| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2170
   |
Posted - 2013.08.03 22:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Role[...] [HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.
So why did you give them a role bonus that doesn't help them in that role and still leaves them ouclassed by T1 BCs and even some T1 cruisers, given you didn't bother upgrading their base speeds etc.. to competetive levels?
Jesus - I better start selling off my stack of Curses before you start balancing those...
You know... morons. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2188
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I think the Phantasm has tremendous potential and could be the best of the lot
Omen - good speed/ decent dps/projection
Navy Omen - better than omen in every way, especially with 7 low slots gives lots of options
Zealot - slow/decent dps/good projection and strong tank
Phantasm - Tracking bonus combined with shield tank is nice/ lots of potential .. needs a lot of work though
Caracal - fastest of the lot/ good projection/ decent dps
Navy Caracal - slow/ decent tank ,good damage application more of a brawler
Cerberus - good speed/ good dps/ excellent projection / decent tank
Stupid me - always looked for HACs specialized role and didn't realize that HACs specialize in being slow all that time. Obama - you're a Genius.
Sarcasm aside, If CCP want to equlize ships potential across all skill levels, that's fine with me, but then, they also should require the same effort and materials to produce - i.e. cost the same.
Funny you mention the Phantasm - back when pirate faction cruisers were revamped, the Phantasm was the best one, so CCP stated it should remain unchanged as it already was a good ship and - as we all know - went the way of the Dodo.
I predict the same fate for the Zealot - everything around it gets buffed whilst it gets a role-bonus that is counter-productive to its strenghts and isn't viable due to cap, fitting and cargohold restraints.
You know... morons. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2192
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Go on SiSi, fit one properly and if you can't ask someone to tell you how to, then try to take strong boosters fit pirate implants use OGB then come here tell us how bad your vaga is.
So you mean I have to spend 1.1b on low grade crystals for my 150m Vagabond to be useful? Or pay another $15/month? "Spend 7x more isk than you are on your hull on implants" isn't something everyone is able or willing to do, and its not a valid excuse for leaving the Vagabond in its poor overall condition.
Considering what's wrong with the game currently, Mikey just gave us the perfect description. Nothing wrong with boosters or imps.
If you want to use a HAC It's 'use an OGB or die' - otherwise get slaughtered by a T1 frig (yay - Zealot still getting no drone bay).
You know... morons. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2198
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 21:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:
I doubt that HACs suck, or will not be used/useful for wormholes.
Especially peeking at Deimos/Astarte/Cerberus/Absolution/Nighthawk, all of those offer some of T3s key-attributes without SP-loss and in some cases, even advantages.
Three out of five of those 'HACs' you mentioned are in fact CS - just saying.
And I still don't see the point in a relatively skill-intense & expensive ship class that gets a role bonus which is useful for frigs and whose most distinct specialization is at being slow.
You know... morons. |
| |
|