These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1301 - 2013-07-23 01:14:02 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
Baren wrote:
SO We are all IN Agree ment?

HACs shoulw have two roles, whith each Role having a unique Bonus?




i think the only agreement here is that were all unsatisfied with stuff ....

most common concern :

hacs suck cause they mostly lack purpose.

followed by:

if they have (or had) purpose they are overshadowed by other stuff and or unviable due to changed meta.




Well they were overshadowed by T3's, at least some, before Heavy Missile changes, before HAM changes and before T1 Cruisers changes.

Now that this important part of the game is done you don't see that many of those being fielded and there's a reason: T1's are clearly very very good.

Power creep? -Too late

That's what happens when you don't listen to players base feedback. You do the same job twice, quite professional (not)

Step back on T1's, sure, decrease tank/mobility/dps for 5/7% and maybe new HACs might look better but still in need at least of 20%+ EHP either by resist profile or hp or combination of 2, better mobility and be at least 10% faster than T1 versions, then add better fittings a third rig slot and we're done with HACs and T3's at the same time because those HACs will eat T3's alive.



HACs weren't overshadowed by T3s at all, they were totally stomped on by battlecruisers, and continue to be.

Now knocking the command mods down a rung is is certainly needed, but HACs ONLY claim to fame is small scale scrimishing sometimes, and ahacs sig tanking battleships. .....both of which basically require gang links.

Hell T3s fleets require the ganglinks

People need to put the pitch forks away until we see what they are doing with
1) The HACs, this pass doesn't come close to handling most of the hulls' issues.
2) Boosting, all we know is that CSs and T3s are going to get their bonuses basically swapped. Which is fine.

Going by the REST of the T2 cruisers in comparison,
T3 logi vs T2 logi, T2 all of the way.....all day, the lack of a range bonus make that sub useless....except in some BLOPs gangs
T3 recon vs T2 recon, the EWAR from the T2s is flat out better, pretty much across the board.
T3 Scanner.....go go cov-ops frig, the T3s certainy work Emergent locis even have a the same virus strength as the role bonus for a frigate since there are no rats I would much rather fly the frig than a half bill in T3 cruiser.
T3 HAC vs T2 HAC here we have issues but its all over the board. Hybrid Tengu? LOL Drone Proteus? Laser Legion works I guess but usually you go HAM and I have only ever really seen them in Garmon videos and ratting fits.

The issue isn't the T3s so much, the issue is that the HACs basically suck. Buff the HACs up to comparable levels speed and damage or tank and range and you are on to something.

...and you only need to tweek the subs on the T3s, HACs aren't really favorable in comparison to Battlecruisers, not in tank, not in damage, they are a little faster, have a smaller sig, and ~sometimes~ have a better resist profile.

Again the issue isn't T3s, its the HACs are just plain underwhelming, particularly when you are looking at 150mil for the hull alone.
Thorvik
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1302 - 2013-07-23 01:25:41 UTC
David Kir wrote:
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
... you're buffing the Vagabond?

What, were people not using them or something?

I like the Ishtar change and about half the Deimos change. I wish you'd replaced the MWD capacitor bonus with something useful though, maybe tracking?


Yep, people were not using them.
Really.


Pretty much this. When you can use a Stabber or an SFI for much less ISK and almost same performance why would you pay 4x for a Vaga? Don't get me wrong. I have three Vagas that have been sitting around gathering dust waiting for a buff but it doesn't look like it's going to get any real love. Kil2 used a Vaga differently than most that I know and the new enhancements seem to fit his play style. :(
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1303 - 2013-07-23 01:30:34 UTC
Thorvik wrote:
David Kir wrote:
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
... you're buffing the Vagabond?

What, were people not using them or something?

I like the Ishtar change and about half the Deimos change. I wish you'd replaced the MWD capacitor bonus with something useful though, maybe tracking?


Yep, people were not using them.
Really.


Pretty much this. When you can use a Stabber or an SFI for much less ISK and almost same performance why would you pay 4x for a Vaga? Don't get me wrong. I have three Vagas that have been sitting around gathering dust waiting for a buff but it doesn't look like it's going to get any real love. Kil2 used a Vaga differently than most that I know and the new enhancements seem to fit his play style. :(



True, I haven't undocked in my Vaga in months. My SFI remains one of my favorite general goof around ships.
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#1304 - 2013-07-23 01:43:54 UTC
I would say going hand in hand with the med sniper buff have the Vaga/Zealot/Deimos/Cerberus a massive tracking bonus to those systems (50% ?) and at the same time remove the damage bonus for the close range systems and there you have a specialised role.
The Munnin/Sacrilege/Ishtar/Eagle should get instead of their sig radius bonus a cap bonus on active tank modules, a MASSIVE sensor strength and there you have another specialised role. And maybe have mercy with the Ishtar and Grant it another low slot.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1305 - 2013-07-23 02:03:04 UTC  |  Edited by: JerseyBOI 2
Onictus wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
Baren wrote:
SO We are all IN Agree ment?

HACs shoulw have two roles, whith each Role having a unique Bonus?




i think the only agreement here is that were all unsatisfied with stuff ....

most common concern :

hacs suck cause they mostly lack purpose.

followed by:

if they have (or had) purpose they are overshadowed by other stuff and or unviable due to changed meta.




Well they were overshadowed by T3's, at least some, before Heavy Missile changes, before HAM changes and before T1 Cruisers changes.

Now that this important part of the game is done you don't see that many of those being fielded and there's a reason: T1's are clearly very very good.

Power creep? -Too late

That's what happens when you don't listen to players base feedback. You do the same job twice, quite professional (not)

Step back on T1's, sure, decrease tank/mobility/dps for 5/7% and maybe new HACs might look better but still in need at least of 20%+ EHP either by resist profile or hp or combination of 2, better mobility and be at least 10% faster than T1 versions, then add better fittings a third rig slot and we're done with HACs and T3's at the same time because those HACs will eat T3's alive.



HACs weren't overshadowed by T3s at all, they were totally stomped on by battlecruisers, and continue to be.

Now knocking the command mods down a rung is is certainly needed, but HACs ONLY claim to fame is small scale scrimishing sometimes, and ahacs sig tanking battleships. .....both of which basically require gang links.

Hell T3s fleets require the ganglinks

People need to put the pitch forks away until we see what they are doing with
1) The HACs, this pass doesn't come close to handling most of the hulls' issues.
2) Boosting, all we know is that CSs and T3s are going to get their bonuses basically swapped. Which is fine.

Going by the REST of the T2 cruisers in comparison,
T3 logi vs T2 logi, T2 all of the way.....all day, the lack of a range bonus make that sub useless....except in some BLOPs gangs
T3 recon vs T2 recon, the EWAR from the T2s is flat out better, pretty much across the board.
T3 Scanner.....go go cov-ops frig, the T3s certainy work Emergent locis even have a the same virus strength as the role bonus for a frigate since there are no rats I would much rather fly the frig than a half bill in T3 cruiser.
T3 HAC vs T2 HAC here we have issues but its all over the board. Hybrid Tengu? LOL Drone Proteus? Laser Legion works I guess but usually you go HAM and I have only ever really seen them in Garmon videos and ratting fits.

The issue isn't the T3s so much, the issue is that the HACs basically suck. Buff the HACs up to comparable levels speed and damage or tank and range and you are on to something.

...and you only need to tweek the subs on the T3s, HACs aren't really favorable in comparison to Battlecruisers, not in tank, not in damage, they are a little faster, have a smaller sig, and ~sometimes~ have a better resist profile.

Again the issue isn't T3s, its the HACs are just plain underwhelming, particularly when you are looking at 150mil for the hull alone.






"they were totally stomped on by battlecruisers, and continue to be" truth.

Remember when drakes where lol? Before Loki links how often did you encounter linked opponents?(outside of blob fleets) Before med rigs how easier where BC's to burn down? (BC's not worth rigging / HACS were worth rigging) HACS were the goto for small gangs. BC's got faster, tankier. In comparison to rest of the game, HACS got slower, fluffier, and out ranged. No going back on the tank issue. MAKE THEM FASTER.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1306 - 2013-07-23 02:13:37 UTC
For me I would say break up the rolls.

Sac

Toss the laser bonus, give armor resist (hell even the 5% they just nerfed) then big boosts to flight time, and damage ROF. Pull a mid add a low and make the utility high a launcher slow as well

Now you have nasty in your face HAM brawler that can active tank, buffer tank, do traditional AHAC (AB fit) and have usefull mids for EWAR

Zealot

Isn't bad, the proposed MWD buff loosen the fitting so that fitting heavy beams isn't a chore move a low to a high, leave the bonuses, boost the damage to 10% ...maybe the ROF (more number crunching then I want to do at the moment) increase the capacitor to account for the increased ROF.

I'd actually be tempted to say move two lows, one medium one high...and reduce the mass of the hull a lot.

that lets you fit a shield tank and you have a low sig beam scirmisher, or a relatively fast pulse brawler four mids would let you shield tank with beams and with the rest of the bonuses it would be a pretty good match for the oracle,

Ishtar

FOR THE LOVE OFF EVERYTHING SPACE NERD GIVE THIS THING SOME CPU, LIKE A LOT OF IT

As long as it is tried to its drones it has enough disadvantages, gimping any reasonable fit just makes it terrible I have tried for years to live that hull. Toss the drome bay bonus (roll it into the hull) and give it the prorposed bonuses/slot sets and the traditional gallente active tanking bonus and it would be a workable ship from solo, to skirmish, to null blop.

Deimost


This frigging thing, just roll the MWD bonus into the hull, give it the MWD sig and jack the hull speed up to vaga/stabber levels. Make the last high a turret move a low to a mid damage optimal and ROF all at 10%


etc etc.
These have to compare in performance with both T3s AND battlecruisers. Its done well with every other line of T2 cruiser......the HACs are a mess.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#1307 - 2013-07-23 02:51:22 UTC
nikar galvren wrote:
Cearain wrote:
nikar galvren wrote:


VAGABOND: Formerly the king of skirmishing, recent advances forced the Minmatar scientists to completely redesign the Vagabond's propulsion system. The results were stunning.
(Roll the max speed into the hull.)

Role Bonus: 80% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Optimal

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage

Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 5L;
Max velocity: 299
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 330 / 5
Sensor strength: 14 Ladar
Signature radius: 110



I'm not sure what your going for here.

The shield boost bonus was great on this ship, as long as it gets at least 1 more mid, a bit more shield buffer, and enough fitting room.

I would prefer that to what you posted here.


Going for the "Strike" theme. This proposal was focused on damage projection without pigeon holing the Vaga into a shield tank. I don't want to say that I'm against the shield tank idea, but I like the thought of being able to project damage far enough out to really make use of the speed.



Ok even though we don't agree I think you make a good points and we may sort of epitomize a split in thinking.

I think in terms of low sec small ship pvp. You might think in terms of null sec larger ships.

In low sec hacs are going to be larger ships since there are so many dessies and frigates.

So the mwd will quickly get turned off from a frigate flying under my guns. As a low sec pilot I must be able to address that or I am not taking the ship out.

You think in terms of speed to allow you to snipe. I think speed in terms of being able to increase or (just as important) decrease transversal. The whole mwd reduced sig won't help because I will be scrammed and my mwd will be turned off. this is why I don't take hacs out in low sec.

Yes that bonus will be nice in null sec bubbles where you can zip around and large battleship guns won't hit well. But in low sec your no drone vaga just dies to a few fast frigates with scrams.

I would like a hac that Is slippery enough that I can decrease transversal against scram frigates and not just sit there and slowly die like a sick cow.

I will spend 200 mill if that ship gives me the chance of clearing out the 10 dessies and frigates that might jump in at me. (even if I just end up killing some) But if I know that one frigate will scram me then the whole fight will end with me killing only one if I am lucky I am not going to spend the isk.

With 8 different hacs there is no reason we can't both get something.

I think this is the sort of practical problems players need to start posting about instead of abstract stuff about potential roles.

For me the ability to still reduce the transversal so I can hit smaller ships will be a big plus.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1308 - 2013-07-23 05:44:58 UTC
I just don't understand who benefits from the further destruction and marginalization of the HAC.
Every group uses them, so this can't be anything done by the null sec lobbyists within the CSM.

This seems to be strictly a CCP produced disaster.
There is simply no logic to this.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1309 - 2013-07-23 06:31:20 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
How about an actual role for hacs such as this:

2 types:

Type 1:
Close range brawlers that have very limited range no matter what weapon system they fit. Higher tanks and damage than currently possible on hacs, but very susceptible to kitting even at mid ranges.

Role Bonus: -60% range on all weapon systems
Role Bonus: +25% resistance

+ 2 slots naturally or reduce gun count and add another role bonus to damage.

+ agility
+base hp
+signature
- lock range (base 35-40)

High damage bonuses
No Drones whatsoever
No free high slots whatsoever without trading a weapon for utility

There may be a need to add ewar immunity or reduced effects if this happens because these would get decimated by sensor damps. I think that's a debate for balance.

Type 2:

Kiting ship/range damage dealer. Much more proficient at projecting damage at range than the harder hitting teir 3 BC's due to the drastically faster lock time and range, comparable range, but lower overall dps. Low agility makes them easier to catch, but high base speed allows them to get out of bubbles faster.

Role Bonus: +60% optimal range
Role Bonus: +150% damage

- 2 high slots/weapon systems

No drones whatsoever

+ speed
- agility
+base lock range (base 100-125)
+ Capacitor and recharge
Very tight on fittings to limit tanking

4 bonuses alligned toward long range warfare:
+ targeting range lvl
+scan resolution per lvl
+10% tracking per lvl
+ 10% optimal per lvl


The only real question with this concept is how you would utilize the Ishtar. I think it's quite possible to place into either category, but it would require range limitations to affect drones.

Basically, you have one variety very good in close, one variety very good at long range, neither capable in mid range warfare.

This also opens up the doors for Command ships to excel in the mid ranges better... thereby not overlapping the roles as much.
Zetak
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1310 - 2013-07-23 07:17:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Zetak
I have just one comment to add to the topic:

It is very good and nice to make mid-long range platforms more viable by buffing them HAC needed some serious love. But the fact remains the same. For an effective snipe, you have to either use a lot of buddies to drop and pop someone sitting on 90km range, or you still need at least someone short range with warp disruptor to lock down the enemy, a brawler can do it effectively by himself since he is short range for gods sakes. So it is great that you buff long range, but short range platforms will have an inherent advantage because of the short range of warp disrupt modules. At 60-100km range, your opponent has a good chance to escape if you don't have support, but if you are a short range fighter, then the same chances does not apply. Ofc power is in numbers, but in a small engagement 2v2, 2v3 3v3 short range wins always because of this.

My problem is really not with the changes to the ships, it is the viability of long range fighting, as you cannot prevent someone to just simply warp out when things go sideways. The warp disruption modules needs a change. The modules should have as much range and falloff and 'chance to hit' as a sensor dampener or target painter. That is the key problem of long range fighting Imo.

I hope this helps. peace.
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
#1311 - 2013-07-23 07:27:16 UTC
I apologise if this has already been brought up (I have tried to read the majority of this threadnaught).

If the Vagabond speed bonus is wrapped up into the hull and replaced with a shield boost bonus it makes the vaga an outlier on base stats with essentially 5 bonuses (the usefulness of those bonuses not withstanding).

The Ishtar on the other hand pays for its large drone bay by giving up a slot (as do the other drone boats) yet it also takes a bonus slot unlike the other drone ships. This makes no sense at all to me. Personally I would like to see the Ishtar get a larger drone bay as part of its base stats and a new fourth bonus (what I would really like is able to control +1 drone per level, but keep the bandwith at 125, but maybe that should be reserved for the Eos).
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1312 - 2013-07-23 07:36:50 UTC
Zetak wrote:
I have just one comment to add to the topic:

It is very good and nice to make mid-long range platforms more viable by buffing them HAC needed some serious love. But the fact remains the same. For an effective snipe, you have to either use a lot of buddies to drop and pop someone sitting on 90km range, or you still need at least someone short range with warp disruptor to lock down the enemy, a brawler can do it effectively by himself since he is short range for gods sakes. So it is great that you buff long range, but short range platforms will have an inherent advantage because of the short range of warp disrupt modules. At 60-100km range, your opponent has a good chance to escape if you don't have support, but if you are a short range fighter, then the same chances does not apply. Ofc power is in numbers, but in a small engagement 2v2, 2v3 3v3 short range wins always because of this.

My problem is really not with the changes to the ships, it is the viability of long range fighting, as you cannot prevent someone to just simply warp out when things go sideways. The warp disruption modules needs a change. The modules should have as much range and falloff and 'chance to hit' as a sensor dampener or target painter. That is the key problem of long range fighting Imo.

I hope this helps. peace.



i do like the falloff idea because i see the range beeing the problem too
Farrell Jay
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1313 - 2013-07-23 07:42:07 UTC
Vagabond changes don't make sense, I've never really heard of anyone using an active Vaga. Either way it needs another mid to be viable as a "close range active brawler", 4 mids just isn't enough and would be limiting you to using an ancillary booster fit rather than giving you more options to experiment.
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1314 - 2013-07-23 07:53:19 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
So many words

It pains me almost to the point of puking on my keyboard to say this, but your suggestion is better than what ccp is bringing to the plate here- At least you are propsing to do something.

Fiddling stats and making niches was enough for battleships, because they were inherently fine and their role in the eve universe is perfectly fine. They are widely used, strong and good for many reasons. Hacs have major problems, and attempting to just fiddle around with them a bit will leave their same glaring flaws in place. Something that makes them stand out and say fly me is what they need, and there's absolutely none of that in the suggested changes. A plethora of good to horrible ideas has been spewed out in this thread, and I would take almost any one of them over ~some stats~.
Geanos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1315 - 2013-07-23 08:53:22 UTC
Don't touch Ishtar's gun damage, leave it in place, HAC's should be high damage ships for small hit and run gangs. You can replace the drone bay capacity bonus with the drone tracking bonus if you really want to make the Ishtar similar to T1 ships but I think that a drone MWD speed would work better on it and it would make it different from the T1 versions of the ship.

And for God's sake, if you insist to keep the Diemost as an expensive glass cannon, just give it a proper role, like no MWD stop when scrammed, webs and travel time are enough of a danger.
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1316 - 2013-07-23 09:07:47 UTC
Rise said (during AT) that he will update thread sometime this week
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1317 - 2013-07-23 09:09:22 UTC
Dysgenesis wrote:
I apologise if this has already been brought up (I have tried to read the majority of this threadnaught).

If the Vagabond speed bonus is wrapped up into the hull and replaced with a shield boost bonus it makes the vaga an outlier on base stats with essentially 5 bonuses (the usefulness of those bonuses not withstanding).

The Ishtar on the other hand pays for its large drone bay by giving up a slot (as do the other drone boats) yet it also takes a bonus slot unlike the other drone ships. This makes no sense at all to me. Personally I would like to see the Ishtar get a larger drone bay as part of its base stats and a new fourth bonus (what I would really like is able to control +1 drone per level, but keep the bandwith at 125, but maybe that should be reserved for the Eos).



Yes this is because omni directionals and and drone speed mods should be high slot mods(galent have enough lows)
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1318 - 2013-07-23 09:15:37 UTC  |  Edited by: JerseyBOI 2
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I just don't understand who benefits from the further destruction and marginalization of the HAC.
Every group uses them, so this can't be anything done by the null sec lobbyists within the CSM.

This seems to be strictly a CCP produced disaster.
There is simply no logic to this.



Don't underestimate the null bears. Put yourself in their shoes (if not already in it) The only pvp that concerns them is how a ship performs in fleet doctrines. That is all. The rest of their time is spent NOT pvp'ing(sanctums,mining, and moon goo management)


the fact that kil2 is an avid pvp'er (you would think HACS would be his baby) and still cant give skirmish warfare a good platform is testament of how much the people who have a voice give no fucks about FiS outside of blob warfare
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1319 - 2013-07-23 09:17:02 UTC
Geanos wrote:
Don't touch Ishtar's gun damage, leave it in place.

Try simple math, 3 x 1.25 = 3.75 < 4

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Valleria Darkmoon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1320 - 2013-07-23 09:22:12 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
So you guys have been on this active tank kick and I like it a lot, and this is a place I am massively confused:

The Sac.



You make it plainly obvious that its cap recharge bonus is somewhat out of place and yet do nothing to lend to the common fitting of the dual rep armor sac. If you were to give it that sweet resist bonus and a 5-7.5% boost to armor reps as well I think you'd put that ship in a fairly nice place for the heavy tackle role you want it to have.

Nobody cares about its drone bay, though the PG boost is super nice, I would strongly urge that you get rid of that 5% cap recharge bonus for an armor rep bonus and then it would be come a fairly strong hac for what people like to do with it.

Agreed.

Although maybe the thought crossed their minds but if you remember the shitstorm that got kicked up over the gallente battlecruisers about how active armor rep bonuses are the worst bonus you can give any ship, I'm not terribly surprised to see the devs steering clear of more of the same.

Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.