These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#261 - 2013-07-18 15:13:07 UTC
Esharan wrote:
Hi Rise,

I'm not important, but I fly a lot of Vagabonds and have for years.

I think the shield boost bonus is...just like totally useless. I mean its cool you added the speed bonus to the base stats; but the % of people that are going to plop a SB on a vagabond is so small because it's gonna lose its cap too fast with MWD/Shield Booster and lets face it, the Vagabond is a kiter.

Isn't there anything else you could slap on it? Tracking? ROF? even additional sig reduction like 4% per level so the Vaga has a real small signature radius - like frigate sized..idk.

The SB bonus just seems like an enormous waste of space.


Even with ASBs?
The Initiative.
#262 - 2013-07-18 15:15:38 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher.


"Amazing" is exactly the right word.


sarcasm malcanis or expressing that HAMS range is still insanely high atm


I'll be amazed if people use the cerb as a skirmisher.

Well, to be fair they'll probably use it once, to try it out, but I'll be amazed if they repeat the attempt, because it's too slow to avoid medium tackle and too fragile to tank the DPS when it's inevitably webbed and pointed down while the guys who brought Vagabonds trololol away, enjoying their 700m/s speed avantage and tanking bonus.

It's going to make for a nice cheap alternative to the Tengu for a guristas/serp missile ratter for people who don't live in space restful enough to use Ravens, so that's something.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

C C P Alliance
#263 - 2013-07-18 15:16:38 UTC
Capqu, so aggressive =/

I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.

@ccp_rise

#264 - 2013-07-18 15:17:22 UTC
Using HMLs to snipe is kind of silly...

[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]

C C P Alliance
#265 - 2013-07-18 15:17:51 UTC
Quote:
I'll be amazed if people use the cerb as a skirmisher.


I think you're super wrong here. We will have to see I guess.

@ccp_rise

skill urself
#266 - 2013-07-18 15:19:25 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Capqu, so aggressive =/

I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.


i'm sorry, it was a crime of passion
#267 - 2013-07-18 15:20:25 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Capqu, so aggressive =/

I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.


seriously Rise with RML's .. have you not thought about how insane it is using frigate ammo on cruisers?
abolish them and replace with a light assault variant i.e. like the difference in using 180's to 425's.

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

Minmatar Republic
#268 - 2013-07-18 15:20:39 UTC
Ivol Kishtani wrote:
David Kir wrote:
Ivol Kishtani wrote:
Does anyone use the Muninn as a long range platform? I would think a 4th mid would be more useful than an additional low.


It's often used in armor alpha gangs, and quite effectively so.
The extra low gives it that little bit of tank or damage it needs.
BL Muninn+Huginn gangs are infamous.


BL Muninn gangs are shield not armor.


I know, otherwise I wouldn't have specified that they also use the Huginn.

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.

Caldari State
#269 - 2013-07-18 15:22:19 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Capqu, so aggressive =/

I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.



Can we just have all missile boats get the bonuses to RLMLs like they should? Its a medium weapon system and it should get the benefit of not having to pick and choose which ship gets it like all the other weapons in the game.
Rote Kapelle
#270 - 2013-07-18 15:23:06 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Caldari Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
4% bonus to shield resistances

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage

Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1)
Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3)
Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8
Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 150
Eagle should have recieved +1 turret if you want it to be able to put out measurable dps. It's the same sort of thing you did with the Ferox to keep it viable. As it currently stands with this initial pass, it doesn't look like it's going to get much more use than it currently does.

And just to make another point: you really ought to consider changing out the lol bonuses for some that actually make sense. Flat our remove the +50 drone bay for something more useful, or if you're going to give it a stupid bonus, make it an active rep bonus. At least it wouldn't be using it's cap for weapons, and the ship may actually get some use as a brawler.

For the 5% cap/level and the Sac's 5% cap charge/level---you can do better. Look at the other ships. Some have 4x damage/application bonuses. Put these that have dumb bonuses on par, at least. Give one +5% armor amount per level, +repair amount, etc. Keeping the old bonuses because you couldn't think of anything better isn't a reason to keep them.

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

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

#271 - 2013-07-18 15:23:07 UTC
CCP Rise or CCP Fozzie, maybe even one of the CSMs in the thread, are drones going to be looked at any time soon, or are they a lost cause and need to be completely rewritten?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Caldari State
#272 - 2013-07-18 15:24:09 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Capqu, so aggressive =/

I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.


seriously Rise with RML's .. have you not thought about how insane it is using frigate ammo on cruisers?
abolish them and replace with a light assault variant i.e. like the difference in using 180's to 425's.



This is stupid. How else are missile boats going to defend against frigs? 15 m3 drone bay? No thx.
#273 - 2013-07-18 15:25:30 UTC
Still dont understand why thorax tracks better then the diemos...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Minmatar Republic
#274 - 2013-07-18 15:25:55 UTC
Ok, so Cerberus will get the same super-destroyer role the Caracal fits into.
I can deal with that.

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.

Gallente Federation
#275 - 2013-07-18 15:27:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
I'll look at the Ishtar fitting. To me it seems like one of the stronger HACs already and it gained a bonus to damage projection and application so I didn't see a need to give it even more buffs. I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots. All that said, I'll have another look.
The problem is that the Ishtar has problem running S-sized mods in its high slots, to say nothing about any kind of highslot drone mod or remote support mod. Giving it a proper amount of CPU is not so much a buff as it is a balancing of the ship. The new drone mods (and especially their T2 variants) have already ruled out any kind of highslot extravaganza, and even with the old T1 mods, you were always at the very edge of what the CPU would allow…

…with small guns fitted. By all means, keep the CPU limited, but then do something that lets it actually fit the modules that are in line with the ship's main purpose. If that means going outside of the ship balancing act and changing the drone mods, or if it means giving the ship a fitting bonus doesn't particularly matter (to me… Maximus Andendare disagrees). What matters is that everything you want to fit on an Ishtar eats CPU like crazy before you even get to such extravagances as turrets.




It seems to me that guys just took the easy way out and buffed what these ships are currently used for...lol fail AHACS. They used to be the small gang/pvp corp's BS. You supposedly gave us tier 3's for that but they just got co opted into sniper blobs so that didnt work out, save the talos. Omni Directionals should always been a high slot mod. Heavy drones in any form of PVP save suicide heavy tackle is fail. With T2 Omnis and the new sentry/Domi bonus i could see use for this ship again. Although with Omnis in the mids thats a big if. And btw how does this ship have good damage projection with heavies?
Goonswarm Federation
#276 - 2013-07-18 15:28:05 UTC
For the ishtar to be viable in any kind of fleet capacity it desperatly needs more CPU! When I outfit it for armor tank and drone range/damge I'm left with 3 med and 2 high-slots I can not fit because of CPU. Fitting for shield you run into the same issue. Dunno but that just doesn't seem right to me. I mean you guys took one highslot away which we could never outfit anyway but at the very least you could give us some more base CPU.. +20 or something like it would go a long way.
The Initiative.
#277 - 2013-07-18 15:28:21 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
I'll be amazed if people use the cerb as a skirmisher.


I think you're super wrong here. We will have to see I guess.


Indeed we will. If by some incredible turn of events we don't see people flocking to use a ship that can't outrun a Caracal (let along a Stabber) as a skirmisher, I hope there will be an opportunity to look at giving it a genuinely distinctive role.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Rote Kapelle
#278 - 2013-07-18 15:28:30 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
It would be nice to do something interesting like a +100% velocity bonus to Afterburners, instead of the MWD sig reduction bonus.
I have to echo this sentiment. I realize that CCP likely won't do this because it'd make these ships vastly overpowered (sig tank + speed + damage), but I don't know if the MWD sig reduction goes far enough or even performs its purpose. These ships will balloon with their MWDs on, so that kills shield ships sniping and does nothing to AHACs/brawlers once they get in range. Unfortunately, though, Omnathious, I'm pretty sure CCP is set on this. Fozzie stated during a Fanfest presentation that this was in the works, so I'm sure with such an old idea, they started with it and went from there. I expect this one is going to stay.

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

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

Joint Venture Conglomerate
#279 - 2013-07-18 15:29:47 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I'll look at the Ishtar fitting. To me it seems like one of the stronger HACs already and it gained a bonus to damage projection and application so I didn't see a need to give it even more buffs. I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots. All that said, I'll have another look.
for the way tracking works to find out why.

Little point in having the slots if you can't fit them with anything but a place holder.

Consider reducing the number of gun slots or even drop another high slot in return for some more CPU.

Fear God and Thread Nought

Shadow Cartel
#280 - 2013-07-18 15:29:54 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Caldari Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
4% bonus to shield resistances

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage

Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1)
Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3)
Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8
Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 150
Eagle should have recieved +1 turret if you want it to be able to put out measurable dps. It's the same sort of thing you did with the Ferox to keep it viable. As it currently stands with this initial pass, it doesn't look like it's going to get much more use than it currently does.

And just to make another point: you really ought to consider changing out the lol bonuses for some that actually make sense. Flat our remove the +50 drone bay for something more useful, or if you're going to give it a stupid bonus, make it an active rep bonus. At least it wouldn't be using it's cap for weapons, and the ship may actually get some use as a brawler.

For the 5% cap/level and the Sac's 5% cap charge/level---you can do better. Look at the other ships. Some have 4x damage/application bonuses. Put these that have dumb bonuses on par, at least. Give one +5% armor amount per level, +repair amount, etc. Keeping the old bonuses because you couldn't think of anything better isn't a reason to keep them.


The ferox is currently underpowered, actually. It has the same number of effective turrets as everyone else, but theirs are compacted into 1 fewer highslots. That's why the ferox is 1 mid short of a drake, for no good reason. It's because it would be kind of silly to double up the range bonus to meet the doubled up damage bonus of the other ships. That whole BC nerf was pretty underwhelming and bad, really.
Forum Jump