These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1221 - 2013-07-22 14:49:33 UTC
Quote:
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.


Regarding T3, I'm sure it has the same problem other MMOs like WoW had.
They bring in ship or whatever that was meant for PvE, something that can be used however in PvP as well. It causes in somewhat balance issues in PvP. Things need to be adjusted (read: nerfed) due to the PvP balance but PvE is the one that actually takes a bigger hit.

Not the first time I'll be seeing that one.
However, I must say then again, it is just like back then with the pre-nerfed Dramiel. It was just too good at everything. I too wished the other frigates and such could have been buffed closer to its potentials, but in the end, CCP chose to bring it down, for the better.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1222 - 2013-07-22 14:56:26 UTC
raawe wrote:
Nice idea, something like vaga speed bonus that was built into hull. If they do that and give another missile bonus this will be pure brawl ship

Would rather the freed up bonus be neut/nos amount to deepen the target pool when brawling and give it the option of something other than secondary dps in a gang.

But if HACs are really meant to be nothing more than slightly souped up T1 cruisers then all our wishes will be for naught and the majority of the ships will never see significant use, what with tier3 BCs not getting the deserved nerf and T1 cruisers being top performers in the cost/benefit index.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1223 - 2013-07-22 15:09:50 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
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.


The DPS is bad too, yes, but if CCP wants us to ASB it then it needs enough HP to not get alpha'd whenver an ABC gets on the field (nerf those things, take two guns off or something but they're ridiculous. The Talos is one of the reasons they nerfed TEs, when they could have just nerfed the Talos instead.)

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1224 - 2013-07-22 15:11:44 UTC
i think we should not compare new hacs to tech 3 cause what ccp said about what they want to do to t3 is to make em more flexible but performe less in specialized fits.

so i think we should focus on getting ships in a state where they are worth to be flown regardless if hteres a t3 that does the same thing better.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1225 - 2013-07-22 15:22:05 UTC
Vayn Baxtor wrote:
Quote:
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.


Regarding T3, I'm sure it has the same problem other MMOs like WoW had.
They bring in ship or whatever that was meant for PvE, something that can be used however in PvP as well. It causes in somewhat balance issues in PvP. Things need to be adjusted (read: nerfed) due to the PvP balance but PvE is the one that actually takes a bigger hit.


Booster T3s and Command ships should have their bonuses swapped. Other than that, some mild EHP nerf on the Proteus and Legion, a mild DPS nerf on the Proteus maybe, that is all.

The problem with T3s is that there isn't one. They aren't replacing HACs, and they aren't over used. (Wormholes are different from the rest of EVE.)

If T3s were as OP as everyone claims they would be topping the evekill top 20, but they aren't. Nobody ever gives a specific problem with T3s, they just say they're OP. If someone can give me some actual EVIDENCE as to what is OP and why T3s are suddenly so OP, I'll reconsider my views. But until then, T3s are [mostly] fine (except the boosting subsystem).

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1226 - 2013-07-22 15:33:32 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
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.



U understand the concept of the word "IF". If you do.. read my post.. its pretty clear...

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1227 - 2013-07-22 15:34:20 UTC
Witchking Angmar wrote:
Your math on the Vagabond speed is wrong. 239*1.25 rounded is 300, not 290.



Hey that is REALLY important!!!!



Any words on that RISE?

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Vtra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1228 - 2013-07-22 15:34:58 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Vayn Baxtor wrote:
Quote:
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.


Regarding T3, I'm sure it has the same problem other MMOs like WoW had.
They bring in ship or whatever that was meant for PvE, something that can be used however in PvP as well. It causes in somewhat balance issues in PvP. Things need to be adjusted (read: nerfed) due to the PvP balance but PvE is the one that actually takes a bigger hit.


Booster T3s and Command ships should have their bonuses swapped. Other than that, some mild EHP nerf on the Proteus and Legion, a mild DPS nerf on the Proteus maybe, that is all.

The problem with T3s is that there isn't one. They aren't replacing HACs, and they aren't over used. (Wormholes are different from the rest of EVE.)

If T3s were as OP as everyone claims they would be topping the evekill top 20, but they aren't. Nobody ever gives a specific problem with T3s, they just say they're OP. If someone can give me some actual EVIDENCE as to what is OP and why T3s are suddenly so OP, I'll reconsider my views. But until then, T3s are [mostly] fine (except the boosting subsystem).



Only people that ***** about the boosting T-3's are the ones that do not have access to one plain and simple.... stop it!
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#1229 - 2013-07-22 15:40:46 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Cearain wrote:
I think the navy cruisers should generally be higher speed and lower sig.

But really eve is about creative fittings. Most ships shouldn't have set "roles" ccp should give them some reasonable bonuses, slots and stats for the cost and let the players figure out how to use them.

That is T1 territory, T2 is supposed to take one and amplify it at the cost of other options without removing said options entirely .. question is if CCP are still playing by those guidelines as there are several T1 revisions that would be more appropriate on T2 and vice versa,



I'm not really seeing what you say with the t2 frigates versus navy frigates.

The frigate/destroyer classes may not be perfect but they work well, and they follow the general guideline I gave.

Navy frigates generally are faster than t2 but t2 offers more dps and tank. Pirate ships tend to be even faster than the navy frigates and have the same dps as t2 but not the tank.

Destroyers are sort of like the bcs. They are bigger and slower than the t2 frigates. But they tend to have about the same tank and dps. Their slow speed is compensated by being more affordable than the t2 frigates.

The same general model can be followed for cruisers.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1230 - 2013-07-22 15:41:21 UTC
dude compare T3's EHP with T1 cruisers and then blankly stare at the main reason ooohh... look it has about three times the amount .. that's not normal ... then look at the dps difference...

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
#1231 - 2013-07-22 15:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
Harvey James wrote:
dude compare T3's EHP with T1 cruisers and then blankly stare at the main reason ooohh... look it has about three times the amount .. that's not normal ... then look at the dps difference...



if you want compare ships by sipmple numbers atleast do it right and use "applied dps / ehp"

and yes im aware it does not work like that which is the reason for this post
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1232 - 2013-07-22 15:54:36 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
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.


Tank, DPS, DPS projection....These things mean **** all if they dont get faster...alot. No ones gonna use them over t1 cruiser brawlers or BC's for the obvious reason ITS NOT WORTH THE PRICE. This has always been the case with HACs and is no different now. Give speed or remove. We'll use T3's
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1233 - 2013-07-22 15:55:17 UTC
Vtra wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Vayn Baxtor wrote:
Quote:
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.


Regarding T3, I'm sure it has the same problem other MMOs like WoW had.
They bring in ship or whatever that was meant for PvE, something that can be used however in PvP as well. It causes in somewhat balance issues in PvP. Things need to be adjusted (read: nerfed) due to the PvP balance but PvE is the one that actually takes a bigger hit.


Booster T3s and Command ships should have their bonuses swapped. Other than that, some mild EHP nerf on the Proteus and Legion, a mild DPS nerf on the Proteus maybe, that is all.

The problem with T3s is that there isn't one. They aren't replacing HACs, and they aren't over used. (Wormholes are different from the rest of EVE.)

If T3s were as OP as everyone claims they would be topping the evekill top 20, but they aren't. Nobody ever gives a specific problem with T3s, they just say they're OP. If someone can give me some actual EVIDENCE as to what is OP and why T3s are suddenly so OP, I'll reconsider my views. But until then, T3s are [mostly] fine (except the boosting subsystem).



Only people that ***** about the boosting T-3's are the ones that do not have access to one plain and simple.... stop it!



Except they're stronger than Command ships, and T3s aren't supposed to be better than their T2 counterparts Lol
I honestly think T3s should be compared to Command ships, not HACs

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Vtra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1234 - 2013-07-22 15:59:39 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Vtra wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Vayn Baxtor wrote:
Quote:
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.


Regarding T3, I'm sure it has the same problem other MMOs like WoW had.
They bring in ship or whatever that was meant for PvE, something that can be used however in PvP as well. It causes in somewhat balance issues in PvP. Things need to be adjusted (read: nerfed) due to the PvP balance but PvE is the one that actually takes a bigger hit.


Booster T3s and Command ships should have their bonuses swapped. Other than that, some mild EHP nerf on the Proteus and Legion, a mild DPS nerf on the Proteus maybe, that is all.

The problem with T3s is that there isn't one. They aren't replacing HACs, and they aren't over used. (Wormholes are different from the rest of EVE.)

If T3s were as OP as everyone claims they would be topping the evekill top 20, but they aren't. Nobody ever gives a specific problem with T3s, they just say they're OP. If someone can give me some actual EVIDENCE as to what is OP and why T3s are suddenly so OP, I'll reconsider my views. But until then, T3s are [mostly] fine (except the boosting subsystem).



Only people that ***** about the boosting T-3's are the ones that do not have access to one plain and simple.... stop it!



Except they're stronger than Command ships, and T3s aren't supposed to be better than their T2 counterparts Lol
I honestly think T3s should be compared to Command ships, not HACs



Agreed the bonus's should be swapped and that should be the end of it.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1235 - 2013-07-22 16:03:33 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Harvey James wrote:
dude compare T3's EHP with T1 cruisers and then blankly stare at the main reason ooohh... look it has about three times the amount .. that's not normal ... then look at the dps difference...


Look at the DPS.
- Thorax - 2 Magstabs 5 Neutrons, Void - 522 DPS
- Loki - 2 Gyros 6 425mms, RF EMP - 525 DPS

Now look at the cost.
- Thorax - 10m
- Typical Armor Tanked Loki - 400m

And the SP loss.
- Thorax SP loss - 0sp
- Typical Armor Tanked Loki ~ 4 days of training (Subsystem 5, Minmatar Strat Cruiser 4)


So, a T3 costs 40x as much before bling (which any good T3 pilot has), and costs the pilot 4 days of training every time one explodes.


[Condescending Wonka] Tell me again about how T3s are OP compared to T1 Cruisers? [/Condescending Wonka]

Edit: Miscalculated the SP loss. Updated.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#1236 - 2013-07-22 16:06:05 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Vtra wrote:



Only people that ***** about the boosting T-3's are the ones that do not have access to one plain and simple.... stop it!



Except they're stronger than Command ships, and T3s aren't supposed to be better than their T2 counterparts Lol
I honestly think T3s should be compared to Command ships, not HACs

That's fine, but then they need to lose their cruiser speed, mass, agility and sig radius.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1237 - 2013-07-22 16:11:19 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Vtra wrote:



Only people that ***** about the boosting T-3's are the ones that do not have access to one plain and simple.... stop it!



Except they're stronger than Command ships, and T3s aren't supposed to be better than their T2 counterparts Lol
I honestly think T3s should be compared to Command ships, not HACs

That's fine, but then they need to lose their cruiser speed, mass, agility and sig radius.



Wouldn't be worth the cost then.

Command ship EHP/DPS
Cruiser mobility

Then it would be worth the 400m/hull + SP loss.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1238 - 2013-07-22 16:26:29 UTC
Ok, so Rise hasn't replied yet, so here's my 2 cents:

1) We appreciate the opportunity to give (hopefully) constructive feedback on the direction that HACs get taken in, and we understand that conservative changes were attempted. BUT! compared to the *very* non-conservative (dare I say 'revolutionary') changes that were enacted as part of the tiericide initiative to date, the proposed changes are not interesting, exciting, or enticing in any way. Go back to the drawing board, find a Role or Roles for the HAC lineup to fulfill and then make them shine in those roles.

2) The MWD bloom bonus is trite and uninspired. The Role bonus that the HACs get needs to be in line with the Role of the ship, and preferably something that either makes the Hull (if hull-by-hull role bonuses are used) or hull classification distinctive from ALL other ships. Reference HICs, SBs, BOps for things that T2 "Specialized" hulls can do that no other hull can.

3) Don't be as concerned about the price point of the hull as you are with whether or not the performance of the hull will entice pilots to that hull. It's easy to make enough ISK to buy a HAC by the time you have the skills to fly one effectively, it's hard to justify spending that ISK on a HAC if there's no clear advantage to flying one. Make the Hull worth flying, and the market price will adjust to the new level.

4) Be consistent in your module slot layouts. Since AFs got +2 slots over T1, people are going to expect +2 slots over T1 for HACs too - ESPECIALLY since T3's already have 16.

5) Whatever you do with the HAC lineup, bear in mind that the ABC hulls already outperform them in virtually every area. Whatever you do should go towards addressing this, unless the next balancing pass is to nerf the f**k out of ABCs. Either way, currently the 'smart' investment is ... not a HAC, and let's leave it at that.

6) There's a lot of good comments in this thread regarding the expected roles/strengths of Heavy Assault Cruisers. Start with Heavy, then focus on Assault, then realize that cruisers are the awkward middle child of the subcap lineup. Big enough to do some damage, but not big enough to get away with it... An advanced cruiser hull should have some staying power.

Thanks
[/my2cents]
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1239 - 2013-07-22 16:39:09 UTC  |  Edited by: JerseyBOI 2
nikar galvren wrote:
Ok, so Rise hasn't replied yet, so here's my 2 cents:

1) We appreciate the opportunity to give (hopefully) constructive feedback on the direction that HACs get taken in, and we understand that conservative changes were attempted. BUT! compared to the *very* non-conservative (dare I say 'revolutionary') changes that were enacted as part of the tiericide initiative to date, the proposed changes are not interesting, exciting, or enticing in any way. Go back to the drawing board, find a Role or Roles for the HAC lineup to fulfill and then make them shine in those roles.

2) The MWD bloom bonus is trite and uninspired. The Role bonus that the HACs get needs to be in line with the Role of the ship, and preferably something that either makes the Hull (if hull-by-hull role bonuses are used) or hull classification distinctive from ALL other ships. Reference HICs, SBs, BOps for things that T2 "Specialized" hulls can do that no other hull can.

3) Don't be as concerned about the price point of the hull as you are with whether or not the performance of the hull will entice pilots to that hull. It's easy to make enough ISK to buy a HAC by the time you have the skills to fly one effectively, it's hard to justify spending that ISK on a HAC if there's no clear advantage to flying one. Make the Hull worth flying, and the market price will adjust to the new level.

4) Be consistent in your module slot layouts. Since AFs got +2 slots over T1, people are going to expect +2 slots over T1 for HACs too - ESPECIALLY since T3's already have 16.

5) Whatever you do with the HAC lineup, bear in mind that the ABC hulls already outperform them in virtually every area. Whatever you do should go towards addressing this, unless the next balancing pass is to nerf the f**k out of ABCs. Either way, currently the 'smart' investment is ... not a HAC, and let's leave it at that.

6) There's a lot of good comments in this thread regarding the expected roles/strengths of Heavy Assault Cruisers. Start with Heavy, then focus on Assault, then realize that cruisers are the awkward middle child of the subcap lineup. Big enough to do some damage, but not big enough to get away with it... An advanced cruiser hull should have some staying power.

Thanks
[/my2cents]





"Big enough to do some damage, but not big enough to get away with it..." <---this. It's not cost effective to brawl down with HACS (we have T3's for that, Hyperion). Case in point, how many command ships do you see flying around? It's fine for t1 cruisers and BC's (vexor, brutix) because there cheap. To make them worth fighting with in close you would have make their tank OP(not an option IMO, fly cheap or CS's, or T3's).
Angry Mustache
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1240 - 2013-07-22 16:43:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
dude compare T3's EHP with T1 cruisers and then blankly stare at the main reason ooohh... look it has about three times the amount .. that's not normal ... then look at the dps difference...


Look at the DPS.
- Thorax - 2 Magstabs 5 Neutrons, Void - 522 DPS
- Loki - 2 Gyros 6 425mms, RF EMP - 525 DPS

Now look at the cost.
- Thorax - 10m
- Typical Armor Tanked Loki - 400m

And the SP loss.
- Thorax SP loss - 0sp
- Typical Armor Tanked Loki ~ 7 days of training (Subsystem 5, Minmatar Strat Cruiser 4)


So, a T3 costs 40x as much before bling (which any good T3 pilot has), and costs the pilot 7 days of training every time one explodes.


[Condescending Wonka] Tell me again about how T3s are OP compared to T1 Cruisers? [/Condescending Wonka]


this is such a terrible comparison with cherry picked and distorted numbers, and probably a guideline on "how not to compare things".

-comparing the DPS from a Void shooting blaster ship to a faction shooting AC ship, at least use Hail in the comparison

-there is no SP loss in strategic cruiser from dying, only subsystems, so the worst case scenario for SP loss is 4 days, and only one day if you lose a 4>3

-the typical price of a rigged T2 fit thorax is approximately 30-40 million, not 10.

-It's impossible to have a full rack of neutron blasters on an armor thorax without making extensive use of fitting mods, so your "example" must either use 2 ACR and a 800mm plate, or be a shield thorax (which you can't really compare to an armor Loki). either way, the EHP of the thorax will not top 25k. The more common armor thorax fits use ion blasters, and only have 1 magstab, dropping their DPS to 400

If you want to compare a thorax to a T3, compare it to a similar armor blaster proteus, rather than a loki.

DPS, Ion blasters for thorax, Neutron Blasters for Proteus, both shooting void. (and a 1600mm post-patch Deimos thrown in for good measure)

Thorax - 532 with a flight of Valkyrie II drones
Proteus - 737
Deimos - 731 with flight of valk2's

Tank

Thorax - 28k
Proteus - 147k
Deimos - 54k

the price for the fits used in the comparison and 35mil and 450mil respectively, so for a 13 fold increase in price, the Proteus gets 50% more DPS and 5 times more tank. Some might consider this a worthy trade-off, others might not. The deimos is 185-200 mil, with similar DPS to the Proteus but 1/3rd the tank.

I don't know about others, but I would gladly pay twice as much for a ship if i got triple the tank.

An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.