Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 60 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
331
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:18:00 -
[781] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Is odyssey 1.1 a special exception CCP Rise, or can we expect to see a round 2 of all your future balance threads?
He might need a round 3 at this rate much like the battleships are still waiting for there turn again... christ those poor battleships.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
331
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:21:00 -
[782] - Quote
would anyone else like the Vagabond shield boost bonus changed to a 5% sig reduction to mwd usage? Kind of a mini Talwar bonus really Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
443
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:22:00 -
[783] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: If you make a cerberus go near vagabond speed. it will be completely super overpowered by orbiting larger ships with MWD signature reduciton and never missing shots.
Just for laughs, fit up a dual nano Typhoon with 6 cruise missile launchers, and then fit up a cerb and pretend it has 6 launchers too. Now tell me again why a faster cerb is a problem.
Need I explain you basic concepts like SIGNATURE RADIUS? Specially with a 50% BONUS whitl MWD is ON?
It would be a ship almost IMMUNE to medium and large guns while able to deliver very long range or very high dps (dependign if HM or HAM being used) |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Tribal Band
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:23:00 -
[784] - Quote
Honestly heavy missiles on Sac doesn't make much sense for the ship, maybe 5% damage+flighttime/velocity to HAMs to level would work better. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1005
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:28:00 -
[785] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Noisrevbus wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: You clearly haven't fought one of these yet, they can be pretty nasty but yes have to pick their fights, those are not pownmobiles just because they can fit an XL-ASB
I might be in the minority side thinking this bonus isn't bad but in certain situations will make it clearly op specially considering when lowering the ASB size the ship can fit bigger guns.
I don't think you're getting it mate, but that's my fault for using sarcasm.
- EVE Online is a sandbox MMO.
- It's not designed around 1v1, it's designed around PvX.
- I don't mind if there is a duelling culture or similar in the game. It's a sandbox, any creative way to play is good.
- However, if we start designing the game around 1v1 (or any similar targetted setting) we are in deep water.
- What is "clearly OP" to you in a duel-setting is clearly not OP if you decide to take on more difficult odds.
- Even if you prefer flying alone, a solo gameplay does not mean you don't fight larger groups 1vX.
This is similar to when we have to lecture PvE players on the principle that PvE in a sandbox means PvX where you are meant to conduct your PvE in a setting of both PvE and PvP (ie., PvX). Many of the new-school PvP players are just as stupid and seclusionist as the empire PvE players they like to mock. I've never had any issue with PvE players, I only growl a little bit when it comes to seclusionists with entitlement issues. Entitlement issues like "the Vagabond is good for what i do with it, where i pick my consentual fights without travelling". Don't take me wrong I do understand all the points you made but I still think options and alternatives can't hurt pvp in any shape or form be it for solo small gang or massive fights. I have a lot more experience in large fleets fights be it as dumb F1 BS shooter as dictor as inty or anti support pilot (I have logis skills but I don't fly them I hate them all so hard you can't imagine, remove them from the game dammit !!), not good but rather nice experience in roaming gangs but absolutely terrible in 1vs1 fights and will not excuse my lack of skills in this playing area because I don't use OGB despite being able to. Back to the point about Vaga, I still think this isn't a very bad change and fits quite well in the "emergent content" ability of Vaga, now for fleets if you ask me this bonus is absolutely terrible, horrible, does nothing and I'll take an SFI over the Vaga every time.
This guy gets it. Vaga is currently a worse cynabal. SFI is also competition. Allowing the vaga to do something else better than both of them is a good thing for this ship. The shield boost fits well with the minmatar resists. But it needs an extra mid.
If you want the old vaga fly a cynabal. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:28:00 -
[786] - Quote
Delicate subject nonetheless.
The quick stuff:
Sticking with the HEAVY Assault/Attack Cruiser part
Since we're likely to stick with how the ships are now - There needs to be a choice on certain aspects, in my opinion. Either all HACs in general should be really tanky, resilient - OR fast and hard to catch. But not both.
About Role: 50% reduction to MWD sig bloom I find this contradicts with the use of the AB, making AB even less desired for. Of course, this is just an impression. I really find the AB very weak in its aspects. Even with the webbing and scramming, MWD still tend wins the day. Again, just an impression.
Other than that, I think it is better to give individual special role bonuses than just "all gets this thing". I'd be more for applying rare and awkward/unusual bonuses. I don't know, capable fitting Torp launchers, lower penalties to fitting and using 100mn Afterburner modules, migation to web/slowing debuffs - stuff like that. You know, unique traits.
Commentary:
The major problem I see with HACs has always been the mentality of them needing to do everything, deal monstrous dmg and be able to escape out of the mess at any given time - just seeing that from the last pages.
I for one would rather stay out of the theorycraft and debate as I do not use HACs anymore, somewhat for the reason mentioned above - (plus who gives a damn what I do or say ;D!).
Nevertheless, I find that there is too much of a comparisons focusing on making the ships more powerful than they already are. Yes, the very point of Tiericide is to get all ships the dreaded accessibility/utility they needed. However, I can still smell cookie cutter all over this one. While cookie cutters are not a serious issue, I can see that HACs in general will continue to be ships that will be spammed to oblivion from here on.
I'm probably sidetracking, so I'll get to the point I wanted to throw in:
I think there needs to be short thoughtful rehash on the traits and weaknesses of the HAC concept. Right now, it looks too messy. *Dramatization* All ships are just getting the best stats best bonuses etc, and then are just blindly being compared to each other in fashion of "wah wah, other ship has better stuff than mine".
Imo, there should be more focus on the racial/lore philosophies. In this case, I'd really REALLY would suggest Vaga being a bit more paper and therefore a really fast ship. I know personal impressions are not asked for, but to me it has more of a "Strike Cruiser" - now that sounds the same as HAC, but prior- to the nano/speed nerfs, it was pretty much good in driveby shootings, or like some STUKA plane. But now, most of the time I see it just being a flimsy boat frightened to get tackled. It is the pilot of course who controls the ship, but it is just due to that reason of the speed nerf etc.
Taking the Vagabond as an example for others, I'd say, make it vulnerable, therefore faster. I'd even go as far and say remove drones and make it even faster, therefore less HP. But I know that is unlikely to happen as everybody prefer this current behemoth version.
My other bizarre suggestion would be to bring in another set of ships; one having the new Vaga model, the other the older one - so we players could choose on the playstyle we prefer. We'd have the more vulnerable-yet-swift version and the more tankier/bruiser sort. But that is unlikely to happen.
In the end, I can only repeat what somebody recently said about the Tier3 BCs; these being capable of applying extreme dmg while at the same time being way too mobile. Sure, they're paper in the sense as I'd imagine it, but regarding their extreme stacking of BS-turrets - They're way too efficient.
Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Warcalibre
FDA Shipwrights Tri-Star Galactic Industries
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:30:00 -
[787] - Quote
I don't get what the HAC roles are supposed to be. Why shouldn't I just fly ABC or navy?
Looking forward to next revision! |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:30:00 -
[788] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote: how about instead of 5k range bonus, +1 extra Drone controlled per level. on the heavy assault cruiser? :) the Ishtar is a drone boat after all :)
... Are you trolling? Or do you want the Ishtar to be an OP OMGWTFPWNMOBILE doing 2000 DPS? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1005
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:33:00 -
[789] - Quote
Warcalibre wrote:I don't get what the HAC roles are supposed to be. Why shouldn't I just fly ABC or navy?
Looking forward to next revision!
I'm not sure what the role is either.
But it seems the role is very limitted and exactly same for every ship. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:33:00 -
[790] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:Honestly heavy missiles on Sac doesn't make much sense for the ship, maybe 5% damage+flighttime/velocity to HAMs to level would work better.
Actually it does... the sacrilege screems for damage range since it's slow. It was alright before the HAM pre nerf in wich could hit at 75KM with Javelin Missiles, but now Javelins hit at 30Km max in theory. With a 5% flight/velocity would hit at 37,5Km. wich is a laugh.
|
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:35:00 -
[791] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Travasty Space wrote:Honestly heavy missiles on Sac doesn't make much sense for the ship, maybe 5% damage+flighttime/velocity to HAMs to level would work better. Actually it does... the sacrilege screems for damage range since it's slow. It was alright before the HAM pre nerf in wich could hit at 75KM with Javelin Missiles, but now Javelins hit at 30Km max in theory. With a 5% flight/velocity would hit at 37,5Km. wich is a laugh.
If people want to trade the range for damage they can do it but give the sacrilege the hability to at least hit at medium range with a slight chance of actually kill anyhting
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
987
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:38:00 -
[792] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:Others have said it, you say it yourself: It does not. It's supposed to provide an alternative to what the Cyna, SFI and other ships do better. Yet even the Cyna and SFI are in dire positions overall.
Indeed and afterthought maybe a tracking bonus would be much better for this ship and useful in every pvp situations:
The 10% tracking bonus on the SFI is absolutely fantastic, alpha with arties is good for a cruiser, dps with autos and tank is also pretty good imho and puts this ship on the right spot.
Now to make our Vaga a bit more interesting this tracking bonus would probably be the best bonus choice over the shield boost one and at the same time offer a larger window of pvp possibilities. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
352
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:39:00 -
[793] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:Honestly heavy missiles on Sac doesn't make much sense for the ship, maybe 5% damage+flighttime/velocity to HAMs to level would work better. The Sac should have its 5th turret removed, move that high to a low (5/4/6) layout, 10%/lvl damage (vs. 5%) and the capacitor bonus to a HAM flight time, explosion velocity, or similar damage application bonus. Nobody is going to use a heavy armor ship for HMLs and kiting, though. Please realize that heavy armor is not really compatible with the "kiting" philosophy of agility and speed, and especially not an Amarr heavy armor ship (Gallente are somewhat compensated with higher agility and speed that they strip away when fitting armor).
Same for the Deimos. Definitely give it an additional low (or keep the utility high) and change the MWD bonus (which, again, gets wasted if you fit an AB (must be the theme of Gallente bonuses to go wasted)) to a tracking or optimal bonus (something with damage application), and give it a purpose. I'm not sure if you realize, but there aren't many Gallente pilots screaming for a rail-leaning kiting platform. Yes, it is going to be AWESOME to have to the choice to use rails and them not suck, but we know when we fly big green that we are committing to the fight when we close in to use our blasters: either they die or we do. And I guess if we're on the subject anyway, the Thorax will do a much better job at kiting with its higher agility and speed combined with its tracking bonus, making those rails that-much-better.
Besides, there's much better ships that kite out there, and I certainly wouldn't pick a Deimos (with its poor tank (now with more nerf!), big sig and slow speed) over a Zealot, Vaga, Cynabal, or similar (and that's not even talking about the ABCs that are great kiters as well).
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:44:00 -
[794] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: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.
This. Remove the mwd bonus, reduce sig of each HAC by 25%, then add specific role bonuses for each one. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4103
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:46:00 -
[795] - Quote
"If I'm supposed to be a close range brawler, why do I have a bonus for a long range weapon?" - Sacrilege . |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
333
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:46:00 -
[796] - Quote
I think the major problem here is that all the HACS are treated differently to each other rather than a unified approach..
Vaga - is clearly 20km skirmish kitey ship and very fast but ls slower than the stabber and cynabal despite its description claiming it is the fastest cruiser
Eagle - is slow as hell sniper yet is also a brawler apparently .. ishtar, muninn and zealot are very similar but more speed
Deimos- is what exactly? brawler ot railboat? shield or armour?
Cerberus - a 200km missile sniper .... this is good how? .. a HAM slower but tankier and more dps heavy version of caracal would work nicely here
Sacrilege - is a brawler it seems but lacks enough lows to tank properly and is slow
So these are all very different to each other .. which is why people are asking what is the role of a HAC because looking at these they are all a bit random ..
I think people would prefer a more vaga approach than a sacrilege approach as brawling is very risky too put a 200mil ship into a fight when its likely to be outclassed in tank and dps by any bc for a fraction of the cost.
Also with the upcoming CS buff and navy bc's costing a similar amount but with battleship like tank and more dps why would you want a brawling HAC? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
140
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:47:00 -
[797] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: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. This. Remove the mwd bonus, reduce sig of each HAC by 25%, then add specific role bonuses for each one.
Yes.
One brawler one sniper for each race: 50% range bonus for the snipers, 50% damage bonus for the brawlers? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4103
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:50:00 -
[798] - Quote
"If I'm supposed to be a rail gun kitting ship, why would someone fly me instead of the Eagle?" - Deimos . |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4103
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:52:00 -
[799] - Quote
"If I'm supposed to be a drone specialized ship, why don't I have CPU for drone upgrade modules?" - Ishtar . |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
443
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:57:00 -
[800] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:"If I'm supposed to be a rail gun kitting ship, why would someone fly me instead of the Eagle?" - Deimos
Well Deimos is a BLASTER boat :P |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
352
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:57:00 -
[801] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:"If I'm supposed to be a close range brawler, why do I have a bonus for a long range weapon?" - Sacrilege It seems CCP is on this trend to give every race every possible playstyle in some fashion. I guess they wanted to be all-inclusive for the noobs that picked Amarr and are "stuck" with a Sacrilege. So what do you do to win that player over and not have them filled with weeks of regret and remorse for their racial ship line choice? Include the ability to use HMLs. Granted, Amarr ships are all about high agility, quick speed, light tank and long range and kiting, so it makes complete sense. For example, when I fly--and I want the fastest kiting ship--I totally think "AMARR!!!" ;) As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
119
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:57:00 -
[802] - Quote
Disagree with anyone saying the Sacrilege shouldn't get the HML bonus. Why on earth not? Yes it is a slow ship that is better suited to HAM, but why should that mean it must be locked down to a single weapon type. Every other ship bonus can apply to both long and short range weapons of the class. A missile spewing, smallish sig, tanky armour ship able to fly at range could potentially be a nice ship to have. Who cares if it is slow - it's not like the Drake was ever bought for it's speed!
I'd like CCP to consider some other more unique role bonuses to make these more interesting. Also more interesting bonuses - I like the faction ships with the bonuses that are larger than 5-10%, just makes them a bit more interesting. Few random ideas without much thought into them... (probably all flawed ideas, but they stand out a bit) -Resistance to webs? -Role bonus that gave double damage but half rate of fire for better ammo/cap usage. -Afterburner speed bonus -Sig reduction on weaponry fitted? -Role Bonus - not affected by negative effects from Armourplates/shield extenders and rigs?
Think outside the box! :) |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
140
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:58:00 -
[803] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:"If I'm supposed to be a rail gun kitting ship, why would someone fly me instead of the Eagle?" - Deimos Well Deimos is a BLASTER boat :P
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=260025&find=unread
CCP intends for a Diemost to fit rails and snipe. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:59:00 -
[804] - Quote
3 MAJOR problems here:
1: The zealot needs a drone bay. You are not giving it a tracking bonus, so it can still be kited and killed by a t1 frigate. This is entirely unacceptable. Why not give it both? Swapping optimal range bonus for tracking speed would work, and giving it a drone bay comparable to the t1 omen would make it an excellent close-range brawler.
2: The sacrilege continues to suffer from the lack of an additional fitting slot. If all of the new HAC loadouts had +1 slot, a 6th lowslot would currently solve all the issues it has in regards to balancing tank and dps.
3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard. |
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:01:00 -
[805] - Quote
Syri Taneka wrote:The problem with the Eagle and Munnin on today's battlefield is that both are completely outmoded by the Tier 3 (Attack) Battlecruisers, which do BS-level damage with very high range potential and have a staggering degree of mobility for their hull size. Compared to these ships, Sniper-HACs are simply not cost-effective (both in pure isk cost and in training time). As a result, the Eagle has become the go-to for blaster brawling with a shield buffer, while the Munnin is... ignored completely.
The Cerberus is similarly plagued. Kiting isn't very effective if your enemy decides not to try and run you down, and since a HAC cannot point at the same range a Cerb can engage at, you'll either end up being chased down by something which you can't kill, or your target will warp out (wasting ammo). The only thing I fly a Cerb for is anti-frigate support in HAC gangs, by fitting Rapid Light Missile Launchers (which are simply devastating to small craft, at much higher target velocities than medium guns can typically manage). Unfortunately, the Cerb also has a very weak tank compared to other HACs, largely because of the EM hole which forces a hardener to be fit in the mids.
So, what these ships need:
The listed changes for the Eagle are perfectly fine. With the Optimal Range bonuses, you can engage reliably at 20-30km with Null M (or 10-15km with Void M), making the only realistic utility high option (a small neut/NOS) pointless, which subsequently makes the extra mid much more useful.
The Munnin needs to be re-optimized for close combat. Where the Vagabond is a highly mobile, "strike and fade," type ship, the Munnin should be an armed-to-the-teeth brick. Less maneuverable, but nasty once in range.
The Cerberus should play to its only current strength as well: Killing small craft. Drop the Flight Time bonus in favor of an Explosion Velocity buff, and consider making the Kin damage bonus an un-typed one OR drop the damage bonus altogether in favor of a shield resist bonus.
I don't much care for pigeon holing the Cerberus into an anti-frigate ship. I think just adding a rapid light missiles to the current missiles bonuses now is sufficient. The ship just needs a buff to its base stats, particularly speed and fitting and maybe boost the tank some and it'll be in a good spot. Un-typing the damage bonus though would be a good change I'll give you that. |
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:05:00 -
[806] - Quote
Mirei Jun wrote:First let me say, thank you for looking at HACs. This has been a long time coming. The following criticism and suggestions are meant to be constructive.
SACRILEGE - This ship doesn't have enough low slots to take advantage of its great defense and cap bonuses. In skirmish warfare it should be able to fit active armor reps. In larger fights it should have enough lows to be very tough.
However, 4 mid slots is a good thing and fits it's role as a utility ship. So what should be done? I suggest removing its extra high slot. This means players that want to focus more on utility through neutralizers will need to give up a bit of damage to do it. At the same time the ship will get enough lows to armor tank properly. The new improved drone bay will mitigate some of the issues here, as well.
Suggestion: Change the slot load out to 5H, 4M, 6L
ZEALOT - Its working as intended. The new MWD bonus will make it even better.
CERBERUS - This ship is getting a much needed damage boost with 6 launchers. Its high slots are no longer wasted.
However, the kinetic missile bonus is legacy in nature. This ship needs to be able to pack a punch equally well with any of the four damage types.
The second issue is a combination of slot load out and targeting range. This ship was designed to "poke" from very long distances. However the Cerb's targeting range simply doesn't match its design. This has been a problem for a long time. Additionally, to get the targeting range you need you give up those much needed mid slots, or worse get less efficient results by using low slots while giving up damage (or speed). This ship doesn't get any kind of resist bonus and needs enough mids to withstand some punishment. Furthermore, HAM fits should be an option. with only 5 mids close range fits are risky.
I suggest giving up a low slot for an additional mid and boosting the base targeting range. With the new speed boost this ship will be able to race about the battle field firing missiles from long ranges, or burn up close and dish out punishment with HAMs while having decent survivability.
Suggestions: Change the slot load out to 6H, 6M, 3L. Change the base targeting range to (at least) 100km (even more would not hurt). Change the kinetic damage bonus to a flat missile damage bonus.
EAGLE - I think the overall changes here are good. The biggest problem with the current Eagle is actually fitting. The PG buff aims to address this. Increasing its slot efficiency is also a much needed improvement.
However, this ship suffers from the exact same problem as the Cerb -serious targeting range issues.
Suggestion: Increase the base targeting range to at least 100km.
DEIMOS - I'm excited to see the results of these changes. No more worthless high slot and more speed is good. The new role bonus is going to benefit the Deimos immensely.
One huge problem for the Deimos was fitting. Its PG was abysmal. We'll have to see if 40 PG is enough (probably so).
ISHTAR - More gun slots with less specialization in guns and more focus on drones -great!
The question still remains how in the world we're suppose to actually use those gun slots with such terrible a PG, but that's a good drawback for this ship.
Honestly this was what the Navy Vexor should have been. The new Ishtar totally overshadows the Navy Vexor and officially makes it worthless. I suggest revisiting that ship when you have a chance.
VAGABOND - This is an interesting change. It doesn't do a thing to the old style of Vaga combat, but adds new options. X-Large ASB, anyone? We'll have to see how this plays out.
MUNINN - This is another ship I believe will immensely benefit from the new HAC role bonus. It will be faster with a better slot spread. I think it will become a staple in kiting HAC gangs. Again, we'll have to see how this plays out.
I am excited to see the end results of the HAC changes. Overall it still seems like these ships aren't strong enough over the T1 versions to justify the significantly higher cost. I, for one will be doing a lot of testing when the changes go live.
Thanks again!
Some good suggestions here, I approve.
+1 |
Major Killz
SniggWaffe
225
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:07:00 -
[807] - Quote
For about a year or so I've been making jokes about CCP possibly introducing a signature bonus to heavy assault cruisers. You know, when ever conversation on "HACS" come up. Which I find silly because I believe introducing signature bonuses to assault frigates was a mistake. *Cant wait to see what kind of signature changes they'll do to interceptors *
So I was literary bombarded with mails about how I should be working for CCP. I'll put signature bonuses on EVERYTHING and make bank while doing nothing really. This thread is stupid and just about all ship changes bar tech 1 cruisers and Navy cruisers since 2011 have been RTARDO.
Things on the frigate level has been so CRAP it's ridiculous. In an attempt to make all frigates viable CCP reduced it to a handful when there was MUCH MORE competition. In fact I see the same with tech 1 cruisers and battle-cruisers.
I mean if you're not flying a Vexor or Caracal/Bellicose what are you really doing? Remember the changes to damps and tracking disruptor's? SO BAD ITS AMAZING and the funny thing is that those modules were hella OP anyway. The only thing back then was not many people used them. There were dudes using damp celetis and damps on random ships in fleets back then but not as much as now.
Hurricane died because of Teir 3 battle-cruisers and p much the same for the Harbinger and not so much the Drake. I really don't like the Cyclone with HAms. I like how CCP replaced the drake with the armour Drake too (prophecy). So its safe to say the performance scaling of many classes of ships are just REALLY fuc*ed.
Also! Maybe the Vagabond should have a bonus to shield AMOUNT instead of boosting or whatever? Even removing the high slot for another mid even though no neut would be interesting. I've flown all the HACS solo and I'd be interested in the Mumin solo with the changes suggested so far and the same with sacrilege and Cerberus. Can I get some more grid out of the Ishtar and another Low slot please?
Anyway. Good luck with trying to figure this out because I find it difficult myself. The thing is CCP has made this game even more imbalanced. There's serious overlap between Caldari and Minmatar missile ships and the same between amarr and Gallente drone ships. There has been a serious random effort to ignore power creep. Tech 1 frigates that have more damage and tank than tech 2 frigates. The same with tech 1 cruisers and the Overlap between teir 3 battle-cruisers and battleships. CCP seems not to even notice. In fact they suggested they would make changes and ignore these things and come back later on. Well to me its clear there is no intent on doing so and its not even noticed or maybe ignored. With the current meta you would have to do some serious OP to make HACS worth it over tech 1 cruisers much less navy cruisers. You may notice that the proposed ishtar is not much better than a Vexor Navy issue. Infact all the proposed Hacs seem to be on par with or worse than FACTION NAVY CRUISERS.
TDLR: Power creep and overlap needs to be LOOKED AT NOW. FACTION NAVY CRUISERS ARE AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN THE proposed HAC CHANGES. BATTELCRUISERS BAR TIER 3 ARE IN A STRANGE PLACE BAR PROPHECY WHICH IS THE NEW DRAKE (drake still good). Why is CCP's ANSWER TO EVERYTHING A SIGNATURE BONUS?
- Killz
Combat Video Log: http://www.youtube.com/user/kdsalmon/videos - Pantaloon (June 13, 2013) - Pantaloon II: Violins (Jun 23, 2013) |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:10:00 -
[808] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote: 3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.
Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids.
Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore.
I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
140
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:16:00 -
[809] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote: 3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.
Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids. Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore. I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids.
Thing is the brawling isn't what a Vaga is for! Vagabonds, or should I say Minmatar, are the skirmish warfare race.
What the Vaga ACTUALLY needed was more EHP and grid (to beat out the Cynabal) and instead of a shield boost bonus (which is ignored on all Minmatar ships except the Cyclone) a bonus to tracking or agility or something that helped its kiting ability.
A 5th mid would also be called for
All HACs should have 16 slots [except the Ishtar,15 slots] How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
987
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:25:00 -
[810] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote: 3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.
Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids. Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore. I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids.
+2 mids would make it a bit too powerfull when you think about fitting possibilities and how much out of whack shield modules are for a fast kiting ship, but 5 indeed is a must have for any decent shield ship.
The question is, is Vaga really a shield ship or an armor one? current bonus says shield but slots numbers....lol ? *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 60 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |