy Issue be the armor repping tanky vexor. We don't need two of these. There's also the myrmidon for this purpose. Please let the Ishtar retain it's mobility and speed like the rest of the hacs and not limit the drone specialists to slow in your face ships like blasters.
Thanks
P.s. If you want to see some highlights checkout twitch.tv/ryanjuk (Again mainly for kil2's purposes) |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
740
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 15:07:00 -
[1371] - Quote
Roime wrote:Well that's an A class dev response there :) Yup. He managed to dry our eyes, wipe out noses and then our asses (ie. in the correct sequence) .. now we wait and see if he reuses the now rather gross tissue or pulls a fresh one from his My Little PonyGäó man-purse.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
367
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 15:10:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:As a goof we decided to do a ahac roam. I decided to go with the Ishtar (cause why not).
A few glaring things I noticed once I fit it out.
1) The CPU and Powergrid is horridly crappy if you fit a 1600 plate to it. Now you can fit a different item but see #2.
2), the Hit Points were absurdly cruddy even with the 1600 plate on it.
One of the other guys brought a Navy Vexor with him. It had a extra low slot to it. Now we fit the same tank (1600mm plate, eam, damage control, Active Explosive). With my 5th, I put a drone damage amplifier, in his 5th AND 6th Slot, he put 2 Drone Damage Amplifiers.
Now barring skill differences, while my resists were higher, my EHP was 8,000 to 10,000 less than his. Mine was around 35,000 (that is with a T2 Trimark and a T1 Ancillary). His, roughly 50,000.
Yes my resists are higher, but he has a MUCH larger tank. Why? My Native Hull Armor and Shield hit points are HALF of the Navy Vexors (ishtar's roughly 1600, Navy Vexor's 3000).
But wait I forgot about the signature. Yes the Navy Vexor's sig is LOWER than the Ishtar.
Navy Vexor Cost, 107 mil jita prices, Ishtar, 177 mil.
Dps? Navy Vexor does more damage with drones than the Ishtar, but the Ishtar does more damage with guns (navy was 99 damage, Ishtar was 160 damage, gun related) Drones balanced it out, but to sum it up... they did the same damage too.
The ONLY difference I can actually see, is that the Ishtar can field more backup drones. Not that it matters cause it will be dead, alongside the Diemost.
I really could not figure out how to get that ship to an acceptable level, with the Navy Ship has a higher tank, smaller signature, stronger sensor strength, more Tracking on drones, Equal Damage, and has 3 rig slots.
I'm completely puzzled about that. I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.
A Vigilant will do more dps (~125 more) with 5x Neutrons than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).
So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.
But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1?
I'm glad to see you're working with the community here, Rise. In fact, you work with the community a lot in your threads, and it's very appreciated.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Presidente Gallente
Dark-Rising
90
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 15:15:00 -
[1373] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:As a goof we decided to do a ahac roam. I decided to go with the Ishtar (cause why not).
A few glaring things I noticed once I fit it out.
1) The CPU and Powergrid is horridly crappy if you fit a 1600 plate to it. Now you can fit a different item but see #2.
2), the Hit Points were absurdly cruddy even with the 1600 plate on it.
One of the other guys brought a Navy Vexor with him. It had a extra low slot to it. Now we fit the same tank (1600mm plate, eam, damage control, Active Explosive). With my 5th, I put a drone damage amplifier, in his 5th AND 6th Slot, he put 2 Drone Damage Amplifiers.
Now barring skill differences, while my resists were higher, my EHP was 8,000 to 10,000 less than his. Mine was around 35,000 (that is with a T2 Trimark and a T1 Ancillary). His, roughly 50,000.
Yes my resists are higher, but he has a MUCH larger tank. Why? My Native Hull Armor and Shield hit points are HALF of the Navy Vexors (ishtar's roughly 1600, Navy Vexor's 3000).
But wait I forgot about the signature. Yes the Navy Vexor's sig is LOWER than the Ishtar.
Navy Vexor Cost, 107 mil jita prices, Ishtar, 177 mil.
Dps? Navy Vexor does more damage with drones than the Ishtar, but the Ishtar does more damage with guns (navy was 99 damage, Ishtar was 160 damage, gun related) Drones balanced it out, but to sum it up... they did the same damage too.
The ONLY difference I can actually see, is that the Ishtar can field more backup drones. Not that it matters cause it will be dead, alongside the Diemost.
I really could not figure out how to get that ship to an acceptable level, with the Navy Ship has a higher tank, smaller signature, stronger sensor strength, more Tracking on drones, Equal Damage, and has 3 rig slots.
I'm completely puzzled about that.
I am flying the ishtar for ages and a lot. This ship is just awesome with low-slaves and if you like/can afford to fly expensive. The 1600 plated version with faction mods and t2 rigs and fleet bonuses is a beast. I use a med neut, 3x 200mm AC and a *cough* Salvager. With armor links and low slaves you will have 16923 armor with 83 89 95 81 what ist 96233 hp in EVE. You can imagine what you can fight and kill in this setup. With skirmish links, a faction disruptor and faction webber you have some semi-kite boat giving small gangs a hard time if you fly the grid right. A small cap booster with Navy 400's is mandatory. ECCM is my option for the last mid. The weakness of the ship are its drones ofc because more and more ppl attack them these days.
The Vexor Navy Issue is surprisingly better than the Ishtar. With a similar setup, a 1600 t2 and 800 t2 plate you will get with armor links an insane buffer tank of over 35K what is battleship class. The DPS is similar to the Ishtar. Without the 800 plate and a drone damage mod you'll get 642 DPS and over 27K armor with armor links. Without armor links it's 26K armor with 77 70 70 78. Issue here is lack of drones. If a buffer VNI fights the buffer Ishtar - talking about my fits - the Ishtar will lose if you don't care about killing the drones.
I am really looking forward to the Ishtar changes. Well, I won't have the option to salvage anymore :-P |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
364
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 15:29:00 -
[1374] - Quote
Ryans Revenge wrote:Please read Kil2.
Ok so anyone who has ever seen my streams knows I pretty much religiously fly the nano ishtar and have done so since about 2009. You lose a lot of isk from leaving drones behind but they are extremely versatile if flown right which balances them out.
Please let the Vexor Navy Issue be the armor repping tanky vexor. We don't need two of these. There's also the myrmidon for this purpose. Please let the Ishtar retain it's mobility and speed like the rest of the hacs and not limit the drone specialists to slow in your face ships like blasters.
Also giving hacs a mwd bonus then reducing their speed and making them an armor tanking ship makes no ******* sense at all..
Thanks
P.s. If you want to see some highlights checkout twitch.tv/ryanjuk (Again mainly for kil2's purposes)
So what bonuses would you like the Ishtar to have? ... sentry based? heavies? or a new medium variation? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Franky Saken
Mafia Redux Phobia.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 15:38:00 -
[1375] - Quote
Rise, I have a question but I hope you don't mind me as I haven't looked through 70 pages of thread to see if this question was asked.
I thought it was CCP's line of reasoning to have T2s be really specialised at a specific task. For the Vagabond I thought that was the role of anti-tackle (which fits well with kiting gangs) while going pretty fast.
It's hard for me to stroke that image of the vagabond with what now seem to be mixed, and even conflicting, bonusses (shield rep and falloff).
There's no complaining from me about adding basically a free bonus to the Vagabond I just want to know why you've picked this one and not, say, a tracking bonus or something more specific to the "go fast, shoot things while running" that the vaga fit so well for. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
364
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 15:38:00 -
[1376] - Quote
Quote:I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.
A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).
So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.
But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1?
I think the vigilant definitely outperforms any possible brawling fit a Deimos could ever use... which suggests a more Vaga based approach .. i just don't why anyone would use a HAC to brawl or even snipe when you have ABC's and bc's and Faction cruisers all which can outperform HAC's up close and at extreme ranges. Also i would like to see the ishtar being a more mobile medium drone based ship sentries don't match mobile ships at all and Nvexor has the heavies.. I would suggest making the muninn an armour version of the vaga and improve the eagle to be a blaster boat the optimal range bonuses do actually help here its the mobility and dps that is missing Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
295
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 15:58:00 -
[1377] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Quote:I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.
A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).
So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.
But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1? I think the vigilant definitely outperforms any possible brawling fit a Deimos could ever use... which suggests a more Vaga based approach .. i just don't why anyone would use a HAC to brawl or even snipe when you have ABC's and bc's and Faction cruisers all which can outperform HAC's up close and at extreme ranges. Also i would like to see the ishtar being a more mobile medium drone based ship sentries don't match mobile ships at all and Nvexor has the heavies.. I would suggest making the muninn an armour version of the vaga and improve the eagle to be a blaster boat the optimal range bonuses do actually help here its the mobility and dps that is missing
CCP forgetting to do the BC nerf is basically the issue. Medium-sized drone ships based around using medium drones would be nice. Massive bandwidth is really a mixed blessing - yes I want 700 dps, but I don't want drones that go 1km/s and are unable to track anything. Nexor is a start, but really it needs much more drone speed for heavies to be a suitable weapon for a cruiser, it'd make more sense to just drop the bandwidth and up the damage, rather than give it the 10 bonuses required to make heavies usable. I don't get your thing about vigilants - they cannot really tank like a deimos is supposed to be able to. Regarding eagles and muninns, the muninn lacks a little powergrid, but is otherwise fine. Turning everything into plebby mid-range null/barrage/scorch 'skirmishers' is a pretty terrible idea, much like dishonour run-away blaster ships is a terrible idea. |
Speedkermit Damo
Callide Vulpis Curatores Veritatis Alliance
89
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 15:59:00 -
[1378] - 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.
Lovely, please try and spend more than five minutes on it this time around.
Don't Panic.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
366
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:05:00 -
[1379] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Harvey James wrote:Quote:I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.
A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).
So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.
But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1? I think the vigilant definitely outperforms any possible brawling fit a Deimos could ever use... which suggests a more Vaga based approach .. i just don't why anyone would use a HAC to brawl or even snipe when you have ABC's and bc's and Faction cruisers all which can outperform HAC's up close and at extreme ranges. Also i would like to see the ishtar being a more mobile medium drone based ship sentries don't match mobile ships at all and Nvexor has the heavies.. I would suggest making the muninn an armour version of the vaga and improve the eagle to be a blaster boat the optimal range bonuses do actually help here its the mobility and dps that is missing CCP forgetting to do the BC nerf is basically the issue. Medium-sized drone ships based around using medium drones would be nice. Massive bandwidth is really a mixed blessing - yes I want 700 dps, but I don't want drones that go 1km/s and are unable to track anything. Nexor is a start, but really it needs much more drone speed for heavies to be a suitable weapon for a cruiser, it'd make more sense to just drop the bandwidth and up the damage, rather than give it the 10 bonuses required to make heavies usable. I don't get your thing about vigilants - they cannot really tank like a deimos is supposed to be able to. Regarding eagles and muninns, the muninn lacks a little powergrid, but is otherwise fine. Turning everything into plebby mid-range null/barrage/scorch 'skirmishers' is a pretty terrible idea, much like dishonour run-away blaster ships is a terrible idea.
Well the muninn thing still works with Arties just look at the Tornado falloff bonus.. and the vigilant can probably fit a 1600 plate a deimos struggles to do that .. also vigilant has web bonus and will prob get more HP when they buff them. Anyway HAC's are wasted on brawling when there are tons of ships that can brawl well with blasters... the vexor being on eof them for a cheap price aswell.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1016
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:15:00 -
[1380] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Quote:I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.
A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).
So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.
But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1? I think the vigilant definitely outperforms any possible brawling fit a Deimos could ever use... which suggests a more Vaga based approach .. i just don't why anyone would use a HAC to brawl or even snipe when you have ABC's and bc's and Faction cruisers all which can outperform HAC's up close and at extreme ranges.
ABCs are bad up close brawling. They have horrible tracking and very weak tanks.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:17:00 -
[1381] - Quote
TBH I think of HACS as fast damage ships with a robust Tank. That would mean that they have to be positioned between BC's and Faction cruisers
In terms of speed: slightly slower then Faction Cruisers, due to is heavier tank, but way faster then BC's. That would mean in the range of the 1600 m/s to 1800 m/s
In terms off tank: Less EHP then BC's but better then Faction Cruisers. That would mean a tank of 60K to 75K EHP
In terms of damage: Better damage then Faction Cruisers and almost the same has BC's (except the old tier 3 ones). That would mean a a damage between 650-750 DPS.
All these salted with the proper virtues of each race:
The minni Hacs will be faster then the others but less tanky.
The Amarr ones will have have more tank but less speed.
The Gallentean will be in the midle with less speed then Minmatar and less tanky then the amarr ones but with more DPS.
The caldari ones with slower speed of them all, with a tank near the Galentean ones but capable of deploying the damage at longer distances. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:18:00 -
[1382] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
ABCs are bad up close brawling. They have horrible tracking and very weak tanks.
Ever see a nano-talos? They brawl pretty good.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
295
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:20:00 -
[1383] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Harvey James wrote:Quote:I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.
A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).
So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.
But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1? I think the vigilant definitely outperforms any possible brawling fit a Deimos could ever use... which suggests a more Vaga based approach .. i just don't why anyone would use a HAC to brawl or even snipe when you have ABC's and bc's and Faction cruisers all which can outperform HAC's up close and at extreme ranges. Also i would like to see the ishtar being a more mobile medium drone based ship sentries don't match mobile ships at all and Nvexor has the heavies.. I would suggest making the muninn an armour version of the vaga and improve the eagle to be a blaster boat the optimal range bonuses do actually help here its the mobility and dps that is missing CCP forgetting to do the BC nerf is basically the issue. Medium-sized drone ships based around using medium drones would be nice. Massive bandwidth is really a mixed blessing - yes I want 700 dps, but I don't want drones that go 1km/s and are unable to track anything. Nexor is a start, but really it needs much more drone speed for heavies to be a suitable weapon for a cruiser, it'd make more sense to just drop the bandwidth and up the damage, rather than give it the 10 bonuses required to make heavies usable. I don't get your thing about vigilants - they cannot really tank like a deimos is supposed to be able to. Regarding eagles and muninns, the muninn lacks a little powergrid, but is otherwise fine. Turning everything into plebby mid-range null/barrage/scorch 'skirmishers' is a pretty terrible idea, much like dishonour run-away blaster ships is a terrible idea. Well the muninn thing still works with Arties just look at the Tornado falloff bonus.. and the vigilant can probably fit a 1600 plate a deimos struggles to do that .. also vigilant has web bonus and will prob get more HP when they buff them. Anyway HAC's are wasted on brawling when there are tons of ships that can brawl well with blasters... the vexor being on of them for a cheap price aswell. Or the navy brutix if you want to pay 200mil rather than use a diemost.
Vigilant has no resists. It has easy fitting - you can see they deliberately gave it the grid to fit the biggest blasters, mwd and the biggest plate, which is kind of funny compared to my thorax, where fitting a 1600 plate means I can't even fit electrons without a 10m powergrid mod. It can get a lot of ehp because of this fitting oversight, but its actual tank in a logistics or lolactivetanking scenario will be poor compared to a deimos. I think if CCP actually got around to making tracking and signature radius more relevant (nerfing ABCs and null/barrage/scorch), you'd probably see more value in the sig bonus for having a speed tank while moving around on grid. For catching people with brawlers it's obvious, but for long range ships idk, mwd shouldn't really be something you just leave on forever like you're in a LR tackle frigate. |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
272
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:21:00 -
[1384] - Quote
CCP, there are a lot of good suggestions posted thus far.
one of the good ones is to break up hacs into kiters and brawlers. use the zealot and the vaggy as the basis for kiters. speed and range would be their best atributes. give all hacs +5% to disruptor/scram range like the inties. give all hacs +1 slot. if not, check the changes below.
kiters-zealot, vaggy, ishtar, eagle. give these a great base speed. give them a big bonus to burners. give them range projection on guns and missile range. drop the resist down a tad in favor of speed and sig tanking. a burner zealot is tough to hit, as should the burner vaggy be.
brawlers-sac, muninn, cerb, diemost give these better resists, better tank, close range damage projection (tracking, fall off, ham bonus) also, give these a bonus to mwd sig. atleast 75% as a role bonus. a ham cerb/sac should gain missile bonuses to allow them to hit frigs effectively. then switch to rage and bust up on bc and bs. also, these ships should receive a reduction in cap penalty for fitting an mwd. not a reduction in cap consumption, just a reduction in cap to fit it. this would allow more cap on the field. the brawlers need to get in and scram. pin everything down and survive.
sac- -1 hi, +1 low. roll the cap bonus into the hull. its a great bonus, but as with the vaggy, it belongs in the hull. give it multiple missile bonuses. possible speed bonus to hams. more armor to help with brawling. zealot-faster. -1 low, +1 mid. its a good ship, i wouldnt change much else.
diemost-needs alot of armor. need help. lots of posts on helping this poor thing. ishtar- needs cpu big time and grid. needs speed with ogre's and rails, it would make a helluva kiter. drop drones and orbit, or go to 75km and drop sentries. needs to fit drone mods or a full rack of rails. dual roles, long range sniper or mid range tackle/kiter.
muninn- needs to change to a close range brawler. it needs 1 more mid atleast. it needs all the close range bonuses for auto's. i can imagine a mini vargur here. vaggy-needs another mid. needs crap loads of grid and cpu. needs sniping role bonuses for kiting. needs to be ablt to fit big arties. speed and range would be best for it. small sig, burner bonus. turning 1500m/s+ with a tiny sig radius would be hard to do anything too.
eagle needs to drop the sniper role and go brawler. it should be loaded with blasters and be all up in your face. give it bonuses to reflect this role, tank and damage. the cerb should fit the kiter role. speed bonuses to missiles so it can catch fast targets and reach in with hams or heavies. sig radius bonuses.
these are just ideas, but the seperation of the 2 styles of play would be awesome. i am a brawler. i love my gutless sac. its active tanked with a scram/web and 52k EHP. i run a burner most of the time. if i catch u, its a tough lil thing. i will hold u until reinforcements arrive. problem is, it shouldnt need reinforcements. |
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1438
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:27:00 -
[1385] - Quote
Cerb is still the weakest. MWD bonus for a HAC that dies if you sneeze on it? C'mon, CCP... The name is HEAVY ASSAULT CRUISER... not fast tackler with pew capability. "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:33:00 -
[1386] - 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.
Thanks for listening! I guess now we'll see how closely you're listening... :P
I definitely want to see a HAC lineup that is valid for solo/small gang play style. The downside to that is the probability that anything good enough to solo in will be great to large scale sov-blob in. Too much of that already.
Btw, I don't mean that you should make small changes. As I previously posted (buried many pages back somewhere), the other balancing passes made thus far have been drastic and revolutionary. They have literally changed the entire face of PVP. Don't be timid in defining a role or ideal for the HACs to dominate at. The meta will evolve to take the new landscape into account.
As for what I would like to see; I'm of the opinion that the lineup should be split into "Assault" and "Strike" classifications, similar in 'purpose' but different in execution. Like the combat/force Recon series. "Assault" could be designed for high tank brawling (whether active or passive tank... I don't like having only one viable way to tank a particular hull. IMO, all hulls should be able to fit either active or passive equally well). "Strike" could be designed for superior damage projection and mobility.
As for Role bonuses, here are some suggestions: Can fit Micro Jump Drive Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker -50% to enemy Webbifier effectiveness +20% to Armor/Shield hit points +150% increase in Afterburner speed bonus -80% to MWD signature bloom +10% to all inherent resistances Can fit 2 Ancillary Armor Repair modules -25% to Armor Plate Mass penalty and fitting requirements -25% to Shield Extender Signature radius penalty and fitting requirements Immunity to non-targeted interdiction -50% to enemy Energy Neutralizer effectiveness -25% to reload cycle time for Ancillary modules
How about it guys? If I missed any bonuses that you think would be awesome, just wuote the list and append to it! |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
173
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:40:00 -
[1387] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote: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. Thanks for listening! I guess now we'll see how closely you're listening... :P I definitely want to see a HAC lineup that is valid for solo/small gang play style. The downside to that is the probability that anything good enough to solo in will be great to large scale sov-blob in. Too much of that already. ! That's not true at all. Go back and read my last post to show exactly how to limit their effectiveness in fleets, but make them very strong solo and small gang ships.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:49:00 -
[1388] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:nikar galvren wrote: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. Thanks for listening! I guess now we'll see how closely you're listening... :P I definitely want to see a HAC lineup that is valid for solo/small gang play style. The downside to that is the probability that anything good enough to solo in will be great to large scale sov-blob in. Too much of that already. ! That's not true at all. Go back and read my last post to show exactly how to limit their effectiveness in fleets, but make them very strong solo and small gang ships.
Who cares if you can use HACs in Fleets? |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:55:00 -
[1389] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:nikar galvren wrote:Thanks for listening! I guess now we'll see how closely you're listening... :P I definitely want to see a HAC lineup that is valid for solo/small gang play style. The downside to that is the probability that anything good enough to solo in will be great to large scale sov-blob in. Too much of that already. That's not true at all. Go back and read my last post to show exactly how to limit their effectiveness in fleets, but make them very strong solo and small gang ships.
I did. Would you really want to solo in a blaster-fit brawler with -60% range? Is there no conceivable use for a large scale fleet doctrine involving highly mobile, great damage projecting ships?
My point was that ships that are fun to solo/small gang in are *often* strong additions to larger fleet doctrines. There's not really any way around it unless you want to create a niche role that (very) few pilots will ever undock. It's the nature of the meta right now. While I recognize that, I'm not sure what balancing pass would produce a specialized hull that is attractive to fly solo/SG, but less attractive to blobs. It's a tough problem, and I don't envy Rise for having to figure it out. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:01:00 -
[1390] - Quote
Exactly my point earlier.
Other than active tanking bonuses, trying to shoehorn a ship into small gang roles just makes it a **** ship, and these things need to have some performance to compete with the T1 cruiers, T3 cruiers, AND all of the battlecruiers.
All but one of which they cost significantly more than. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
179
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:15:00 -
[1391] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Exactly my point earlier.
Other than active tanking bonuses, trying to shoehorn a ship into small gang roles just makes it a **** ship, and these things need to have some performance to compete with the T1 cruiers, T3 cruiers, AND all of the battlecruiers.
All but one of which they cost significantly more than.
T3s aren't really that common in lowsec/nullsec. People who use them now will probably continue to use them either because A) they like the cloaky niche they fulfill, or B) they want bling, and buffing HACs won't change that
As long as they do BC DPS with BC tank, and cruiser sig I think they'll be worth the price... depends on the stats though. And slot layout, slot layout is big, 16 slots will be a must. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:24:00 -
[1392] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Onictus wrote:Exactly my point earlier.
Other than active tanking bonuses, trying to shoehorn a ship into small gang roles just makes it a **** ship, and these things need to have some performance to compete with the T1 cruiers, T3 cruiers, AND all of the battlecruiers.
All but one of which they cost significantly more than. T3s aren't really that common in lowsec/nullsec. People who use them now will probably continue to use them either because A) they like the cloaky niche they fulfill, or B) they want bling, and buffing HACs won't change that As long as they do BC DPS with BC tank, and cruiser sig I think they'll be worth the price... depends on the stats though. And slot layout, slot layout is big, 16 slots will be a must.
Could have fooled me. When I lived in low I saw fleets of them from time to time, not to mention there was an unending barrage of them running plexes and such depending on how deep you went.
....I own 5 T3 hulls for three races(not boosters), and I'm not an annomoly. I'd hardly call T3s uncommon at all, we fly full fleets of them. Almost all major blocks can/do field T3 fleets. |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:25:00 -
[1393] - Quote
People who think 0.0 players are trying to sabotage small gang warfare are just wrong. There are tons of people in PL and other large 0.0 alliances that prefer small gang warfare and even solo pvp. Additionally, there are large overlaps where making ships good at one makes them good at the other.
My concern is that hacs end up as enjoyable to fly as possible, preferably with a quirk or strength that makes them worth fielding for both the small gang pilot and large fleet doctrines. If they're enjoyable and good, people |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:28:00 -
[1394] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:People who think 0.0 players are trying to sabotage small gang warfare are just wrong. There are tons of people in PL and other large 0.0 alliances that prefer small gang warfare and even solo pvp. Additionally, there are large overlaps where making ships good at one makes them good at the other.
Correct, almost all null pilots also do small roams.
We aren't doing them in HACs usually because getting 150 ships cyno'd in on your head isn't a great idea in a thin tanked ship with weak projection, or a tanky slow ship with weak projection.
You only use them when you know what the target is and the HAC is the counter. Which is admittedly rare.
To that end I fly my SFI more than my Vaga's anymore. They are only a third of the costs and doing fall apart the moment I get pointed. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
179
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:30:00 -
[1395] - Quote
Onictus wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Onictus wrote:Exactly my point earlier.
Other than active tanking bonuses, trying to shoehorn a ship into small gang roles just makes it a **** ship, and these things need to have some performance to compete with the T1 cruiers, T3 cruiers, AND all of the battlecruiers.
All but one of which they cost significantly more than. T3s aren't really that common in lowsec/nullsec. People who use them now will probably continue to use them either because A) they like the cloaky niche they fulfill, or B) they want bling, and buffing HACs won't change that As long as they do BC DPS with BC tank, and cruiser sig I think they'll be worth the price... depends on the stats though. And slot layout, slot layout is big, 16 slots will be a must. Could have fooled me. When I lived in low I saw fleets of them from time to time, not to mention there was an unending barrage of them running plexes and such depending on how deep you went....I own 5 T3 hulls for three races(not boosters), and I'm not an annomoly. I'd hardly call T3s uncommon at all, we fly full fleets of them. Almost all major blocks can/do field T3 fleets. But like I said, HAC is the only T2 cruiser line that doesn't preform its role better than T3s. They don't really compete with battlecruisers for that matter. They can work, but cost to performance is terrible.
You guys fly T3s? But... you suck so bad!
I don't count PVE since we're balancing ships around PVP primarily, cause screw carebears. T3 fleets in nullsec aren't common, not since you guys got tired of welping Tengu fleets. Loki fleets aren't used much either. Proteus or Legion fleets? Please, those are a joke.
Anyway, HAC thread. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:40:00 -
[1396] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Onictus wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Onictus wrote:Exactly my point earlier.
Other than active tanking bonuses, trying to shoehorn a ship into small gang roles just makes it a **** ship, and these things need to have some performance to compete with the T1 cruiers, T3 cruiers, AND all of the battlecruiers.
All but one of which they cost significantly more than. T3s aren't really that common in lowsec/nullsec. People who use them now will probably continue to use them either because A) they like the cloaky niche they fulfill, or B) they want bling, and buffing HACs won't change that As long as they do BC DPS with BC tank, and cruiser sig I think they'll be worth the price... depends on the stats though. And slot layout, slot layout is big, 16 slots will be a must. Could have fooled me. When I lived in low I saw fleets of them from time to time, not to mention there was an unending barrage of them running plexes and such depending on how deep you went....I own 5 T3 hulls for three races(not boosters), and I'm not an annomoly. I'd hardly call T3s uncommon at all, we fly full fleets of them. Almost all major blocks can/do field T3 fleets. But like I said, HAC is the only T2 cruiser line that doesn't preform its role better than T3s. They don't really compete with battlecruisers for that matter. They can work, but cost to performance is terrible. You guys fly T3s? But... you suck so bad! I don't count PVE since we're balancing ships around PVP primarily, cause screw carebears. T3 fleets in nullsec aren't common, not since you guys got tired of welping Tengu fleets. Loki fleets aren't used much either. Proteus or Legion fleets? Please, those are a joke. Anyway, HAC thread.
That's funny I see at least one Loki fleet ping a day. Not to mention that we use recon Proteus and Lokis in our main doctrines....all of them. Just like everyone else. Do we use HACs? No, not enough tank or projection, you can do the same thing with an instacane/instastabber for half of the price or less.
I've also see, Legion fleets, Proteus fleets, various tengu flavors and whatever else.
....and no where did I mention PvE, I really don't care about mission and ratting, there are plenty of perfectly capable ships for both. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
179
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:48:00 -
[1397] - Quote
Onictus wrote: I've also see, Legion fleets, Proteus fleets, various tengu flavors and whatever else.
....and no where did I mention PvE, I really don't care about mission and ratting, there are plenty of perfectly capable ships for both.
Its a miracle you fly anything but Megathron blobs anymore Proteus fleets? Legion fleets? Now I know you're lying (or stretching it). Nobody flies a fleet based around the Proteus in nullsec, tackling Prots in an armor fleet don't count as a "Proteus fleet"
There's hardly any Tengus PVPing in nullsec, too expensive and will get blobbed by whoever lives there. Although with the average IQ of the CFC... wouldn't be too surprised.
I'm done with T3s though, there'll be a thread for that when they get to T3 rebalancing. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:55:00 -
[1398] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Onictus wrote: I've also see, Legion fleets, Proteus fleets, various tengu flavors and whatever else.
....and no where did I mention PvE, I really don't care about mission and ratting, there are plenty of perfectly capable ships for both.
Its a miracle you fly anything but Megathron blobs anymore Proteus fleets? Legion fleets? Now I know you're lying (or stretching it). Nobody flies a fleet based around the Proteus in nullsec, tackling Prots in an armor fleet don't count as a "Proteus fleet" There's hardly any Tengus PVPing in nullsec, too expensive and will get blobbed by whoever lives there. Although with the average IQ of the CFC... wouldn't be too surprised. I'm done with T3s though, there'll be a thread for that when they get to T3 rebalancing.
I've been out here for a while
I've fought PL in a legion fleet FCs by Elise Randolf I've seen Null flying a full fleet of Proteus, one of PGLs experiments I've flown both loki and tengus and -A- and -FA- I've seen the FW guys flying legion fleets in low sec (and blops dropping them for that matter) I've seen Liqud running tengu gangs in Molden Heath
No Tengus in null sec? That is the laugh of the week. EVERYONE isn't using them as a primary doctrine, but they are still all over out here.
Don't tell me what I have and haven't seen. if you missed it or just new, that really isn't my issue. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
180
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:58:00 -
[1399] - Quote
Onictus wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Onictus wrote: I've also see, Legion fleets, Proteus fleets, various tengu flavors and whatever else.
....and no where did I mention PvE, I really don't care about mission and ratting, there are plenty of perfectly capable ships for both.
Its a miracle you fly anything but Megathron blobs anymore Proteus fleets? Legion fleets? Now I know you're lying (or stretching it). Nobody flies a fleet based around the Proteus in nullsec, tackling Prots in an armor fleet don't count as a "Proteus fleet" There's hardly any Tengus PVPing in nullsec, too expensive and will get blobbed by whoever lives there. Although with the average IQ of the CFC... wouldn't be too surprised. I'm done with T3s though, there'll be a thread for that when they get to T3 rebalancing. I've been out here for a while I've fought PL in a legion fleet FCs by Elise Randolf I've seen Null flying a full fleet of Proteus, one of PGLs experiments I've flown both loki and tengus and -A- and -FA- I've seen the FW guys flying legion fleets in low sec (and blops dropping them for that matter) I've seen Liqud running tengu gangs in Molden Heath No Tengus in null sec? That is the laugh of the week. EVERYONE isn't using them as a primary doctrine, but they are still all over out here. Don't tell me what I have and haven't seen. if you missed it or just new, that really isn't my issue.
When was the last time PL flew a Legion fleet as their primary doctrine? When was the last time Nulli flew that Proteus fleet? (Hint, they haven't flown it since before Tribute) When was the last time -A- existed?
In conclusion, T3s aren't an issue, Back to the topic this thread is supposed to be focused on now so Rise can buff HACs into being not terribad. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:01:00 -
[1400] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: In conclusion, T3s aren't an issue, Back to the topic this thread is supposed to be focused on now so Rise can buff HACs into being not terribad.
I agree but people are screaming up and down for T3 nerfs because they are rolling all over the HACs roll whatever that is. My entire point was that HACs need to be buffed to the point that they offer SOME advantage in the roll over the T2s.
Because right now HACs are the only ones that don't.
|
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:07:00 -
[1401] - Quote
Onictus wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: In conclusion, T3s aren't an issue, Back to the topic this thread is supposed to be focused on now so Rise can buff HACs into being not terribad.
I agree but people are screaming up and down for T3 nerfs because they are rolling all over the HACs roll whatever that is. My entire point was that HACs need to be buffed to the point that they offer SOME advantage in the roll over the T2s. Because right now HACs are the only ones that don't.
I think the only advantage i could see them getting right now is price/efficiency but does that even matter in null? Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:10:00 -
[1402] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:Onictus wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: In conclusion, T3s aren't an issue, Back to the topic this thread is supposed to be focused on now so Rise can buff HACs into being not terribad.
I agree but people are screaming up and down for T3 nerfs because they are rolling all over the HACs roll whatever that is. My entire point was that HACs need to be buffed to the point that they offer SOME advantage in the roll over the T2s. Because right now HACs are the only ones that don't. I think the only advantage i could see them getting right now is price/efficiency but does that even matter in null?
Sure it does, these things don't grow on trees SRP aside line members usually have to buy the hull.
So you choice becomes insurable BC or uninsurable T2 that is going to get targeted first. I have apretty much every HAC except the Eagle and SAC, I usually fly something ~anything~ else over them. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1016
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:11:00 -
[1403] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:TBH I think of HACS as fast damage ships with a robust Tank. That would mean that they have to be positioned between BC's and Faction cruisers
In terms of speed: slightly slower then Faction Cruisers, due to is heavier tank, but way faster then BC's. That would mean in the range of the 1600 m/s to 1800 m/s
In terms off tank: Less EHP then BC's but better then Faction Cruisers. That would mean a tank of 60K to 75K EHP
In terms of damage: Better damage then Faction Cruisers and almost the same has BC's (except the old tier 3 ones). That would mean a a damage between 650-750 DPS.
All these salted with the proper virtues of each race:
The minni Hacs will be faster then the others but less tanky.
The Amarr ones will have have more tank but less speed.
The Gallentean will be in the midle with less speed then Minmatar and less tanky then the amarr ones but with more DPS.
The caldari ones with slower speed of them all, with a tank near the Galentean ones but capable of deploying the damage at longer distances.
Yep this is basically how the frigates work and its pretty well balanced.
navy frigates have less ehp and dps but are a bit faster than t2 frigates.
Destroyers (equivalent of battlecruisers)) tend to have slightly more ehp and more dps than t2 but are slower and cant active tank as well. They are also a bit cheaper than t2 firgates.
Pirate faction ships tend to be even faster than the navy frigates and just as much dps as t2 frigates but not the ehp.
It is working well with the frigate classes why not use the same general model with cruisers?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:13:00 -
[1404] - Quote
Cearain wrote:DeadDuck wrote:TBH I think of HACS as fast damage ships with a robust Tank. That would mean that they have to be positioned between BC's and Faction cruisers
In terms of speed: slightly slower then Faction Cruisers, due to is heavier tank, but way faster then BC's. That would mean in the range of the 1600 m/s to 1800 m/s
In terms off tank: Less EHP then BC's but better then Faction Cruisers. That would mean a tank of 60K to 75K EHP
In terms of damage: Better damage then Faction Cruisers and almost the same has BC's (except the old tier 3 ones). That would mean a a damage between 650-750 DPS.
All these salted with the proper virtues of each race:
The minni Hacs will be faster then the others but less tanky.
The Amarr ones will have have more tank but less speed.
The Gallentean will be in the midle with less speed then Minmatar and less tanky then the amarr ones but with more DPS.
The caldari ones with slower speed of them all, with a tank near the Galentean ones but capable of deploying the damage at longer distances. Yep this is basically how the frigates work and its pretty well balanced. navy frigates have less ehp and dps but are a bit faster than t2 frigates. Destroyers (equivalent of battlecruisers)) tend to have slightly more ehp and more dps than t2 but are slower and cant active tank as well. They are also a bit cheaper than t2 firgates. Pirate faction ships tend to be even faster than the navy frigates and just as much dps as t2 frigates but not the ehp. It is working well with the frigate classes why not use the same general model with cruisers?
Yeah that would be great, one big DPS hull and one big tank hull, and let god sort them out.
It would bring balance to the force and all that. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:14:00 -
[1405] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Crazy KSK wrote:Onictus wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: In conclusion, T3s aren't an issue, Back to the topic this thread is supposed to be focused on now so Rise can buff HACs into being not terribad.
I agree but people are screaming up and down for T3 nerfs because they are rolling all over the HACs roll whatever that is. My entire point was that HACs need to be buffed to the point that they offer SOME advantage in the roll over the T2s. Because right now HACs are the only ones that don't. I think the only advantage i could see them getting right now is price/efficiency but does that even matter in null? Sure it does, these things don't grow on trees SRP aside line members usually have to buy the hull. So you choice becomes insurable BC or uninsurable T2 that is going to get targeted first. I have apretty much every HAC except the Eagle and SAC, I usually fly something ~anything~ else over them.
so then if HACs got t1 BC stats with cruiser-esque speed there would be t3 fleets replaced by HAC fleets? Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:16:00 -
[1406] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote: so then if HACs got t1 BC stats with cruiser-esque speed there would be t3 fleets replaced by HAC fleets?
Perhaps, they would certainly get more of a shake than the do now.
I've seen basically munnin and zealot fleets and a couple vaga roams in the middle for years.
We have all spent weeks at a time in BCs and T3s at this point.
|
Snape Dieboldmotor
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:26:00 -
[1407] - Quote
In my mind HACs should be defensive powerhouses. They should have a reputation as being hard to kill especially by large weapons. The ideal weapon to use against a HAC should be medium sized weapons.
That's my 2 ISK... |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
180
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:29:00 -
[1408] - Quote
Onictus wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: In conclusion, T3s aren't an issue, Back to the topic this thread is supposed to be focused on now so Rise can buff HACs into being not terribad.
I agree but people are screaming up and down for T3 nerfs because they are rolling all over the HACs roll whatever that is. My entire point was that HACs need to be buffed to the point that they offer SOME advantage in the roll over the T2s. Because right now HACs are the only ones that don't.
Agreed.
The sniper role for HACs is definitely dead though, ABCs assured that.
A brawler role (Sac, Ishtar, Deimos, Muninn) and a kiting role (Vaga, Cerb, Eagle, Zealot) would be best in my opinion. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
325
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:30:00 -
[1409] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Onictus wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: In conclusion, T3s aren't an issue, Back to the topic this thread is supposed to be focused on now so Rise can buff HACs into being not terribad.
I agree but people are screaming up and down for T3 nerfs because they are rolling all over the HACs roll whatever that is. My entire point was that HACs need to be buffed to the point that they offer SOME advantage in the roll over the T2s. Because right now HACs are the only ones that don't. Agreed. The sniper role for HACs is definitely dead though, ABCs assured that. A brawler role and a kiting role would be best in my opinion.
Like I said big tank and big damage. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:30:00 -
[1410] - Quote
Snape Dieboldmotor wrote:In my mind HACs should be defensive powerhouses. They should have a reputation as being hard to kill especially by large weapons. The ideal weapon to use against a HAC should be medium sized weapons.
That's my 2 ISK...
Role Bonus: -75% damage from non-Medium Weapon systems. +75% damage from Medium Weapon systems.
It would be a coding nightmare, but... |
|
zen zubon
Stray Dog Strut Gateway.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:36:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Why most all blaster boats be max dps then die, why not make it tanky, you already made a Max dps no tank blaster boat in the navy exequror, shouldn't the deimos be more like a poor mans blaster proteus? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
325
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:37:00 -
[1412] - Quote
zen zubon wrote:Why most all blaster boats be max dps then die, why not make it tanky, you already made a Max dps no tank blaster boat in the navy exequror, shouldn't the deimos be more like a poor mans blaster proteus?
Exactly.
|
Syrias Bizniz
Carnivore Company
194
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:41:00 -
[1413] - Quote
Personal thoughts:
Maybe scratch the idea of having 8 heavy assault cruisers, 2 per race, rename the skill into 'Assault Cruisers' and offer 2 lines of them: Heavy Assault cruisers and Light Assault cruisers.
Heavy Assault Cruisers are more meant for the hard work, like Sacrileges for example. Sturdy, but kind of slow ships designed for brawling with good to excellent damage output.
Light Assault cruisers more suited towards skirmishing, focusing on mobility, significantly less dps, but by far better in application.
For example a (very unique) bonus like 'x% reduction to Medium [blah] Turret Signature Resolution'. I'm not sure about the math how this is basically just a tracking bonus or something different, but i just don't like the idea of having 8 ships in the more or less same role that already partially are outperformed by other ships.
For example, the Ishtar. It has 125mbit of Drones on a cruiserhull, which is outstanding, but then again, the Navy Vexor and Gila do offer the same only without Tech 2 Resistances and a different slotlayout.
So basically, a new lineup might look like the following:
Heavy Assault Cruisers: -Sacrilege | HAM Brawler with Missile Explosion Radius instead of capacitor bonus / mwd capacitor bonus? -Muninn | sturdy artillery Platform for medium to long range engagements / Dmg bonuses, Optimum Bonuses, Tracking Bonuses -Eagle | sturdy Rail-Platform for medium to long range engagements. -Ishtar | Drone Brawler, possibly with a huge chunk of mobility (mwd speed) towards heavy drones?
These cruisers would have heavy dps potential and be quite tanky, but lack a lot of mobility and maneuverbility of Light Assault cruisers. Basically, Battlecruisers with smaller sig and similar tanks. 550-600 DPS heated might be a good spot for the long rangers, ~650-700 for the brawlers. Amarr / Caldari with resistance bonus, Gallente / Minmatar with Hitpoint-Bonus?
Light Assault Cruisers:
Zealot | Laser DPS, long range (Scorching to 50-55, maybe?) Vagabond | Autocannon ship for close range engagements, very good tracking, AB bonus? Cerberus | HAM / RLM for close range, AB bonus? Deimos | Rail DPS, long range
These cruisers would have normal cruiser dps potential, but with a lot more mobility and survivability.
Contrary to the Heavy Assault cruisers, the ranges have just switched. Amarr and Gallente for ranging, minmatar and caldari for brawling. Basically, their tanking potential would be lower than that of the HAC lineup, with 40-45k ehp maybe, but combined with good mobility on afterburners and small signatures for the brawlers (90-100m sig, 800m/s with AB?)
Their damage application would be threatening to frigs, but the maximum DPS somewhere around 300-400 dps.
General concept: Long Range Cruisers (Amarr & Gallente LAC, Minmatar & Caldari HAC) get the mwd signature bonus, Close Range Cruisers get Afterburner Speed Bonus.
HAC have huge sig (120-140), LAC have small sig (90-100).
HAC have high damage potential but can't really apply on small targets, LAC have mediocore damage but CAN apply it to small targets |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
325
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:45:00 -
[1414] - Quote
Along those lines.
I have some differing opinions, but that is here no there. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:56:00 -
[1415] - Quote
Onictus wrote: Like I said big tank and big damage.
I'm glad that after all this discussion about the need of t2 ships to have specialized functions, we're back to the "t1 cruisers on steroids" idea.
Seriously, a t2 generalist combat ship is conceptually unsound. Kiter and brawler are concepts that apply just as well to faction and t1 ships. Simply splitting HACs into kiters and brawlers is setting them up as a straight upgrade to t1/navy cruiser. T2 ships don't need to be better, they need to be unique (in a useful way). |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
325
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:01:00 -
[1416] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Onictus wrote: Like I said big tank and big damage.
I'm glad that after all this discussion about the need of t2 ships to have specialized functions, we're back to the "t1 cruisers on steroids" idea. Seriously, a t2 generalist combat ship is conceptually unsound. Kiter and brawler are concepts that apply just as well to faction and t1 ships. Simply splitting HACs into kiters and brawlers is setting them up as a straight upgrade to t1/navy cruiser. T2 ships don't need to be better, they need to be unique (in a useful way).
Big damage or being hard to pop is always useful. |
Syrias Bizniz
Carnivore Company
194
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:06:00 -
[1417] - Quote
Try creating unique roles for a shipline that was designed as heavy t1 cruisers. They are in a niche with T1 cruisers and Battlecruisers. You can't just make them unique unless you pull them out of that niche completely. You have to make them unique within the niche. Which is basically... a combination. The best of both worlds at the price of long skilltime investments. Granting them light ewar capabilities steps on the Tech 3's intended role. Making them covert would be...
well, that might be actually interesting, but that's something Tech 3's do, too.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
325
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:07:00 -
[1418] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Try creating unique roles for a shipline that was designed as heavy t1 cruisers. They are in a niche with T1 cruisers and Battlecruisers. You can't just make them unique unless you pull them out of that niche completely. You have to make them unique within the niche. Which is basically... a combination. The best of both worlds at the price of long skilltime investments. Granting them light ewar capabilities steps on the Tech 3's intended role. Making them covert would be...
THIS
Except that T2 cruisers don't have a half bill buy in.
|
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:10:00 -
[1419] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Try creating unique roles for a shipline that was designed as heavy t1 cruisers. They are in a niche with T1 cruisers and Battlecruisers. You can't just make them unique unless you pull them out of that niche completely. You have to make them unique within the niche. Which is basically... a combination. The best of both worlds at the price of long skilltime investments. Granting them light ewar capabilities steps on the Tech 3's intended role. Making them covert would be...
well, that might be actually interesting, but that's something Tech 3's do, too.
Only problem with covert is that that role is already filled by the Recon ship line. AND Ewar, come to think of it... |
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:13:00 -
[1420] - Quote
Going over this thread back and forth and testing different things in EFT I agree with previous posters that we need two roles for HAC's: Kitting and Brawling, since it is near impossible to balance eight kitting ships. Someone(s) even suggested that we differentiate the names for those two roles: Heavy Assault Cruisers, and the new one, Strike Attack Cruisers. With two groups of ships its easer to iterate on them when later needed.
So basically the HAC would be the brawling ships and the SAC the kitters. To further work upon this they need different roleboni. The suggested 50% reduced Microwarpdrive Signatrue penalty could stay with the kitters and the brawlers get a unique one, I suggest:
50% reduction of heat damage absorbed by modules.
Please bring suggestions/ideas/constructive criticism to this. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
325
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:19:00 -
[1421] - Quote
Lord Eremet wrote:Going over this thread back and forth and testing different things in EFT I agree with previous posters that we need two roles for HAC's: Kitting and Brawling, since it is near impossible to balance eight kitting ships. Someone(s) even suggested that we differentiate the names for those two roles: Heavy Assault Cruisers, and the new one, Strike Attack Cruisers. With two groups of ships its easer to iterate on them when later needed.
So basically the HAC would be the brawling ships and the SAC the kitters. To further work upon this they need different roleboni. The suggested 50% reduced Microwarpdrive Signatrue penalty could stay with the kitters and the brawlers get a unique one, I suggest:
50% reduction of heat damage absorbed by modules.
Please bring suggestions/ideas/constructive criticism to this.
Laudable, but finite.
I think tanking bonuses would be better, but that can also be handled with fittings.
|
Ja'ho sun
puyg
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:24:00 -
[1422] - Quote
NetheranE wrote:The statement that HACs should be split into two roles was probably the best piece of advice said so far.
Change the skill name to "Assault Cruiser," and add in the lore of the two sets of respective AC's that they are either a HEAVY assault cruiser or a SKIRMISH assault cruiser.
Skirmish assault cruisers should be all about hit-and-run or guerilla warfare combat, using their racial specific weapon sets. They would need to be able to get in, do good damage and get out; or be able to dictate against their opponents while applying consistently against them. They should ~10% more base HP points than their t1 counterparts, and be about 35% faster base (Vagabond being slightly faster than this @ ~45%). Heavy assault cruisers would be fleet doctrine based. While slower and less projecting/applying than their skirmish breathern, their staying power and EWAR resilience is literally unmatched. If there was ever a ship type to put most fleets in their place, these are the ships you want. They should have ~30% more base HP points than their t1 counterparts, but only be about 15% faster base.
Skirmish Assault Cruisers: Deimos, Vagabond, Cerberus, Zealot *OPTION 1* Role Bonus: Immune to non-direct interdiction, No drawback for Astronautic Rigs *OPTION 2* Role Bonus: -80% Microwarpdrive Signature Bloom Penality, No drawback for Astronautic Rigs
This fitting should BARELY fit in both CPU and PG, so to fit HAMs, one would need to lose a BCU and upgrade the PDS to a RCU. This would balance between the two weapon systems. Signature should be ~Deimos, and this should be the least agile/speedy of the Skirmish HACs, but by no more than 5% from its nearest competitor in both categories. Forcing the loss of the LASB for 3 BCSs or LASB+RCU+2 BCSs is a fair option as well. Mass should also be reduced to similar with the Vagabond.
the cost and effort to build does not warrant ewar resilience. immune to bubbles may be much for null warfare, however the tanks (so long as it is at most 15% buff to tank) on hacs are not so extreme (plus just because they can go though bubbles doesn't mean their logi can). 80% is too much for a sig reduction, 65 to 75% would be more in line. there should still be drawbacks for fitting rigs.
idk that the cerb should have another slot, since its better off with the 6th launcher. 6 mids would mean more tank then it needs (as ppl would want enough fitting for a second extender on a cruiser of all things) and another low would make it too fast for its bonuses (nano for last low ofc).
on an off note, why fit a small cap booster to a cruiser. sure u can fit 1 navy 400 but that helps so little for the same cycle time as a med booster which can hold 1 800 or multiple 400s. I understand the fitting cost, but oh man, the sacrifice off cap for higher dps is just not worth it imo. nuets will murder u
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
181
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:26:00 -
[1423] - Quote
Covert DPS is covered by Bombers and BLOPs battleships, Ewar is covered by Recons, EAFs.
I think the best roll for HACs would be beefed up versions of the T1 cruisers, only with a roll bonus that makes them better at brawling or kiting.
Edit: The heat damage bonus... that's an interesting one. It's not a bad idea, maybe put that on the brawling HACs, and do the -80% MWD sig bloom on the kiters? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
261
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:27:00 -
[1424] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Personal thoughts:
Maybe scratch the idea of having 8 heavy assault cruisers, 2 per race, rename the skill into 'Assault Cruisers' and offer 2 lines of them: Heavy Assault cruisers and Light Assault cruisers.
Heavy Assault Cruisers are more meant for the hard work, like Sacrileges for example. Sturdy, but kind of slow ships designed for brawling with good to excellent damage output.
Light Assault cruisers more suited towards skirmishing, focusing on mobility, significantly less dps, but by far better in application.
For example a (very unique) bonus like 'x% reduction to Medium [blah] Turret Signature Resolution'. I'm not sure about the math how this is basically just a tracking bonus or something different, but i just don't like the idea of having 8 ships in the more or less same role that already partially are outperformed by other ships.
For example, the Ishtar. It has 125mbit of Drones on a cruiserhull, which is outstanding, but then again, the Navy Vexor and Gila do offer the same only without Tech 2 Resistances and a different slotlayout.
So basically, a new lineup might look like the following:
Heavy Assault Cruisers: -Sacrilege | HAM Brawler with Missile Explosion Radius instead of capacitor bonus / mwd capacitor bonus? -Muninn | sturdy artillery Platform for medium to long range engagements / Dmg bonuses, Optimum Bonuses, Tracking Bonuses -Eagle | sturdy Rail-Platform for medium to long range engagements. -Ishtar | Drone Brawler, possibly with a huge chunk of mobility (mwd speed) towards heavy drones?
These cruisers would have heavy dps potential and be quite tanky, but lack a lot of mobility and maneuverbility of Light Assault cruisers. Basically, Battlecruisers with smaller sig and similar tanks. 550-600 DPS heated might be a good spot for the long rangers, ~650-700 for the brawlers. Amarr / Caldari with resistance bonus, Gallente / Minmatar with Hitpoint-Bonus?
Light Assault Cruisers:
Zealot | Laser DPS, long range (Scorching to 50-55, maybe?) Vagabond | Autocannon ship for close range engagements, very good tracking, AB bonus? Cerberus | HAM / RLM for close range, AB bonus? Deimos | Rail DPS, long range
These cruisers would have normal cruiser dps potential, but with a lot more mobility and survivability.
Contrary to the Heavy Assault cruisers, the ranges have just switched. Amarr and Gallente for ranging, minmatar and caldari for brawling. Basically, their tanking potential would be lower than that of the HAC lineup, with 40-45k ehp maybe, but combined with good mobility on afterburners and small signatures for the brawlers (90-100m sig, 800m/s with AB?)
Their damage application would be threatening to frigs, but the maximum DPS somewhere around 300-400 dps.
General concept: Long Range Cruisers (Amarr & Gallente LAC, Minmatar & Caldari HAC) get the mwd signature bonus, Close Range Cruisers get Afterburner Speed Bonus.
HAC have huge sig (120-140), LAC have small sig (90-100).
HAC have high damage potential but can't really apply on small targets, LAC have mediocore damage but CAN apply it to small targets
I think the words you are looking for are Heavy Attack Cruiser (HAC) and Heavy Combat Cruiser (HCC (hiss?)). And if Fozzie was doing this, we would see the current skill split in two for specialization. He loves adding new skills. |
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:31:00 -
[1425] - Quote
My first thoughts:
- Double web Deimos seems like it could be better than most are giving it credit for.
- 40% Scout Drone damage per level or something similar instead of the generic 20% drone damage bonus would promote hit and run Ishtar tactics and separate it from the plethora of cruiser/BC sized drone hulls.
- The Sac still seems a bit lackluster, a little more CPU/Cap if you want a Neut or Tinker setup or switch a high for a low if you want it buffered.
- The ASB Vaga will eat faces.
- Zealot is pretty close. Not sure what to do without OPing it. |
Chrono Guardia
MuffinMen
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:38:00 -
[1426] - Quote
So I did not read every page, but here are my thoughts on the ishtar as an avid drone user.
Basically the main issue everyone cites is the CPU issue.
I feel that the new +tracking and optimal bonus on the ishtar means that you need to fit one less omnidirectional tracking link, which was meant to lower the fitting. Therefore if the devs felt they wanted to go further they could boost the +5 control range bonus to +10 km which would erase the need to fit drone range augmentors. This would give us the plenty of cpu to fit a full rack of the lightest fitting medium guns.
Also on a random note, +1 to giving the eagle higher lock range
Chrono |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4144
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 19:56:00 -
[1427] - 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. Just be careful of the CSM members who have their own personal agenda in mind instead of the player base. . |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
273
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:09:00 -
[1428] - Quote
imo, kiters need a burner bonus to speed. burner zealots are hard to hit. they can keep sig radius down and still do descent top speed.
brawlers need to get in close and stop the ships so they can apply damage, i think the diemost and ishtar need to trade places. the diemost would be better as a kiter. the ishtar needs to drop drone and run blaster. all of that requires us to be close.
what we need to do is define the role better. what are they?
if they are heavy assault vessels, they need to assault things heavily. bc dps. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
173
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:10:00 -
[1429] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:I'm Down wrote:nikar galvren wrote:Thanks for listening! I guess now we'll see how closely you're listening... :P I definitely want to see a HAC lineup that is valid for solo/small gang play style. The downside to that is the probability that anything good enough to solo in will be great to large scale sov-blob in. Too much of that already. That's not true at all. Go back and read my last post to show exactly how to limit their effectiveness in fleets, but make them very strong solo and small gang ships. I did. Would you really want to solo in a blaster-fit brawler with -60% range? Is there no conceivable use for a large scale fleet doctrine involving highly mobile, great damage projecting ships? My point was that ships that are fun to solo/small gang in are *often* strong additions to larger fleet doctrines. There's not really any way around it unless you want to create a niche role that (very) few pilots will ever undock. It's the nature of the meta right now. While I recognize that, I'm not sure what balancing pass would produce a specialized hull that is attractive to fly solo/SG, but less attractive to blobs. It's a tough problem, and I don't envy Rise for having to figure it out.
A high dps blaster ship with more speed and tank in a low sec setting would have no issues at all given proper circumstances and use. It's meant to have a design flaw where it excels at close range damage and a weakness to longer range and kiting. It's called true tradeoff... or more specifically, a role.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
181
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:11:00 -
[1430] - Quote
Mole Guy wrote:imo, kiters need a burner bonus to speed. burner zealots are hard to hit. they can keep sig radius down and still do descent top speed.
brawlers need to get in close and stop the ships so they can apply damage, i think the diemost and ishtar need to trade places. the diemost would be better as a kiter. the ishtar needs to drop drone and run blaster. all of that requires us to be close.
what we need to do is define the role better. what are they?
if they are heavy assault vessels, they need to assault things heavily. bc dps.
Kiting HACs with an afterburner (even with an AB bonus) could be caught by anything smaller than a battleship. They definitely need an MWD for mobility; and then a sig bonus (higher than 50%, maybe 80) or a reduction in base sig to make them workable.
Definitely BC DPS. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
367
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:15:00 -
[1431] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: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. Just be careful of the CSM members who have their own personal agenda in mind instead of the player base. You don't trust the elected officials?!
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:21:00 -
[1432] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Maximilian Akora wrote:Onictus wrote:Maximilian Akora wrote:
Not really, all blobbers care for is EHP and damage projection. Solo or small gang pvpers can look beyond that very limited view of F1 pushing.
Whatever, small gang you look for SPEED eHP and damage projection.....except you have to do your own point. Don't act like small gang is some magically twitch dependant all skiller no filler, its just a smaller blob that you might have to point for youself. If you can't see the rather massive differences between fleet/blob fits and solo/small gang fits then there's not much to discuss tbh. Case in point; blobbers dislike the changed drake and its missiles, solo and small gang folks realise it's actually a buff. Yeah the HAM changes (and bonus changes) did GREAT things for the HAM drake......you have NO idea the deaths of my hated for the pre HML nerf fleet drake, none. That being said its a matter of application, in small gangs the drake is fine, where they there are 400 combat hulls on field its damage projection is ****. So when you come out low sec the value to the hull nose dives. When HMLs go knocked back down into the realm of all of the other medium long range weapon I was thrilled. As it relates there there is no application where you really want to use a Cerb over that HAM drake. The range is cool and all with the cerb, but if you fart at the Cerb it goes boom.......for another 100 million, for that matter you can do near the same thing with a caracal for 50mil.
lol you just fail at fitting cerbs then |
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:22:00 -
[1433] - Quote
Going back to that space turd that is the Eagle, knocked down from the sky by the NAGA, I took the liberation of rewriting its backstory and giving it new bonuses to better reflect its new role:
Hull: Moa Class Role: Heavy Assault Ship
The Eagle is unique among caldari ships that it is eschewing long range fighting for close up brawling. Where more cautions Caldari pilots prefer to range death from afar, the pilots of the Eagle goes face to face with its enemy until one of them is a smoldering wreck.
With a shield that can take a serious pounding and state of the art hybrid guns to dole out hurt the Eagle is anything but a pushover and few who meet one will live to tell the tale.
Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 4% resistances to shield per level
Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level
Role Bonus: 50% reduction of heat damage absorbed by modules
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+46) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 150
Please note that I gave it a dronebay to field 5 light drones and a lot more base speed. I'm not sure how much pwg it need added.The rest I just copy-pasted.
With all skills at level V and no wirings, five Heavy Neutron Blaster II with CN Antimatter and five hobgoblin II, the damage output should be 757 (855 when overheated).
So, thoughts about this? |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
181
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:25:00 -
[1434] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: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. Just be careful of the CSM members who have their own personal agenda in mind instead of the player base. You don't trust the elected officials?!
I don't trust ANY elected officials, out of game or in game
Especially the nullsec CSM, those guys always have an agenda. Last thing they need is newly buffed HACs harassing their ratters and countering their battleship blobs. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
285
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:28:00 -
[1435] - Quote
Onictus wrote:[quote=Milton Middleson] Big damage or being hard to pop is always useful.
And is a function already fulfilled by standard ships. Look, we already have the upgraded brawler/kiter distinction covered by Navy cruisers (e.g. Navy Augoror and Navy Omen, SFI and ScyFI). And while it is quite probable that HACs will be brawlers or kiters or snipers simply because they are combat ships that shoot at things, you're going to need to give them something else.
A bonus to overheating time and effectiveness would be a solid example of "something else". It emphasizes the "assault" aspect of the ship: they're not meant for extended fights, but they have an unparalleled ability to over-perform in short engagements. Maybe they're interdiction nullified, so catching a fleet of them is hard. Maybe they're immune to scrams and webs, so you can't hard tackle them. Maybe they get a miniature siege module-type thing that ups their damage in exchange for not being able to warp for two minutes. Which terrible idea you pick doesn't really matter, so long as it's useful, vaguely unique, and the hulls are able to exploit it.
The point remains, we've got the super t1 cruiser role covered by faction cruisers, and we've got the heavy cruiser role covered by battlecruisers. Trying to insert HACs into one of those roles is going to result in failure - either the rebalance succeeds, and HACs displace the old occupants of that role, or they don't, and continue to be unpopular. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
181
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:29:00 -
[1436] - Quote
Lord Eremet wrote:Going back to that space turd that is the Eagle, knocked down from the sky by the NAGA, I took the liberation of rewriting its backstory and giving it new bonuses to better reflect its new role:
Hull: Moa Class Role: Heavy Assault Ship
The Eagle is unique among caldari ships that it is eschewing long range fighting for close up brawling. Where more cautions Caldari pilots prefer to range death from afar, the pilots of the Eagle goes face to face with its enemy until one of them is a smoldering wreck.
With a shield that can take a serious pounding and state of the art hybrid guns to dole out hurt the Eagle is anything but a pushover and few who meet one will live to tell the tale.
Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 4% resistances to shield per level
Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level
Role Bonus: 50% reduction of heat damage absorbed by modules
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+46) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 150
Please note that I gave it a dronebay to field 5 light drones and a lot more base speed. I'm not sure how much pwg it need added.The rest I just copy-pasted.
With all skills at level V and no wirings, five Heavy Neutron Blaster II with CN Antimatter and five hobgoblin II, the damage output should be 757 (855 when overheated).
So, thoughts about this?
Yes... but maybe a bit less DPS. 750 DPS (Granted, with drones) and as much tank as it has there (6 mids = MWD, scram, 4 tank slots because someone will loltank it) would be almost definitely OP. Maybe a tracking bonus over one of those damage bonuses? How would that effect the on-paper DPS? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4145
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:33:00 -
[1437] - Quote
HULL TANKING
Just tossing that out there... . |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
325
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:34:00 -
[1438] - Quote
Ja'ho sun wrote:Onictus wrote:Maximilian Akora wrote:Onictus wrote:Maximilian Akora wrote:
Not really, all blobbers care for is EHP and damage projection. Solo or small gang pvpers can look beyond that very limited view of F1 pushing.
Whatever, small gang you look for SPEED eHP and damage projection.....except you have to do your own point. Don't act like small gang is some magically twitch dependant all skiller no filler, its just a smaller blob that you might have to point for youself. If you can't see the rather massive differences between fleet/blob fits and solo/small gang fits then there's not much to discuss tbh. Case in point; blobbers dislike the changed drake and its missiles, solo and small gang folks realise it's actually a buff. Yeah the HAM changes (and bonus changes) did GREAT things for the HAM drake......you have NO idea the deaths of my hated for the pre HML nerf fleet drake, none. That being said its a matter of application, in small gangs the drake is fine, where they there are 400 combat hulls on field its damage projection is ****. So when you come out low sec the value to the hull nose dives. When HMLs go knocked back down into the realm of all of the other medium long range weapon I was thrilled. As it relates there there is no application where you really want to use a Cerb over that HAM drake. The range is cool and all with the cerb, but if you fart at the Cerb it goes boom.......for another 100 million, for that matter you can do near the same thing with a caracal for 50mil. lol you just fail at fitting cerbs then
Please then show me a cerb build you would take again an equal number of drakes.
|
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:36:00 -
[1439] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:HULL TANKING Just tossing that out there...
It would definitely be unique... |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1356
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:44:00 -
[1440] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:HULL TANKING Just tossing that out there... I got trolled to hell and back for that one, I thought Gallente should get a 5% per level to the resistances of damage control modules. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:46:00 -
[1441] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: Yes... but maybe a bit less DPS. 750 DPS (Granted, with drones) and as much tank as it has there (6 mids = MWD, scram, 4 tank slots because someone will loltank it) would be almost definitely OP. Maybe a tracking bonus over one of those damage bonuses? How would that effect the on-paper DPS?
Easy, if you want a tank you will have to downgrade the guns, or it would be blatantly op. With only one damage bonus and drones the damage should be 625, 704 when over heating. To get 750 damage it would need to field 5 medium drones, which I feel is very un-caldari!
As for a alternative bonus... I have no idea. I will have to sleep on it I think. And come back to the thread tomorrow morning.
Suggestions to this are welcome.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
182
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 20:47:00 -
[1442] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:HULL TANKING Just tossing that out there... I got trolled to hell and back for that one, I thought Gallente should get a 5% per level to the resistances of damage control modules. Edit: effectiveness that is, so at level 5 you would get a 75% hull resistance.
Any ship that has fire shooting out of it is awesome by default.
Doesn't matter if that fire isn't "supposed" to be there! How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4146
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 21:13:00 -
[1443] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:HULL TANKING Just tossing that out there... I got trolled to hell and back for that one, I thought Gallente should get a 5% per level to the resistances of damage control modules. Edit: effectiveness that is, so at level 5 you would get a 75% hull resistance.
. |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 21:18:00 -
[1444] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Ja'ho sun wrote:Maximilian Akora wrote:
Not really, all blobbers care for is EHP and damage projection. Solo or small gang pvpers can look beyond that very limited view of F1 pushing.
Whatever, small gang you look for SPEED eHP and damage projection.....except you have to do your own point. Don't act like small gang is some magically twitch dependant all skiller no filler, its just a smaller blob that you might have to point for youself. If you can't see the rather massive differences between fleet/blob fits and solo/small gang fits then there's not much to discuss tbh. Case in point; blobbers dislike the changed drake and its missiles, solo and small gang folks realise it's actually a buff.
Yeah the HAM changes (and bonus changes) did GREAT things for the HAM drake......you have NO idea the deaths of my hated for the pre HML nerf fleet drake, none. That being said its a matter of application, in small gangs the drake is fine, where they there are 400 combat hulls on field its damage projection is ****. So when you come out low sec the value to the hull nose dives. When HMLs go knocked back down into the realm of all of the other medium long range weapon I was thrilled.
As it relates there there is no application where you really want to use a Cerb over that HAM drake. The range is cool and all with the cerb, but if you fart at the Cerb it goes boom.......for another 100 million, for that matter you can do near the same thing with a caracal for 50mil.
[/quote]
lol you just fail at fitting cerbs then[/quote]
Please then show me a cerb build you would take again an equal number of drakes. [/quote]
disclosing my fit would be as silly as saying a caracal is a better buy then a cerb. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1356
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 21:48:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:HULL TANKING Just tossing that out there... I got trolled to hell and back for that one, I thought Gallente should get a 5% per level to the resistances of damage control modules. Edit: effectiveness that is, so at level 5 you would get a 75% hull resistance. Change Deimos MWD bonus to +10% to hull resistances per level. Just trying to think outside the box a bit. I personally love thinking outside the box. But I think that 50% hull resistance would be a bet much, with a DC that would put you at 80% hull resistance across the board, giving a default 12500 hull EHP Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Erutpar Ambient
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Black Core Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 21:49:00 -
[1446] - Quote
So, question.
Based on the ideology of tiericide, tech II is supposed to be very specific to a role.
What exactly is the role of a Heavy Assault Cruiser? Or at least intended role.
Are both ships for each race supposed to fill the same or similar role? How will you balance Tech III ships agaisnt Tech II in this specific role? Should the HACs be divided up into Fleet ship vs Solo/small gang?
For me it sounds like HACs should be a big damage big tank ship. Or in otherwords a brawler. That to me means not good with ewar. I would think their weakness would be small fast ships and ewar. So they shouldn't be too fast or have room for webs.
Maybe the shield HACs could get a reduction to shield module signature penalty. Maybe the Armor HACs could get a reduction to speed and mass penalties from plates.
Maybe instead of directly bonusing the weapons, you could bonus the weapon upgrade modules such as heat sinks and TE/TCs. That way you could build the bonuses into your ship at different levels and give a lot more power to specific fits instead of a blanket hull bonus. This would mean people could designate their own interpretation about a HAC (attack vs tank vs balance) and there would be a specific area where a Tech III couldn't overshadow them.
You would have to bonus opposing modules though. Like shiled vs TC vs maybe capacitor module? Or armor vs TE vs damage upgrade. This would allow you to build your own unique ship while sill falling under the catagory of HAC.
Currently all of the bonuses are based on your hull. So the difference between 1 heat sink and 3 is pretty small. If you put the bonuses on the heat sink the differences could be pretty huge. Meaning equipping a ship for all damage will do very heavy damage but easy to kill or conversely equipping a ship for all tank (and let's be real, they don't need additional tank buffing, especially if there's the sig/mass bonus) will bring the damage down considerably but have a very heavy tank.
Let's be frank here. Tech I ships are designed to be hard to fail with. All of their bonuses tell you what to do with your ship. If you're flying a Tech II ship, you should at least do it with confidence in your abilty to fit. Bonusing modules will give more power to your fit and it would become easier to fail fit again. If the bonused modules compete for the same slots then you don't worry about losing a bonus, you decide which bonus you want to use.
Give us personality! Give us unique flavor! Do something different! Give us choices! |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
434
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 21:57:00 -
[1447] - Quote
Eagle , this ship is too slow for blaster so it is a rail platform + optimal bonuses it is a med-long range sniper, it is also specialized ship , then make everything on it to support this.
Why so low targeting range? It should also lock faster. Why resist bonus on it when it should outrange enemy and shouldnt come under fire in the first place?
The other hac-s arent much different , no clear roles , as the bonuses and base stats are just all conflict with eachother.
So first think out a good role for them ( yeah they dont have to be the same for all hacs) and then start them balancing
"Increase viability for the worst ships (Eagle, Cerberus, Sacrilege especially) Support rather than disrupt current uses (AHACs) Make room for new uses when possible" yeah dps boost makes eagle/cerb more viable thats for sure , and thats where all increased viability ends they need more sacriliege.. it gets caldarinized just like the typhoon, imho the hml bonus is unneeded , if somebody wants hml (which is overnerfed btw) then he will bring a cerb,or something t1/t3 I dont say a hml sac couldnt be good , just cant see why we need it
"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. "
not realy it only benefits some with a limited role what my ab zealot does with this bonus nothing? what would my sniper eagle do with this bonus , probably nothing, as it cant even supply its guns with cap not alone an mwd
"We feel this is a really nice fit because it doesn't boost afterburner variations that are already very strong, but it does add to resilience for most other uses." it only gives resilience if you run it ,which is probably wont be the case for most roles these ships are used, also as a sniper/brawler you want to dictate range --> probably you wont orbit at all just apporace or trying to mwd align out,which means you dont try to sig tank which this bonus is for
|
GreenSeed
591
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 00:16:00 -
[1448] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Eagle , this ship is too slow for blaster so it is a rail platform + optimal bonuses it is a med-long range sniper, it is also specialized ship , then make everything on it to support this.
Why so low targeting range? It should also lock faster.
this, and its not only true for the Eagle, other HACs have this problem. with the only exception being the Cerberus, where it is understood that it must have a tradeoff to use that insane range, the other HACs just lack targeting range and resolution.
or better yet, how about we just give them a 50% resist to ewar effects such as damps, jams, etc. instead of the 50% lower sig on a bloom that you either don't care about because you are shield tanked (it could be -90% and your sig would still make large guns have no penalty...), or you expect to have it if you pulse MWD on any aHAC. |
TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 00:26:00 -
[1449] - Quote
I feel like all of these should be faster than their T2 counterparts, or significantly tankier than they are relative to other similarly priced options. The navy cruisers in particular are Very Good in comparison, as are Navy BC.
E.g. a Navy Omen does everything this Zealot does and is MUCH faster even with oversize plate. Why is zealot twice as expensive? Resists and a cap bonus? meh, I need a booster to maintain MWD anyway, and the whole point of a midrange sniper is to avoid damage. Some speed would help.
I'm not sure if the MWD sigrad bonus is as useful as it looks on paper given the slow speeds on these things. |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 00:28:00 -
[1450] - Quote
Sadly, I don't see that the changes made really bring out anything special in the HACs, though I do like the general changes done on many of the ships. As mentioned by others, even with the role bonus, the ships don't really set themselves apart from their main competitor, the Battlecruiser. Personally, I think two things are in order:
First: Change the MWD sig bloom reduction bonus to an AB speed bonus. Even with a 50% reduction in MWD "bloom", the HACs will still be the size of a large battlecruiser, small battleship, so there isn't much of a bonus there. Switching them to AB would allow them some added protection in speed and MWDs would still be viable on HACs in several common situations.
Second: In order to really seperate the battlecruiser from the HACs, in a way that really is honestly different, is to make all Tech 2 cruisers/Command Ships have a 4.5 AU warp speed, instead of a 3.75 AU warp speed. The Warp Speed change would essentially make HACs the equivlent of Fast Battlecruisers, but with less tanking ability than Battlecruisers have currently. Plus, this would seperate them from Pirate faction ships and thus give them their own "niche" as it were, one that is real and can't be effectively glossed over by something else. |
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2157
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 00:46:00 -
[1451] - Quote
As a matter of fact, I'd like to see them have a 33% AB speed bonus instead of the 50% MWD sig reduction bonus - something I would have preferred for assault frigs in the first place.
Of course after their base speeds have been adjusted to their T1 counterparts.
[edit] Elaboration: Assaulting means getting toe to toe and take something from my understanding. Giving HACs an AB bonus instead of the MWD one would greatly decrease their vulnerabiltiy to scrams, adding opportunities to disengage as compared to battlecruisers, which currently are the HACs downfall.
That unique bonus would also make them stand out from T3 cruisers and build on their only stregth, which is sig tanking.
Would they be powerful?
Yes - but imho they're meant to be.
It would be an especially useful bonus to set them apart from their nemesis, namely Tier 3 BC, as that would make them a perfect counter to them. You know... morons. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
182
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 00:58:00 -
[1452] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:As a matter of fact, I'd like to see them have a 33% AB speed bonus instead of the 50% MWD sig reduction bonus - something I would have preferred for assault frigs in the first place.
Of course after their base speeds have been adjusted to their T1 counterparts.
[edit] Elaboration: Assaulting means getting toe to toe and take something from my understanding. Giving HACs an AB bonus instead of the MWD one would greatly decrease their vulnerabiltiy to scrams, adding opportunities to disengage as compared to battlecruisers, which currently are the HACs downfall.
That unique bonus would also make them stand out from T3 cruisers and build on their only stregth, which is sig tanking.
Would they be powerful?
Yes - but imho they're meant to be.
It would be an especially useful bonus to set them apart from their nemesis, namely Tier 3 BC, as that would make them a perfect counter to them.
Unless they have MWD-like speed, ships like the Vagabond wouldn't see much of an advantage, whereas the Zealot would potentially benefit greatly.
I think that half should be brawling ships and have an AB bonus, and half should be kiters and have an MWD sig bonus. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Tribal Band
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 01:07:00 -
[1453] - Quote
AB bonus would yet make the ships more interesting, especially for the AHAC fans. It wouldn't be a big deal, but i would be one one of the more interesting features.
Anyhow. HACs are a special kind of breed. I think it would really be better to give individual role bonuses than a general one. Tiericide is one thing, but I think here, T2s such as HACs should have individual ones. As said before, it would be interesting to see a focus on defensive/propulsion stuff (ignoring the MWD-sig bloom reduction for now).
If it is necessary to have a general role pasted on all, then I'd really say "Go for reduction to webbing effects" of some sort. I don't know if people would rather fancy such. Again, better would be individual Role Bonuses.
You can hide this post now. /dance
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Tribal Band
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 01:09:00 -
[1454] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:HULL TANKING Just tossing that out there... I got trolled to hell and back for that one, I thought Gallente should get a 5% per level to the resistances of damage control modules. Edit: effectiveness that is, so at level 5 you would get a 75% hull resistance. Change Deimos MWD bonus to +10% to hull resistances per level. Just trying to think outside the box a bit.
The general idea is not bad. I cannot speak for Deimos pilots though.
Would have really loved to see that hull tanking stuff on Industrial Ship combat hulls too (if they existed :P) Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
328
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 01:21:00 -
[1455] - Quote
Ja'ho sun wrote:
disclosing my fit would be as silly as saying a caracal is a better buy then a cerb.
Noted, since I take all of my fitting advice from pilots with no combat record |
Lowska Psyca
A.A.A
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 01:45:00 -
[1456] - Quote
Don't like making the sacrilege a missile boat, but looks semi-fine overall. Problem is, T2 seems on-level with navy variants, which, in the long term, might mean the navy stuff will cost more, and t2 profits will go down. Point is, it's easy grinding missions for the LP, and it gives direct ISK as well, while t2 production requires a lot of time, effort and different materials. This change seems too little of a boost, and the decline of the t2 era. I sincerely hope you're not going to change t3 as well.
Other long term effects I see are more mission grinders, which will increase the mission ISK faucet driving the inflation even higher (who remembers the golden days when plex were 300M and battleships 120M for tier3?) |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
329
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 02:28:00 -
[1457] - Quote
Lowska Psyca wrote: Other long term effects I see are more mission grinders, which will increase the mission ISK faucet driving the inflation even higher (who remembers the golden days when plex were 300M and battleships 120M for tier3?)
That has more to do with drone poo nerfs than mad peope running missions, that is tinfoil hat territory. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
78
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 02:42:00 -
[1458] - Quote
Ever think the issue with all cruisers and battlecruisers were the fitting of oversized modules? Which became possible due to the rigs (giving more grid to allow these fittings).
It would be easier to "properly" balance all these ships by restricting the battleship modules from being used on cruisers. A 100mn afterburner on a cruiser? That's a battleship engine. 1600mm plates, those are battleship plates, xlarge ancillary shield boosters, battleship (heck technically capital ship) mods on a non battleship hull... Heck I think there are ships that can fit two of those.
You can actually get the full effects of the changes as a whole by gong through the typical fits, which always involve in someway shape or form, fitting the largest tank mods in the game, on a ship they should have Never been able to fit them. |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
378
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 03:20:00 -
[1459] - Quote
Sacrilege still sucks, CCP! What makes you think you've even remotely balanced this ship? The active tanked dual rep version does pathetic DPS. Add another low at least! |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
273
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 03:22:00 -
[1460] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Ever think the issue with all cruisers and battlecruisers were the fitting of oversized modules? Which became possible due to the rigs (giving more grid to allow these fittings).
It would be easier to "properly" balance all these ships by restricting the battleship modules from being used on cruisers. A 100mn afterburner on a cruiser? That's a battleship engine. 1600mm plates, those are battleship plates, xlarge ancillary shield boosters, battleship (heck technically capital ship) mods on a non battleship hull... Heck I think there are ships that can fit two of those.
You can actually get the full effects of the changes as a whole by gong through the typical fits, which always involve in someway shape or form, fitting the largest tank mods in the game, on a ship they should have Never been able to fit them. i agree 100% altho i have a 1600mm plate on my sac, it shouldnt be able to fit. it IS a bs module. if u look at it tho, if we only fit 800's or 400's even, cruisers would be SO damn weak we wouldnt undock anywhere.
xlarge asb on a cruiser? no way...but we couldnt survive any other way. imagine a sac against a autocannon nado with only 1 400 plate... it would be over before it started. give the mods a boost, but limit them to a certain ship size might fix it, but what if i want to be bait? 3x 1600's on my damnation etc.
if we had speed, if we had tank, or something else all together, we might survive with 400 plate or medium shield xtenders. i personally dont want to waste the cash trying to make it work... |
|
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
378
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 03:29:00 -
[1461] - Quote
Mole Guy wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Ever think the issue with all cruisers and battlecruisers were the fitting of oversized modules? Which became possible due to the rigs (giving more grid to allow these fittings).
It would be easier to "properly" balance all these ships by restricting the battleship modules from being used on cruisers. A 100mn afterburner on a cruiser? That's a battleship engine. 1600mm plates, those are battleship plates, xlarge ancillary shield boosters, battleship (heck technically capital ship) mods on a non battleship hull... Heck I think there are ships that can fit two of those.
You can actually get the full effects of the changes as a whole by gong through the typical fits, which always involve in someway shape or form, fitting the largest tank mods in the game, on a ship they should have Never been able to fit them. i agree 100% altho i have a 1600mm plate on my sac, it shouldnt be able to fit. it IS a bs module. if u look at it tho, if we only fit 800's or 400's even, cruisers would be SO damn weak we wouldnt undock anywhere. xlarge asb on a cruiser? no way...but we couldnt survive any other way. imagine a sac against a autocannon nado with only 1 400 plate... it would be over before it started. give the mods a boost, but limit them to a certain ship size might fix it, but what if i want to be bait? 3x 1600's on my damnation etc. if we had speed, if we had tank, or something else all together, we might survive with 400 plate or medium shield xtenders. i personally dont want to waste the cash trying to make it work...
This is a common misconception. Just because 1600 plates require the most power grid, they are not "Battleship" modules. The wonderful thing about this game is that you can come up with novel, exotic fits using different modules. Your proposed change would kill that.
I disagree with you both 100%. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1703
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 03:35:00 -
[1462] - Quote
Still a little shocking that you haven't even talked about lowering the HAC build cost to make it a more competitive choice with the other options around its weight class.
I honestly hope you're considering that or else all 70 pages of this will end up being for nothing as people keep ignoring HACs for the ships that give a similar performance for a fraction of the cost (something that you the balance team caused). |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4148
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 03:39:00 -
[1463] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Still a little shocking that you haven't even talked about lowering the HAC build cost to make it a more competitive choice with the other options around its weight class.
I honestly hope you're considering that or else all 70 pages of this will end up being for nothing as people keep ignoring HACs for the ships that give a similar performance for a fraction of the cost (something that you the balance team caused). Balancing these ships based on a 100m hull would be a lot better than trying to balance a 200m hull. . |
Sharwen Anchev
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 03:56:00 -
[1464] - Quote
I see no reason to buy the currently proposed Zealot when the Omen Navy Issue exists. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1356
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 03:57:00 -
[1465] - Quote
Sharwen Anchev wrote:I see no reason to buy the currently proposed Zealot when the Omen Navy Issue exists. That can be applied to almost all HAC vs Navy Issue Cruisers Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Harrison Spielman
Human Information Virus
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 04:16:00 -
[1466] - Quote
When does 1.1 go live? |
Chimpface Holocaust
Zarnfell
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 04:18:00 -
[1467] - Quote
Harrison Spielman wrote:When does 1.1 go live?
When it's ready |
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 06:33:00 -
[1468] - Quote
Harrison Spielman wrote:When does 1.1 go live?
When its NOT this pile of crap they call a "HAC Rebalance" |
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 06:38:00 -
[1469] - 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.
Please see my last 2 Wall-o-texts for a generalised, and more focused summation of changes that me and several friends cooked up.
You will fight several posts mimicking my statements and goals up to this post, and echoing my belief of the proposed changes to be a good baseline for all players of all security status to appreciate. |
Lua Mioukl
CCS9
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 06:41:00 -
[1470] - Quote
It seems like people who designed the first "assault" ships didn't have the same idea as most of the new developers.
To me, it's quite evident what "assault" means. if we take a look at an assault frigate, we immediately see that they are more durable and overall more powerful version of their t1 version. they take what in essence made its t1 version different from the other t1 frigates and improve it. But assault doesn't seem to simply mean more dps and more ehp. a destroyer is hardly an assault frigate and a bc is hardly an assault cruiser.
Assault simply means it can get in a fight and actually survive because its more durable, can pack a bit more punch than the t1 version while retaining the same kind of speed as the other hulls of its size and the same signature radius.
What i see assault frigate have over t1 one that HAC don't have over the t1 cruisers is significantly more survivability. Assault frig have more slots and can focus more of them on what the ship is good at but HACs don't have more slots, and in some cases, they literally lose slots that would let them be more survivable.
The prime exemple of that is the muninn. Honestly take a ship that have bonus to EM resist and making it a ship with a low amount of medium slot is quite ridiculous. it doesn't make it more survivability than a rupture. One great thing that could be done with the Muninn is making it a small sleipnir; more med slots so it can take advantage of its resist bonus.
The bottom line is, t1 cruisers gained more slots, in order to make HAC substantially better, I would say add 1 slots to every HACs and basically leave them as they were. If you think about it, the Sacrilege for example, would be fine with 1 more low slot and the same old drone bay. If you add 1 more slot to every HAC where their t2 resist profile tells you to add them, they all become balanced.
Some would say that adding slots to every ship every time there is a patch is insane -it is- but the t1 cruiser were buffed beyond what was needed and therefore HACs need considerable love or they just won't be considered worthy of their price tag. |
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Paragon Blitz
555
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 06:50:00 -
[1471] - Quote
I see two different visions for the Ishtar that I'm not sure can coexist in one ship.
On the one hand there are people (including the designer of this balance pass) that want to see a medium speed, medium durability sentry sniper platform that can have a few other tricks up its sleeve (e.g. light drones and heavy drones for short-range DPS when you can't dictate range and ECM drones as a backup).
On the other hand there is how it is used now by other people, as a close range DPS beast with blasters, webs and drones ripping apart targets at point-blank range.
These roles are different enough from each other to deserve different ships, IMHO, and I believe the Navy Vexor suits the former. With its requirement to only train one damage system (drones), it is better suited to lower skilled characters anyway. The Ishtar should then be one of the rare ships requiring two damage systems (medium hybrids and drones), as it is SP intensive just to get into the hull.
My proposal for the ship:
Baseline the drone bay at 375 or 400 rather than have it be skill based.
Bonuses: Gallente Cruiser skill 50% drone damage, HP (10% per level of Gallente Cruiser, 5 is a prereq anyway) 5% medium hybrid turret damage
HAC skill: -10% per level CPU/PG requirement for medium hybrids (design the CPU/PG so that at HAC 4 you have a few fitting issues still) +5% medium blaster tracking per level +5% medium railgun falloff per level
Balance other stats around this. I'm pretty content with Tranquility Ishtar EHP - the ship isn't a glass cannon, but it's not hard to melt with focused fire either.
An alternative design would be to steal the Guardian-Vexor's ability to drop more than 5 drones, although for lag reasons I would not go as high as 10.
An enemy is just a friend that you stab in the front. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Paragon Blitz
555
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 06:56:00 -
[1472] - Quote
Oh should also add one thing to those talking about cost balancing. Don't forget that the cost to create these has dropped 20% since Odyssey as a result of the decryptor changes.
While before using the +3 PE, +3 ME decryptor was only marginal on building HACs, it now offers very good value as those decryptors cost next to nothing. I now use them even on 10 run BPCs of 1200k modules, so using them on a 1 run BPC of a 150m ship is automatic.
An enemy is just a friend that you stab in the front. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
180
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 07:29:00 -
[1473] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Oh should also add one thing to those talking about cost balancing. Don't forget that the cost to create these has dropped 20% since Odyssey as a result of the decryptor changes.
While before using the +3 PE, +3 ME decryptor was only marginal on building HACs, it now offers very good value as those decryptors cost next to nothing. I now use them even on 10 run BPCs of 1200k modules, so using them on a 1 run BPC of a 150m ship is automatic.
I've been using those on all my cruisers and above now, it's great. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Aliventi
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
272
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 08:15:00 -
[1474] - Quote
They are still running ~135-140mil to produce with those decyptors and you still want to take some profit so the end up selling for 150-160mil. Why should I put 10 of those on field for 1.5 bil when I can put 50 fitted T1 cruisers on the field for the price of the unfit HAC hulls? I am down paying a premium for some effectiveness. I am not down for paying 10x+ the hull cost premium. Lower the price to 70 mil to produce sell them for 80 mil. At that price the premium is perhaps at least worth the extra effectiveness while not making them so cheap that people can lose them and not worry so much like they can with T1 cruisers. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Alexander McKeon
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 08:16:00 -
[1475] - Quote
The comparison to Tier 3 battlecruisers and Tech 3 hulls offer some good starting points I think:
1. Give HACs in general the ehp & resists to survive in a small to medium sized engagement with proper logi support; this is something that attack BCs don't do very well, and offers a way to distinguish HACs from BCs & T1 counterparts.
2. Give them 75% to 90% of the DPS that at T3 can dish out; there is a definite niche for a cruiser-sized short ranged (compared to BC / BS) durable high dps platform, and right now only T3s fill that role well. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1173
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 08:17:00 -
[1476] - Quote
The navy cruisers have something that really makes them worth spending 50-70 mill on them.
Mainly their speed and agility mixed with decent firepower and tank.
I don't really see a reason to buy any of these ships for anything other than ahac gangs.. I guess you can get a rail eagle and enjoy being the only guy in your long range fleet that has a tank but thats not very useful.. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Stridsflygplan
Tigers in the Snow Nyratic
61
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 09:41:00 -
[1477] - Quote
the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 09:50:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?
old buffer vaga wont benefit from the shield boost bonus anyway....
Now it's supposed to fit ASB i think, only viable thing on vaga since there are no additional mid slots |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
451
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 09:50:00 -
[1479] - Quote
Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?
old buffer vaga wont benefit from the shield boost bonus anyway....
It s the same concept that made them give tempest worse accelerateion, agility and mass than the apocalypse until a few of us hammered down into their minds that it was very WRONG!
Give vagabond back its speed.
Give the sacriledge a proper slot layout.
Give vagabond -+1 M -1 L OR find another bonus for it
Ishtar needs fittings.. simple and obvious.
Zealot will not cut it, contrary to their beliefs. Since the nano nerf, zealots are not he same anymore. INcrease a bit their PG so beams are fit more easily. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 09:54:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?
why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere...
the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct
to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed.
when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus.
|
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1017
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:19:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Sharwen Anchev wrote:I see no reason to buy the currently proposed Zealot when the Omen Navy Issue exists.
To feel special and not frustrated for spending so much time training for it. Plus your T1 cruiser will get a better insurance reimbursement than your T2 thing. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1017
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:23:00 -
[1482] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus.
Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters.
Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
613
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:24:00 -
[1483] - Quote
I made a chart so people can easily see the difference between the three vexor hulls.
[PIC] Excel chart |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
29
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:26:00 -
[1484] - Quote
As I understand CCP viewed all these ships from fleet perspective while completely forgetting about solo/small scale gangs. I kind of liked new bonuses for these ships, but I don't understand why there's no EHP/PG/CPU buff for them? If we will take an Ishtar as an example, that ship cannot compete with Vexor/Navy vexor fitting/HP wise. Sacrilege still has a pitiful DPS (390 or something), there are many T1 cruiser able to outtank it and outdps it. So basically we have a ship that takes long time to train for, more isk to pay for and less things to do with. I loved to fly dualrep armor ishtar back in a days. Now it's completely worthless due to lack of HP vs incoming damage. I still think boosting some HP and giving these ships a chance to fit slightly better compared to lower tier ships would be nice. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1017
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:31:00 -
[1485] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:My first thoughts:
- Double web Deimos seems like it could be better than most are giving it credit for.
- 40% Scout Drone damage per level or something similar instead of the generic 20% drone damage bonus would promote hit and run Ishtar tactics and separate it from the plethora of cruiser/BC sized drone hulls.
- The Sac still seems a bit lackluster, a little more CPU/Cap if you want a Neut or Tinker setup or switch a high for a low if you want it buffered.
- The ASB Vaga will eat faces.
- Zealot is pretty close. Not sure what to do without OPing it.
An ishtar with a sign radius of a frigate fitted with MSE's using battleship guns (sentries) DDA's sentry rigs and 40% bonus would not be OP at all, really. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
331
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:37:00 -
[1486] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
An ishtar with a sign radius of a frigate fitted with MSE's using battleship guns (sentries) DDA's sentry rigs and 40% bonus would not be OP at all, really.
Nope because would get jacked up by a frigate. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:43:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus. Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters. Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it.
i dont get your "irony" i never porposed the things you said and wont... the problem lies in "the same job" and "cheaper" it should be better then those ships and and a little bit diffrent. mostly you see stabber/fstabber in small fleets (2-5 ships).
vaga should be able to be flown solo effectively (but not easy). |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1017
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:49:00 -
[1488] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
An ishtar with a sign radius of a frigate fitted with MSE's using battleship guns (sentries) DDA's sentry rigs and 40% bonus would not be OP at all, really.
Nope because would get jacked up by a frigate.
Can't fit light drones?-imho that frigate would have hard time killing it unless with support, except if it's another faction fitted passive shield ishtar.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8838
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:52:00 -
[1489] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:VAGABOND - ... This has nice racial continuity ...
Give the Jaguar a 7.5% bonus to shield boosting, then this statement will be true. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1017
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:52:00 -
[1490] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus. Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters. Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it. i dont get your "irony" i never porposed the things you said and wont... the problem lies in "the same job" and "cheaper" it should be better then those ships and and a little bit diffrent. mostly you see stabber/fstabber in small fleets (2-5 ships). vaga should be able to be flown solo effectively (but not easy).
And vaga already can, hit&run tactics used by many vaga pilots with asb fits work dam good and are very nasty setups, if Rise keeps the rep bonus it will just be the fastest solo hit&run ship in the game ratters and solo dudes frigate pilots should be really afraid at the sight of one of these. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
451
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:53:00 -
[1491] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus.
It remains that every time they touched the ship on last 7 years it got slower and slowr. It needs to STOP or in another 5years it will be slower than a carrier |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
451
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:53:00 -
[1492] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:CCP Rise wrote:VAGABOND - ... This has nice racial continuity ... Give the Jaguar a 7.5% bonus to shield boosting, then this statement will be true.
oo yes.. THAT I could droll upon :P |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
356
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:57:00 -
[1493] - Quote
I put something up on Twitter to the effect, but figured it'd get better discussion here:
Rather than having all the HACs have the MWD role bonus, have 4 of them with a 50% bonus to rep amount of Ancillary shield and Armour repairers? The idea being that they have some obscene solo survivability/burst tank, making them more obviously Combat ships, whilst the other 4 with the MWD bonuses fit more Attack-based roles (rush in, blow the crap out of things).
(The reasoning on making the bonus ancillary-only is to make these tanks fearsome, but not sustainable.)
With this idea, the Zealot, Cerberus, Deimos and Vagabond would keep the MWD role bonus, whilst the Sacrilege, Eagle, Ishtar and Muninn get tankier. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8844
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 10:58:00 -
[1494] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Liafcipe9000 wrote:CCP Rise wrote:VAGABOND - ... This has nice racial continuity ... Give the Jaguar a 7.5% bonus to shield boosting, then this statement will be true. oo yes.. THAT I could droll upon :P
it would certainly benefit me as one who loves the Jaguar. it doesn't need the optimal range bonus if I use autocannons
also, droll = ? You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8844
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 11:00:00 -
[1495] - Quote
GallowsCalibrator wrote:I put something up on Twitter to the effect, but figured it'd get better discussion here:
Rather than having all the HACs have the MWD role bonus, have 4 of them with a 50% bonus to rep amount of Ancillary shield and Armour repairers? The idea being that they have some obscene solo survivability/burst tank, making them more obviously Combat ships, whilst the other 4 with the MWD bonuses fit more Attack-based roles (rush in, blow the crap out of things).
(The reasoning on making the bonus ancillary-only is to make these tanks fearsome, but not sustainable.)
With this idea, the Zealot, Cerberus, Deimos and Vagabond would keep the MWD role bonus, whilst the Sacrilege, Eagle, Ishtar and Muninn get tankier. You have the wrong idea of Combat and Attack roles. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 11:19:00 -
[1496] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: ...... ratters and solo dudes frigate pilots should be really afraid at the sight of one of these.
yeah and thats the problem alot of ships can be dangerous to pve fitted ratters tahst nothing special. and there are enough ships that can be hard for solo frig pilots too.
there needs to be a ship that can maybe pick of a ship from a small pvp fleet and get away with it of flown good. thats why i advocated it to loose falloff range get tracking bonus (large enough to not loose major parts of its dmg to its speed) so it can have a arty fit fight in kite range (longpoint) and get away.
so it would be diffrent from a stabbe/fstabber but powerfull and unique. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
80
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 11:23:00 -
[1497] - Quote
Nyancat Audeles wrote:Mole Guy wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Ever think the issue with all cruisers and battlecruisers were the fitting of oversized modules? Which became possible due to the rigs (giving more grid to allow these fittings).
It would be easier to "properly" balance all these ships by restricting the battleship modules from being used on cruisers. A 100mn afterburner on a cruiser? That's a battleship engine. 1600mm plates, those are battleship plates, xlarge ancillary shield boosters, battleship (heck technically capital ship) mods on a non battleship hull... Heck I think there are ships that can fit two of those.
You can actually get the full effects of the changes as a whole by gong through the typical fits, which always involve in someway shape or form, fitting the largest tank mods in the game, on a ship they should have Never been able to fit them. i agree 100% altho i have a 1600mm plate on my sac, it shouldnt be able to fit. it IS a bs module. if u look at it tho, if we only fit 800's or 400's even, cruisers would be SO damn weak we wouldnt undock anywhere. xlarge asb on a cruiser? no way...but we couldnt survive any other way. imagine a sac against a autocannon nado with only 1 400 plate... it would be over before it started. give the mods a boost, but limit them to a certain ship size might fix it, but what if i want to be bait? 3x 1600's on my damnation etc. if we had speed, if we had tank, or something else all together, we might survive with 400 plate or medium shield xtenders. i personally dont want to waste the cash trying to make it work... This is a common misconception. Just because 1600 plates require the most power grid, they are not "Battleship" modules. The wonderful thing about this game is that you can come up with novel, exotic fits using different modules. Your proposed change would kill that. I disagree with you both 100%.
Exotic Fits?!?! There is nothing exotic about it, its becoming the "Standard". You come with anything BUT that, ejected from fleet, incursion, group, etc.
And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers.
|
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 11:23:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:CCP Rise wrote:VAGABOND - ... This has nice racial continuity ... Give the Jaguar a 7.5% bonus to shield boosting, then this statement will be true. Not the place, but hell YES please.
|
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8894
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 11:38:00 -
[1499] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers. And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1356
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:01:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers. And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted. Looking at the Zelot, a single 1600mm reinforced steel plate II add 2x the armor HP as the ship has to start with but somehow only would account for 23% of the total mass after put on the ship. How does that make any sense? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
331
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:02:00 -
[1501] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers. And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted.
My mega had three of them when it was pressed into fleet duty. We used to fly triple played geddons in the south.
Restrict the plates and extenders, you just cut like 40% eHP off everything south of battleships.
And bye bye passive medium tanks while you are at it.
Bad idea. Those modules were never size indexed.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
331
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:07:00 -
[1502] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Liafcipe9000 wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers. And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted. Looking at the Zelot, a single 1600mm reinforced steel plate II add 2x the armor HP as the ship has to start with but somehow only would account for 23% of the total mass after put on the ship. How does that make any sense?
Well at least you are taking that idea and running with it.
You know what armour for space craft really is? It's three or four layers of thin material with gaps between then, the first couple absorb the directed energy, and the last two protect the hull.
I used to test it for NASA.....so yeah twice the armour for a quarter of the mass does make sense.
.....and leave sense out of my eve, we DON'T want real physics around here.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
452
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:12:00 -
[1503] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Well at least you are taking that idea and running with it.
You know what armour for space craft really is? It's three or four layers of thin material with gaps between then, the first couple absorb the directed energy, and the last two protect the hull.
I used to test it for NASA.....so yeah twice the armour for a quarter of the mass does make sense.
.....and leave sense out of my eve, we DON'T want real physics around here.
You realize that the armor to stop space debris is not exaclty on the same league to resist to NUKES? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
331
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:15:00 -
[1504] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Onictus wrote:
Well at least you are taking that idea and running with it.
You know what armour for space craft really is? It's three or four layers of thin material with gaps between then, the first couple absorb the directed energy, and the last two protect the hull.
I used to test it for NASA.....so yeah twice the armour for a quarter of the mass does make sense.
.....and leave sense out of my eve, we DON'T want real physics around here.
You realize that the armor to stop space debris is not exaclty on the same league to resist to NUKES?
Yeah microasteriods moving 10km/s have no energy either. Like I said leave real physics out of it.
|
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8898
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:16:00 -
[1505] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Liafcipe9000 wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers. And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted. Looking at the Zelot, a single 1600mm reinforced steel plate II add 2x the armor HP as the ship has to start with but somehow only would account for 23% of the total mass after put on the ship. How does that make any sense? making sense has been banned from EVE. you're lucky a dev didn't see that post of yours... yet. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
146
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:17:00 -
[1506] - Quote
this is all pretty disappointing, everything is getting simplified too much. There is too much catering for stupid people going on, people who cant think for themselves.
The idea of the HACS previously was that they were different to the t1 hulls and fullfilled different roles completely.
Vexor , Ishtar, Myrm, Domi? What is really the difference between these ships now? Any difference is incredibly vague and you simply just scale up depending on what you fight. Thats fair enough perhaps, but its boring, there isn't any chance to create interesting fits and styles these days, as everything is being laid out for retards.
Even the HP amounts are all being revised to "round numbers" ....
Is the vaga now just being made into a smaller cyclone which is a smaller maelstrom?
If you look at every single one of the Odyssey change threads the relentless theme is just to dumb eve down and make things really simple and straight forward.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1175
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:18:00 -
[1507] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Onictus wrote:
Well at least you are taking that idea and running with it.
You know what armour for space craft really is? It's three or four layers of thin material with gaps between then, the first couple absorb the directed energy, and the last two protect the hull.
I used to test it for NASA.....so yeah twice the armour for a quarter of the mass does make sense.
.....and leave sense out of my eve, we DON'T want real physics around here.
You realize that the armor to stop space debris is not exaclty on the same league to resist to NUKES? Yeah microasteriods moving 10km/s have no energy either. Like I said leave real physics out of it.
Have you tried making armor out of tritanium at nasa? Space materials! BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
256
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:31:00 -
[1508] - Quote
The cap numbers for the Sac and Zealot seem reversed, and the Sac doesn't need the cap recharge bonus does it? That would be more useful to the Zealot, since it uses weapons that require cap. An explosion radius or explosion velocity bonus would be much better. The utility high is nice, but it's also underwhelming in terms of armour missile dps; it was already lagging behind the Cerberus, and the Cerberus gets a fairly significant dps buff with the extra launcher. An extra one or two percent per level for missile damage would go a long way toward equalizing missiles for shields vs armour.
Someone else mentioned the Sac as being intended for heavy tackle, which might explain lackluster dps. What -are- the intended roles for the HACs? Maybe that will help answer some of the questions about the rebalancing. You guys very nicely described differences for the T1 ships, such as Combat ships vs Attack ships, etc.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:39:00 -
[1509] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus. Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters. Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it.
I think that the bigger problem is the Cynabal, since most nano gangs are composed of Cynabals and fast tackle, plus boosts.
The Vaga will become viable when it is either A) 50% of the cost of a Cynabal or B) Better than the Cynabal. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1175
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:46:00 -
[1510] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus. Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters. Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it. I think that the bigger problem is the Cynabal, since most nano gangs are composed of Cynabals and fast tackle, plus boosts. The Vaga will become viable when it is either A) 50% of the cost of a Cynabal or B) Better than the Cynabal.
Most nano gangs are cynabals? Wait what?
Sure people use the cyna rather than the vaga atm.. But most proper nano gangs are just tier 3's because they are about six hundred times better (I did the math, don't question!)
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:49:00 -
[1511] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Liafcipe9000 wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers. And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted. Looking at the Zelot, a single 1600mm reinforced steel plate II add 2x the armor HP as the ship has to start with but somehow only would account for 23% of the total mass after put on the ship. How does that make any sense? Well at least you are taking that idea and running with it. You know what armour for space craft really is? It's three or four layers of thin material with gaps between then, the first couple absorb the directed energy, and the last two protect the hull. I used to test it for NASA.....so yeah twice the armour for a quarter of the mass does make sense. .....and leave sense out of my eve, we DON'T want real physics around here.
Yea! If we had real physics we'd have to have bumping do damage! ... can we?
Nah I know the coding and lag would be horrendous. Still would be cool, though impossible. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1357
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:51:00 -
[1512] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Liafcipe9000 wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers. And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted. Looking at the Zelot, a single 1600mm reinforced steel plate II add 2x the armor HP as the ship has to start with but somehow only would account for 23% of the total mass after put on the ship. How does that make any sense? Well at least you are taking that idea and running with it. You know what armour for space craft really is? It's three or four layers of thin material with gaps between then, the first couple absorb the directed energy, and the last two protect the hull. And that is where the armor honey combing skill comes into play which takes the mass from 23% to 18%. I can't calculate for everything but taking a basic comparison of hull HP vs armor HP and taking the % in relation to the mass of the ship you come up with a number suggesting that the armor of the ship accounts for about 57% of the mass. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:51:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus. Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters. Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it. I think that the bigger problem is the Cynabal, since most nano gangs are composed of Cynabals and fast tackle, plus boosts. The Vaga will become viable when it is either A) 50% of the cost of a Cynabal or B) Better than the Cynabal. Most nano gangs are cynabals? Wait what? Sure people use the cyna rather than the vaga atm.. But most proper nano gangs are just tier 3's because they are about six hundred times better (I did the math, don't question!)
This is true. Most not ABC nano gangs are all Cynabals. Anyway, my point is that Cynabals outclass the Vagabond in every way. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8901
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:53:00 -
[1514] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Yea! If we had real physics we'd have to have bumping do damage! I'd smash my Nyx into stations in Amarr space all day every day. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:58:00 -
[1515] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus. Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters. Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it. I think that the bigger problem is the Cynabal, since most nano gangs are composed of Cynabals and fast tackle, plus boosts. The Vaga will become viable when it is either A) 50% of the cost of a Cynabal or B) Better than the Cynabal.
the stubborness of people drives me crazy... if they remain in the exact same role there will always be on better and one worse ship. so ffs make them just a bit diffrent enough so they fill slightly diffrent roles.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 13:03:00 -
[1516] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus. Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters. Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it. I think that the bigger problem is the Cynabal, since most nano gangs are composed of Cynabals and fast tackle, plus boosts. The Vaga will become viable when it is either A) 50% of the cost of a Cynabal or B) Better than the Cynabal. the stubborness of people drives me crazy... if they remain in the exact same role there will always be on better and one worse ship. so ffs make them just a bit diffrent enough so they fill slightly diffrent roles.
Then the Vaga, the T2 specialized ship, should be better at kiting. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
452
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 13:28:00 -
[1517] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Onictus wrote:
Well at least you are taking that idea and running with it.
You know what armour for space craft really is? It's three or four layers of thin material with gaps between then, the first couple absorb the directed energy, and the last two protect the hull.
I used to test it for NASA.....so yeah twice the armour for a quarter of the mass does make sense.
.....and leave sense out of my eve, we DON'T want real physics around here.
You realize that the armor to stop space debris is not exaclty on the same league to resist to NUKES? Yeah microasteriods moving 10km/s have no energy either. Like I said leave real physics out of it.
Microasteroids have the problem of how much energy they transmit before fracturing... megaton warheads tends to be way more efficient on that. It snot only you that works with terminal ballistics |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
452
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 13:29:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus. Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters. Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it. I think that the bigger problem is the Cynabal, since most nano gangs are composed of Cynabals and fast tackle, plus boosts. The Vaga will become viable when it is either A) 50% of the cost of a Cynabal or B) Better than the Cynabal. Most nano gangs are cynabals? Wait what? Sure people use the cyna rather than the vaga atm.. But most proper nano gangs are just tier 3's because they are about six hundred times better (I did the math, don't question!)
The nano Cynabals use 100MN AB.
Ant htat is cynabal role because it has better fittings than vaga. |
Christopher Multsanti
State Protectorate Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 13:47:00 -
[1519] - Quote
Thank you for taking all the shit we have given you Rise.
My personal favourite idea would be this:
Two roles for the HACS, but after thinking about it I would group it like this:
Inty Hacs
Cerb Zealot Vaga Ishtar
Role Bonus = 30% reduction in heat damage incurred while overloading + Some sort of mwd cap reduction bonus like the one you have suggested.
This will allow these ships to kite and tackle very well as they will be able to overload mwd + Dis, while allowing them the extra overloading time of their guns to do good enough damage at range. I think Ishtar damage is fine.
Assault Frig Hacs
Eagle Muninn Sac Deimos
Role Bonus = I am not sure yet. I may edit this once I have had a think about it. Maybe the same heat reduction bous + something for brawling. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
334
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 14:11:00 -
[1520] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Onictus wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Onictus wrote:
Well at least you are taking that idea and running with it.
You know what armour for space craft really is? It's three or four layers of thin material with gaps between then, the first couple absorb the directed energy, and the last two protect the hull.
I used to test it for NASA.....so yeah twice the armour for a quarter of the mass does make sense.
.....and leave sense out of my eve, we DON'T want real physics around here.
You realize that the armor to stop space debris is not exaclty on the same league to resist to NUKES? Yeah microasteriods moving 10km/s have no energy either. Like I said leave real physics out of it. Have you tried making armor out of tritanium at nasa? Space materials!
Pure titanium, no. Titanium is actually really brittle, so it makes a poor shell, alloys absolutely.
The issue being that when you're dealing with hypervelocity impacts, they are no longer ballistic, everything turns into plasma from the heat and compression, so you are sitting against pressure waves really, not a ballistic mass/speed thing.
Thus bigger (thicker) may not be better, but it will always be heavier, and heavy is bad. |
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 14:43:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Onictus wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Onictus wrote:
Well at least you are taking that idea and running with it.
You know what armour for space craft really is? It's three or four layers of thin material with gaps between then, the first couple absorb the directed energy, and the last two protect the hull.
I used to test it for NASA.....so yeah twice the armour for a quarter of the mass does make sense.
.....and leave sense out of my eve, we DON'T want real physics around here.
You realize that the armor to stop space debris is not exaclty on the same league to resist to NUKES? Yeah microasteriods moving 10km/s have no energy either. Like I said leave real physics out of it. Have you tried making armor out of tritanium at nasa? Space materials! Pure titanium, no. Titanium is actually really brittle, so it makes a poor shell, alloys absolutely. The issue being that when you're dealing with hypervelocity impacts, they are no longer ballistic, everything turns into plasma from the heat and compression, so you are sitting against pressure waves really, not a ballistic mass/speed thing. Thus bigger (thicker) may not be better, but it will always be heavier, and heavy is bad. Note I'm not a physicist, I'm a computer engineer, I just did sensors for the most part......and that years ago.
he said TRITanium which is made up stuff and thus can have every properties you wan it to haven . |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1018
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 14:56:00 -
[1522] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus. Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters. Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it. I think that the bigger problem is the Cynabal, since most nano gangs are composed of Cynabals and fast tackle, plus boosts. The Vaga will become viable when it is either A) 50% of the cost of a Cynabal or B) Better than the Cynabal.
And then the cynabal will be obsolete.
I agree with ccp that the 2 nearly identical ships shouldn't be geared to be flown the exact same way. Given the vagabonds resists it makes sense for ccp to have that ship break from the current mold and give it the shield boost. They just need to make soem other changes around that role like more fitting room and at least another midslot.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Darco Aldent
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 15:05:00 -
[1523] - Quote
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 |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
367
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 15:18:00 -
[1524] - 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
RISE
Have you thought about buffing T2 MWD's .. you know so they are better than meta 4 ? maybe they could have a reduced sig radius penalty .. you would need to look at the fitting requirements though? Also have you thought about some skills to help reduce sig radius of MWD's and shield extenders? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
185
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 15:58:00 -
[1525] - 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
They're worse than T1s, the only people who would use the HACs are the people with too much isk burning a hole in their wallet.
The role bonus may be good for some of them, but most HACs still aren't viable. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
381
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 16:09:00 -
[1526] - Quote
Meytal wrote:The cap numbers for the Sac and Zealot seem reversed, and the Sac doesn't need the cap recharge bonus does it? That would be more useful to the Zealot, since it uses weapons that require cap. An explosion radius or explosion velocity bonus would be much better. The utility high is nice, but it's also underwhelming in terms of armour missile dps; it was already lagging behind the Cerberus, and the Cerberus gets a fairly significant dps buff with the extra launcher. An extra one or two percent per level for missile damage would go a long way toward equalizing missiles for shields vs armour.
Someone else mentioned the Sac as being intended for heavy tackle, which might explain lackluster dps. What -are- the intended roles for the HACs? Maybe that will help answer some of the questions about the rebalancing. You guys very nicely described differences for the T1 ships, such as Combat ships vs Attack ships, etc.
Active tank is all. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
299
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 16:21:00 -
[1527] - Quote
As terrible as most of Rise's changes are, they seem so much less terrible when compared to the stuff you guys are coming up with. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
185
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 16:33:00 -
[1528] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:As terrible as most of Rise's changes are, they seem so much less terrible when compared to the stuff you guys are coming up with.
Yea because you're just full of great ideas for changes. What would those be again? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Darco Aldent
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 16:37:00 -
[1529] - Quote
I just cannot see how you can buff them more without shyeting on the T1 and navy cruiser rework . Small changes are good , CCP rise could work permanently on ballance , after the`` big one`` he can see who uses what in case X and Y and decide then what needs more buffs and what not. Don`t stop after 1 balance on a ship.
Stop introducing new ship and just play around with what is in the game there is allot of potential for change every year or 6months.
This is not LoL so you have to introduce new ships all the time for people to spend money to buy it. Just introduce new features in game for example and give the useless ships bonuses to that particular feature for example . |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1179
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 16:41:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Pure titanium, no. Titanium is actually really brittle, so it makes a poor shell, alloys absolutely.
The issue being that when you're dealing with hypervelocity impacts, they are no longer ballistic, everything turns into plasma from the heat and compression, so you are sitting against pressure waves really, not a ballistic mass/speed thing.
Thus bigger (thicker) may not be better, but it will always be heavier, and heavy is bad.
Note I'm not a physicist, I'm a computer engineer, I just did sensors for the most part......and that years ago.
Tritanium, As in the fictional eve metal.
M1k3y Koontz wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:As terrible as most of Rise's changes are, they seem so much less terrible when compared to the stuff you guys are coming up with. Yea because you're just full of great ideas for changes. What would those be again?
Ok don't get him started on that. I he listed all his ideas he would probably make the longest post in the history of eveo BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
|
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 17:11:00 -
[1531] - Quote
I still think that the direction to take the HAC line in should be to split them into two roles, similar to the Recon lineup. There should be a Heavy Assault Cruiser (Heavy Brawler) Role, and a Heavy Strike Cruiser (Heavy Skirmish/Kiter) Role.
The HAC Role would be optimized for close range, tanky DPS, perhaps with the -50% to Overheat effects role bonus, perhaps one or preferably some (hull-by-hull basis) of the role bonuses already brainstormed in this thread.
The HSC Role would be optimized for damage projection, mobility and raw speed, perhaps with the MWD sig bloom bonus (though -70-80% bloom would be more useful), perhaps with MJD capability, +to AB speed, or other hull-by-hull bonuses.
The changes to the HAC linup should consider the current state of the T3's and ABC's, but also the future balancing that needs to be done on those hulls. Unfortunately, only CCP knows where those are going in the future... all we can do is hope that they're going somewhere good.
At the very least, the new HACs should have 16 fitting slots and be able to perform their intended function on-par with, or only ~5% below, the current T3's. The advantage that T3's were/are supposed to have is versatility - i.e. able to perform most/all roles equally well, assuming they are fit for that role. A specialized ship designed for a role should perform at least as well in that role...
I'm ok with T3's excelling at any role that they are fit for, since the added cost (I'm thinking lost skill points, which translates into lost Time, and Time is the only real currency in EVE) is something that no other hull has, but a ship that is supposedly specialized for the same role that a T3 is fit for should perform equally well. The point that the proposed changes seem to miss is that the T1/Navy variants of the HAC hulls have been elevated to the point of completely overshadowing the supposedly more advanced option. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
123
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 18:10:00 -
[1532] - Quote
I would totally love:
Marauder-Hardpoints, cause my HUD would look near identical to a frig's with 3 guns (like using 3 highslots for weaponry, acting as 6 turrets, boosted by fitting boni to achieve the same damage as before)
I only correct my own spelling. |
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 18:26:00 -
[1533] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:YAYYYY
DEIMOS - Like the Thorax, Deimos now has 4 mids and gives up the extra high. It also goes faster and aligns faster.
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531)
shield tank all the things?
kind of expected a nice little buff for the deimos, mostly speed (which you are giving it) and slightly better EHP to give it more time to get into blaster range.
as it stands, for an armor tanked heavy hitting cruiser, why would I fly this over a navy exeq?
am I missing something here? |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
189
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 18:36:00 -
[1534] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:I would totally love:
Marauder-Hardpoints, cause my HUD would look near identical to a frig's with 3 guns (like using 3 highslots for weaponry, acting as 6 turrets, boosted by fitting boni to achieve the same damage as before)
100% damage bonus would be cool. ~50k EHP, over 750 DPS, that would be worth 150m+ How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 18:42:00 -
[1535] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:I would totally love:
Marauder-Hardpoints, cause my HUD would look near identical to a frig's with 3 guns (like using 3 highslots for weaponry, acting as 6 turrets, boosted by fitting boni to achieve the same damage as before)
100% damage bonus would be cool. ~50k EHP, over 750 DPS, that would be worth 150m+ Would also make epic snipers...
+1. double damage bonus would allow for damage application and easier cap management. /me wants it |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
189
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 18:43:00 -
[1536] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:I would totally love:
Marauder-Hardpoints, cause my HUD would look near identical to a frig's with 3 guns (like using 3 highslots for weaponry, acting as 6 turrets, boosted by fitting boni to achieve the same damage as before)
100% damage bonus would be cool. ~50k EHP, over 750 DPS, that would be worth 150m+ Would also make epic snipers... +1. double damage bonus would allow for damage application and easier cap management. /me wants it
And easier to fit. 4 guns putting out the damage of 8 would free up about 100+pg on all the HACs
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
124
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 18:55:00 -
[1537] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:nikar galvren wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:I would totally love:
Marauder-Hardpoints, cause my HUD would look near identical to a frig's with 3 guns (like using 3 highslots for weaponry, acting as 6 turrets, boosted by fitting boni to achieve the same damage as before)
100% damage bonus would be cool. ~50k EHP, over 750 DPS, that would be worth 150m+ Would also make epic snipers... +1. double damage bonus would allow for damage application and easier cap management. /me wants it And easier to fit. 4 guns putting out the damage of 8 would free up about 100+pg on all the HACs
Yo - less modules, same damageoutput. 3 Guns acting as 6 with tuned down shiphullboni should be matching.
(3 mostly cause I was interested to see how those marauderhighs would affect CS, sacrifing two guns each for a link in such a scenario, and CS would be clearly 33% more effective dps-wise following straight on such an idea)
I also didn't even think about fittings, but having smaller variation in used powergrid depending on weapontier should make for some more predictable PG/CPU-allocation and less overwhelming fitting differences between shield- and armortanking, as curently most HACs can't use higher tier weapon systems unless shieldfitted. (which is kind of a KO-criteria for the 720-armor-muninn against it's loki-pendant) I only correct my own spelling. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:13:00 -
[1538] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:nikar galvren wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:I would totally love:
Marauder-Hardpoints, cause my HUD would look near identical to a frig's with 3 guns (like using 3 highslots for weaponry, acting as 6 turrets, boosted by fitting boni to achieve the same damage as before)
100% damage bonus would be cool. ~50k EHP, over 750 DPS, that would be worth 150m+ Would also make epic snipers... +1. double damage bonus would allow for damage application and easier cap management. /me wants it And easier to fit. 4 guns putting out the damage of 8 would free up about 100+pg on all the HACs
This is an excellent idea and I fully support it. Marauder hardpoints would solve almost every issue I can think of. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:15:00 -
[1539] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:nikar galvren wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:I would totally love:
Marauder-Hardpoints, cause my HUD would look near identical to a frig's with 3 guns (like using 3 highslots for weaponry, acting as 6 turrets, boosted by fitting boni to achieve the same damage as before)
100% damage bonus would be cool. ~50k EHP, over 750 DPS, that would be worth 150m+ Would also make epic snipers... +1. double damage bonus would allow for damage application and easier cap management. /me wants it And easier to fit. 4 guns putting out the damage of 8 would free up about 100+pg on all the HACs This is an excellent idea and I fully support it. Marauder hardpoints would solve almost every issue I can think of.
4 Weapons with double damage would solve virtually all DPS related concerns as well.
Supported. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:15:00 -
[1540] - Quote
I`ve noticed alot of people talking about all the stats..
I really think we should be descussing the functions of these ships. If they will have roles, and what roles bonus they will have.
No point arguing about stats ship by ship if we dont know what role it is even supposed to have. and what its purpose is |
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
126
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:18:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Baren wrote:I`ve noticed alot of people talking about all the stats..
I really think we should be descussing the functions of these ships. If they will have roles, and what roles bonus they will have.
No point arguing about stats ship by ship if we dont know what role it is even supposed to have. and what its purpose is
They are obviously something from a straight PITA in solosituations with their sigradius/active tank (thx to baseresists), Escortships for even bigger ships (like the shielddeimos is/used to be a support ship for alphanados) or oversized Wolfpacks (see shadoo on arrrrrrrrrrrrmorrrrrrrhacs) - at least that what I believe they do best. I only correct my own spelling. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:27:00 -
[1542] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Baren wrote:I`ve noticed alot of people talking about all the stats..
I really think we should be descussing the functions of these ships. If they will have roles, and what roles bonus they will have.
No point arguing about stats ship by ship if we dont know what role it is even supposed to have. and what its purpose is They are obviously something from a straight PITA in solosituations with their sigradius/active tank (thx to baseresists), Escortships for even bigger ships (like the shielddeimos is/used to be a support ship for alphanados) or oversized Wolfpacks (see shadoo on arrrrrrrrrrrrmorrrrrrrhacs) - at least that what I believe they do best.
Yes I get that but I think we need to really agree on what the two main functions of Hacs are. Alot like how Recons, Command ships, Interceptors and many other ship classes are set up. with two roles for each class that is common between the races. what we want to main common bonuses those roles will have.
for example:
Roles: Combat HACS: Heavier tanked lose-mid rang Hacs with high dps. iThe tanks them selfs dont matter as long as the chip in these class has strong bonuses towards its tank (speed tank, active, passive, ect.)
Strike Hacs: Decently tanks Hacs with some for of unconvetional speciality. I honestly dont know what that would be
this is just an example |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
193
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:33:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Brawler HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) 30% reduction in damage taken from overheating modeules OR
Kiting HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) -50% MWD signature penalty.
Opinions? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:34:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Why all HAC's have drone bays except Zealot? I think ship, that costs like BS or more, must have drone bay for 5 light drones! |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
860
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:40:00 -
[1545] - Quote
You guys seem to have gotten confused, where is the minmatar missile hac? Surely the sac should be a drone boat now? or no did you backpedal on the whole weapon type thing and are just going to leave them hanging at t1? |
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:45:00 -
[1546] - Quote
I like the idea of 3 guns with a 100% damage role bonus. It would also be nice if all HACs then had 1 (or 2) utility highs, too many of them have been removed lately yes i'm looking at you megathron). |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
678
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:49:00 -
[1547] - Quote
Doddy wrote:You guys seem to have gotten confused, where is the minmatar missile hac? Surely the sac should be a drone boat now? or no did you backpedal on the whole weapon type thing and are just going to leave them hanging at t1? They never stated they were changing the Khanid weapon philosophy. Just that it wasn't translating to the T1 ships. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 19:54:00 -
[1548] - Quote
Dysgenesis wrote:I like the idea of 3 guns with a 100% damage role bonus. It would also be nice if all HACs then had 1 (or 2) utility highs, too many of them have been removed lately yes i'm looking at you megathron).
Posting to reiterate that I think this would solve, across the board, 90% of HAC issues. It would give them BC sized DPS with utility slots and high-resist, low-hp tanks and cruiser speeds.
A few ships need their speed and agility looked at, I think, but this change might justify the price tag of HACs.
I don't think that last part can be over-emphasized. CCP Rise, I'm looking at you. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 20:17:00 -
[1549] - 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. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 20:45:00 -
[1550] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Brawler HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) 30% reduction in damage taken from overheating modeules OR
Kiting HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) -50% MWD signature penalty.
Opinions?
I feel that bonus would make for alot more blob and alpha fleets which are already good. but you never know what might be a great idea
See now this is something alot of people can debate without having walls of useless text.
Combat: Role Bonus: 60-100% to damage of its races close range medium weapon the bonus will start a 60% when having Hacs trainned to Lvl I and will been at 100% when trainned to V
this will work alot like how the bonus for cpu for cloaks worked on recons or bonuses for logis.) (These ships will be made from close range brawling and will have higher EHP or resist, however they will be slow and have less utility) main reason for only close range weapons is to avoid them be OP and make more alpha fleets.
Assault: Role bonus: -60% to -100% Reduction in MWD Sig Radius (reason for this is becuase even with a -50% bonus its sig will still be huge.) the bonus will also start at -60% and work its way to -100 when having trainned HACs to lvl V Ships of this class would also have higher utility
had a silly idea have a hac role for anti-blobs: Special Bonus max of 20ships target lock this ship at any given time. (aplies to both friend and foe) |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1166
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 20:50:00 -
[1551] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Brawler HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) 30% reduction in damage taken from overheating modeules OR
Kiting HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) -50% MWD signature penalty.
Opinions?
problem is tech II are designed to be bad for overheating.
for the brawler versions i would not do one standard role bonus and instead do a race specific bonus. so lets say for the ishtar you get a thermal damage bonus for drones or for the cerb you get a kin damage bonus for missiles.
then for the kitting version i would do a uniform bonus to either agility or speed or a mix of both.
edit: i really hope we get version mark II thursday and not friday because all the conjecture is killing me. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 20:55:00 -
[1552] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Brawler HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) 30% reduction in damage taken from overheating modeules OR
Kiting HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) -50% MWD signature penalty.
Opinions? problem is tech II are designed to be bad for overheating. for the brawler versions i would not do one standard role bonus and instead do a race specific bonus. so lets say for the ishtar you get a thermal damage bonus for drones or for the cerb you get a kin damage bonus for missiles. then for the kitting version i would do a uniform bonus to either agility or speed or a mix of both. edit: i really hope we get version mark II thursday and not friday because all the conjecture is killing me.
I dont think racial damage is the answer.. I think it would bee better to keep the bonus but restrict to to only the close range medium weapons: For example: Autocannons, Blasters, Heavy Assault Missles, and Medium andor large Combat drones. not sentries |
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 20:59:00 -
[1553] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Lucine Delacourt wrote:My first thoughts:
- Double web Deimos seems like it could be better than most are giving it credit for.
- 40% Scout Drone damage per level or something similar instead of the generic 20% drone damage bonus would promote hit and run Ishtar tactics and separate it from the plethora of cruiser/BC sized drone hulls.
- The Sac still seems a bit lackluster, a little more CPU/Cap if you want a Neut or Tinker setup or switch a high for a low if you want it buffered.
- The ASB Vaga will eat faces.
- Zealot is pretty close. Not sure what to do without OPing it. An ishtar with a sign radius of a frigate fitted with MSE's using battleship guns (sentries) DDA's sentry rigs and 40% bonus would not be OP at all, really.
The bonus is for SCOUT drones so it wouldn't apply to sentries or heavies but thanks for reacting without bothering to read. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
860
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 20:59:00 -
[1554] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Doddy wrote:You guys seem to have gotten confused, where is the minmatar missile hac? Surely the sac should be a drone boat now? or no did you backpedal on the whole weapon type thing and are just going to leave them hanging at t1? They never stated they were changing the Khanid weapon philosophy. Just that it wasn't translating to the T1 ships.
They said they were diversifying the weapon types across the board. Of course change the Khanid ones to drones would cause an uproar so they don't. Which means they cant change the second minnie ones to missiles or there would be 3 missile races, thus the whole thing was pointless. their whole rebalancing philosophy was about streamlining and now some poor minmatar dude who ground missile skills as no use for them in most t2 ships while the amarr guy suddenly has to train missiles to use half the t2 ships. Dumb as hell and all because some people want khanid ships as amarr ships.
Truth is all the amarr t2 missile ships should be drone boats and khanid navy vessells with missiles should be added (thus fixing the ridiculous get amarr navy ships from the khanid thing). But that would be too much work so they wont.
Kiting missile vaga would certainly diffirentiate well from the cynabal wouldn't it.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
193
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 20:59:00 -
[1555] - Quote
Dysgenesis wrote:I like the idea of 3 guns with a 100% damage role bonus. It would also be nice if all HACs then had 1 (or 2) utility highs, too many of them have been removed lately yes i'm looking at you megathron).
With a double damage bonus, I think 4 guns would be better served, plus a utility slot, since that way they can compete with BCs without having to have bigger tanks. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 21:10:00 -
[1556] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Dysgenesis wrote:I like the idea of 3 guns with a 100% damage role bonus. It would also be nice if all HACs then had 1 (or 2) utility highs, too many of them have been removed lately yes i'm looking at you megathron). With a double damage bonus, I think 4 guns would be better served, plus a utility slot, since that way they can compete with BCs without having to have bigger tanks.
HACs should have 4 guns. and the bonus for brawlers should only effect Close range medium weapons and the the Bonus for Kitting should only effect long range medium weapons |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
193
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 21:18:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Baren wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Dysgenesis wrote:I like the idea of 3 guns with a 100% damage role bonus. It would also be nice if all HACs then had 1 (or 2) utility highs, too many of them have been removed lately yes i'm looking at you megathron). With a double damage bonus, I think 4 guns would be better served, plus a utility slot, since that way they can compete with BCs without having to have bigger tanks. HACs should have 4 guns. and the bonus for brawlers should only effect Close range medium weapons and the the Bonus for Kitting should only effect long range medium weapons
Vaga is a kiter, and a Vaga with artillery would be utterly sh*t How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 21:36:00 -
[1558] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Baren wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Dysgenesis wrote:I like the idea of 3 guns with a 100% damage role bonus. It would also be nice if all HACs then had 1 (or 2) utility highs, too many of them have been removed lately yes i'm looking at you megathron). With a double damage bonus, I think 4 guns would be better served, plus a utility slot, since that way they can compete with BCs without having to have bigger tanks. HACs should have 4 guns. and the bonus for brawlers should only effect Close range medium weapons and the the Bonus for Kitting should only effect long range medium weapons Vaga is a kiter, and a Vaga with artillery would be utterly sh*t
Then do this instead, it would make alot of the ships fitt perfectly
Combat: (These ships will be made from close range brawling and will have higher EHP or resist, however they will be slow and have less utility) Role Bonus: 60-100% to damage of its races close range medium weapon the bonus will start a 60% when having Hacs trainned to Lvl I and will been at 100% when trainned to V
this will work alot like how the bonus for cpu for cloaks worked on recons or bonuses for logis.) main reason for only close range weapons is to avoid them be OP and make more alpha fleets.
Assault: (Ships of this class would also have higher utility and are made for kitting and more support roles) Role bonus: -60% to -100% Reduction in MWD Sig Radius (reason for this is becuase even with a -50% bonus its sig will still be huge.) the bonus will also start at -60% and work its way to -100 when having trainned HACs to lvl V |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
193
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 21:53:00 -
[1559] - Quote
Baren wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Baren wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Dysgenesis wrote:I like the idea of 3 guns with a 100% damage role bonus. It would also be nice if all HACs then had 1 (or 2) utility highs, too many of them have been removed lately yes i'm looking at you megathron). With a double damage bonus, I think 4 guns would be better served, plus a utility slot, since that way they can compete with BCs without having to have bigger tanks. HACs should have 4 guns. and the bonus for brawlers should only effect Close range medium weapons and the the Bonus for Kitting should only effect long range medium weapons Vaga is a kiter, and a Vaga with artillery would be utterly sh*t Then do this instead, it would make alot of the ships fitt perfectly Combat: (These ships will be made from close range brawling and will have higher EHP or resist, however they will be slow and have less utility) Role Bonus: 60-100% to damage of its races close range medium weapon the bonus will start a 60% when having Hacs trainned to Lvl I and will been at 100% when trainned to V this will work alot like how the bonus for cpu for cloaks worked on recons or bonuses for logis.) main reason for only close range weapons is to avoid them be OP and make more alpha fleets. Assault: (Ships of this class would also have higher utility and are made for kitting and more support roles) Role bonus: -60% to -100% Reduction in MWD Sig Radius (reason for this is becuase even with a -50% bonus its sig will still be huge.) the bonus will also start at -60% and work its way to -100 when having trainned HACs to lvl V
Sounds good. The Assault HACs should have 400-500 DPS to be viable, but the MWD sig reduction bonus will be awesome. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1493
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 22:00:00 -
[1560] - Quote
So, what's up with the Ishtar? Why does it still have such low levels of CPU? |
|
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 22:04:00 -
[1561] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:So, what's up with the Ishtar? Why does it still have such low levels of CPU?
Because the Dev's are secretly conducting experiments to see how hard they can make fitting a ship for its 'intended' purpose before people rage quit? |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1018
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:13:00 -
[1562] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:I would totally love:
Marauder-Hardpoints, cause my HUD would look near identical to a frig's with 3 guns (like using 3 highslots for weaponry, acting as 6 turrets, boosted by fitting boni to achieve the same damage as before)
100% damage bonus would be cool. ~50k EHP, over 750 DPS, that would be worth 150m+ Would also make epic snipers...
Fully supported, this is an epic idea indeed
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:16:00 -
[1563] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Brawler HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) 30% reduction in damage taken from overheating modeules OR
Kiting HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) -50% MWD signature penalty.
Opinions? Surely you're joking |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
194
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:21:00 -
[1564] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Brawler HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) 30% reduction in damage taken from overheating modeules OR
Kiting HACs: 100% Bonus to all medium (insert racial weapon type) -50% MWD signature penalty.
Opinions? Surely you're joking
[bad joke]
I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.
[/bad joke]
Sad thing is I've never even seen that movie. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Broxus Maximas
Shadow State Fatal Ascension
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:25:00 -
[1565] - Quote
ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage)
Can we please get the optimal range changed for MWD speed. Honestly we don't need a sniper domi and a sniper HAC. This will kill the ship being useful and gives the HAC MWD bonus no use. This ship should get up close and personal and unleash drones not sit back and snipe. Otherwise give it another bonus over the 50% signature bonus.
Really upset at this change its a cookie cutter answer from a terrible Domi concept no one really liked. |
Zeena Baren
Tactical Chaos Corp Infinity Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:32:00 -
[1566] - Quote
A -50% reduction to MDW on a HAC isnt enough, its still as be as a battleship then |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
180
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:32:00 -
[1567] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Baren wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Dysgenesis wrote:I like the idea of 3 guns with a 100% damage role bonus. It would also be nice if all HACs then had 1 (or 2) utility highs, too many of them have been removed lately yes i'm looking at you megathron). With a double damage bonus, I think 4 guns would be better served, plus a utility slot, since that way they can compete with BCs without having to have bigger tanks. HACs should have 4 guns. and the bonus for brawlers should only effect Close range medium weapons and the the Bonus for Kitting should only effect long range medium weapons Vaga is a kiter, and a Vaga with artillery would be utterly sh*t
Kiting with autocannons is for scrubs. Artillery is perfect for kiting, seriously what's wrong with you. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
195
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:33:00 -
[1568] - Quote
Zeena Baren wrote:A -50% reduction to MDW on a HAC isnt enough, its still as be as a battleship then
80%?
Then the sig bloom would only be 100%, doubling sig. On a (good) HAC, the sig would be in the low 200s. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Zeena Baren
Tactical Chaos Corp Infinity Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:38:00 -
[1569] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Zeena Baren wrote:A -50% reduction to MDW on a HAC isnt enough, its still as be as a battleship then 80%? Then the sig bloom would only be 100%, doubling sig. On a (good) HAC, the sig would be in the low 200s. Akturous wrote: Kiting with autocannons is for scrubs. Artillery is perfect for kiting, seriously what's wrong with you.
...surely you're joking Gah even I'm doing it now. With autocannons there is at least a chance of hitting anything closer than 30km.
Have the sig radius on the Kitting class of HAcs go from -60% to -100% at LvL 5 would me a specific and unique role for them. SInce most of these ships will have lower tanks than their brawler counter parts, they would balance out with being very good for speed tanking and kitting. this would balance the classes out quite about |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1018
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:38:00 -
[1570] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Lucine Delacourt wrote:My first thoughts:
- Double web Deimos seems like it could be better than most are giving it credit for.
- 40% Scout Drone damage per level or something similar instead of the generic 20% drone damage bonus would promote hit and run Ishtar tactics and separate it from the plethora of cruiser/BC sized drone hulls.
- The Sac still seems a bit lackluster, a little more CPU/Cap if you want a Neut or Tinker setup or switch a high for a low if you want it buffered.
- The ASB Vaga will eat faces.
- Zealot is pretty close. Not sure what to do without OPing it. An ishtar with a sign radius of a frigate fitted with MSE's using battleship guns (sentries) DDA's sentry rigs and 40% bonus would not be OP at all, really. The bonus is for SCOUT drones so it wouldn't apply to sentries or heavies but thanks for reacting without bothering to read.
You're welcome.
Do you really think there aren't enough of sentry carriers, sentry battleships, battleships with guns AND sentries then cruisers with sentries...? mkay.
Give the ishtar a real cruiser sized bonus for scout drones? -ok for dps but really needs to increase those drones speed and reduce scout drones signature significantly so those survive to small guns/smartbombing easier, no guns needed. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
124
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 23:47:00 -
[1571] - Quote
I really think we need to let them fit the micro jump drive.
On top of splitting them into kiting/brawling categories.
Adding the Micro jump drive would make them somewhat unique. To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 00:03:00 -
[1572] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Dysgenesis wrote:I like the idea of 3 guns with a 100% damage role bonus. It would also be nice if all HACs then had 1 (or 2) utility highs, too many of them have been removed lately yes i'm looking at you megathron). Posting to reiterate that I think this would solve, across the board, 90% of HAC issues. It would give them BC sized DPS with utility slots and high-resist, low-hp tanks and cruiser speeds. A few ships need their speed and agility looked at, I think, but this change might justify the price tag of HACs. I don't think that last part can be over-emphasized. CCP Rise, I'm looking at you.
Reposting, this idea must be seen by all |
Vtra
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 00:46:00 -
[1573] - Quote
How about special ability for hacs to be a Third* rig slot and increased calibration? maybe that could give more flexability and utility? |
Oberus MacKenzie
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 00:48:00 -
[1574] - Quote
Mostly excellent changes, and that vagabond is going to be SO good.
The caldari HACs are still absolutely terrible. The cerberus needs a better capacitor and more cpu, as those have always been its biggest challenges other than the usual slothlike speed of caldari ships. The eagle mainly just got more tank, which was never its problem. It's a blaster boat... it needs speed to catch its target and put damage on it. Currently it is the slowest HAC and if these changes are implemented it will be even slower in comparison.
I'm a bit doubtful of the deimos changes, too. It loses a LOT of hitpoints and only picks up a bit more speed. If it's supposed to be a brawler it may find itself with too thin of an armor tank to do its job.
Overall, I'm looking forward to it :) |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
196
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 00:49:00 -
[1575] - Quote
Vtra wrote:How about special ability for hacs to be a forth rig slot and increased calibration? maybe that could give more flexability and utility?
The two new rigs would almost definitely be used for more tank. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Vtra
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 00:52:00 -
[1576] - Quote
but with 3-4 rig slots whole new fit concepts can fit , but yes most would probly add more tank lol |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
860
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 01:08:00 -
[1577] - Quote
Zeena Baren wrote:A -50% reduction to MDW on a HAC isnt enough, its still as be as a battleship then
A battle ship going at mwd speed so completely different.
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Tribal Band
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 01:11:00 -
[1578] - Quote
Another one of those concerns about the philosophy behind "HAC" Regardless if it can fit "Heavy Assault Missile launchers", the Cerberus to me seems to be following the real sense of the artillery-mindset of "bombardment ship" that was somewhere mentioned for the T1 Tiericide.
One could of course put it next to such likings of the hit-and-run Vagabond mentality. But here too, I am confused if the term HAC actually fits.
Quote:The caldari HACs are still absolutely terrible. The cerberus needs a better capacitor and more cpu, as those have always been its biggest challenges other than the usual slothlike speed of caldari ships. The eagle mainly just got more tank, which was never its problem. It's a blaster boat... it needs speed to catch its target and put damage on it. Currently it is the slowest HAC and if these changes are implemented it will be even slower in comparison.
It should be kept in mind though about Cerb that there needs to be at least some sort of weakness. Since Cerb usually can warpout long before people reach it in fortunate situations, I'd say raise the sloth'iness a bit on aligntime (more mass too) and therefore give more CPU (I think CPU is more desired than Cap in this case, or not?)
Note that such give-n-take suggestion would only be fair if all racials HACs are treated likewise. Since more CPU is quite drastic, I still think that would suffice it being more sluggish.
Quote:The two new rigs would almost definitely be used for more tank.
Might have to do a bit of rig-Calibration tweaking. If necessary, that is. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Lowska Psyca
A.A.A
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 01:18:00 -
[1579] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lowska Psyca wrote: Other long term effects I see are more mission grinders, which will increase the mission ISK faucet driving the inflation even higher (who remembers the golden days when plex were 300M and battleships 120M for tier3?)
That has more to do with drone poo nerfs than mad peope running missions, that is tinfoil hat territory.
True, the ratting bots in the drone regions that made mineral prices low and thus making mining ******** except for ABCs, now there is a huge influx in ISK, from the drone bounties, and mining is only slightly more profitable in neg sec than it is in hisec.
but yes, tinfoil hattery... though you can't say my theory is completely far-fetched. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
860
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 01:25:00 -
[1580] - Quote
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). |
|
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 01:30:00 -
[1581] - Quote
I like the proposed changes, although I still think the sacrilege could use a damage application bonus rather than a cap bonus.
However my biggest issue is lock range. Muninn has too short a lock range for a long range gun platform. Minimum lock range for these should at least be 60-65km. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 01:51:00 -
[1582] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:nikar galvren wrote:I'm personally of the opinion that the key to making the HAC lineup attractive to more pilots is not to reduce the cost, or overpower them relative to T1/T3/ABCs. Call me crazy, but I don't think that cost is a significant deterrent for hull usage - look at the proliferation nullsec T3 blob doctrines. I think that the HAC lineup could be made relevant simply by giving them a role that no other ship fills, or *at least* that no other cruiser fills.
One example that I've seen cited in this thread is the HICs - no other hull can fit an infinipoint, thus guaranteeing a place in anti-super ops. Only the Stealth Bombers can bomb. I personally like the idea of allowing only the 'Attack' HACs the option of fitting a MJD, giving them the mobility that no other hull can boast. I like the idea of allowing the 'Combat' HACs the option of fitting Capital sized weapons, thus making them tanky anti-cap ships. I like the Target Spectrum Breaker idea, but I'm not certain that that bonus would be enough to get me to fly one. I like role bonuses that make the hull class unique.
I want to hear what role bonuses YOU want though. What would you like your HAC to do that no other cruiser can do? MJD Vagabond would be rather annoying to catch. But otherwise I actually like this idea. Yeah but don't forget: you'd be able to jump out and if he does, then he's 100km away, and you won't have to worry anymore anyway. Plus, since it'd be limited to HACs, it'd differentiate the Vaga from the Cynabal that much more. Unless he got out in hull or something, it's not like he's going to leave. More likely the vaga will jump out, load barrage and start skirmishing at a safer distance until his MJD reloads and then he'll start playing more risky again. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
196
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 01:58:00 -
[1583] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:nikar galvren wrote:I'm personally of the opinion that the key to making the HAC lineup attractive to more pilots is not to reduce the cost, or overpower them relative to T1/T3/ABCs. Call me crazy, but I don't think that cost is a significant deterrent for hull usage - look at the proliferation nullsec T3 blob doctrines. I think that the HAC lineup could be made relevant simply by giving them a role that no other ship fills, or *at least* that no other cruiser fills.
One example that I've seen cited in this thread is the HICs - no other hull can fit an infinipoint, thus guaranteeing a place in anti-super ops. Only the Stealth Bombers can bomb. I personally like the idea of allowing only the 'Attack' HACs the option of fitting a MJD, giving them the mobility that no other hull can boast. I like the idea of allowing the 'Combat' HACs the option of fitting Capital sized weapons, thus making them tanky anti-cap ships. I like the Target Spectrum Breaker idea, but I'm not certain that that bonus would be enough to get me to fly one. I like role bonuses that make the hull class unique.
I want to hear what role bonuses YOU want though. What would you like your HAC to do that no other cruiser can do? MJD Vagabond would be rather annoying to catch. But otherwise I actually like this idea. Yeah but don't forget: you'd be able to jump out and if he does, then he's 100km away, and you won't have to worry anymore anyway. Plus, since it'd be limited to HACs, it'd differentiate the Vaga from the Cynabal that much more. Unless he got out in hull or something, it's not like he's going to leave. More likely the vaga will jump out, load barrage and start skirmishing at a safer distance until his MJD reloads and then he'll start playing more risky again.
It would differentiate between HACs and their counterparts, as well as opening up new tactics to players
MJD is probably my favorite role bonus idea. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 02:39:00 -
[1584] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:nikar galvren wrote:I'm personally of the opinion that the key to making the HAC lineup attractive to more pilots is not to reduce the cost, or overpower them relative to T1/T3/ABCs. Call me crazy, but I don't think that cost is a significant deterrent for hull usage - look at the proliferation nullsec T3 blob doctrines. I think that the HAC lineup could be made relevant simply by giving them a role that no other ship fills, or *at least* that no other cruiser fills.
One example that I've seen cited in this thread is the HICs - no other hull can fit an infinipoint, thus guaranteeing a place in anti-super ops. Only the Stealth Bombers can bomb. I personally like the idea of allowing only the 'Attack' HACs the option of fitting a MJD, giving them the mobility that no other hull can boast. I like the idea of allowing the 'Combat' HACs the option of fitting Capital sized weapons, thus making them tanky anti-cap ships. I like the Target Spectrum Breaker idea, but I'm not certain that that bonus would be enough to get me to fly one. I like role bonuses that make the hull class unique.
I want to hear what role bonuses YOU want though. What would you like your HAC to do that no other cruiser can do? MJD Vagabond would be rather annoying to catch. But otherwise I actually like this idea. Yeah but don't forget: you'd be able to jump out and if he does, then he's 100km away, and you won't have to worry anymore anyway. Plus, since it'd be limited to HACs, it'd differentiate the Vaga from the Cynabal that much more. Unless he got out in hull or something, it's not like he's going to leave. More likely the vaga will jump out, load barrage and start skirmishing at a safer distance until his MJD reloads and then he'll start playing more risky again. It would differentiate between HACs and their counterparts, as well as opening up new tactics to players MJD is probably my favorite role bonus idea. I doubt it'll open up THAT many tactics. I mean, most HACs are fast enough that they can just burn out of point range with MWD. The only time this will be used is if they're longpointed but have like huginn/rapier/loki etc webs on them. MJD is useful on a BS because there's not much they can do to an intie longpointing them and orbiting at 24-30km and this gives them a option to escape that situation. 24-30km is like the deathzone for a frig against most HACs though so I have no idea why the HAC pilot would want to MJD out in that situation.
The current MWD sig bonus along with the speed buffs are fine IMO. Long range DPS with less vulnerability to BS guns is a useful role. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 03:04:00 -
[1585] - Quote
I really like the idea of having two clear roles brawlers with high tank and 700+ dps, and kitters with 400-600dps. And get 60%-100% reduction to MWD sig radius
Just to make this clear guys having this clear guys. If Micro Jump Drives were able to be for on any ship lass other than battle ships it would ruin the whole point of them which was to make battleships more mobile. If all ships can do it the that pretty much puts battleships back at square 1. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 03:08:00 -
[1586] - 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.
|
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
134
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 03:29:00 -
[1587] - Quote
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.
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 03:59:00 -
[1588] - 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. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
134
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 04:16:00 -
[1589] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 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.
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.
T1 cruisers fit with basic speed implants (read 3% / zors) And with 1/2 nanos can all go over 2400m/s unheated. If your ship can't go faster than that, your not nanoing in this meta.
Navy cruisers, well they are even more insane. With basic speed implants (read 3% / zors) And with 1/2nanos these ships are hitting 3K+ UNHEATED With out links / snakes / quafe.
A HAC needs to be going faster than a T1 cruiser if its going to stay relevant in the kiting arena. |
Lixia Saran
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
29
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 05:22:00 -
[1590] - Quote
Please CCP, all I want for christmas is a Core Compleion variant of the Vagabond!!!! (which would actually make way more sense than Thukker Mix with the new shield boost bonus) |
|
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 05:22:00 -
[1591] - Quote
I wonder when we are going to see Round #2 of these changes |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8936
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 06:13:00 -
[1592] - Quote
some cruisers are fit for brawling. saying that tey're all supposed to kite is just lying to yourself.
so this requires the mandatory "tl;dr drugs are bad" response. learn to eve. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Baali Tekitsu
Herrscher der Zeit Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 07:03:00 -
[1593] - Quote
Cruisers shouldnt have been made so stupidly fast in the first place, its all fun-ish, but now you get serious issues with everything else being either completely underwhelming slow, or ******* faster than Assault Frigs, if balanced "correctly". |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
742
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 07:15:00 -
[1594] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote: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. So you want to neuter Eve's fragile evolution by making design decisions based on the current meta-game, thus ensuring that it will remain for far longer than it deserves? How was that good for the game again?
You said it yourself, one uses the tool one is most likely to succeed with at a given task, you did not however say why HACs should be the tool of choice in all but the blobbiest environs (ie. old nano meta). Any "new" ship should be made with the intent of wanting to 'shake things up' and allow for the meta-game to evolve as fast as feasibly possible .. the tier3's, in all their broken glory, actually managed to do that: Went from sniping to range augmented short range to MJD'ing BS counters to ..
If I was a naval architect I'd want distinct but complimentary designs (using Amarr as examples only). Role/Class bonus: Cruiser sized MJD (half spool/cycle, 75km vs. 100km) will be a much better role/class bonus than the nonsensical MWD sig reduction (unless increased to 100% )
1. Projection and raw survivability; Zealot with a lower signature, bigger EHP/Cap pool, lower (yes, LOWER) speed and better tracking (ie. lower speed/signature, increase sensors/cap and replace cap bonus with tracking). - Nestle it with the fleet proper and prevent anything smaller than a BC from threatening the primary assets. - Good in blobs but vulnerable if solo or in homogenous small gangs (<10-15).
2. Fast interdiction, long arm of an angry God; Sacrilege with more damage, more speed but smaller EHP pool and better "small crowd" control, ex. neut amount bonus. - Anything that stays clear of the fleet (and the nestled projection platforms) while still representing a threat is what these reach out and touch. - Good solo and in small gangs but vulnerable en masse due to low'ish EHP numbers. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 08:03:00 -
[1595] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Akturous wrote: Kiting with autocannons is for scrubs. Artillery is perfect for kiting, seriously what's wrong with you.
...surely you're joking Gah even I'm doing it now. With autocannons there is at least a chance of hitting anything closer than 30km.
thats why i said the ship needed to drop falloff for a excessive tracking bonus (maybe to arty excluesive so it does not get abused).
btw a MJD on anything than a BS would comepletely ruin their purpose on BS
so HELL NO MJD on anything than bs PLZ! |
Christopher Multsanti
Frag Executors ROMANIAN-LEGION
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 08:10:00 -
[1596] - 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.
You are very much incorrect in every way. And forcing all HACS to be kiters is just insane. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
81
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 08:20:00 -
[1597] - Quote
Anxiously awaiting round two... |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
369
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 09:44:00 -
[1598] - Quote
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 Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
126
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 09:45:00 -
[1599] - Quote
just noticed that the Eagle still got TWO 10% optimal range boni. Shouldn't that one be a single 20% bonus?
Remember that concept of tags, like cheap, fast, resilent, raw dps, projetion, ewar - and t1 ships pick some including cheap, t2 picking some less, but powerful variations. Two 10% Boni to that are a recurring situation from the BS rebalance: Hyperion/Tempest. One get's a 10% bonus + local rep, while the other gets two boni worth about as much as one of the others.
Mean, the hull will in smallscale-scenarios still be picked - if at all - for those 15km range with null, which happens to be around linked web/scram-range.
More things I didn't see yet:
hull affecting the signature resolution (anti-tackle) hull affecting the mass penalty of propmods (could make a vgabond viable agilitywise compared to a cynabal while mwd'ing) I only correct my own spelling. |
Zamyslinski
Kill at Will
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 09:55:00 -
[1600] - Quote
All changes looks pretty good imo,
but still there 4 things to do:
ishtar - buff cpu Zealot - give it 25m3 dronebay Vaga - need a nerf ( lol out of cap boosters lemme just gtfo) and another bonus (dual damage bonus perhaps to compete with cynabal which is going to be buffed later anyway) All HAC - speed rised to their t1 equivalent except the vaga (speed is ok) and Deimos (huge speed buff is needed) |
|
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 09:58:00 -
[1601] - Quote
Please stop it with the MJD already. Not going to happen. Figure our slots, give nice bonuses to justify it's price and they are good to go. Also not every ship needs to have drone bay. Some of them could instead have bonus to smart bomb, range or something since there are now lots of drone dedicated platforms |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
452
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 10:14:00 -
[1602] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Akturous wrote: Kiting with autocannons is for scrubs. Artillery is perfect for kiting, seriously what's wrong with you.
...surely you're joking Gah even I'm doing it now. With autocannons there is at least a chance of hitting anything closer than 30km. thats why i said the ship needed to drop falloff for a excessive tracking bonus (maybe to arty excluesive so it does not get abused). btw a MJD on anything than a BS would comepletely ruin their purpose on BS so HELL NO MJD on anything than bs PLZ!
get out of the thread... very very far. DO nto touch THE MEDIUM AC ship.. also known as Vagabond. Anyoen using arties on it should have all its skills wiped. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
452
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 10:17:00 -
[1603] - Quote
Zamyslinski wrote:almost all changes looks pretty good imo,
but still there 4 things to do:
ishtar - buff cpu Zealot - give it 25m3 dronebay Vaga - need a nerf ( lol out of cap boosters lemme just gtfo) and another bonus (dual damage bonus perhaps to compete with cynabal which is going to be buffed later anyway) All HAC - speed rised to their t1 equivalent except the vaga (speed is ok) and Deimos (huge speed buff is needed)
Vagabond got an USELES bonus, because with 4 mids no sane person will try the "tank the enemy "tactics. And also lost base speed (75ms after MWD)
Vaga needs a BOOST! No one uses vagabonds now. Stabbers are as good on 90% of the cases and on the other 10% the cynabal is purely superior.
Vaga needs 5 mids OR change the shield boost bonus for something USEFUL!
Know what? Keep current base speed. Put the Falloff bonus at the CRUISER skill. And put an 5% SPEED bonus back.. on the HAC skill. OK.. now vagabond will be the good old vagabond with speed useful enough. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1019
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 10:25:00 -
[1604] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Vaga needs 5 mids OR change the shield boost bonus for something USEFUL!
This I can agree, if you want to make a kitter you don't fit plates on it but shield modules and having 5 mids is not luxury but the minimum required.
Take one low for a mid and make it 6-5-4 (H-M-L), eventually change that shield boost bonus for a tracking one but make sure it's not another 180mm's frigate murderer asb fitted and linked running over 5k speed and impossible to catch (frigates get insta pop anyway)
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 10:26:00 -
[1605] - 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. |
Christopher Multsanti
Frag Executors ROMANIAN-LEGION
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 10:43:00 -
[1606] - Quote
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. |
Christopher Multsanti
Frag Executors ROMANIAN-LEGION
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 10:46:00 -
[1607] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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
I'm not sure where sniping has come into it. I am talking about using short range weapons. HACS should have the ability to brawl and kite. Simples.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
742
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 10:57:00 -
[1608] - Quote
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). |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
135
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 11:03:00 -
[1609] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:JerseyBOI 2 wrote: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. So you want to neuter Eve's fragile evolution by making design decisions based on the current meta-game, thus ensuring that it will remain for far longer than it deserves? How was that good for the game again? You said it yourself, one uses the tool one is most likely to succeed with at a given task, you did not however say why HACs should be the tool of choice in all but the blobbiest environs (ie. old nano meta). Any "new" ship should be made with the intent of wanting to 'shake things up' and allow for the meta-game to evolve as fast as feasibly possible .. the tier3's, in all their broken glory, actually managed to do that: Went from sniping to range augmented short range to MJD'ing BS counters to .. If I was a naval architect I'd want distinct but complimentary designs (using Amarr as examples only). Role/Class bonus: Cruiser sized MJD (half spool/cycle, 75km vs. 100km) will be a much better role/class bonus than the nonsensical MWD sig reduction (unless increased to 100% ) 1. Projection and raw survivability; Zealot with a lower signature, bigger EHP/Cap pool, lower (yes, LOWER) speed and better tracking (ie. lower speed/signature, increase sensors/cap and replace cap bonus with tracking). - Nestle it with the fleet proper and prevent anything smaller than a BC from threatening the primary assets. - Good in blobs but vulnerable if solo or in homogenous small gangs (<10-15). 2. Fast interdiction, long arm of an angry God; Sacrilege with more damage, more speed but smaller EHP pool and better "small crowd" control, ex. neut amount bonus. - Anything that stays clear of the fleet (and the nestled projection platforms) while still representing a threat is what these reach out and touch. - Good solo and in small gangs but vulnerable en masse due to low'ish EHP numbers.
MJD's have no place on a cruiser. A cruiser is already mobile enough, and has no use of suddenly jumping 100K. Cruisers are outclassed by ABC's and BS in the sniping role. So again being 100K+ From an enemy fleet is doing medium weapons no good.
If you lower the speed of the HAC's then you are placing them in line with BC's / Command ships / Battle Ships. All of those ships have superior EHP, DPS, and utility (Thanks to heavy neuts) When compared to your cruiser. Which if you have not forgotten is still way more isk than your typical BC. Why are HAC's useful in that role? |
Kane Fenris
NWP
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 11:19:00 -
[1610] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Akturous wrote: Kiting with autocannons is for scrubs. Artillery is perfect for kiting, seriously what's wrong with you.
...surely you're joking Gah even I'm doing it now. With autocannons there is at least a chance of hitting anything closer than 30km. thats why i said the ship needed to drop falloff for a excessive tracking bonus (maybe to arty excluesive so it does not get abused). btw a MJD on anything than a BS would comepletely ruin their purpose on BS so HELL NO MJD on anything than bs PLZ! get out of the thread... very very far. DO nto touch THE MEDIUM AC ship.. also known as Vagabond. Anyoen using arties on it should have all its skills wiped.
im not useing atry on the vaga..... cause im not stupid. im for a solution to make em USEABLE on the vaga so the vaga can be: -still a kiteing ship -diffrent than the cyna -do more dmg at its kite range with more flexiblity in ammo choice |
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 11:52:00 -
[1611] - 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).
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
197
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 12:03:00 -
[1612] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: The current MWD sig bonus along with the speed buffs are fine IMO. Long range DPS with less vulnerability to BS guns is a useful role.
I could see MJDs making HACs too survivable, but MWD bonus for all simply isn't a good idea, it wouldn't do much for brawlers. Overheating bonus/double damage bonus/overheating MWD speed bonus instead would be more beneficial. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
197
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 12:05:00 -
[1613] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote: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.
And thats where being able to fit an MJD would be handy, since next to nobody fits scrams on their ships anyway. (Except maybe brawling Brutixes or some other slow brawler that doesn't have 90% webs) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
369
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 12:06:00 -
[1614] - Quote
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. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Baali Tekitsu
Herrscher der Zeit Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 12:28:00 -
[1615] - 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.
You have tracking issues on missile boat? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
369
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 12:53:00 -
[1616] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote: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. You have tracking issues on missile boat?
Well its a kiting ship with no tackle so having to rely on another ship to tackle when its a simple and sensible bonus swap seems unnecessary to me. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
126
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 13:40:00 -
[1617] - Quote
If anyone says that the MWD-Bonus won't change a lot: you are so shamefully wrong.
I can't say it about HACs (yet), but as an example from flying lokis. Comparing the incoming damage of adaptive shielding to amp node in the same situation (orbiting missile ships/ABCs/Battleships) at 20-40km, the incoming damage is much lower using the amp node (which only grants some 40% reduction). Both fits orbiting something singlewebbed with mwd on (~1.4 km/s). I believe my sigs should have been ~750 against ~420.
So considering the experienced damage mitigation yet alone on a loki, sigradius overshadowing the theoretical advantage of higher resists even, that MWD Bonus is going to change a lot. It will change things significantly less for F1-Drones, but that's due to the scenario, not the ship. I only correct my own spelling. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
438
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 14:03:00 -
[1618] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:If anyone says that the MWD-Bonus won't change a lot: you are so shamefully wrong.
I can't say it about HACs (yet), but as an example from flying lokis. Comparing the incoming damage of adaptive shielding to amp node in the same situation (orbiting missile ships/ABCs/Battleships) at 20-40km, the incoming damage is much lower using the amp node (which only grants some 40% reduction). Both fits orbiting something singlewebbed with mwd on (~1.4 km/s). I believe my sigs should have been ~750 against ~420.
So considering the experienced damage mitigation yet alone on a loki, sigradius overshadowing the theoretical advantage of higher resists even, that MWD Bonus is going to change a lot. It will change things significantly less for F1-Drones, but that's due to the scenario, not the ship. lool nobody said the mwd bonus isnt good for an orbiting kiter ship like the vaga but it is nearly useless for every other hac so why give all 8 the same role bonus when only 1 can use it out? |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 14:14:00 -
[1619] - 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. |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 14:24:00 -
[1620] - Quote
I agree that HAC's don't need to obsolete T1 cruisers but they really need a damn good role bonus just like HIC's or the Interdiction nulifier subsistem and not only tweak some stats here and there
- Deimos - a bit more tank and scram imune (no mwd stop) role bonus - Ishtar - more CPU, 375 default drone bay, replace drone capacity bonus with drone speed & resistance bonus - Vaga - keep current bonuses, cruiser / battlecruiser sig radius with mwd ON bonus - Muninn - make him a brawler with shield boost bonus (also can make it double weapon system) - Zealot - keep current bonuses, give him a few drones - Sacrilege - Include cap bonus in stats, a bit more speed, 1 more low slot, a bit more range for HAM's - Cerberus - give him more speed and cruiser / battlecruiser sig radius with mwd ON bonus (misille Vaga) - Eagle - nulified rail platform |
|
DB Jones
Justin's Beavers
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 14:30:00 -
[1621] - Quote
So the Ishtar will only have a total of 14 slots? It is already a brilliant ship and the hybrids were only rarely used for it, but isn't it, from a pve perspective at least, to take away from it rather than give to it? The bonus change is okay in my opinion but I for one like and use all it's highs. In a way it just seems like you are maki g a change where none is needed. And with the t3 op vs hac up debate going on a slot nerf seems somewhat misplaced. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
85
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 14:44:00 -
[1622] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:I agree that HAC's don't need to obsolete T1 cruisers but they really need a damn good role bonus just like HIC's or the Interdiction nulifier subsistem and not only tweak some stats here and there - Deimos - a bit more tank and scram imune (no mwd stop) role bonus - Ishtar - more CPU, 375 default drone bay, replace drone capacity bonus with drone speed & resistance bonus - Vaga - keep current bonuses, battlecruiser sig radius with mwd ON bonus - Muninn - make him a brawler with shield boost bonus (also can make it double weapon system) - Zealot - keep current bonuses, give him a few drones - Sacrilege - Include cap bonus in stats, a bit more speed, 1 more low slot, a bit more range for HAM's - Cerberus - give him more speed and battlecruiser sig radius with mwd ON bonus (misille Vaga) - Eagle - nulified rail platform The signature radius bonus should be 50% like in proposed changes if you're going to keep OGB and current boost Loki's
making ships immune to different ewar is not a solution. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 14:50:00 -
[1623] - Quote
Quote:nobody said the mwd bonus isnt good for an orbiting kiter ship like the vaga but it is nearly useless for every other hac so why give all 8 the same role bonus when only 1 can use it out?
I see great potential for it being useful on Sacriledge/Deimos/Eagle/Ishtar to get into brawling range alive. Get blapped 50% less by marauding Talos'.
The others are kiting ships. Others = Cerb, Zealot, Muninn, Vaga. Arguably the Eagle and Deimos (especially with new slot layout and LR-weapon changes) be labeled kiter aswell.
Actually I saw people using the ishtar to mitigate damage in a kitestyle aswell. Which mostly works great together with berserkers and some longer range webs. With that amount of highspeed maneuvring, it is good to be less easy to hit - especially with the current new dawn of cruise missiles.
So mwd-bonus is adding to the vaga - but equally or nearly equally to all the other 7 aswell. It might not go far enough for the people who expected sigbased immunity to anything, but it is a HUGE step forward.
And can't wait to fly a zealot with that bonus. Was one of two decent hacs before (ishtar being the other one), and will now most likely not stop dominating that class. I only correct my own spelling. |
Baali Tekitsu
Herrscher der Zeit Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:11:00 -
[1624] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Quote:nobody said the mwd bonus isnt good for an orbiting kiter ship like the vaga but it is nearly useless for every other hac so why give all 8 the same role bonus when only 1 can use it out? So every other HAC = your soloishtar, your active sacriledge and which other ship? I see great potential for it being useful on Sacriledge/Deimos/Eagle/Ishtar to get into brawling range alive. Get blapped 50% less by marauding Talos'.
Talos' wont blap HACs because of their T2 resist profile anyway, maybe except the Munnin. Its plain dumb to give them a bonus which is used the first 10 sec of the fight and doesnt matter anyway because you are going to be approaching them, not orbiting while getting closer. It cant be denied that these hulls are made for brawling and doing some weird sniper stuff just to utilise the bonus shouldnt be the way to go. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1804
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:14:00 -
[1625] - Quote
Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/ |
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:29:00 -
[1626] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote: Talos' wont blap HACs because of their T2 resist profile anyway, maybe except the Munnin. Its plain dumb to give them a bonus which is used the first 10 sec of the fight and doesnt matter anyway because you are going to be approaching them, not orbiting while getting closer. It cant be denied that these hulls are made for brawling and doing some weird sniper stuff just to utilise the bonus shouldnt be the way to go.
''I don't always go to a brawl, but if I do, I use a subpar ship for it. Because my Deimos is Tech 2, it clearly is a superior brawler compared to the Brutix, amirite?''
It means: Don't fight guns with knifes. I only correct my own spelling. |
Lixia Saran
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:33:00 -
[1627] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/
AhhGǪ was hoping for friday.
but as long as Core complexion is taking over the vagabond design, I forgive you :) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
300
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:36:00 -
[1628] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/
You'll be updating the medium weapons thread as well, I presume. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:36:00 -
[1629] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/
I don't know if my heart will last that long... but I'd rather wait for something good than get handed something rushed and inadequate.
Thank you for the update, Rise! |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
197
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:49:00 -
[1630] - Quote
I've got it. ECM immunity.
Because **** FALCONS! It is a serious proposal though Flame away! How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
87
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:51:00 -
[1631] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/
And the wait continues :-) |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
439
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:52:00 -
[1632] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:I've got it. ECM immunity. Because **** FALCONS! It is a serious proposal though Flame away! pff why not dmg immunity ? cause of dps ships |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1494
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:54:00 -
[1633] - Quote
So why is there such a serious gimp on CPU for the Ishtar? I've never understood this, and it would be great of the devs could lend some insight. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
197
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 15:55:00 -
[1634] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:I've got it. ECM immunity. Because **** FALCONS! It is a serious proposal though Flame away! pff why not dmg immunity ? cause of dps ships
Ok, it was a half serious proposal.
Falcons are the single most anti-solo/small gang ship in EVE. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1166
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 17:38:00 -
[1635] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/
do us a fav and un sticky this thread when you get mrk II done please and thank you :)
oh and hopping to get that wow factor this time... now i am excited.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 18:08:00 -
[1636] - 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. |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
274
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 18:17:00 -
[1637] - Quote
i give them an "E" for effort on this last pass. not an "F" because they at least tried. i am still fearing the marauder pass...and cs pass.. uug.
sniper hacs are no good. get rid of them. tier 3 over shadow them in every way.
anyway, alot of kewl ideas. personally, i still think there should be 2 roles. brawlers and kiters. i brawl my sac. i can take a lot of crap solo or even 2v1. dual neut canes, drakes.. burner plus good resists = survivability. but thats just me..
i think kiters should gain 10% per lev to point range. this would give around a 36k point. perfect for kiters. they can point anything within gun range. give them bonuses to tracking for long range medium weapons. they should also get a base speed of somewhere around the vaggy and zealot. small sig radius. they should get a burner bonus to speed and acceleration or just a mass reduction. this would keep the radius down for speed tanking, and keep their "mwd" (insert burner) from being turned off since they are brittle. they should gain the tackle of interceptors just not the lock speed. they should have 6 weapons or =. (4 weapons at 10%/lev would equal this at rank 5). that would leave 1 utility high slot.
kiters-10% per lev on range of points. 10% per lev on burner speed. 10% reduction in burner mass (this would give even more speed plus acceleration) - 10% resistance or so. cerb-heavy missile speed bonus, raw speed increase (other cerb stuff) zealot-gains sac cap bonus, looses range bonus, gains tracking for beams diemost- speed, tracking bonus for rails. looses mwd bonus. gains hp vaggy-artie platform. gains tracking for artillery. rof bonus. other artie stuff
brawlers need hp, resists, speed, tackle/scram, survivability and freakin dps... they should have the dps of a bc. they should be slower than a normal cruiser due to larger weapons and more armor. they should get a close range damage bonus. they should have the dps of around 7.5 weapons.
brawlers-6% bonus to resistances form where they are now (give them the 1% back and give them 5% more).give them an increase in hp, but not a lot due to resists. make overall hp 20% more than t1. 5 weapons at 10% dps/lev bonus would do this at rank 5. they are specialists in surviving. they do this with resistance. they dont need a lot of hp, they have ehp. they are mwd specialists mean: give them 50% reduction in mwd sig bloom +10/lev to 0 sig bloom at rank 5. give them 20% per lev of cap loss reduction when fitting an mwd per level. still draws the same amount of cap, but you have more overall.
sac-loses cap bonus to zealot. gains explosion velocity and/or radius bonus. muninn- becomes the brawler. looses range to vaggy, gain auto cannons and tracking/fall off bonus. typical auto-cannon brawler platform. eagle- becomes massive blaster boat. gains fall off bonuses, plus tracking. typical blaster boat bonuses applied here. ishtar- gets blasters back. gains big bonuses to scout drones possibly mwd and tracking as one, 20% dps as another. maybe fall off bonus, but no damage bonus, thats in the drones. the ishtar should keep 125Mbit, but its bonuses are set to shred bc and below.
all fittings need to be adjusted so they can fit full racks of weapons and/or mods. its crazy that they are so over shadowed by your average run of the mill t1 cruiser. tons of money and training times dictate something better. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4152
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 20:00:00 -
[1638] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/ Can you at least tell us if these latest pass puts HACs into a role that is not completely overshadowed by other ship? . |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
370
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 20:04:00 -
[1639] - Quote
Can I just ask that we stop suggesting things that shoehorn these ships into certain roles? Ideas like that totally and utterly destroy the "sandbox" idea of having various options and ways to fit your ship, choosing a style that you like and going with it. Certainly some ships will be better/worse than the others for doing various tasks, but the idea that you'd "push" players into a particular play style is contrary to what Eve's sandbox philosophy is all about, and certainly what attracts players to the game.
A ship should be good at doing something and be viable in doing things around that. What I mean by that is if HACs are damage dealing ships, then they should be good at dealing damage, being viable brawlers and being viable kiters. Certainly, as I said, some ships will perform brawling better (Sac) and some will perform kiting better (Vaga), but each should be capable of playing the other way and not totally failing at it.
Buffs to long-range medium weapons are welcomed, because it helps several of these ships perform better at the kiting role, but each should still be workable with short range weapons, and not as some sort of lolfit. The shield boost bonus on the Vaga supports this style of play, while not adversely affecting its role as a kiter. Similarly, giving the Sac a boost to HMLs, too, provides a means for a Sac to be viable from long ranges.
Some of the angst in the thread is stemming from the fact that a MWD bonus only really helps the kiting role, since while the brawlers will use their MWD to close range with the enemy, once they are in range, the bonus is useless, because MWDs will be deactivated. That's why ideas like a MJD fitting bonus (that would allow brawlers to close distance with kiters and kiters to get away from brawlers) have been suggested. Other unique bonuses that affect both would be Marlona's Target Spectrum Breaker bonus, because it would allow another facet of game play with these ships. It is a double-edged sword, since it may break locks of friendly logi, but it does provide a compelling way to increase a ship's likelihood of survival without a straight HP buff or armor bonus or similar.
Just think of how limiting ships would be if they were shoehorned into a certain style and how they'd totally be useless if the meta changed from that doctrine or style. I think CCP's interaction with the community is great, welcome and does wonders for keeping Eve the game we all know and love. Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture, though, that "Eve is a sandbox" is one of the main reasons we all love and continue to log in every day to kill players, sleepers, or hell, even asteroids. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1360
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 20:05:00 -
[1640] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/ Can you at least tell us if these latest pass puts HACs into a role that is not completely overshadowed by other ship? That would be a tough question, what role could they even fill that is not already filled by a better, cheaper ship right now? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
86
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 21:17:00 -
[1641] - Quote
Can I just say that the only thing that upsets me about these changes are:
1) ALL hac's are turning into long range sniper hacs, without exceptions. This really removes the flavor from these ships (espeically the deimos which has always been about blasters, and I really want a gallente blaster boat in the T2 cruiser format.) This redundancy is upsetting by its self. Why even bother with 2 HACS from different hulls? just give us the ishtar, vaga, zealot and cerb at this rate.
2) They seem to not create a distinguished 'role' for HACs, but rather make them good at doing things similar to things that other ships are already good at. (eg teir 3 bc which would essentailly dominate ALL of these HACs regardless.
my suggestion?
Make HACs the personification of what it means to be a 'cruiser', a fast, well armed ship with medium-heavy armor designed to be a vanguard for large fleets and take on smaller support ships in droves. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
862
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 21:28:00 -
[1642] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:[quote=Naomi Knight][quote=M1k3y Koontz] Falcons are the single most anti-solo/small gang ship in EVE.
]
Because all the small gangs and solo (but with my falcon alt) guys use them.
|
Doddy
Dark-Rising
862
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 21:45:00 -
[1643] - Quote
JerseyBOI 2 wrote: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. Why are you using how hacs are pre-changes to judge how they would be after?
The point is not that they are brawlers, but that they were, should be and easily could be, its what heavy assault means ffs. A kiting ship is the opposite of "heavy assault". Their whole design philosophy from the start was double damage bonus and double tanking bonus. Hacs are not brawlers because ccp added better/cheaper brawlers. If ccp actually wants to have heavy assault cruisers they need to redress that balance. If they don't want brawlers then they should just get rid of them and have something else. Heavy assault cruisers being kiting ships is right up there in the top broken designs of eve. Not that any of them are even good at it anyway, their being better or cheaper ships for that too.
|
Puer Servus
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 21:55:00 -
[1644] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: SACRILEGE
5% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (added heavy missiles)
If you are adding Heavy Missile bonus to Sacrilege. Could you also add Light Missile bonus to Vegeance and Heretic? It would create more options to Amarr missile ships. |
Alundil
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
234
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 21:58:00 -
[1645] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/
Perhaps I've missed it in the 80+ pages or the op, but can the "update(s)" be highlighted or called attention to?
Clone gameplay enhancements |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 22:51:00 -
[1646] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/
hes to hoping u leave the cerb the **** alone. the first pass did plenty for it. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 23:26:00 -
[1647] - Quote
Ja'ho sun wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/ hes to hoping u leave the cerb the **** alone. the first pass did plenty for it.
Do you know why the carical became so popular after the T1 cruiser balance? because it did decent dps out to range and actualy had the speed to not get caught by any old BC. the cerb cant and still cant do the same, it will die in a ball of fire to any T1 cruiser with a scram. |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 23:29:00 -
[1648] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Ja'ho sun wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/ hes to hoping u leave the cerb the **** alone. the first pass did plenty for it. Do you know why the carical became so popular after the T1 cruiser balance? because it did decent dps out to range and actualy had the speed to not get caught by any old BC. the cerb cant and still cant do the same, it will die in a ball of fire to any T1 cruiser with a scram.
looking at my KB, yea ur wrong. |
Zurin Arctus
CRANK INC.
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 23:36:00 -
[1649] - Quote
Wow. I didn't think it was possible to make the Ishtar more mediocre.
As it stands, the Ishtar has less CPU than a Vexor. I see you tried to fix that by taking away one of the often-empty highs. /clap
Rise, you and the devs surely realize how CPU-hungry ANY drone module or rig can be. Why gimp the CPU of ships that employ drones as their primary weapon system? This makes it pretty vexing to fit and fly both the Ishtar and the Gila, and quashes creative fits.
tl;dr: You aren't going to break the game if you give the Ishtar ~40 more CPU |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 23:40:00 -
[1650] - Quote
Ja'ho sun wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Ja'ho sun wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/ hes to hoping u leave the cerb the **** alone. the first pass did plenty for it. Do you know why the carical became so popular after the T1 cruiser balance? because it did decent dps out to range and actualy had the speed to not get caught by any old BC. the cerb cant and still cant do the same, it will die in a ball of fire to any T1 cruiser with a scram. looking at my KB, yea ur wrong.
You know im not much into getting twisted in baby like killboard braging, but it dose help to actualy have a kill history for your charicter. Oh let me guess your so good that you have to hide your identity behind a forum alt. |
|
Deirdre Anethoel
Antimatter Delivery Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 23:42:00 -
[1651] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Ja'ho sun wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/ hes to hoping u leave the cerb the **** alone. the first pass did plenty for it. Do you know why the carical became so popular after the T1 cruiser balance? because it did decent dps out to range and actualy had the speed to not get caught by any old BC. the cerb cant and still cant do the same, it will die in a ball of fire to any T1 cruiser with a scram.
Agreed. The cerb is SLOWER than a T3 BCs. Seriously, it's a cruiser. Even if they're supposed to be tough brawlers and not kitting ships (and I doubt that since the amount of range bonuses they have is pretty high), they should have a decent speed. Not navy cruiser speed (leave them that), but definitely as fast as their tech1 counterpart. And definitely a lot faster than tier3 BCs. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 23:46:00 -
[1652] - Quote
Deirdre Anethoel wrote: Agreed. The cerb is SLOWER than a T3 BCs. Seriously, it's a cruiser. Even if they're supposed to be tough brawlers and not kitting ships (and I doubt that since the amount of range bonuses they have is pretty high), they should have a decent speed. Not navy cruiser speed (leave them that), but definitely as fast as their tech1 counterpart. And definitely a lot faster than tier3 BCs.
I really did like the difference between vaga and cynabal. Since the vaga aligns like a brick in comparison, it matched the 'sturdy' theme pretty well. Wish though it would have been faster afterall. It shouldn't lose on both. I only correct my own spelling. |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 00:04:00 -
[1653] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Ja'ho sun wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Ja'ho sun wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/ hes to hoping u leave the cerb the **** alone. the first pass did plenty for it. Do you know why the carical became so popular after the T1 cruiser balance? because it did decent dps out to range and actualy had the speed to not get caught by any old BC. the cerb cant and still cant do the same, it will die in a ball of fire to any T1 cruiser with a scram. looking at my KB, yea ur wrong. You know im not much into getting twisted in baby like killboard braging, but it dose help to actualy have a kill history for your charicter. Oh let me guess your so good that you have to hide your identity behind a forum alt.
I like to think ahead. which means I not disclosing anything that could be used against me in pvp, like allowing ppl to see wat I fly though my KB, which u just tried to do. sure ppl can look at my pvp char's kb when I roam, but then its a limited group that sees it. it also doesn't mean they understand how the ship is flown and used in combat.
the cerb is a great ship when flown with the right with the right fit. the inability to exploit its bonuses are not the ships fault but the pilots that look at it. the cerb can take on multiple targets solo, not just tank them but kill them as well.
so again not the ships fault, the pilot that uses it. |
Kaz Mafaele
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 00:12:00 -
[1654] - Quote
maybe this has already been answered and I just did not catch it. Can someone in the know comment on why the iskur ishtar assault ships use up a roll bonus just getting more drone bay. I feel like with t1 ships like the tristan, vexor or navy vexor inherently having those large drone bays already it basically becomes a wasted ship bonus. also the fitting seems way off as well with the drone boats but that seems like a more manageable problem. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
182
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 00:19:00 -
[1655] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/
Last iteration?
You haven't done any yet, so I'd say it's the first and hopefully not the last if they need it. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1022
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 00:22:00 -
[1656] - Quote
Rise said by the end of this week (we're there) or beginning next one.
So let me call out:
RISE !!
The heck dude?? *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 00:47:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Quote: I like to think ahead. which means I not disclosing anything that could be used against me in pvp, like allowing ppl to see wat I fly though my KB, which u just tried to do. sure ppl can look at my pvp char's kb when I roam, but then its a limited group that sees it. it also doesn't mean they understand how the ship is flown and used in combat.
the cerb is a great ship when flown with the right with the right fit. the inability to exploit its bonuses are not the ships fault but the pilots that look at it. the cerb can take on multiple targets solo, not just tank them but kill them as well.
so again not the ships fault, the pilot that uses it.
If you lose a ship and blame it on them spying on your loss mails then your not really a good pilot after all.
Take a look at the heron, a lowly T1 scanning ship, yet i have used it many times to beat the pants off off almost any other T1 frig (Feel free to actualy check my killboard) The heron has no bnuses to pvp orintated fits but my piloting and quick judgement lets me own in it. So i will give you props for "suposidly" using a Cerb to solo people. But lets not kid ourseves here this has nothing to do with one pirate beating down noobs with a cerb this has to do with the ship being obviously subpar to the Navy carical, Navy Omen, and T1 carical in so many ways it hurts, especialy in the speed department where a Tr3 BC even out classes it. And it simply did not recive the fitting room it needs to comfortably fit its new 6th launcher and a decent tank, not that it could sport much of a decent tank to begin with.
TL:DR - Unless you can back your argument up with facts, numbers, situations where it would own, and not baseless braging of none existant kills sit back and take whatever Cerb people actualy argue with Rise to improve give you.
PS: unless you actualy post a reply worth reading im no linger going to feed the troll and acknowledge your next post |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1168
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 00:50:00 -
[1658] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Rise said by the end of this week (we're there) or beginning next one.
So let me call out:
RISE !!
The heck dude??
he likes to make nerds sweat. Monday it shall have to be... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 01:11:00 -
[1659] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Give the ishtar a real cruiser sized bonus for scout drones? -ok for dps but really needs to increase those drones speed and reduce scout drones signature significantly so those survive to small guns/smartbombing easier, no guns needed.
Range/Damage/Sig & ...? Still needs a 4th bonus but I think it would add more flavor than another sentry boat. Seems like we agree on that. |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 01:13:00 -
[1660] - Quote
Ja'ho sun wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Ja'ho sun wrote:[quote=CCP Rise]Another small update just so you guys don't get mad and think I've abandoned you!
Entering final review steps internally and with CSM before getting latest iteration of this stuff posted here for you guys. Early next week at the latest I'd say.
o/ hes to hoping u leave the cerb the **** alone. the first pass did plenty for it. Do you know why the carical became so popular after the T1 cruiser balance? because it did decent dps out to range and actualy had the speed to not get caught by any old BC. the cerb cant and still cant do the same, it will die in a ball of fire to any T1 cruiser with a scram.
let throw just a little bit of math into this. the current cerb moves as fast as a tengu under micro (using the fastest sub ofc) u can even check the numbers on that, should be about 1460 or something like that. now caldri as a race are not the fastest nor should they be as their main weapon sys is missiles. I think every1 recalls the heavy missile 100mn tengu being able to push 500 dps at 100km. its a recipe for an overpowered weapons sys if the ship is just too fast, which is why caldri are where they are speed wise. back to the cerb.
at base speed right now with no skills, the cerb sits at 175. the caracal its t1 counter part has 230. that's a big difference. since the caracal has received its buff and the cerb has not just yet lets use the base speed its slated for, 205. so now its the cerb at 205 with the caracal at 230, add in nav skills ur likely looking at about around 230 to 235 base for the cerb and the caracal sit at 288. under micro the caracal moves at 1881 (with max nav skills and without a nano ofc) so that puts the cerb at about 1700.
the cerb went from goin 1445 to about 1700 under micro, suddenly not so slow. sure its slower then the caracal, but should it be faster? im unsure about that. t1 should have something over t2, I think speed should be it, but I wouldn't mind if it was faster or as fast. now lets compare the speed of the slated cerb to the nano ABCs. talos moves at 1673, nado 1734 and the oracle 1571. this is all without links or Lg/Hg snakes.
lets compare dps just a little bit between the caracal and cerb then. now I have HAC at 5 so it may be a little unfair but I don't think I care too much. ill also use implants to max out the dps. caracal with hams will push AT MAX without overheat 478 at about 27km, with heat 562. while that's not something to ignore the cerb will laugh saying "that's all u can push?' the cerb pushes 475 at HAC lv 4, lv 5 500 dps this is BEFORE slated buff.
so tell me again which is better? caracal as it is now? or the new cerb with not 5 but 6 launchers? with its bonuses intact as they are. lets not forget the cerb can hit a **** load fath then the caracal can. |
|
Spr09
East India Ore Trade The East India Co.
68
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 01:59:00 -
[1661] - Quote
People say that the sacrelige is bad for some reason. With how it currently stands, it will be one of the best close range E-war brawlers. HAMs will not be able to reach very far, but with it's massive capacitor and bonus to recharge rate, and pilot with decent skills will be able to run E-war mods indefinitely.
- 5 Launchers, and 5 medium drones will be able to do decent damage, especially with a dual bonus to missile damage.
- 4% armor resist per level on the amarr cruiser means an instant 20% bonus to resistances, making it harder to kill than other HACs.
- 4 mid slots on an armor ship means a MWD and 3 other modules, which combined with the capacitor recharge time will mean they can be running longer than other ships.
- It uses missile, which means that it won't be using capacitor for any lasers.
So stop your complaining, without actually playing around with it yet it looks like it's a solid ship. |
Skullian
The Scope Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 02:12:00 -
[1662] - Quote
Deimos: "Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531)"
Oh, COME ON!!!!
It was already a glass cannon, now I might actually sell mine because it is too f***ing fragile to bring into a fight. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Tribal Band
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 02:26:00 -
[1663] - Quote
Quote:The point is not that they are brawlers, but that they were, should be and easily could be, its what heavy assault means ffs. A kiting ship is the opposite of "heavy assault". Their whole design philosophy from the start was double damage bonus and double tanking bonus. Hacs are not brawlers because ccp added better/cheaper brawlers. If ccp actually wants to have heavy assault cruisers they need to redress that balance. If they don't want brawlers then they should just get rid of them and have something else. Heavy assault cruisers being kiting ships is right up there in the top broken designs of eve. Not that any of them are even good at it anyway, their being better or cheaper ships for that too.
That.
Well, if one does not want the them to be the kiter type, then just make them all viable bricks. Disregarding my previous standpoints to Vaga specifically, I wouldn't have any problem if these HACs were actually slower and tougher. Most importantly, they should not blow up the moment they are tackled as they would not be the kiting type of ship. I don't fancy much the monster-tank mentality like CS/T3s in most cases but, say, if they are sluggish and can't align out that easy, I'd welcome the "Big tank" buff after all.
Lastly, I'd say to give a substancial amount to the base HPs and have the bonuses be changed to make these ships even more impressive and worth their expensive price tag.
Not to get me wrong, I like/prefer kiting gameplay but people don't seem to handle the thought of it like we do. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 03:01:00 -
[1664] - Quote
What's with all this brawling/kiting debate. T2s can do both currently and they'll be better equiped to do it after the buff. Being fast doesn't mean you have to fit it for kiting, it helps brawling too as its relevant to catching snipers, slingshotting kiters and seperating vulnerable targets from the rest of their gang.
The current proposals are more or less okay pending additional testing and also pending medium long range weapon buffs. A few tweaks here and there sure but some of you guys have these outlandish views like EWAR immunity/MJD/Battleship tank etc. MWD sig bonus IMO is a good idea. It gives them a distinct advantage over T3 BCs and in many cases makes some of them very viable Anti-T3BC killers. |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
106
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 03:16:00 -
[1665] - Quote
Oh hey what ya know, HACs get buffed and the best HAC after the buff will be..... the zealot! WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING!
|
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
275
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 03:39:00 -
[1666] - Quote
all i really want is a burner bonus to the sac. make it faster and i am happy. the rest is whatever... |
Ge Hucel-Ge
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 05:56:00 -
[1667] - Quote
+1 for ecm immunity
would give them a nice boost for solo and small scale pvp and they would be worth their prize.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
743
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 06:58:00 -
[1668] - Quote
Spr09 wrote:People say that the sacrelige is bad for some reason. With how it currently stands, it will be one of the best close range E-war brawlers. HAMs will not be able to reach very far, but with it's massive capacitor and bonus to recharge rate, and pilot with decent skills will be able to run E-war mods indefinitely.
- 5 Launchers, and 5 medium drones will be able to do decent damage, especially with a dual bonus to missile damage.
- 4% armor resist per level on the amarr cruiser means an instant 20% bonus to resistances, making it harder to kill than other HACs.
- 4 mid slots on an armor ship means a MWD and 3 other modules, which combined with the capacitor recharge time will mean they can be running longer than other ships.
- It uses missile, which means that it won't be using capacitor for any lasers.
So stop your complaining, without actually playing around with it yet it looks like it's a solid ship. Apart from the added drones the Sac is pretty much "as is", so all the old complaints are curiously enough cropping up again as they remain valid: - None of the cap is available for eWar as it is all destined to be slurped by repairers (plural), because .. with only 'decent' damage its only option is to outlast the enemy, all of whom do 'good' to exceptional' damage. - Potential to use five mediums means one flight of EC300 and a flight of light combat. - HAMs are rather poor when target is not AFK, so three midslots suddenly become 1 when the mandatory full tackle is added, it becomes zero when you realise that AFs are still not dying so you need a TP/extra web or when you realise that repairers need to be heated to keep up which means you need an injector/battery to prevent capping out (regen is only good as long as cap remains). * Note: it might work well with a plate/MAAR tank considering its resists, but all that does is free up the one midslot that practically all other hulls (except Zealot) has by default.
What were you saying again?
PS: Did you notice that its made into an almost pure missile spammer now, with -3 turrets? No more surprise butt-sex of small and fast clients by using blasters/lasers/425's (yes, that really worked ).
HAC's need to outshine all other cruisers in whatever niche they are slotted into, that is the premise of T2. They all need significantly more than what has offered in the first pass. |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
245
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 09:18:00 -
[1669] - Quote
I think that the Ishtar should trade the bonus to drone bay space to having the max amount on the hull from the start and add a armor repair bonus. "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
79
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 09:28:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Overall I think these changes are done everywhere, but not anywhere near the correct place :)
If you want to properly - do it in several stages.
Also I'd suggest several things to consider as a first step: 1. Nerf the cynabal. It's just straight up better then vaga (or balance all line of pirate cruisers). With cyna out of the way - you can better see what to do with vagabond. 2. Drop the price of the HACs. For now they just don't worth the money. Their market cost should be like 100mil. With reasonable buff their cost/efficiency will be much better. 3 [optional]. Give the HACs a reasonable class ability. 50% reduction of signature bloom is almost useless. AF with similar bonus costs 40-50mil - that is a good cost for a small, but durable tackle. Paying 150-200mil for HAC heavy tackle is just stupid. Maybe buff the HAC sensor strength so it has a built-in ECCM. Or some kind of neut protection bonus (like only 30% neuting is applied).
After these easy steps you'll have much clearer picture of where the hacs should be.
North |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1023
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 09:33:00 -
[1671] - Quote
NorthCrossroad wrote:Overall I think these changes are done everywhere, but not anywhere near the correct place :)
If you want to properly - do it in several stages.
Also I'd suggest several things to consider as a first step: 1. Nerf the cynabal. It's just straight up better then vaga (or balance all line of pirate cruisers). With cyna out of the way - you can better see what to do with vagabond. 2. Drop the price of the HACs. For now they just don't worth the money. Their market cost should be like 100mil. With reasonable buff their cost/efficiency will be much better. 3 [optional]. Give the HACs a reasonable class ability. 50% reduction of signature bloom is almost useless. AF with similar bonus costs 40-50mil - that is a good cost for a small, but durable tackle. Paying 150-200mil for HAC heavy tackle is just stupid. Maybe buff the HAC sensor strength so it has a built-in ECCM. Or some kind of neut protection bonus (like only 30% neuting is applied).
After these easy steps you'll have much clearer picture of where the hacs should be.
North
This is another good thinking about HACs and ideas route that should be considered. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1706
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 09:36:00 -
[1672] - Quote
Spr09 wrote:it will be one of the best close range E-war brawlers. HAMs will not be able to reach very far, but with it's massive capacitor and bonus to recharge rate, and pilot with decent skills will be able to run E-war mods indefinitely.
By Ewar you of course mean a scram and web since without those you'll do exactly 0 damage to anything right?
Spr09 wrote:
5 Launchers, and 5 medium drones will be able to do decent damage, especially with a dual bonus to missile damage. Yea, man that whopping sub 500 paper dps (that will translate to significantly less) sure is something isn't it? Oh whats that, its out done by every single t1 cruiser there is you say?
Spr09 wrote:4% armor resist per level on the amarr cruiser means an instant 20% bonus to resistances, making it harder to kill than other HACs.
Not really since its slower than all the rest and its DPS is anemic, it just means its tackled first and dies last without killing anything on the way down
Spr09 wrote:4 mid slots on an armor ship means a MWD and 3 other modules, which combined with the capacitor recharge time will mean they can be running longer than other ships.
No, it means you have a scram, web, and cap injector because the cap recharge bonus is completely useless on this ship, as its almost always running active reps or a neut/nos in the high slots meaning that 4th slot is ALWAYS a cap injector or it ends up dead in the water.
Spr09 wrote:So stop your complaining, without actually playing around with it yet it looks like it's a solid ship.
No, the rest of us know what the Sac does now, and the changes here do almost nothing to it at all to fix whats wrong with it, literally nothing at all, it will be the exact same turd it is now, only they'll say it was rebalanced after. It will still be out dps'd by t1 cruisers, out ran by t1 cruisers, and out ranged by t1 cruisers. The only thing it does well is watch the other crappy HACs around it die first to the t1 cruiser gang.
|
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 11:16:00 -
[1673] - Quote
Spr09 wrote:
5 Launchers, and 5 medium drones will be able to do decent damage, especially with a dual bonus to missile damage. Yea, man that whopping sub 500 paper dps (that will translate to significantly less) sure is something isn't it? Oh whats that, its out done by every single t1 cruiser there is you say?
Spr09 wrote:4% armor resist per level on the amarr cruiser means an instant 20% bonus to resistances, making it harder to kill than other HACs.
Not really since its slower than all the rest and its DPS is anemic, it just means its tackled first and dies last without killing anything on the way down
Spr09 wrote:4 mid slots on an armor ship means a MWD and 3 other modules, which combined with the capacitor recharge time will mean they can be running longer than other ships.
No, it means you have a scram, web, and cap injector because the cap recharge bonus is completely useless on this ship, as its almost always running active reps or a neut/nos in the high slots meaning that 4th slot is ALWAYS a cap injector or it ends up dead in the water.
Spr09 wrote:So stop your complaining, without actually playing around with it yet it looks like it's a solid ship.
No, the rest of us know what the Sac does now, and the changes here do almost nothing to it at all to fix whats wrong with it, literally nothing at all, it will be the exact same turd it is now, only they'll say it was rebalanced after. It will still be out dps'd by t1 cruisers, out ran by t1 cruisers, and out ranged by t1 cruisers. The only thing it does well is watch the other crappy HACs around it die first to the t1 cruiser gang. [/quote]
THIS! For the love of GOD CCP take notes! The Sacs damage output and durabiliy need to be doubled to be worth it's price. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
454
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 11:43:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Spr09 wrote:People say that the sacrelige is bad for some reason. With how it currently stands, it will be one of the best close range E-war brawlers. HAMs will not be able to reach very far, but with it's massive capacitor and bonus to recharge rate, and pilot with decent skills will be able to run E-war mods indefinitely.
- 5 Launchers, and 5 medium drones will be able to do decent damage, especially with a dual bonus to missile damage.
- 4% armor resist per level on the amarr cruiser means an instant 20% bonus to resistances, making it harder to kill than other HACs.
- 4 mid slots on an armor ship means a MWD and 3 other modules, which combined with the capacitor recharge time will mean they can be running longer than other ships.
- It uses missile, which means that it won't be using capacitor for any lasers.
So stop your complaining, without actually playing around with it yet it looks like it's a solid ship.
You really are bad at internet space ships. Please stop posting... but please.. continue flying.. I love to blow up people as clueless as you in EVE. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
91
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 11:50:00 -
[1675] - Quote
It's almost a mistake to have this many ships as hac's. we have tanking hac's, there called heavy interdictors.
We have 4 sets of categories.
Heavy interdictors, recon, logistics, hac's. lets remove from the Hac category the ships that overlap with the heavy interdictors. The Deimos would be removed so that if you want to fly a thorax t2 hull , fly a phobos (heavy interdictors), sacrelidge's would go and only the devoter would stay, etc.
Now you can pretty EASILY balance the t2 hac's. (as it drops from a crappy 8 down to an awesome 4.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
454
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 12:14:00 -
[1676] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:It's almost a mistake to have this many ships as hac's. we have tanking hac's, there called heavy interdictors.
We have 4 sets of categories.
Heavy interdictors, recon, logistics, hac's. lets remove from the Hac category the ships that overlap with the heavy interdictors. The Deimos would be removed so that if you want to fly a thorax t2 hull , fly a phobos (heavy interdictors), sacrelidge's would go and only the devoter would stay, etc.
Now you can pretty EASILY balance the t2 hac's. (as it drops from a crappy 8 down to an awesome 4.
Ok.. another one that should stay very very away from the forums. Maybe from the whole internet.... |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
863
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 12:31:00 -
[1677] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:It's almost a mistake to have this many ships as hac's. we have tanking hac's, there called heavy interdictors.
We have 4 sets of categories.
Heavy interdictors, recon, logistics, hac's. lets remove from the Hac category the ships that overlap with the heavy interdictors. The Deimos would be removed so that if you want to fly a thorax t2 hull , fly a phobos (heavy interdictors), sacrelidge's would go and only the devoter would stay, etc.
Now you can pretty EASILY balance the t2 hac's. (as it drops from a crappy 8 down to an awesome 4.
Heavy interdictors are nothing like tanking hacs, they have anemic damage and are specialised tacklers. Its like saying interdictors overlap with assault frigs so there should only be 4 assault frigs.
heavy assault cruiser = heavy (has tank but limited mobility) assault (has dps) heavy interdictor = heavy (has tank but limited mobility) interdictor (tackles)
CCP broke it from the start with the vagabond which had not much tank or dps but did have mobility and projection and ever since has been moving hacs in that direction. Last time they rebalanced hacs they tried to make it so each race had one true hac and one t2 combat cruiser that was the opposite of a hac (mobility and projection aka kites) so vagabond, cerberus, sac, ishtar. Unfortunately they then brought in the nano nerf and broke all the kiting ones (except vaga which is actually good just overshadowed by dumb op cynabal). Scorch M also meant that the zealot had nice projection so it ended up actually being useful. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 12:47:00 -
[1678] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:It's almost a mistake to have this many ships as hac's. we have tanking hac's, there called heavy interdictors.
We have 4 sets of categories.
Heavy interdictors, recon, logistics, hac's. lets remove from the Hac category the ships that overlap with the heavy interdictors. The Deimos would be removed so that if you want to fly a thorax t2 hull , fly a phobos (heavy interdictors), sacrelidge's would go and only the devoter would stay, etc.
Now you can pretty EASILY balance the t2 hac's. (as it drops from a crappy 8 down to an awesome 4.
Heavy interdictors are nothing like tanking hacs, they have anemic damage and are specialised tacklers. Its like saying interdictors overlap with assault frigs so there should only be 4 assault frigs. heavy assault cruiser = heavy (has tank but limited mobility) assault (has dps) heavy interdictor = heavy (has tank but limited mobility) interdictor (tackles) CCP broke it from the start with the vagabond which had not much tank or dps but did have mobility and projection and ever since has been moving hacs in that direction. Last time they rebalanced hacs they tried to make it so each race had one true hac and one t2 combat cruiser that was the opposite of a hac (mobility and projection aka kites) so vagabond, cerberus, sac, ishtar. Unfortunately they then brought in the nano nerf and broke all the kiting ones (except vaga which is actually good just overshadowed by dumb op cynabal). Scorch M also meant that the zealot had nice projection so it ended up actually being useful.
CCP broke it by making a ton of ships that have no real identity. I'm happy there trying to fix it, but there is a ton of overlap. Now if you did two things to the Hac, a dps bonus, it would become an amazing dps platform (great tank, ability to bubble, sig shrinkage, awesome tank, etc.
It's what we want in a bunch of the hac's right now, and it already exists. So lets reshuffle hac's to make half of them as Tanky as the interdictors? Sounds like there doing the same thing twice. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
454
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 13:29:00 -
[1679] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Doddy wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:It's almost a mistake to have this many ships as hac's. we have tanking hac's, there called heavy interdictors.
We have 4 sets of categories.
Heavy interdictors, recon, logistics, hac's. lets remove from the Hac category the ships that overlap with the heavy interdictors. The Deimos would be removed so that if you want to fly a thorax t2 hull , fly a phobos (heavy interdictors), sacrelidge's would go and only the devoter would stay, etc.
Now you can pretty EASILY balance the t2 hac's. (as it drops from a crappy 8 down to an awesome 4.
Heavy interdictors are nothing like tanking hacs, they have anemic damage and are specialised tacklers. Its like saying interdictors overlap with assault frigs so there should only be 4 assault frigs. heavy assault cruiser = heavy (has tank but limited mobility) assault (has dps) heavy interdictor = heavy (has tank but limited mobility) interdictor (tackles) CCP broke it from the start with the vagabond which had not much tank or dps but did have mobility and projection and ever since has been moving hacs in that direction. Last time they rebalanced hacs they tried to make it so each race had one true hac and one t2 combat cruiser that was the opposite of a hac (mobility and projection aka kites) so vagabond, cerberus, sac, ishtar. Unfortunately they then brought in the nano nerf and broke all the kiting ones (except vaga which is actually good just overshadowed by dumb op cynabal). Scorch M also meant that the zealot had nice projection so it ended up actually being useful. CCP broke it by making a ton of ships that have no real identity. I'm happy there trying to fix it, but there is a ton of overlap. Now if you did two things to the HIC, one being a dps bonus, it would become an amazing dps platform (great tank, ability to bubble, sig shrinkage, awesome tank, etc. It's what we want in a bunch of the hac's right now, and it already exists. So lets reshuffle hac's to make half of them as Tanky as the interdictors? Sounds like there doing the same thing twice. Everybody is asking for the hac's to become 10x better than the t1's (10x the price, 10x the ship) It ain't happening. They'd break the game
There is no PROBLEM with overlaps. No one looses anything. this is not art contest. The ships CAN compete on a role. The only issue is when one is completely superior!
Specailly between ships of different races! Imagine Kalatioka engineer meeting.. hey I have this new concept for a very powerful ship that could... Engineer B: NO NO NO! THis overlaps with the Munin that btw is not in our own portfolio.. but for some stupid reason I do not want to harm its designers feelings...! Scrap this stupid Idea |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
863
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 13:30:00 -
[1680] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Doddy wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:It's almost a mistake to have this many ships as hac's. we have tanking hac's, there called heavy interdictors.
We have 4 sets of categories.
Heavy interdictors, recon, logistics, hac's. lets remove from the Hac category the ships that overlap with the heavy interdictors. The Deimos would be removed so that if you want to fly a thorax t2 hull , fly a phobos (heavy interdictors), sacrelidge's would go and only the devoter would stay, etc.
Now you can pretty EASILY balance the t2 hac's. (as it drops from a crappy 8 down to an awesome 4.
Heavy interdictors are nothing like tanking hacs, they have anemic damage and are specialised tacklers. Its like saying interdictors overlap with assault frigs so there should only be 4 assault frigs. heavy assault cruiser = heavy (has tank but limited mobility) assault (has dps) heavy interdictor = heavy (has tank but limited mobility) interdictor (tackles) CCP broke it from the start with the vagabond which had not much tank or dps but did have mobility and projection and ever since has been moving hacs in that direction. Last time they rebalanced hacs they tried to make it so each race had one true hac and one t2 combat cruiser that was the opposite of a hac (mobility and projection aka kites) so vagabond, cerberus, sac, ishtar. Unfortunately they then brought in the nano nerf and broke all the kiting ones (except vaga which is actually good just overshadowed by dumb op cynabal). Scorch M also meant that the zealot had nice projection so it ended up actually being useful. CCP broke it by making a ton of ships that have no real identity. I'm happy there trying to fix it, but there is a ton of overlap. Now if you did two things to the Hac, a dps bonus, it would become an amazing dps platform (great tank, ability to bubble, sig shrinkage, awesome tank, etc. It's what we want in a bunch of the hac's right now, and it already exists. So lets reshuffle hac's to make half of them as Tanky as the interdictors? Sounds like there doing the same thing twice.
Except the interdictors are useless as dps. They are tacklers. If they had the same tank they would still be two completely different ships doing completely different roles. Changing a ships survivability (whether through mobility or tank) does nothing to change its role, just changes how good it is at that role. A hacs role is dps regardless of whether you are talking about a brawler or a kite, with the possible exception of the vaga which is sometimes used as tackle or scout. CCP keeps adding more and more ships to the dps role which has left hacs behind (as the new ships are either cheaper or more survivable), this is what is fundamentaly wrong with them. There are two ways to remedy this, either make hacs cheaper or more surviveable. Making them surviveable takes two forms, tank or mobility. CCP has gone for a tank role bonus that only works through mobility (mwd sig reduction bonus) without giving the hacs either the mobility or tank to make good use of it.
|
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
202
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 14:02:00 -
[1681] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:It's almost a mistake to have this many ships as hac's. we have tanking hac's, there called heavy interdictors.
We have 4 sets of categories.
Heavy interdictors, recon, logistics, hac's. lets remove from the Hac category the ships that overlap with the heavy interdictors. The Deimos would be removed so that if you want to fly a thorax t2 hull , fly a phobos (heavy interdictors), sacrelidge's would go and only the devoter would stay, etc.
Now you can pretty EASILY balance the t2 hac's. (as it drops from a crappy 8 down to an awesome 4.
1) HACs don't overlap with HICs at all. 2) Its insanely hard to remove ships from EVE (real Pandora''s Box, look at ABCs or Supers). There are blueprints, skills, the ships themselves, all of which have to be removed, without screwing over the players that own the assets. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Crysantos Callahan
EntroPrelatial Industria Here Be Dragons
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 15:01:00 -
[1682] - Quote
TLDR:
- switch out the MWD sig-penalty bonus for a 10% AB bonus similar to the t3 fuel catalyst sub - cap issues for energy turret based ships, especially with regard to beams - more cpu on the ishtar - sacrilege needs 6 HML like the cerberus - increase the general basic speed to support kiting OR increase the tank/cap/sensor strength - substitute the HAC prereq of Energy Upgrades V with something useful, depending on the role it should fulfill (for example AB 5, Acc Control 5, Hull Upgrades 5, etc. stuff that makes sense for this group to make it work)
This is a good opportunity for CCP to shape the categories of ships with the boni they apply. What does CCP want HACs to be? Something that can kite? Something that can punch hard and take hard punches? This is the major question and if you want to do "tiericide" properly this has to be the focus - why should I use a HAC instead of a T3 BC or a T1 cruiser that does the job almost as good as my 200m-250m ship I had to skill for so long?
I'd personally prefer an afterburner bonus instead of a mwd bonus - to lose the sig bonus of the hac even with the mwd boni is bad. Additionally, it'll be hard to fit a mwd to a fit without killing the gank or tank which seperates it from the t3 bc. If we take a look at the zealot, which is already in a good spot unlike most of its brethren, if ccp wants to boost mid beams + suggest mwd for ships like this - please take a look at the cap. It just doesn't work out.
What you could do is design one of each racial HAC as a kiter (with MWD boni, range boni) and one heavy hitter (resists, punch for close range) - just think about what you'd like to describe this "HAC"-category like and then apply boosts/boni to these attributes. Talk to CSM / FCs or people who design fittings what the major advantage/drawback of each current ship is and what would help tackle that issue to make it work in a way to counter other ships or be competitive.
Racial diversity is ofc always awesome, a ship like the ishtar as baby domi is awesome to have :) |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
86
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 15:12:00 -
[1683] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:It's almost a mistake to have this many ships as hac's. we have tanking hac's, there called heavy interdictors.
We have 4 sets of categories.
Heavy interdictors, recon, logistics, hac's. lets remove from the Hac category the ships that overlap with the heavy interdictors. The Deimos would be removed so that if you want to fly a thorax t2 hull , fly a phobos (heavy interdictors), sacrelidge's would go and only the devoter would stay, etc.
Now you can pretty EASILY balance the t2 hac's. (as it drops from a crappy 8 down to an awesome 4.
For the last time in this discussion:
HICS AND HACS HAVE MORE DIFFERENCES THAN ONE LETTER.
They do COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Because HICs have clearly defiened roles in EVE, no one is saying they suck, and no one is saying that they're OP. Funny how that works huh?
The problem with HACs is that they DON"T have a clearly defined role in the game at the moment, being shittier DPS boats than T1 cruisers, only slightly less fragile, and with a few exceptions being unable to do anything BETTER than the T1 counterparts (IE the Cerb and range, the zealot and everything about it, the ishtar and insane drone madness, and to a lesser extent, the munnin and alpha arty). Unfortunately the 'attack' line of HACs got ****** over, having anemic DPS, ****** tanks, and less mobility than their T1 counterparts.
Fozzie, Rise (can I call you Rozzie, like some kind of Hollywood couple?) PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MAKE THE DEIMOS, SAC, and EAGLE BETTER THAN THEIR T1 COUNTERPARTS AT SOMETHING. I don't care at this point if the Deimos either does more DPS, or has more tank than a thorax, as long as it does one of those two things better than a thorax. |
Christopher Multsanti
Frag Executors ROMANIAN-LEGION
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 15:13:00 -
[1684] - Quote
Crysantos Callahan wrote:TLDR:
- switch out the MWD sig-penalty bonus for a 10% AB bonus similar to the t3 fuel catalyst sub - cap issues for energy turret based ships, especially with regard to beams - more cpu on the ishtar - sacrilege needs 6 HML like the cerberus - increase the general basic speed to support kiting OR increase the tank/cap/sensor strength - substitute the HAC prereq of Energy Upgrades V with something useful, depending on the role it should fulfill (for example AB 5, Acc Control 5, Hull Upgrades 5, etc. stuff that makes sense for this group to make it work)
Ship need to balanced for all forms of combat, not just fleet engagements which is what your suggestions would benefit. T3s have the option to have an AB boost, they are not restricted to it. Muninns seem to be doing pretty well in fleet engagements at the moment without buffing there ab speed.
|
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 15:32:00 -
[1685] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Everybody is asking for the hac's to become 10x better than the t1's (10x the price, 10x the ship)
I don't think anyone's asking for 10x better. We all get the philosophy of incremental performance increase for exponential cost. What we're asking for is: 1) ~20% better than T1 in the HAC specialty, and 2) AT LEAST as good as T1/Navy in ALL OTHER areas (except maybe speed tradeoff for tank).
This is, of course, assuming that the specialties chosen are interesting and relevant.
...
No pressure, Rise. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
722
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 15:36:00 -
[1686] - Quote
Give the cerb the RLM bonus it deserves.
In fact, give every missile boat bonuses for all the weapon systems. I hate how medium and small missile ships have to pick and choose which types of missiles they can use while every other weapon system gives the bonus out without problems. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 15:47:00 -
[1687] - Quote
Quote:... No pressure, Rise.
"Some" pressure won't hurt ihm. Besides, i've seen some reasonable, well thought or atleast dedicated responses written down in this thread. I bet most of the people here have spend more time thinking about the subject than he did. In my book that kind of devotion deserves it's own share of RESPECT. I guess we all are going to see how respectful HE is going to treat the HAC Upgrade.
Best wishes |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Tribal Band
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 16:26:00 -
[1688] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:Oh hey what ya know, HACs get buffed and the best HAC after the buff will be..... the zealot! WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING!
What can you expect when it has all the best bonuses for the job Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:06:00 -
[1689] - Quote
Blastil wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:It's almost a mistake to have this many ships as hac's. we have tanking hac's, there called heavy interdictors.
We have 4 sets of categories.
Heavy interdictors, recon, logistics, hac's. lets remove from the Hac category the ships that overlap with the heavy interdictors. The Deimos would be removed so that if you want to fly a thorax t2 hull , fly a phobos (heavy interdictors), sacrelidge's would go and only the devoter would stay, etc.
Now you can pretty EASILY balance the t2 hac's. (as it drops from a crappy 8 down to an awesome 4.
For the last time in this discussion: HICS AND HACS HAVE MORE DIFFERENCES THAN ONE LETTER. They do COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Because HICs have clearly defiened roles in EVE, no one is saying they suck, and no one is saying that they're OP. Funny how that works huh? The problem with HACs is that they DON"T have a clearly defined role in the game at the moment, being shittier DPS boats than T1 cruisers, only slightly less fragile, and with a few exceptions being unable to do anything BETTER than the T1 counterparts (IE the Cerb and range, the zealot and everything about it, the ishtar and insane drone madness, and to a lesser extent, the munnin and alpha arty). Unfortunately the 'attack' line of HACs got ****** over, having anemic DPS, ****** tanks, and less mobility than their T1 counterparts. Fozzie, Rise (can I call you Rozzie, like some kind of Hollywood couple?) PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MAKE THE DEIMOS, SAC, and EAGLE BETTER THAN THEIR T1 COUNTERPARTS AT SOMETHING. I don't care at this point if the Deimos either does more DPS, or has more tank than a thorax, as long as it does one of those two things better than a thorax.
heh actually you do realise that they did give the T2 ships definitive roles. They gave them a role called Heavy Interdictors, which involves one of the T1 cruiser hulls (one for each race). This is a specialty, the thing that makes it different. They made the Recon ships, which has been even more subdivided and given one of the T1 cruiser hulls also (its a specialty also). They made the Logistics ship, which is the extreme version of the T1 repairing ship. A specialty.
Then they made the Heavy Assault Ships, taking 2 hulls from each race (One that has already been used in the Heavy interdictor Category, and the one that was unused), and they try to do this microcasm between the two. one of its roles being completely overtaken by the cheaper T3 battlecruisers, the other not being up to par with their upgraded cousins, the T1 cruisers and Navy cruisers. Now they could try to give them even more definition, which makes people wonder why they would spend 180 million isk on a uninsurable hull, for a few percentages of possible improvement over their T3 battlecruiser or t1 cruiser and navy ships, or they could just chuck the hulls that have already been defined in the Heavy Interdictor category, and Really make the Heavy Assault Ship That much more defined.
The bulk of the HAC's are deemed crap at the moment. You fly a Deimos, you have a death wish, you fly a Ishtar, its for PVE. You fly a Sacrilege, people think your somewhat crazy or wonder why you just didn't fly a maller for -90% of the price.
The HAC's put themselves in this situation because it is nearly impossible (not totally impossible), to balance these 8 ships within themselves, and within the sphere of the T1 cruisers and Navy Cruisers, and the T3 battlecruisers.
Chuck the used hulls, make the old hulls a merger between the removed HAC and the Current Hack, and now each race has a viable ship.
Will CCP do this. Not a chance in hell. It was a poor design choice when they made T2 HAC's initially. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:26:00 -
[1690] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote: snip
It was a poor design choice when they made T2 HAC's initially.
The problem with the design choice wasn't the HAC lineup, it was a) the introduction of the ABC lineup that stomped the Sh!* out of the area that HACs were supposed to occupy, and b) the re-balancing efforts to date that have buffed everything T1/Navy so that HACs have been marginalized by comparison.
Before tiericide/ABCs, the HAC lineup was a clear upgrade path for those who engaged in cruiser-level brawling/kiting. Now, the issue is that CCP wants to avoid "Power Creep" in the T2 hulls, but has introduced MASSIVE Power Creep to the T1 hulls that the T2 directly compete with. They have effectively negated any and all rational incentive to fly one of the HACs over the much cheaper T1 or Navy variants (with one notable exception. I'm looking at YOU, Zealot! ... and even the Zealot could use come more cap). They NEED to bring the entire HAC lineup up to the power level of the T1s, AND THEN increase the power of the hulls when used in the HACs intended role.
The questions (in order) then become: 1) What is the Role of the HAC lineup? 2) How do you increase the power of the hull for that Role?
As for 1)... we'll have to see what Rise comes up with. Hopefully it's good. As for 2)... 16 fitting slots would be a good start, Role focused hull bonuses would be a good continuation (seriously, if it doesn't add to the Role of the ship, then your claims about T2 'Specialization' are demonstrably hollow. Drone bay bonus? Really? MWD capacitor penalty reduction? Really?).
Going forward, tiericide has yet to hit the ABCs, T3s, Recons, etc. So hopefully CCP has a coherent vision for what's to come.
Keep up the good work! *fingers crossed* |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4401
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:29:00 -
[1691] - Quote
Quote: It was a poor design choice when they made T2 HAC's initially.
Not even remotely.
HAC's used to be the premier ship of choice for a roaming gang (and for some fleet work).
Modification to the game mechanics and new ship classes introduced since then have severely limited their role, but initially they were brilliant.
The original hallmark strength of the class was either speed (or range) and firepower, or durability and firepower... wrapped in a highly mobile hull that could cover territory quickly and allow superior positioning and engage/disengage capability.
I think it's time they got back to their roots. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:31:00 -
[1692] - Quote
I support the idea of giving HACs a 50% bonus AB speed, then HACs would be a unique ship instead of being just another boring dps platform.
HACs improve on everything that makes T1 cruisers fun to fly. They should:- 1. Be faster than T3s 2. Have better dps that T1 but less than T3 (with the right subs) 3. Have a better tank than T1 but less than T3 (with the right subs) 4. Better weapons ranges than a T3 fit for range.
All this with an option to use a bonused AB for sig tanking without being too slow would make the HAC special and fun to fly. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4402
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:36:00 -
[1693] - Quote
I know that there were issues when an AB bonus was seriously considered for Assault Frigates. However perhaps it SHOULD be considered again for HACs.
Such a bonus on a Cruiser size hull might actually work in a much more balanced fashion that it would have on a Frigate sized hull.
Vagabond pilots might have an aneurism though. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
440
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:49:00 -
[1694] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I know that there were issues when an AB bonus was seriously considered for Assault Frigates. However perhaps it SHOULD be considered again for HACs. Such a bonus on a Cruiser size hull might actually work in a much more balanced fashion than it would have on a Frigate sized hull. Vagabond pilots might have an aneurism though. balanced fashion? it is already hard to hit ab zealots, no need for such bonuses |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:56:00 -
[1695] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I know that there were issues when an AB bonus was seriously considered for Assault Frigates. However perhaps it SHOULD be considered again for HACs. Such a bonus on a Cruiser size hull might actually work in a much more balanced fashion than it would have on a Frigate sized hull. Vagabond pilots might have an aneurism though. balanced fashion? it is already hard to hit ab zealots, no need for such bonuses
Hard to hit them with what?
Cruisers are SUPPOSED to be hard for BS sized weapons to hit. the MWD sig bloom bonus doesn't go NEARLY far enough to address this. Frigs would still be able to pace AND hit an AB-fit cruiser, and the whole point of fitting an AB is to make yourself harder to hit, so cruiser vs cruiser would play out as intended.
An AB speed bonus would at least make HACs the only cruiser able to AB sig tank with a degree of proficiency
EDIT: Though I disagree with the premise of giving ALL HACs the AB Speed boost bonus. 4 Tank, 4 Kite, imo |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 18:07:00 -
[1696] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I know that there were issues when an AB bonus was seriously considered for Assault Frigates. However perhaps it SHOULD be considered again for HACs. Such a bonus on a Cruiser size hull might actually work in a much more balanced fashion than it would have on a Frigate sized hull. Vagabond pilots might have an aneurism though. balanced fashion? it is already hard to hit ab zealots, no need for such bonuses Hard to hit them with what? Cruisers are SUPPOSED to be hard for BS sized weapons to hit. the MWD sig bloom bonus doesn't go NEARLY far enough to address this. Frigs would still be able to pace AND hit an AB-fit cruiser, and the whole point of fitting an AB is to make yourself harder to hit, so cruiser vs cruiser would play out as intended. An AB speed bonus would at least make HACs the only cruiser able to AB sig tank with a degree of proficiency EDIT: Though I disagree with the premise of giving ALL HACs the AB Speed boost bonus. 4 Tank, 4 Kite, imo
CCP doesn't want to bring back the whole Nano Speed Tanking Era again, that really did suck beyond belief.
We are all theory crafting though, apparently the CSM have been very intertwined with the new HAC changes, lets see what their collaborated minds come up with.
And I'd probably yell at the CSM first when the releases come out. I mean we did vote for them. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
237
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 18:08:00 -
[1697] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote: An AB speed bonus would at least make HACs the only cruiser able to AB sig tank with a degree of proficiency
You forgot about 100mn AB scimi/tengu. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
371
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 18:25:00 -
[1698] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:The problem with the design choice wasn't the HAC lineup, it was a) the introduction of the ABC lineup that stomped the Sh!* out of the area that HACs were supposed to occupy, and b) the re-balancing efforts to date that have buffed everything T1/Navy so that HACs have been marginalized by comparison.
Before tiericide/ABCs, the HAC lineup was a clear upgrade path for those who engaged in cruiser-level brawling/kiting. Now, the issue is that CCP wants to avoid "Power Creep" in the T2 hulls, but has introduced MASSIVE Power Creep to the T1 hulls that the T2 directly compete with. They have effectively negated any and all rational incentive to fly one of the HACs over the much cheaper T1 or Navy variants (with one notable exception. I'm looking at YOU, Zealot! ... and even the Zealot could use come more cap). They NEED to bring the entire HAC lineup up to the power level of the T1s, AND THEN increase the power of the hulls when used in the HACs intended role. This is exactly the problem. ABCs wrecked the situation.
Quote:Going forward, tiericide has yet to hit the ABCs. . . So hopefully CCP has a coherent vision for what's to come. This actually is false. CCP Fozzie made minor changes to ABCs in the form of mass/agility adjustments, speed, etc. He did not reign in their power, however. I'm sure that they could surely stand to lose 1 or 2 turrets. But as far as whether ABCs have had their pass? Yes. All T1 is complete, except for Pirate hulls.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4405
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 18:26:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:nikar galvren wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I know that there were issues when an AB bonus was seriously considered for Assault Frigates. However perhaps it SHOULD be considered again for HACs. Such a bonus on a Cruiser size hull might actually work in a much more balanced fashion than it would have on a Frigate sized hull. Vagabond pilots might have an aneurism though. balanced fashion? it is already hard to hit ab zealots, no need for such bonuses Hard to hit them with what? Cruisers are SUPPOSED to be hard for BS sized weapons to hit. the MWD sig bloom bonus doesn't go NEARLY far enough to address this. Frigs would still be able to pace AND hit an AB-fit cruiser, and the whole point of fitting an AB is to make yourself harder to hit, so cruiser vs cruiser would play out as intended. An AB speed bonus would at least make HACs the only cruiser able to AB sig tank with a degree of proficiency EDIT: Though I disagree with the premise of giving ALL HACs the AB Speed boost bonus. 4 Tank, 4 Kite, imo CCP doesn't want to bring back the whole Nano Speed Tanking Era again, that really did suck beyond belief. We are all theory crafting though, apparently the CSM have been very intertwined with the new HAC changes, lets see what their collaborated minds come up with. And I'd probably yell at the CSM first when the releases come out. I mean we did vote for them. Agreed on the latter.
However an AB bonus would not bring back the nano era. Any number of vessels would still be able to catch and hold them while running a MWD, though they would need to be careful to do it from long point range (unless they were sure they could lock it down securely). To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
88
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 18:37:00 -
[1700] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:nikar galvren wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I know that there were issues when an AB bonus was seriously considered for Assault Frigates. However perhaps it SHOULD be considered again for HACs. Such a bonus on a Cruiser size hull might actually work in a much more balanced fashion than it would have on a Frigate sized hull. Vagabond pilots might have an aneurism though. balanced fashion? it is already hard to hit ab zealots, no need for such bonuses Hard to hit them with what? Cruisers are SUPPOSED to be hard for BS sized weapons to hit. the MWD sig bloom bonus doesn't go NEARLY far enough to address this. Frigs would still be able to pace AND hit an AB-fit cruiser, and the whole point of fitting an AB is to make yourself harder to hit, so cruiser vs cruiser would play out as intended. An AB speed bonus would at least make HACs the only cruiser able to AB sig tank with a degree of proficiency EDIT: Though I disagree with the premise of giving ALL HACs the AB Speed boost bonus. 4 Tank, 4 Kite, imo CCP doesn't want to bring back the whole Nano Speed Tanking Era again, that really did suck beyond belief. We are all theory crafting though, apparently the CSM have been very intertwined with the new HAC changes, lets see what their collaborated minds come up with. And I'd probably yell at the CSM first when the releases come out. I mean we did vote for them. Agreed on the latter. However an AB bonus would not bring back the nano era. Any number of vessels would still be able to catch and hold them while running a MWD, though they would need to be careful to do it from long point range (unless they were sure they could lock it down securely).
Biggest problem with that bonus that I see is that webs become manditory again, unless there was a comparable nerf to HAC speed which made them slower than a cruiser. So essentially, an AB HAC couldn't exceed 1500-1700 M/s without really destroying the danger posed to it by smaller faster cheaper ships working in coordination. |
|
Crysantos Callahan
EntroPrelatial Industria Here Be Dragons
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 18:42:00 -
[1701] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:Crysantos Callahan wrote:TLDR:
- switch out the MWD sig-penalty bonus for a 10% AB bonus similar to the t3 fuel catalyst sub - cap issues for energy turret based ships, especially with regard to beams - more cpu on the ishtar - sacrilege needs 6 HML like the cerberus - increase the general basic speed to support kiting OR increase the tank/cap/sensor strength - substitute the HAC prereq of Energy Upgrades V with something useful, depending on the role it should fulfill (for example AB 5, Acc Control 5, Hull Upgrades 5, etc. stuff that makes sense for this group to make it work) Ship need to balanced for all forms of combat, not just fleet engagements which is what your suggestions would benefit. T3s have the option to have an AB boost, they are not restricted to it. Muninns seem to be doing pretty well in fleet engagements at the moment without buffing there ab speed.
What other form of combat, pve? I want the HAC to be useful as a small/medium sized roam ship - for solo fun it'd work with these propositions aswell. What would you change? You can still fit a mwd on it, you'd still need more speed, tank, resist to ewar or more slots for anything useful if your midslots are already taken by prop mod, web, scram. Nobody forces you to use the AB but it would support the sig tank of the HAC and give it a decent boost to set it apart from their T1 predecessors. I'm not asking for a 100% increased performance, but at least some cool feature to make it worthwhile.
Nobody is saying HACs don't get used - the zealot and muninns are used, the other ones are pretty rare. Most of us are just saying - if we do a tiericide which is intended to support the distinction between roles and classes, it'd make sense to see what HACs should be able to do and then apply boni / attributes that would help that role. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
455
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 18:43:00 -
[1702] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:nikar galvren wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I know that there were issues when an AB bonus was seriously considered for Assault Frigates. However perhaps it SHOULD be considered again for HACs. Such a bonus on a Cruiser size hull might actually work in a much more balanced fashion than it would have on a Frigate sized hull. Vagabond pilots might have an aneurism though. balanced fashion? it is already hard to hit ab zealots, no need for such bonuses Hard to hit them with what? Cruisers are SUPPOSED to be hard for BS sized weapons to hit. the MWD sig bloom bonus doesn't go NEARLY far enough to address this. Frigs would still be able to pace AND hit an AB-fit cruiser, and the whole point of fitting an AB is to make yourself harder to hit, so cruiser vs cruiser would play out as intended. An AB speed bonus would at least make HACs the only cruiser able to AB sig tank with a degree of proficiency EDIT: Though I disagree with the premise of giving ALL HACs the AB Speed boost bonus. 4 Tank, 4 Kite, imo CCP doesn't want to bring back the whole Nano Speed Tanking Era again, that really did suck beyond belief. We are all theory crafting though, apparently the CSM have been very intertwined with the new HAC changes, lets see what their collaborated minds come up with. And I'd probably yell at the CSM first when the releases come out. I mean we did vote for them.
Sucked way less than the current " bring more ships" era, bring the falcon era or bring the dampeners era that we have now.
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 19:10:00 -
[1703] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:nikar galvren wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I know that there were issues when an AB bonus was seriously considered for Assault Frigates. However perhaps it SHOULD be considered again for HACs. Such a bonus on a Cruiser size hull might actually work in a much more balanced fashion than it would have on a Frigate sized hull. Vagabond pilots might have an aneurism though. balanced fashion? it is already hard to hit ab zealots, no need for such bonuses Hard to hit them with what? Cruisers are SUPPOSED to be hard for BS sized weapons to hit. the MWD sig bloom bonus doesn't go NEARLY far enough to address this. Frigs would still be able to pace AND hit an AB-fit cruiser, and the whole point of fitting an AB is to make yourself harder to hit, so cruiser vs cruiser would play out as intended. An AB speed bonus would at least make HACs the only cruiser able to AB sig tank with a degree of proficiency EDIT: Though I disagree with the premise of giving ALL HACs the AB Speed boost bonus. 4 Tank, 4 Kite, imo CCP doesn't want to bring back the whole Nano Speed Tanking Era again, that really did suck beyond belief. We are all theory crafting though, apparently the CSM have been very intertwined with the new HAC changes, lets see what their collaborated minds come up with. And I'd probably yell at the CSM first when the releases come out. I mean we did vote for them. Sucked way less than the current " bring more ships" era, bring the falcon era or bring the dampeners era that we have now.
Oh if I could down vote you I would.
For those wondering, ABC is short for Attack Battlecruisers (the T3 battleship gun battlecruisers) "I know a few people were probably wondering why people kept referring to a Jackson 5 Song as the End all of our problems".
Lets see what Rise and the CSM come up with. If they really do fix these ships "and I'm not quite sure how they plan on doing it".
It'll be interesting the rage that may come soon (both warranted and unwarranted). I need to find some popcorn. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4153
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 19:10:00 -
[1704] - Quote
Brawler HAC should get bonus to fitting MJD and kitting HAC bonus to fitting TSB. . |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
279
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 19:48:00 -
[1705] - Quote
its amazing how people exaggerate things to extreme ends to discredit someone and kill a point.
i suggested 10% bonus per level of hac to AB pages ago instead of the mwd bonus. my sac does 500 or so, 700 or so with a burner. thats 200 m/s and 50% more would be 300 m/s boost or an 800 m/s sac. even if it were 20%, its hardly worth getting your panties in a wad over. HARDLY bringing back the nano age. i was here, i remember it. 12km/s mach's..insane. 19km/s inties. i dont wish that on anyone. but, having something to help would go along way. a 900 m/s sac is 1/2 what an mwd can bring.
rebalance the vaggy. give it one less low and 1 more mid. fix all the ships then add another slot. boost their fittings so they can fit regular weapons AND an mwd or burner. heavy assault means lot of dps. lots of tank.. survivability. it CAN be mobility if we break em up into light assault and heavy assault like what was suggested by someone else.
i think we should call them assault frigates and assault cruisers. inside each catagory would be light and heavy assault. light being mobile, heavy being tanked. they need 3/4 the tank of the hics and all the dps of the bc's as a rough outline.
give the sac an extra low. leave the ishtar alone since u are giving extra slots to all (would still be down one since its droning) give the muninn an extra mid give the other ships some loving across the board and stick a slot where its most needed.
raise the power grid by a ton, raise the cpu expecially on the ishtar and cerb. we need to fit weapons. thats the point of a hac. to destroy things. not be pretty and wait for other gang members.
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 19:59:00 -
[1706] - Quote
eh people just rage to rage sometimes. Its Friday. People are Tired, Bored and Drunk :-)
And we all have our comments and agreements/disagreements. The HAC review's taking longer than we expected (and longer than CCP did too). CCP wants all the ships to be viable. Currently there is.. maybe 3 out of the 8 that are (Zealot, and to some degree the Muninn and the Vagabond), the rest aren't very digestible atm. Ishtar is not very viable in fleet comps and has fitting issues. Deimos gained the Nickname Diemost. I don't remember the last time I saw a Eagle, Cerebus on RAAARE occasion. And even with its resist bonus the Sacrilege is seen as weak (due mostly to its slot layout and dps projection).
People want these ships to be a flat upgrade from the T1's, a viable fleet comp ship that is usable and does not feel like a 250 million isk loss if it gets blown up in 5 seconds in a massive fleet fight. Now generally people don't want to lose T2 ships anyway, but if they die before you get a chance to actually do anything, you ask yourself "why didn't I just fit up a T1 and use it and lose all of 20 mil, vs the 220 mil I just loss". Its a reasonable question, but its the main rational people are using as the balancing factor and issue with the T2's.
1) Cost vs Usefulness. 2) Worth Vs Cheaper Alternatives.
Unfortunately the bulk of People in eve is not made of isk, where if they get a T2 blown up, it doesn't even hurt them in the wallet. You get a army of T2's blown up and your corp has a ship replacement/isk payment program for ships loss in fleet operations, it'll hurt.
5 T2's, no big deal. 100 T2's on a fleet op, yea that's going to dent the Corporation Reimbursement wallet up to about15 to 20 million for that one op.
Its a balancing act. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4154
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 20:17:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Sacrilege Role Bonus: Immune to Stasis Webbifiers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Zealot Role Bonus: Immune to Target Painters Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Cerberus Role Bonus: Immune to Remote Sensor Dampeners Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Eagle Role Bonus: Immune to Warp Scramblers (this does NOT include warp disruptors) Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Deimos Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Ishtar Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Muninn Role Bonus: Immune to Tracking Disruptors Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Vagabond Role Bonus: Immune to Energy Neutralizer and Nosfuratu Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Lower the build cost so they don't cost any more than 100m ISK. Now each race has a HAC for guerrilla style hit and run tactics and a HAC that excels at fighting outnumber without overpowering solo and small gang warfare. Keep in mind the MJD and TSB do have penalties while being used. . |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 20:39:00 -
[1708] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Sacrilege Role Bonus: Immune to Stasis Webbifiers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Zealot Role Bonus: Immune to Target Painters Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Cerberus Role Bonus: Immune to Remote Sensor Dampeners Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Eagle Role Bonus: Immune to Warp Scramblers (this does NOT include warp disruptors) Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Deimos Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Ishtar Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Muninn Role Bonus: Immune to Tracking Disruptors Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Vagabond Role Bonus: Immune to Energy Neutralizer and Nosfuratu Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Lower the build cost so they don't cost any more than 100m ISK. Now each race has a HAC for guerrilla style hit and run tactics and a HAC that excels at fighting outnumber without overpowering solo and small gang warfare. Keep in mind the MJD and TSB do have penalties while being used.
ummm........ Friday.. everybody's tired and drunk I said that earlier.
Immunities.. umm.. no. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2336
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 20:45:00 -
[1709] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Sacrilege Role Bonus: Immune to Stasis Webbifiers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Zealot Role Bonus: Immune to Target Painters Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Cerberus Role Bonus: Immune to Remote Sensor Dampeners Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Eagle Role Bonus: Immune to Warp Scramblers (this does NOT include warp disruptors) Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Deimos Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Ishtar Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Muninn Role Bonus: Immune to Tracking Disruptors Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Vagabond Role Bonus: Immune to Energy Neutralizer and Nosfuratu Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Lower the build cost so they don't cost any more than 100m ISK. Now each race has a HAC for guerrilla style hit and run tactics and a HAC that excels at fighting outnumber without overpowering solo and small gang warfare. Keep in mind the MJD and TSB do have penalties while being used.
The above would be overpowered....
Free MJD's fit to the mids, that don't even require cap to activiate? And to top it off: Eagles that can MWD with impunity, and can MJD out of any situation, because they are immune to scrams?
Part of your ideas are kind of interesting... but they are also overpowered! |
Buck Berserk
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 20:50:00 -
[1710] - Quote
Please don't turn the Vagabond into something that's ideal for links. I want a reason to undock the Vaga over a Cynabal or a Talos, not undock the Vaga and another ship over those two. Give it another sig bonus or something, anything other than a shield boost bonus. |
|
Wolf Kraft
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 21:12:00 -
[1711] - Quote
Not sure if anyone has brought this up yet, but is the description for the vagabond going to be changed with the patch? Just wondering because this is part of the current description.
Quote:The fastest cruiser invented to date, this vessel is ideal for hit-and-run ops where both speed and firepower are required. Its on-board power core may not be strong enough to handle some of the larger weapons out there, but when it comes to guerilla work, the Vagabond can't be beat.
After this change the vagabond going to be slower than a stabber... |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4154
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 21:20:00 -
[1712] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Sacrilege Role Bonus: Immune to Stasis Webbifiers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Zealot Role Bonus: Immune to Target Painters Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Cerberus Role Bonus: Immune to Remote Sensor Dampeners Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Eagle Role Bonus: Immune to Warp Scramblers (this does NOT include warp disruptors) Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Deimos Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Ishtar Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Muninn Role Bonus: Immune to Tracking Disruptors Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Vagabond Role Bonus: Immune to Energy Neutralizer and Nosfuratu Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Lower the build cost so they don't cost any more than 100m ISK. Now each race has a HAC for guerrilla style hit and run tactics and a HAC that excels at fighting outnumber without overpowering solo and small gang warfare. Keep in mind the MJD and TSB do have penalties while being used. The above would be overpowered.... Free MJD's fit to the mids, that don't even require cap to activiate? And to top it off: Eagles that can MWD with impunity, and can MJD out of any situation, because they are immune to scrams? Part of your ideas are kind of interesting... but they are also overpowered! Eagle does NOT have MJD bonus. . |
elitatwo
Congregatio
99
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 21:35:00 -
[1713] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: Eagle does NOT have ANY bonus.
There you got.
Don't take it the wrong way, I do make mistakes all the time.
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 23:07:00 -
[1714] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Sacrilege Role Bonus: Immune to Stasis Webbifiers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Zealot Role Bonus: Immune to Target Painters Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Cerberus Role Bonus: Immune to Remote Sensor Dampeners Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Eagle Role Bonus: Immune to Warp Scramblers (this does NOT include warp disruptors) Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Deimos Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Ishtar Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Muninn Role Bonus: Immune to Tracking Disruptors Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Vagabond Role Bonus: Immune to Energy Neutralizer and Nosfuratu Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Lower the build cost so they don't cost any more than 100m ISK. Now each race has a HAC for guerrilla style hit and run tactics and a HAC that excels at fighting outnumber without overpowering solo and small gang warfare. Keep in mind the MJD and TSB do have penalties while being used.
Target lock breaker is only good for fleet fights. Almost useless for small gang warfare, where these ships will be (hopefully) widelly used.
Why are having Gallentean ships immunity to the same EW and the other for different kinds of EW ? TBH I sense here an attempt to favour some of the Hacs instead of others... |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4155
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 23:18:00 -
[1715] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Sacrilege Role Bonus: Immune to Stasis Webbifiers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Zealot Role Bonus: Immune to Target Painters Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Cerberus Role Bonus: Immune to Remote Sensor Dampeners Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Eagle Role Bonus: Immune to Warp Scramblers (this does NOT include warp disruptors) Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Deimos Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Ishtar Role Bonus: Immune to ECM Jammers Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Muninn Role Bonus: Immune to Tracking Disruptors Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Vagabond Role Bonus: Immune to Energy Neutralizer and Nosfuratu Can fit Micro Jump Drive and -100% to fitting and capacitor need
Lower the build cost so they don't cost any more than 100m ISK. Now each race has a HAC for guerrilla style hit and run tactics and a HAC that excels at fighting outnumber without overpowering solo and small gang warfare. Keep in mind the MJD and TSB do have penalties while being used. Target lock breaker is only good for fleet fights. Almost useless for small gang warfare, where these ships will be (hopefully) widelly used. Why are having Gallentean ships immunity to the same EW and the other for different kinds of EW ? TBH I sense here an attempt to favour some of the Hacs instead of others... AF gets a role bonus to MWD but that does not mean it HAS to fit one. While the bonus helps it in large scale fights, fitting an AB for small scale is common.
All of Caldaris EW bonuses focus on one type of EW, had it been two different ones you would have seen one on the Deimos and the other on the Ishtar. . |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
919
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 23:42:00 -
[1716] - Quote
In a world with AB bonuses HACs and the upcoming medium long range gun tracking nerf, we would have a ship that could fit in very nicely with the other ships we have in the game now.
The true AHAC would be able to use sig tanking and range to fight harder hitting and fast ships like battle cruisers and Tech 3 but, they would be more vulnerable to frigates and the new Destroyers. We could even see an increase in the use of the t2 e-war frigates that can take advantage of their poor tracking.
It would be a thrill for me to fly something like the AB HAC over my slow proteus but CCPs current plans do not make me excited to fly their new HAC.
Putting work in since 2010. |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 23:46:00 -
[1717] - Quote
With the Diemos' nos gone and a new mid, you pretty much have to fit a cap booster. When you fit a cap booster, you have no need whatsoever for a mwd cap bonus. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
919
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 23:54:00 -
[1718] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Brawler HAC should get bonus to fitting MJD...
Let's save a special MJD bonus for black ops and marauders. Putting work in since 2010. |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
281
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 00:05:00 -
[1719] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:In a world with AB bonuses HACs and the upcoming medium long range gun tracking nerf, we would have a ship that could fit in very nicely with the other ships we have in the game now.
The true AHAC would be able to use sig tanking and range to fight harder hitting and fast ships like battle cruisers and Tech 3 but, they would be more vulnerable to frigates and the new Destroyers. We could even see an increase in the use of the t2 e-war frigates that can take advantage of their poor tracking.
It would be a thrill for me to fly something like the AB HAC over my slow proteus but CCPs current plans do not make me excited to fly their new HAC because I'm tired of all the rock, paper, scissor combat. this is exactly what i was thinking. a burner to help dictate range. they dont need extreme tanks if they have burner speed bonus. we dont even have to make them faster based speed because they gain it and more back. over powered? not a chance in hell, but they could be their specialty...burners. good resists, great damage and +burner speed.
once caught, of course they would go down with the rest of them, but its REALLY hard to hit without web. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4155
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 00:07:00 -
[1720] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Brawler HAC should get bonus to fitting MJD... Let's save a special MJD bonus for black ops and marauders. They already can use them. . |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1364
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 00:21:00 -
[1721] - Quote
Marlona Sky, I can appreciate where you are coming from trying to give the MJD and TSB a unique role that makes them usable in more than a couple situations, but I don't think this is the right area. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4155
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 00:23:00 -
[1722] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Marlona Sky, I can appreciate where you are coming from trying to give the MJD and TSB a unique role that makes them usable in more than a couple situations, but I don't think this is the right area. Why not? . |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
919
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 00:32:00 -
[1723] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Brawler HAC should get bonus to fitting MJD... Let's save a special MJD bonus for black ops and marauders. They already can use them.
Yeah but currently they get the same reactivation delay as a T1 BS using a MJD... Think about it... Putting work in since 2010. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1170
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 01:06:00 -
[1724] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Brawler HAC should get bonus to fitting MJD... Let's save a special MJD bonus for black ops and marauders. They already can use them. Yeah but currently they get the same reactivation delay as a T1 BS using a MJD... Think about it...
i say blops should bet role bonus to use mjd while cloaked There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
282
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 02:11:00 -
[1725] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Brawler HAC should get bonus to fitting MJD... Let's save a special MJD bonus for black ops and marauders. They already can use them. difference between "being able to use" them and gaining bonuses "for their use". an mjd bonus on a marauder is an awesome idea. we discussed it several times. but thats for the marauder page.
altho the idea was kewl, i agree i dont think its the way to go for hacs.
recon get nasty ewar. some loose a little ewar for covert and cyno bonuses. (40k points and webs, huge neut range) hics gain nasty tank and big bubble efects. 20k+ bubble logi gain extreme rep range plus some tank (75k+ rep/cap, tracking)
hacs need some tank/mobility but shyt loads of dps. they need to dish it out. fast striking, hard hitting then call in the clean up crew.
dont worry about power creep. we are setting the standard right now. you cant have nasty t2 bonuses on all BUT hacs, there deffinately needs a step up for t2. the training time and price justifies it. i dont care money, its a t2. but it needs balls dewd. no more wussy t2. from now on, t2 rawk (in their specialty).
and hacs specialize in dps on smaller ships. bc and below.. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Tribal Band
70
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 04:37:00 -
[1726] - Quote
Now I'm starting to think that the kiting philosophy of Vaga and other HACs of that fashion are actually more of a "Combat Recon" mentality... minus the ewar stuff. Which is quite "duh" Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
919
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 09:53:00 -
[1727] - Quote
Mole Guy wrote: hacs need some tank/mobility but shyt loads of dps. they need to dish it out. fast striking, hard hitting then call in the clean up crew.
Other than the fact the ships are called "heavy assault", I see no reason why HACs should have very high dps. It's enough for their dps to be somewhere in between T1 cruisers and Battle cruisers IMO. Putting work in since 2010. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1034
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 11:03:00 -
[1728] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:i say blops should bet role bonus to use mjd while cloaked
Would rather like to see them use cover ops cloak because using MJD while cloak gives them an amazing ability, I'm all for it
So we're not getting V2 HAC revamp before next week? *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
130
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 11:12:00 -
[1729] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:Now I'm starting to think that the kiting philosophy of Vaga and other HACs of that fashion are actually more of a "Combat Recon" mentality... minus the ewar stuff. Which is quite "duh"
Use a loki, is a better muninn with higher speed, smaller sig, improved tank, more agility ad a longrangeweb. And 20% more alpha. I only correct my own spelling. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
203
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 12:33:00 -
[1730] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Vayn Baxtor wrote:Now I'm starting to think that the kiting philosophy of Vaga and other HACs of that fashion are actually more of a "Combat Recon" mentality... minus the ewar stuff. Which is quite "duh" Use a loki, is a better muninn with higher speed, smaller sig, improved tank, more agility ad a longrangeweb. And 20% more alpha.
It also costs 3-4x as much (anyone not flying faction webs on a Loki should quit EVE immediately). How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
9054
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 12:41:00 -
[1731] - Quote
Confirming this thread no longer regards HACs. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
David Kir
Tailender
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 13:45:00 -
[1732] - Quote
Give HACs bubble immunity. That's it. You now have a medium dps/tank/mobility ship that's also a great nullsec roaming platform. |
columbo miner
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 14:44:00 -
[1733] - Quote
Ishtar
Hi,
I use a Navy Vexor for select moments of PvP I was expecting to "upgrade" to the Ishtar but with the initial proposed changes the Navy Vexor will still be better imo.
I agree with several suggestions here on the Ishtar regarding the changes, the must for me is it needs that additional low slot even if it means losing a mid for balance or changes to high.
The only role i see for the Ishtar with the current changes is as sniper with sentries but that then questions the turret/high slot changes.
Trying to make a close or mid range Ishtar with the current fitting restrictions is difficult, maybe i'm not to supposed to but then why the turret changes without the fitting/bonuses, i.e optimal, to put something useful in them.
Point 1. The HAC bonuses need to be addressed IMO although i can understand the range control bonus if the role is sniper. Point 2. Additional low slot especially if the role is close/mid range. Point 3. PWG/CPU increase. Point 4. Decide on how you are expecting pilots to fit this then give bonuses and make changes to suit the optimal playing style. If it is sniper then the turret high slots need looking at and maybe a relevant bonus, if its mid range then points 1,2,3.
These points seem to have been raised in part already but i felt i needed to put my 2pence in. Rather than whine after without making a contribution.
Thanks, Boz. aka Bozzith, Columbo Miner.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
744
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 14:52:00 -
[1734] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Give HACs bubble immunity. That's it. You now have a medium dps/tank/mobility ship that's also a great nullsec roaming platform. Good plan if one's aim is to make them primarily a null vehicle .. the MWD sig thing is bad enough, borderline discrimination of "everything not null" even .. any bubble related bonus and lowsec/highsec has enough to sue! |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 14:55:00 -
[1735] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:MeBiatch wrote:i say blops should bet role bonus to use mjd while cloaked Would rather like to see them use cover ops cloak because using MJD while cloak gives them an amazing ability, I'm all for it So we're not getting V2 HAC revamp before next week?
nope... we are not... hopefully tuesday... ccp never starts anything new on a monday. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Perihelion Olenard
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 16:04:00 -
[1736] - Quote
Enough with the MJD on HACs. There are much better role bonuses. Frankly, I think the MJD is overrated.
Also, some of these HACs still seem to be lacking EHP-wise. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 16:21:00 -
[1737] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:Enough with the MJD on HACs. There are much better role bonuses. Frankly, I think the MJD is overrated.
Also, some of these HACs still seem to be lacking EHP-wise.
Indeed. Mwd scram immunity would be much more suited for hacs There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 18:34:00 -
[1738] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Perihelion Olenard wrote:Enough with the MJD on HACs. There are much better role bonuses. Frankly, I think the MJD is overrated.
Also, some of these HACs still seem to be lacking EHP-wise. Indeed. Mwd scram immunity would be much more suited for hacs
If they had speed, with that role bonus- they would be OP as all hell. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 18:40:00 -
[1739] - Quote
Chessur wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Perihelion Olenard wrote:Enough with the MJD on HACs. There are much better role bonuses. Frankly, I think the MJD is overrated.
Also, some of these HACs still seem to be lacking EHP-wise. Indeed. Mwd scram immunity would be much more suited for hacs If they had speed, with that role bonus- they would be OP as all hell.
And worth the price... Remember hacs were at thier best before the great nano nerf. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Mire Stoude
Antelope with Night Vision Goggles
191
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 18:45:00 -
[1740] - Quote
I guess hoping T2's would at least be as viable as faction variants is too much to ask. These are nice changes, just a bit underwhelming. |
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 19:03:00 -
[1741] - Quote
on top of changes from the OP
Sacrilege: +1low +50pg Zealot: +1mid Cerberus: +1low +80pg Eagle: +1 high +1gun +150pg -400shield Deimos: +1low +245pg +30cpu +450armor switch mwd cap bonus for 7.5% med hybrid tracking bonus ishtar: +1low +175pg +40cpu +400armor roll drone bay bonus into hull add 10% to drone mwd speed per level change control range bonus to all drone types Vaga: +1gun +1low 145pg +150shield -shield boost bonus +10%to med proj falloff per level Muninn: +1med +1gun +215pg +120shield
those are the changes that would make HACs good enough to warrant their cost and possible be an alternative to tech 3 cruisers
tech 1 BC will still have more tank and dps in most cases, still cost only halve as much and require less skills to fly
Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 19:17:00 -
[1742] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:on top of changes from the OP
Sacrilege: +1low +50pg Zealot: +1mid Cerberus: +1low +80pg Eagle: +1 high +1gun +150pg -400shield Deimos: +1low +245pg +30cpu +450armor switch mwd cap bonus for 7.5% med hybrid tracking bonus ishtar: +1low +175pg +40cpu +400armor roll drone bay bonus into hull add 10% to drone mwd speed per level change control range bonus to all drone types Vaga: +1gun +1low 145pg +150shield -shield boost bonus +10%to med proj falloff per level Muninn: +1med +1gun +215pg +120shield
those are the changes that would make HACs good enough to warrant their cost and possible be an alternative to tech 3 cruisers
tech 1 BC will still have more tank and dps in most cases, still cost only halve as much and require less skills to fly
also add 25 m3 / mb drobe bay/bandwidth to the zealot and it would be perfect :D
IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
745
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 19:25:00 -
[1743] - Quote
We need a niche for them, without hamstringing them when poking at stuff outside said niche, correct?
Navy BCs were introduced to be the weapon of choice against any and all things smaller while still being able to punch fatties in the face .. so why not marry the range of HACs with the tracking of N.BCs .. increase speed a tad (look up the word "tad", does not mean 3k/s HACs!) and you have your kiters that double as useless snipers. Would prefer if the kiting contingent be gun based so that the only counter doesn't become 'more of the same' or 'Hvy Neuts' as was the case during the nano-age .. depends on eWar revamp I suppose.
Second set of HACs are then free to be made into "drop an anvil on the enemy" brawlers or a toned down T3 or psuedo recon (ie. 1x recon bonus such as web/point range) sort of thing ... (yes, I want my Sacs to have a neut amount bonus ).
* Role/Class bonuses left my brain-trust as it is not possible to find something that does not either make them comparatively OP as hell or of such limited use as to be a waste of breath. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2164
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 22:33:00 -
[1744] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:As a matter of fact, I'd like to see them have a 33% AB speed bonus instead of the 50% MWD sig reduction bonus - something I would have preferred for assault frigs in the first place.
Of course after their base speeds have been adjusted to their T1 counterparts.
[edit] Elaboration: Assaulting means getting toe to toe and take something from my understanding. Giving HACs an AB bonus instead of the MWD one would greatly decrease their vulnerabiltiy to scrams, adding opportunities to disengage as compared to battlecruisers, which currently are the HACs downfall.
That unique bonus would also make them stand out from T3 cruisers and build on their only stregth, which is sig tanking.
Would they be powerful?
Yes - but imho they're meant to be.
It would be an especially useful bonus to set them apart from their nemesis, namely Tier 3 BC, as that would make them a perfect counter to them. Unless they have MWD-like speed, ships like the Vagabond wouldn't see much of an advantage, whereas the Zealot would potentially benefit greatly. I think that half should be brawling ships and have an AB bonus, and half should be kiters and have an MWD sig bonus.
Good point - maybe it's just impractical to add a single role bonus accross the board - thinking about what HAC I could probably fly after these changes, I came to the conclusion it would most likely be vagabonds, because that would actually benefit from the MWD sig bonus - maybe try some Ishtars.
However, I'd still never fit a Zealot with an MWD. So maybe AB speed for some, MWD sig for others. You know... morons. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Tribal Band
71
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 22:59:00 -
[1745] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Give HACs bubble immunity. That's it. You now have a medium dps/tank/mobility ship that's also a great nullsec roaming platform.
True, in medium-scale confrontations such could be useful. But in terms of upping the "soloing" aspect, I'd rather go for the anti webbing stuff.
-- Yes, T3 is better. But right now, I think the major problem is that there is no real flexibility. T2 is not to be about flexibility on paper but these changes just won't fit for everybody unless there is a way to interchange that role bonus.
Maybe it would be appropiate to give HACs access to just one subsystem, allowing you to either fit:
- Bubble immunity or - Anti-webbing or - AB bonus or - a small across-the-board +xy% bonus to all HP types. or - MWD sig
In other words, let HACs be a small stepping stone to T3. I'd even go as far and have HACs have a 2nd subsystem slot (which should orientated to weapons).
It would be balanced because you can't stack the best of all subsystems like on the T3 ship.
HACs would be more unpredictable while giving the capsuleer more freedom over his expensive T2 ship.
This is only a pipedream and I'm sure T3 fans will complain, but right now I really don't see any other point. One suggested bonus just screws up the uses for other players. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Alyssa Haginen
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 04:06:00 -
[1746] - Quote
The new sacrilege is awesome. The new vagabond bonus is also nice and the cerb looks great. The ishtar is still missing powergrid though. It has no armor tank bonus at all and I think its hard to fit. My idea of an ishtar fit would be a buffer fit with the option of neuts. With around 100 more on the powergrid it would be possible to fit either an effective active or buffer fit tank and have the option of guns or utility mods. And the best part of the previous sentence would be not wasting 3 or 4 slots fitting for powergrid doing it.
All the snipers look good. |
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 08:44:00 -
[1747] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:also add 25 m3 / mb drobe bay/bandwidth to the zealot and it would be perfect :D
+1 |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
740
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 10:14:00 -
[1748] - Quote
Boris Amarr wrote:sten mattson wrote:also add 25 m3 / mb drobe bay/bandwidth to the zealot and it would be perfect :D
+1
+2 |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 11:10:00 -
[1749] - Quote
You guys seem extremely self serving, the Zealot is already considered the best HAC and you want a drone bay too? OK then I want 50 MB drones on the Eagle since it is bad and also has no drone bay. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 11:44:00 -
[1750] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:You guys seem extremely self serving, the Zealot is already considered the best HAC and you want a drone bay too? OK then I want 50 MB drones on the Eagle since it is bad and also has no drone bay.
The Zealot is only considered good if acting in group. If caught alone it can be, and will be killed, by a tec1 frig or even worst a rookie ship. Add 25m3 drone bay is just a question of good sense tbh. |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
747
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 11:45:00 -
[1751] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:You guys seem extremely self serving, the Zealot is already considered the best HAC and you want a drone bay too? OK then I want 50 MB drones on the Eagle since it is bad and also has no drone bay. Zealot has half the midslots and the broken-as-can-be ASB's are not really viable .. they are to put it bluntly vastly different beasts.
Personally abhor the "add drones to fix everything" dogma, it is frightfully close to the "CovOps cloak fixes everything" mentality, but the Zealot is severely lacking in the fight control department and if it is to have a place outside of the AHAC swarms that needs to be addressed. Now if the Sacrilege is made a demigod in the solo/small-scale arena then the need for the Zealot to have the above is somewhat redundant, but Sacrilege would need to be so dominant as to make everyone else weep for that kind separation of labour to be "fair" to Amarr and intentionally breaking the game is bad form (unless one is a Dev with a Minmatar crush that is )
Zealot already possesses that enviable projection, what it needs is application (applied damage = fight control). Tracking is where you want to go .. be it by way of a hull bonus or the introduction of the 'missing-since-forever' third pulse, I am open to both
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 13:06:00 -
[1752] - Quote
so are AHAC's meant to be limited to 800mm plates and ANP 2's? it doesn't really go with a resilience tanky role does it? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
448
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 14:53:00 -
[1753] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:You guys seem extremely self serving, the Zealot is already considered the best HAC and you want a drone bay too? OK then I want 50 MB drones on the Eagle since it is bad and also has no drone bay. why not 125/400
if other races take missle from caldari , caldari could take drone from gallente :) and change the resist bonus to drone dmg and optimal
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
206
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 16:02:00 -
[1754] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:You guys seem extremely self serving, the Zealot is already considered the best HAC and you want a drone bay too? OK then I want 50 MB drones on the Eagle since it is bad and also has no drone bay.
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king, but in reality the one eyed man is at a disadvantage.
What my awful analogy is trying to say is that just because the Zealot is good compared to other HACs doesn't mean its good. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 16:30:00 -
[1755] - Quote
Maybe its to late to ask for this since the next HAC iteraiton will come tomorrow, but please give the Eagle 5 light drones.
Then it can serve both as a medium range fighter and a brawler, depending on the pilots wish. With one high-slot moved to mid it can both tackle and have a tank, but adding 5 light drones are not just for extra dps; it's also usefull to fight off hostile frigates and kill enemy drones.
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 16:48:00 -
[1756] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:You guys seem extremely self serving, the Zealot is already considered the best HAC and you want a drone bay too? OK then I want 50 MB drones on the Eagle since it is bad and also has no drone bay.
well , the blasters has more tracking than pulses :P IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Javius Rong
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 18:22:00 -
[1757] - Quote
Been reading through this post and it seems like there a couple of intertwined issues:
1) Proper Role Definition for HACS vs. Navy Cruisers vs. T1 Cruisers
2) Attack Battle Cruiser Balance vs. Rest of BCs vs. HACs
For #1 CCP needs to define a specific role that HACs are supposed to fill and then bonus them accordingly. Right now the HAC Bonuses make no sense ship to ship and HACs vs. other cruisers
For #2, ABCs from my understanding they were supposed to be high damage against large ship classes and have minimal tanks. The key for me is LARGER ship classes. I think this would be easily handled by give the ABCs a +25% (or more) increase in the signature radius for large turrets, remove drones from the Talos. To 'fix' the tank issue just increase their signature radius by 10% to 20%. Keep the bonuses the same.
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Tribal Band
72
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 21:00:00 -
[1758] - Quote
Javius Rong wrote: Been reading through this post and it seems like there a couple of intertwined issues:
1) Proper Role Definition for HACS vs. Navy Cruisers vs. T1 Cruisers
2) Attack Battle Cruiser Balance vs. Rest of BCs vs. HACs
For #1 CCP needs to define a specific role that HACs are supposed to fill and then bonus them accordingly. Right now the HAC Bonuses make no sense ship to ship and HACs vs. other cruisers
For #2, ABCs from my understanding they were supposed to be high damage against large ship classes and have minimal tanks. The key for me is LARGER ship classes. I think this would be easily handled by give the ABCs a +25% (or more) increase in the signature radius for large turrets, remove drones from the Talos. To 'fix' the tank issue just increase their signature radius by 10% to 20%. Keep the bonuses the same.
QFT. Think this sums it up best. Hope others agree too and support this.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Humang
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 06:10:00 -
[1759] - Quote
Throwing an idea out there.
I've seen a few posts looking to balance super-caps to be more in-line with the current game-play, most want to achieve this through a nerf. However I have read a couple compelling explanations that the desired result can be obtained by forming counters to the current state of super-caps, and as people have already been discussing that HACs need a role to fulfill, I would suggest that they play a part in this counter to super-caps and caps alike.
I propose that HACs be given a role in capital fights / offence, give them a way to directly hamper capital defenses in a similar way to HICs are able to prevent capitals from leaving. I don't mean by directly damaging the said capital, but perhaps weakening them so that they are more vulnerable to conventional weapons systems (with the new HACs you still need the raw dps of a fleet, but its just more effective).
Of the top of my head for example, how about HAC only module that give them the ability to launchers boarding party's that slowly reduce resists, carp recharge or damage output. Just and example, but I hope it gets my idea across. |
MystLynx
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 09:09:00 -
[1760] - Quote
WHAT 3 MEDS FOR THE MUNINN? |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
85
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 10:59:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Tournament's over. Any updates? |
elitatwo
Congregatio
99
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 11:02:00 -
[1762] - Quote
MystLynx wrote:WHAT 3 MEDS FOR THE MUNINN?
Since the Munnin is the only ship in the hac line of ship(s), I'm afraid it had to be
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
314
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 11:05:00 -
[1763] - Quote
Well here's a crazy thought - dont think its been posted.
Leave their DPS middling at best and give them bonuses to defence - like oversized mods bonuses. Make them none too threatening but a right bugger to kill. The ships you want to put into an attrition/in your face battle thus earning the tag of "heavy assault".
Caveat: not thought through and literally just popped into my head, I'm sure people will be along shortly to tell me why this is a terrible idea |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 11:09:00 -
[1764] - Quote
CCP Rise told us yesterday during AT that he will update this thread today hopefully. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 11:15:00 -
[1765] - Quote
MystLynx wrote:WHAT 3 MEDS FOR THE MUNINN?
people dont seem to cry out "WHAT 3 MEDS FOR THE MALLER/OMEN/NOMEN/NAUGOROR/ZEALOT/ABSOLUTION!!!!!ONEONE!!!ONE!!!" from what i can see.
IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
132
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 11:20:00 -
[1766] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:MystLynx wrote:WHAT 3 MEDS FOR THE MUNINN? people dont seem to cry out "WHAT 3 MEDS FOR THE MALLER/OMEN/NOMEN/NAUGOROR/ZEALOT/ABSOLUTION!!!!!ONEONE!!!ONE!!!" from what i can see.
They appear to be quite balanced anyways. Also, double-LSE and point/mwd would probably dangerously shift the kiting-balance, where slicers/NOmens already dominate.
Sure, let's take some lows and make utility-highs and mids out of it... Suddenly wtf no 6/7 lows... I only correct my own spelling. |
WarFireV
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
106
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 11:21:00 -
[1767] - Quote
I won't expect anything too ridiculous, like adding in the ability to use capital weapons, on the HACs. Something like that would be handled, most likely, by a new ship type.
The best thing we can hope for is that they realized the MWD bonus on ALL HACs is kind of pointless and doesn't help at all.
The two best HACs will still be the Zealot and the Ishtar.
The Sac is still garbage.
Deimos is still the Diemost. hell it's even worst now since they TOOK EHP away from the poor dear. Sig bonus will no
Both the Eagle and Cerb are outclassed by other ships that do what they do, but must better.
Vaga is actually a good ship, it's just that a few other ships do what it does, but better as well. Munin is just meh. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
209
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 11:45:00 -
[1768] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:MystLynx wrote:WHAT 3 MEDS FOR THE MUNINN? people dont seem to cry out "WHAT 3 MEDS FOR THE MALLER/OMEN/NOMEN/NAUGOROR/ZEALOT/ABSOLUTION!!!!!ONEONE!!!ONE!!!" from what i can see.
Amarr are armor tankers, Minmatar shield tank. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:00:00 -
[1769] - Quote
Minnies can tank well with both shield and armor. Muninn cant tank with shield tho :D not with 3 mids |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
456
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:05:00 -
[1770] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:sten mattson wrote:MystLynx wrote:WHAT 3 MEDS FOR THE MUNINN? people dont seem to cry out "WHAT 3 MEDS FOR THE MALLER/OMEN/NOMEN/NAUGOROR/ZEALOT/ABSOLUTION!!!!!ONEONE!!!ONE!!!" from what i can see. Amarr are armor tankers, Minmatar shield tank.
Mines are random tankers.. some of their ships tank shield, others tank with armor, other with speed.. and others tanks with irrelevance... |
|
|
CCP Logibro
C C P C C P Alliance
62
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:20:00 -
[1771] - Quote
Round two of the HAC changes can be found here CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites
@CCP_Logibro |
|
General Jack Cosmo
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.13 11:56:00 -
[1772] - Quote
I would really like to see a few changes in hac
1- it would be nice to give each one a utility high slot (salvager, imp cloak, tractor beem ect) it would be nice to a have a utility high slot for my ishtar for my lvl 4 missions i do with it :)
2- sacrilege give a rof/dmg of 5 % to ham's only and 10% velocity to ham's only since it was geared towards ham's and tank!
3- give the vaga tracking bonus or shield resistance bonus instead of shield boosts (not every one uses boosts on a hac)
4- maybe change one of the 10% optimal range on the eagle to either 5% optimal/5% tracking or 10% to range on one or both of those so you can use rails or blasters?
5- cerbus what about 7.5% to kinetic and 5% to other dmg types?
also maybe a bonus to not just sig radius but effectiveness of micro warp drives!!!! With lord Xanex by my side I can do anything (Atleast with a smile)-á!!!! |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
542
|
Posted - 2013.10.13 12:27:00 -
[1773] - Quote
I do wonder if railgun buff had the effect CCP where hoping for in making the eagle actually used for once.. Vaga should have had its speed nerfed and still should as it takes away the only advantage the stabber had going for it as a viable choice to use over the vaga.. and then there is the cynabal nerf incoming .. the vaga shouldn't be the fastest cruiser considering how much better its tanking is over the other 2 now. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 60 :: [one page] |