These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#701 - 2013-07-19 12:03:53 UTC
The same CPU issue will arise in the vagabond if you try to use the cap boost bonus..

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#702 - 2013-07-19 12:04:42 UTC
For clarification:

Sacrilege

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Amarr Cruiser Bonuses:
5% to Heavy Assault Missile damage
4% to all Armor Resistances

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
15% velocity to Heavy Assault Missiles
7.5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire

Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers
Fittings: 1150 PWG(+120), 400 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2300(+212) / 1690(+2)
Capacitor (amount)\Recharge : 1650(+25) / 214s(-54)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+17) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15 / 15
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7
Sensor strength: 15 Radar
Signature radius: 140

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
Kane Fenris
NWP
#703 - 2013-07-19 12:05:35 UTC
Chessur wrote:

Vagabond:

AC boats were already struggling. Then the TE nerf happened, and all AC boats took a nose dive when trying to apply damage outside of scram / web range. The vaga shares the same 10% increase in falloff as its stabber cousin, and just like the stabber cannot kite. Even though this is considered a kiting ship- its pathetic DPS at range means that it is outclassed by other ships. The MWD sig bonus makes sense here, and the vaga is certainly fast enough. However what I don't understand is the active tanking bonus. The vaga is a 'kiting' ship that according to you, should have the ability to get up close in scram / web and face ****. The active tanking bonus (while nice) is really going to shut down the vagas play style.

It seems that you are really encroaching on the SFI's world, of fast, hard tackle. In fact the vaga may do the job even better, so what would be the point of ever flying an SFI anymore? The idea of a 290m/s base speed cruiser with the ability to run a really powerful dual LASB tank with an MWD scram, is simply going to be a nightmare for any solo / small gang pilots. SFI's were annoying enough, but adding in a ship that has this nice speed, and a secondary tanking bonus is going to make this ship really, really difficult for players to fly against- as nothing can run from it.


ill quote myself here:
Kane Fenris wrote:
the vaga is non contradictory ship as purposed.

id rather see it comepletly in the old role with pg for fitting for arty
tracking instead of falloff so you can kite with its speed as before while useing arty to shred your opponent

and eventually some increase in longpoint (exclueding scram! so you cant use scram/acs for same purpose and abuse it) range about 20% would suffice but could easily be op so im not sure about that

when you make arty useable you should provide us with a ship to use it.


and dont tell me we have the munin for this... munin will suck if it does not get reinvented (not reworked!)
Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#704 - 2013-07-19 12:09:30 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Chessur wrote:

Vagabond:

AC boats were already struggling. Then the TE nerf happened, and all AC boats took a nose dive when trying to apply damage outside of scram / web range. The vaga shares the same 10% increase in falloff as its stabber cousin, and just like the stabber cannot kite. Even though this is considered a kiting ship- its pathetic DPS at range means that it is outclassed by other ships. The MWD sig bonus makes sense here, and the vaga is certainly fast enough. However what I don't understand is the active tanking bonus. The vaga is a 'kiting' ship that according to you, should have the ability to get up close in scram / web and face ****. The active tanking bonus (while nice) is really going to shut down the vagas play style.

It seems that you are really encroaching on the SFI's world, of fast, hard tackle. In fact the vaga may do the job even better, so what would be the point of ever flying an SFI anymore? The idea of a 290m/s base speed cruiser with the ability to run a really powerful dual LASB tank with an MWD scram, is simply going to be a nightmare for any solo / small gang pilots. SFI's were annoying enough, but adding in a ship that has this nice speed, and a secondary tanking bonus is going to make this ship really, really difficult for players to fly against- as nothing can run from it.


ill quote myself here:
Kane Fenris wrote:
the vaga is non contradictory ship as purposed.

id rather see it comepletly in the old role with pg for fitting for arty
tracking instead of falloff so you can kite with its speed as before while useing arty to shred your opponent

and eventually some increase in longpoint (exclueding scram! so you cant use scram/acs for same purpose and abuse it) range about 20% would suffice but could easily be op so im not sure about that

when you make arty useable you should provide us with a ship to use it.


and dont tell me we have the munin for this... munin will suck if it does not get reinvented (not reworked!)



While I agree that the Muninn isnt very good and the Vaga change is ****, making another Arty boat just because the current one is **** is derp, the Vaga should always be an AC boat, it just needs some improvement in that role.
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#705 - 2013-07-19 12:16:34 UTC
The Djego wrote:
..... give it 15-20% missile velocity for HAMs per level, remove the damage bonus for HMs, add a 6. launcher or a bit higher damage bonus(in exchange for the drones) and maybe make it a little faster(since it is very slow once you plate fit and armor rig it). It wasn't bad a HAM ship before the HAM range nerf, it just has no real role to fill what other ships can't fill cheaper and better currently. While tanky HAC with ok dps at 20-40km range might be not the most frequent to fill role in eve, but it was a lot better than close range hac with A no tank or B no dps.


Not a bad suggestion actually.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#706 - 2013-07-19 12:18:51 UTC
Add me to the chorus of folks calling for more CPU for the Ishtar. Apart from that, I like the changes to that ship. As someone with HAC V and all racial cruiser skills to V I am excited about these changes to one of my favorite ship classes. Not totally thrilled about the MWD dig radius bonus - I'd rather see a bonus to AB's.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Kimentor
Gallifrey Industries
#707 - 2013-07-19 12:19:48 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU

We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.

Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.



Sounds like an excellent time to do some remove-ECM balancing

#yolobalancing #ccprisingswag
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#708 - 2013-07-19 12:20:53 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU

We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.

Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.


Take your time imo. Your nightmares make me inclined to sleep very well, knowing now that Ishtar fitting will be reviewed. P

I would love to read the high level strategy stuff as well - I always find it the most interesting of your folks posts on balancing. Thanks for all your hard work!
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#709 - 2013-07-19 12:24:32 UTC
David Kir wrote:
...400+ dps at any range below 40 km, instantly changeable ammo, 70+k ehp tank (sans links/boosters/environmental effects) with an awesome resist profile...

And then you run into a frigate that knows just how bad HPII w. Scorch tracks and has a clue about approach .. or any ship with a spare mid (ie. essentially all non-Amarr hulls) with a TD .. or any ship with utility neut .. or ... (been there, done that .. on both sides of the fence Big smile)

Zealot is quite awesome provided it is allowed to do its thing without its numerous weak crippling-points being abused .. that is partly why it works so well in swarms, the individual ship has the chance to do what it does best, project hurt.
Zealot remains one of, if not the, best balanced HAC as it has tremendous potential with massive holes for an enemy to exploit. But it should not be the only one with that kind of balance, either buff it to be level with the rest or introduce achilles heels on all the other hulls .. guess which will get the most traction around here.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#710 - 2013-07-19 12:27:53 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU

We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.

Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.


Shocking that a Gallente ship is the first to be looked at (judging from your previous post). Their BS's were immediately fixed in their tieracide while the other races went 100+ pages with no meaningful iteration.


Cause the gallente boats were literally THAT BAD

Yaay!!!!
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#711 - 2013-07-19 12:37:20 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU

We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.

Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.


hi rise, can you confirm whether or not you intentionally removed light missiles from the 4th bonus on the cerb (assault & heavy missile flight time on TQ - this includes lights)

i don't think the cerby really needs a nerf Sad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Ral en Thielles
Doomheim
#712 - 2013-07-19 12:40:16 UTC
Vagabond Dead... was fun wile it was usable. That's prior TE changes and Now THIS ... Attention

After TE nerf, nor cynabal nor the vaga can be called a frig killer ... What are they good for then ?

Changes now: 7.5% shield boost bonus.??? Why?
The one hac that has big cap problems when using MWD module, now gets Active Tank bonus...
Active tanking vs ship that can take you out in two shots, its just not possible! (Talos anyone... )
I think it useless to put Active tanking bonuses on frigate and cruiser size ships at all.


Deimos Attention MORE SPEED PLEASEAttention

Can someone please explain to me the roles thing again... I just can not understand how T2 ship can be worse then it's T1 variant!
Or maybe we should only use hacs with armor and AB, so we can use that extra resists.

I am disappointed ...
Makari Aeron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#713 - 2013-07-19 12:46:34 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU

We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.

Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.


Typical CCP putting things off and not committing and breaking things! I demand an ice cube tray in my pod as compensation! *rabblerabblerabble*


(I thought this thread could use some more emo rage, fake as it is)

CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.

CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
#714 - 2013-07-19 12:48:05 UTC  |  Edited by: AspiB'elt
About sacrilege really i have try to make a lot of fitting but i really think this ship is not terrible.

It's no bad but also not good in all.

Perhaps to remove one high slot (turret slot and add one low), like deimos, or give to them some better sig or speed.

But now the tanking is not terrible, the dps very low or very short range the speed not very good and the sig a little high.

I believe you need to increase one this point (not all).

Personally i believe they can be a very nice short range ship .

But in this case you need to increase a little the speed to be near of the vagabbon. But you keep the bonus only on the heavy assult missile.

Quote:

SACRILEGE - Highlights here would be the increased drone bay, increased PG, and the addition of HML to the Cruiser damage bonus. Hopefully the result is a ship that can more comfortably fulfill its heavy tackle/utility HAC role without sacrificing quite as much as it used to when compared to combat BCs or other HACs. We concede that the cap recharge bonus is a bit strange, but feel the ship actually doesn't need another standard bonus like damage application or range to make it work.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Amarr Cruiser Bonuses:
5% to Heavy Assault Missile
4% to all Armor Resistances

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
5% reduction of capacitor recharge time
5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire

Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers
Fittings: 1150 PWG(+120), 400 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2100(+12) / 1690(+2)
Capacitor (amount) : 1650(+25)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250(+52) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7
Sensor strength: 15 Radar
Signature radius: 130
Gnoshia
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#715 - 2013-07-19 12:55:10 UTC
Altrue wrote:
290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? Lol


^ This.

If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster.

Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#716 - 2013-07-19 12:56:20 UTC
Arushia wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

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

Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers
Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191)
Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7
Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 145


And it's still inferior to the Gila in almost every way. Ishtar wastes a bonus slot to get a 375m3 drone bay. Gila has a 400m3 drone bay built in. Ishtar gets a built-in drone link augmentor II. Gila has an accessory high so it can fit a drone link augmentor II. Gila has a tank bonus. Ishtar has none.

If anything, build the ridiculous drone bay size bonus into the hull, and give it a rep bonus, as well as +1 low, -1mid so it can fit a decent armor tank and drone damage amps.

I want to fly an Ishtar over the Gila for its sexy paint job, but without real buffs I have a hard time seeing why I should switch.


The Gila has not been nerfed..yet.

I have realized that these HAC's will start looking OK once CCP gets done trashing the pirate versions and the T3's.
Which just means everyone will fly the vanilla or Navy versions.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#717 - 2013-07-19 13:02:42 UTC
CCP Rise

Are there any manufacturer changes for these ships?
Cerb should be kaalakoita it would look nice being black and red

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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#718 - 2013-07-19 13:04:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Gnoshia wrote:
Altrue wrote:
290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? Lol


^ This.

If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster.

Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty.


Indeed i think CCP need to give up the ghost on trying to not make them T2 attack cruisers .. yes you can keep the T1 attack cruisers as the faster option but you cannot handicap HACS with combat cruiser speed and lower .. not if you want people to take you seriously

OR fly 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
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#719 - 2013-07-19 13:10:13 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Gnoshia wrote:
Altrue wrote:
290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? Lol


^ This.

If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster.

Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty.


Indeed i think CCP need to give up the ghost on trying to not make them T2 attack cruisers .. yes you can keep the T1 attack cruisers as the faster option but you cannot handicap HACS with combat cruiser speed and lower .. not if you want people to take you seriously

OR fly them



Must be careful there. Cerberus can kit at mUch longer ranges with heavy missiles and never misses (the vagabond speed means it cannot orbit target or it will miss all shots)

If you make a cerberus go near vagabond speed. it will be completely super overpowered by orbiting larger ships with MWD signature reduciton and never missing shots.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
#720 - 2013-07-19 13:16:52 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Gnoshia wrote:
Altrue wrote:
290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? Lol


^ This.

If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster.

Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty.


Indeed i think CCP need to give up the ghost on trying to not make them T2 attack cruisers .. yes you can keep the T1 attack cruisers as the faster option but you cannot handicap HACS with combat cruiser speed and lower .. not if you want people to take you seriously

OR fly them



Must be careful there. Cerberus can kit at mUch longer ranges with heavy missiles and never misses (the vagabond speed means it cannot orbit target or it will miss all shots)

If you make a cerberus go near vagabond speed. it will be completely super overpowered by orbiting larger ships with MWD signature reduciton and never missing shots.


try to make the vagabbon in afterburner, you have very low sig and very good speed, your tanking is really really good.