These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Isn't it about time you fix Minnie HACs CCP??

Author
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#1 - 2016-01-01 07:02:44 UTC
This is getting old now. I mean c'mon, how long will you keep Minnie HACs below sea level of usefulness is beyond me. In most cases now, pilots just flat out give up on using Minnie HACs in favor of the either the Deimos/Sacrilege/Ishtar for brawling and Ishtar/Zealot/Eagle/Cerberus for sniping.

Is that a coincidence? I don't think so. Why? Well for one they don't have wasted utility highs like the Minnie HACs do. So for starters I purpose that you get rid of the wasted utility high-slot on the Minnie HACs and give them an additional mid-slot.

Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2016-01-01 10:38:01 UTC
Why not just give it a doomsday device, no really, since you are explaining absolutely nothing about how it would work better...

How about some more info on how it could be improved?
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3 - 2016-01-01 11:03:16 UTC

Move one of the vagabonds low to a mid. Done.

Muninn needs about 20% more grid at least and the utility high moved to a mid.
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#4 - 2016-01-01 12:36:42 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Why not just give it a doomsday device, no really, since you are explaining absolutely nothing about how it would work better...

How about some more info on how it could be improved?


For you to even have to ask for a reason why they need additional mid-slots means you don't fly HACs. Those that fly HACs are already full aware that these poor Vagabonds that CCP left behind needs some immediate attention. And the reasons why have already been mention in many posts before this one but still the problems have not gotten resolved. So this post is more of a reminder to CCP that they need to address the pitiful state that the Minnie HACs are in atm.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#5 - 2016-01-01 18:22:57 UTC
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Why not just give it a doomsday device, no really, since you are explaining absolutely nothing about how it would work better...

How about some more info on how it could be improved?


For you to even have to ask for a reason why they need additional mid-slots means you don't fly HACs. Those that fly HACs are already full aware that these poor Vagabonds that CCP left behind needs some immediate attention. And the reasons why have already been mention in many posts before this one but still the problems have not gotten resolved. So this post is more of a reminder to CCP that they need to address the pitiful state that the Minnie HACs are in atm.

What he or anyone else knows or does not know is not important. What is important is for us to understand A. why YOU think they need to be changed and B. what YOU think that change should be.

All those other posts are irrelevant to the discussion here since you have not bothered to provide links to them. And no it is not mine or anyone else's job to go and find the links it is your job as the one who started this post to provide us with the links, or a synopsis of the information they contain.

Setting that aside and moving back to the question at hand since the HAC's as a group have had their balance pass the obvious answer, even though you do not want to hear it, is that these ships are in the place that CCP wants them to be. If their capabilities do not fit your needs there are many other ships in the game fly one of those.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2016-01-01 21:17:20 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Why not just give it a doomsday device, no really, since you are explaining absolutely nothing about how it would work better...

How about some more info on how it could be improved?


For you to even have to ask for a reason why they need additional mid-slots means you don't fly HACs. Those that fly HACs are already full aware that these poor Vagabonds that CCP left behind needs some immediate attention. And the reasons why have already been mention in many posts before this one but still the problems have not gotten resolved. So this post is more of a reminder to CCP that they need to address the pitiful state that the Minnie HACs are in atm.

What he or anyone else knows or does not know is not important. What is important is for us to understand A. why YOU think they need to be changed and B. what YOU think that change should be.

All those other posts are irrelevant to the discussion here since you have not bothered to provide links to them. And no it is not mine or anyone else's job to go and find the links it is your job as the one who started this post to provide us with the links, or a synopsis of the information they contain.

Setting that aside and moving back to the question at hand since the HAC's as a group have had their balance pass the obvious answer, even though you do not want to hear it, is that these ships are in the place that CCP wants them to be. If their capabilities do not fit your needs there are many other ships in the game fly one of those.



Let's be fair here, either Med Proj or minnie HAC need some serious love.

Pick one, but don't try and deny there are issues, that's a bit like saying the earth is flat in 2016...
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#7 - 2016-01-01 21:46:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
The Muninn is just awful. Like pre-buff Deimos awful. You can't fit anything to it, it has a rubbish tank and it has wet noodle DPS.

You're unironically better off in a rupture, it's basically the same and if you die people won't laugh at you for flying a Muninn.
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#8 - 2016-01-02 00:04:17 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Why not just give it a doomsday device, no really, since you are explaining absolutely nothing about how it would work better...

How about some more info on how it could be improved?


For you to even have to ask for a reason why they need additional mid-slots means you don't fly HACs. Those that fly HACs are already full aware that these poor Vagabonds that CCP left behind needs some immediate attention. And the reasons why have already been mention in many posts before this one but still the problems have not gotten resolved. So this post is more of a reminder to CCP that they need to address the pitiful state that the Minnie HACs are in atm.

What he or anyone else knows or does not know is not important. What is important is for us to understand A. why YOU think they need to be changed and B. what YOU think that change should be.

All those other posts are irrelevant to the discussion here since you have not bothered to provide links to them. And no it is not mine or anyone else's job to go and find the links it is your job as the one who started this post to provide us with the links, or a synopsis of the information they contain.

Setting that aside and moving back to the question at hand since the HAC's as a group have had their balance pass the obvious answer, even though you do not want to hear it, is that these ships are in the place that CCP wants them to be. If their capabilities do not fit your needs there are many other ships in the game fly one of those.


So in other words you saying don't fly Minnie HACs and fly something else? That happens to be what I and everyone else is doing anyway since Minnie HACs are a joke.

I'm not asking for them to be given Uberness (Deimos) like buff, just a small adjustment. They don't need the utility highs and goes unused most of the time anyways so why not give them a mid slot instead.

Mid Arties have ridiculous PWG requirements and should also be address. That or give ships like the Munnin enough PWG to be able to fit them properly.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#9 - 2016-01-02 00:18:49 UTC
Wait, I've got something for this.

http://i.imgur.com/u0Zbv1q.png

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2016-01-02 02:30:07 UTC
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:


Mid Arties have ridiculous PWG requirements and should also be address. That or give ships like the Munnin enough PWG to be able to fit them properly.


I'm not going to claim to be any sort of expert, but I once put forth an idea that could help resolve the fitting issues. If a Minn ship is designed for artillery, one of the ship bonuses should be a percentage less powergrid needed to fit medium projectile turrets. If the ship is tier-2, allowing for four bonuses, then another bonus should go to medium projectile damage (not rate of fire). That would hopefully resolve the fitting issues and make dedicated artillery platforms perform very well in their intended role.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#11 - 2016-01-02 02:37:23 UTC
The complaint with that is that weapons should be designed to fit on the ships they are intended to be used. Medium sized ships shouldn't need bonuses to fit medium sized guns, they should just have stats that allow medium sized ships to fit them.

It seems like CCP have over the last several years resorted to gimping ships on fitting as a blunt instrument way of "balancing" them. If you can't actually put a reasonable combination of modules on a ship it's impossible for it to be overpowered even if it turns out that its bonuses or base stats are too powerful.

And it's crap. I can find a use for a ship with bad bonuses and adequate fitting, I can't do anything with a ship that I can't even put guns or a full tank on even it it has amazing bonuses.

Also Zealots are really godawful too.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2016-01-02 03:17:56 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The complaint with that is that weapons should be designed to fit on the ships they are intended to be used. Medium sized ships shouldn't need bonuses to fit medium sized guns, they should just have stats that allow medium sized ships to fit them.

It seems like CCP have over the last several years resorted to gimping ships on fitting as a blunt instrument way of "balancing" them. If you can't actually put a reasonable combination of modules on a ship it's impossible for it to be overpowered even if it turns out that its bonuses or base stats are too powerful.

And it's crap. I can find a use for a ship with bad bonuses and adequate fitting, I can't do anything with a ship that I can't even put guns or a full tank on even it it has amazing bonuses.

Also Zealots are really godawful too.


I meant to speak in general terms, not just medium-sized, so my bad on that.

People complain about Amarr ships and laser cap use bonus being a "wasted" bonus, but I can see potential in that. It helps prevent other non-racial ships from using the weapon system, then you just have to make sure the weapon system is WORTH using despite the "wasted" bonus. I think that's where CCP is failing with weapons right now. Hybrids are good all-around, and as soon as they announced changes that one Amarr frigate, everyone spoke up about how they were going to fit blasters or AC's to it, because lasers aren't really worth it. That's the problem.

Artillery can also be made to be quite potent, and made to only really fit well on Minn ships through a racial PG trait. It'd be a "wasted" bonus, but if artillery is potent within it's role, and you don't want the system ending up on dozens of unintended ships (like blasters or AC's), then you can make it hard to fit and give Minn shps that trait to make it work. Yes, this means both lasers and artillery might need some slight buffs, just enough to strike that balance of "I'd use it despite the wasted bonus, because it is good and competitive when I can use it with that trait". What those buffs might look like, to what extent, or at all, might make for good discussion. But I do think there's potential there.
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#13 - 2016-01-02 04:10:20 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
"I'd use it despite the wasted bonus, because it is good and competitive when I can use it with that trait". What those buffs might look like, to what extent, or at all, might make for good discussion. But I do think there's potential there.


While this approach may make Hybrids best fit on Gal and Cal hulls, Lasers on Amarr and Projectiles on Minnie hulls. This is ultimately a poor balance approach. "blank" ships like the Gnosis should be the metric for determining if weapon systems are balanced.

If a cruiser sized Gnosis with average to average-good stats all round was created and release for balancing purposes on Sisi, one should expect it to be seen with all potential weapon types. Currently the very last thing you would EVER see someone fit it with would be Arties. Followed very sadly by Beams, Heavies, hams, Pulse, Autos, Rails, Blasters, and probably most commonly Rapid lights.

Why?

Arties require a horrendous amount of grid, and don't provide dps, alpha, or range that seems to compensate for it in the eyes of players. The problem is not with the Muninn, it is a great artillery ship with great artillery bonus's. Arties are just bad until you get to ships with LOLWUT grid and amazing arty bonus's like canes and fleet canes.

Fit a 650 arty stabber, then fit a 200 rail stabber. Cry. because the 200 rail stabber gets better stats, better t2 ammo, and only misses out on the cap that the rails use.
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#14 - 2016-01-02 10:04:19 UTC
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:
"I'd use it despite the wasted bonus, because it is good and competitive when I can use it with that trait". What those buffs might look like, to what extent, or at all, might make for good discussion. But I do think there's potential there.


While this approach may make Hybrids best fit on Gal and Cal hulls, Lasers on Amarr and Projectiles on Minnie hulls. This is ultimately a poor balance approach. "blank" ships like the Gnosis should be the metric for determining if weapon systems are balanced.

If a cruiser sized Gnosis with average to average-good stats all round was created and release for balancing purposes on Sisi, one should expect it to be seen with all potential weapon types. Currently the very last thing you would EVER see someone fit it with would be Arties. Followed very sadly by Beams, Heavies, hams, Pulse, Autos, Rails, Blasters, and probably most commonly Rapid lights.

Why?

Arties require a horrendous amount of grid, and don't provide dps, alpha, or range that seems to compensate for it in the eyes of players. The problem is not with the Muninn, it is a great artillery ship with great artillery bonus's. Arties are just bad until you get to ships with LOLWUT grid and amazing arty bonus's like canes and fleet canes.

Fit a 650 arty stabber, then fit a 200 rail stabber. Cry. because the 200 rail stabber gets better stats, better t2 ammo, and only misses out on the cap that the rails use.


So in other words, you're saying that even if CCP gave the Minnie HACs the extra mid slots that they would still suck? Would it help if they're fit with a TC II with tracking speed scripts (this is one of the reasons I wanted them to have extra mid slots)?
Alexhandr Shkarov
Theoretical Mass
Critical Effect
#15 - 2016-01-02 11:23:17 UTC
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:


So in other words you saying don't fly Minnie HACs and fly something else? That happens to be what I and everyone else is doing anyway since Minnie HACs are a joke.

I'm not asking for them to be given Uberness (Deimos) like buff, just a small adjustment. They don't need the utility highs and goes unused most of the time anyways so why not give them a mid slot instead.

Mid Arties have ridiculous PWG requirements and should also be address. That or give ships like the Munnin enough PWG to be able to fit them properly.


His point is that you start up a topic calling for change, yet fail to incorporate any direction from the start in what needs to be done. All you effectively did was "Mmmkay.... Minmatar HAC is bad, 'kay? Now /discuss".

Personally I'd love to see the Muninn to gain a few small adjustments that allow it to be fairly competitive without making it oppressive. How this can be done I am not 100% certain, as I am just one pilot of many. But I'd love to see one low-slot be swapped to a midslot. Keep the utility high, they are actually useful. As a brawler myself, I'd love to see some love to auto-cannons in terms of range on the ship, but I am not sure how strong it'd make artillery fits. Perhaps change the optimal range bonus to a 15% fall off bonus per level?

All my posts are on my personal title and should not be confused as me speaking for anyone else.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#16 - 2016-01-02 13:16:18 UTC
They just need to lower the fitting requirements for medium artillery.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#17 - 2016-01-02 16:39:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Before I start on some specific answers it seems I have not made myself and my thoughts clear to the rest of you, apologies for that. I simply do not care what happens to the minnie HAC's since I never have and never will fly them, not because they were or are bad, simply because as a drones pilot they do not offer what I want.


Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Let's be fair here, either Med Proj or minnie HAC need some serious love.

Pick one, but don't try and deny there are issues, that's a bit like saying the earth is flat in 2016...

I am not denying any thing. The TRUTH is in front of us all you have to do is look and you will see it. As a class the HAC's got their balance pass and since then the Ishtar has been adjusted on what 3 separate occasions and still the minnie ships have not been touched. From this evidence there are only 4 conclusion that can be drawn.
1. CCP believes these ships fit nicely into the niche they created for them so no adjustments are needed.
2. They are to busy with other more pressing issues to have the time for these ships, personally I doubt that since they have made adjustments to other ships along the way.
3. CCP has painted themselves into a corner with these ships and everything the try in their in house testing has proven to be worse for the game as a whole than what we have.
4. CCP is simply blind and stupid and cannot see that which you claim to be obvious.
I will leave it to each of you to decide which of these may apply.

Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
So in other words you saying don't fly Minnie HACs and fly something else? That happens to be what I and everyone else is doing anyway since Minnie HACs are a joke.

In case you have not noticed CCP is in the midst of giving all ships a more specialized role or niche in the game, perhaps the changes (or the lack of changes) to the minnie HAC"s was done on purpose so they better fit the role that CCP has envisioned for them, whether that role is what you want it to be is not relevant.

Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
I'm not asking for them to be given Uberness (Deimos) like buff, just a small adjustment. They don't need the utility highs and goes unused most of the time anyways so why not give them a mid slot instead.[quote]
So how does this solve what you believe to be the problem?
Would that change address the specific problems that other players have with these ships or just yours?


[quote=Segraina Skyblazer]IMid Arties have ridiculous PWG requirements and should also be address. That or give ships like the Munnin enough PWG to be able to fit them properly.

The first thought that comes to mind is that the low PG indicates the use of auto canon instead of arties, going back to the role that CCP is creating for ships perhaps this is the role CCP wants for this ship.

While lowering the PG requirements for medium arties may help this ship, what does it do to the balance of all of the other ships in the game that can fit medium arties aince PG is always one of the factors used when balancing a ships.

If you increase the PG on this ship what potential does that open up for a creative OP fit of the month?
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#18 - 2016-01-02 17:56:11 UTC
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:

So in other words, you're saying that even if CCP gave the Minnie HACs the extra mid slots that they would still suck?


Not at all. the Vagabond needs a low moved to a mid, and the Muninn needs a high moved to a mid. This would wholesale fix both ships. End of story.

However amazingly popular that would make the vagabond, the Muninn would still languish because its hull bonus's strongly imply Arty fits with the bonus to optimal. And the problem with arties is not the ships. Its the arties. The muninn can't be fixed with a slot movement like the vagabond can. Arties need their grid cost dropped down to a few PG more than 250 rails. Rather than bucket loads more.
Torrent Talon
Metaphysical Quantum Anomaly Research Laboratory
#19 - 2016-01-02 18:09:06 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
The Muninn is just awful. Like pre-buff Deimos awful. You can't fit anything to it, it has a rubbish tank and it has wet noodle DPS.

You're unironically better off in a rupture, it's basically the same and if you die people won't laugh at you for flying a Muninn.


I'm unsure how the muninn is bad, if you buffer fit them they're half decent for mid size skirmishes albeit speed can be a problem

The vaga on the other hand, if it loses a low it would lose dps or manoeuvrability, the muninn losing a high for a mid could bring in the possibility of shield tanking.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#20 - 2016-01-02 18:25:12 UTC
My natural instinct with everything is to buffer fit it. But when I did that with a muninn the result was I basically just had a rupture that cost ten times as much.

It's just not worth using.
123Next page