These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1081 - 2013-07-21 11:33:43 UTC
To mare wrote:
vagabond changes are rubbish, it will be slower than the actual one for a useless bonus no one will ever use (no fitting to make use of that),first if you really insist on rolling the speed bonus on the hull then the base speed should be 300 not 290, second any other bonus will be better than a brawling bonus wich doesnt suit the vaga at all (tracking, mass or sig reduction, capacito,r damage or whatever)


You know almost everyone fits their vaga's with XLasb's now right?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Mr Doctor
Therapy.
Brave Collective
#1082 - 2013-07-21 11:41:46 UTC
Steel Dragon wrote:
Why do you force Cald to use kinetic damage types? Please remove the % to Kinetic damage missiles on the cerb and just make it +%damage to HMLs and HAMs. With it being to kinetic only anyone who knows your flying a cerb knows to tank out kin (not that it isn't already) and your useless. You made the change from damage type specific on the TI why would you leave it on the T2 which is supposed to be better?

No its supposed to be specialised. One damage type is specialised.
AskariRising
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1083 - 2013-07-21 11:45:22 UTC
CCP Rise can you confirm that you are changing/fixing the Cerb's missile flight time bonus? currently it applies to ALL missiles, including rapid assault missiles, which is very nice.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1084 - 2013-07-21 11:48:41 UTC
Mr Doctor wrote:
Steel Dragon wrote:
Why do you force Cald to use kinetic damage types? Please remove the % to Kinetic damage missiles on the cerb and just make it +%damage to HMLs and HAMs. With it being to kinetic only anyone who knows your flying a cerb knows to tank out kin (not that it isn't already) and your useless. You made the change from damage type specific on the TI why would you leave it on the T2 which is supposed to be better?

No its supposed to be specialised. One damage type is specialised.


This sounds almost like a cry for matar can only shoot phased plasma, now they are special too..

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Max Zerg
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1085 - 2013-07-21 11:57:05 UTC
Dear CCP

Being rather new to the game i can only discuss Ishtar vs. Navy Vexor

1st column Ishtar 2nd column Navy Vexor
PG: 700 800
CPU: 285 310
CAP: 1125 1500
Turrets: 3 4
MED: 5 4
LOW: 5 6
SIG: 145 135
Scan: 294 285
Drones 125 125

PRICE: 175kk 95kk
(plus the indirect price increase because it's impossible to fit Istar reasonably without the fraction modules)

New proposed improvement is to make Ishtar the mini-Dominix e.g. sentry boat
why do i need MWD bonus in this case - should i orbit my sentries faster ? What do i benefit from this ?

Ishtar would be preferrable for me for PVE over Navy Vexor if you
2) add more CPU
1) FIX THAT TERRIBLE 10% explosive armor resist hole - yes, instead of adding that useless MWD bonus

Would you, please, explain your vision of rebelanced HACs roles and recommend non-exotic scenarios when the rebelanced HACs shine compared to their T1 counterparts ?

Thanks
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1086 - 2013-07-21 12:40:26 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
XXSketchxx wrote:
Elise Randolph wrote:
bomb-immunity



Do want


cant say i support that idea... even as cool as it sounds... bombs are essential anti blob weapons... they are critical.


Currently AHACs are essentially bomb immune (tiny sig). MWDing AHACs, however, even with the 50% sig reduction from MWD would still have battleship sized signature, but with really thin tanks (comparatively)

To put things in perspective, a post-patch MWD Zealot would die to 9 bombs (assuming both loki links and legion links). Currently the standard AB Zealot needs 47 bombs to die.

That said, most of my balance ideas are ****** so bomb immunity may not be cool. But that doesn't mean something new and fancy that I never thought of can't be added Big smile


and this people is why i voted for you last year...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1087 - 2013-07-21 12:41:30 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Yun Kuai wrote:

TL:DR these HACs should have individual role bonuses that should support their niche role.

yes

why give them all the same , which only benefits vaga ?:O makes no sense at all


i can support this... or perhaps one bonus to the attack version and one bonus for the combat versions?

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1088 - 2013-07-21 12:55:46 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
To mare wrote:
vagabond changes are rubbish, it will be slower than the actual one for a useless bonus no one will ever use (no fitting to make use of that),first if you really insist on rolling the speed bonus on the hull then the base speed should be 300 not 290, second any other bonus will be better than a brawling bonus wich doesnt suit the vaga at all (tracking, mass or sig reduction, capacito,r damage or whatever)


You know almost everyone fits their vaga's with XLasb's now right?


And its ridiculously easy to alpha. Needs a 5th mid and more raw shield HP for ASB fits to be viable.



MeBiatch wrote:
one bonus to the attack version and one bonus for the combat versions?


^ This

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1089 - 2013-07-21 12:58:20 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
Yun Kuai wrote:

TL:DR these HACs should have individual role bonuses that should support their niche role.

yes

why give them all the same , which only benefits vaga ?:O makes no sense at all


i can support this... or perhaps one bonus to the attack version and one bonus for the combat versions?


Wow this makes almost sence..

They should definately make a role of a role and all problems are fixed Lol

Role 1 combat heavy assult
Role 2 attack heavy assult

Man, I thought heavy assault was a role, something like ship assaults small gang and takes a lot of punishment on the way.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1090 - 2013-07-21 13:08:51 UTC
Mr Doctor wrote:
...No its supposed to be specialised. One damage type is specialised.

"Supposed" being the operative word. Those grand plans went out the window as far as I am concerned when they placed the Navy Omen into a niche so narrow that you'd need Tech 6-7 hulls to warrant it.

The super-kiting ultra niche would have been perfect for the the T2 Zealot, but had no place on a T1 hull, yet that is where it ended up.

PS: Probably more a case of CCP coming up blank when they think about the what/where/why of Amarr, having primarily Winmatar and Gallente jockeys in their staple, but even so I would not put too much faith into their willingness/ability to follow their own grand design (ie. T1 - T2 - T3 focus differences).
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1091 - 2013-07-21 13:47:29 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Yun Kuai wrote:

TL:DR these HACs should have individual role bonuses that should support their niche role.

yes

why give them all the same , which only benefits vaga ?:O makes no sense at all

Are you really surprised that CCP only thinks of Minmatar when redesigning ships?
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1092 - 2013-07-21 14:48:40 UTC
Voith wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
Yun Kuai wrote:

TL:DR these HACs should have individual role bonuses that should support their niche role.

yes

why give them all the same , which only benefits vaga ?:O makes no sense at all

Are you really surprised that CCP only thinks of Minmatar when redesigning ships?


Uh, what? Vaga is still outclassed by the Cynabal. It needed another mid that it didn't get.
The Muninn remains completely outclassed by tornados.

Look at AFs, Jaguar is no longer the king of AFs
Look at frigates, cruisers, Rupture is no longer the best, and the rifter is no longer king of the hill.

Plus the tracking enhancer nerf.

So yea, no CCP does not think only of Minmatar when rebalancing.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Broxus Maximas
Perkone
Caldari State
#1093 - 2013-07-21 15:16:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Broxus Maximas
Wow same terrible changes to the ISHTAR as the Domi. Why did the ISHTAR just lose a slot and gain really nothing? Why is it the only HAC with 14 slots? I understand that they gained an extra slot in their high to put a weapon but that's just to offset the nerf to their hybrids. They should have gotten a slot added to their lows to give them a total of 15 slots like many of the other ships not be at 14 in a nerf class of its own. Also, as everyone has asked can you please change the optimal range buff for drones to a MWD bonus or anything else more interesting.
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#1094 - 2013-07-21 15:20:42 UTC
I'm glad I can spend 5x as much on a HAC and get a minimal return on my investment as compared to T1 cruisers.

Be men and make T2 cruisers outright better than their T1 and Navy/Pirate counterparts. At least then you'll have to make a decision as to whether you want to spend more for increased performance or fly cheap and risk less isk - but know you can be outclassed by the majority of T2s.

As proposed changes stand, HACs are not worth the effort. The only reason I train any cruiser up to 5 is for the logistics ship and the recons. The only reason I even need logistics is for the increased base tank they have... if you could just throw a couple more resist %s on the t1 logi counterparts we could obsolete a whole other line of ships.

Thanks
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#1095 - 2013-07-21 15:37:56 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
To mare wrote:
vagabond changes are rubbish, it will be slower than the actual one for a useless bonus no one will ever use (no fitting to make use of that),first if you really insist on rolling the speed bonus on the hull then the base speed should be 300 not 290, second any other bonus will be better than a brawling bonus wich doesnt suit the vaga at all (tracking, mass or sig reduction, capacito,r damage or whatever)


You know almost everyone fits their vaga's with XLasb's now right?


Actually to the extent people fly vagas anymore they do fit asbs.

Everyone flys cynabals for the role that to old vaga used to fill.

This change is a very good change for the vagabond. It is dumb to have two almost identical ships (cynabal and vaga) that are going for the exact same role. Vaga is the better choice for a brawler asb boost due to its resists.

Vaga needs an extra mid or 2, possibly some more fitting room and it is fixed.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Athena Themis
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1096 - 2013-07-21 15:39:16 UTC
These changes are underwhelming.

The MWD sig role bonus is an absolute joke.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1097 - 2013-07-21 16:10:50 UTC
gardes look like they need a nerf on their tracking they track the same as ogres which is odd and combined with domis/ ishtars proposed bonuses and omnis they can track aswell as medium guns but with sniper range.

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
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1098 - 2013-07-21 16:12:58 UTC
Legion40k wrote:
Steve Spooner wrote:


How did you pass reading comprehension? The Vagabond got an ADDITIONAL BONUS because the 5% velocity per level is now PART OF THE HULL so regardless of your minmatar cruiser level it is 25% faster (irrelevant since it has to be 5, but still)


If the calculator lies, fair enough, but as I explained theres a quirk with this bonus and prop mods to achieve such a high speed. Take a look, its..odd



the vagas problem is not the sped but the ****** dmg projection at its desired fiting range.
if we could have good enough tracking arty on the boat it would fix the problem a la "i have to use barrage and 2-3 tes to even do low dmg"
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1099 - 2013-07-21 16:26:30 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
gardes look like they need a nerf on their tracking they track the same as ogres which is odd and combined with domis/ ishtars proposed bonuses and omnis they can track aswell as medium guns but with sniper range.


No gardes don't need a nerf
Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1100 - 2013-07-21 16:54:01 UTC
I really don't get the Sacrilege changes

I've got one which I've fitted up with a full rack of HAMs, Dual Prop and 1600mm plate. I've got bags of PG to spare without any fitting mods and it is cap stable.

So you are given it 120 more PG - what for? Especially now that you have removed the option of guns. It needs CPU not PG.

As for Cap, that cap bonus is completely useless.

So after acknowledging that it is sub par to the other HACs, all you've really done is give it a fair-average drone bay. Not counting the MWD bonus that they all get.