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) |

Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
84
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:42:00 -
[871] - Quote
I have to concur that the HAC changes could definately look at being totally reworked. I liked the suggestion about an AB bonus, rather than a MWD bonus. generally speaking, there seem not ot be a defined line of HAC's from attack cruisers to attack HACs, and from combat cruisers to combat HACs.
Many good ideas from rise and fozzie, but i think you could definately do much better!
Cudos though, I know HACs are kind of out of both of your comfort zones, as i know for certain Rise commented that he doesn't fly HAC's much back in his podcasts. |

Sol Mortis
An Heroes
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:43:00 -
[872] - Quote
These changes are just okay. Biggest problems:
Deimos! Why does it still have the stupid microwarpdrive cap penalty bonus. You got rid of that bonus on the thorax and just made its cap better. if you are rolling the Vaga speed bonus into its base speed like you did with the Stabber you should roll the MWD cap bonus into the Deimos like you did with the Thorax and give it a tracking bonus instead.
Also I don't like the Vaga shield boost bonus, it should be tracking instead. I might seem a little tracking crazy, but it is a trait that can really help these ships be more maneuverable in comparison to the similarly priced superior brawlers that are faction battlecruisers. |

Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
356
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:43:00 -
[873] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. There would almost have to be some shift in the costs, considering that they wouldn't (many aren't) be worth the cost they currently are or will be post rebalancing. 10:1 increase in cost over a T1 for similar performance won't cut it.
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. |

Nabuch Sattva
The Green Cross Spaceship Samurai
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:43:00 -
[874] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: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.
Most interesting proposal so far. +1
|

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
335
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:46:00 -
[875] - Quote
Blastil wrote:I have to concur that the HAC changes could definately look at being totally reworked. I liked the suggestion about an AB bonus, rather than a MWD bonus. generally speaking, there seem not ot be a defined line of HAC's from attack cruisers to attack HACs, and from combat cruisers to combat HACs.
Many good ideas from rise and fozzie, but i think you could definately do much better!
Cudos though, I know HACs are kind of out of both of your comfort zones, as i know for certain Rise commented that he doesn't fly HAC's much back in his podcasts.
The annoying thing is the combat role is a waste of time for HAC's there is already HIC's that follow the T1 combat cruisers... the only line not followed is the T2 Attack cruiser line.
Also there is a list of ships that perform the combat role better and for less cost than HAC's ... 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
146
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:47:00 -
[876] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:I wouldn't say that T3s have high speed, I'd say they have low speed... medium DPS, high to med tank CSs should have High DPS, med to high tank (fleet boosters should have a high tank), middle to low speed HACs should have med DPS, low* tank, medium to high speed
* you're definition of low is what HACs should have Surely you're joking! (Sorry, couldn't resist :P) Proteus can get over 1000 dps (unheated--1130 heated) with 150k ehp and travel at a brisk 1750 m/s oh. This most certainly is high dps, high tank and--ok, I'll give it to you--medium speed. I think: take these figures and distribute them among the ships that perform similar function (of putting out damage). HACs are a natural fit for the damage, trading damage for tank, CSs should get the tank both to perform as command ships and tanky damage dealers, but of course, giving up damage and being lowest of the three, and T3s, due to their chameleon nature, should come somewhere in the middle of the rest. I mean, I think T3s would have to be looked at, since the high penalty for their superior performance now is losing a skill--actual physical real-world training time--so it does make some sense to have them in their current state. So maybe a heavy nerf would necessitate them losing that feature.
Sorry, rephrased that to be clearer.
Don't worry about the pun, we get that a lot, and we use it whenever we do something stupid (We evicted a guy with a Phoenix cause our FC decided he liked it.)
CSs should be a bit worse than T3s are now, and T3s should be about where the Loki is now. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
335
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:49:00 -
[877] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Malcanis wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:One thing first:
Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.
70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's... increase it to 85km or more
Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead. Can you try to convice CCP to make someone rebalance the ABC's that doesn't have a massive hardon for the Talos?
I would definitely like to see ABC's get the nerf they should have got first time around.. also encourage them to make them T2 please... you know it makes sense :) 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. |

elitatwo
Congregatio
90
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:49:00 -
[878] - Quote
Baren wrote:nikar galvren wrote:The question that came to my mind when I read the proposed changes was "What do they think these ships DO?"
With the rest of the tiericide initiative, there has been clear roles assigned to hull groupings; you have logi hulls, attack(DPS) hulls, combat(tank) hulls, EWAR, etc. The changes to hulls based upon their defined 'role' were well done (imo).
However, looking at these proposed changes, I'm left wondering. Is there any sort of unified 'vision' for the roles that HACs should fill? The scattered, seemingly random bonuses imply that this is not the case...
I for one, would like to see CCP step back, determine actual Roles (capital 'R') for these hulls and then give them bonuses that allow them to excell IN THAT ROLE. I'd rather see it done right than see 2/3 of a promising hull class go unused. I can be patient. I really can.
40+ pages makes for a lot of reading, and I'm sorry if these suggestions have been made before, but perhaps they're worth re-stating:
1) Why do the HACs not get the same +2 slots that the AFs got over the T1 linup? +2 slots would go toward fitting consistency, and be an attractive gain to offset the increased training time and ISK cost of the hull.
2) The blanket "make MWD awesome" role bonus makes me sad, and doesn't make MWD awesome. I'd much rather see a "+100% to AB speed" if you feel a compelling need to have some sort of speed boost bonus. NONE of them (seriously, go look) have sigs that are smaller than their T1 variants (only the Ishtar manages to break even). Even with the proposed sig bloom reduction, the modified sig is easily large enough to be whelped by large guns. At least with an AB speed bonus, then sig returns as a factor. The "smaller and faster" argument only works if the ship is actually smaller AND faster. Instead of a blanket speed/sig bloom bonus though, it would be nice to see a more interesting Role bonus - immune to webs, 50% reduction in enemy energy neut effectiveness, or some individual role bonus tailored to the hull.
3) There's two (obvious) roles that present themselves: 'Damage' and 'Tank'. Each race should have one of each, but there is no reason why they would fulfil the roles the same way from race to race.
Let's take a look at the 'Damage' role. Ships in this role should either do more damage than their T1 or Navy variant, OR have better damage projection. All other areas should be roughly equivalent to T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Damage' role: Zealot - Damage Projection (And already pretty balanced, I think everyone will agree.) You can add an extra utility high slot to bring it up to 16. Cerberus - Damage Amplification. As a weapons system, missiles have plusses and minuses when compared to turrets, but a specialized Missile damage platform should be able to trade-off the delayed damage application inherent in missiles for extra-large fireworks. An extra low slot or utility high for the 16th. Deimos - Damage Amplification. A blaster-fit Diemos should be terrifying once it get's into range, a rail-fit Deimos should hit like a brick. Why not 6 highs with 6 turrets to rain death? Munin - Damage Amplification. Decent base speed, good gunship-oriented bonuses already. The specialization that I'd like to see would be +1 high slot and +1 turret.
Keeping in mind the "specialized" nature of these hulls, the 'Tank' role would excell at either repairing or absorbing damage, but not have much better stats in all other areas over the T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Tank' role: Sacrilege - Super-heavy; cap recharge bonus (love it) lends itself well to dual armor reppers. Already does anemic DPS, so no issue there. The drones can be set at 1 flight of lights, and add the 6th low slot. Eagle - Rail buffs will provide the same DPS as other rail hulls, could replace one of the optimal bonuses for a shield HP bonus, or a shield boost bonus. You can leave the utility high slot in to bring the slot count to 16, which gives some versatility to the hull. Ishtar - The oddball of the group, I have to agree that the +50m3 drone bay bonus is... well, kinda dumb. This could easily be switched to an armor HP bonus or a drone MWD speed boost without losing the ideal of the "completely dedicated drone carrier". +1 low slot and FFS +some CPU! PLEASE! Vagabond - Part speed tank, part shield tank (soon), let's see +1 mid slot to harden things up. I'm not going to compare to the Cynabal, since the faction cruisers have yet to be re-balanced, and everyone already knows.
There's more I could add, but I think I've taken up enough of your time for right now. Thanks for all the good work! I DO LIKE WHERE YOUR GOING WITH THIS I hope CCP is reading this thread Making a setting clear and distinct roles for the ships would make sense, and would follow CCP's Tiericide approach. NOTHING CCP IS DOING WITH THE HACS IS FOLLOWING THE TIERICIDE APPROACH
Dude, your caps lock key is broken but I agree.
Dear CCP, tell us what we are supposed to kill with HACS so we could give you better answers to "can those ships do it or not?" |

M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
146
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:51:00 -
[879] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit.
100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good.
With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |

elitatwo
Congregatio
90
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:54:00 -
[880] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. 100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good. With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship.
Funny facts, The baseprice of HACS was supposed to at > 40m isk but nullsec alliences are like forth world countries and all inhabitants die of starvation on a daily basis... |
|

Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:59:00 -
[881] - Quote
Giving the ships an extra slot might make them worth it. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|

War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2400
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:00:00 -
[882] - Quote
Role Bonus: +1 slot, defined as high/med/low at manufacture time. (Picked by the builders, or the blueprint)
Each one version gets a fancy skin from a different NPC corporation. (3 skins per ship)
Then fix the glaring errors with Ishtar CPU, and other little things in this thread, and call it a day.
(I also liked the MJD idea)
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |

M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
147
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:00:00 -
[883] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. 100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good. With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship. Funny facts, The baseprice of HACS was supposed to at > 40m isk but nullsec alliences are like forth world countries and all inhabitants die of starvation on a daily basis...
...what? Only the first part of that post made any sense.
Nullsec alliances are hardly poverty stricken, they almost all run massive SRP programs.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |

Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
86
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:02:00 -
[884] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: there is already HIC's that follow the T1 combat cruisers...
just... no.
HICs aren't combat cruisers. They're highly specialized ships that literally trade DPS for anti-capital support. attempting to turn them into combat cruisers would be a real mistake. HACS are the place where we'll get to see both ship lines extended properly.
|

elitatwo
Congregatio
91
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:04:00 -
[885] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:elitatwo wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. 100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good. With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship. Funny facts, The baseprice of HACS was supposed to at > 40m isk but nullsec alliences are like forth world countries and all inhabitants die of starvation on a daily basis../sarcasm ...what? Only the first part of that post made any sense. Nullsec alliances are hardly poverty stricken, they almost all run massive SRP programs.
Damn site ate my post |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
336
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:06:00 -
[886] - Quote
Blastil wrote:Harvey James wrote: there is already HIC's that follow the T1 combat cruisers... just... no. HICs aren't combat cruisers. They're highly specialized ships that literally trade DPS for anti-capital support. attempting to turn them into combat cruisers would be a real mistake. HACS are the place where we'll get to see both ship lines extended properly.
combat doesn't always mean high dps ... high tank is what combat ships normally have.. HIC's are the tankiest cruisers and also they have 16 slots.... they are easily buffed to have more dps too 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. |

Vic Teishikuro
Rescue Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:07:00 -
[887] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:elitatwo wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit. 100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good. With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship. Funny facts, The baseprice of HACS was supposed to at > 40m isk but nullsec alliences are like forth world countries and all inhabitants die of starvation on a daily basis... ...what? Only the first part of that post made any sense. Nullsec alliances are hardly poverty stricken, they almost all run massive SRP programs.
its ok M1k3y, surely he was joking about calling null sec alliances poor |

Zarnak Wulf
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
1263
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:07:00 -
[888] - Quote
I don't relish the task of balancing these ships. You have to find a happy spot while competing with Combat BC, ABC, T3 cruisers, T1 Cruisers, and even navy and faction Cruisers.
HACS should be the go to cruisers for DPS and Tank. That is their specialization. They should bring more to the table in this arena then a strategic cruiser. To put it another way they should almost have the firepower and tank of a combat BC. They should be more mobile then that but less then the T1 cruisers. Lastly, any area where there is an overlap in function between ABC and HACs the latter should be repurposed.
I'm loath to throw numbers or bonuses around as there is too much of that going on in this thread. If I had to give an example though I'd pick Minmatar -
Vaga - swap the shield boost bonus for a shield resist bonus - ala Broadsword Muninn - swap the optimal bonus for a second damage bonus.
Just examples and not anything I'm particularly attached to. |

Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
86
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:13:00 -
[889] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Blastil wrote:Harvey James wrote: there is already HIC's that follow the T1 combat cruisers... just... no. HICs aren't combat cruisers. They're highly specialized ships that literally trade DPS for anti-capital support. attempting to turn them into combat cruisers would be a real mistake. HACS are the place where we'll get to see both ship lines extended properly. combat doesn't always mean high dps ... high tank is what combat ships normally have.. HIC's are the tankiest cruisers and also they have 16 slots.... they are easily buffed to have more dps too
right, this suggestion is exactly the suggestion I'm trying to shoot down. HIC's are perfectly fine right now, beyond the fact that the active rep bonus is kind of useless on a HIC for the two which have them. HICs shouldn't have damage. They would become ridiculously OP solo ships if that happened. (yes, i personally would fly an infinity point, dual webbed, tanked to **** Phobos in 0.0 ANY DAY OF THE WEEK over any other ship) |

Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:15:00 -
[890] - Quote
IMO
Hacs should have better tank and dps than navy faction cruisers, but generally not as agile or fast.
Pirate faction are even faster than navy faction, same dps as hacs but perhaps not the tank
Hacs faster and more agile than bcs but not quite the dps and tank.
The resist bonuses mean hacs are a good choice for active tanking bonuses.
This applys to frigates as well. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|

Alivea Starborn
Trade Consortium
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:16:00 -
[891] - Quote
So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus?
There's an Amarr HAC with an armor resistance bonus, a Caldari HAC with a shield resist bonus, and a Minmatar HAC with a shield boost bonus, but no Gallente repair bonus. |

Cardavet
Jester's Hole
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:17:00 -
[892] - Quote
and i thought the negativity over the indy changes were bad. so when can we expect the revised/round 2 of the hac changes? |

Blodhgarm Dethahal
Transcendent Sedition Dustm3n
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:18:00 -
[893] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Malcanis wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:One thing first:
Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.
70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's... increase it to 85km or more
Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead. Can you try to convice CCP to make someone rebalance the ABC's that doesn't have a massive hardon for the Talos? I would definitely like to see ABC's get the nerf they should have got first time around.. also encourage them to make them T2 please... you know it makes sense :)
I'd have to agree ABCs needed a nerf, namely removing the Talos' Drone Bay, none of the others have them and blasters already have the best tracking in the game, bullshit in my opinion. -Bl+¦d
Wormholes are the best Space.. |

elitatwo
Congregatio
91
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:20:00 -
[894] - Quote
Cardavet wrote:and i thought the negativity over the indy changes were bad. so when can we expect the revised/round 2 of the hac changes?
CCP Rise said after the weekend because they are busy with the tournament at the moment. |

Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
390
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:22:00 -
[895] - Quote
The Djego wrote:For clarification:
Sacrilege
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault Missile damage 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 15% velocity to Heavy Assault Missiles 7.5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+120), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2300(+212) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount)\Recharge : 1650(+25) / 214s(-54) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+17) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15 / 15 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 15 Radar Signature radius: 140
This is a nice suggestion
BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |

Ben Yahtzee Croshaw
Drop Down Menus Raisin Bread Dragons
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:25:00 -
[896] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: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. Easily the best idea by far.  |

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1144
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:27:00 -
[897] - Quote
Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote:Harvey James wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Malcanis wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:One thing first:
Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.
70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's... increase it to 85km or more
Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead. Can you try to convice CCP to make someone rebalance the ABC's that doesn't have a massive hardon for the Talos? I would definitely like to see ABC's get the nerf they should have got first time around.. also encourage them to make them T2 please... you know it makes sense :) I'd have to agree ABCs needed a nerf, namely removing the Talos' Drone Bay, none of the others have them and blasters already have the best tracking in the game, bullshit in my opinion.
They should also have a tracking penalty.. moving at more than 1500 m/s can already negate almost all possible transversal. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |

nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:29:00 -
[898] - Quote
Ben Yahtzee Croshaw wrote:Marlona Sky wrote: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. Easily the best idea by far. 
Continuing to run with the idea of roles, why not have the 'combat/tank' hulls have the Target Spectrum Breaker role, and the 'attack/DPS' hulls have a role bonus to fit MJD? This allows combat hulls to engage multiple targets, and attack roles to Hit&Run effectively.
EDIT: minor typo |

Doddy
Dark-Rising
858
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:39:00 -
[899] - Quote
Well these changes clearly show that t3 is going to be almightily nerfed. If you took T3 out the game most of these hacs would have a role and purpose. Of course they wont take it out of the game, but they will nerf it hard while probably making it more adaptable (i.e. easier to change subs/rigs etc). |

Chimpface Holocaust
Zarnfell
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:42:00 -
[900] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:The question that came to my mind when I read the proposed changes was "What do they think these ships DO?"
With the rest of the tiericide initiative, there has been clear roles assigned to hull groupings; you have logi hulls, attack(DPS) hulls, combat(tank) hulls, EWAR, etc. The changes to hulls based upon their defined 'role' were well done (imo).
However, looking at these proposed changes, I'm left wondering. Is there any sort of unified 'vision' for the roles that HACs should fill? The scattered, seemingly random bonuses imply that this is not the case...
I for one, would like to see CCP step back, determine actual Roles (capital 'R') for these hulls and then give them bonuses that allow them to excell IN THAT ROLE. I'd rather see it done right than see 2/3 of a promising hull class go unused. I can be patient. I really can.
40+ pages makes for a lot of reading, and I'm sorry if these suggestions have been made before, but perhaps they're worth re-stating:
1) Why do the HACs not get the same +2 slots that the AFs got over the T1 linup? +2 slots would go toward fitting consistency, and be an attractive gain to offset the increased training time and ISK cost of the hull.
2) The blanket "make MWD awesome" role bonus makes me sad, and doesn't make MWD awesome. I'd much rather see a "+100% to AB speed" if you feel a compelling need to have some sort of speed boost bonus. NONE of them (seriously, go look) have sigs that are smaller than their T1 variants (only the Ishtar manages to break even). Even with the proposed sig bloom reduction, the modified sig is easily large enough to be whelped by large guns. At least with an AB speed bonus, then sig returns as a factor. The "smaller and faster" argument only works if the ship is actually smaller AND faster. Instead of a blanket speed/sig bloom bonus though, it would be nice to see a more interesting Role bonus - immune to webs, 50% reduction in enemy energy neut effectiveness, or some individual role bonus tailored to the hull.
3) There's two (obvious) roles that present themselves: 'Damage' and 'Tank'. Each race should have one of each, but there is no reason why they would fulfil the roles the same way from race to race.
Let's take a look at the 'Damage' role. Ships in this role should either do more damage than their T1 or Navy variant, OR have better damage projection. All other areas should be roughly equivalent to T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Damage' role: Zealot - Damage Projection (And already pretty balanced, I think everyone will agree.) You can add an extra utility high slot to bring it up to 16. Cerberus - Damage Amplification. As a weapons system, missiles have plusses and minuses when compared to turrets, but a specialized Missile damage platform should be able to trade-off the delayed damage application inherent in missiles for extra-large fireworks. An extra low slot or utility high for the 16th. Deimos - Damage Amplification. A blaster-fit Diemos should be terrifying once it get's into range, a rail-fit Deimos should hit like a brick. Why not 6 highs with 6 turrets to rain death? Munin - Damage Amplification. Decent base speed, good gunship-oriented bonuses already. The specialization that I'd like to see would be +1 high slot and +1 turret.
Keeping in mind the "specialized" nature of these hulls, the 'Tank' role would excell at either repairing or absorbing damage, but not have much better stats in all other areas over the T1/Navy variants.
Proposed hulls for the 'Tank' role: Sacrilege - Super-heavy; cap recharge bonus (love it) lends itself well to dual armor reppers. Already does anemic DPS, so no issue there. The drones can be set at 1 flight of lights, and add the 6th low slot. Eagle - Rail buffs will provide the same DPS as other rail hulls, could replace one of the optimal bonuses for a shield HP bonus, or a shield boost bonus. You can leave the utility high slot in to bring the slot count to 16, which gives some versatility to the hull. Ishtar - The oddball of the group, I have to agree that the +50m3 drone bay bonus is... well, kinda dumb. This could easily be switched to an armor HP bonus or a drone MWD speed boost without losing the ideal of the "completely dedicated drone carrier". +1 low slot and FFS +some CPU! PLEASE! Vagabond - Part speed tank, part shield tank (soon), let's see +1 mid slot to harden things up. I'm not going to compare to the Cynabal, since the faction cruisers have yet to be re-balanced, and everyone already knows.
There's more I could add, but I think I've taken up enough of your time for right now. Thanks for all the good work!
+1
This is the best, most concise assessment of the current flaws in the proposed HAC rebalance in the whole thread.
CCP, if you read and take direction from one post here, make it this one.
However, I would like to reverse the roles of the Vagabond and the Munin, replace the shield boost bonus on the Vagabond with a second dmg or refire bonus making it a fast High-dps close-range brawler and add a 7th low slot instead of the extra turret on the Munin for a decent armor tank
|
|
|
|
|
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 |