These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 - round two

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sarkelias Anophius
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1001 - 2013-07-31 14:58:30 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Please post your caracal fit with comparable stats.


In regards to a solo or heavy tackle ship (@1300m/s lol)? There are none.

As a line ship? I'm on my phone so no eft, but a normal AB caracal projects the same or better damage at 50k ehp and around 900m/s. Identical? No. 25% of the price and guaranteed to outclass a Sacri in any kind of fleet warfare? Yes.

I love the Sacri. It was the first HAC I bought three years ago. This fit is "fine", but no better or more usable than it currently is, since you'll either be outrun because you're a plated pig, or inside hard tackle range where you could have hit it anyway.

I understand I'm taking a negative stance on it, but I'd really love for this ship to be able to shine in some way, and in my opinion, it still can't.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1002 - 2013-07-31 14:58:44 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Enough with HACs already... wasn't there supposed to be an announcement?


yes combat recons can use thier racial e-war on ships that are immune to e-war.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
griezell
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1003 - 2013-07-31 15:09:20 UTC
about the role bonus. i feel like it sould be connected to the skill for af and hac. so per lvl or af or hac you get 5% reduction in sig

then ppl gen realy sumting that is worth training for to lvl 5.
just to train those ' long' skills just to get 5% extra '' '' and 5% extra '' '' is not so much an encouragement. it would be more atractive if is add the role bonus to it as well
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1004 - 2013-07-31 15:26:14 UTC
Enough with the HACs. Really.
There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing.
Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Danny John-Peter
Blue Canary
Watch This
#1005 - 2013-07-31 15:32:19 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Enough with the HACs. Really.
There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing.
Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks.


HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1006 - 2013-07-31 15:36:04 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.


Ummmm, no. Time to move on...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1007 - 2013-07-31 15:38:05 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Danny John-Peter wrote:
HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.


Ummmm, no. Time to move on...

Patience is a virtue.

I would rather HACs be done right before moving on.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#1008 - 2013-07-31 15:41:32 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Enough with the HACs. Really.
There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing.
Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks.


HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.



I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Danny John-Peter
Blue Canary
Watch This
#1009 - 2013-07-31 15:43:52 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Enough with the HACs. Really.
There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing.
Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks.


HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.



I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine.



Not until the Vaga changes fix the Vaga...

Not to repeat myself or anything.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#1010 - 2013-07-31 15:51:47 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Enough with the HACs. Really.
There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing.
Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks.


HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.



I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine.



Not until the Vaga changes fix the Vaga...

Not to repeat myself or anything.



I think the main problem with the vaga is not the vaga but the te nerf.

Vaga recieved another bonus out of thin air. It is definitely improved. Will it beat out a cynabal for the kiting role when it fits a shield extender, asb, point and mwd in the mids? I am not sure but I think it probably will.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1011 - 2013-07-31 15:53:03 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Enough with the HACs. Really.
There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing.
Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks.


HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.



I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine.



Another pass won't happen.

Has to be done right the first time.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1012 - 2013-07-31 16:01:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Cearain wrote:
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Enough with the HACs. Really.
There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing.
Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks.


HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.



I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine.



Not until the Vaga changes fix the Vaga...

Not to repeat myself or anything.



I think the main problem with the vaga is not the vaga but the te nerf.

Vaga recieved another bonus out of thin air. It is definitely improved. Will it beat out a cynabal for the kiting role when it fits a shield extender, asb, point and mwd in the mids? I am not sure but I think it probably will.


What the Vaga needs is to be able to fit 425's that would add 9km to its current range and reduce the gap between the cynabal being better.

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
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1013 - 2013-07-31 16:02:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
I say leave the old HAC changes in-place and move onto a ship class where people might show some gratitude. CCP can re-visit the HAC in Odyssey 1.2, 1.3, etc. All of a sudden 130+ pages of b*tching and griping cease, and suddenly the proposed changes become acceptable...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#1014 - 2013-07-31 16:10:41 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Enough with the HACs. Really.
There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing.
Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks.


HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.



I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine.



Another pass won't happen.

Has to be done right the first time.



I just think they did a decent job here. No not everyone will be satisfied but, but there is no consensus on what more needs to be done. These ships are clearly better than the t1 version. Are they worth the extra cost over vanilla bcs? Probably not, but maybe. The recent ewar resistance bonuses are really nice subtle but I think powerful changes that will give both the fleet and the small gangs using these ships. Plus most ships are getting extra fitting space to mess around with. I think they are ready for tq.

In the meantime there are still some ships really need a buff like the succubus and worm and some of the pirate cruisers, eg even the cynabal will likely be useless after the vaga change let alone the Phantasm.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1015 - 2013-07-31 16:18:26 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Enough with HACs already... wasn't there supposed to be an announcement?


yes combat recons can use thier racial e-war on ships that are immune to e-war.
What?

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

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

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1016 - 2013-07-31 16:19:46 UTC
RISE

Whilst you're looking at HAC's.. perhaps you could change the skill requirements for HAC's .. Energy grid upgrades lv5 is a pointless skill for HAC's and most ships in the game the only reason to train it is to use the T2 reactor control ..

Energy grid upgrades lv5 - the relevant sensor comp skill to lv4
long Range targeting lv4
energy systems operation lv4

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
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#1017 - 2013-07-31 16:26:21 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I say leave the old HAC changes in-place and move onto a ship class where people might show some gratitude. CCP can re-visit the HAC in Odyssey 1.2, 1.3, etc. All of a sudden 130+ pages of b*tching and griping cease, and suddenly the proposed changes become acceptable...


You're really dumb, aren't you?
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#1018 - 2013-07-31 16:26:46 UTC
CCP JUST THROW SOME RANDOM SHIT ON THESE THINGS AND CALL IT A DAY

TIME TO MOVE ON

NO ONE REALLY CARES ABOUT THESE THINGS
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#1019 - 2013-07-31 16:28:16 UTC
btw ccp the mwd role bonus is still crap

WTB 25% reduction in sig radius across the board on all hacs

TIA
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1020 - 2013-07-31 16:31:57 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Cearain wrote:



I think the main problem with the vaga is not the vaga but the te nerf.

Vaga recieved another bonus out of thin air. It is definitely improved. Will it beat out a cynabal for the kiting role when it fits a shield extender, asb, point and mwd in the mids? I am not sure but I think it probably will.


What the Vaga needs is to be able to fit 425's that would add 9km to its current range and reduce the gap between the cynabal being better.



THIS ^

give us pg so the xlasb can fit 220 and the other versions can fit 425 wo major issues meaning wo not fitting something useful in the utility high haveing to use implants etc....