Player Features and Ideas Discussion

indeed also T1 are meant to be the base ships from where navy/pirate and T3 and T2 stem from so make HACS T2 attack cruisers you can still use different bonuses and layout from the T1's to keep uniqueness.

CCP you could always make them say 15% slower than attack cruisers but with the T2 resists which need to be more omni i might add and a little more EHP and then the HACS tend to have different weapons and bonuses anyway there wouldn't be excessive overlap to obsolete T1 attack cruisers .. but if you don't do anything you will obsolete HACS .. well they kind of are atm with ABC's being so strong..

It seems as though (based on the Tech chart from a while ago and various comments) that CCP envisions HACs as a tankier version of a T1 Attack Cruiser. This idea worked great in the Zealot, because it can mount a significant tank (~+100%) over an Omen, project more damage with its damage bonus (on top of its RoF bonus) AND have better optimals with the +optimal bonus. The Zealot combines the best of Amarr T1 into a T2 hull: strong tank (like a maller) and good damage (like an Omen (old ONI)). Each race has one HAC that is supposed to elevate their T1 Att. Cruiser and then some. Zealot already does this, Deimos should, Vagabond should and Cerebus should (probably does after this pass).

Then, the other ships in the HAC category were racial wildcards. Amarr had Sacrilege (firing HAMs from an armor hull), Gallente had Ishtar (which was supposed to be some sort of super Vexor), Minmatar the Muninn for a specialized long rage Arty boat and Caldari the Eagle for a similar purpose. What happened in the mean time is T3 BCs were released, obsoleting the long range ships and T1/Navy got such boosts that the rest, save from the shining-star Zealot--which really wasn't affected because the package on the ONI is for kiting, just couldn't keep up. Obviously, the Zealot was a beautiful ship, well designed and didn't need to change.

Unfortunately, the other ships weren't at this place. The Deimos isn't a "better" Thorax. The Thorax still tracks better, is faster and puts out the same (or more) damage than it. Eagles will still put down pitiful dps (at range! whoo! /sad) and the same dps as a Moa up close. I have to disagree with CCP that HACs shouldn't be "better" than a T1 ship. Yes, they should be. The Zealot, by all measures, is flat-out better than an Omen and a Maller. HACs should put out more damage with ~60k tank (with an ACR). Command Ships, OTOH, should put out similar damage to their T1 counterparts but have a tankier ship. That'd distinguish CSs with HACs: HACs give you damage and CSs give you tank.

But back to the point: CCP likely wants HACs to be what their name implies: A heavy assau--attack--cruiser. A T1 cruiser with more tank. But that distinguishment will never justify the 10:1 increase in cost, and if they don't balance based on cost, then there's really no point in having these ships cost more just so we can get a marginal increase like extra optimal range. (And besides, Navy ships are already T1 ships with more tank.) These ships have to do more: project damage better, better falloff, better tracking, faster rate of fire, stronger cap, stronger tank, etc. There needs to be a reason to buy one--and a much better reason than a marginal performance increase.

CCP, I urge you to have a hard look at the Zealot and why it's been so successful in the game. Ask yourselves why Deimoses, Eagles and the others have been shelved. Then, once you answer those questions, work in solutions to this line that addresses those answers.

Please have a second look at the agility. Whilst I like some of the changes around slots and bonuses, some of these ships are horrifically slow. Now I don't want these to all end up flat out faster than the T1 cruisers, but please consider putting them in the same ballpark.

Looking at the Zealot as an example. It's a big chunk slower in a straight line than an Omen, whilst taking a few extra seconds to align. If you don't want to make it and the other ranged HACs faster can you consider giving them more fitting - powergrid in particular - so they can actually fit the full size guns, MWD and some tank without needing fitting mods / implant?
Looking in EFT, with perfect skills. Can't fit a set of Heavy Beams, meta 4 800mm plate, meta mwd and even a micro cap booster without implants or fitting mods. It just needs a percent more! :p

Agility would certainly be a balancing point vs T1 ships, though. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say that T1 attack crusiers ought to have gotten the MWD bonus to offset somewhat their smallish tank and lack of T2 resists. T2 ships keep their strong tank with better damage application but at the cost of some agility and speed. Makes sense.

Yup

[High Slots]
Dual 180mm Autocannon II
Small Neut/Nos

[Mid Slots]
10mn Experimental Microwarpdrive
10mn Afterburner II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler

[Low Slots]
Damage Control II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Nanofiber Internatl Structure II

[Rig Slots]

Medium Ancillary Current Router
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer


Requires a 1% PG implant, 400 DPS without drones
MWD - 2700m/s
AB - 1000 m/s
Slowboat - 408m/s
12k EHP
750 DPS tank with overloaded ASB (Should be closer to 1000 with the new bonus, higher still with crystals)

Can catch kiting ships, can get under battleship guns, works well for what amounts to basically a one slot tank.
I think Garmon also did a video with one of these... one of those elite PvPers did a video with it at least.

It's probably done that way because that is how the bonus is actually calculated. Showing the bonus in the same way avoids any confusion or misunderstandings that might otherwise arise. A role bonus would be something you can't possibly ever lose once gained, but there are still ways to lose skill levels in the game and fully trained skill are the most likely victims if it happens, so it's perfectly justified to show them as per level bonuses.

Its a shame i was thinking of training HAC lv5 and actually buying some HACS ... but alas my cynabal isn't going to be displaced by any HACS ... i would be more likely to use my caracal or get a bellicose nice and cheap and do the same thing as HACS pretty much... or maybe use my SFI for a more armour based setup .. a great frig killer in a RR armour BS fleet.

Basically you made t1 cruisers so good that anything you do to the HACS that cost 10-15 times as much wont be good enough.

Perhaps a drastic reduction in HAC build costs to maybe make them cost in the 50-70 million range and you'd be getting somewhere with your current ideas.


What you're doing right now is wasting time changing stats on ships that will stay shelved because of changes you made to other ships.


EDIT: They need to be cheaper than Talos, Tornado ect hulls which are flat out better at damage projection and more exensive than their fragile t1 brothers, so anywhere in the middle there will bring their use back up, anything else you do short of making them a direct improvement over the t1 hull will leave them sitting on the shelf where they're currently at.

interesting fit.... but is it worth using over a cyclone dual ASB 1200 plus tank for a 4th of the price?
Which is always an issue if you care about your wallet and your kb...
Also when CS get buffed .. similar price which is more useful to the fleet?

Losing hitpoints is a bad thing for brawlers. The Deimos is no exception. Or are you trying to turn the Deimos into a Shield tank now? sort of a Gallente version of the vagabond? the hitpoint reduction makes no sense to me whatsoever. if anything, BUFF the hitpoints!
DOES THE SLANG NAME "DIEMOST" MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?

Vagabond's new base speed is 9 m/s slower than current Vagabond with only Minmatar Cruiser 5.
Other than that, with the new Shield Booster bonus I reckon it's gonna need a bigger cargo bay as well so it can hold enough capacitor booster charges, and also it's not consistent with the Jaguar, so I wonder where the "consistency" is here. also, brawler role? then what's the speed and falloff bonus for??
And fitting shield boosters on Vagabonds is only popular because Ancillary Shield Boosters are overpowered which made them popular with lots of ships.
Yes they ARE overpowered. and yes I do use them because of that and I enjoy the benefits of overpowered shield boosters.
Way to go, CCP, you're turning the Vagabond into a downsized Sleipnir.

Sacrilege as heavy tackle? isn't the Vagabond better for that, with its higher scan resolution?
The bigger drone bay will give the Sac a lot more DPS, in combination with its stronger powergrid allowing for a better tank, will make it a lot more common as it is much more powerful and will probably put them at the top of the HAC league along with the Zealot. Now the word "Diemost" pops up again. Woohoo.

tl;dr HAC changes make no sense. And here I thought the HAC rebalancing will add more tank to them and have them make sense. My bad! Sorry!