EVE Search - HACs Overhaul?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

HACs Overhaul?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Spatial PIMP	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:06:00 - [1] After i trained all hac's skills i see alot of advantages and disadvantages on many of them.I have some ideeas to make them all equal and maybe we will find them all at same price (Ishtar/Deimos/Zealot 60-80 mil?) My imagination is verry rich but i hope my ideeas will like and all HACS will be equal and cheaper. 1st of all i think the production time of one HAC should be reduces to 10-15 hours (without calculating skills) On the next lines u will find how i think they should be changed.Please post your comments and opinions about what i'm thinking about HACS ideea. Hacs should be changed on this way: Cladari: Cerberus: 1 High Slot added - 1 Launcher Hardpoint added 50m3 Drone Bay added Powergrid increased to 650 CPU increased to 450 Bonuses: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Light and Heavy Missile damage and 10% bonus to Missile velocity per level Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus Light and Heavy Missile flight time and 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire per level Eagle 1 High Slot added - 1 Turret Hardpoint added Powergrid increased to 900 CPU increased to 450 50 drone bay added Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level Gallente Ishtar: 1 Turet Hardpoint added 1 Medium Slot removed Powergrid increased to 750 CPU increased to 300 Bonuses: Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and +1 extra Drone controlled per level Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: +5 km bonus to Scout and Heavy Drone operation range and +25 m3 extra Drone Bay space per level (375m3 with HAC skill lev 5) Deimos Medium Slot added Power grid increased to 900 CPU increased to 350 Drone bay increased to 150m3 Minmatar Vagabond: Armor Kinetic resistance increased to 67.5% Armor increased to 1100 Low Slot added Powergrid increased to 900 CPU increased to 400 Muninn: Armor Kinetic resistance increased to 67.5% 1 Medium Slot added 1 High Slot removed - 1 Launcher Hardpoint removed 1 Low Slot added Power grid increased to 1000 CPU increased to 375 Bonuses: Minmatar Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage per level Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage per level and 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed per level Amarr: Sacrilege: 1 High Slot added - 1 Turret Hardpoint added 1 Medium Slot removed 1 Low Slot added Powergrid increased to 1100 CPU increased to 350 Drone bay increased to 50m3 Bonuses: Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use and 5% bonus to all armor resistances per level Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire per level Zealot: 1 High Slot added - 1 turret hardpoint added Powergrid increased to 1100 CPU increased to 350 Added 50m3 Drone bay Bonuses: Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% maximum Capacitor Capacity per level and 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire per level Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage per level P.S: I hope CCP will read this and will make HACs pilots happy in near future Please post whatever u think about this...
Kuningatar	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:17:00 - [2] imo 4 turret slots on zealot is enough.
Luc Boye	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:17:00 - [3] Edited by: Luc Boye on 27/10/2005 11:17:58 So cerberus is supposed to have bonus for both light and heavy missiles, but other HAC's only for medium sized weapons? Eh. Ishtar to lose mid slot and gain high slow? Why?
Soros	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:18:00 - [4] Edited by: Soros on 27/10/2005 11:22:11 Build time reduction I 100% agree on, some other stuff i don't: zealot has enough turrets and im a zealot pilot ;D The ishtar wouldn't mind an extra high, but as for the extra turret 3 is enough Eagle definately needs some pimping !! -= Soros =- C6
Spatial PIMP	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:22:00 - [5] Originally by: Luc Boye Edited by: Luc Boye on 27/10/2005 11:17:58 So cerberus is supposed to have bonus for both light and heavy missiles, but other HAC's only for medium sized weapons? Eh. Ishtar to lose mid slot and gain high slow? Why? Cerberus allready have bonus for light and heavy missiles but only kinetic - i changed that to all type of damage bonus Isthar to lose one med slot for not to be used as EW ship anymore and adding 1 turret hardpoint beacouse he will not be so strong like now until u will train hac lev 5 skill All are just ideeas atm and i have 1% chances to they become true...
IamThor	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:25:00 - [6] LOL so u want to give Minmatar 3 restance boneses. YOu are smoking some good stuff. So you want the hacs to be I win.
Spatial PIMP	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:27:00 - [7] My main upsed is Cerberus and Sacrilege... Cerberus is dieing in front of one ishtar in 5-10 seconds and Sacrilege is a ugly combination of lasers and lanchers...and amarr really don't have ships with launchers (hardpoint or bonuses) and don't supose to have...
lythos miralbar	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:28:00 - [8] me thinks some one doesnt like the fact that tech 1 ships are being boosted and hacs/assaults arent Hehehehe.. seriously though. the tech 1 ships are getting boosted to make them more usefull compared to thier tech 2 counterparts. The tech 2 ships will still be alot better but the "MK2" re-work is meant to bridge the gap just a little. When you go and boost all the hacs (and to me it does look loke a boost to all hacs and not a rebalance between them) doesnt that undermine the MK2 project and fly in teh face of wat ccp are trying to do?? just a random thought.
DarK	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:30:00 - [9] Zealot, Deimos, Vagabond and Ishtar are hardly in need for an overhaul. Cerb -Change Flighttime bonus to either velocity bonus or another damage bonus. -Boost the bloody capacitor. Eagle -Remove the shield bonus and give it another more relevant bonus(why am I tanking at 80km???) -Give it another turret hardpoint. For both: -Reduce mass I'd like to point out that I find it EXTREMELY boring that both these ships have an Identical medium and low slot layout. Please change one of them to something else, like 6/6/3 or something.
El Yatta	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:30:00 - [10] Edited by: El Yatta on 27/10/2005 11:33:01 Edited by: El Yatta on 27/10/2005 11:31:38 some of THE worst suggestions I have ever heard. Your complete nerf of the ishtar (4 mids doesnt cut it, its a ******* versatilty-based boat, you remove the fun from it, and turn it into a gunboat, and a quite inferior one at that. And 375m3 drone bay?? So, HAC V is mandatory if you have Drone int V, to even use themonths of training some people have put into drones, wheras most HAC pilots have got a rank 6 (!) skill to IV to generally use their ship. You're an idiot. The massive Zealot buff is a bit unneccessary - giving it a 5th turret would be ANOTHER 25% damage bonus. Change turret cap --> total cap bonus, well, I thought it had good cap already, and cap is the sac's strong point, so it seems to be a loss of diversification, and unnecessary, but I wouldnt have any objections. Eagle could use 5 turrets, cerb could use a buff, but you've made the wrong buff, by leaving flight time bonus in... Theres no need for teh vaga to get extra grid, but some CPU wouldn't go amiss, and such like. Deimos would love the extra grid, but another mid?? Overpowering, if you ask me, cap injectors would become standard. So, in short, you want to destroy the ishtar, unacceptable, overpower the Zealot massively, and possibly break the vagabond and deimos, while only barely fixing the cerb, eagle, and munnin. Go away. ---:::---
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:30:00 - [11] I like a 6 highslot muninn with 4 med 6 low. I think i'd cream. _______________________________ cd /usr/everaces/minmatar more\|moaning
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:34:00 - [12] I'm just curious how you justify changing ships which are relatively balanced to each other to begin with.. Just changing things to something "new" doesn't mean its going to be better. From looking at your changes, you'd be redefining the purpose of some ships, while locking in others to a certain role. Not cool, leave the game design to the devs, and only start worrying when they break something. Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning.
Spatial PIMP	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:35:00 - [13] Originally by: DarK Zealot, Deimos, Vagabond and Ishtar are hardly in need for an overhaul. Cerb -Change Flighttime bonus to either velocity bonus or another damage bonus. -Boost the bloody capacitor. Eagle -Remove the shield bonus and give it another more relevant bonus(why am I tanking at 80km???) -Give it another turret hardpoint. For both: -Reduce mass I'd like to point out that I find it EXTREMELY boring that both these ships have an Identical medium and low slot layout. Please change one of them to something else, like 6/6/3 or something. I will like to have the power to change game structure considering what all player are thinking about it:) This post is here to see what peoples are thinking and maybe CCP will have one ideea how to balance them(i started this post with balacing ideea but now i see - is a great boost to all HACs :) ) HACs should be better than one cruiser and a batllecruiser but more weak than a BS? I think now any HAC can kill a BS but Cerberus/Eagle and Sacrilege don't..
Faalk Sovalent	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:36:00 - [14] All I see is you suggesting how to make HACs even better at killing everything else 1on1. Is that really what we need?
ArchenTheGreat	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:47:00 - [15] Originally by: Spatial PIMP Ishtar: 1 Turet Hardpoint added 1 Medium Slot removed Powergrid increased to 750 CPU increased to 300 Bonuses: Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and +1 extra Drone controlled per level Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: +5 km bonus to Scout and Heavy Drone operation range and +25 m3 extra Drone Bay space per level (375m3 with HAC skill lev 5) No thank you. Ishtar deals damage using drones. It do not need another high but it's meds are really usefull. And giving it more drones as backup will make it too overpowered. Drones are balanced because you can't replace them like ammo. You are removing this weakness. Imran, please use Reload command in your browser or delete cache in your browser. This image IS 400x120px and 23841 bytes
Nanus Parkite	Posted - 2005.10.27 11:47:00 - [16] I'm just picturing how godlike a gank fitted muninn would be with those stats. You could have 720mm's with a damage mod of over 22x, oh and have enough grid left over for a mediocre shield tank.
Dimitri Forgroth	Posted - 2005.10.27 12:03:00 - [17] lmao DPS Sheet
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.10.27 12:17:00 - [18] You want to make HACs cheaper AND more powerful? jeez, this guy has no shame
Uther Doull	Posted - 2005.10.27 12:21:00 - [19] since i only fly minnie hacs i can't really comment on the other races so i'll just stick to the muninn and vaga vaga doesn't need anything added except a bit of cpu imo, it's a very good and versatile ship already, it definately doesn't need powergrid added to it because ppl would just use it to put arties on it wich is not how it was intended muninn could most definately do with some extra PG, and could do to lose one of the useless highslots + missle hardpoints however, adding BOTH a med and lowslot would make this ship way to uber... i would love it ofcourse, but that doesn't mean it's balanced so i suppose it COULD possibly do with an extra lowslot to keep in line with the burst damage mentality (med would be more usefull but would encroach on the vaga's field), but keep in mind that giving it more PG will already mean more free lows
without	Posted - 2005.10.27 12:38:00 - [20] (Ishtar/Deimos/Zealot 60-80 mil?) more likely that the rest will increase to 120+ more and mroe ppl are getting the skills to fly hacs every day, and thus demand increases, but supply is the same, so price will increase further. only way to stop this is, when ur in pvp, ranson the dam hac insted of poping them, thus demand will decrease now a bit of fun oh while we are at it, to truly balance teh deimos i think 8 hi slots, 6 mid slots, 7 low slots is in order and ofcourse the PG and cpu to fit 8 neutron blasters. MWD. web, 2 reps, dmg mods ect and maybe 2 1600mm plates? ofcourse this will make it slighly more powerfull that it currently is so buff the otehrs by giving them 8 low slots, 1 med slot and 1 high slot fair no?
Gronsak	Posted - 2005.10.27 12:42:00 - [21] why is everyone balancing hacs? WTF is up with that why do ppl want the uber single i win ship? imo hacs are pretty well balanced atm eagle snipes support at crazy ranges cerb spams missiles at crazy ranges deimos does great dmg but only if under 3km ishtar is good all rounder but kill its drones and its got no weapons vaga, faster than superman sac-tanking monster zealot-gank beast at good ranges, can be very usefull with the plate setup you shouldnt compair 1vs1 hacs, as they are not designed for that, each one has a role only cry if it doesnt fill that role well enough vs the other hacs with their roles
Eyeshadow	Posted - 2005.10.27 13:10:00 - [22] bwuhahahaha you have no idea whatsoever You want to nerf the ishtar to oblivion? Remove a mid slot, sure, give it an extra low or high to compensate (all HACs have 15 slots). Removing a mid plus halving its drone bay bonus will basically make it pointless. The ishtar is balanced, its just a lot more versatile than other ships Give the deimos an extra mid slot? Why? what would be the point? Its fine as it is, just needs a little speed and agility boost (not too much) An extra turret for a zealot? Have you any idea how uber it is already? Max capacitor bonus should go to the sacriledge. There is a reason why its dmg is poor, its cos its tank is so uber Muninn needs to swop a high for a low, simple as. Vagabond is fine as is Eagle needs an extra turret (not an extra slot) and a bit more grid. Its shield bonus is gonna become a resist bonus Cerberus needs an extra launcher point (not an extra high slot) and an extra 100 cap. Maybe tweak its bonuses a bit. The sweeping changes you suggest are ludicrous at best, and damn right stupid in reality As for build time, hmmm a small reduction would be ok, but not reducing it by 50%. My Latest Vid: Linky
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.10.27 13:13:00 - [23] In short: all hAC's become gank HAC's. No thanks. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.10.27 13:44:00 - [24] Originally by: Luc Boye Edited by: Luc Boye on 27/10/2005 11:17:58 So cerberus is supposed to have bonus for both light and heavy missiles, but other HAC's only for medium sized weapons? Eh. Ishtar to lose mid slot and gain high slow? Why? Not that I agree with the original poster on most of this stuff, but the Assault Launcher is a cruiser weapon that uses Light missiles, and the Cerberus already gets a bonus to light missile damage/flight time because of that. Not that the assault launcher is useful or anything. ------ If Captain James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock embracing one another, in a bath tube, nude, in space, is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Douglas McCracken	Posted - 2005.10.27 13:48:00 - [25] Edited by: Douglas Mc***en on 27/10/2005 13:51:04 Personally i think the HAC are fine as they stand bar one or two, namely the Sacrelege, an armour tanking ship which has more shield HP than Armour. Id get rid of its launcher rof bonus in favour of a -5% need for med rep capacitor (make it a dedicated tanker with enough cap to sustain itself) The Eagle, I would give it a 10% range and 5% damage to turrets with its bonuses The Cerb, here a nice missile boost is needed, The other HAC are fine imho and dont need anymore love and please dont suggest giving the diemos anymore dronespace, its already an awesome ship.
HippoKing	Posted - 2005.10.27 13:49:00 - [26] does anyone really think the zealot needs another high? -- This Zig. For great justice!
Denrace	Posted - 2005.10.27 14:23:00 - [27] The Cerberus - Constructive Comments, not a rant Now, i love this ship - i think its really useful, great bonuses, good range, nice mix of slots.... While the problem here with the damage output of the Cerberus is not the ship itself but the Heavy Missiles. Now, every race except for Caldari has at least one ship that ganks very, very well. Why is this not the same for Caldari? Gallente - Deimos Minmatar - Muninn Amarr - Zealot Caldari - erm...we dont have one :( We instead have 2 ships meant for long range. Why is this? The whole point of flying HACs is specialisation. If you want a tanker, call in a Sacrilege, if you want some fleet support, get and Eagle, or Muninn, or even a Heavy Beam Zealot. But why does the Caldari race have 2 ships for the same (more or less) purpose? The Caldari deserve a damage dealer, because right now there simply isnt one. While all other races have cruisers that can do EW pretty well, the Caldari DO NOT have a cruiser that can damage deal. At all. It would be very nice to increase the base damage of Heavy Missiles by 100 or something, because right now they are anything but heavy. While they may do some nice burst damage, they certainly do not do anywhere near the burst damage of projectiles. While a Muninn can wreck for over 1000 damage (and use three heavy launchers, may i add)with its 5x 720mm Howitzers II's, the Cerberus can manage a meagre 100-130 dmg per hit REGARDLESS OF MISSILE TYPE, due to the silly specific kinetic bonus(its what i get on average against enemy cruisers, with resistances factored in). Lets see: Heavy Beam Laser II with some ROF and some DMG bonuses (which cerb gets too) and Average Skills on a Zealot can have a 2.5 sec ROF and an 8.5 dmg mod, hitting for about 100 damage but nearly 4 TIMES FASTER than a Cerberus Cerberus with average skills and tech II HML's: ROF (roughly) 7-8 seconds and missiles that hit for less than 150 damage per shot. Howitzers on a Muninn do more damage (also fits 3 HML's too...) - a 16x damage mod on 5 guns, with a 9 second ROF. This gives around 250 dmg per shot (resistances fatored in) so lets be nasty and call it 200 dmg per shot. The muninn does 200 x 5 guns worth of dmg per volley, PLUS the dmg from the 3 heavy launchers. Cerb has only 5 launchers to do its dmg, is this fair? not really. Ishtar and Deimos do VASTLY more dmg, so no point even comparing them here. Caldari already have a sniper. We dont need a another sniper in the form of a missile boat, but we DO need a damage dealer. No point giving the Cerb an EW bonus, as techII EW cruisers are on the horizon. Cerberus is good, but i feel it is not quite what it should rightfully be. Its potential is lost simply because Heavy Missiles are very low damaging, with no other way for the ship to make up for this, having all missile bonuses. Thoughts? ____________________________________________
Heelay Ashrum	Posted - 2005.10.27 14:28:00 - [28] Only thing i can agree it's reduce by half the construction time and double the BPO ingame. There is a big diffecence between "rare items" and "monopoly".
kessah	Posted - 2005.10.27 14:43:00 - [29] This was painful to read, sorry. Your deimos & zealot changes are scary. Granted the Caldari ones are gimped but imho missles, all missles do have the luxury of fire and forget when locked on. Like the guy said above i want what your smoking sounds awesome to me --------------------------------------------------------
danneh	Posted - 2005.10.27 14:51:00 - [30] Caldari heavy assault cruisers need some sort of boost agreed, and yes i whould love some other bonus then the missile one on my sacrilege.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.