These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#2161 - 2013-08-17 15:18:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
Not really. This game lends too much power to range advantages. And the Cerb has plenty of slots to play with to boost it's already overdone agility, supplement it's not stellar speed, and perma mwd. So realistically it won't have to worry much about getting caught, nor will the Vaga. The mobility is the tank.


I guess time will tell on this one. It's difficult to test larger scale fights on sisi.

But why is this a problem particular to the cerberus? The deimos with railguns can hit hard to 100km with instantanious damage application and perma MWD.

Why is this less dangerous than the cerberus?

I think what we're coming to is a place where all skirmish fleets should have the capability to engage at range as well as at close quarters. That seems reasonable.

The frigates issue I grant you is an interesting one. I guess it's a case of not bringing a knife to a gunfight. If that distant cerberus fleet was instead a distant cruise-fitted, TP-fitted raven fleet the carnage would be all the greater, no?

Will the Deimos be perma-mwd now while firing the rails (since the bonus was changed)? Will it be as click button and not worry about trajectory parameters? I doubt it with the tracking nerf to long range medium guns that goes with the damage buff. Will a shield tanked Deimos have as sturdy a tank? No.

This is all basically the old drake. Only now it will have better mobility and range, while being somewhat more expensive in isk and sp. I doubt we will see a Deimos fleet comp to challenge it. I hope you are right, but right now I don't think you are. I think a lot of other fleet comps will get outranged, outrun, or both.

edit - and I focus on the mobility stats because unlike an armor tank these are easily supplemented with mods and rigs while presering the mids for all tank, mwd and sensor booster (since tackle is largely outsourced in a fleet).

So to me the difference with the Sac is striking. The Sac only gets 50% range bonus, the Cerb 100%. The Sac has a terrible base agility while supposedly it should be the speedy brawler hac to the Zealot sniper hac. Especially since the Sac will probably be plated (amarr shield resist profile sucks bigtime). The difference between it's mobility stats and the ability to supplement them as compared to the Cerb is striking. The Sac or Sac fleet will probably be unable to apply damage to a Cerb or Cerb fleet.

The balancing team needs to buff the Sac base agility a lot and the speed to be at least equal to a Cerb. Or nerf the speed and agility of the Cerb. Or both to some degree. Otherwise the Cerbs will be running circles around the Sacs as they pick them off. The Sac is just a brick waiting to die. The Cerb is the opposite.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2162 - 2013-08-17 16:04:14 UTC  |  Edited by: raawe
CCP Rise wrote:
SACRILEGE

We wanted to get rid of the cap recharge bonus, as it is both kind of dated and strange, and also doesn't do much for a ship that doesn't even use cap for its main weapon system. We played with a lot of options but ultimately settled on a Missile Velocity bonus which should be very helpful in projecting some of that HAM damage. Other changes include tweaks to fitting, slightly lowered Signature radius, and of course the electronics changes. While we did not role the entire benefit of the former cap recharge bonus into the base stats, the Sacrilege does retain the highest cap/second of any Heavy Assault Cruisers.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Amarr Cruiser Bonuses:
5% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (added heavy missiles)
4% to all Armor Resistances

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile velocity (was capacitor recharge time)
5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire

Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers
Fittings: 1100 PWG(+70), 420 CPU(+20)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1100(-293) / 2250(+162) / 1690(+2)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1700(+75) / 255s (-80s) / 6.66s (+1.8)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 200(+2) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+20km) / 312 / 7
Sensor strength: 22 Radar(+7)
Signature radius: 135(-5)


Rise can you explain to me this please. Since this ship has a tank bonus (resistance) it's supposed to be a close range brawling ship (mostly dual rep, sometimes buffer with HAM's). Newly added projection bonus (+50% missile velocity) seems kinda odd to me. Explosion velocity or explosion radius would seem more beneficial to close range brawl role. Is it possible to change that bonus to something else? DPS is also not that great. All that tank will mean nothing when we are stuck with 5 lows unable to get a nice fit. Shifting one utility high to low would enable some nice fitting possibilities. I don't understand why Cerb got such a huge buff compared to Sacriledge that got some CPU and PWG, +162 armor and 2 extra drones.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#2163 - 2013-08-17 22:09:42 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
I flew it (and every other hac), on the test server, it sucks as a kiter, fact. I hate the ship and dont really want to fly it (just as i really dislike ac cynas) but it shpuld imo be a viable kiter.


Also, have you actually flow the vagabond?


It's not a pure kiting ship like it use to be (although it's better than it was) it's a "hybrid" kiting ship with robust brawling capabilities compared to similar ships.



i looked it up in a Dictionary Eve/English:

hybrid ship:
-not good at anything
-sucks at everything
-not worth the isk
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#2164 - 2013-08-17 23:20:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Kane Fenris wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
I flew it (and every other hac), on the test server, it sucks as a kiter, fact. I hate the ship and dont really want to fly it (just as i really dislike ac cynas) but it shpuld imo be a viable kiter.


Also, have you actually flow the vagabond?


It's not a pure kiting ship like it use to be (although it's better than it was) it's a "hybrid" kiting ship with robust brawling capabilities compared to similar ships.



i looked it up in a Dictionary Eve/English:

hybrid ship:
-not good at anything
-sucks at everything
-not worth the isk



Just chiming in: tested it as a
Arty-Kiter with large SB, 650 arty, med cap booster II for 3 navy 400s and skirmishlinks (no shieldlinks given), and mostly killed what couldn't shoot back sufficiently (NOmens, Harbinger Navies, and all those shortrange-brawlcruisers that are sometimes even ABing around), but died a horrible death once caught.

dualpro-ASB-vaga: (180s, 2 TE, 2 gyros) It was (in my opinion) an impressive brawler, less due to that somewhat amazing damagecomponent, but because it damn right mitigated all incoming damage better than it's opponent. Add to that the acceptable tracking and the rather constant dps anywhere in scramrange - and you are sure to find a sweetspot favoring you somewhere around your opponent.

220s, 2 gyros, 2 TEs, nano: And lastly the normal kiting vaga, continues to slauhter AFs and Inties at 25-30 using RF, even beyond using barrage. I see nothing wrong with that. I just wouldn't suggest using it for heavy duty damage application. But if you just have to peel off tackle of one of your actual ships or run over the occasional ABC, it's all working sufficiently. Though running down ABCs is rather ASB-vaga-turf.


So I don't really get that Hybrid thingy either, but I'm fairly certain it was adressing the widened scope thx to new 7.5% active tank bonus.
aSacHorYu
Ministry of War
#2165 - 2013-08-18 08:19:56 UTC
I think the issue with the vaga is that no one asked for the boost rep and goes against all that the ship represents , but i guess she will maintain this changes , at least now i can use the cerb or isthar as a nano ***.
Romar Thel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2166 - 2013-08-18 09:36:37 UTC
aSacHorYu wrote:
I think the issue with the vaga is that no one asked for the boost rep and goes against all that the ship represents , but i guess she will maintain this changes , at least now i can use the cerb or isthar as a nano ***.


exactly..
S1dy
Uplifting Infernal Paradise
#2167 - 2013-08-18 11:11:59 UTC
It's frightening in which direction the discussions went here. The balancing for every ship went well, there's nothing to complain about, not even about the Deimos and Vagabond (letter one is still the some, just with a new bonus, but still able to fit the same as now). Even the Eagle is interesting now though it's mainly because of the Medium Railgun changes.

That there are only minor discussions about this and that and the ones claiming the ship is well balanced and the ones stating it's not shows the balancing just for the ships itself went well enough.

The core problem with the HAC's is still their missing role/specialization. You guys should not forget that this class is still everything and at the same time nothing special. They do everything: Tanking, doing a lot of DPS, can brawl, are able to kite, are able to do Damage by large range and the same at ultrashortrange. Though it depends on which ship you're flying there's a large range they are able to achive. But exactly this is what it so many in this thread critisized: It's for the Tech 1 ships to be that generalized. Tech 2 should be specialized - like the Recons for example.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2168 - 2013-08-18 11:24:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
I don't see why the HACs need to be specialised in some esoteric way. The clue is in the name I think. They are cruisers with heavy armour/shield designed for assaults. The stormtroopers of space. I think each one has its own unique specialty, based around its hardiness, ability to project damage, speed and maneuverability.

For me the fact that the entire group offers a toolbox from which I can draw the ship I need for the job is a good thing.

If I need specialist EWAR, I still have the recons and the electronic attack ships to choose from. If I need OPness, I still have T3s (although I'd be happy to see T3 ships quietly nerfed).

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#2169 - 2013-08-18 11:58:16 UTC
S1dy wrote:
...Tech 2 should be specialized - like the Recons for example.

CCP are diverging from the overall scheme of things with regards to HACs as described in the second paragraph of the original post.

Also, the first and second pass have been atrocious for the Amarr hulls while the others have gotten huge viability envelopes:
Zealot remains as is because it is damn near perfect in swarms, yet suicidal solo .. buffing the latter would break the former so the caution/laziness is understandable to a certain degree.
- None of the hulls of other three races even come close to that kind of niche/specialization, they will pretty much all excel with both short and long range weaponry with extra focus in one or the other.

Sacrilege ought to be for solo/brawl what the Zealot is for the swarm, but with no real change to the hull it will not be able to compete in any sense of the word. Tank is the same, it got 2 light drones extra and an utterly pointless range bonus .. pointless because anything it might use it for is better and more effectively covered by the Zealot.
It simply does not have any advantage whatsoever, best thing about it is its ability to tank (and even that is worse than the Deimos) .. rest ranges from mediocre to downright abysmal.

The sad thing about the Sacrilege is that the shortfalls cannot be attributed to lasers outdated performance so it won't be fixed by the, what I hope will be imminent, laser revision.

Shorter: It is fine that HACs are multi-role, but the groundwork has not been done properly which has resulted in some being over the top with roles added to already excellent performance in primary role while others (read: Amarr) gets to keep their one role/place which amounts to an outright nerf (everything else buffed/expanded, it staying the same = nerf).
Devon Weeks
Asteroid Mining Industries
Salt Mining Industrialists
#2170 - 2013-08-18 13:59:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Devon Weeks
Quote:
I don't see why the HACs need to be specialised in some esoteric way. The clue is in the name I think. They are cruisers with heavy armour/shield designed for assaults. The stormtroopers of space. I think each one has its own unique specialty, based around its hardiness, ability to project damage, speed and maneuverability.For me the fact thepentire group offers a toolbox from which I can draw the ship I need for the job is a good thing.If I need specialist EWAR, I still have the recons and the electronic attack ships to choose from. If I need OPness, I still have T3s (although I'd be happy to see T3 ships quietly nerfed).


I'm pretty much with this. I mean, these ships specialize in assaults, going out to hurt something. To kill people and break things. People who want a specialized role have some interesting ideas like W0lf's command ship-style mods, but they don't change the ship purpose. It still kills people and breaks things. Logis don't kill people, they keep others alive. Recons can, but it isn't what they are really for. They are, well, recon, the cav scouts of Eve. Heavy Interdictors interdict, pull things off course and stop them in their tracks. Heavy Assault Cruisers assault things... and are heavy. I can't really see why it needs more.

Now, could the role bonus be better? I suppose so. Perhaps it could also provide some bonus to afterburners for AB HACs? Or, maybe a game changing role? I can think of a number of things that would REALLY change the meta...

Ability to warp to ships greater than 150 km away on grid that the HAC is not fleeted with (how's that for a shake up?)

Natural immunity to the effects of interdiction spheres.

A role bonus that essentially acted as a free cap battery, reflecting some neut/nos effects.

Reload time bonus to ancillary rep/booster mods to specialize them as active tankers.

A special cargo bay for cap booster charges and flat bonus to booster amount.

 I mean, I can think of a TON of things that would shake up the game and make these ships used ten times more than they are. And, they are along the same line of thought CCP has laid out, increased cap, mobility, and e-war resistance. But, how much would people reject such a notion? I think pretty hard.These types of changes would only really work if the tech 3 rebalance put the strat cruiser combat performance below the HACs, which I guess is possible and something I'd support. But, for now, ships designed simply to fight seem fine. That simple role is enough. Perhaps when the rest of ships are worked over, particularly the tech 3s, it will be easier to consider a deeper meaning for HACs. For now, I'm satisfied with them being the advanced infantry.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2171 - 2013-08-18 16:13:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Devon Weeks wrote:


 I mean, I can think of a TON of things that would shake up the game and make these ships used ten times more than they are. And, they are along the same line of thought CCP has laid out, increased cap, mobility, and e-war resistance. But, how much would people reject such a notion? I think pretty hard.These types of changes would only really work if the tech 3 rebalance put the strat cruiser combat performance below the HACs, which I guess is possible and something I'd support. But, for now, ships designed simply to fight seem fine. That simple role is enough. Perhaps when the rest of ships are worked over, particularly the tech 3s, it will be easier to consider a deeper meaning for HACs. For now, I'm satisfied with them being the advanced infantry.



They aren't going far enough with the HACs, Making a T3 worse than a HAC and better than a T1 cruiser would make the T3s universally useless.

Does a T3 logi as well as a logi, no
Does a T3 ECM/point/web as well as a recon, no
HACs suck, and are going to continue to suck until the do something to make it worth the price over a combat or attack battlecruiser.

Right now there are at most 2-3 of the hulls that are even worthwhile, and even then the utility over a BC that is half of the price is questionable.

.....MWD bonus, meh.

FFS free up the fittings, they need something to make them worth the price and a training.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2172 - 2013-08-18 16:32:33 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Devon Weeks wrote:


 I mean, I can think of a TON of things that would shake up the game and make these ships used ten times more than they are. And, they are along the same line of thought CCP has laid out, increased cap, mobility, and e-war resistance. But, how much would people reject such a notion? I think pretty hard.These types of changes would only really work if the tech 3 rebalance put the strat cruiser combat performance below the HACs, which I guess is possible and something I'd support. But, for now, ships designed simply to fight seem fine. That simple role is enough. Perhaps when the rest of ships are worked over, particularly the tech 3s, it will be easier to consider a deeper meaning for HACs. For now, I'm satisfied with them being the advanced infantry.



They aren't going far enough with the HACs, Making a T3 worse than a HAC and better than a T1 cruiser would make the T3s universally useless.

Does a T3 logi as well as a logi, no
Does a T3 ECM/point/web as well as a recon, no
HACs suck, and are going to continue to suck until the do something to make it worth the price over a combat or attack battlecruiser.

Right now there are at most 2-3 of the hulls that are even worthwhile, and even then the utility over a BC that is half of the price is questionable.

.....MWD bonus, meh.

FFS free up the fittings, they need something to make them worth the price and a training.


they're definitely worth the price. they'll solo a battleship. the sac is already immune to a heavy neut

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2173 - 2013-08-18 19:02:33 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


they're definitely worth the price. they'll solo a battleship. the sac is already immune to a heavy neut


Yeah great, so long as that battleship is solo.

Solo isn't a mode many battleships operate in usually.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#2174 - 2013-08-18 20:41:52 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
...the sac is already immune to a heavy neut

Big whoop.

Heavy Neutralizer II drains 25 cap per second.

Only doing four, but just by boarding the HACs I get (in fitting screen):
Vagabond - 20.4 cap/s (enough to test for neut presence)
Cerberus - 21.3 cap/s (will never be in neut range)
Deimos - 25.9 cap/s (No words ...)
Sacrilege - 27.8 cap/s (Will still need injector as low dps mandates dual-rep to live long enough to kill anything).

Sacrilege does not exactly stand out now does it .. if it had 35+ it could claim to be the cap king but the blanket buff has erased that .. it has nothing to set it apart, nothing at all except maybe for a pretty damn nice model.

What?
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2175 - 2013-08-18 22:45:29 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


they're definitely worth the price. they'll solo a battleship. the sac is already immune to a heavy neut


Yeah great, so long as that battleship is solo.

Solo isn't a mode many battleships operate in usually.


That is correct, battleships don't often operate alone for good reason. I mention this simply as an indicator (valid or not) as to these ships' power and strength.

They cost about as much as a battleship, and in a 1:1 they perform (on the whole) better. OK sure, a properly flown pirate battleship will make mincemeat of them (and to be fair most of the pirate battleships on Sisi are not properly flown...) but they cost 6-8 times as much, so that seems more than fair to me.

These HACs are *very* strong and powerful. They are designed to be used in groups and as the vanguard of an assault, or hard-to-catch long range guerrilla warriors I think they will perform brilliantly.

5 HACs vs 5 BCs with some logi on both sides of a conflict? My money is on the HACs every time, for three very good reasons:
1. sig radius
2. resistances
3. mobility

Obviously you'll want a little buffer on the HACs, but you would on any ship.

5 battleships vs 5 hacs might be a little more difficult to call, but then there is price parity, so that seems reasonable.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2176 - 2013-08-18 22:54:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
...the sac is already immune to a heavy neut

Big whoop.

Heavy Neutralizer II drains 25 cap per second.

Only doing four, but just by boarding the HACs I get (in fitting screen):
Vagabond - 20.4 cap/s (enough to test for neut presence)
Cerberus - 21.3 cap/s (will never be in neut range)
Deimos - 25.9 cap/s (No words ...)
Sacrilege - 27.8 cap/s (Will still need injector as low dps mandates dual-rep to live long enough to kill anything).

Sacrilege does not exactly stand out now does it .. if it had 35+ it could claim to be the cap king but the blanket buff has erased that .. it has nothing to set it apart, nothing at all except maybe for a pretty damn nice model.

What?


Next time we're both on sisi, let's try some tests with the sacrilege and a battleship. I think you'll be surprised how it performs if:
you fit a cap booster (I would always do this anyway) with navy 400s
fit some buffer and a repper
maybe use the extra mid for dual prop or some ewar?

It as a small sig radius and very strong resistances. It's natural cap recharge will shrug off a heavy neut meaning you can happily run the tank on the cap booster with no effort. With dual prop orbitiing a BS close it's unhittable by large guns, even when webbed, and can push out its 500 or so dps directly into the target's resistance hole with for maximum effect for as long as it wants.

Crucially, because it has better mobility than a battleship, it can disengage whenever it chooses.

Properly flown, there is no reason to fear for its safety. It's a damn good ship!

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Just Lilly
#2177 - 2013-08-19 00:42:01 UTC
The Cerberus...

That poor ship have been collecting dust and kept for spare parts in the back of the hangar for far too long.

Maybe now it will roam space and strike fear, rather than giggles into the enemies Pirate
Powered by Nvidia GTX 690
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2178 - 2013-08-19 02:05:44 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


5 HACs vs 5 BCs with some logi on both sides of a conflict? My money is on the HACs every time, for three very good reasons:
1. sig radius
2. resistances
3. mobility





Yeah, and hope and pray that no 2 month old noobie with a bellicose just happens along.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2179 - 2013-08-19 02:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
CCP, why the hate of brawling HACs? could you explain it to me please?

Each race has 2 HACs, would it really be so hard to give each race 1 brawler and 1 kiter/sniper in the ship class?
in HACs: Calradi can't brawl at all, minmatar can't brawl at all (no, munin CANT brawl), galente can brawl in theory but both HACs perform TONS better as kiters so why would they.

This leave amarr which currently has the good mix of zealot for range and sac for up close (with zealot also being able to brawl) but you're moving them to sac being a kiter and zealot not being touched, making them still the best balanced HACs but no dedicated brawler.

deimos needs to be a dedicated brawler, it's a gallente blaster boat for gods sake! ishtar can fill the kite/snipe role fine with sentries.
it's been given a useless rep bonus that no one will use and is STILL completely unfittable with neutrons and a 1600 plate.
even totally ignoring the grid requirements when fitting it out, it gets 59.7k EHP and 800dps. ok, fine, stats seem ok. however, a brutix can easitly match those stats on a fit that actually fits and the deimos is 250pg OVER on fitting! sorry, but it's a bad joke.
as for an active fit? no one in their right mind is going to use it over a myrmidon...

munin needs to be a brawler. minmatar currently have ZERO armour tanked brawling options in any T2 ship, this is appauling! if you feel the need to give minmatar a kity arty platform, make the vaga or sleip into it. youre mostly doing it with the sleip anyway with that double damage bonus rather than ROF.

for caldari, i can understand both ships wanting to keep range but a brawler would still be nice.

even the title 'heavy ASSAULT ship' implies that these ships can put out high DPS in your face while having good survivability.
instead, theyre being relegated to nancy kiting ships that get out performed in almost all situations by tier 3 BCs anyway.

please, FIX HACs.
these changes are still not good enough to make HACs a viable option and they will remain irrelevant.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
sten mattson
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#2180 - 2013-08-19 02:44:53 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
CCP, why the hate of brawling HACs? could you explain it to me please?

Each race has 2 HACs, would it really be so hard to give each race 1 brawler and 1 kiter/sniper in the ship class?
in HACs: Calradi can't brawl at all, minmatar can't brawl at all (no, munin CANT brawl), galente can brawl in theory but both HACs perform TONS better as kiters so why would they.

This leave amarr which currently has the good mix of zealot for range and sac for up close (with zealot also being able to brawl) but you're moving them to sac being a kiter and zealot not being touched, making them still the best balanced HACs but no dedicated brawler.

deimos needs to be a dedicated brawler, it's a gallente blaster boat for gods sake! ishtar can fill the kite/snipe role fine with sentries.
munin needs to be a brawler. minmatar currently have ZERO armour tanked brawling options in any T2 ship, this is appauling! if you feel the need to give minmatar a kity arty platform, make the vaga or sleip into it. youre mostly doing it with the sleip anyway with that double damage bonus rather than ROF.
for caldari, i can understand both ships wanting to keep range but a brawler would still be nice.

even the title 'heavy ASSAULT ship' implies that these ships can put out high DPS in your face while having good survivability.
instead, theyre being relegated to nancy kiting ships that get out performed in almost all situations by tier 3 BCs anyway.

please, FIX HACs.
these changes are still not good enough to make HACs a viable option and they will remain irrelevant.


i dont know why people say that the zealot can brawl but not the muninn. they have both the same amount of mids, the muninn got moar tracking with ACs , capless, selectable damage type weapons , a utility high and a flight of light drones.

what does the zealot have? a slightly smaller resist hole and more range. thats it

i'd say its more the zealot that cant brawl and people just havent realized how good the muninn is at brawling

IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!!