EVE Search - Sticky:[Odyssey 1.1] Heavy Assault Cruisers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Odyssey 1.1] Heavy Assault Cruisers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 299	Posted - 2013.07.19 22:49:00 - [1] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 299	Posted - 2013.07.19 22:53:00 - [2] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 299	Posted - 2013.07.19 22:59:00 - [3] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 302	Posted - 2013.07.20 13:00:00 - [4] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 303	Posted - 2013.07.21 16:26:00 - [5] - 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
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 304	Posted - 2013.07.21 19:51:00 - [6] - 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
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 304	Posted - 2013.07.21 19:58:00 - [7] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 304	Posted - 2013.07.21 20:11:00 - [8] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 304	Posted - 2013.07.21 21:32:00 - [9] - 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 - [10] - 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.

Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 304	Posted - 2013.07.21 21:35:00 - [11] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 304	Posted - 2013.07.21 21:59:00 - [12] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 304	Posted - 2013.07.21 22:09:00 - [13] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 304	Posted - 2013.07.21 22:20:00 - [14] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 306	Posted - 2013.07.21 22:36:00 - [15] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 313	Posted - 2013.07.22 00:22:00 - [16] - 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 Hacs Cerb Zealot Vaga Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one. Assault Frig Hacs Eagle 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 314	Posted - 2013.07.22 13:15:00 - [17] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 315	Posted - 2013.07.23 01:00:00 - [18] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 315	Posted - 2013.07.23 01:14:00 - [19] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 316	Posted - 2013.07.23 01:30:00 - [20] - 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.

Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 319	Posted - 2013.07.23 02:13:00 - [21] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 13:37:00 - [22] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 14:45:00 - [23] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 16:18:00 - [24] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 16:49:00 - [25] - 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?
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 17:01:00 - [26] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 17:24:00 - [27] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 17:28:00 - [28] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 17:40:00 - [29] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 17:55:00 - [30] - 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.

Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 18:01:00 - [31] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 18:10:00 - [32] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 18:13:00 - [33] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 324	Posted - 2013.07.23 18:16:00 - [34] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 325	Posted - 2013.07.23 18:30:00 - [35] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 325	Posted - 2013.07.23 18:37:00 - [36] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 325	Posted - 2013.07.23 18:45:00 - [37] - Quote Along those lines. I have some differing opinions, but that is here no there.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 325	Posted - 2013.07.23 19:01:00 - [38] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 325	Posted - 2013.07.23 19:07:00 - [39] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 325	Posted - 2013.07.23 19:19:00 - [40] - 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.

Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 325	Posted - 2013.07.23 20:34:00 - [41] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 328	Posted - 2013.07.24 01:21:00 - [42] - 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
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 329	Posted - 2013.07.24 02:28:00 - [43] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 331	Posted - 2013.07.24 10:37:00 - [44] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 331	Posted - 2013.07.24 12:02:00 - [45] - 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 - [46] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 331	Posted - 2013.07.24 12:15:00 - [47] - 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.
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 334	Posted - 2013.07.24 14:11:00 - [48] - 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.

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.