These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1281 - 2013-07-22 21:07:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Vayn Baxtor
Quote:
The Vagabond with a shieldboost boni for brawling? And only 4 slots, that is 2 slots after you fitted point and mwd, or that that new roleboni is for nothing... again; brawling? /me roles eyes.


Something I've been trying to point out in my last (or forelast) post regarding what these HACs should be focusing on.

Thing is we can't really have every single ship have +4 med slots.

I have no clue how CCP in general sees stuff, but I'm guessing we're sometimes to fly without a tackling module - as silly as it sounds. While a +20km warp disruptor is most of the time a must for a ship like Vagabond, I'm guessing we're to neither always see the Vaga itself as a solo-pwn boat nor as a ship that always has to tackle something.

I understand tha propulsion module + three modules won't help much either.


But as a different example. I often fly ships without the fancy cookie cutter tanks, like the common 2xLSE on Vaga.
Brawling with BufferTank is one thing, but you can also be useful by dropping the point and other tanky stuff for better DPS support. Let the Interceptors in the gang do the tackling.
Of course, if you get aggro, you will of course die fast without LSEs.

This is just to show however that you do not have to use the same old fit all the time just to suffice asking for more medslots.

But in the end, there has to be something done with the role bonus - and to figure if that new Shield-bonus is really that useful.

*


As somebody else and I already suggested, there should probably be a breakdown in what is "Assault" and what is "Strike", because those are seriously two different aspects. These ships are called HEAVY ASSAULT but right now, even with these changes, that name is mostly just cosmetic and to make it sound more awesome than they actually are. Don't get me wrong, you can still kick bum with them - but yeah, 64 pages here say other stuff.

It is indirectly why I also say specifically for the Vaga, make it lighter/faster, better dmg projection if necessary - therefore not so tanky and a bit fragile. That however is more of a "Strike Cruiser" mentality than a Heavy Assault one. Since it is likely too complicated for most to imagine anything around that, it is imo easier to suggest a role bonus and give to each HAC an individually awesome one.

Such as that AB bonus and all those other rare and fancy stuff, like anti-web and whatever may suit your taste or be missing on your favorite HAC.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1282 - 2013-07-22 21:11:12 UTC
Cearain wrote:
nikar galvren wrote:


VAGABOND: Formerly the king of skirmishing, recent advances forced the Minmatar scientists to completely redesign the Vagabond's propulsion system. The results were stunning.
(Roll the max speed into the hull.)

Role Bonus: 80% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Optimal

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage

Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 5L;
Max velocity: 299
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 330 / 5
Sensor strength: 14 Ladar
Signature radius: 110



I'm not sure what your going for here.

The shield boost bonus was great on this ship, as long as it gets at least 1 more mid, a bit more shield buffer, and enough fitting room.

I would prefer that to what you posted here.


Going for the "Strike" theme. This proposal was focused on damage projection without pigeon holing the Vaga into a shield tank. I don't want to say that I'm against the shield tank idea, but I like the thought of being able to project damage far enough out to really make use of the speed.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1283 - 2013-07-22 21:26:50 UTC
I would now go for two role bonuses.

Zealot, Cerberus, Vagabond and Deimos

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty and Capacitor usage. (I would say I was ok with most of the changes to these but they need more Microwarpdrive run time, expanding the role bonus should satisfy this without buffing cap excessively)
Role Bonus: Immunity to non-targeted interdiction.

These are borrowed from the strategic cruiser subs which cannot do all three at once and will not be as fast as a HAC. I think this gives them strategic level small gang mobility and perhaps using the strategic cruiser bonuses will lessen any need for a nerf there later.

As a side not on the Vaga I would support the shield boost bonus, people need to do the math with the sig reduction and a LASB (will be better than an LSE II with extender rig) rather than a XL it is still a great skirmisher but it has some options.

Sac, Ishtar, Eagle and Munin I would call these Heavy Combat Cruisers (same skill but split a bit like recons) and buff the EHP by a margin.

Role Bonus: 50% bonus to overheat effects of propulsion modules. (Still think this allows them to catch faster ships off guard (not being able to do this is why I no longer fly an Ishtar as it or gives a better chance to crash back to the gate where needed)
Role Bonus: Immunity to non-targeted interdiction.

Other changes needed are general fitting tweaks and I still believe Sensor strength and lock ranges should be buffed.

Role the Ishtar bay bonus into the hull and give it a second 5% Drone damage and tracking bonus. This boosts its damage compared to all other drone boats especially with one less low than others.

Combine the Eagle’s optimal bonus (like the tengu) and give it a 7.5% tracking bonus.
Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1284 - 2013-07-22 21:41:59 UTC
SO We are all IN Agree ment?

HACs shoulw have two roles, whith each Role having a unique Bonus?
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1285 - 2013-07-22 21:50:23 UTC
Baren wrote:
SO We are all IN Agree ment?

HACs shoulw have two roles, whith each Role having a unique Bonus?




i think the only agreement here is that were all unsatisfied with stuff ....

most common concern :

hacs suck cause they mostly lack purpose.

followed by:

if they have (or had) purpose they are overshadowed by other stuff and or unviable due to changed meta.
Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#1286 - 2013-07-22 21:55:28 UTC
Cearain wrote:
nikar galvren wrote:

snip


I'm not sure what your going for here.

The shield boost bonus was great on this ship, as long as it gets at least 1 more mid, a bit more shield buffer, and enough fitting room.

I would prefer that to what you posted here.


The Vaga is **** with a shield bonus.

It does nothing to help the problems of the hull and addresses a non problem on the hull.
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1287 - 2013-07-22 22:17:28 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Baren wrote:
SO We are all IN Agree ment?

HACs shoulw have two roles, whith each Role having a unique Bonus?




i think the only agreement here is that were all unsatisfied with stuff ....

most common concern :

hacs suck cause they mostly lack purpose.

followed by:

if they have (or had) purpose they are overshadowed by other stuff and or unviable due to changed meta.



I think we can agree that the intuitive direction to take them would be to create two general roles. Whether it is better for the roles have a specific bonus, or the bonus is done hull-by-hull will depend on what the exact role/bonus ends up being.

As for hulls being better or not, a well thought out balance pass and clearly defined purpose for the hulls will go a long way to changing the meta to make them viable.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#1288 - 2013-07-22 22:19:44 UTC
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg

Now all that is left to do for CCP is to define "Specialization", "Generalization" and "Improvement".

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
DR BiCarbonate
Doomriders.
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#1289 - 2013-07-22 22:47:16 UTC
so basically keep flying the cynabal if you want a badass kite ship.... gotcha
shield boost bonus waaaaay out of place, you can barely fit 220mm and tank with the grid that it has, how the **** are we going to fit asb's to it? not the mention only 4 ******* mids..... really?

horrid changes, back to the drawing board for the vaga rise

-carb
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#1290 - 2013-07-22 22:55:07 UTC
I have stated before in this thread, but to me its pretty easy to differentiate HAC's from Tech 3 and Teir 3.

If CCP decides to give them a role, it should be that of a Kiting ship. Or if you want a dual role bonus (like those found on the force / combat recons) a kiting / med sniping role.

Teir 3's are not kiting ships (well at least not in the current meta). With the advent of T1 cruisers / navy cruisers Tier 3 ships are just not fast enough. Sure they have great DPS and in some cases projection, but they are poor solo ships if you are attempting to engage a gang that has multiple fast cruisers / light tackle. A HAC could differentiate its self from the Tier 3's in two / three areas:

1. Speed. Give the HAC's cruiser speed, and make sure that their speed is fast enough where outpacing T1 cruisers and anything that is not a frigate would be easy. Currently the Tier3 and Tech 3 are unable to outrun t1 / navy cruisers. Give the HAC's this job.

2. Projection bonuses on Med guns. Give every HAC superior projection bonuses. Allow the vagabond to actually apply DPS with AC's. Make sure that the deimos can actually kite with blasters, or give it something to help with rails. Just like the Tier3's the HACs should be very good at projection damage to 35K+++. The HAC's will be using medium guns, allowing them to handle lighter ships. IE. Cruisers / Dessies / T1 Cruisers more aptly than Tier3's. Again this separates the HAC's further, and gives them a very valid role in small gang / solo / fleet comps.

3. Tank. The HAC's being cruisers should not sport a great tank. Give them something that will give them increased survivability at range, or at least enough EHP / fitting to support a tank that will allow the HAC's enough time to:
a. Pull range on an enemy gang
b. Dive into long point range, to quickly point targets while attacking.

A cruiser should not have an amazing tank. Leave that job for the Tech3s, Command ships, BC's and BS. A cruiser has no place living inside of the range of heavy neuts, webs, scrams, and large tracking guns. A cruiser needs to use its speed and mobility to its advantage- that is its tank.

So now the other question, how can HAC's be different from Tech 3s?

This one is pretty easy to answer, if- like me you can see the validity of a kiting based cruiser. The Tech3s use to have a single kiting boat in the 100MN tengu. However post HML nerf, the Tengu has really been nerfed hard. HML's apply horrible damage to cruisers and down, and the 100MN tengu is no longer fast. With a T1 cruiser easily going 2.2K/s with out links, tengus with their 15+++ second align time just don't have the agility to keep up anymore.

That said, Tech 3's have really not been that useful out side of a few situations-

Heavy armor gangs. There you can see a lot of brick Scram proteus, Web lokis and the like. However you will never see a Tech 3 in a kiting situation any longer- they just don't have the projection, and in many cases the speed to be proper kiters. Let the Tech 3's be the super tank / brawly cruisers that they are. The HAC's should have nothing to do with that at all.

Lastly, the HACs should all have increased low slots inorder to give them room for nanos. and other mods that will help increase ther DPS at range. A turret ship like the eagle should not have to deal with only 4 lows. This can be double the case for ships that are also armor tankers. Now I am not saying that you also have to provide the fitting room for these slots. We don't want tohem to be able to be turned into super tanked brawlers. But they need something to set them apart.

In closing: Give HACs superior speed, projection, and damage at range when compared to T1 cruisers. Role bonuses should help accentuate these intended goals. Here are some examples:

1. MWD cap use
2. MWD sig (would have to be much greater than 50% however)
3. MWD / AB Speed bonus
4. Flat speed boost
5. Projection boost
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1291 - 2013-07-22 23:08:29 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Given the unique SP loss and the extreme jump in cost, that seems quite balanced. T

So, none of you eject before your T3 ship goes down?



Read patch notes, you can't eject from a ship with player aggression, therefore when PVPing in a T3 you can't eject to avoid SP loss.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1292 - 2013-07-22 23:11:42 UTC
Chessur wrote:
I have stated before in this thread, but to me its pretty easy to differentiate HAC's from Tech 3 and Teir 3.

If CCP decides to give them a role, it should be that of a Kiting ship. Or if you want a dual role bonus (like those found on the force / combat recons) a kiting / med sniping role.

Teir 3's are not kiting ships (well at least not in the current meta). With the advent of T1 cruisers / navy cruisers Tier 3 ships are just not fast enough. Sure they have great DPS and in some cases projection, but they are poor solo ships if you are attempting to engage a gang that has multiple fast cruisers / light tackle. A HAC could differentiate its self from the Tier 3's in two / three areas:

1. Speed. Give the HAC's cruiser speed, and make sure that their speed is fast enough where outpacing T1 cruisers and anything that is not a frigate would be easy. Currently the Tier3 and Tech 3 are unable to outrun t1 / navy cruisers. Give the HAC's this job.

2. Projection bonuses on Med guns. Give every HAC superior projection bonuses. Allow the vagabond to actually apply DPS with AC's. Make sure that the deimos can actually kite with blasters, or give it something to help with rails. Just like the Tier3's the HACs should be very good at projection damage to 35K+++. The HAC's will be using medium guns, allowing them to handle lighter ships. IE. Cruisers / Dessies / T1 Cruisers more aptly than Tier3's. Again this separates the HAC's further, and gives them a very valid role in small gang / solo / fleet comps.

3. Tank. The HAC's being cruisers should not sport a great tank. Give them something that will give them increased survivability at range, or at least enough EHP / fitting to support a tank that will allow the HAC's enough time to:
a. Pull range on an enemy gang
b. Dive into long point range, to quickly point targets while attacking.

A cruiser should not have an amazing tank. Leave that job for the Tech3s, Command ships, BC's and BS. A cruiser has no place living inside of the range of heavy neuts, webs, scrams, and large tracking guns. A cruiser needs to use its speed and mobility to its advantage- that is its tank.

So now the other question, how can HAC's be different from Tech 3s?

This one is pretty easy to answer, if- like me you can see the validity of a kiting based cruiser. The Tech3s use to have a single kiting boat in the 100MN tengu. However post HML nerf, the Tengu has really been nerfed hard. HML's apply horrible damage to cruisers and down, and the 100MN tengu is no longer fast. With a T1 cruiser easily going 2.2K/s with out links, tengus with their 15+++ second align time just don't have the agility to keep up anymore.

That said, Tech 3's have really not been that useful out side of a few situations-

Heavy armor gangs. There you can see a lot of brick Scram proteus, Web lokis and the like. However you will never see a Tech 3 in a kiting situation any longer- they just don't have the projection, and in many cases the speed to be proper kiters. Let the Tech 3's be the super tank / brawly cruisers that they are. The HAC's should have nothing to do with that at all.

Lastly, the HACs should all have increased low slots inorder to give them room for nanos. and other mods that will help increase ther DPS at range. A turret ship like the eagle should not have to deal with only 4 lows. This can be double the case for ships that are also armor tankers. Now I am not saying that you also have to provide the fitting room for these slots. We don't want tohem to be able to be turned into super tanked brawlers. But they need something to set them apart.

In closing: Give HACs superior speed, projection, and damage at range when compared to T1 cruisers. Role bonuses should help accentuate these intended goals. Here are some examples:

1. MWD cap use
2. MWD sig (would have to be much greater than 50% however)
3. MWD / AB Speed bonus
4. Flat speed boost
5. Projection boost


LOL good thing your not in charge making all hacs kitting ships
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1293 - 2013-07-22 23:15:52 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
They would end up tanking better than T3's do now ... OP to say the least



Honestly, I think the brawler fits should tank slightly better than BCs, and the kiting ships should tank slightly worse than BCs.

Can't compare to T3s, since T3s haven't been hit by tiercide.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1294 - 2013-07-22 23:38:17 UTC
Chessur wrote:
I have stated before in this thread, but to me its pretty easy to differentiate HAC's from Tech 3 and Teir 3.

If CCP decides to give them a role, it should be that of a Kiting ship. Or if you want a dual role bonus (like those found on the force / combat recons) a kiting / med sniping role.

Teir 3's are not kiting ships (well at least not in the current meta). With the advent of T1 cruisers / navy cruisers Tier 3 ships are just not fast enough. Sure they have great DPS and in some cases projection, but they are poor solo ships if you are attempting to engage a gang that has multiple fast cruisers / light tackle. A HAC could differentiate its self from the Tier 3's in two / three areas:

1. Speed. Give the HAC's cruiser speed, and make sure that their speed is fast enough where outpacing T1 cruisers and anything that is not a frigate would be easy. Currently the Tier3 and Tech 3 are unable to outrun t1 / navy cruisers. Give the HAC's this job.

2. Projection bonuses on Med guns. Give every HAC superior projection bonuses. Allow the vagabond to actually apply DPS with AC's. Make sure that the deimos can actually kite with blasters, or give it something to help with rails. Just like the Tier3's the HACs should be very good at projection damage to 35K+++. The HAC's will be using medium guns, allowing them to handle lighter ships. IE. Cruisers / Dessies / T1 Cruisers more aptly than Tier3's. Again this separates the HAC's further, and gives them a very valid role in small gang / solo / fleet comps.

3. Tank. The HAC's being cruisers should not sport a great tank. Give them something that will give them increased survivability at range, or at least enough EHP / fitting to support a tank that will allow the HAC's enough time to:
a. Pull range on an enemy gang
b. Dive into long point range, to quickly point targets while attacking.

A cruiser should not have an amazing tank. Leave that job for the Tech3s, Command ships, BC's and BS. A cruiser has no place living inside of the range of heavy neuts, webs, scrams, and large tracking guns. A cruiser needs to use its speed and mobility to its advantage- that is its tank.

So now the other question, how can HAC's be different from Tech 3s?

This one is pretty easy to answer, if- like me you can see the validity of a kiting based cruiser. The Tech3s use to have a single kiting boat in the 100MN tengu. However post HML nerf, the Tengu has really been nerfed hard. HML's apply horrible damage to cruisers and down, and the 100MN tengu is no longer fast. With a T1 cruiser easily going 2.2K/s with out links, tengus with their 15+++ second align time just don't have the agility to keep up anymore.

That said, Tech 3's have really not been that useful out side of a few situations-

Heavy armor gangs. There you can see a lot of brick Scram proteus, Web lokis and the like. However you will never see a Tech 3 in a kiting situation any longer- they just don't have the projection, and in many cases the speed to be proper kiters. Let the Tech 3's be the super tank / brawly cruisers that they are. The HAC's should have nothing to do with that at all.

Lastly, the HACs should all have increased low slots inorder to give them room for nanos. and other mods that will help increase ther DPS at range. A turret ship like the eagle should not have to deal with only 4 lows. This can be double the case for ships that are also armor tankers. Now I am not saying that you also have to provide the fitting room for these slots. We don't want tohem to be able to be turned into super tanked brawlers. But they need something to set them apart.

In closing: Give HACs superior speed, projection, and damage at range when compared to T1 cruisers. Role bonuses should help accentuate these intended goals. Here are some examples:

1. MWD cap use
2. MWD sig (would have to be much greater than 50% however)
3. MWD / AB Speed bonus
4. Flat speed boost
5. Projection boost





This is what I've been saying. They shouldn't have massive tanks except good racial resists which they currently have. They need to be flat out fast, low sigs, good cap, and better projection. Problem is the HACS biggest problem,...speed. Why? well because speed is the most reluctant boost CCP is willing to give (cept t1 and navy cruisers) because of past balance issues. But damage projection then wan't anywhere where it is now, which should offset a boost in speed to them. It's their fault they left it to off grid links and plants to give HACS the speed they need. Except why use a HAC then?
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic
#1295 - 2013-07-22 23:44:16 UTC
We want specialization in HACs? the best way to do this is as I've put before have all HACs weapon bonuses apply to only one weapon(Sac as a current example). The counter balance to that is the bonuses are stronger and or they get more, using the Sac again giving having say 7.5% Missile Damage and Flight-time of HAMs per level and 6% Cap recharge and Cap max per level Along with the role bonus of 50% MWD sig penalty reduction. Take this idea and apply to all HACs and you get HACs that will be strong in their role(Specialization) while still allowing some creativity with the fits.

Also on the Assault/Skirmish I like the general idea. Heavy Assault Cruisers should be modeled on the Sac with extra speed, Short range weapons with strong damage and strong tank and the MWD role bonus. And then Heavy Skirmish Cruisers going modeled on the a Beam Zealot with the same speed or even a bit less, Strong tank, good projection bonuses and a role bonus for reduction of E-war effectiveness.
Naoru Kozan
Perkone
Caldari State
#1296 - 2013-07-23 00:32:48 UTC
Chessur wrote:
I have stated before in this thread, but to me its pretty easy to differentiate HAC's from Tech 3 and Teir 3.

If CCP decides to give them a role, it should be that of a Kiting ship. Or if you want a dual role bonus (like those found on the force / combat recons) a kiting / med sniping role.

Teir 3's are not kiting ships (well at least not in the current meta). With the advent of T1 cruisers / navy cruisers Tier 3 ships are just not fast enough. Sure they have great DPS and in some cases projection, but they are poor solo ships if you are attempting to engage a gang that has multiple fast cruisers / light tackle. A HAC could differentiate its self from the Tier 3's in two / three areas:

1. Speed. Give the HAC's cruiser speed, and make sure that their speed is fast enough where outpacing T1 cruisers and anything that is not a frigate would be easy. Currently the Tier3 and Tech 3 are unable to outrun t1 / navy cruisers. Give the HAC's this job.

2. Projection bonuses on Med guns. Give every HAC superior projection bonuses. Allow the vagabond to actually apply DPS with AC's. Make sure that the deimos can actually kite with blasters, or give it something to help with rails. Just like the Tier3's the HACs should be very good at projection damage to 35K+++. The HAC's will be using medium guns, allowing them to handle lighter ships. IE. Cruisers / Dessies / T1 Cruisers more aptly than Tier3's. Again this separates the HAC's further, and gives them a very valid role in small gang / solo / fleet comps.

3. Tank. The HAC's being cruisers should not sport a great tank. Give them something that will give them increased survivability at range, or at least enough EHP / fitting to support a tank that will allow the HAC's enough time to:
a. Pull range on an enemy gang
b. Dive into long point range, to quickly point targets while attacking.

A cruiser should not have an amazing tank. Leave that job for the Tech3s, Command ships, BC's and BS. A cruiser has no place living inside of the range of heavy neuts, webs, scrams, and large tracking guns. A cruiser needs to use its speed and mobility to its advantage- that is its tank.

So now the other question, how can HAC's be different from Tech 3s?

This one is pretty easy to answer, if- like me you can see the validity of a kiting based cruiser. The Tech3s use to have a single kiting boat in the 100MN tengu. However post HML nerf, the Tengu has really been nerfed hard. HML's apply horrible damage to cruisers and down, and the 100MN tengu is no longer fast. With a T1 cruiser easily going 2.2K/s with out links, tengus with their 15+++ second align time just don't have the agility to keep up anymore.

That said, Tech 3's have really not been that useful out side of a few situations-

Heavy armor gangs. There you can see a lot of brick Scram proteus, Web lokis and the like. However you will never see a Tech 3 in a kiting situation any longer- they just don't have the projection, and in many cases the speed to be proper kiters. Let the Tech 3's be the super tank / brawly cruisers that they are. The HAC's should have nothing to do with that at all.

Lastly, the HACs should all have increased low slots inorder to give them room for nanos. and other mods that will help increase ther DPS at range. A turret ship like the eagle should not have to deal with only 4 lows. This can be double the case for ships that are also armor tankers. Now I am not saying that you also have to provide the fitting room for these slots. We don't want tohem to be able to be turned into super tanked brawlers. But they need something to set them apart.

In closing: Give HACs superior speed, projection, and damage at range when compared to T1 cruisers. Role bonuses should help accentuate these intended goals. Here are some examples:

1. MWD cap use
2. MWD sig (would have to be much greater than 50% however)
3. MWD / AB Speed bonus
4. Flat speed boost
5. Projection boost



+1
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1297 - 2013-07-23 00:37:43 UTC
Roime wrote:
So real cost difference is only 10x, 3-4 days of training and you get twice as much dps and about six times more EHP. And HACs are barely better than T1, but take longer to train than T3.



How so?

Because once I got Gallente cruiser 5 all i needed was a couple days for Heavy Assault Cruiser.

Then I had to train Strategic cruiser and subs but still couldn't make any use of decent point without related skills, so I trained propulsion jamming to 5, wait it's the same than all other ships...

Then I tried, and maybe a bit too hard, to give reps with my Proteus. Short story, my buddy ship died and my ship was cap out on single activation of rep modules.

Then I tried to launch bombs with but there was no sub for that, left disappointed.

Then I tried to bble with and once again, left disappointed

I also tried to point at 109km with my Proteus like I can do with my ... Lachesis guess what? - left disappointed

Then someone told me "Dude Proteus is a beast, push 800k EHP and hits like a battleship" -I tried, donu how many times but I really tried hard and once I got max EHP with full plates resists T2 rigs yadaya, well my Thorax has more DPS so once again left disappointed.

Then I tried it with drones and said to my self "yey!! I'm playing Gallente character, dude, DRONES ARE OUR THING !!"
Guess what? -left disappointed

I'll continue tomorrow for more decepticons. Bear

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1298 - 2013-07-23 00:55:35 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Baren wrote:
SO We are all IN Agree ment?

HACs shoulw have two roles, whith each Role having a unique Bonus?




i think the only agreement here is that were all unsatisfied with stuff ....

most common concern :

hacs suck cause they mostly lack purpose.

followed by:

if they have (or had) purpose they are overshadowed by other stuff and or unviable due to changed meta.




Well they were overshadowed by T3's, at least some, before Heavy Missile changes, before HAM changes and before T1 Cruisers changes.

Now that this important part of the game is done you don't see that many of those being fielded and there's a reason: T1's are clearly very very good.

Power creep? -Too late

That's what happens when you don't listen to players base feedback. You do the same job twice, quite professional (not)

Step back on T1's, sure, decrease tank/mobility/dps for 5/7% and maybe new HACs might look better but still in need at least of 20%+ EHP either by resist profile or hp or combination of 2, better mobility and be at least 10% faster than T1 versions, then add better fittings a third rig slot and we're done with HACs and T3's at the same time because those HACs will eat T3's alive.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1299 - 2013-07-23 01:00:51 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
They would end up tanking better than T3's do now ... OP to say the least



Honestly, I think the brawler fits should tank slightly better than BCs, and the kiting ships should tank slightly worse than BCs.

Can't compare to T3s, since T3s haven't been hit by tiercide.


There are no tiers for T3s, there is only one hull per race in the class.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1300 - 2013-07-23 01:08:48 UTC
Onictus wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
They would end up tanking better than T3's do now ... OP to say the least



Honestly, I think the brawler fits should tank slightly better than BCs, and the kiting ships should tank slightly worse than BCs.

Can't compare to T3s, since T3s haven't been hit by tiercide.


There are no tiers for T3s, there is only one hull per race in the class.


Tiercide is just the word they used when they were balancing the T1 ships, since there is no other term out there I just used it for T3s

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.