These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

HAC Role Bonus(es)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#1 - 2013-08-08 16:52:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
With the changes to the HACs (which are great and much needed) I believe a second role bonus should be added.

The MWD sig bloom role bonus is awesome, but I'd like to see a role bonus for something like 50% increased afterburner speed as well.

I think this would play well into the HAC's role which is, oh I dunno, a heavy assault cruiser. I would like to see more AB fits viable for fleet PvP.

I'm curious about what you all think.
Luc Chastot
#2 - 2013-08-08 16:59:19 UTC
Remove 50% MWD sig bloom bonus.
Remove all skill bonuses.
Lower max velocity.
Add 50% AB speed bonus.

I'm not even sure that would keep them from being OP.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#3 - 2013-08-08 17:12:58 UTC
Luc Chastot wrote:
Remove 50% MWD sig bloom bonus.
Remove all skill bonuses.
Lower max velocity.
Add 50% AB speed bonus.

I'm not even sure that would keep them from being OP.


......what
Luc Chastot
#4 - 2013-08-08 17:17:18 UTC
Hyperbole.

Your suggestion would make HACs extremely OP.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Onomerous
KARNAGE
Ghostbirds
#5 - 2013-08-08 17:17:23 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Luc Chastot wrote:
Remove 50% MWD sig bloom bonus.
Remove all skill bonuses.
Lower max velocity.
Add 50% AB speed bonus.

I'm not even sure that would keep them from being OP.


......what


Exactly... what?
Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#6 - 2013-08-08 17:30:42 UTC
Luc Chastot wrote:
Hyperbole.

Your suggestion would make HACs extremely OP.


Why? They have a 120+ million isk price tag. Should be much more effective. It doesn't have to be 50%, can be 25% or w/e devs think is balanced.
Luc Chastot
#7 - 2013-08-08 17:47:05 UTC
1. Isk is not THE balancing factor.
2. Even 25% could be too much, but I know what you mean.

Now, if the bonus is not as good as the MWD sig bloom bonus, then why have it? And if it is, then a dual prop HAC would be very OP.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#8 - 2013-08-08 17:50:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
Luc Chastot wrote:
1. Isk is not THE balancing factor.
2. Even 25% could be too much, but I know what you mean.

Now, if the bonus is not as good as the MWD sig bloom bonus, then why have it? And if it is, then a dual prop HAC would be very OP.


You're right, it's not. I thought about Dual Prop; but it does take a solid amount of extra PG and a mid slot. I think it would be fine either way. Add a contingency if you think that is a problem; only one bonus applies: MWD and AB fit, you get the MWD bonus only.

I just think it would add to the role that HACs play as fast(er) heavy tackle.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#9 - 2013-08-08 17:54:11 UTC
ABs need an overhaul. Slapping on role bonuses to random ship hulls does not fix the underlying fact that ABs are **** except for solo brawling frigs.
Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#10 - 2013-08-08 17:57:43 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
ABs need an overhaul. Slapping on role bonuses to random ship hulls does not fix the underlying fact that ABs are **** except for solo brawling frigs.


Solid point, that's what I was aiming to solve at least for HACs.

AB's aren't terrible on EVERY cruiser but certainly on a few.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#11 - 2013-08-08 18:09:58 UTC
Phaade wrote:
They have a 120+ million isk price tag. Should be much more effective. It doesn't have to be 50%, can be 25% or w/e devs think is balanced.

CCP has clearly stated in the past that the cost to efficiency ratio of ships is not intended to be linear. It's exponential.

That means that for every extra little bit of combat effectiveness you want, you have to pay a LOT more isk for it. Just be happy HACs don't cost more than 120m and that CCP aren't inflating their prices along side the buffs.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#12 - 2013-08-08 19:14:24 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Phaade wrote:
They have a 120+ million isk price tag. Should be much more effective. It doesn't have to be 50%, can be 25% or w/e devs think is balanced.

CCP has clearly stated in the past that the cost to efficiency ratio of ships is not intended to be linear. It's exponential.

That means that for every extra little bit of combat effectiveness you want, you have to pay a LOT more isk for it. Just be happy HACs don't cost more than 120m and that CCP aren't inflating their prices along side the buffs.



I suppose that's reasonable. Either way, the purpose of this thread is to propose the AB bonus for HACs. Do you think that would be overpowered?

Edit: I'm bored at work. Help!
Robbie Robot
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2013-08-09 23:30:58 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Phaade wrote:
They have a 120+ million isk price tag. Should be much more effective. It doesn't have to be 50%, can be 25% or w/e devs think is balanced.

CCP has clearly stated in the past that the cost to efficiency ratio of ships is not intended to be linear. It's exponential.

That means that for every extra little bit of combat effectiveness you want, you have to pay a LOT more isk for it. Just be happy HACs don't cost more than 120m and that CCP aren't inflating their prices along side the buffs.



I suppose that's reasonable. Either way, the purpose of this thread is to propose the AB bonus for HACs. Do you think that would be overpowered?

Edit: I'm bored at work. Help!

I don't think OP was proposing a HAC be as good as 20 cruisers. I think the metric should be a ship with the same cost, like a battleship. HACs are faster, more maneverable, and have better targeting than a battleship, and do tear through cruisers. The question is, with a HACs lower dps but better tracking and sig on guns/missiles, are they worth it? Regardless, they are fun to fly.
Katia Echerie
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#14 - 2013-08-09 23:59:45 UTC
Honestly I don't think another bonus to HACs is necessary. The medium turret rebalance and the new changes should make them worth flying again. Right up until the BC rebalance HACs would tear through BCs more often than not. Let us wait for the HAC rebalance to actually hit before we start trying to change things.