These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Heavy Assault Cruisers

First post First post
Author
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#761 - 2013-07-19 15:14:46 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

Because the current ASB Vaga is already a very good ship with ASB fit and with that bonus will be a much better Cynabal than Cynabal


Which has what real application exactly?

It's better in a fitting where you and your m8m8 decide beforehand to test each other's tanks on a station undock or "halp top belt" where he doesn't even try killing you?

The Vagabond used to be a roaming ship that spread emergent content throughout EVE, not some play-at-war test-dummy for dudes doing SiSi in Lowsec.



You clearly haven't fought one of these yet, they can be pretty nasty but yes have to pick their fights, those are not pownmobiles just because they can fit an XL-ASB

I might be in the minority side thinking this bonus isn't bad but in certain situations will make it clearly op specially considering when lowering the ASB size the ship can fit bigger guns.

Now if you're implying this is not a fleet ship with that bonus I agree, just like I agree majority active rep bonus are crap if it's not a shield ship because :ASBpwnsALL:

Thing is, what are we arguing about? -what is the specific role these ships are meant to fill from CCP philosophy (™) or are arguing from personal points of view?

If AHAC/SHAC is meant to be ZDE DPS specialised cruiser then this rebalance is failing terribly, no one seems to agree what they need to achieve their task and when I look at many bonus + med LR guns changes all I can say is that they'll be better, more dps better bonus is always better, not necessarily the exact buffs they need but they'll be better after all.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#762 - 2013-07-19 15:21:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Syri Taneka
The problem with the Eagle and Munnin on today's battlefield is that both are completely outmoded by the Tier 3 (Attack) Battlecruisers, which do BS-level damage with very high range potential and have a staggering degree of mobility for their hull size. Compared to these ships, Sniper-HACs are simply not cost-effective (both in pure isk cost and in training time). As a result, the Eagle has become the go-to for blaster brawling with a shield buffer, while the Munnin is... ignored completely.

The Cerberus is similarly plagued. Kiting isn't very effective if your enemy decides not to try and run you down, and since a HAC cannot point at the same range a Cerb can engage at, you'll either end up being chased down by something which you can't kill, or your target will warp out (wasting ammo). The only thing I fly a Cerb for is anti-frigate support in HAC gangs, by fitting Rapid Light Missile Launchers (which are simply devastating to small craft, at much higher target velocities than medium guns can typically manage). Unfortunately, the Cerb also has a very weak tank compared to other HACs, largely because of the EM hole which forces a hardener to be fit in the mids.

So, what these ships need:

The listed changes for the Eagle are perfectly fine. With the Optimal Range bonuses, you can engage reliably at 20-30km with Null M (or 10-15km with Void M), making the only realistic utility high option (a small neut/NOS) pointless, which subsequently makes the extra mid much more useful.

The Munnin needs to be re-optimized for close combat. Where the Vagabond is a highly mobile, "strike and fade," type ship, the Munnin should be an armed-to-the-teeth brick. Less maneuverable, but nasty once in range.

The Cerberus should play to its only current strength as well: Killing small craft. Drop the Flight Time bonus in favor of an Explosion Velocity buff, and consider making the Kin damage bonus an un-typed one OR drop the damage bonus altogether in favor of a shield resist bonus.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#763 - 2013-07-19 15:24:49 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
this is the eagle i want to see

EAGLE -

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Caldari Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
4% bonus to shield resistances

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage

Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 4L; 6 turrets, 1 launchers(-1)
Fittings: 1050 PWG(+175), 430 CPU(-8)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3)
Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25m3/25mb
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8
Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 125


I would like to see it with 220m/s and a stronger damage bonus and an extra low would be really handy, i think HACS are being short changed on having only 15 slots.


indeed. so what 6 high 5 mid and 5 low?

and how about the damage bonus replaced with a rate of fire? that would increase dps by 33% vrs 25%...


yes and no to ROF unless it gets a right big cap boost to compensate the cap usage

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#764 - 2013-07-19 15:36:08 UTC
What i would love to hear CCP RISE say is..

HACS are T2 Attack cruisers that sacrifice a little mobility for more tank and dps.... and as a result all HACS beside Vaga will get increased speed and lower mass.. and all HACS will get a sig radius reduction so that 50% mwd role bonus is actually worth something..
so all ships will have lower sig radius than 400 sig res of BS guns.

Also adding skills that reduce sig radius penalty on MWD's and shield extenders by 5% a level

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Mirei Jun
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#765 - 2013-07-19 15:43:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirei Jun
First let me say, thank you for looking at HACs. This has been a long time coming. The following criticism and suggestions are meant to be constructive.

SACRILEGE - This ship doesn't have enough low slots to take advantage of its great defense and cap bonuses. In skirmish warfare it should be able to fit active armor reps. In larger fights it should have enough lows to be very tough.

However, 4 mid slots is a good thing and fits it's role as a utility ship. So what should be done? I suggest removing its extra high slot. This means players that want to focus more on utility through neutralizers will need to give up a bit of damage to do it. At the same time the ship will get enough lows to armor tank properly. The new improved drone bay will mitigate some of the issues here, as well.

Suggestion: Change the slot load out to 5H, 4M, 6L

ZEALOT - Its working as intended. The new MWD bonus will make it even better.

CERBERUS - This ship is getting a much needed damage boost with 6 launchers. Its 6th high slot is no longer wasted.

However, the kinetic missile bonus is legacy in nature. This ship needs to be able to pack a punch equally well with any of the four damage types.

The second issue is a combination of slot load out and targeting range. This ship was designed to "poke" from very long distances. However the Cerb's targeting range simply doesn't match its design. This has been a problem for a long time. Additionally, to get the targeting range you need you give up those much needed mid slots, or worse get less efficient results by using low slots while giving up damage (or speed). This ship doesn't get any kind of resist bonus and needs enough mids to withstand some punishment. Furthermore, HAM fits should be an option. with only 5 mids close range fits are risky.

I suggest giving up a low slot for an additional mid and boosting the base targeting range. With the new speed boost this ship will be able to race about the battle field firing missiles from long ranges, or burn up close and dish out punishment with HAMs while having decent survivability.


Suggestions: Change the slot load out to 6H, 6M, 3L. Change the base targeting range to (at least) 100km (even more would not hurt). Change the kinetic damage bonus to a flat missile damage bonus.


EAGLE - I think the overall changes here are good. The biggest problem with the current Eagle is actually fitting. The PG buff aims to address this. Increasing its slot efficiency is also a much needed improvement.

However, this ship suffers from the exact same problem as the Cerb -serious targeting range issues.

Suggestion: Increase the base targeting range to at least 100km.


DEIMOS (Edited) - I'm excited to see the results of these changes. No more worthless high slot and more speed is good. The new role bonus is going to benefit the Deimos immensely. One huge problem for the Deimos was fitting. Its PG was abysmal. We'll have to see if 40 PG is enough (probably so).

Under the proposed changes the Deimos still suffers from two very questionable bonuses. The MWD bonus serves no purpose at all and the fall-off bonus is all but useless.

To start, I would like to see the MWD bonus replaced with the excellent tracking bonus given to its T1 counter-part, the Thorax. The fall off bonus should be replaced with something that helps the Deimos fill its niche role as an extreme close range brawler. No other HAC has such poor damage projection as the Deimos and its second HAC bonus should aim to address this in an interesting way.

To this end I suggest the fall off bonus be replaced with a resist bonus. This would accentuate the all-in play style of the Deimos. This might be border line overpowered, but considering the incredible risk this ship presents I believe its justified.

Suggestions: Replace the MWD bonus with a tracking bonus. Adjust CAP if needed. Replace the fall off bonus with a 4% per level resist bonus.

ISHTAR - More gun slots with less specialization in guns and more focus on drones -great!

The question still remains how in the world we're suppose to actually use those gun slots with such terrible a PG, but that's a good drawback for this ship.

Honestly this was what the Navy Vexor should have been. The new Ishtar totally overshadows the Navy Vexor and officially makes it worthless. I suggest revisiting that ship when you have a chance.

VAGABOND - This is an interesting change. It doesn't do a thing to the old style of Vaga combat, but adds new options. X-Large ASB, anyone? We'll have to see how this plays out.


MUNINN - This is another ship I believe will immensely benefit from the new HAC role bonus. It will be faster with a better slot spread. I think it will become a staple in kiting HAC gangs. Again, we'll have to see how this plays out.


I am excited to see the end results of the HAC changes. Overall it still seems like these ships aren't strong enough over the T1 versions to justify the significantly higher cost. As stated in this thread, it doesn't seem that HACs have a clear role or even clear design intentions.

I, for one will be doing a lot of testing when the changes go live.

Thanks again!
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Moist Towelettes.
#766 - 2013-07-19 15:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Blodhgarm Dethahal
And here I am thinking T2 were suposed to specialize at things, all I am seeing here is an uncoordinated mess.

Amarr
Sac - This should be your heavy brawler, specialized in heavy tank, active or buffer, altho I think a good buffer on this ship should be higher than a Battlecruiser while still doing some reasonable DPS (6th low please!)
Zealot - Your standard AHAC fleet ship, fill the role fairly well now, altho a slight bump in speed could be nice and maybe damage

Caldari
Cerb - Not sure what to make of it to be honest, Rise says it should kite, but that is just plain foolish if he thinks it can do that with such a low speed. If I want kite I will go with a NOmen, Vaga, or hell a Navy Osprey even. I could MAYBE see this be the begining of a SHAC fleet ship.. maybe..
Eagle - Shield tank version of the Sac I think it should be able to tank and do reasonable DPS with Rails OR Blasters, if you roll the double range bonus into one 15-20% Bonus and fill the extra Bonus Slot with a tracking bonus I think it find a very nice role of picking smaller ships off at range. Or with blasters it can brawl if it wanted to

Gallente
Diemost - How dare you.. just.. why.. you want to turn this **** into a rail boat? wtf is wrong with you? I think this would suit a much better role having a solid tank (seriously.. don't nerf the tank) and swap MWD bonus for a Tracking bonus (buff cap if you want to composate). Keep the 4th mid, this will allow you to fit a standard DoubleWeb/Scram/MWD in mids and make it act as a fast reasonable tackle in a cruiser size. May want to buff the speed just a bit.
Ishtar - I like the drone bonuses, altho I think you should roll the Drone Bay into the hull and give it a Drone Speed so Ogres are not so damn slow. Oh and a CPU buff.

Minmatar
Vagabond - I feel like you didn't know what to put in the bonus slot after you rolled the speed boost into the hull. I would have thought a tracking bonus would have been good for a kiting ship at high speeds. The thought of brawling with it is very odd I must say. I won't comment too much on it because I don't fly them, it just seemed odd.
Muninn - Seems like an Armor Eagle, long range arties to pick off smaller ships? Looks interesting but not changed that much.

In Conclusion, it looks a lil underwhelming in the theme of 'specialization.' These ships don't look like they are specialized into roles as much as they should, unless I missed a memo and that was intended and T2s are no longer specialized.
Noisrevbus
#767 - 2013-07-19 15:45:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

You clearly haven't fought one of these yet, they can be pretty nasty but yes have to pick their fights, those are not pownmobiles just because they can fit an XL-ASB

I might be in the minority side thinking this bonus isn't bad but in certain situations will make it clearly op specially considering when lowering the ASB size the ship can fit bigger guns.


I don't think you're getting it mate, but that's my fault for using sarcasm.


  • EVE Online is a sandbox MMO.
  • It's not designed around 1v1, it's designed around PvX.
  • I don't mind if there is a duelling culture or similar in the game. It's a sandbox, any creative way to play is good.
  • However, if we start designing the game around 1v1 (or any similar targetted setting) we are in deep water.
  • What is "clearly OP" to you in a duel-setting is clearly not OP if you decide to take on more difficult odds.
  • Even if you prefer flying alone, a solo gameplay does not mean you don't fight larger groups 1vX.

This is similar to when we have to lecture PvE players on the principle that PvE in a sandbox means PvX where you are meant to conduct your PvE in a setting of both PvE and PvP (ie., PvX).

Many of the new-school PvP players are just as stupid and seclusionist as the empire PvE players they like to mock.

I've never had any issue with PvE players, I only growl a little bit when it comes to seclusionists with entitlement issues.

Entitlement issues like "the Vagabond is good for what i do with it, where i pick my consentual fights without travelling".
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#768 - 2013-07-19 15:47:55 UTC
Deimos sig is closer to Nado sig than to Vaga sig. With MWD on, it has bigger sig than Exequror has.

Fair and balanced, like Fox news <3





.

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#769 - 2013-07-19 15:54:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Noisrevbus wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

You clearly haven't fought one of these yet, they can be pretty nasty but yes have to pick their fights, those are not pownmobiles just because they can fit an XL-ASB

I might be in the minority side thinking this bonus isn't bad but in certain situations will make it clearly op specially considering when lowering the ASB size the ship can fit bigger guns.


I don't think you're getting it mate, but that's my fault for using sarcasm.


  • EVE Online is a sandbox MMO.
  • It's not designed around 1v1, it's designed around PvX.
  • I don't mind if there is a duelling culture or similar in the game. It's a sandbox, any creative way to play is good.
  • However, if we start designing the game around 1v1 (or any similar targetted setting) we are in deep water.
  • What is "clearly OP" to you in a duel-setting is clearly not OP if you decide to take on more difficult odds.
  • Even if you prefer flying alone, a solo gameplay does not mean you don't fight larger groups 1vX.

This is similar to when we have to lecture PvE players on the principle that PvE in a sandbox means PvX where you are meant to conduct your PvE in a setting of both PvE and PvP (ie., PvX).

Many of the new-school PvP players are just as stupid and seclusionist as the empire PvE players they like to mock.

I've never had any issue with PvE players, I only growl a little bit when it comes to seclusionists with entitlement issues.

Entitlement issues like "the Vagabond is good for what i do with it, where i pick my consentual fights without travelling".


Don't take me wrong I do understand all the points you made but I still think options and alternatives can't hurt pvp in any shape or form be it for solo small gang or massive fights.

I have a lot more experience in large fleets fights be it as dumb F1 BS shooter as dictor as inty or anti support pilot (I have logis skills but I don't fly them I hate them all so hard you can't imagine, remove them from the game dammit !!), not good but rather nice experience in roaming gangs but absolutely terrible in 1vs1 fights and will not excuse my lack of skills in this playing area because I don't use OGB despite being able to.

Back to the point about Vaga, I still think this isn't a very bad change and fits quite well in the "emergent content" ability of Vaga, now for fleets if you ask me this bonus is absolutely terrible, horrible, does nothing and I'll take an SFI over the Vaga every time.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

ConranAntoni
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#770 - 2013-07-19 15:58:33 UTC
Why does the Deimos still have the MWD cap thing when most in EvE agree it's hilarious for the wrong reasons. Why not throw in tracking or if you want to troll, some kind of repair bonus.

Empyrean Warriors - Recruiting now.

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#771 - 2013-07-19 16:00:55 UTC
I still think a fleet of aBC will dumpster the **** out of a fleet of the current and even newly proposed HACs. For a fraction of the cost too.

CCP Rise - If the MWD bloob sig role bonus is necessary enough to warrent then perhaps you should just reduce the sig of the HACs base down from the start. Then you can look into giving each HAC unique role bonuses that can open the door to make them not just 'better' T1 cruisers, but good at doing 'something'. Something that an aBC can't do and a T1 cruiser can't do.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#772 - 2013-07-19 16:03:22 UTC
ConranAntoni wrote:
Why does the Deimos still have the MWD cap thing when most in EvE agree it's hilarious for the wrong reasons. Why not throw in tracking or if you want to troll, some kind of repair bonus.



Schhhhhhhht !!!

Don't, just don't !!

Vaga got it so don't give any idea like this or it might happen !! Lol

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Blastcaps Madullier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#773 - 2013-07-19 16:03:48 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

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: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 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): 125 / 125
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7
Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 145


how about instead of 5k range bonus, +1 extra Drone controlled per level. on the heavy assault cruiser? :) the Ishtar is a drone boat after all :)
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#774 - 2013-07-19 16:09:26 UTC
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
how about instead of 5k range bonus, +1 extra Drone controlled per level. on the heavy assault cruiser? :) the Ishtar is a drone boat after all :)



Because this would make it completely out of whack.

6 DPS drones + 4 ECM drones = I win machine. NO, really this is an awful idea.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Noisrevbus
#775 - 2013-07-19 16:14:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

Don't take me wrong I do understand all the points you made but I still think options and alternatives can't hurt pvp in any shape or form be it for solo small gang or massive fights.

I have a lot more experience in large fleets fights be it as dumb F1 BS shooter as dictor as inty or anti support pilot (I have logis skills but I don't fly them I hate them all so hard you can't imagine, remove them from the game dammit !!), not good but rather nice experience in roaming gangs...

Back to the point about Vaga, I still think this isn't a very bad change and fits quite well in the "emergent content" ability of Vaga, now for fleets if you ask me this bonus is absolutely terrible, horrible, does nothing and I'll take an SFI over the Vaga every time.


First off, thank you for a continued good discussion.

I agree that alternatives don't hurt. That's the issue here though, what does this new bonus/role provide an alternative to?

Others have said it, you say it yourself: It does not. It's supposed to provide an alternative to what the Cyna, SFI and other ships do better. Yet even the Cyna and SFI are in dire positions overall. How many fast roaming gangs do you see?

In fact, i'd stretch it as far as to say that i'd expect the HAC's to do those things much better, because that sort of emergent gameplay is lacking in EVE on a broad level. Roaming is good for the game, that's why it should be encouraged, not discouraged by the targetted design of things into themeparks (like duels). If roaming was in a strong position and the Vaga was a strong roaming ship then I wouldn't have any issues with an active bonus as an alternative to something else. I love odd ideas. It's just that now they come at the expense of something very fundamental in the game - encouraging people to roam around and fight undermanned to create and spread, meaningful, content.

Let's revisit that last line for clarification:

create content = taking fights against a variety of opponents (larger gangs, larger ships etc.)
spread content = roaming different areas and securities of the game to involve more players, bring them content.
meaningful content = this class of ships cost something so shooting with/at them has meaning for both pilots.

Almost every change in EVE comes at the expense of something else - it's how an interactive game is built.

Afterall: picking your fights = giving up other fights presented to you = less content Smile.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#776 - 2013-07-19 16:16:51 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
Chessur wrote:

Vagabond:

AC boats were already struggling. Then the TE nerf happened, and all AC boats took a nose dive when trying to apply damage outside of scram / web range. The vaga shares the same 10% increase in falloff as its stabber cousin, and just like the stabber cannot kite. Even though this is considered a kiting ship- its pathetic DPS at range means that it is outclassed by other ships. The MWD sig bonus makes sense here, and the vaga is certainly fast enough. However what I don't understand is the active tanking bonus. The vaga is a 'kiting' ship that according to you, should have the ability to get up close in scram / web and face ****. The active tanking bonus (while nice) is really going to shut down the vagas play style.

It seems that you are really encroaching on the SFI's world, of fast, hard tackle. In fact the vaga may do the job even better, so what would be the point of ever flying an SFI anymore? The idea of a 290m/s base speed cruiser with the ability to run a really powerful dual LASB tank with an MWD scram, is simply going to be a nightmare for any solo / small gang pilots. SFI's were annoying enough, but adding in a ship that has this nice speed, and a secondary tanking bonus is going to make this ship really, really difficult for players to fly against- as nothing can run from it.


ill quote myself here:
Kane Fenris wrote:
the vaga is non contradictory ship as purposed.

id rather see it comepletly in the old role with pg for fitting for arty
tracking instead of falloff so you can kite with its speed as before while useing arty to shred your opponent

and eventually some increase in longpoint (exclueding scram! so you cant use scram/acs for same purpose and abuse it) range about 20% would suffice but could easily be op so im not sure about that

when you make arty useable you should provide us with a ship to use it.


and dont tell me we have the munin for this... munin will suck if it does not get reinvented (not reworked!)



While I agree that the Muninn isnt very good and the Vaga change is ****, making another Arty boat just because the current one is **** is derp, the Vaga should always be an AC boat, it just needs some improvement in that role.



keeping the vaga a ac boat wil just mean it will suck at its old role....
look at it you have to use barrage to do any damage at kite range and then dmg is still pretty low
and the te nerf did not improve this.

now on the other hand with improved arty you can youse a variety of amo still get good but noch to huge dps ath the range you want to fight AND you can be countered by ships manageing to get close. (a trade off to the old ac setup which would allow some buff like the extended longpoint range is sugested)

if you want a ac boat make the munin dedicated ac brawler with some kind of special trade that distinguishes it from other brawlers but remove that useless sniper role.
Shari Evan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#777 - 2013-07-19 16:17:05 UTC
I dunno, Deimos looks more like a try to build a 'mighty combat vessel' by a mining corporation like deep core inc.
Srsly, the signature of a BC, no real focus on anything but guns and focus on MWD even though this ship is used as a A-HAC nowadays, reduced Armor and Hull Basehitpoints. At the moment a thorax is better than a deimos, if this change is goes life
the Thorax will be better and the deimos is considerable useless.
Vega Umbranox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#778 - 2013-07-19 16:17:25 UTC
CCP here is an idea how about remove bay size from ishtar and give them a bonus that reduces drone sig radius per level? maybe only applied to sentry/heavies and maybe mediums
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#779 - 2013-07-19 16:18:00 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Is odyssey 1.1 a special exception CCP Rise, or can we expect to see a round 2 of all your future balance threads?


He might need a round 3 at this rate much like the battleships are still waiting for there turn again... christ those poor battleships..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#780 - 2013-07-19 16:21:58 UTC
would anyone else like the Vagabond shield boost bonus changed to a 5% sig reduction to mwd usage?
Kind of a mini Talwar bonus really

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using