These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#401 - 2013-07-18 17:52:47 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Swidgen wrote:

Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, .



problem with the op is rise does not define in his mind what is the role of a hac.

it seems some are leaning toward a combat and some to paper thin attack...

we need to clearly define what is a hac before we can discuss where they need to go.

moreover we have two tiers of hacs... IMO one should be more combat tanky and one more mobile attack.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#402 - 2013-07-18 17:52:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Garviel Tarrant 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.


Do it to the navy cara while you are at it. In fact, why don't you just give all ships that have a missile bonus a bonus to medium missile launchers in general?

You don't see a battlecruiser with a bonus to autocannons and excluding arty... >_>

yeah lets remove frigates from the game


edit - Also lol, Ishtar CPU stays the same. Ugh

Oh let's fit up the Ishtar with 4 Reinforced bulkheads and a meta 4 DC and basically nothing else but drones Ugh

2nd edit - You guys should go back to the beginning on this rebalance. Well, unless you want new fleets of Cerbs to dominate fleet warfare the way the old Drakes did (but at least now people will pay in isk and sp to get that kind of dominance/utility).

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.

PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#403 - 2013-07-18 17:56:44 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm currently chatting with CSM and some other game design folk about working on the Ishtar a bit. Probably no update on what we come to as a conclusion until tomorrowish.



Please do, the CPU is so limited that you can't even fit the T2 drone modules that it was designed for as well as guns (of any size) or tank. It's just silly that the modules that are the most effective on the hull, you can't fit because they require too much CPU.
Balthazar Lestrane
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#404 - 2013-07-18 17:58:27 UTC
Viribus
Dark Enlightenment
New Eden Alliance 99013733
#405 - 2013-07-18 18:00:10 UTC
imo the MWD sig bonus is way overrated on the new HACs to the point that it barely matters at all, for a few reasons:

- They can speedtank less than half the stuff an AF can; an AF can speedtank medium and large guns, the new HACs might barely be able to speedtank large guns
- They're still far too slow to be used as heavy tackle, with the exception of the vaga
- While an AF can run an MWD indefinitely, except for the Sac and deimos the HACs all have horrible capacitors and can only run MWDs in bursts

I was kinda hoping the HACs would be divided along the same lines as the T1 cruisers they directly compete with; one hull with lots of tank and DPS and not much mobility, and one with loads of maneuverability.

Anyway no one's gonna use HACs until they're significantly better than T1 cruisers, which they're not, nor do they adequately fill any niche not currently occupied by a much cheaper ship

PS can a GM please refund my SP from training HAC V, thanks in advance

watch me be a scurb and get owned
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#406 - 2013-07-18 18:12:53 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Garviel Tarrant 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.


Do it to the navy cara while you are at it. In fact, why don't you just give all ships that have a missile bonus a bonus to medium missile launchers in general?

You don't see a battlecruiser with a bonus to autocannons and excluding arty... >_>

yeah lets remove frigates from the game


edit - Also lol, Ishtar CPU stays the same. Ugh

Oh let's fit up the Ishtar with 4 Reinforced bulkheads and a meta 4 DC and basically nothing else but drones Ugh

2nd edit - You guys should go back to the beginning on this rebalance. Well, unless you want new fleets of Cerbs to dominate fleet warfare the way the old Drakes did (but at least now people will pay in isk and sp to get that kind of dominance/utility).



Well i guess not giving the drake a rlml bonus is fine.

But all cruisers should have it <.<

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#407 - 2013-07-18 18:18:21 UTC
Viribus wrote:
imo the MWD sig bonus is way overrated on the new HACs to the point that it barely matters at all, for a few reasons:

- They can speedtank less than half the stuff an AF can; an AF can speedtank medium and large guns, the new HACs might barely be able to speedtank large guns
- They're still far too slow to be used as heavy tackle, with the exception of the vaga
- While an AF can run an MWD indefinitely, except for the Sac and deimos the HACs all have horrible capacitors and can only run MWDs in bursts

I was kinda hoping the HACs would be divided along the same lines as the T1 cruisers they directly compete with; one hull with lots of tank and DPS and not much mobility, and one with loads of maneuverability.

Anyway no one's gonna use HACs until they're significantly better than T1 cruisers, which they're not, nor do they adequately fill any niche not currently occupied by a much cheaper ship

PS can a GM please refund my SP from training HAC V, thanks in advance


Its a shame too about the mwd ... the ships have too high sig radius too begin with.. AHACS are usually AB fit and shield HACS will balloon as soon as you put extenders and rigs on so CCP are kind of defeating the point of the bonus really... it seems to be more of a token bonus just so it has a role bonus and follows AF's....
some skills too help would be good like 5% sig rad reduction for extenders and mwds.

Also CCP need to realise what works for AF's don't necessarily scale upwards .... there is a reason people use bc's so much for brawling and not cruisers/HACS/HICS/T3's ..... EHP ,cost effectiveness and dps being the main ones.

The only HACS jobs you can't get a bc to do better is anti support things like chasing logi off or frigs things that attack cruisers can even do now..

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
Edward Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#408 - 2013-07-18 18:27:03 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

SACRILEGE
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 200(+2) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4)

ZEALOT
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+1) / .553 / 12580000 / 9.64s

CERBERUS
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 205(+30) / .463 / 12720000 / 8.17s

EAGLE
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s

DEIMOS
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 220(+12) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875)

ISHTAR
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s

VAGABOND
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 290(+51) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s

MUNINN
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s

It seems to me like all the T1 and Navy cruisers were given an across the board buff to mobility, but these seem to have missed the memo. The Eagle and Ishtar are in a particularly worrisome state.

Here's some current T1 base stats for comparison:
Cyclone
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s

Vexor
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 205(+36) / 0.53(-0.04) / 11310000 (+1000000) / 5.6s (+0.1)

I also dislike the fact that the Vagabond is getting it's speed integrated into the hull and an extra bonus, but the Ishtar gets to keep the drone bay as a skill bonus, why not integrate that to the hull as well; you could give the Ishtar a drone MWD bonus like the new destroyers get instead.
Kesi Raae
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#409 - 2013-07-18 18:27:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Kesi Raae
Great job, balance team!

I love the look of the changes and how they look to fit in to the current meta, if you want speed you go for Navy Cruisers, if you want resilience and damage application, you go for HAC's, if you want cheapness you go for T1 Cruisers. Also, please don't listen to the people wanting HAC's to be faster than T1 cruisers, as long as they're noticeably more mobile than BC's and BS's that's fine, you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades.

edit: post above me points out the Cyclone is almost as mobile as the Eagle and Ishtar, that should probably be addressed :p
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#410 - 2013-07-18 18:28:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos

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
darius mclever
#411 - 2013-07-18 18:32:55 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos


did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas?
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#412 - 2013-07-18 18:36:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
Garviel Tarrant 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.


Do it to the navy cara while you are at it. In fact, why don't you just give all ships that have a missile bonus a bonus to medium missile launchers in general?

You don't see a battlecruiser with a bonus to autocannons and excluding arty... >_>

yeah lets remove frigates from the game


edit - Also lol, Ishtar CPU stays the same. Ugh

Oh let's fit up the Ishtar with 4 Reinforced bulkheads and a meta 4 DC and basically nothing else but drones Ugh

2nd edit - You guys should go back to the beginning on this rebalance. Well, unless you want new fleets of Cerbs to dominate fleet warfare the way the old Drakes did (but at least now people will pay in isk and sp to get that kind of dominance/utility).



Well i guess not giving the drake a rlml bonus is fine.

But all cruisers should have it <.<

Drake is slow, and doesn't have such huge range. Frigates can still burn out and catch a drake before he warps. They won't be able to burn out and catch a Cerb before he warps or wipes them all out.

also, 100% range bonus on precision heavys not enough? Now let's give a 100% range bonus on precision lights (not to mention the damage bonuses)

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.

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#413 - 2013-07-18 18:36:24 UTC
Two concerns:

1) The Cerberus still suffers from the "Caldari ships don't need a MWD" problem. The added grid barely covers the added launcher and leaves it suffering from the same problem that you can't fit a MWD and tank at the same time, especially if you want a cap booster to keep your MWD running long enough to finish a fight.

2) If the Vagabond is going to be a shield tanker shouldn't it have more than 4 mids? Moving a low to a mid would make a lot more sense.
darius mclever
#414 - 2013-07-18 18:37:22 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
2) If the Vagabond is going to be a shield tanker shouldn't it have more than 4 mids? Moving a low to a mid would make a lot more sense.


question is if the base resists dont make up for the missing mid slot.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#415 - 2013-07-18 18:37:33 UTC
darius mclever wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos


did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas?


but do they brawl with them?

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
Predator989
Kurupt.
Sedition.
#416 - 2013-07-18 18:38:32 UTC
The Ishtar is better now, but the cpu on the ship is completely pitiful.

Please buff this only slightly at least to compare to its T1 Counterpart.
LaserzPewPew
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#417 - 2013-07-18 18:40:21 UTC
Are we going to see a pirate cruiser rebalance as well?

Namely, the hybrid bonus that was traded for a drone tracking/optimal bonus on the Ishtar would be beautiful to see on the Gila as well as a *moderate* speed increase to match the speed of the Cerberus.
Viribus
Dark Enlightenment
New Eden Alliance 99013733
#418 - 2013-07-18 18:40:22 UTC
Kesi Raae wrote:
you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades.


That would make sense if HACs actually filled a different intended role than T1 cruisers, which they don't, and this patch won't do anything to change. They're T1 cruisers that trade mobility for tank and DPS, except they also cost 10 times as much, so no one uses them. For damage application Tier3s are better, for brawling T1 cruisers do nearly the same thing but much cheaper, the only viable HAC in large fleets is the zealot by virtue of its good fleet-oriented bonuses and T2 resists (and because of how bad the Omen is)

HACs either need an entirely new role that they excel at (unlikely, as pretty much every conceivable role in this game is already well-filled), or to be expensive direct upgrades to T1 ships

imo there's nothing inherently wrong with direct upgrades, that's basically what most navy ships and many T2 ships are, and people still fly T1 ships because cost-efficiency is something people care about. The Exequror Navy is a direct upgrade of the Thorax, superior in every way, and guess what? People still fly Thoraxes

watch me be a scurb and get owned
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#419 - 2013-07-18 18:43:39 UTC
I like the changes proposed so far.

However, I think that there is one big problem with T2 ships in general.

I totally understand that they should not just be more powerful versions of T1/navy ships. I even agree! Lol

What I don't understand, is why you don't do anything to push their pricetag down to their performance level. It really created false expectations, and ultimately hurts the ships, because they literally won't be worth using over t1 or navy ships. And I'm not even speaking of the HAC vs BC comparison.

So basically, don't give them more bang, but do something about all the bucks they cost please...

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2013-07-18 18:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Zilero
Deleted because of falcon.