These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#741 - 2013-07-19 14:30:02 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:


Because the current ASB Vaga is already a very good ship with ASB fit and with that bonus will be a much better Cynabal than Cynabal



Except Minmatar aren't brawlers, they are fast kiting ships. The Vaga is supposed to be a kiting ship, except it sucks because the Cynabal outclasses it in every way.



And the Vigilant outclasses Deimost for dozens miles, Gilas are better than Eagles and so on, but the real issue with Cynabal is not really the tank or dps ability, it's rather the stupid agility and speed this thing brings to the table and that's what needs to get nerf to bring it at reasonable kitting/escaping abilities.

Right now an ASB Cyna can get in scram web range and still manage to GTFO unless under heavy fire, it's clearly the OP mobility that makes it that good.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Ryans Revenge
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#742 - 2013-07-19 14:31:05 UTC
Why does every HAC get a mobility increase apart from the Ishtar that gets a mobility decrease!? It's one of the slowest already and you make it even slower!? That's full on bullshit :(
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#743 - 2013-07-19 14:32:10 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Schmell wrote:
So about new role bonus against large guns with 400m resolution

zealot- 438
sac - 490
cerb - 473
eagle - 525
ishtar - 508
deimos - 560
muninn- 455
vaga- 403

So how helpful will this bonus be actually?

Those are numbers without links and any shield modules, so in reality for shield ships it will be way bigger

As for links...don't even start


Indeed they really need to come up with either a stronger bonus or severely reduce the sig radius of these ships.
Also some new skills to help reduce the penalties of mwd and shield extenders wouldn't go amiss



The shield extenders and mwds work well because you range tank with them. The reason this bonus is bad is it tries to make you sig tank with them. Given that sig tanking involves getting under guns, usually by getting within scram and neut range (unless you are dealing with larger classed guns) this will not really be beneficial.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Noisrevbus
#744 - 2013-07-19 14:34:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I get that power creep is a big concern

I don't get why people keep saying this...

CCP bit the pony with power creep when instead of making BC more expensive they decided to "fix all the ships so they can compete with BC". They can't be concerned with power creep now after introducing it patch after patch for two years.

Remember when they tried to deal with "Drakes" by revitalizing mobile sniping and introducing BC3? Let them fly twice as fast, do twice as much damage, tank twice as much etc. Yet cost 1/10 while cost-effect was the reason Drakeblobs were everywhere, not their awesome 80km sphere of missiles. Now they're being conservative after introdocing a bunch of 200% bonuses to every ship in the game with full insurance coverage?

You could roll back all these changes to pre-BC3, and then go "BC twice as expensive" and you'd have a much better balance than today. All they needed to do was make those Drakeblobs cost something concrete to lose.

It's like they don't want us to lose ISK by flying things that actually cost something Roll.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#745 - 2013-07-19 14:34:48 UTC
CCP Please show us a bit more creativity, and make the hacs a bit more interesting rather than giving them all the same role bonus as the assault frigates.

Pulled from the last 10 pages

Jori McKie wrote:

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.
.


Namamai wrote:

The main issue I have with the MWD role bonus for HACs is that the Eve tracking equation is a game of thresholds.
.


Omnathious Deninard wrote:

And yet with the MWD bonus they are neither fast enough to speed tank nor small enough to sig tank.


elitatwo wrote:

Nope they won't help either, since most of the time you want to be in scram range anyway.

...


Zarnak Wulf wrote:
There are some very large signature radii for the AHACs. I don't know how effective that 50% MWD penalty reduction is going to be with the likes of 140m, 145m, 150m, and even 160m signatures. Add in shield tanking and yikes. Roll


Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#746 - 2013-07-19 14:35:35 UTC
Rn Bonnet wrote:

Yeah I will take 200% more EHP over 50% sig radius every day of the week and twice on tuesday considering one unbonused target painter "cures" your sig radius bonus.



Alticus C Bear wrote:
What I would have liked to have seen.

Unique and interesting role bonuses


Harvey James wrote:

Indeed they really need to come up with either a stronger bonus or severely reduce the sig radius of these ships.
Also some new skills to help reduce the penalties of mwd and shield extenders wouldn't go amiss


Schmell wrote:
So about new role bonus against large guns with 400m resolution

zealot- 438
sac - 490
cerb - 473
eagle - 525
ishtar - 508
deimos - 560
muninn- 455
vaga- 403

So how helpful will this bonus be actually?

Those are numbers without links and any shield modules, so in reality for shield ships it will be way bigger

As for links...don't even start


Also I like the idea of making the vaga something other than a worse cynabal but it needs an extra mid.



Kagura Nikon wrote:


Anyway a shipo with a Shield boost bonus should NOT be 4 mids. That goes along with the effects of TE nerf last patch, now having lots of low slots is not so much useful for vaga.

Please consider +1 Mid -1 Low. Would make the vaga a more concise ship and help it to be the Fast brawler while keeping the speeding nuts role to the Cynabal.


+1

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#747 - 2013-07-19 14:36:42 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

MUNINN - The Muninn will lose one of its highs and gain a low, which should fit its role as a long range platform extremely well. It also gains a little speed.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

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

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed

Slot layout: 6H(-1), 3M, 6L(+1); 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-2)
Fittings: 1160 PWG, 355 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6)
Capacitor (amount) : 1250
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 294 / 6(+1)
Sensor strength: 14 Ladar(+1)
Signature radius: 130


Is it possible for muninn to have two DAMAGE bonuses? For example.

Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed

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

This will reduce its dps for increased alpha, which would create a nice role for muninn. Some additional PG would be also welcome :P
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#748 - 2013-07-19 14:37:44 UTC
RLML bonus on sacrilege please.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#749 - 2013-07-19 14:43:36 UTC
Deerin wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

MUNINN - The Muninn will lose one of its highs and gain a low, which should fit its role as a long range platform extremely well. It also gains a little speed.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

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

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed

Slot layout: 6H(-1), 3M, 6L(+1); 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-2)
Fittings: 1160 PWG, 355 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6)
Capacitor (amount) : 1250
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 294 / 6(+1)
Sensor strength: 14 Ladar(+1)
Signature radius: 130


Is it possible for muninn to have two DAMAGE bonuses? For example.

Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed

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

This will reduce its dps for increased alpha, which would create a nice role for muninn. Some additional PG would be also welcome :P



Tracking is one of the better parts of the Muninn, Arties don't have good tracking so it does increase the applied alpha.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon
#750 - 2013-07-19 14:44:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Aloe Cloveris
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
ight now an ASB Cyna can get in scram web range and still manage to GTFO unless under heavy fire, it's clearly the OP mobility that makes it that good.


Bitchout-on-a-whim ability and being able to fit the biggest everything - 425s, LSEs, dual-prop, ASBs, med neut, multiple gyros/TEs etc. Vigilant, Gila, that piece of crap whose name eludes me atm actually have to make small sacrifices to improve performance in either tank, mobility or damage output.
Noisrevbus
#751 - 2013-07-19 14:49:20 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

Because the current ASB Vaga is already a very good ship with ASB fit and with that bonus will be a much better Cynabal than Cynabal


Which has what real application exactly?

It's better in a fitting where you and your m8m8 decide beforehand to test each other's tanks on a station undock or "halp top belt" where he doesn't even try killing you?

The Vagabond used to be a roaming ship that spread emergent content throughout EVE, not some play-at-war test-dummy for dudes doing SiSi in Lowsec.
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
#752 - 2013-07-19 14:53:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Lei Merdeau
TrouserDeagle wrote:
RLML bonus on sacrilege please.


Simplify: any Missile Launcher - how many Cruise/Torpedoes could you fit anyway ?

If this is sacrilege, well Sacrilege.
Tasha Saisima
Doomheim
#753 - 2013-07-19 14:54:04 UTC
Rip small gang ahac fleets
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#754 - 2013-07-19 14:59:06 UTC
Tasha Saisima wrote:
Rip small gang ahac fleets


Those used to exist?

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
#755 - 2013-07-19 15:01:18 UTC
Cerberus just became the only choice for DED 4/10s. So much for the idea of removing Tengus from them.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#756 - 2013-07-19 15:03:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
So I think this rebalancing has missed the mark somewhat, and I think what has hamstrung it the most is the desire to retain existing "niches". The thing is, none of these "niches" really exist - people only occasionally fly the zealot because they cant afford a legion, the deimos is currently only used by fanbois (and is anyway neutered by the loss of the utility high) etc. Making a good sniping eagle etc is useless as this isn't something anyone wants to do.

HACs havent had a role for several years due to probing changes, EHP increases, the nano nerf, and most of all the introduction of tier 3 BCs and tech 3 cruisers.

The improvements to t1 cruisers and navy/faction cruisers just cement this lack of niche.


The conclusion is that HACs cannot be balanced by tweaking their stats alone. They really need a new role bonus, perhaps something unique, and a very specific niche to fill.

I personally favour this being a degree of web immunity, something to counter neuts (perhaps an inbuilt bonus like cap batteries get) and orienting them around 0 - 15km brawling. This suits their name, is a unique niche, and provides a nice counter to some of the current fleet metas
Noisrevbus
#757 - 2013-07-19 15:03:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Tasha Saisima wrote:
Rip small gang ahac fleets


Those used to exist?


In 2011, yes. I remember a handful groups who would roam far and wide with AHACs.

Since then they have "upgraded" to cheap Battlecruisers (+Capitals) and stay in their immidiate region or in Lowsec.

Fear not, AT XI starts tomorrow, so you'll hear about them then, remember the names and wonder where they have been all year (Rote, Agony, Exodus, Groon, Darkside, Hydra etc.) Twisted.
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#758 - 2013-07-19 15:05:09 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.

Well... if they designed for Gallente ships weren't blatantly half-assed to begin with they wouldn't need a second iteration.
Ju0ZaS
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#759 - 2013-07-19 15:05:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Ju0ZaS
Ishtar needs more fitting resources, especially since you gave it an extra turret. Compared to other cruiser sized ships its PG and CPU are terrible.

Deimos doesn't need that old MWD bonus, give it a tracking bonus, like on the thorax.

Are you going to fight me or do you expect to bore me to death with your forum pvp?
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#760 - 2013-07-19 15:06:39 UTC
PS CCP REALLY needs to nerf tier 3 BC tracking. (-25% role penalty, ala old destroyers)