These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1201 - 2013-07-22 12:17:37 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
To mare wrote:
seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs



I would have given the following bonus to vagabond

Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
5% Signature radius reduction per level
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage



I don't want a linky vaga that can sig tank frigates thank you very much.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1202 - 2013-07-22 12:21:30 UTC
Xiamar wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here


Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised.


OK...so I as I understand it CCP's vision is to make these things DPS boats and then they plan to balance (for balance read nerf the ever living s**t out of) T3's, so that they offer more flexibility, but do less DPS than a HAC.

So as proposed this is supposed to be a baseline for the coming T3 nerf...I think I may have stumbled upon a small problem here, most of these ships with the obvious exception of the Deimos do very little dps, certainly they offer a minimal improvement over T1 or navy faction cruisers, because when you balanced those (for balance read made retardedly over powered), you gave them far too much DPS.

I live in w-space and mostly fly T3s because they are the most effective mass to weight ship in the game, if your vision is to make T3's have less effective dps than a HAC, so it is marginally better than a T1 cruiser, what am I supposed to fly as an alternative if I want to pump out some dps? It isn't HACs as you currently envision them, they're too fragile are absurdly ineffective for their price tags and have too little dps.

If I'm supposed to fly this instead of T3s in the future, you need to increase the dps across the board by at least 20% and restore the resist bonus to 5% per level, the ships as proposed, are weak on dps, weak on tank and just generally weak.

You might have been shouting at the top of your lungs that T2 was not going to get buffed as much as T1s were, but how about listening with your ears? These ships need a DPS buff, they need a tank buff, we need a reason to fly them and at the moment you just haven't given us one.


^^this

currently HACs do have somewhat better tank and marginally better dps but still they don't justify their price. Btw i really liked T1 rebalance they did and was hoping they'll do the same with T2...
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#1203 - 2013-07-22 12:21:41 UTC
Am i the only one that thinks that its kind of strange that Caldari have both missile and hybrid HAC, Gallente have drone and hybrid HAC, but there is no drone HAC for Amarr and no missile HAC for Minmatar?

Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1204 - 2013-07-22 12:27:23 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Am i the only one that thinks that its kind of strange that Caldari have both missile and hybrid HAC, Gallente have drone and hybrid HAC, but there is no drone HAC for Amarr and no missile HAC for Minmatar?

Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente.


Amarr doesn't need another drone boat after prophecy and armageddon but minmatars could have traditional split weapon system
Alsyth
#1205 - 2013-07-22 12:27:55 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente.


Gallente keep whining about their 2 BCs having tanking bonuses... For a good reason.
Let's not gimp Ishtar or Deimos with a bad active armor rep bonus please.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1206 - 2013-07-22 12:29:52 UTC
Alsyth wrote:
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente.


Gallente keep whining about their 2 BCs having tanking bonuses... For a good reason.
Let's not gimp Ishtar or Deimos with a bad active armor rep bonus please.

A nice armor HP bonus would be a nice addition to one of the Gallente ships.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1207 - 2013-07-22 12:33:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
raawe wrote:
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Am i the only one that thinks that its kind of strange that Caldari have both missile and hybrid HAC, Gallente have drone and hybrid HAC, but there is no drone HAC for Amarr and no missile HAC for Minmatar?

Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente.


Amarr doesn't need another drone boat after prophecy and armageddon but minmatars could have traditional split weapon system


Maybe muninn could be HAM boat split with Arties .. even the Sacrilege could get a drone bonus to replace its cap recharge bonus would have same drone capability as the gnosis but could be given extra dronebay for spares.

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
#1208 - 2013-07-22 12:41:49 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
To mare wrote:
seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs



I would have given the following bonus to vagabond

Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
5% Signature radius reduction per level
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage



I don't want a linky vaga that can sig tank frigates thank you very much.



Such stupid statement should basically ensure that anything you post will be disregarded from now on. And If you fail to understand why, you should check the signature resolution of small weapons against vagabond signature....

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1209 - 2013-07-22 12:43:35 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
Am i the only one that thinks that its kind of strange that Caldari have both missile and hybrid HAC, Gallente have drone and hybrid HAC, but there is no drone HAC for Amarr and no missile HAC for Minmatar?

Also each race has a HAC with tanking bonus except Gallente.



Because homogenization is BAD. Amarr have missile and laser.... other division. Matari have AC focused and arti focused.. another clear division.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1210 - 2013-07-22 13:03:06 UTC
Vegine wrote:
Suggestion for Ishtar:


remove the drone optimal range bonus from the optimal and tracking bonus
remove the +5km drone control range bonus COMPLETELY
remove the drone bay expansion bonus COMPLETELY and add in drone bay as part of the ship

add a 10% per level drone speed/tracking bonus. (yes, double tracking bonus)
add a 7.5% per level to armor repair effectiveness (was also thinking 4% resist bonus but I guess its for gila only...)

move one med slot to low. (or two! ...........)
add 75CPU


This will make it more a closer range brawling ship viable with heavies, like heavy assault ships are suppose to be. I don't think optimal bonuses fits on heavy assault crafts. even if its a drone boat.
and......
need some test on sisi to see how it would work. ::p


not all HACS are supposed be "close range brawling ships". this is a **** idea. Although I too want use a 200mil ISK ship so that it cant disengage in pvp even though brutix is cheaper. baddies go away til hacs r done
Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#1211 - 2013-07-22 13:11:04 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
To mare wrote:
seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs



I would have given the following bonus to vagabond

Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
5% Signature radius reduction per level
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage



I don't want a linky vaga that can sig tank frigates thank you very much.


Because basing all ship balance on solo pilots having links is a really good idea.

I swear to god I dont understand anybody wanting anything happen to the Vaga other than it getting its DPS and Range bumped up, it doesnt need more mids, it doesnt need a tanking bonus, it doesnt need anything other than to actually be able to apply a decent amount of DPS to range.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1212 - 2013-07-22 13:15:16 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
I massively dislike trying to make all ships blob doctrines... what happened to encouraging small gangs ... HAC's should be the ultimate in small gang skirmish warfare ..... we don't need more fleet ships we have plenty of those.


The issue being that hac don't skirmish better than battle cruisers.

You generally arent going to tank medium weapons.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1213 - 2013-07-22 13:21:34 UTC
Harvey James wrote:

Maybe muninn could be HAM boat split with Arties ..


Nope.gif

CCP scrapped split weapons systems for a reason. It took a while to get to the Naglfar, but they finallly finished, lets not gimp another ship.

Konfuchie wrote:

Zealot is so bad compared to Legion or Oracle that it will still be used only for ahacs pilots that have no money or skills to fly a Legion.


To be fair, all HACs are bad compared to any other ship. Comparing an insufficiently buffed HAC to a ship that hasn't been rebalanced (I'm talking about the Oracle as much as I am the Legion, again, careful with those T3s CCP!)

CCP needs to buff HACs so that they are worth the higher cost over T1 cruisers, which were so overbuffed...

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1214 - 2013-07-22 13:33:29 UTC
raawe wrote:
Xiamar wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Overall CCP Rise back to the drawing board here


Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised.


OK...so I as I understand it CCP's vision is to make these things DPS boats and then they plan to balance (for balance read nerf the ever living s**t out of) T3's, so that they offer more flexibility, but do less DPS than a HAC.

So as proposed this is supposed to be a baseline for the coming T3 nerf...I think I may have stumbled upon a small problem here, most of these ships with the obvious exception of the Deimos do very little dps, certainly they offer a minimal improvement over T1 or navy faction cruisers, because when you balanced those (for balance read made retardedly over powered), you gave them far too much DPS.

I live in w-space and mostly fly T3s because they are the most effective mass to weight ship in the game, if your vision is to make T3's have less effective dps than a HAC, so it is marginally better than a T1 cruiser, what am I supposed to fly as an alternative if I want to pump out some dps? It isn't HACs as you currently envision them, they're too fragile are absurdly ineffective for their price tags and have too little dps.

If I'm supposed to fly this instead of T3s in the future, you need to increase the dps across the board by at least 20% and restore the resist bonus to 5% per level, the ships as proposed, are weak on dps, weak on tank and just generally weak.

You might have been shouting at the top of your lungs that T2 was not going to get buffed as much as T1s were, but how about listening with your ears? These ships need a DPS buff, they need a tank buff, we need a reason to fly them and at the moment you just haven't given us one.


^^this

currently HACs do have somewhat better tank and marginally better dps but still they don't justify their price. Btw i really liked T1 rebalance they did and was hoping they'll do the same with T2...



CCP made it VERY clear at Fanfest that they never planned on people living in wh's fulltime, and they, and most of the null sec dominated CSM, have zero use for anything a wh player says or cares about (how many years did wh people have to endure not being able to switch mods at a POS, and are STILL dealing with the huge refining penalty?).

I am sure the 2 wh reps are screaming blue murder at all the proposed nerfs they are seeing, but it won't matter.
T3's will be destroyed as a viable ship class, because CCP will use these anemic HAC's as a baseline for DPS.

I have a Loki and a Proteus, and just enjoying them as much as I can now, before they are turned into garbage.
I also have my beloved Ishtar, that is STILL garbage.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1215 - 2013-07-22 13:39:00 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
To mare wrote:
seriously the two words brawling and vagabond together just make me sick, also it will lose speed and it have more mass than other HACs



I would have given the following bonus to vagabond

Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
5% Signature radius reduction per level
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage



I don't want a linky vaga that can sig tank frigates thank you very much.


Because basing all ship balance on solo pilots having links is a really good idea.

I swear to god I dont understand anybody wanting anything happen to the Vaga other than it getting its DPS and Range bumped up, it doesnt need more mids, it doesnt need a tanking bonus, it doesnt need anything other than to actually be able to apply a decent amount of DPS to range.




My point on the mids was. IF they are adamant on keepign shield boost bonus. Then it needs a 5th mid.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
#1216 - 2013-07-22 14:13:22 UTC
Your math on the Vagabond speed is wrong. 239*1.25 rounded is 300, not 290.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1217 - 2013-07-22 14:26:32 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

My point on the mids was. IF they are adamant on keepign shield boost bonus. Then it needs a 5th mid.



Not at all. With that shieldtank-bonus, you got the choic between large SB+CB (like a shieldlegion), XL-ASB with 180s or the good old fit.
The good old fit is now A LOT better thanks to that mwd-bonus.

Pretty much the same to the muninn. I believe some nanogroupies will go crazy over the 6th lowslot on that one \o/ (at least I do)
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1218 - 2013-07-22 14:31:39 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

My point on the mids was. IF they are adamant on keepign shield boost bonus. Then it needs a 5th mid.



Not at all. With that shieldtank-bonus, you got the choic between large SB+CB (like a shieldlegion), XL-ASB with 180s or the good old fit.
The good old fit is now A LOT better thanks to that mwd-bonus.

Pretty much the same to the muninn. I believe some nanogroupies will go crazy over the 6th lowslot on that one \o/ (at least I do)


If the Vaga gets a fifth mid it can actually tank WELL, not just "tank".
It also needs more shield HP so it doesn't just get alpha'd when a ship is more than km from it.
And more grid so it doesn't need an ancillary rig to fit an ASB and 180s! Nobody uses 180s on ANYTHING else! Enough grid to fit an ASB and 220s would be nice.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#1219 - 2013-07-22 14:40:20 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

My point on the mids was. IF they are adamant on keepign shield boost bonus. Then it needs a 5th mid.



Not at all. With that shieldtank-bonus, you got the choic between large SB+CB (like a shieldlegion), XL-ASB with 180s or the good old fit.
The good old fit is now A LOT better thanks to that mwd-bonus.

Pretty much the same to the muninn. I believe some nanogroupies will go crazy over the 6th lowslot on that one \o/ (at least I do)


If the Vaga gets a fifth mid it can actually tank WELL, not just "tank".
It also needs more shield HP so it doesn't just get alpha'd when a ship is more than km from it.
And more grid so it doesn't need an ancillary rig to fit an ASB and 180s! Nobody uses 180s on ANYTHING else! Enough grid to fit an ASB and 220s would be nice.


I still don't get this, the problem of the Vaga has never been its tank, yeah its **** poor but it wouldnt be an issue if it actually did decent DPS and applied it reasonably well. Its problems are entirely to do with the fact that its DPS and projection are awful.
Nightfox BloodRaven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1220 - 2013-07-22 14:47:51 UTC
I honestly wouldnt fly any of these overpriced ****** ships.. Navy cruiser cheaper and way better..