EVE Search - Hac upgrades for mk2

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Hac upgrades for mk2

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mallik Hendrake	Posted - 2005.12.07 22:04:00 - [1] Alright. I don't post a lot of new posts, but I think with the mk2 changes, and the new t2 cruiser/bc stats, that we ought to upgrade heavy assaults in tune with the mk2 cruiser bonuses. For instance, given that most hacs need some pg and cpu to be fitting properly. The deimos is a prime example of this, as is the muninn. Also adjusting bonuses to fit mk2 bonuses might be a good idea in some scenarios. The Zealot could use a launcher slot like the Omen, and the Cerb could use its spare empty high slot moved to a med slot (potentially). An across the board pg or cpu hike are the most important of course. Also, assault frigs need their damned fourth bonus, and the tiny ones need their extra slot. The hac paradigm of equal slottage and 4 bonuses is seriously important for the af to be taken seriously. Yarr. -------------------------------------------- "A plan is just a list of things that don't happen." -- Parker, _The Way of the Gun_ Mallik Hendrake E X O D U S [I do not speak for E X O or IRON]
Denrace	Posted - 2005.12.07 22:06:00 - [2] Keep the Cerbs 6th high slot please. I fight up close and fit a med neutraliser here. Occasionally a cloak ____________________________________________
Anjerrai Meloanis	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:17:00 - [3] Edited by: Anjerrai Meloanis on 07/12/2005 23:17:48 Originally by: Mallik Hendrake The Zealot could use a launcher slot like the Omen Would anyone really use that launcher slot? lol.. I doubt it.. uh.
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:35:00 - [4] im pretty sure every cerb pilot would change its 6th high gainst another low ;) havent been on sis and dunno if its needed..
kebab v2	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:38:00 - [5] Originally by: Mallik Hendrake Alright. I don't post a lot of new posts, but I think with the mk2 changes, and the new t2 cruiser/bc stats, that we ought to upgrade heavy assaults in tune with the mk2 cruiser bonuses. For instance, given that most hacs need some pg and cpu to be fitting properly. The deimos is a prime example of this, as is the muninn. Also adjusting bonuses to fit mk2 bonuses might be a good idea in some scenarios. The Zealot could use a launcher slot like the Omen, and the Cerb could use its spare empty high slot moved to a med slot (potentially). An across the board pg or cpu hike are the most important of course. Also, assault frigs need their damned fourth bonus, and the tiny ones need their extra slot. The hac paradigm of equal slottage and 4 bonuses is seriously important for the af to be taken seriously. Yarr. Imo all the T2 ships need looking at since most of the ships they have all been based on were changed, rupture and staber both got grid and cpu increases so shouldnt the munin and vaga also get these??? and then the assult frigs seriously tux throw us a bone, are you doing mk2 for the T2 ships? the poeple want too know "I made this sig while i should of been working"
Necrologic	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:38:00 - [6] I'd much rather have another med.
Aramova	Posted - 2005.12.08 01:01:00 - [7] The Deimos could really use the extra powergrid that the thorax line got, as it's woefully underpowered for what it is.
Hew Pith	Posted - 2005.12.08 01:37:00 - [8] i consider that using electrons in a deimos is a shame, a t2 ship should use ions with a relative good tank put on it
Mallik Hendrake	Posted - 2005.12.08 01:38:00 - [9] Here's a big fitting thing that ****es me off. The eagle can fit a complete fitting with 4 250 IIs and 2 heavy launcher IIs with ease. The deimos can just barely fit 5 ions. It can't fit a credible setup with 5 x 250s. It and the Muninn are the only (Only!) hacs that can't fit a rack of top tier weaponry. The reason for this is primarily due to shield tanking using a lot less grid, but, ships designed to armor tank should therefore have more grid :P. Duh? -------------------------------------------- "A plan is just a list of things that don't happen." -- Parker, _The Way of the Gun_ Mallik Hendrake E X O D U S [I do not speak for E X O or IRON]
babylonstew	Posted - 2005.12.08 01:50:00 - [10] i actually agree a bit more cpu on the cerb, and maybe pg for diemos and momin, but dont touch the 6th high on the cerb please, i usualy run a med nos in there and dont want to lose it
Al Thorr	Posted - 2005.12.08 01:58:00 - [11] Dont move the 6th hi slot on my cerb - Just give me another launcher Hardpoint. Regards Al Thorr I Am in shape, ROUND is a shape
LOPEZ	Posted - 2005.12.08 02:04:00 - [12] shield energized adaptive nano.. give my cerby a tracking bonus insted of max flight time or shield resistance...
Calshim	Posted - 2005.12.08 02:14:00 - [13] Personally I dont see why we can't make the slots interchangable so that you could put mid or low mods in a high slot or lows in a mid, how much more versatile would the ships become then ? Scotty could do it given the right size crow bar -------------------------------------------------------------- * Ba (hons) Male Bovine Excrement Speech Techniques *
Grimwalius d'Antan	Posted - 2005.12.08 08:44:00 - [14] Originally by: kebab v2 Imo all the T2 ships need looking at since most of the ships they have all been based on were changed, rupture and staber both got grid and cpu increases so shouldnt the munin and vaga also get these??? I believe Tux said that T2 is not based on their T1 counterparts, any similarities are coincidental. I wish I had the quote to prove it.
kebab v2	Posted - 2005.12.08 08:57:00 - [15] Originally by: Grimwalius d'Antan Originally by: kebab v2 Imo all the T2 ships need looking at since most of the ships they have all been based on were changed, rupture and staber both got grid and cpu increases so shouldnt the munin and vaga also get these??? I believe Tux said that T2 is not based on their T1 counterparts, any similarities are coincidental. I wish I had the quote to prove it. well if tux said that he is full of ****. I quote from the database description of the vaga:- "Improving on the original Stabber design, Thukker Mix created the Vagabond as a cruiser-sized skirmish vessel equally suited to defending mobile installations and executing lightning strikes at their enemies. Honoring their tradition of building the fastest vessels to ply the spacelanes, they count the Vagabond as one of their crowning achievements." Improving...hum? "I made this sig while i should of been working"
Sentani	Posted - 2005.12.08 08:58:00 - [16] Edited by: Sentani on 08/12/2005 09:01:04 the hawk needs another medslot and maybe a funktional 5% sheild resistence bonus (instead of the broken 10%) the harpy needs a tad more CPU (10-15 if you ask me) and a 5% resistence bonus a the ares needs more grid and the ranis speed... the crow needs a explosion radius bonus of some sort the Jag needs 1-2 more slots (it should have one more slot then the t1 hull its based on) dunno about the rest... ____________ The cargo bay is overloaded and cannot be made to fit Expanded Cargohold I. It is currently only capable of fitting 8772.12 units and it is currently jammed full with 9558.33 units.
Gariuys	Posted - 2005.12.08 09:02:00 - [17] Originally by: Grimwalius d'Antan Originally by: kebab v2 Imo all the T2 ships need looking at since most of the ships they have all been based on were changed, rupture and staber both got grid and cpu increases so shouldnt the munin and vaga also get these??? I believe Tux said that T2 is not based on their T1 counterparts, any similarities are coincidental. I wish I had the quote to prove it. Guess that's why they have the bonuses of the t1 variants, and several stats are either the same or percentage increases. Funny to have so many coincidences at once. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool
Mathias Orsen	Posted - 2005.12.08 11:28:00 - [18] Considering that a well equipped HAC can compete, equal, or out power a tier 2 BS, and cost a third the price to build, I really see no need for making them better. What HACs really have a need for is a lower price. Anyone that thinks they need to be upgraded should think about upgrading either the pilot or the equipment.
CB Cyrix	Posted - 2005.12.08 11:34:00 - [19] Originally by: Denrace Keep the Cerbs 6th high slot please. I fight up close and fit a med neutraliser here. Occasionally a cloak why not give the zealot a drone bay the same size as the Omen, atleast its got the chance to use EW or more damage (which it needs)... Its a tech 2 version of a omen, so a launcher would rock, but a drone bay would kick ass more. CyÖ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________
Gronsak	Posted - 2005.12.08 12:16:00 - [20] Originally by: Mathias Orsen Considering that a well equipped HAC can compete, equal, or out power a tier 2 BS, and cost a third the price to build, I really see no need for making them better. What HACs really have a need for is a lower price. Anyone that thinks they need to be upgraded should think about upgrading either the pilot or the equipment. rofl a well equiped high SP HAC pilot can take out a poor equiped low SP BS pilot i have never lost a bs to a hac. infact in our ops, any hac i see i almost insta pop. high SP well fitted BS *****high sp well fitted hac just like a well fitted crusier kills a AF easy,
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2005.12.08 12:20:00 - [21] I think the t2 ships are mostly ok, but some do need tweaking: - Ares and Raptor need serious love - Deimos needs more grid and maybe a bit less mass - Hawk needs a role, I'd suggest a 3rd missile launcher and a new missile-oriented bonus. We don't have a missile AF in the game yet. - Vengeance is a bit weak, maybe some love needed - Retribution is pretty gimped with just the one medslot - All stealth bombers are 3rd rate compared to Manticore The list goes on...

Pages: [1] :: 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.