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) |
BadAssMcKill
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
303
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:44:00 -
[901] - Quote
Blastil wrote: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)
None of the hictors have an active tank bonus, they've all got resist bonuses
http://i.imgur.com/6j6cIZE.gif-á |
The Great Leader
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:44:00 -
[902] - Quote
kil2 m8
Give the 'fleet' HACs +1 mids and an mjd, desperately need something to set them apart from scrub variants. The voice of truth. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4128
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:45:00 -
[903] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote: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 Definitely. I think the role bonus is the key to unlocking a role for HACs that is not easily done by another ship class. If the reduction of MWD is so important than just reduce the sig of all the HACs to compensate. Or give HACs two role bonuses if they are worried about AB HACs becoming too OP. . |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
149
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:46:00 -
[904] - Quote
Doddy wrote: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).
If T3s were removed WHers would be screwed, but more to the point, HACs would still be utter ****
Nobody is looking at these changes going "Wow these suck, I'll keep flying my Loki/Proteus/Legion Fleet" because T3s aren't overpowered (outside of boosting)
HACs suck now, with these changes they will continue to suck, nerfing T3s into purgatory won't make HACs better. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Ja'ho sun
puyg
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:57:00 -
[905] - Quote
[quote=Arazel Chainfire]I Cerberus: The cerb gets another launcher, a fairly nice buff to its CPU and powergrid, a minor buff to its capacitor, a pretty decent buff to its speed, a smidge of drone bay, and its hp's rounded to whole numbers. The powergrid buff is basically enough to allow it to actually fit its new 6th launcher, while the CPU buff gives enough for the launcher and a bit more besides.
Overall, these changes give it a nice bonus to being a kiting HAM ship, with HAM's able to hit out to 45km using standard missiles. Combined with the recent buffs to HAM's, and this ship actually becomes an upgrade to the caracel. In this role, the cerberus gets a 200dps boost, a 15km range boost, and a 15k ish EHP boost over the caracel. Adding to this the bonus for sig radius using MWD, and we may actually see Cerbs in use. The heavy missile build for the cerb still has unnecessarily excessive range, and after the recent changes does fairly pitiful damage. It may still see niche useage, but with the great range the cerb has with HAM's, it probably won't be seen often. I would call this a good change.
[quote]
the cerb has always had this ability and its more of a 75 maybe 100 dps boost not 200. the PG boost is not eough to fit the new launcher fit . it would need another 5 PG to make it fit (barely). |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1011
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:58:00 -
[906] - 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.
I'm personally not a fan of this idea. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
916
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:58:00 -
[907] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:If T3s were removed WHers would be screwed, but more to the point, HACs would still be utter ****
Nobody is looking at these changes going "Wow these suck, I'll keep flying my Loki/Proteus/Legion Fleet" because T3s aren't overpowered (outside of boosting). Name one T3 that does worse at the HAC role than the current HACs.
Proteus - does amazingly better than a deimos Legion - does faily similarly to a zealot Tengu - ...cerberusAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Loki - better vagabond/muninn
T3s are meant to be modular, and not specifically good at anything. They currently work exceptionally better than the T2 counterparts in almost all scenarios. T3s need a nerf back to the original design point of being able to do everything, but not amazingly well. Toshiro Ozuwara > GOon cowards come fight Toshiro Ozuwara > Oh wait, you only camp when you got numberssss
I would fully support account bans by ccp for meta type stuff like this. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
337
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:59:00 -
[908] - Quote
Cearain wrote: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. I'm personally not a fan of this idea.
i also think its a waste of a bonus 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. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1491
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:01:00 -
[909] - Quote
Alivea Starborn wrote:So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus? Please don't screw us Gallente pilots over again. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
359
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:05:00 -
[910] - Quote
Cearain wrote: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. I'm personally not a fan of this idea. I think it's a good, unique and interesting idea. I don't like that the spectrum breaker is indiscriminate in breaking locks of friendly logi or enemies. You may break a lock at an inopportune time and get popped. I really prefer allowing HACs to fit MJDs. At least then kiters could jump away and brawlers could jump in close.
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. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
149
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:06:00 -
[911] - Quote
Lykouleon wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:If T3s were removed WHers would be screwed, but more to the point, HACs would still be utter ****
Nobody is looking at these changes going "Wow these suck, I'll keep flying my Loki/Proteus/Legion Fleet" because T3s aren't overpowered (outside of boosting). Name one T3 that does worse at the HAC role than the current HACs. Proteus - does amazingly better than a deimos Legion - does faily similarly to a zealot Tengu - ...cerberusAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Loki - better vagabond/muninn T3s are meant to be modular, and not specifically good at anything. They currently work exceptionally better than the T2 counterparts in almost all scenarios. T3s need a nerf back to the original design point of being able to do everything, but not amazingly well.
Name one role that T3s replace the T2 variant. I dare you. (Again, boosters aside, I agree T3 boosters need a nerf.)
There isn't one. HACs are replaced by their T1 counterparts or battlecruisers. People don't fly T3s often because of their cost, and people don't fly HACs often because they suck. HACs need an actual buff that makes them worth the price before they will get some use. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:06:00 -
[912] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Alivea Starborn wrote:So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus? Please don't screw us Gallente pilots over again.
I agree 100% I would be more in favor of the other 3 ships with a tanking bonus to have it removed for a diff bonus. |
Leppales Beddelver
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:11:00 -
[913] - Quote
The Ishtar really needs more base targeting range. Right now its max targeting range is 75km while with scout drones operation to 5 and e-war drone interfacing and HACs to 4 you get 77km drone control range. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
223
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:11:00 -
[914] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Alivea Starborn wrote:So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus? Please don't screw us Gallente pilots over again. Eh.... Armor repair bonus on the Ishtar wouldn't be bad (if it had the PG/CPU to support it). Would certainly be better than the "oh hai! ur even moar of a PvE/Blob boat now!". Granted, there are tons better bonuses it could get, but repair is still better than the tracking, control range, or drone bay bonuses.
|
The Ironfist
Nordgoetter Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:17:00 -
[915] - Quote
ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level
Slot layout: 3H(-2), 5M), 6L(+1); 3 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 355 CPU(+70) 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): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145
A slot layout like this and the CPU to actually support a drone boat would make it viable for more then just PVE crapfits.
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Alivea Starborn wrote:So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus? Please don't screw us Gallente pilots over again. Eh.... Armor repair bonus on the Ishtar wouldn't be bad (if it had the PG/CPU to support it). Would certainly be better than the "oh hai! ur even moar of a PvE/Blob boat now!". Granted, there are tons better bonuses it could get, but repair is still better than the tracking, control range, or drone bay bonuses.
No local rep bonus's suck ass because they have no place in fleet pvp at all and I doubt anybody gives a **** about a few people that might use it for solo pvp. |
Arsikere
Karman Lines Syndicate HELM Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:24:00 -
[916] - Quote
I seem to be one of the few here who is actually glad about the new Sac changes. I use it as a PVE ship against angels in lowsec and this makes it quite a bit better than what it is now. There are some situations in which I cant brawl, for the DPS is wayyy too high, and so i swap to heavy missiles. With this new bonus (plus the drone bay increase, THANK YOU!) this is going to be an even more effective PVE ship for what I use it for.
I appreciate the changes to the Deimos as well. It's a ship I've always wished was a bit better, and with the MWD sig decrease, plus the extra mid, it's actually going to be something that I wont tell myself not to buy :P
Good changes guys. It's these little tweaks that make the game, for me, still worth playing. Not just to ships, per se, but little tweaks in general. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1694
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:24:00 -
[917] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Name one role that T3s replace the T2 variant. I dare you. (Again, boosters aside, I agree T3 boosters need a nerf.)
There isn't one. HACs are replaced by their T1 counterparts or battlecruisers. People don't fly T3s often because of their cost, and people don't fly HACs often because they suck. HACs need an actual buff that makes them worth the price before they will get some use.
You are so completely out of touch with the game that I dont even know where to start.
T3's outclass hacs in every single possible way. There is no HAC that does the role of DPS or tank better than a T3 cruiser configured to do the same.
And as for them not being flown often, well...
Aside from the full fleets of t3's that are really common (legions lokis proteus and tengus all have very common large fleet appearances) this BR from yesterday called and said you should probably get a clue:
http://zkillboard.com/related/31002460/201307182200/
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:36:00 -
[918] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
That's because the game design team's whole notion of "T1: generalists, T2: specialists" is crap. First you un-generalized T1 stuff by turning their formerly-generalized bonuses (to RoF or damage, for example) into more specialist bonuses (like falloff on the Stabber, which naturally caters to AC fits rather than arty-- just to give an example) while buffing the **** out of them.
Now that you have basically pigeon-holed the T1 ships into certain fitting paradigms while buffing them a lot, what do T2 ships have to offer? HACs are geared for the same types of setups as their T1 cousins now, only you refuse to allow them to actually perform significantly better in those roles, because that would constitute "power creep."
If a more expensive hull can't do the "same" things significantly better than the T1 hulls, then they need to provide some other kind of benefit, like increased flexibility. Just turning HACs into 10% improvements over a T1 cruiser-- while maintaining their price difference of around 10x-- doesn't offer any compelling reason to use them over a T1 or Navy cruiser. Your balancing strategy sucks.
On the other hand, if HACs performed similarly to a T1 cruiser in terms of primary stats (DPS output, range, speed, EHP, etc) but gained T2 resists (making them better for active tanking and receiving reps) and more flexible fitting options (read: more slots than T1 and more grid / CPU to work with), that might represent a compelling reason to drop 200M isk. They wouldn't be much better at ~*fill in the blank*~ than their T1 equivalents, but maybe you could do ~*blank*~ while also fitting a NOS or a cloak, or a target painter in your extra mid-slot. Whatever.
If you're not really going to allow specialization, then make HACs more adaptable. Alternatively, actually make them good at some specific thing. Hint: a useless role bonus that drops their sig radius from "gigantic" to "huge" while MWDing isn't the right answer. |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:38:00 -
[919] - Quote
It would be better to use the class role as a fine balancing tool rather than having the same flat bonus on all HAC's. Something like Sacrilege needing a little bit more range for HAM's, Ishtar a MWD drone bonus, a signature size reduction for the the brawling Deimos, speed for Vaga & Cerberus and tracking for Eagle & Muninn.
The Deimos is one of the ships that need most help tbh. It's true you can now shield fit one, but the big signature size will make it easier to hit while trying to get close to the opponent. You could replace the MWD capacitor bonus with a repair amount or armor hitpoints bonus (fit 800mm plate so it dosen't make it too slow). |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4128
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:46:00 -
[920] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Cearain wrote: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. I'm personally not a fan of this idea. i also think its a waste of a bonus It is a hundred times better use of a role bonus compared to a mjd bonus. . |
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
570
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:48:00 -
[921] - Quote
Also, just a thought, but some of the ships on this list just suck so horribly that they should probably just be re-imagined from scratch. I know you guys love the word "iterate," but maybe a little reincarnation would be more appropriate in some of these instances. I think you guys need to sit down and actually try and remember how EVE combat works and actually design ships that cater to roles which actually exist. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
69
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:48:00 -
[922] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:It would be better to use the class role as a fine balancing tool rather than having the same flat bonus on all HAC's. Something like Sacrilege needing a little bit more range for HAM's, Ishtar a MWD drone bonus, a signature size reduction for the the brawling Deimos, speed for Vaga & Cerberus and tracking for Eagle & Muninn.
The Deimos is one of the ships that need most help tbh. It's true you can now shield fit one, but the big signature size will make it easier to hit while trying to get close to the opponent. You could replace the MWD capacitor bonus with a repair amount or armor hitpoints bonus (fit 800mm plate so it dosen't make it too slow).
It needs a tank if its a blaster fit, a huge one. Rail fit I think it will be ok, though still questionable |
Major Killz
SniggWaffe
226
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:50:00 -
[923] - Quote
When CCP introduced tier 3 battle-cruiser. Many pilots like myself saw how they'd be used and suggested that CCP should limit tier 3 battle-cruisers to ONLY USING LONG RANGE TURRETS. Of course CCP did not listen.
Inf act I suggested destroyers be limited to long range turrets also. At-least tier 2 destroyers should (Thrasher, Coercer, Catalyst, Cormorant)
CCP is not in fact trying to deal with "power creep" at all and all the cheer leaders who fanned them ON don't seem as happy as they once were with all this "change for the better".
What about overlap? I'm not the only one who notices a Bellicose is as good as a Caracal and same for the Cyclone and Drake. Why is the Talwar better than a Corex with standard missile launchers? Why is the Prophecy and Armageddon overlapping with the Myrmidon and Dominix?
What is imbalance and power-creep? All Frigate and Cruiser ship classes. Since the changes to Navy cruisers why would anyone fly pirate cruisers? Why do tech 1 frigates out preform pirate, navy and tech 2 counterparts?
If these changes were introduced as is; what is the main difference between a Navy Vexor and Ishtar? Resistance however after fitting you'd obtain similar effective hit-points and resistance and SUBSTANTIALLY different hit points. The Navy Vexor has near twice the effective hit-points of the Ishtar and does the SAME THING.
Why would I really purchase a Sacrilege over a Navy Augoror? What about a Vagabond over a Stabber Fleet Issue or Scythe Fleet issue? In fact the Sycthe fleet issue has creped very close to the Cynabal in performance for FAR less of the Cost.
Reducing building cost would not be a bad idea as some have suggested but it would have to be significant. Also I like how players bring up the Zealot they are GOD SENT. AHACS were good back in the war in the borth with the OLD NC and when battleship fleets flew with little to no support. Unlike now with so many webbing ships being fielded. AHACS are a novelty and large fleet of HACS become effective. I've been in and lead Deimos, Sacrilege, Ishtar, Zealot, Cerberus and Eagle fleets. Fun fact. Provided you engage enough ret@rds any fleet concept can be successful and there's an endless supply of terrible in this game. What is the point of all those words? Give the Zealot and all HACS at-least 25mb in drones and the abil to use them. EVERYONE OF THEM (zealot is sh!t and so are most HACS).
Serious question. Is CCP going to use a signature bonus in all future changes to tech 2 ships? Is that the COP OUT NOW? Is that whats HAWT ON THE STREETS THESE DAYS? - Killz
Combat Video Log: http://www.youtube.com/user/kdsalmon/videos - Pantaloon (June 13, 2013) - Pantaloon II: Violins (Jun 23, 2013) |
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
157
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 21:53:00 -
[924] - Quote
Going to make an argument about the role bonus from a different angle.
I'm not sure that the HAC role bonus will have a useful effect as implemented now, especially on the Vagabond.
For everyone else: A ship's signature radius factors into the turret tracking equation -- a decrease in sig radius has the same effect as an equally proportional increase in transversal, for purposes of determining chance-to-hit (and quality of hits). So, taking the Vagabond as an example, an orbit with a 2km/s transversal post-patch will have the same evasive qualities as a 3.5km/s transversal today.
This is basically a free set of Snakes/Halos for purposes of damage mitigation. However, given the typical targets that compete with Vagabonds today, I don't think this constitutes a meaningful change -- especially given the Vagabond's relatively thin tank and engagement range.
For example, most dual-TE Vagabonds firing Barrage have to be within 20km or less to put reasonable damage on target. Imagine that we're engaging a blaster Talos using our Vagabond -- what type of damage we take? Assume we're in an 18km orbit with 2km/s transversal velocity.
On TQ today: * If it loads Null, the Talos has a 78% chance to hit per shot; expected average output of 685dps. * If it loads CNAM, the Talos has a 62% chance to hit per shot; expected average output of 688dps.
After the proposed HAC changes: * If it loads Null, the Talos has a 51% chance to hit per shot; expected average output of 440dps. * If it loads CNAM, the Talos has a 48% chance to hit per shot; expected average output of 535dps.
So, on paper, the role bonus gives us a ~30% reduction in incoming damage. This isn't anything to cough at! However, it's also missing the point -- 450dps incoming is still more than what the Vaga is putting out (~69% chance to hit, expected output of 340dps), and it's more than what the Vaga can tank with its 21k EHP of buffer. It will be forced to disengage.
In short, the proposed role bonus doesn't really change the engagement profile -- i.e. what ships I can't and can't safely engage in a Vagabond. If a ship can currently force a Vaga to disengage on TQ today, they will continue to be able to do so after the patch. The fact that the Vaga takes ~30% less damage is nice... but the remaining 70% is still more than sufficient to drive the Vagabond off. As such, it will continue to be passed over in favor of ships that can engage at longer ranges (i.e. Cynabal) or that have enough tank to make that 30% damage reduction worthwhile (i.e. Deimos).
The AF role bonus gives a similar effective reduction, but their base incoming damage was already small enough -- and their tanks powerful enough -that the role bonus visibly improved the class by virtue of increasing the set of ships they could safely engage. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1318
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:01:00 -
[925] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Harvey James wrote:Cearain wrote: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. I'm personally not a fan of this idea. i also think its a waste of a bonus It is a hundred times better use of a role bonus compared to a mjd bonus. I personally think a 100% AB velocity bonus would be well served on these ships, makes them quite fast while keeping the signature radius low Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Dev Tesla
Autumn Interval
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:06:00 -
[926] - 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!
Bump for a good post to keep it from getting buried.
|
Mutiny Within
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:07:00 -
[927] - Quote
For the love of god please give the Ishtar a little bit more CPU...... |
Tesseya
SUB ZERO. Legion of xXDEATHXx
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:21:00 -
[928] - Quote
Mutiny Within wrote:For the love of god please give the Ishtar a little bit more CPU...... agreed, very-very hard fit ishtar, especially shield. or give one low-slot, anyway place for co-processor. |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:25:00 -
[929] - Quote
Also, serious question time. If they ACTUALLY decided to give the Deimos 4 mids (cringe), what would be the downside to exchanging the (now useless) 5% mwd cap bonus for a 75% reduction in cap battery fitting bonus? That would mean a large T2 battery would take 25cpu & 69pg instead of 100/275, and a medium would be 19/19. Keep in mind, batteries also have a neut reduction bonus (12.5% on large).
This would be the functional equivalent to a nos, but with a large reserve in cap. People who want to shield tank can shield tank. People who want to inject can inject. And people who like flying the way I do (brawling w/ nos), can continue doing so.
Seems like a fair deal IMO. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
339
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 22:25:00 -
[930] - Quote
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.
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 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. |
|
|
|
|
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 |