These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#841 - 2013-07-19 18:41:31 UTC
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.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#842 - 2013-07-19 18:41:51 UTC
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.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#843 - 2013-07-19 18:44:21 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.


cool now i will take my hac and run lev v mission.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#844 - 2013-07-19 18:44:37 UTC
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.
He lost me when he said Ishtar is good as always. Obviously never fit one.

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

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

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#845 - 2013-07-19 18:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Harvey James wrote:
for the deimos to get more viability out of blasters i think it needs a stronger falloff bonus or a second falloff bonus and more tank.

DEIMOS - Like the Thorax, Deimos now has 4 mids and gives up the extra high. It also goes faster and aligns faster.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff
5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff
10% Medium Hybrid Turret damage

Slot layout: 6H, 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 1230 PWG(+240), 380 CPU (+30)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1550(+390) / 2200(+160) / 2000(-531)
Capacitor (amount) : 1500(+125)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km / 270 / 6
Sensor strength: 15 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 110



I'm gonna be honest with you and keep track on my view of AHACs, that MWD capacitor bonus clearly needs to get thrown down the toilets, flushed to oblivion and deleted from data base forever.

Once that is done, increase ship fittings accordingly but most important, for this sip to ever achieve what he's meant to while fitting the shortest range weapons in the game is either:

-speed without competing with Vaga and we're close to so no more speed !!

-buffer through resist profile: an option here and replace the mwd bonus for a 3%armor resist? -silly, it's Amarr domain so NO!

-increase armor HP? -hell yes! -replace mwd bonus for 5% or + armor bonus and agility (compensation for mass addition)

-wet dream: increase hull repairer effectiveness for 10%+ HAC skill and cycle for 37.5% % per level.

Woosh sry for the wet thingy Oops

Well anything helping it be a real AHAC is clearly better than the silly MWD cap bonus, even the weat dream thing Lol

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#846 - 2013-07-19 18:46:49 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
-Delete...-

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Fallacies
Doomheim
#847 - 2013-07-19 18:48:04 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.

THIS!!!
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#848 - 2013-07-19 18:48:12 UTC
Baren 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.



this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together

price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater.

make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable



People wouldn't fly HACs either, WHers would be utterly screwed, and nobody flies T3s in lowsec/nullsec anyway! (Outside of the occasional Loki fleet, CFC Tengu fleet has been dumpstered)

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#849 - 2013-07-19 18:49:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
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.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#850 - 2013-07-19 18:50:03 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
[

Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.





Implication in this case come smuch more from your mind than anything else.

I coudl state that the reason he decided to use this ship was because the Talos is also gallente. And my assertion would have the same level of assurance or insanity as yours.


Eagle and Diemost both use hybrids, Talos uses hybrids, if they wanted to compare a sniper ship to a Talos they could have used the Eagle and made more sense.

Also I recall someone saying the Diemost was to be a sniper, which I found ridiculous...


if the deimos had a tracking bonus then javelin with 250's and some te's would be nice. that could be the ahac setup for the ship.


At 250km an enemy fleet could probe and warp straight to the AHAC sniper Deimos's, without having to ping.

Sounds good but would fail when faced with nullsec fleet tactics.


250 mm is not 250km duder.

and jav is the close range ammo that looses 75% range but gets a 25% tracking and does more damage then antimater.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#851 - 2013-07-19 18:50:50 UTC
Maximus Andendare 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.
He lost me when he said Ishtar is good as always. Obviously never fit one.


Ishtar doesn't have enough CPU still. If it gets enough CPU to fit a tank+maybe use something in some of its other fuckin slotsJust from my EFTing,

Eagle becomes useable, sporting roughly 140k tank w/ 500 dps@50, Railgu isn't just a bad lossmail on Maka's killboard, Ishtar, if it got about 50-100 more base CPU becomes the ohh my god where have you been all my life droneboat. Diemost still sucks dicks, Vigilant with new guns gets some pretty **** DPS at more than 4km. Sacs still fuckin useless. Cerb is still a ****** missile boat. Vaga/Zealot/Muninn don't really change in use at all.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#852 - 2013-07-19 18:51:33 UTC
MeBiatch 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.


cool now i will take my hac and run lev v mission.

I suggest you check with those who have tried doing that with a BS first and see how they faired.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#853 - 2013-07-19 18:52:08 UTC
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.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#854 - 2013-07-19 18:52:23 UTC
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....



It woudl be better to just reduce build costs.. instead of adding some weird moongoo hauler spawn...

Its definitely a build cost, since Eagles are 170m right now and unless there is some massive speculation underway, there is no way that is because of demand.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#855 - 2013-07-19 18:53:16 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
MeBiatch 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.


cool now i will take my hac and run lev v mission.

I suggest you check with those who have tried doing that with a BS first and see how they faired.


well if that bs happened to be a rattlesnake Blink

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#856 - 2013-07-19 18:54:17 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:

250 mm is not 250km duder.

and jav is the close range ammo that looses 75% range but gets a 25% tracking and does more damage then antimater.



Derp, my bad I can't read apparently.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#857 - 2013-07-19 18:55:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Baren 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.



this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together

price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater.

make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable



People wouldn't fly HACs either, WHers would be utterly screwed, and nobody flies T3s in lowsec/nullsec anyway! (Outside of the occasional Loki fleet, CFC Tengu fleet has been dumpstered)



Because people want to do weird things after smoking bizarre stuff or drinking even harder stuff.

200K EHP Tengus with 25km range? -what is silly here, the 200K EHP or the inability to adapt?

Do Lokis have 200k EHP and shoot at 100km? no they don't
Can a decently fitted Tengu shoot at same distances with an equivalent tank? -yes it can but :effort:

T3's are not OP, not more op than were Drakes 3 years ago before everyone starts flying them, players uses however bring to the spot light the real issues and causes to effect, the main problem being to make some of them take their blinders off and use a bit their brains instead.

Edit: and these AHAC/SHAC changes while making them better wont make them as specialized ships as they're supposed to, better? yes of course but on their right spot? -no way, more changes are needed.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#858 - 2013-07-19 19:05:59 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Baren 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.



this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together

price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater.

make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable



People wouldn't fly HACs either, WHers would be utterly screwed, and nobody flies T3s in lowsec/nullsec anyway! (Outside of the occasional Loki fleet, CFC Tengu fleet has been dumpstered)



Because people want to do weird things after smoking bizarre stuff or drinking even harder stuff.

200K EHP Tengus with 25km range? -what is silly here, the 200K EHP or the inability to adapt?

Do Lokis have 200k EHP and shoot at 100km? no they don't
Can a decently fitted Tengu shoot at same distances with an equivalent tank? -yes it can but :effort:

T3's are not OP, not more op than were Drakes 3 years ago before everyone starts flying them, players uses however bring to the spot light the real issues and causes to effect, the main problem being to make some of them take their blinders off and use a bit their brains instead.

Edit: and these AHAC/SHAC changes while making them better wont make them as specialized ships as they're supposed to, better? yes of course but on their right spot? -no way, more changes are needed.



Exactly. Some subsystems on some T3s are OP, but T3s as a whole are not a problem

Legions, Proteus can fit 150k EHP with 600+ DPS, their tanks could be dropped from 10% bonus to 5% bonus and they would be on par with a Loki, and the problem would be gone.

Some selective changes I would support, but they need to be very selective...

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#859 - 2013-07-19 19:06:59 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Baren 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.



this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together

price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater.

make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable



People wouldn't fly HACs either, WHers would be utterly screwed, and nobody flies T3s in lowsec/nullsec anyway! (Outside of the occasional Loki fleet, CFC Tengu fleet has been dumpstered)
Very true. If we can't turn to HACs for dps, T3s for dps/tank or Command Ships--well, we certainly can't fly T1 attack cruisers and battleships cause mass problems. Besides, those Moroses would utterly destroy fat-sig BSs.

And it's not like we can just cyno in more support, get podded and fly back, or bridge some backup from the titan. What we have on the field is, for all intents and purposes, it. That's it. That's all she wrote. I was genuinely hoping that CCP would go the route where:

HACs become high dps, low* tank and middle speed
T3s are middle-ground dps, middle tank tank, high speed
CSs are below-T3 dps, high tank, low(er) speed

That way, you can choose if you need really tanky, middle-of-the-road, or high dps. Now, a T3 combines all these roles into high dps, high tank, high speed. Some diversity would be nice (necessary, yes, but my fellow wspace denizens and I would be saddened), and it'd make real choices in ship selection, gameplay type, etc.

*comparatively speaking; something in the 50-60k ehp zone.

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

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

M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#860 - 2013-07-19 19:13:42 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Maximus Andendare wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Baren 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.



this is agreed, another reason why if the nerf T3s after buffing the Hacs, people will just stop flying T3s all together

price differences between ships and classes need to be justified and maybe even greater.

make the gap price gap as well as the power gab between ships justifiable



People wouldn't fly HACs either, WHers would be utterly screwed, and nobody flies T3s in lowsec/nullsec anyway! (Outside of the occasional Loki fleet, CFC Tengu fleet has been dumpstered)
Very true. If we can't turn to HACs for dps, T3s for dps/tank or Command Ships--well, we certainly can't fly T1 attack cruisers and battleships cause mass problems. Besides, those Moroses would utterly destroy fat-sig BSs.

And it's not like we can just cyno in more support, get podded and fly back, or bridge some backup from the titan. What we have on the field is, for all intents and purposes, it. That's it. That's all she wrote. I was genuinely hoping that CCP would go the route where:

HACs become high dps, low* tank and middle speed
T3s are middle-ground dps, middle tank tank, high speed
CSs are below-T3 dps, high tank, low(er) speed

That way, you can choose if you need really tanky, middle-of-the-road, or high dps. Now, a T3 combines all these roles into high dps, high tank, high speed. Some diversity would be nice (necessary, yes, but my fellow wspace denizens and I would be saddened), and it'd make real choices in ship selection, gameplay type, etc.

*comparatively speaking; something in the 50-60k ehp zone.


I wouldn't say that T3s have high speed, I'd say they have low speed...

What they should have is 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

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