Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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 :)

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 .

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.

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