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

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.

Sac should get some sort of scram/disrutper/web range/strength bonus instead of the mostly useless cap bonus.

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

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..

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.

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.

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?



About what setups are you talking? I am curious.

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.

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.

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.

.

The Deimos.... why is it so slow? it's clearly only gonna be viable for close range brawling since it has the falloff bonus?

Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

I suggest you check with those who have tried doing that with a BS first and see how they faired.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do want

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

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

yes

why give them all the same , which only benefits vaga ?:O makes no sense at all

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)?

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

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 .

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?

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/

Rise said by the end of this week (we're there) or beginning next one.

So let me call out:

RISE !!

The heck dude??

Yeah but currently they get the same reactivation delay as a T1 BS using a MJD... Think about it...

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?

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.

If they had speed, with that role bonus- they would be OP as all hell.