These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1601 - 2013-07-25 10:17:35 UTC
Zamyslinski wrote:
almost all changes looks pretty good imo,

but still there 4 things to do:

ishtar - buff cpu
Zealot - give it 25m3 dronebay
Vaga - need a nerf ( lol out of cap boosters lemme just gtfo) and another bonus (dual damage bonus perhaps to compete with cynabal which is going to be buffed later anyway)
All HAC - speed rised to their t1 equivalent except the vaga (speed is ok) and Deimos (huge speed buff is needed)



Vagabond got an USELES bonus, because with 4 mids no sane person will try the "tank the enemy "tactics. And also lost base speed (75ms after MWD)

Vaga needs a BOOST! No one uses vagabonds now. Stabbers are as good on 90% of the cases and on the other 10% the cynabal is purely superior.


Vaga needs 5 mids OR change the shield boost bonus for something USEFUL!

Know what? Keep current base speed. Put the Falloff bonus at the CRUISER skill. And put an 5% SPEED bonus back.. on the HAC skill. OK.. now vagabond will be the good old vagabond with speed useful enough.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1602 - 2013-07-25 10:25:55 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Vaga needs 5 mids OR change the shield boost bonus for something USEFUL!


This I can agree, if you want to make a kitter you don't fit plates on it but shield modules and having 5 mids is not luxury but the minimum required.

Take one low for a mid and make it 6-5-4 (H-M-L), eventually change that shield boost bonus for a tracking one but make sure it's not another 180mm's frigate murderer asb fitted and linked running over 5k speed and impossible to catch (frigates get insta pop anyway)

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1603 - 2013-07-25 10:26:27 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Chessur wrote:
A HAC is not a brawling ship. A cruiser is playing to non of its strengths when it is webbed, scrammed, heavy neuted. It doesn't have the raw EHP / DPS to live in those kind of environments. Cruiser hulls are meant to be fast, have disengage ability, and have a tank that is based around range control. In order to do that cruisers need speed, and some kind of sig tank. Cruisers are kiters at their core. Brawling in a cruiser sized hull places you in line with BC's / Command ships / Battle ships. All of those ships have huge DPS or EHP advantages over HACs for the same cost (or in the case of BC's) a fraction of the cost.


The HAC needs to have a role bonus that will accentuate the advantages of a cruiser hull in regards to the kiting area. HAC's should not have a role bonus that some how tries to make their cruiser EHP / DPS and cap relevant for brawling. Trying to do that will be trying to force a cruiser hull into a role it was never intended to have.

Here are some role examples if HAC's were to be made into kiters / ranged fighters

Projection bonuses: Allow the Vaga to actually do damage with Medium AC's. I want to drill this point home, because post TE nerf 10% falloff bonus is just not enough with these guns anymore. The projection bonues needs to give HAC's the ability to apply good DPS (Read superior to T1 cruisers / Navy) At 35K+++ With Medium 'short ranged' guns. Blasters on the deimos hull would have to be looked at in this regard. But perhaps something can be done with rails + Deimos hull.
Flat speed boost
MWD / AB speed boost
MWD cap use bonus
MWD Signature reduction bonus (would need to be far more than 50%)

The HAC's could easily make their own role for themselves if they are the final word in a kiting platform. Tier 3 BCs once had this position. However post T1 cruiser / navy cruiser buff- Tier 3 BC's are just so slow. They are unable to pull distance and control range against cruisers. Their inability to do so, severely limites their kiting ability in solo / small gang situations. This is where a specialzed ship could shine. A HAC could be a medium gun based, cruiser platform that specializes in speed, and projection. Allow the HAC to be comfortable flying in and around 35/40K From an enemy fleet, because currently the T1 cruisers / Navy cruisers can only do this job so/so.



You are very much incorrect in every way. And forcing all HACS to be kiters is just insane.


and forcing them all to be snipers and brawlers is insane and a waste of a class .. kiting is the only purpose left for tis class of ship




And yet kiting was the last time these ships were used to great effect in small gang. This seems to be an inconvenient truth for many of you. Probably players that came after they no longer being used.
Christopher Multsanti
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#1604 - 2013-07-25 10:43:07 UTC
JerseyBOI 2 wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Chessur wrote:
A HAC is not a brawling ship. A cruiser is playing to non of its strengths when it is webbed, scrammed, heavy neuted. It doesn't have the raw EHP / DPS to live in those kind of environments. Cruiser hulls are meant to be fast, have disengage ability, and have a tank that is based around range control. In order to do that cruisers need speed, and some kind of sig tank. Cruisers are kiters at their core. Brawling in a cruiser sized hull places you in line with BC's / Command ships / Battle ships. All of those ships have huge DPS or EHP advantages over HACs for the same cost (or in the case of BC's) a fraction of the cost.


The HAC needs to have a role bonus that will accentuate the advantages of a cruiser hull in regards to the kiting area. HAC's should not have a role bonus that some how tries to make their cruiser EHP / DPS and cap relevant for brawling. Trying to do that will be trying to force a cruiser hull into a role it was never intended to have.

Here are some role examples if HAC's were to be made into kiters / ranged fighters

Projection bonuses: Allow the Vaga to actually do damage with Medium AC's. I want to drill this point home, because post TE nerf 10% falloff bonus is just not enough with these guns anymore. The projection bonues needs to give HAC's the ability to apply good DPS (Read superior to T1 cruisers / Navy) At 35K+++ With Medium 'short ranged' guns. Blasters on the deimos hull would have to be looked at in this regard. But perhaps something can be done with rails + Deimos hull.
Flat speed boost
MWD / AB speed boost
MWD cap use bonus
MWD Signature reduction bonus (would need to be far more than 50%)

The HAC's could easily make their own role for themselves if they are the final word in a kiting platform. Tier 3 BCs once had this position. However post T1 cruiser / navy cruiser buff- Tier 3 BC's are just so slow. They are unable to pull distance and control range against cruisers. Their inability to do so, severely limites their kiting ability in solo / small gang situations. This is where a specialzed ship could shine. A HAC could be a medium gun based, cruiser platform that specializes in speed, and projection. Allow the HAC to be comfortable flying in and around 35/40K From an enemy fleet, because currently the T1 cruisers / Navy cruisers can only do this job so/so.



You are very much incorrect in every way. And forcing all HACS to be kiters is just insane.


and forcing them all to be snipers and brawlers is insane and a waste of a class .. kiting is the only purpose left for tis class of ship




And yet kiting was the last time these ships were used to great effect in small gang. This seems to be an inconvenient truth for many of you. Probably players that came after they no longer being used.


That might have been their last usage but it certainly wasn't there first usage. HACS originally were all Solo capable brawlers before anyone have ever heard of nano. The vaga was the first and only real kiter when HACS where released.

I stated this somewhere else but i'll say it again. Yes game mechanics and fleet engagements have changed massively but that doesn't mean we shoudn't have any brawler hacs.

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Christopher Multsanti
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#1605 - 2013-07-25 10:46:34 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
and forcing them all to be snipers and brawlers is insane and a waste of a class .. kiting is the only purpose left for tis class of ship


I'm not sure where sniping has come into it. I am talking about using short range weapons. HACS should have the ability to brawl and kite. Simples.

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1606 - 2013-07-25 10:57:12 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
...btw a MJD on anything than a BS would comepletely ruin their purpose on BS

so HELL NO MJD on anything than bs PLZ!

You are right (sort of) .. but .. MJD's on BS allows them to operate without the need of support in any significant numbers, bubbly tackle and a MJD blob is all you need, there is nothing to really threaten them.

By the by, I notice you are not condemning the advocates of creating kiters that are able to cover the 100km distance in roughly the same time as MJD's by brute force speed .. an attribute that has a significantly bigger (negative) impact on Eve (ie. not just MJD blobs).

Personally loathe the idea of a single class/role bonus, always has and always will, but variety must demand too much from CCP as they seem to be smitten with the concept.
Would much rather have racially distinct bonuses with role bonuses within the classes and to discard the idea that what works for one class must work for all other classes that share one or two attributes (ex. AF MWD sig bonus on HACs is pretty much useless).
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#1607 - 2013-07-25 11:03:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Chessur
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
JerseyBOI 2 wrote:
Wow. These ships are not brawlers. When you brawl you either go money, (super pimped insert-->T3, Hyperion, Vindi, Navy Mega, Maelstrom, links, pills, etc...) or you go cheap (insert-->Brutix, Vexor, Thorax, Maller, Prophecy, lol links, lol pills, etc.. ) you get the point. This is EVE 2013. Gangs are now considered <50, everyone is baiting, 9 outta 10 you wont be able to disengage. If this is your playstyle your a fool to use HACS. Not the tankiest, not the cheapest. Just because FLEETS use AHACS to great effect doesn't mean they are good. stop it. SPEED.

So you want to neuter Eve's fragile evolution by making design decisions based on the current meta-game, thus ensuring that it will remain for far longer than it deserves? How was that good for the game again? Big smile

You said it yourself, one uses the tool one is most likely to succeed with at a given task, you did not however say why HACs should be the tool of choice in all but the blobbiest environs (ie. old nano meta).
Any "new" ship should be made with the intent of wanting to 'shake things up' and allow for the meta-game to evolve as fast as feasibly possible .. the tier3's, in all their broken glory, actually managed to do that: Went from sniping to range augmented short range to MJD'ing BS counters to ..

If I was a naval architect I'd want distinct but complimentary designs (using Amarr as examples only).
Role/Class bonus: Cruiser sized MJD (half spool/cycle, 75km vs. 100km) will be a much better role/class bonus than the nonsensical MWD sig reduction (unless increased to 100% Big smile)

1. Projection and raw survivability; Zealot with a lower signature, bigger EHP/Cap pool, lower (yes, LOWER) speed and better tracking (ie. lower speed/signature, increase sensors/cap and replace cap bonus with tracking).
- Nestle it with the fleet proper and prevent anything smaller than a BC from threatening the primary assets.
- Good in blobs but vulnerable if solo or in homogenous small gangs (<10-15).

2. Fast interdiction, long arm of an angry God; Sacrilege with more damage, more speed but smaller EHP pool and better "small crowd" control, ex. neut amount bonus.
- Anything that stays clear of the fleet (and the nestled projection platforms) while still representing a threat is what these reach out and touch.
- Good solo and in small gangs but vulnerable en masse due to low'ish EHP numbers.


MJD's have no place on a cruiser. A cruiser is already mobile enough, and has no use of suddenly jumping 100K. Cruisers are outclassed by ABC's and BS in the sniping role. So again being 100K+ From an enemy fleet is doing medium weapons no good.

If you lower the speed of the HAC's then you are placing them in line with BC's / Command ships / Battle Ships. All of those ships have superior EHP, DPS, and utility (Thanks to heavy neuts) When compared to your cruiser. Which if you have not forgotten is still way more isk than your typical BC. Why are HAC's useful in that role? A slower cruiser is a BC, and its variants (command ships). A BC is a heavy cruiser that trades speed / mobility for DPS / EHP. By making HAC's slower, and beefier you are making them tread onto BC / Command ship hulls. I don't want more of the same. I want variations, and differences between ship classes. If you are so intent on flying a 'heavy cruiser' go jump into a:

Prophecy, Harb, Brutix, Myrm, Cane, Cyclone, Drake, Ferox, Sliep, Eagle, Night hawk, Absolution, Dammnation, Eos, Astarte

A HAC is a cruiser that is not trying to be a Battle cruiser, but a cruiser. A cruiser is fast, and uses its superior mobility to control range. It tanks using sig / speed / range control- not raw EHP and self repping while under webs / scrams / neuts.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1608 - 2013-07-25 11:19:56 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

Akturous wrote:

Kiting with autocannons is for scrubs. Artillery is perfect for kiting, seriously what's wrong with you.

...surely you're joking
Gah even I'm doing it now.


With autocannons there is at least a chance of hitting anything closer than 30km.



thats why i said the ship needed to drop falloff for a excessive tracking bonus (maybe to arty excluesive so it does not get abused).



btw a MJD on anything than a BS would comepletely ruin their purpose on BS

so HELL NO MJD on anything than bs PLZ!


get out of the thread... very very far. DO nto touch THE MEDIUM AC ship.. also known as Vagabond. Anyoen using arties on it should have all its skills wiped.



im not useing atry on the vaga..... cause im not stupid.
im for a solution to make em USEABLE on the vaga
so the vaga can be:
-still a kiteing ship
-diffrent than the cyna
-do more dmg at its kite range with more flexiblity in ammo choice
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1609 - 2013-07-25 11:52:08 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
JerseyBOI 2 wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Chessur wrote:
A HAC is not a brawling ship. A cruiser is playing to non of its strengths when it is webbed, scrammed, heavy neuted. It doesn't have the raw EHP / DPS to live in those kind of environments. Cruiser hulls are meant to be fast, have disengage ability, and have a tank that is based around range control. In order to do that cruisers need speed, and some kind of sig tank. Cruisers are kiters at their core. Brawling in a cruiser sized hull places you in line with BC's / Command ships / Battle ships. All of those ships have huge DPS or EHP advantages over HACs for the same cost (or in the case of BC's) a fraction of the cost.


The HAC needs to have a role bonus that will accentuate the advantages of a cruiser hull in regards to the kiting area. HAC's should not have a role bonus that some how tries to make their cruiser EHP / DPS and cap relevant for brawling. Trying to do that will be trying to force a cruiser hull into a role it was never intended to have.

Here are some role examples if HAC's were to be made into kiters / ranged fighters

Projection bonuses: Allow the Vaga to actually do damage with Medium AC's. I want to drill this point home, because post TE nerf 10% falloff bonus is just not enough with these guns anymore. The projection bonues needs to give HAC's the ability to apply good DPS (Read superior to T1 cruisers / Navy) At 35K+++ With Medium 'short ranged' guns. Blasters on the deimos hull would have to be looked at in this regard. But perhaps something can be done with rails + Deimos hull.
Flat speed boost
MWD / AB speed boost
MWD cap use bonus
MWD Signature reduction bonus (would need to be far more than 50%)

The HAC's could easily make their own role for themselves if they are the final word in a kiting platform. Tier 3 BCs once had this position. However post T1 cruiser / navy cruiser buff- Tier 3 BC's are just so slow. They are unable to pull distance and control range against cruisers. Their inability to do so, severely limites their kiting ability in solo / small gang situations. This is where a specialzed ship could shine. A HAC could be a medium gun based, cruiser platform that specializes in speed, and projection. Allow the HAC to be comfortable flying in and around 35/40K From an enemy fleet, because currently the T1 cruisers / Navy cruisers can only do this job so/so.



You are very much incorrect in every way. And forcing all HACS to be kiters is just insane.


and forcing them all to be snipers and brawlers is insane and a waste of a class .. kiting is the only purpose left for tis class of ship




And yet kiting was the last time these ships were used to great effect in small gang. This seems to be an inconvenient truth for many of you. Probably players that came after they no longer being used.


That might have been their last usage but it certainly wasn't there first usage. HACS originally were all Solo capable brawlers before anyone have ever heard of nano. The vaga was the first and only real kiter when HACS where released.

I stated this somewhere else but i'll say it again. Yes game mechanics and fleet engagements have changed massively but that doesn't mean we shoudn't have any brawler hacs.



There should be both kiters and brawlers. Thing with the brawlers is they need the MOST modification (the whole way many cheaper options, not being able to disengage thing).

maybe a fix to armor repping would go along with powerfulnew rep bonuses on the brawlers(was already mentioned in this thread just rehashing).
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1610 - 2013-07-25 12:03:42 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:

The current MWD sig bonus along with the speed buffs are fine IMO. Long range DPS with less vulnerability to BS guns is a useful role.



I could see MJDs making HACs too survivable, but MWD bonus for all simply isn't a good idea, it wouldn't do much for brawlers. Overheating bonus/double damage bonus/overheating MWD speed bonus instead would be more beneficial.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1611 - 2013-07-25 12:05:47 UTC
JerseyBOI 2 wrote:
Doddy wrote:
They are "assault" cruisers. They should be tough as hell brawlers that get in your face and break you. Ahacs epitomise this.

A bonus that should be considered is one to the reactive armour hardener, allowing the hac to react to incoming damage quicker than other ships. Its not suiable for shield hacs obviously but hey you can give them a bonus to asbs in some way. Maybe a role bonus that allows armour hacs to react twice as fast as normal with reactive hardener and allows shield hacs to load twice as many boosters in asb?

Allowing them to use the Micro jump drive could work also. Or use target breaker without losing own lock. The "more enemies shooting you the more effective it is" thing totally fits. Really this is a big opportunity for ccp to do something a bit different.

More boring bonuses are the obvious ab speed like assault frigs were going to have back in the good old days. Or an overloading bonus so they can go trully all in (steps on t3s toes too much in my view).




Wow. These ships are not brawlers. When you brawl you either go money, (super pimped insert-->T3, Hyperion, Vindi, Navy Mega, Maelstrom, links, pills, etc...) or you go cheap (insert-->Brutix, Vexor, Thorax, Maller, Prophecy, lol links, lol pills, etc.. )
you get the point. This is EVE 2013. Gangs are now considered <50, everyone is baiting, 9 outta 10 you wont be able to disengage. If this is your playstyle your a fool to use HACS. Not the tankiest, not the cheapest. Just because FLEETS use AHACS to great effect doesn't mean they are good. stop it. SPEED.



And thats where being able to fit an MJD would be handy, since next to nobody fits scrams on their ships anyway. (Except maybe brawling Brutixes or some other slow brawler that doesn't have 90% webs)

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1612 - 2013-07-25 12:06:57 UTC
The problem with making them brawlers is that they are expensive ships too lose and they will never be better brawlers than T1 bc's so whats the point?

Navy bc's are twice as good as HAC's could ever be at brawling so unless they make HAC's as cheap as navy cruisers then kiting is all there good for and would be the only reason i would consider buying one other wise i would buy a navy brutix for brawling or CS .. for kiting i can still use my cynabal unless they make the Vaga better or cerberus if they bump its dps and lose the ridiculous flight time bonus for some much needed tracking.

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
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#1613 - 2013-07-25 12:28:34 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
The problem with making them brawlers is that they are expensive ships too lose and they will never be better brawlers than T1 bc's so whats the point?

Navy bc's are twice as good as HAC's could ever be at brawling so unless they make HAC's as cheap as navy cruisers then kiting is all there good for and would be the only reason i would consider buying one other wise i would buy a navy brutix for brawling or CS .. for kiting i can still use my cynabal unless they make the Vaga better or cerberus if they bump its dps and lose the ridiculous flight time bonus for some much needed tracking.


You have tracking issues on missile boat?

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1614 - 2013-07-25 12:53:39 UTC
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
The problem with making them brawlers is that they are expensive ships too lose and they will never be better brawlers than T1 bc's so whats the point?

Navy bc's are twice as good as HAC's could ever be at brawling so unless they make HAC's as cheap as navy cruisers then kiting is all there good for and would be the only reason i would consider buying one other wise i would buy a navy brutix for brawling or CS .. for kiting i can still use my cynabal unless they make the Vaga better or cerberus if they bump its dps and lose the ridiculous flight time bonus for some much needed tracking.


You have tracking issues on missile boat?


Well its a kiting ship with no tackle so having to rely on another ship to tackle when its a simple and sensible bonus swap seems unnecessary to me.

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
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1615 - 2013-07-25 13:40:48 UTC
If anyone says that the MWD-Bonus won't change a lot: you are so shamefully wrong.

I can't say it about HACs (yet), but as an example from flying lokis. Comparing the incoming damage of adaptive shielding to amp node in the same situation (orbiting missile ships/ABCs/Battleships) at 20-40km, the incoming damage is much lower using the amp node (which only grants some 40% reduction). Both fits orbiting something singlewebbed with mwd on (~1.4 km/s). I believe my sigs should have been ~750 against ~420.

So considering the experienced damage mitigation yet alone on a loki, sigradius overshadowing the theoretical advantage of higher resists even, that MWD Bonus is going to change a lot. It will change things significantly less for F1-Drones, but that's due to the scenario, not the ship.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1616 - 2013-07-25 14:03:55 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
If anyone says that the MWD-Bonus won't change a lot: you are so shamefully wrong.

I can't say it about HACs (yet), but as an example from flying lokis. Comparing the incoming damage of adaptive shielding to amp node in the same situation (orbiting missile ships/ABCs/Battleships) at 20-40km, the incoming damage is much lower using the amp node (which only grants some 40% reduction). Both fits orbiting something singlewebbed with mwd on (~1.4 km/s). I believe my sigs should have been ~750 against ~420.

So considering the experienced damage mitigation yet alone on a loki, sigradius overshadowing the theoretical advantage of higher resists even, that MWD Bonus is going to change a lot. It will change things significantly less for F1-Drones, but that's due to the scenario, not the ship.

lool nobody said the mwd bonus isnt good for an orbiting kiter ship like the vaga
but it is nearly useless for every other hac
so why give all 8 the same role bonus when only 1 can use it out?
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1617 - 2013-07-25 14:14:44 UTC  |  Edited by: JerseyBOI 2
Harvey James wrote:
The problem with making them brawlers is that they are expensive ships too lose and they will never be better brawlers than T1 bc's so whats the point?

Navy bc's are twice as good as HAC's could ever be at brawling so unless they make HAC's as cheap as navy cruisers then kiting is all there good for and would be the only reason i would consider buying one other wise i would buy a navy brutix for brawling or CS .. for kiting i can still use my cynabal unless they make the Vaga better or cerberus if they bump its dps and lose the ridiculous flight time bonus for some much needed tracking.




Agreed. Before the re-balance most people skipped the cruisers went straight to BC's. Same weapons, moar DPS, moar tank, and not much more speed. So they gave them lots more speed. Wallah, they do something significantly better than BC's. Granted they don't project enough (most don't) to go along with that speed but they have their use as a speedy hard tackler (haven't been active I could be wrong on this).

So for HACS (at least for 1 of 2 for each race), I don't see the problem with taking it a step further with T1 cruiser speed (I would prefer more but meh) AND the projection. Seeing as how much they cost I think that's reasonable.
KatanTharkay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1618 - 2013-07-25 14:24:41 UTC  |  Edited by: KatanTharkay
I agree that HAC's don't need to obsolete T1 cruisers but they really need a damn good role bonus just like HIC's or the Interdiction nulifier subsistem and not only tweak some stats here and there Blink

- Deimos - a bit more tank and MWD effect scram imune (no mwd stop) role bonus
- Ishtar - more CPU, 375 default drone bay, replace drone capacity bonus with drone speed & resistance bonus
- Vaga - keep current bonuses, battlecruiser sig radius with mwd ON bonus
- Muninn - make him a brawler with shield boost bonus (also can make it double weapon system)
- Zealot - keep current bonuses, give him a few drones
- Sacrilege - Include cap bonus in stats, a bit more speed, 1 more low slot, a bit more range for HAM's
- Cerberus - give him more speed and battlecruiser sig radius with mwd ON bonus (misille Vaga)
- Eagle - nulified rail platform

The signature radius bonus should be 50% like in proposed changes if you're going to keep OGB and current boost Loki's
DB Jones
Imperium Technologies
Sigma Grindset
#1619 - 2013-07-25 14:30:41 UTC
So the Ishtar will only have a total of 14 slots? It is already a brilliant ship and the hybrids were only rarely used for it, but isn't it, from a pve perspective at least, to take away from it rather than give to it? The bonus change is okay in my opinion but I for one like and use all it's highs.
In a way it just seems like you are maki g a change where none is needed. And with the t3 op vs hac up debate going on a slot nerf seems somewhat misplaced.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#1620 - 2013-07-25 14:44:52 UTC
KatanTharkay wrote:
I agree that HAC's don't need to obsolete T1 cruisers but they really need a damn good role bonus just like HIC's or the Interdiction nulifier subsistem and not only tweak some stats here and there Blink

- Deimos - a bit more tank and scram imune (no mwd stop) role bonus
- Ishtar - more CPU, 375 default drone bay, replace drone capacity bonus with drone speed & resistance bonus
- Vaga - keep current bonuses, battlecruiser sig radius with mwd ON bonus
- Muninn - make him a brawler with shield boost bonus (also can make it double weapon system)
- Zealot - keep current bonuses, give him a few drones
- Sacrilege - Include cap bonus in stats, a bit more speed, 1 more low slot, a bit more range for HAM's
- Cerberus - give him more speed and battlecruiser sig radius with mwd ON bonus (misille Vaga)
- Eagle - nulified rail platform

The signature radius bonus should be 50% like in proposed changes if you're going to keep OGB and current boost Loki's


making ships immune to different ewar is not a solution.

Yaay!!!!