These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 - round two

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kane Fenris
NWP
#161 - 2013-07-29 15:16:41 UTC
@ CCP


so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg?
this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.

and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#162 - 2013-07-29 15:19:05 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
Was nothing learned from the Drake/Tengu years? Straight


I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people learned how to firewall.

Sure if you only fly nullsec blobs. How about solo small gang FW? Anyway, firewall is an imperfect solution to no specific missile defense ewar. Firewalling did not kill off the Drake omnipresence. It was the HM and ship changes that finally put it in its place. Meanwhile smarties have always been a better drone defense.


You want to realpost?

The drake was abusive because it was a ridiculously cheap platform with average DPS and a decidedly above average tank. The Tengu (HML tengu especially) was abusive because of a miniscule sig radius, exceptional speed with AB, and a ridiculously large tank.

The Cerberus gets some of these - speed, damage and sig similar to the Tengu, but considerably lower EHP, cheaper than the Tengu but quite a bit more expensive than the drake. It's certainly strong, but probably okay.

Sure, keep defending what you know you will be blobbing with next . . I suppose I would too in your position. But maybe step back and have some concern for the game as a whole? Is that too much to a . . nm

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2013-07-29 15:19:14 UTC
I cant see the sacrilege without a nosferatu/neutralizer/utility high
Then again I do need another low slot for other things
Solution: gimme another slot
Hacs are a bit dry on slots
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#164 - 2013-07-29 15:22:31 UTC
Buff the vagas speed by quite a bit (2.8km/s without heat or so with nothing but a mwd), give it another range bonus so it does 400dps with drones at 40km or so. And (very) slighty increase the fitting.

This changes in no way how it performs as a brawler, it just makes it a very good kiter, the cynabal still has its niche as due to the extra mid it get more versatility.

It still wouldt impact any other ships role nor would it change fleet battles it would just make it viable again.
Kirtar Makanen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#165 - 2013-07-29 15:25:30 UTC
Is there a reason that the cerberus kept its damage bonus order (i.e. generic attached to HAC, kinetic attached to cruiser)? While this could easily be due to balance issues (i.e. the RoF is more powerful), I think it could make sense that the cruiser skill would grant the generic effect. In fact, the battlecruiser analog, the nighthawk, has the RoF bonus attached to the base command skill rather than the T2 skill.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#166 - 2013-07-29 15:26:43 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
@ CCP


so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg?
this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.

and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days



Rise is happy with a brawling Vaga because of his precious XLASB vaga that he made a video about. Too bad we aren't all Kil2.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#167 - 2013-07-29 15:27:26 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos?


Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos.


Fair enough... Though I would have loved to see a heat reduction bonus like on the t3 subsystem. Something like 5% per level... That would give the ship some staying power without op it.

I dunno maybe its just me but having a bonus just for mwd kinda pigeon holes the ship to mwd only.
This would be amazing! Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this pass is the one we're going to be stuck with.

However, I don't think pigeon-holing the Deimos into a MWD setup is all that bad IF it had the ehp to actually brawl, since we all know on TQ currently the Deimos is considered *the* most overpowered, heaviest tanking, best brawling HAC around (/sarcasm). But given that Rise dramatically cut down its hp amounts for lolshield hp, Deimos will likely retain its moniker of Diemost.

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

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

Vtra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2013-07-29 15:27:34 UTC
Kick that Sac missile velocity bonus up to 15% now that would be specialized.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#169 - 2013-07-29 15:27:35 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
Was nothing learned from the Drake/Tengu years? Straight


I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people learned how to firewall.

Sure if you only fly nullsec blobs. How about solo small gang FW? Anyway, firewall is an imperfect solution to no specific missile defense ewar. Firewalling did not kill off the Drake omnipresence. It was the HM and ship changes that finally put it in its place. Meanwhile smarties have always been a better drone defense.


You want to realpost?

The drake was abusive because it was a ridiculously cheap platform with average DPS and a decidedly above average tank. The Tengu (HML tengu especially) was abusive because of a miniscule sig radius, exceptional speed with AB, and a ridiculously large tank.

The Cerberus gets some of these - speed, damage and sig similar to the Tengu, but considerably lower EHP, cheaper than the Tengu but quite a bit more expensive than the drake. It's certainly strong, but probably okay.

Sure, keep defending what you know you will be blobbing with next . . I suppose I would too in your position. But maybe step back and have some concern for the game as a whole? Is that too much to a . . nm


Nah we'll be sticking with megathrons for the blobbing, as they've proven to be exceptionally effective. Perhaps some of the smaller combat groups will try out the Cerberus after the war, though they're also enamored with Eagles and especially 450 DPS 280k EHP rail Tengus.

Your candid admission that you'd be incapable of objective analysis if you were on the CSM is nice (albeit completely irrelevant) but please don't project your own failings onto anyone else, least of all me. Thanks.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Landaz
Dexamenos Inc.
#170 - 2013-07-29 15:30:16 UTC
Did u guys just killed the active tank sac? Sad
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#171 - 2013-07-29 15:31:17 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos?


Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos.


Fair enough... Though I would have loved to see a heat reduction bonus like on the t3 subsystem. Something like 5% per level... That would give the ship some staying power without op it.

I dunno maybe its just me but having a bonus just for mwd kinda pigeon holes the ship to mwd only.
This would be amazing! Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this pass is the one we're going to be stuck with.

However, I don't think pigeon-holing the Deimos into a MWD setup is all that bad IF it had the ehp to actually brawl, since we all know on TQ currently the Deimos is considered *the* most overpowered, heaviest tanking, best brawling HAC around (/sarcasm). But given that Rise dramatically cut down its hp amounts for lolshield hp, Deimos will likely retain its moniker of Diemost.


Rep boni on any hulls are terrible, they force the ship into one specific niche and are vcery bad design.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#172 - 2013-07-29 15:32:53 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
[b]VAGABOND

...
The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.



Good luck with that. Cynabal and vaga are almost identical ships that are currently stuck in the same exact role. The vaga, due to its reisists, was the one that could have more easilly broke out of the mold to allow it a brawler role. Now cynabals are obsolete until they are buffed to make vagas obsolete. If you try to buff cynabals to the point they can break out of that role they will just be op.

Other than that these ships are looking really good. Finally they are worth the isk. Yes even the vaga now that it is a better cynabal for less isk.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Tuxedo Catfish
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2013-07-29 15:35:26 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos?


Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos.


I missed this the first time around.

The Muninn has a double damage, range, and tracking bonus, and yet remains a niche doctrine ship at best. I really don't see how the Deimos, with inferior alpha and a falloff bonus instead of optimal, would end up being overpowered in the same context.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#174 - 2013-07-29 15:37:24 UTC
Cearain wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
[b]VAGABOND

...
The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.



Good luck with that. Cynabal and vaga are almost identical ships that are currently stuck in the same exact role. The vaga, due to its reisists, was the one that could have more easilly broke out of the mold to allow it a brawler role. Now cynabals are obsolete until they are buffed to make vagas obsolete. If you try to buff cynabals to the point they can break out of that role they will just be op.

Other than that these ships are looking really good. Finally they are worth the isk. Yes even the vaga now that it is a better cynabal for less isk.



I disagree with a brawling Vagabond, it doesn't have the fitting, the DPS, or the tank to brawl. It was designed originally as a kiting ship, now with minimal changes it is being pigeonholed as a brawler.

This will not work CCP, either make the Vaga a kiter or make it a better brawler, because as it is it isn't worth 130m

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#175 - 2013-07-29 15:37:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
You taking into account the future eWar revamp (ie. going to tie all eWar to the sensor strength) or are you just fishing for brownie points from ECM haters?Big smile Gunboats are considerably harder hit by the omnipresence of TD's than by the occasional ECM boat (relevant words bolded for your convenience).

CCP Rise wrote:
...On the right is after the role bonus. You can see that the Zealot, which tracks extremely well, isn't heavily affected, but the Talos and the Drake lose about 25% of their DPS.....

Doesn't look that way, looks roughly on par with a ship wielding the biggest bore BS guns .. both have their dps lowered in the 10-20km bracket but beyond that the neutrons climb steadily to their maximum theoretical dps .. think you are the only one I have ever heard refer to HPLII's having excellent tracking .. hahahaha

You NEED to hit the ABC's with a 25-50% tracking penalty!

Was going to moan about the Sac target being way outside its target envelope where a HAM ship is useless but noticed the range bump. What is the reasoning behind that now that it can field HML's by the way?
For it to brawl efficiently it needs damage application and/or fight control .. not range, seems like a bit of a schizo-hull to be honest.
Suggestion: Neut/Nos amount or Explosion radius/velocity will fit it better.

Otherwise much better, slightly more focused than before even if the MWD sig bonus still doesn't sit well with me, too null oriented for my taste. Ishtar/Cerberus are going to be more annoying adversaries than the Faga was during the nano-age.
CCP wrote:
For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.

I hear the armour rep bonus is immensely popular on the small scale at least after the AAR introduction (tongue in cheek .. or is it! Smile) Would certainly make it into the quintessential brawler.
HazeInADaze
Safari Hunt Club
#176 - 2013-07-29 15:39:30 UTC
These changes look great. I really like the increased sensors and capacitors.

The cerb now looks a definite upgrade on the caracal and the Ishtar looks downright nasty. You gave it a bonus to heavy drones and took away the hybrid bonus; but then added another turrent.... Shocked
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#177 - 2013-07-29 15:39:36 UTC
I worried about Sacriledge. Obviously one more low slot needed (at least)
Kirtar Makanen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#178 - 2013-07-29 15:39:46 UTC
Landaz wrote:
Did u guys just killed the active tank sac? Sad

How much did it actually lose (compared to HAC V, not base) given the broad spectrum increase in capacitor?
Valterra Craven
#179 - 2013-07-29 15:41:26 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
The sac recharge rate is actually wrong in the OP, will fix it. Forgot to adjust it after we removed the bonus.

The Cerberus kinetic bonus is not a relic in the same way that the Sacrilege recharge bonus or the Ishtar drone bay bonus were. We talked a lot about the role of damage specific bonuses with the CSM, as they raised the same concerns. Its obvious that the bonus is a bit of a handicap from the perspective of the Cerberus pilot, but we like the gameplay it adds and so we would only want to remove it if the Cerb was really needing more power, which isn't the case.

Knowing what kind of damage your opponent is likely to do is just as interesting as knowing which kind of damage your opponent is likely to be weak to. It lets creates interesting decisions for both the Cerb pilot and the Cerb's opponents and we like that.



Just no....

Seriously, you need to look over the pro's and cons of missiles to realize why this bonus is just stupid.

Pros.
Same damage to target at any range
Choose your damage
No tracking

Cons
Flight time
Hitting smaller targets does less damage (Popping frigs with large guns is still possible given the right traversals)

By having this stupid bonus you are essentially removing one of the biggest selling points of using missiles...
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#180 - 2013-07-29 15:41:44 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
So, the Sacrilege still has a useless high slot, and no ability to tank in the lows if it wants any level of decent damage... awesome.

Remove the high slot, add a low slot. It's currently -2 low slots on the zealot, and has a bonus that only recovers one of those slots tank wise. How can you expect it to be a brawler if it's tank is garbage. You already hurt it's tank with the resist bonus changes.

The sensor boost is also pretty garbage considering it's only at about t1 battle cruiser strength. If it's not 35 or higher, it's basically a waste of a boost because it's doing so little. 25% more lock range really means about 10% more lock range after a single sensor damp.... WTF. 10% of **** range is still **** range. 3 sensor damps basically make about 1km of lock range difference... whoop de fricking ****.

You also obviously don't understand how ECM stacks probability. Those few extra points of strength only add about 2% resistance over the course of 3 jammers.

Can you please learn your own game mechanics before proposing such **** ideas.