These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#641 - 2013-07-19 06:54:28 UTC
Ciba Lexlulu wrote:
Roime wrote:
Btw HACs needed more speed and EHP.

There's really no reason to fly a Deimos over a Proteus. Ishtar was worth flying instead of the Proteus, because it was more versatile. Was.



Hmm ... wait until they decide to nerf all T3s to death... you may be forced to fly Diemost..


Did you mean Navy Exeq? Because it's faster, more agile, better sensors and does more damage with equal tank while being cheaper.

.
NorthCrossroad
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#642 - 2013-07-19 07:01:52 UTC
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
NorthCrossroad wrote:
Think that Sacrilege does need some additional work, but it's not about with cap bonus. Actually resist bonus with cap bonus create a very nice and unique solo machine. The problem with sac is in the DPS - it can't kill stuff quickly enough. So maybe a little bigger damage bonus - like 7.5% per level will make it viable.



The drone bay will help with this. However, I will again post what I believe the best solution to the Sacrilege's problems are:

in addition to the current changes, give the Sacrilege a 5/4/6 slot layout, a 10% damage bonus, and 4 launchers. It wil lose a small amount of native damage, but gain much-needed fitting flexibility and utility.

I think this would give the Sacrilege a whole new lease on life.
Well those drones are more or less laughable. Usually for solo you'll carry 2 sets of lights, so DPS increase is really small in fact.

North
Luscius Uta
#643 - 2013-07-19 07:17:27 UTC
Ciba Lexlulu wrote:


Hmm ... wait until they decide to nerf all T3s to death... you may be forced to fly Diemost..


i think we'll all stick to Thoraxes and Ruptures after that Sad

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#644 - 2013-07-19 07:36:37 UTC
I honestly think the new cerb is pretty good for the people that do caracal and tengu fleets. The increased range on heavy assault missiles (68 km javs, 45 km normal) and the same damage as a 5 launcher tengu may make this ship a competitor as a doctrine ship. I scratched out a quick fit today, and if I didn't mess my math up I figured that it can go all tech II as a HAM/AB fit except for 2x meta 4 LSE's.

It all depends on if that extra ~22km on jav heavy assault missiles is worth it.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#645 - 2013-07-19 07:40:35 UTC
Quote:
DEIMOS:

Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531)


It was widely accepted that Deimos had way too much tank, earning it the nickname "Everlast", I'm very happy to see this defect addressed.



.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#646 - 2013-07-19 07:40:56 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
I honestly think the new cerb is pretty good for the people that do caracal and tengu fleets. The increased range on heavy assault missiles (68 km javs, 45 km normal) and the same damage as a 5 launcher tengu may make this ship a competitor as a doctrine ship. I scratched out a quick fit today, and if I didn't mess my math up I figured that it can go all tech II as a HAM/AB fit except for 2x meta 4 LSE's.

It all depends on if that extra ~22km on jav heavy assault missiles is worth it.


Just so you understand what you're suggesting, an AB HAM Cerb and an AB HAM Caracal are separated by 3 m/s, 19khp, and a little under 200 dps.

For that staggering increase in power (<-this is sarcasm) you pay 15x the cost of the Caracal.


Oh, and for 200 million more and less training time, you could just buy a Tengu which outclasses the Cerb in EVERY SINGLE WAY.



Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Ja'ho sun
Series of The Ridiculous
#647 - 2013-07-19 07:43:35 UTC
im glad to see the changes aren't to extreme. I was truly worried about how ccp was going to change the cerb when the hac change came around. I love the cerb as it is now and u just made it that much better with this buff.

it does however need a bit more PG since as it stands now it wont be able to use the 6th launcher without omg wtf pwn fitting skills, which I am glad I have. thanks for the drones btw was hoping I would get those.

moving on to the sac. it does not push the dps it should with hams. it should at least push 475 dps (without drones as they really are wild card dps) with the tank to support it, which it seems to have. the cap bonus is very nice on active tank setups, but again, it lacks the dps. plz change the dps output.

Ishtar is a lovely ship.with the buff u have given so far it will indeed apply dps better. although it would be nice to have the base 375 m3 drone bay and the 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level skill bonus replaced. 7.5% rep amount would be awesome. I understand not giving it the speed bonus to drones as it would step over the VNI. the drop in speed for the Ishtar was not needed, put it back, its an armor tank so the ships is not the fastest to begin with. fitting wise it needs more PG and CPU the ship is VERY tight.

munin needs a mid slot, not a low slot.

the vaga would get more from a 5 mid WITHOUT the shield booster bonus 4 slots are not enough to tank it and 5 slots are steping into the slieps tank domain. that will make it OP. don't really fly the ship but I can tell u for sure its not an active brawler. ppl just fit it active to tank better at range, as its a kiting ship. however I do like the idea of active tank bonus.

its going to be fun to see wat these ships can do when they hit SISI. looking forward to it.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#648 - 2013-07-19 07:58:25 UTC
@OP You couldn't fit a great drone Ishtar even if you used small guns, so I would personally gladly trade another high or the turret slots for more fitting space, since currently you don't have the fitting to put anything decent there anyway.

Namamai wrote:


Three terrible changes. Two no-ops. And three ships that are slightly better than before, but ultimately remain outclassed by Tech3 cruisers or Tier-3 BCs, both in absolute performance and in bang-for-isk/sp ratios.

Wormhole dwellers, Naga/Tornado/Cynabal producers, and T1 cruiser fans: you have nothing to fear at this time. It's almost angering how bad these changes are.

There should definitely be creeping fear rising in T3 users right about now. In the new ship balance plan T2 ships are supposed to perform better in their areas of specialization then T3s. T3 users could previously still tell themselves their ships won't get nerfed by clinging to the hope, that the T2 rebalance will make ships like HACs significantly more powerful, so T3 abilities will seem more balanced in comparison. After seeing the actual T2 changes come to light they should be starting to sweat liquid fear, since there is still no performance reasons to use the buffed T2s compared to existing T3s.
light heaven
JUST SET TIMES
#649 - 2013-07-19 08:02:47 UTC
DEIMOS:

move a slot from high to med and reduce armor and hull, but increase shields.
Buffed med railgun about 35% DPS

Ok I see shield tank railgun deimos would be nice choice for current changes. Now I know it is right gallent style warfare which means to use Caldari attack and defend weapons!
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#650 - 2013-07-19 08:10:33 UTC
light heaven wrote:
DEIMOS:

move a slot from high to med and reduce armor and hull, but increase shields.
Buffed med railgun about 35% DPS

Ok I see shield tank railgun deimos would be nice choice for current changes. Now I know it is right gallent style warfare which means to use Caldari attack and defend weapons!


Why fix armor tanking brawlers when you just go with the shield kiting flow and avoid all the hard things.

.
Ciba Lexlulu
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#651 - 2013-07-19 08:13:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Ciba Lexlulu
Grath Telkin wrote:

Oh, and for 200 million more and less training time, you could just buy a Tengu which outclasses the Cerb in EVERY SINGLE WAY.






No worries.. after they nerf Tengu to no better than Caracal (+1000x the price) .. you will thank CCP that you have the 'new' Cerberus...
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#652 - 2013-07-19 08:14:45 UTC
Drone bay on the ishtar....why is that still a thing? This is a relic from before bandwidth existed....it was a much better bonus back then.

Just go the way of the vaga and its speed nerf....fold the drone bay bonus into the hull and put something useful there. Also, drone speed added into the optimal/tracking bonus is a no-brainer, why was this not done? Giving it bonuses for sentries only is like giving a ship bonuses for artillery, but not autocannons...I mean wtf?

thhief ghabmoef
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#653 - 2013-07-19 08:23:17 UTC
Quote:
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage)
10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level
50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level


Now, I have been happy with and defended every balance pass since the beginning of tiercide, but this is just wrong.

You built the speed bonus of the Vagabond into the hull, but the Ishtar still has a dronebay bonus?
- Replace it with a 5% drone MWD speed bonus and give 375m³ base dronebay.

Operation range is sort of strange as well, and I think it creates a problem you are trying to limit by keeping the low CPU; 1000 dps, 250mm Railgun, Garde II snipers.
- We have drone range highslot modules! If we want to snipe, make us have to use those and limit our dps that way! Maybe reduce the range bonus on that module so we have to fit more of them as well. But what to put there instead of this bonus? Hmm... What about -5% Heavy and Medium drone mass? At least Ogre's are slow as crap, even with a speedboost. Mass reduction would help them even more with this issue. Light drones can't handle more speed, and I'm not sure about the power of that much speed on mediums, but heavies should get some speed love.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#654 - 2013-07-19 08:31:15 UTC
Sacrilege will be left in the dust, and the Muninn is still crap.

Other than that, the improved Vagabond looks badass.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
DeadDuck
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#655 - 2013-07-19 08:54:50 UTC  |  Edited by: DeadDuck
The Sacrilege needs more DPS output, besides the change to HML (that will solve the range problem but will agravate the DPS one) a solution would be add a 6th laucher to be on pair with the other hacs out there. On the trade off reduce the drone bandwit from the proposed 50 to 25.

Lets be honest you are proposing 6 lauchers to the cerberus that will have the the hability to kite the damage. The sacrilege will not have that hability but it will have the armor bonus , but again misses the 6th launcher.
Namamai
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#656 - 2013-07-19 08:58:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Namamai
(Edit: Considerable rephrasing of this idea to make it clearer, since the original form was pretty confusing. New post here.)
Mr Doctor
Therapy.
Brave Collective
#657 - 2013-07-19 09:01:13 UTC
Yeah the Sac is actually nerf'd. Loses 1% resistance and gaining useless HMLs when its designed as a close range heavy tackle. Drone bay is nice but it needs something else. Explosion velocity maybe (like the Heretic to stick with Khanid), small EHP bonus (like Damnation but less), small rep bonus (probably be OP tbh), 6th launcher?

I'm not sure but I agree it wont be enough.
Dread Operative
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#658 - 2013-07-19 09:03:36 UTC
I wonder if anyone at CCP actually HAS EFT? They must not with these "buffs"....
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#659 - 2013-07-19 09:11:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Jori McKie
I have to agree with Grath and Malcanis on every post they made in this topic. The current perfomance/price ratio of any HAC is utterly bad in comparison to T1 Cruiser and their navy variants.

I like the idea of a unique bonus for HACs but the 50% sig bonus while MWDing isn't cutting it. Sure it's nice to have it on some occasions (real 1v1) but in any skirmish fleet fights the transversal/angular is negligible and the sig bonus has no usefulness at all.

What i would like to see is a bonus against ECCM (Falcons, etc) or E-War in general. Make the HACs unique in a way they can withstand ECCM to a certain degree or even deflect it back. I can gurantee you noone would care then if the HACs perfomance/price ratio is bad, anybody would happily trade it for a better chance not to be jammed.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
Crysantos Callahan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#660 - 2013-07-19 09:11:47 UTC
I like the changes, although I'd love to see a speed bonus for ab instead of mwd, two posts above me describe the issue with the mwd and large turrets ;)

If you're at it, I have 2 major points I'd like to see changed - first of all the HAC skills prerequisite to have energy grid upgrades to 5... why? Can't you do something more useful for players, like AWU, Signal Analysis or something like that. It's just weird that this postpones your HAC times a lot with no reason to ever fit energy upgrades on the ahac anyway.

The second thing is, please give it a 3rd rig slot. Why should the HAC have one less compared to T1/faction cruisers?

P.S.: The Ishtar could use more CPU, I like the "new" muninn :)