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) |
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. |
|
|
|
|
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 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |