These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#861 - 2013-07-19 19:16:25 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Baren wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.

Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense.



I will like this as well, that would make game play alot more interesting.


Here are my thoughts.

Deimost : will still Never Be flown, it needs to either have a little more of everything including tank "in your face brawler" or it should be re-designed all together

Ishtar: is good as always... could use a bit more CPU after running tests in EFT

Cerberus: is better
it would be nice to see a close range brwaler missle boat for caldari
Raven is long range
Rohk is long range
drake is meduim range
Cerb is long range
Eagle is long range
naga is long range

It would be nice to have a caldari ship that got some better damage mods and was made to be an in your face brawler.


Eagle is nice for what it does


Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus.

Zealot is ok as is, maybe a few tweks could be done


Vaga is now a monster, its gunna make solo PvP very interesting

Munin though has gotten better still could take more looking at. still dont see why people would fly it over alot of the other HACs





Dude, the Sac is already borderline overpowered. You don't need to give it another bonus.


Yea, being slow and having trouble getting damage on target sure does make it overpowered. This is a joke i assume, because you're the first person to ever think of the Sac as overpowered.

that medium flight capable drone bay will be two flighs of lights (one dps one ewar) for most serious pilots and it still suffers from the same problems that the Sac has always had - Its fat and slow, and its damage is easily mitigated by just about anything that tries.


Its a fatarse but you're wrong on everything else.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#862 - 2013-07-19 19:23:28 UTC
The question that came to my mind when I read the proposed changes was "What do they think these ships DO?"

With the rest of the tiericide initiative, there has been clear roles assigned to hull groupings; you have logi hulls, attack(DPS) hulls, combat(tank) hulls, EWAR, etc. The changes to hulls based upon their defined 'role' were well done (imo).

However, looking at these proposed changes, I'm left wondering. Is there any sort of unified 'vision' for the roles that HACs should fill? The scattered, seemingly random bonuses imply that this is not the case...

I for one, would like to see CCP step back, determine actual Roles (capital 'R') for these hulls and then give them bonuses that allow them to excell IN THAT ROLE. I'd rather see it done right than see 2/3 of a promising hull class go unused. I can be patient. I really can.

40+ pages makes for a lot of reading, and I'm sorry if these suggestions have been made before, but perhaps they're worth re-stating:

1) Why do the HACs not get the same +2 slots that the AFs got over the T1 linup? +2 slots would go toward fitting consistency, and be an attractive gain to offset the increased training time and ISK cost of the hull.

2) The blanket "make MWD awesome" role bonus makes me sad, and doesn't make MWD awesome. I'd much rather see a "+100% to AB speed" if you feel a compelling need to have some sort of speed boost bonus. NONE of them (seriously, go look) have sigs that are smaller than their T1 variants (only the Ishtar manages to break even). Even with the proposed sig bloom reduction, the modified sig is easily large enough to be whelped by large guns. At least with an AB speed bonus, then sig returns as a factor. The "smaller and faster" argument only works if the ship is actually smaller AND faster.
Instead of a blanket speed/sig bloom bonus though, it would be nice to see a more interesting Role bonus - immune to webs, 50% reduction in enemy energy neut effectiveness, or some individual role bonus tailored to the hull.

3) There's two (obvious) roles that present themselves: 'Damage' and 'Tank'. Each race should have one of each, but there is no reason why they would fulfil the roles the same way from race to race.

Let's take a look at the 'Damage' role. Ships in this role should either do more damage than their T1 or Navy variant, OR have better damage projection. All other areas should be roughly equivalent to T1/Navy variants.

Proposed hulls for the 'Damage' role:
Zealot - Damage Projection (And already pretty balanced, I think everyone will agree.) You can add an extra utility high slot to bring it up to 16.
Cerberus - Damage Amplification. As a weapons system, missiles have plusses and minuses when compared to turrets, but a specialized Missile damage platform should be able to trade-off the delayed damage application inherent in missiles for extra-large fireworks. An extra low slot or utility high for the 16th.
Deimos - Damage Amplification. A blaster-fit Diemos should be terrifying once it get's into range, a rail-fit Deimos should hit like a brick. Why not 6 highs with 6 turrets to rain death?
Munin - Damage Amplification. Decent base speed, good gunship-oriented bonuses already. The specialization that I'd like to see would be +1 high slot and +1 turret.

Keeping in mind the "specialized" nature of these hulls, the 'Tank' role would excell at either repairing or absorbing damage, but not have much better stats in all other areas over the T1/Navy variants.

Proposed hulls for the 'Tank' role:
Sacrilege - Super-heavy; cap recharge bonus (love it) lends itself well to dual armor reppers. Already does anemic DPS, so no issue there. The drones can be set at 1 flight of lights, and add the 6th low slot.
Eagle - Rail buffs will provide the same DPS as other rail hulls, could replace one of the optimal bonuses for a shield HP bonus, or a shield boost bonus. You can leave the utility high slot in to bring the slot count to 16, which gives some versatility to the hull.
Ishtar - The oddball of the group, I have to agree that the +50m3 drone bay bonus is... well, kinda dumb. This could easily be switched to an armor HP bonus or a drone MWD speed boost without losing the ideal of the "completely dedicated drone carrier". +1 low slot and FFS +some CPU! PLEASE!
Vagabond - Part speed tank, part shield tank (soon), let's see +1 mid slot to harden things up. I'm not going to compare to the Cynabal, since the faction cruisers have yet to be re-balanced, and everyone already knows.

There's more I could add, but I think I've taken up enough of your time for right now. Thanks for all the good work!
Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#863 - 2013-07-19 19:24:26 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Baren wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.

Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense.



I will like this as well, that would make game play alot more interesting.


Here are my thoughts.

Deimost : will still Never Be flown, it needs to either have a little more of everything including tank "in your face brawler" or it should be re-designed all together

Ishtar: is good as always... could use a bit more CPU after running tests in EFT

Cerberus: is better
it would be nice to see a close range brwaler missle boat for caldari
Raven is long range
Rohk is long range
drake is meduim range
Cerb is long range
Eagle is long range
naga is long range

It would be nice to have a caldari ship that got some better damage mods and was made to be an in your face brawler.


Eagle is nice for what it does


Sacrilge still wont be flown by many. The CAP Bonus should be built into the ship and you should give the ship an other missle bonus. cause there is not point buying a Sac when you could buy a drake or a cerberus.

Zealot is ok as is, maybe a few tweks could be done


Vaga is now a monster, its gunna make solo PvP very interesting

Munin though has gotten better still could take more looking at. still dont see why people would fly it over alot of the other HACs





Dude, the Sac is already borderline overpowered. You don't need to give it another bonus.


Yea, being slow and having trouble getting damage on target sure does make it overpowered. This is a joke i assume, because you're the first person to ever think of the Sac as overpowered.

that medium flight capable drone bay will be two flighs of lights (one dps one ewar) for most serious pilots and it still suffers from the same problems that the Sac has always had - Its fat and slow, and its damage is easily mitigated by just about anything that tries.


Its a fatarse but you're wrong on everything else.


Lol im sure you fly it all the time and have a few in your hanger right?

The sac has a great tank we can all agree but **** dps.... i'll able to tank my enemy for hours but itll take me hours to kill him anyways with the **** dps the sac puts out.

and its slow as f*ck
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#864 - 2013-07-19 19:28:28 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
None of your(player) silly ideas justify the 15x price tag over t1 cruisers or the 3-4x the price tag of ABC's.


You can modify these things all you want in a 1000 different ways, unless you jack the power WAY up, or drop the price WAY down, nobody will fly them simply because the cheaper options do as much or almost as much for a fraction of the cost.


i remember when a eagle was 70 million isk... is your problem more a supply demand thing rather then a build cost thing?

good way to ofset build cost could be adding moon goo to hauler drops... this could help flood the market and reduce build costs...

lets say if ccp did a blanket build cost reduction and then later in the year also did something to saturate tech II production mods in the market then hacs would be silly cheap and tech I would never be used.



And I remember when pilgrims were 50 million, they still needed a buff, but at this point buying an Eagle for 220-250 million after fit is silly when you can get similar or better performance out of a Naga for a fraction of the cost


The problem isn't limited to supply and demand, its the usefulness of the ship, versus the cost, compared to the ability to get that or near that performance out of another cheaper hull.

I get it, power creep is a thing they want to deal with and not have it wreck the game, but you can't have these things cost enormous amounts of money to build when you can get the same from something cheaper, and still expect them to be used at all.

The build costs for these HACs needs to be lowered universally to around 70 -90 million (around ABC prices) in addition to the proposed changes or people simply wont fly them in any meaningful manner.


point and match... sorry guys i got laid last night... i am like george from Seinfeld... not at my sharpest with a lady in life.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#865 - 2013-07-19 19:30:16 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I wouldn't say that T3s have high speed, I'd say they have low speed... medium DPS, high to med tank
CSs should have High DPS, med to high tank (fleet boosters should have a high tank), middle to low speed
HACs should have med DPS, low* tank, medium to high speed

* you're definition of low is what HACs should have
Surely you're joking! (Sorry, couldn't resist :P) Proteus can get over 1000 dps (unheated--1130 heated) with 150k ehp and travel at a brisk 1750 m/s oh. This most certainly is high dps, high tank and--ok, I'll give it to you--medium speed.

I think: take these figures and distribute them among the ships that perform similar function (of putting out damage). HACs are a natural fit for the damage, trading damage for tank, CSs should get the tank both to perform as command ships and tanky damage dealers, but of course, giving up damage and being lowest of the three, and T3s, due to their chameleon nature, should come somewhere in the middle of the rest. I mean, I think T3s would have to be looked at, since the high penalty for their superior performance now is losing a skill--actual physical real-world training time--so it does make some sense to have them in their current state. So maybe a heavy nerf would necessitate them losing that feature.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#866 - 2013-07-19 19:31:20 UTC
nikar galvren wrote:
The question that came to my mind when I read the proposed changes was "What do they think these ships DO?"

With the rest of the tiericide initiative, there has been clear roles assigned to hull groupings; you have logi hulls, attack(DPS) hulls, combat(tank) hulls, EWAR, etc. The changes to hulls based upon their defined 'role' were well done (imo).

However, looking at these proposed changes, I'm left wondering. Is there any sort of unified 'vision' for the roles that HACs should fill? The scattered, seemingly random bonuses imply that this is not the case...

I for one, would like to see CCP step back, determine actual Roles (capital 'R') for these hulls and then give them bonuses that allow them to excell IN THAT ROLE. I'd rather see it done right than see 2/3 of a promising hull class go unused. I can be patient. I really can.

40+ pages makes for a lot of reading, and I'm sorry if these suggestions have been made before, but perhaps they're worth re-stating:

1) Why do the HACs not get the same +2 slots that the AFs got over the T1 linup? +2 slots would go toward fitting consistency, and be an attractive gain to offset the increased training time and ISK cost of the hull.

2) The blanket "make MWD awesome" role bonus makes me sad, and doesn't make MWD awesome. I'd much rather see a "+100% to AB speed" if you feel a compelling need to have some sort of speed boost bonus. NONE of them (seriously, go look) have sigs that are smaller than their T1 variants (only the Ishtar manages to break even). Even with the proposed sig bloom reduction, the modified sig is easily large enough to be whelped by large guns. At least with an AB speed bonus, then sig returns as a factor. The "smaller and faster" argument only works if the ship is actually smaller AND faster.
Instead of a blanket speed/sig bloom bonus though, it would be nice to see a more interesting Role bonus - immune to webs, 50% reduction in enemy energy neut effectiveness, or some individual role bonus tailored to the hull.

3) There's two (obvious) roles that present themselves: 'Damage' and 'Tank'. Each race should have one of each, but there is no reason why they would fulfil the roles the same way from race to race.

Let's take a look at the 'Damage' role. Ships in this role should either do more damage than their T1 or Navy variant, OR have better damage projection. All other areas should be roughly equivalent to T1/Navy variants.

Proposed hulls for the 'Damage' role:
Zealot - Damage Projection (And already pretty balanced, I think everyone will agree.) You can add an extra utility high slot to bring it up to 16.
Cerberus - Damage Amplification. As a weapons system, missiles have plusses and minuses when compared to turrets, but a specialized Missile damage platform should be able to trade-off the delayed damage application inherent in missiles for extra-large fireworks. An extra low slot or utility high for the 16th.
Deimos - Damage Amplification. A blaster-fit Diemos should be terrifying once it get's into range, a rail-fit Deimos should hit like a brick. Why not 6 highs with 6 turrets to rain death?
Munin - Damage Amplification. Decent base speed, good gunship-oriented bonuses already. The specialization that I'd like to see would be +1 high slot and +1 turret.

Keeping in mind the "specialized" nature of these hulls, the 'Tank' role would excell at either repairing or absorbing damage, but not have much better stats in all other areas over the T1/Navy variants.

Proposed hulls for the 'Tank' role:
Sacrilege - Super-heavy; cap recharge bonus (love it) lends itself well to dual armor reppers. Already does anemic DPS, so no issue there. The drones can be set at 1 flight of lights, and add the 6th low slot.
Eagle - Rail buffs will provide the same DPS as other rail hulls, could replace one of the optimal bonuses for a shield HP bonus, or a shield boost bonus. You can leave the utility high slot in to bring the slot count to 16, which gives some versatility to the hull.
Ishtar - The oddball of the group, I have to agree that the +50m3 drone bay bonus is... well, kinda dumb. This could easily be switched to an armor HP bonus or a drone MWD speed boost without losing the ideal of the "completely dedicated drone carrier". +1 low slot and FFS +some CPU! PLEASE!
Vagabond - Part speed tank, part shield tank (soon), let's see +1 mid slot to harden things up. I'm not going to compare to the Cynabal, since the faction cruisers have yet to be re-balanced, and everyone already knows.

There's more I could add, but I think I've taken up enough of your time for right now. Thanks for all the good work!




I DO LIKE WHERE YOUR GOING WITH THIS

I hope CCP is reading this thread

Making a setting clear and distinct roles for the ships would make sense, and would follow CCP's Tiericide approach.

NOTHING CCP IS DOING WITH THE HACS IS FOLLOWING THE TIERICIDE APPROACH
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#867 - 2013-07-19 19:39:41 UTC
I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#868 - 2013-07-19 19:41:28 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
One thing first:

Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.

70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's...
increase it to 85km or more


Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead.


Can you try to convice CCP to make someone rebalance the ABC's that doesn't have a massive hardon for the Talos?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Blastil
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#869 - 2013-07-19 19:42:32 UTC
I have to concur that the HAC changes could definately look at being totally reworked. I liked the suggestion about an AB bonus, rather than a MWD bonus. generally speaking, there seem not ot be a defined line of HAC's from attack cruisers to attack HACs, and from combat cruisers to combat HACs.

Many good ideas from rise and fozzie, but i think you could definately do much better!

Cudos though, I know HACs are kind of out of both of your comfort zones, as i know for certain Rise commented that he doesn't fly HAC's much back in his podcasts.
Sol Mortis
An Heroes
#870 - 2013-07-19 19:43:12 UTC
These changes are just okay. Biggest problems:

Deimos! Why does it still have the stupid microwarpdrive cap penalty bonus. You got rid of that bonus on the thorax and just made its cap better. if you are rolling the Vaga speed bonus into its base speed like you did with the Stabber you should roll the MWD cap bonus into the Deimos like you did with the Thorax and give it a tracking bonus instead.

Also I don't like the Vaga shield boost bonus, it should be tracking instead. I might seem a little tracking crazy, but it is a trait that can really help these ships be more maneuverable in comparison to the similarly priced superior brawlers that are faction battlecruisers.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#871 - 2013-07-19 19:43:27 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit.
There would almost have to be some shift in the costs, considering that they wouldn't (many aren't) be worth the cost they currently are or will be post rebalancing. 10:1 increase in cost over a T1 for similar performance won't cut it.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Nabuch Sattva
The Green Cross
The Skeleton Crew
#872 - 2013-07-19 19:43:35 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.

Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense.


Most interesting proposal so far. +1
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#873 - 2013-07-19 19:46:39 UTC
Blastil wrote:
I have to concur that the HAC changes could definately look at being totally reworked. I liked the suggestion about an AB bonus, rather than a MWD bonus. generally speaking, there seem not ot be a defined line of HAC's from attack cruisers to attack HACs, and from combat cruisers to combat HACs.

Many good ideas from rise and fozzie, but i think you could definately do much better!

Cudos though, I know HACs are kind of out of both of your comfort zones, as i know for certain Rise commented that he doesn't fly HAC's much back in his podcasts.


The annoying thing is the combat role is a waste of time for HAC's there is already HIC's that follow the T1 combat cruisers... the only line not followed is the T2 Attack cruiser line.

Also there is a list of ships that perform the combat role better and for less cost than HAC's ...

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
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#874 - 2013-07-19 19:47:14 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Maximus Andendare wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
I wouldn't say that T3s have high speed, I'd say they have low speed... medium DPS, high to med tank
CSs should have High DPS, med to high tank (fleet boosters should have a high tank), middle to low speed
HACs should have med DPS, low* tank, medium to high speed

* you're definition of low is what HACs should have
Surely you're joking! (Sorry, couldn't resist :P) Proteus can get over 1000 dps (unheated--1130 heated) with 150k ehp and travel at a brisk 1750 m/s oh. This most certainly is high dps, high tank and--ok, I'll give it to you--medium speed.

I think: take these figures and distribute them among the ships that perform similar function (of putting out damage). HACs are a natural fit for the damage, trading damage for tank, CSs should get the tank both to perform as command ships and tanky damage dealers, but of course, giving up damage and being lowest of the three, and T3s, due to their chameleon nature, should come somewhere in the middle of the rest. I mean, I think T3s would have to be looked at, since the high penalty for their superior performance now is losing a skill--actual physical real-world training time--so it does make some sense to have them in their current state. So maybe a heavy nerf would necessitate them losing that feature.


Sorry, rephrased that to be clearer.

Don't worry about the pun, we get that a lot, and we use it whenever we do something stupid (We evicted a guy with a Phoenix cause our FC decided he liked it.)

CSs should be a bit worse than T3s are now, and T3s should be about where the Loki is now.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#875 - 2013-07-19 19:49:21 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
One thing first:

Eagle needs a huge max lock range increase to begin with.

70km is way too low for a double 10% optimal range bonused ship , it is only 5km more than the deimos's...
increase it to 85km or more


Either that or just admit that the role of "medium turret sniper" is dead.


Can you try to convice CCP to make someone rebalance the ABC's that doesn't have a massive hardon for the Talos?


I would definitely like to see ABC's get the nerf they should have got first time around.. also encourage them to make them T2 please... you know it makes sense :)

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
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#876 - 2013-07-19 19:49:28 UTC
Baren wrote:
nikar galvren wrote:
The question that came to my mind when I read the proposed changes was "What do they think these ships DO?"

With the rest of the tiericide initiative, there has been clear roles assigned to hull groupings; you have logi hulls, attack(DPS) hulls, combat(tank) hulls, EWAR, etc. The changes to hulls based upon their defined 'role' were well done (imo).

However, looking at these proposed changes, I'm left wondering. Is there any sort of unified 'vision' for the roles that HACs should fill? The scattered, seemingly random bonuses imply that this is not the case...

I for one, would like to see CCP step back, determine actual Roles (capital 'R') for these hulls and then give them bonuses that allow them to excell IN THAT ROLE. I'd rather see it done right than see 2/3 of a promising hull class go unused. I can be patient. I really can.

40+ pages makes for a lot of reading, and I'm sorry if these suggestions have been made before, but perhaps they're worth re-stating:

1) Why do the HACs not get the same +2 slots that the AFs got over the T1 linup? +2 slots would go toward fitting consistency, and be an attractive gain to offset the increased training time and ISK cost of the hull.

2) The blanket "make MWD awesome" role bonus makes me sad, and doesn't make MWD awesome. I'd much rather see a "+100% to AB speed" if you feel a compelling need to have some sort of speed boost bonus. NONE of them (seriously, go look) have sigs that are smaller than their T1 variants (only the Ishtar manages to break even). Even with the proposed sig bloom reduction, the modified sig is easily large enough to be whelped by large guns. At least with an AB speed bonus, then sig returns as a factor. The "smaller and faster" argument only works if the ship is actually smaller AND faster.
Instead of a blanket speed/sig bloom bonus though, it would be nice to see a more interesting Role bonus - immune to webs, 50% reduction in enemy energy neut effectiveness, or some individual role bonus tailored to the hull.

3) There's two (obvious) roles that present themselves: 'Damage' and 'Tank'. Each race should have one of each, but there is no reason why they would fulfil the roles the same way from race to race.

Let's take a look at the 'Damage' role. Ships in this role should either do more damage than their T1 or Navy variant, OR have better damage projection. All other areas should be roughly equivalent to T1/Navy variants.

Proposed hulls for the 'Damage' role:
Zealot - Damage Projection (And already pretty balanced, I think everyone will agree.) You can add an extra utility high slot to bring it up to 16.
Cerberus - Damage Amplification. As a weapons system, missiles have plusses and minuses when compared to turrets, but a specialized Missile damage platform should be able to trade-off the delayed damage application inherent in missiles for extra-large fireworks. An extra low slot or utility high for the 16th.
Deimos - Damage Amplification. A blaster-fit Diemos should be terrifying once it get's into range, a rail-fit Deimos should hit like a brick. Why not 6 highs with 6 turrets to rain death?
Munin - Damage Amplification. Decent base speed, good gunship-oriented bonuses already. The specialization that I'd like to see would be +1 high slot and +1 turret.

Keeping in mind the "specialized" nature of these hulls, the 'Tank' role would excell at either repairing or absorbing damage, but not have much better stats in all other areas over the T1/Navy variants.

Proposed hulls for the 'Tank' role:
Sacrilege - Super-heavy; cap recharge bonus (love it) lends itself well to dual armor reppers. Already does anemic DPS, so no issue there. The drones can be set at 1 flight of lights, and add the 6th low slot.
Eagle - Rail buffs will provide the same DPS as other rail hulls, could replace one of the optimal bonuses for a shield HP bonus, or a shield boost bonus. You can leave the utility high slot in to bring the slot count to 16, which gives some versatility to the hull.
Ishtar - The oddball of the group, I have to agree that the +50m3 drone bay bonus is... well, kinda dumb. This could easily be switched to an armor HP bonus or a drone MWD speed boost without losing the ideal of the "completely dedicated drone carrier". +1 low slot and FFS +some CPU! PLEASE!
Vagabond - Part speed tank, part shield tank (soon), let's see +1 mid slot to harden things up. I'm not going to compare to the Cynabal, since the faction cruisers have yet to be re-balanced, and everyone already knows.

There's more I could add, but I think I've taken up enough of your time for right now. Thanks for all the good work!




I DO LIKE WHERE YOUR GOING WITH THIS

I hope CCP is reading this thread

Making a setting clear and distinct roles for the ships would make sense, and would follow CCP's Tiericide approach.

NOTHING CCP IS DOING WITH THE HACS IS FOLLOWING THE TIERICIDE APPROACH


Dude, your caps lock key is broken but I agree.

Dear CCP,
tell us what we are supposed to kill with HACS so we could give you better answers to "can those ships do it or not?"

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#877 - 2013-07-19 19:51:33 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit.


100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good.

With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#878 - 2013-07-19 19:54:38 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I'm also for the idea of reducing HAC costs a bit.


100m with a bigger buff than is currently stated would be good.

With the currently proposed buff, maybe 60-80m depending on the ship.


Funny facts,
The baseprice of HACS was supposed to at > 40m isk but nullsec alliences are like forth world countries and all inhabitants die of starvation on a daily basis...

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#879 - 2013-07-19 19:59:12 UTC
Giving the ships an extra slot might make them worth it.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#880 - 2013-07-19 20:00:26 UTC
Role Bonus: +1 slot, defined as high/med/low at manufacture time. (Picked by the builders, or the blueprint)

Each one version gets a fancy skin from a different NPC corporation. (3 skins per ship)


Then fix the glaring errors with Ishtar CPU, and other little things in this thread, and call it a day.


(I also liked the MJD idea)

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.