I really don't get the Sacrilege changes

I've got one which I've fitted up with a full rack of HAMs, Dual Prop and 1600mm plate. I've got bags of PG to spare without any fitting mods and it is cap stable.

So you are given it 120 more PG - what for? Especially now that you have removed the option of guns. It needs CPU not PG.

As for Cap, that cap bonus is completely useless.

So after acknowledging that it is sub par to the other HACs, all you've really done is give it a fair-average drone bay. Not counting the MWD bonus that they all get.

I told you four times that drones are fine, hull bonuses or not.

I also pointed out that tracking isn't what makes gardes dangerous, its the native SIGNATURE RADIUS that makes them lethal, you skipped over that part too.

sig radius of a sentry is irrelevant... sig resolution is 400 like battleship guns i assume you are talking about.
and gardes are obviously not fine ...... 1.0 rads with 80km optimal range is insanely OP it does the Apoc role much better .. as i recall Rise saying the Apoc should swat small ships but actually gardes can do it better than pulse lasers can..

sentries are meant to be like LR guns but gardes track similar to pulses

Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?

[quote=Onictus]

Thats more of a carrier problem then a drone one. Sentries are pretty much fine as a powerful but gimpy weapon, they are just really good with a ton of carriers or in a locked up arena.

stfu about sentries.

**** on these proposed changes more, or just spam quote my wall-o-text of suggested changes.

Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?

Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?

As long as it doesn't mean the high EHP one gets to waste a bonus on it like the ludicrous +% crap .. would make sense to have a brawler and a projector, as long there is some way to mix it up at a price should one choose to (ex. HAMs or HMLs on Sac).

they have an excellent advantage of being able to assign drones and that jamming the ship doens't stop their dps...
all weapons have disadvantages .. mostly they can have their dps stopped in many different ways..

Also the fact that domis are winning every match tells you they are OP and that gardes are better than heavy drones

as a class they should all be geared toward the same style otherwise you might aswell split them into multiple classes which as it stands you probably could...
-snipers
- Vaga .. about the only skirmish one here
- brawlers

yeah because the tier3's aren't snipy enough. We have enough fleet ships in the game. HACS are better suited for fast small scale skirmishes. Stop trying to make every hull fit nicely into large scale fleets

yeah because the tier3's aren't snipy enough. We have enough fleet ships in the game. HACS are better suited for fast small scale skirmishes. Stop trying to make every hull fit nicely into large scale fleets

He only really said their resilience will be boosted which isn't what most people actually want the most

Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?

i would support this...

have a light assault crusier (the attack version)

then heavy assault crusier (the combat version)

though that would require more skills and that just might upset some people but i say **** it... lets get it done.

ABCs arguably do that better.

Not quite. Tier 3's are indeed skirmishy but also a one trick pony and pretty susceptible to tackle. Also they do that better NOW. That's because HACS haven't kept pace to the point they are no longer the best option for skirmishing (90
% due to being to slow)

i would support this...

have a light assault crusier (the attack version)

then heavy assault crusier (the combat version)

though that would require more skills and that just might upset some people but i say **** it... lets get it done.

I am disappointed with these changes in that they do not deliver specialized ships. I had imagined that a T1 ship would be delivered to a naval architect who is then given a specific mission/engagment profile and the instructions to carve off everything not essential to that purpose while greatly enhancing the characteristics that are central to that purpose. Drones, speed, mass, agility, scan res, max targets, sensor strength, shield, armor, hull, slots, bonuses and all of the other characteristics that make up our ships would be examined. Those that are needed for the ships purpose would be enhanced while those not essential would be compromised to make room for the enhancements.

For example, a fast attack cruiser would lose drones as they are not useful for kiting. Perhaps the ships lock time would be penalized while the sensor strength is decreased as well as those also are not eseential to kiting, but the locking range might be increased as that is useful for a kite. At a different shipyard an architect might squeeze the damage and tank of a battlecruiser into the cruiser hull, but at the cost of having the mids to tackle, the drones which so often mean operational flexibility and the scan res to lock quickly. This ship would be as good as a battleruiser at damage, be as mobile as crusier yet lack enough of what a battlecruiser does that it could not possibly be a replacement for either the battlecruiser or the alternative t1 cruiser in general usage. Another architect might create a screening ship which retains or even enhances scan res, has great projection and effectiveness against frigate sized vessels but at the cost of raw damage. Yet another shipyard might take up the task of creating a ship that could dance and weave through an enemy camp with confidence because it is less vulnerable to the scrams and webs which stop other ships. Each of these examples would be a useful ship for a specialized purpose while retaining the need for the more generalized T1 ship.

In the rock-paper-scissors world of eve each of these ships would have a purpose and be very good at that purpose, while having compromised the ability to be good or even passable at other tasks. This is what specialized means to me. The current batch of ships is neither particularly interesting nor particularly specialized.

I'm currently chatting with CSM and some other game design folk about working on the Ishtar a bit. Probably no update on what we come to as a conclusion until tomorrowish.

Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?

There would be no reason for a new skill set, just look at force recons and combat recons, same skill 2 different styles of the same ship

Actually I like this and was thinking something similar.

Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship.

Inty Hacs

Cerb
Zealot
Vaga
Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.

Assault Frig Hacs

Eagle
Muninn
Sac
Vexor <- again, unsure on this one


And give each class bonuses to operate each role.

Actually I like this and was thinking something similar.

Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship.

Inty Hacs

Cerb
Zealot
Vaga
Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.

Assault Frig Hacs

Eagle
Muninn
Sac
Ishtar <- again, unsure on this one


And give each class bonuses to operate each role.