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 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:14:00 -
[331] - Quote
the eagle and the munnin really need thaty targeting range bonus. not gonna need the extra sebo to go out to max range |
Arushia
Nova Labs New Eden Research.
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:15:00 -
[332] - Quote
I like the range bonus on the Sacrilege, and finally the Ishtar gets a decent CPU.
I still think both of them could swap a mid for a low though.
Tired of lab queues in high-sec? Check out New Eden Research |
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:16:00 -
[333] - Quote
still not happy you're pidgeon holing the deimos into a shield tanked kiter with 250mm rails. on the up side, at least it'll see some action after collecting dust in my hangar for years.
no chance of at least keeping the EHP where it is?
navy exeq still outperforms it in the brawler role near as I can tell. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:22:00 -
[334] - Quote
These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
374
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:24:00 -
[335] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:I see why you dropped the Diemos hp, it keeps everything around the 5k hp mark (before resists etc), except the vaga which has speed for tank; but with the vaga you've shown that you consider individual usage when looking at hp.
I fail to see why this fell by the wayside with the Diemos hp drop, it hardly seems justified given the closer range kill-or-be-killed combat style the ship supports. I think this alone will help kill the Diemos as a close range brawler. If that's the intention then fair enough, the rail change may accomodate this, but it is a favourite playstyle and I'll be sad to see it fade a little more into the background with such an iconic ship. It's quite obvious that CCP is shifting these ships into kiting roles (since we all know how much Gallentean playstyle is to kite things around), ushered in by the medium turrets buff, and evidenced by the armor/hull changes going to shield, increased speed, MWD sig bloom reduction, addition of midslots, etc. What CCP is missing is that people still won't fly these overpriced HACs when a T1 does the same paper tank/high dps builds and can also kite. It's sad that these ships are becoming a mish-mash of the same with the push toward long-range weapons systems and MWD uses. I guess T3s will still be the go-to for brawling setups, and when they get a treatment, I'm sure we'll use BCs again.
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:You could devote the entire ship to a sniper role, but give it cannot clean kill its targets it needs to survive at range ... introduce medium micro jump drives and give the Eagle bonuses for its use - take away the shield % bonus or one of the optimal bonuses The true gist here is that HACs should have been given a fitting bonus so they could use MJDs. Giving them MJDs would allow for both sniper and brawler setups to thrive, with each getting a use to make- or collapse-range. What else this unique bonus would allow for is a ship that is truly unique and different from its T1, BC, T3 counterparts. As much as a Thorax would like to, it could never use an MJD. It would have been nice to have the option on the Diemost so it could have had some compelling reason to pay so much more for such a miniscule performance bonus. 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. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1208
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:25:00 -
[336] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So...
Bad... BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:26:00 -
[337] - Quote
I'm happy with the new Cerberus.
Thank you. |
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:31:00 -
[338] - Quote
I still don't dig it. Breaking it down by change:
The capacitor changes are certainly nice, but a lot of the HACs didn't have problems with capacitor:
- Sacrilege and Muninn don't need cap for their guns
- Almost all mainstream Zealot fits are AB fits and were capstable before the changes
- Deimos was cap-stable before the changes
- The Vagabond needed to pulse the MWD anyways to effectively deal damage.
(And on a side note, it still doesn't help against ships facing neuts. Especially with the recent Armageddon buffs, neuts are becoming more common on the battlefield again, and three HACs have lost their option highs. The only real beneficiaries of the capacitor change are the Cerberus, and people using the Vagabond in a non-DPS heavy tackling role.)
The lock ranges are somewhat nice, if only because it means that the Beam Zealot no longer needs a sebo. But otherwise, they're non-contributory. At best, it gives them a tiny bit more resilience versus damps... but not enough. Even with the Cerberus and its absurd 118km lock range (130km in fleet), it only takes one damp to drop it to 49km, and two for 24km.
Now, breaking it down by ship:
- Sacrilege: My thoughts on it largely remain the same as in the first pass. It's good -- probably the one HAC that benefited most from the first round of changes -- and its capacitor is still amazingly good for a ship with no cap-based weapons. Having a Caracal's missile range just makes it that much better.
- Zealot: While the changes to it are nice, it still has the same problems as it did after the first pass:
-- Soloers are going to skip it due to no drones, no option high, and only 3 mid slots -- 200-man fleets are going to prefer Legions due to the superior tank and sensor strength -- Small gang fleets are still going to use it in the same fit as before
About the only benefit from the second round of changes is that AB HPL zealots are now capstable. But, frankly, they're an AB boat and only have one mid-slot free, so they should be. Really, if I could ask for one change to the Zealot, it'd be to bump its base power grid up to 1260 (+80). This would address the fact that every PvP armor Zealot fit being used today requires at least one ACR.
- Cerberus: The improved capacitor eliminates several of my concerns from the previous round -- at least it can kite now. The extra grid is also a HUGE welcome: a HAM fit with two LSEs is now quite easy.
It is still a very thinly tanked hull -- 44k EHP with four tank mods and two tank rigs -- and I suspect that both small and large gangs will continue to prefer the Tengu for its far superior tank. However, I think soloers will now love this ship. It might make a good close skirmisher at very small gang sizes. Perhaps, bump up the base shields a bit more?
- Eagle: Continues to be junk. The extra grid and capacitor is welcome, but the ship continues to be pigeonholed into a single role: that of the far skirmisher, where it competes with the Tornado/Naga/Talos and the Muninn.
Despite the improvements in power grid, you still need either an ACR or an RCU2 to fit a full rack of railguns and two LSEs, so in the end, the changes only afford us fitting a DCU instead of a PDS. We still end up in the same space we were before: it's a Naga competitor with twice the cost, half the DPS, half the alpha, but triple the tank.
About the only argument I can make for it now is that with Loki links it might be small enough to ignore bombing runs... which is not a great selling point. I am not comfortable with a hull that is only interesting for a single role in a single fleet comp, especially when its nearest competitors require half the SP investment and half the cost. (And whose cost doesn't fluctuate with nullsec politics.)
- Deimos: Still problematic. The increased grid is a welcome gift, as it at least allows you to fit MWD+1600+ions smoothly. However, I think the Deimos is still in search of a role.
Armor setups continue to suffer from the loss of the option high -- the lack of offensive cap warfare (neut) makes it less appealing to gangs than before, and the lack of defensive cap warfare (nos) makes it less useful to soloers. Shield setups continue to suffer from the lack of tracking -- you can't track with rails on TQ today, and you track worse with the new medium rails. Even blaster Deimoses today need to be careful with tracking; Null and Void generally can't be used while orbiting.
With the new capacitor changes, the MWD cap bonus makes even less sense. The ship was already cap stable while running MWD+tackle+guns before; it's even more so now. This makes me reluctant to put injectors in the new fourth mid, because they serve purely as an anti-neut option; before, I could use a nosferatu for anti-neut.
Why not replace the MWD cap bonus with a weak (3-5%) tracking bonus? This would make shield rail Deimoses viable as a slower, harder-hitting alternative to Vagabond/Cerberus, and simultaneously improve the armor Deimos' flexibility by allowing it to use Void/Null ammo effectively.
(continued in next post)
|
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:31:00 -
[339] - Quote
(continued from previous post)
- Ishtar: The gentle nerf to sentry drone ranges isn't a huge deal -- it's about a 5km loss on Gardes. The extra grid and CPU is certainly pleasant -- you can pack on a T2 plate now comfortably.
However, the bonuses don't make a ton of sense to me; it strikes me as a ship whose bonuses are entirely dependent on usage. For people using the Ishtar with heavies (especially the so-called "AFKtar" PvE fits), there is no benefit to them training the HAC skill past one. People using sentries, on the other hand, must train it to 5. It's a strange dichotomy, and one that's not easily explained.
What I would have preferred to see is tying all drone bonuses to HAC, and put the drone control range bonus on Gallente Cruiser. Alternately, leave the Ishtar's bonuses focused on sentries, and give the Gila some bonuses focused on Heavies.
- Muninn: As above, so below. It wasn't really making use of its cap, so the cap changes don't change anything; it wasn't threatened by ECM, so the sensor strength changes don't change anything. The previous round changed almost nothing about this ship, either.
- Vagabond: Still subpar.
The extra capacitor is nice, certainly (~8min runtime now for MWD+point), and I admit that the sig reduction is going to reduce its incoming DPS. Bringing it's speed back up is nice too. But, I still firmly believe that the shield tank bonus is not useful.
Even if we take Rise's example of LASB+LSE, there's two fundamental concerns:
First, you have to run the LASB for at least five cycles in order to have the same aggregate HP as 2x LSE, and it's an effective tank of 400dps. Meanwhile, you have 20k EHP of total buffer, 15k of which is in the shields. This yields the following breakdown:
- < 400dps incoming: You stay alive, up until you run out of cap boosters
- 400-700dps incoming: You will eventually die (especially when you run out of boosters), but it'll be better than 2x LSE
- > 700dps incoming: You'll die faster than you would have with 2x LSE.
Lots of ships put out that much these days: any of the Tier3 BCs, any BS, and most of the Vagabond's HAC brethren.
And, what do we give up in order to fit that? The extra CPU that's been added to the Vagabond is nice, but CPU hasn't been its problem -- it's grid. The Vagabond has always been very tight on grid, and a LASB+LSE fit makes it worse. In order to make it fit, you have to do one of three painful choices:
- Use a 3% grid implant (i.e. no snakes)
- Use an ACR rig (i.e. you give up either a polycarb or a resist rig)
- Downgrade two of your five guns from 220mms to Dual 180mms.
It's just not a good tradeoff.
I'm glad that you guys acknowledged that the desirability (or lack thereof) of the Vagabond is directly tied to the desirability of the Cynabal. However, "the Cynabal is getting nerfed Soon (TM)" doesn't really help us now. At best, all it means is: "Market manipulators should stockpile Vagabonds, even though they're ****, because eventually they'll become a one-eyed king in a land of blind men."
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
374
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:32:00 -
[340] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship.... I don't know why we'd want a Gallente ship to reflect the Gallente play style of in-your-face with blasters....
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. |
|
kraiklyn Asatru
T.R.I.A.D
322
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:32:00 -
[341] - Quote
Dear Rise,
CCP wrote: Name: Vagabond Hull: Stabber Class Role: Heavy Assault Cruiser
The fastest cruiser invented to date, this vessel is ideal for hit-and-run ops where both speed and firepower are required. Its on-board power core may not be strong enough to handle some of the larger weapons out there, but when it comes to guerilla work, the Vagabond can't be beat.
Developer: Thukker Mix
Improving on the original Stabber design, Thukker Mix created the Vagabond as a cruiser-sized skirmish vessel equally suited to defending mobile installations and executing lightning strikes at their enemies. Honoring their tradition of building the fastest vessels to ply the space lanes, they count the Vagabond as one of their crowning achievements.
Minmatar Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 5% bonus to max velocity per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff range and 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage per level
Could you at least fix the text for the new ASB vagabond, its annoyingly incorrect for so long now. |
Yuri Lebbie
Jester's Hole
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:33:00 -
[342] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Giving them MJDs would allow for both sniper and brawler setups to thrive, with each getting a use to make- or collapse-range. What else this unique bonus would allow for is a ship that is truly unique and different from its T1, BC, T3 counterparts.
While this would be an awesome change to give T2s something to make them unique, and I think would be a good idea, but I do not think that they will do this. A bit too radical of a change from what they are putting together plans for. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:34:00 -
[343] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
132
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:35:00 -
[344] - Quote
Is there no one else going orgasmic over those additional 40ish % cap on a vaga? I only correct my own spelling. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4417
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:38:00 -
[345] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Rise, why did you listen to everything except the MWD bloom reduction feedback? It is a useless bonus as it even still makes the ships too large to avoid damage form BS sized weapons and they are still to slow to out run the tracking. Apparently it's enough to mitigate 25% of the damage sitting still. "shrug" To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
307
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:38:00 -
[346] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95
Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:39:00 -
[347] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship.... I don't know why we'd want a Gallente ship to reflect the Gallente play style of in-your-face with blasters....
totally right? silly gal for actually wanting a in your face blaster setup. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
302
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:43:00 -
[348] - Quote
Feedback:
Sacrilege: Not terrible. I would fly it in this proposed form however I'm not sure that utility high is completely necessary. I would prefer that high to be moved to a low but otherwise it looks very nice.
Zealot: The medium LR turret rebalance helps beam fits a little however can I haz some CPU and maybe some drones pleaze? Just an extra 30 terraflops and 15 M/bit would make this ship fantastic.
Cerberus: I think this ship needs to lose the drone bay or at the very least reduced to two lights from three . Otherwise this looks very nice.
Eagle: This thing looks great especially when coupled with the medium LR turret rebalance. It will need to be tested on SiSi but I have a feeling it will need 15-25M/bit drone capacity.
Diemost: I'd prefer the MWD cap bonus to be dropped for a tracking bonus. Also please give it back some armour and structure. It really needs it. Otherwise very good.
Ishtar: Oh my lord this thing will be incredible. I can see these things blotting out the stars with their drones. Also; am I the only one who has noticed that this thing DIDN'T lose it's 5% hybrid damage bonus? Sneaking that extra turret in just gave it an equivalent flat 33% bonus to ANY turret. (you just need to use that extra fitting to fit one though ha ha)
Fagabond: I really don't know what to think about this. I understand that you're rolling the velocity bonus into the hull which is good but I'm not sure about the shield boost bonus. I can see it working okay but I'm still unsure. I also don't like how much damage it deals. It's pretty poor at the minute and your TE nerf has hurt AC kiting (which was needed to be honest). I think this ship needs an extra turret and then it will shine in the roles you're looking at putting it in. It's tank is pretty thin so making it a glass cannon on rocket powered roller skates might just work. Tier 3's would be pretty terrified of them then.
Muninn: A little lackluster in the damage department. The optimal bonus really pushes this ship into using artillery as AC's get no benefit from that bonus. I'm not saying you can't fit AC's but it's basically an armour version of the Eagle. So you need to give it the same love as the eagle and give it the fitting room to fit arty and tank easily. I think it's a little shy on PG and pushing the other utility high to a low would go a long way.
Otherwise things are looking better.
I think I might have to start calling you "CCP Rise Again" as it seems to take at least two laps round the track for you to get these things right
However it proves you listen and take onboard feedback and criticism. Even though half the people on these forums haven't got a bloody clue (me included half the time) |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
148
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:45:00 -
[349] - Quote
Make HAC's the final word in kiting platforms. That would be amazing. Make them really fast cruisers, with good projection. Leave just enough EHP on them so they can pull rang / mitigate incoming DPS with speed / sig. DPS should be above T1 cruiser level. All ships should have the ability to apply good DPS with short guns at 35k++
Or if that doesn't suit your fancy, make them have two hulls each accomplishing different roles.
Brawly: Sac, Eagle, Ishtar, Muninn
Kity: Vaga, Deimos, Cerb, Zealot
Give both hulls seperate role bonuses, and give them bonuses specific to they style of specialized play you wish.
I am still blow away by the fact that you, nor any one at CCP has yet to sit down and give a very logical explanation as to where you see HAC's in the current lineup of ships. No Doing that first step, would go a long way into properly creating a forum of discussion as to what bonuses HAC's should have, in order to fulfill their intended goal.
CCP Rise wrote:Hello! Lets get back to this HAC thing. The first HAC proposal raised discussion around tons of topics (you can find it HERE if you don't believe me). Common ones included our overall design for tech levels, the way HACs intersect with tech 1, tech 3, and faction ships and of course specific input on ship-by-ship stats and performance. I want to try and cover as much of this as possible so get some tea or something. Lets start with role. We've had several presentations and posts and dev blogs now which explain that tech 1 is general and tech 2 is specialized. While this is certainly our high-level goal, it will be compromised occasionally when the specifics of a certain project have other goals that pull in another direction. HACs are an example. The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization', but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers. With the rebalance effort here, we discussed entirely new roles or specializations that would be more in-line with the high level ideas we have laid out for all EVE ships, but ultimately decided that it wasn't worth completely throwing out the ships we had. Not only do they have a lot of history in the game, which leads to attachment, but they also have a lot of legitimate use already which we wanted to avoid disrupting if possible. Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. 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. All HACs will gain 7-8 sensor strength, putting their average Sensor Strength at 22 which is right around combat battleship range. All HACs gain 15k to 25k lock range All HACs have their cap recharge per second set to around 5.5 rather than the former 3.5 - 4.5 cap/sec Along with these changes, we are going to go ahead with the originally proposed role bonus. I've seen and participated in tons of talk about this bonus and I keep seeing the same problem - the tracking formula is not intuitive and the confusion leads to this bonus looking less powerful than it actually is. I've made another set of graphs to help illustrate, but please keep in mind that this is just one example and results may vary.
The bolded part, makes sense. You clearly define a role, and then list what steps you take in order for HAC's to fulfill that role. However in this case, you have failed on so many accounts. Fast, mobile cruisers? You're kidding right? They are (apart from the vaga / deimos) slower than all of their navy / t1 counterparts. As for their tank, BC's / Navy BC's completely **** all over them. I think that you can do better with HACs, much better than your current idea of shoving them into a really uncomfortable position for a cruiser. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
492
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:46:00 -
[350] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:But looking at all this..
What is the point of the HAC's?
What role do they serve? Because they seem to be expensive mini bc's with high res.. and that just isn't very interesting. Lets not forget that they only have 1/2 the EHP of a BC though.
Smaller sigs, higher speeds, and much better resistances compared to bcs means they will have much much much stronger fleet level tanks (with logi of course) than a BC.
The game is a bit more involved than just comparing ehp values, just an fyi :P
|
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:49:00 -
[351] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95 Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue. Not really, they (AFs) are borderline OP against other T1 frigates - but their slowness gives T1 frigates an area to be competitive. AFs (and HACs) should shine in logi situations - especially against ship hulls that are larger than they are. AFs do that really well, and their slowness makes sure they do not completely crush the engagement envelope of other frigates.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
492
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:51:00 -
[352] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:54:00 -
[353] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm
and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
60
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:54:00 -
[354] - Quote
Zealot has 3 usefully bonus (bonus for capacitor is useless as on other amarr ships), but other HAC's has 4. Also Zealot doesn't have drone bay at all. Is it normal? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1211
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:56:00 -
[355] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95 Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue. Not really, they (AFs) are borderline OP against other T1 frigates - but their slowness gives T1 frigates an area to be competitive. AFs (and HACs) should shine in logi situations - especially against ship hulls that are larger than they are. AFs do that really well, and their slowness makes sure they do not completely crush the engagement envelope of other frigates.
AF's really REALLY aren't borderline op but ok. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
167
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:59:00 -
[356] - Quote
Interesting changes, but a role bonus such as +25% to AB speed would be more interesting. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
133
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:02:00 -
[357] - Quote
Chessur wrote: The bolded part, makes sense. You clearly define a role, and then list what steps you take in order for HAC's to fulfill that role. However in this case, you have failed on so many accounts. Fast, mobile cruisers? You're kidding right? They are (apart from the vaga / deimos) slower than all of their navy / t1 counterparts. As for their tank, BC's / Navy BC's completely **** all over them. I think that you can do better with HACs, much better than your current idea of shoving them into a really uncomfortable position for a cruiser.
I disagree. especially the bolded part help quite a lot. It's not the fastest, but it surely it is the fastest with that tank. Reduced sigbloom and those increased resistances just make for a better ship in logiroams where you expect to actually tank the damage. They are slower compared to navy cruisers, but they also inflict more damage, and god damn that capacitor.
That higher sensorstrength might be less of an impact, but hey - it's for free it seems.
Putting aside the weird rangebonus on that sacriledge (as useful as on a damnation I want to bet, should be scrapped for something accuracy-like) and the utilityhigh on the muninn (optimal/tracking bonus, some 1k PG and an armortank... sure), it really looks legit. Deimos-sig is a little very big for what it is intending to do. I only correct my own spelling. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
515
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:02:00 -
[358] - Quote
I still think the Cerb won't be used at all, but it's more a missile problem now, because imo you did the right thing with the hull :)
I'm a bit dissapointed to see the Eagle so slow compared to the others. I'm using it as a blaster boat solo in wormholes and honestly that's fun ! Too bad that it feels like you didn't consider giving other fitting options for the eagle, like you did for the vagabond. G££ <= Me |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:08:00 -
[359] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Rise wrote:ISHTAR
Rather than the blanket 10% tracking and optimal drone bonus, we split the bonus into two more specialized bonuses. One to Sentry drone optimal and tracking, and another on Heavy Drone speed and tracking. So basically you took what should have been one bonus and spread it across two bonus slots. This really feels like a dual weapon bonus of some ship hulls that everyone mostly agreed is a terrible idea. This is not a good idea.
perhaps if the sentry drone bonus is reduced to 5% it would then make sense as the sentry drone bonus is a very strong bonus atm until gardes and curators get a nerf anyway. 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. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
88
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:10:00 -
[360] - Quote
18 pages of griping... guess that means they should be left as is. |
|
|
|
|
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 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |