Player Features and Ideas Discussion

stfu about sentries.

**** on these proposed changes more, or just spam quote my wall-o-text of suggested changes.

Exactly my point.

I only mentioned slows because if you want to talk about the most powerful application of a sentry drone, try it when you are dropping them 12-13 per ship.

Now back to .....well ~HAC~ discussions.

As long as it doesn't mean the high EHP one gets to waste a bonus on it like the ludicrous +% crap .. would make sense to have a brawler and a projector, as long there is some way to mix it up at a price should one choose to (ex. HAMs or HMLs on Sac).

None of the HACs are really that heavily tanked to start with (ok the Sac is), certainly not when compared with battle cruisers or tech threes. Both of which are quite capable of comparable damage.

The ABCs stomp all over them in the sniping roll for half of the price.


...and none of these changes are doing much besides removing utility highs.

* I think

ABCs arguably do that better.

And EHP boost would be a HUGE bonus to some of these HACs.
I'm looking at you Vagabond.

While further changes would be required beyond an EHP boost, it is a start.



Breaking HACs into two distinct groups, each with its own role bonus, would be an excellent idea.

There would be no reason for a new skill set, just look at force recons and combat recons, same skill 2 different styles of the same ship

...and the rest being iffy damage application.

You spend a lot of isk for not a lot of performance, and higher skill cap if you want to come back with the ship. Run slow on an align or a rewarp and you are pretty screwed pretty quickly.

That being said I use munnins for station gaming, but that is most because of lock speed.

I am disappointed with these changes in that they do not deliver specialized ships. I had imagined that a T1 ship would be delivered to a naval architect who is then given a specific mission/engagment profile and the instructions to carve off everything not essential to that purpose while greatly enhancing the characteristics that are central to that purpose. Drones, speed, mass, agility, scan res, max targets, sensor strength, shield, armor, hull, slots, bonuses and all of the other characteristics that make up our ships would be examined. Those that are needed for the ships purpose would be enhanced while those not essential would be compromised to make room for the enhancements.

For example, a fast attack cruiser would lose drones as they are not useful for kiting. Perhaps the ships lock time would be penalized while the sensor strength is decreased as well as those also are not eseential to kiting, but the locking range might be increased as that is useful for a kite. At a different shipyard an architect might squeeze the damage and tank of a battlecruiser into the cruiser hull, but at the cost of having the mids to tackle, the drones which so often mean operational flexibility and the scan res to lock quickly. This ship would be as good as a battleruiser at damage, be as mobile as crusier yet lack enough of what a battlecruiser does that it could not possibly be a replacement for either the battlecruiser or the alternative t1 cruiser in general usage. Another architect might create a screening ship which retains or even enhances scan res, has great projection and effectiveness against frigate sized vessels but at the cost of raw damage. Yet another shipyard might take up the task of creating a ship that could dance and weave through an enemy camp with confidence because it is less vulnerable to the scrams and webs which stop other ships. Each of these examples would be a useful ship for a specialized purpose while retaining the need for the more generalized T1 ship.

In the rock-paper-scissors world of eve each of these ships would have a purpose and be very good at that purpose, while having compromised the ability to be good or even passable at other tasks. This is what specialized means to me. The current batch of ships is neither particularly interesting nor particularly specialized.