These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Maximilian Akora
It's just business.
#1361 - 2013-07-23 14:13:08 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Maximilian Akora wrote:


Not really, all blobbers care for is EHP and damage projection. Solo or small gang pvpers can look beyond that very limited view of F1 pushing.



Whatever, small gang you look for SPEED eHP and damage projection.....except you have to do your own point.

Don't act like small gang is some magically twitch dependant all skiller no filler, its just a smaller blob that you might have to point for youself.



If you can't see the rather massive differences between fleet/blob fits and solo/small gang fits then there's not much to discuss tbh. Case in point; blobbers dislike the changed drake and its missiles, solo and small gang folks realise it's actually a buff.
Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1362 - 2013-07-23 14:15:15 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey again

So we had the tournament this weekend and then I was out of the office yesterday. I'm getting started on this topic again today, but as evidenced by this enormous thread, there's plenty to do. I think we will have another CSM review step before getting the new version (which isn't even finished yet) back to you guys. If things go well, I'll have a new pass for you guys by the end of this week, if things go slow it would probably be start of next week.

Thanks for all the feedback and ideas. A lot of you have different ideas about these ships, but hopefully we can distill some good stuff and do a revision that you're all excited about.


Considering he prolly put a lot of work into the first balance and knows he`ll prolly need to do a big portion of it over again I think this was a very good response.
I give it a 9/10


As for the balancing. I would be carefull taking to the CSMs the guys in null will want stuff to make their blobs better, the people in high/low sec will want changes to make blobs and alahp fleet less effect. and everyone doesn`t PvP enough to even have a valid opinion.


CCP Rise Please make two clear roles classes for the HACs.... so we can actually give you proper feed back
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#1363 - 2013-07-23 14:17:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Comment highlights ::

Marcel Devereux wrote:

For the Deimos, can you roll some of that that MWD bonus up into the ship by increasing the recharge and replace it with something else. It is another archaic bonus that looks out of place. Compare the bonuses to the Muninn: double damage bonus (dmg+rof), optimal range bonus, and tracking bonus. Deimos: double damage bonus, fall-off bonus, MWD bonus. Can you replace the MWD bonus with the tracking bonus that is found on the Thorax?


Agreed. You removed it from the Thorax, I think this should be done here as well and give it something more appropriate.

Harvey James wrote:
Also a vaga shield tanking with 4 mids still..... i was expecting another mid here also more cpu might help with cpu hungry ASB's
also it could do with a little more dps say a 10% damage bonus.


Agreed. The CPU on the Vaga is laughable for a shield fit. And with 4 mids, what are you going to shield tank exactly? Especially for an active tank. I like the idea, but honestly, it seems like you're "plugging" the vagabond into a shield role, when it maybe should stay much more versatile?


Akturous wrote:
Taking a second look at fitting on the Muninn, this thing is still very very bad. You need 2 ACR's to fit 720s and a 1600 plate with a 10mn AB and you get 3120 alpha and 355 dps (not including the changes) with 2 gyros (so lows would be DC, RAR, Explosive and Kin hardener, 1600 plate).

This is pretty pathetic alpha with close range ammo on a specialist arty platform considering the Loki manages 4.5k alpha and double the tracking with the same fitting. I think the Muninn needs another turret and the fittings to fit a full rack of 720s and a 1600 with AB with 1 ACR, then it might see some use outside of BL novelty/old times sake gangs.


I haven't liked the Muninn in a long time. It needs a serious review of its whole application. It can't do anything well really, and the only thing it's good at is popping frigates in one shot. That's a really awesome (read: pathetic) use for a HAC.



Overall, you need to review the hull bonuses and remove archaic ones and add more creative ones.

Overall, you need to review the viable fittings for these setups.

Being specialized shouldn't mean "You can only fit this one fitting idea we have in mind, kthxbai!!"

Being specialized should mean that they have a clear and distinct advantage over OTHER ships, including battleships, at this part of their specialty.

I'm not seeing that here at all. Can you clarify exactly how each of these ships is specialized and how they're superior to all other ships in that specialty?

Where I am.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#1364 - 2013-07-23 14:26:13 UTC
As a goof we decided to do a ahac roam. I decided to go with the Ishtar (cause why not).

A few glaring things I noticed once I fit it out.

1) The CPU and Powergrid is horridly crappy if you fit a 1600 plate to it. Now you can fit a different item but see #2.

2), the Hit Points were absurdly cruddy even with the 1600 plate on it.

One of the other guys brought a Navy Vexor with him. It had a extra low slot to it. Now we fit the same tank (1600mm plate, eam, damage control, Active Explosive). With my 5th, I put a drone damage amplifier, in his 5th AND 6th Slot, he put 2 Drone Damage Amplifiers.

Now barring skill differences, while my resists were higher, my EHP was 8,000 to 10,000 less than his. Mine was around 35,000 (that is with a T2 Trimark and a T1 Ancillary). His, roughly 50,000.

Yes my resists are higher, but he has a MUCH larger tank. Why? My Native Hull Armor and Shield hit points are HALF of the Navy Vexors (ishtar's roughly 1600, Navy Vexor's 3000).

But wait I forgot about the signature. Yes the Navy Vexor's sig is LOWER than the Ishtar.

Navy Vexor Cost, 107 mil jita prices, Ishtar, 177 mil.

Dps? Navy Vexor does more damage with drones than the Ishtar, but the Ishtar does more damage with guns (navy was 99 damage, Ishtar was 160 damage, gun related) Drones balanced it out, but to sum it up... they did the same damage too.

The ONLY difference I can actually see, is that the Ishtar can field more backup drones. Not that it matters cause it will be dead, alongside the Diemost.

I really could not figure out how to get that ship to an acceptable level, with the Navy Ship has a higher tank, smaller signature, stronger sensor strength, more Tracking on drones, Equal Damage, and has 3 rig slots.

I'm completely puzzled about that.

Yaay!!!!
Thorvik
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1365 - 2013-07-23 14:38:38 UTC
IMHO, HACs should be small gang and solo ships. Groups of 4-6 max scouring the space lanes and able to go on longer stints in enemy space, if needed. They should not be active tanked. Cargohold should be loaded with ammo not booster charges. As solo ships they need to be able to take a few hits and hold on to their prey. Vaga, specifically, should not be active tanked and forget the shield boost bonus. Add another mid slot for a disruptor as the engagement range should be around 20km.

A group of HACs should be used for rapid deployment. Hit and move. Muninn, Zealot and friends can be the close range armor brawlers. Again, 4-6 of them with a Guardian or an Auguror to keep them alive. No active tanks but fitting potential for good resists.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1366 - 2013-07-23 14:44:22 UTC
space lanes?:O what are those
ah the tech 1 jump portals... only poor fellas use those ,nothing worth ganking
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1367 - 2013-07-23 14:45:37 UTC
Maximilian Akora wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Maximilian Akora wrote:


Not really, all blobbers care for is EHP and damage projection. Solo or small gang pvpers can look beyond that very limited view of F1 pushing.



Whatever, small gang you look for SPEED eHP and damage projection.....except you have to do your own point.

Don't act like small gang is some magically twitch dependant all skiller no filler, its just a smaller blob that you might have to point for youself.



If you can't see the rather massive differences between fleet/blob fits and solo/small gang fits then there's not much to discuss tbh. Case in point; blobbers dislike the changed drake and its missiles, solo and small gang folks realise it's actually a buff.



Yeah the HAM changes (and bonus changes) did GREAT things for the HAM drake......you have NO idea the deaths of my hated for the pre HML nerf fleet drake, none. That being said its a matter of application, in small gangs the drake is fine, where they there are 400 combat hulls on field its damage projection is ****. So when you come out low sec the value to the hull nose dives. When HMLs go knocked back down into the realm of all of the other medium long range weapon I was thrilled.

As it relates there there is no application where you really want to use a Cerb over that HAM drake. The range is cool and all with the cerb, but if you fart at the Cerb it goes boom.......for another 100 million, for that matter you can do near the same thing with a caracal for 50mil.
Ryans Revenge
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1368 - 2013-07-23 15:03:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Ryans Revenge
Please read Kil2.

Ok so anyone who has ever seen my streams knows I pretty much religiously fly the nano ishtar and have done so since about 2009. You lose a lot of isk from leaving drones behind but they are extremely versatile if flown right which balances them out.

Please let the Vexor Navy Issue be the armor repping tanky vexor. We don't need two of these. There's also the myrmidon for this purpose. Please let the Ishtar retain it's mobility and speed like the rest of the hacs and not limit the drone specialists to slow in your face ships like blasters.

Also giving hacs a mwd bonus then reducing their speed and making them an armor tanking ship makes no ******* sense at all..

Thanks

P.s. If you want to see some highlights checkout twitch.tv/ryanjuk (Again mainly for kil2's purposes)
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1369 - 2013-07-23 15:07:57 UTC
Roime wrote:
Well that's an A class dev response there :)

Yup. He managed to dry our eyes, wipe out noses and then our asses (ie. in the correct sequence) .. now we wait and see if he reuses the now rather gross tissue or pulls a fresh one from his My Little Pony™ man-purse.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1370 - 2013-07-23 15:10:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Andendare
Phoenix Jones wrote:
As a goof we decided to do a ahac roam. I decided to go with the Ishtar (cause why not).

A few glaring things I noticed once I fit it out.

1) The CPU and Powergrid is horridly crappy if you fit a 1600 plate to it. Now you can fit a different item but see #2.

2), the Hit Points were absurdly cruddy even with the 1600 plate on it.

One of the other guys brought a Navy Vexor with him. It had a extra low slot to it. Now we fit the same tank (1600mm plate, eam, damage control, Active Explosive). With my 5th, I put a drone damage amplifier, in his 5th AND 6th Slot, he put 2 Drone Damage Amplifiers.

Now barring skill differences, while my resists were higher, my EHP was 8,000 to 10,000 less than his. Mine was around 35,000 (that is with a T2 Trimark and a T1 Ancillary). His, roughly 50,000.

Yes my resists are higher, but he has a MUCH larger tank. Why? My Native Hull Armor and Shield hit points are HALF of the Navy Vexors (ishtar's roughly 1600, Navy Vexor's 3000).

But wait I forgot about the signature. Yes the Navy Vexor's sig is LOWER than the Ishtar.

Navy Vexor Cost, 107 mil jita prices, Ishtar, 177 mil.

Dps? Navy Vexor does more damage with drones than the Ishtar, but the Ishtar does more damage with guns (navy was 99 damage, Ishtar was 160 damage, gun related) Drones balanced it out, but to sum it up... they did the same damage too.

The ONLY difference I can actually see, is that the Ishtar can field more backup drones. Not that it matters cause it will be dead, alongside the Diemost.

I really could not figure out how to get that ship to an acceptable level, with the Navy Ship has a higher tank, smaller signature, stronger sensor strength, more Tracking on drones, Equal Damage, and has 3 rig slots.

I'm completely puzzled about that.
I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.

A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).

So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.

But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1?

I'm glad to see you're working with the community here, Rise. In fact, you work with the community a lot in your threads, and it's very appreciated.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Presidente Gallente
Best Kept Dunked
#1371 - 2013-07-23 15:15:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Presidente Gallente
Phoenix Jones wrote:
As a goof we decided to do a ahac roam. I decided to go with the Ishtar (cause why not).

A few glaring things I noticed once I fit it out.

1) The CPU and Powergrid is horridly crappy if you fit a 1600 plate to it. Now you can fit a different item but see #2.

2), the Hit Points were absurdly cruddy even with the 1600 plate on it.

One of the other guys brought a Navy Vexor with him. It had a extra low slot to it. Now we fit the same tank (1600mm plate, eam, damage control, Active Explosive). With my 5th, I put a drone damage amplifier, in his 5th AND 6th Slot, he put 2 Drone Damage Amplifiers.

Now barring skill differences, while my resists were higher, my EHP was 8,000 to 10,000 less than his. Mine was around 35,000 (that is with a T2 Trimark and a T1 Ancillary). His, roughly 50,000.

Yes my resists are higher, but he has a MUCH larger tank. Why? My Native Hull Armor and Shield hit points are HALF of the Navy Vexors (ishtar's roughly 1600, Navy Vexor's 3000).

But wait I forgot about the signature. Yes the Navy Vexor's sig is LOWER than the Ishtar.

Navy Vexor Cost, 107 mil jita prices, Ishtar, 177 mil.

Dps? Navy Vexor does more damage with drones than the Ishtar, but the Ishtar does more damage with guns (navy was 99 damage, Ishtar was 160 damage, gun related) Drones balanced it out, but to sum it up... they did the same damage too.

The ONLY difference I can actually see, is that the Ishtar can field more backup drones. Not that it matters cause it will be dead, alongside the Diemost.

I really could not figure out how to get that ship to an acceptable level, with the Navy Ship has a higher tank, smaller signature, stronger sensor strength, more Tracking on drones, Equal Damage, and has 3 rig slots.

I'm completely puzzled about that.


I am flying the ishtar for ages, a lot, very successfully and deadly. This ship is just awesome with low-slaves and if you like/can afford to fly expensive. The 1600 plated version with faction mods and t2 rigs and fleet bonuses is a beast. I use a med neut, 3x 200mm AC and a *cough* Salvager. With armor links and low slaves you will have 16923 armor with 83 89 95 81 what ist 96233 hp in EVE. You can imagine what you can fight and kill in this setup. With skirmish links, a faction disruptor and faction webber you have some semi-kite boat giving small gangs a hard time if you fly the grid right. A small cap booster with Navy 400's is mandatory. ECCM is my option for the last mid. The weakness of the ship are its drones ofc because more ppl don't ignore drones anymore.

The Vexor Navy Issue is surprisingly better than the Ishtar. With a similar setup, a 1600 t2 and 800 t2 plate you will get with armor links an insane buffer tank of over 35K what is battleship class. The DPS is similar to the Ishtar. Without the 800 plate and a drone damage mod you'll get 642 DPS and over 27K armor with armor links. Without armor links it's 26K armor with 77 70 70 78. Issue here is lack of drones. If a buffer VNI fights the buffer Ishtar - talking about my fits - the Ishtar will lose if you don't care about killing the drones.

I am really looking forward to the Ishtar changes. Well, I won't have the option to salvage anymore :-P
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1372 - 2013-07-23 15:29:40 UTC
Ryans Revenge wrote:
Please read Kil2.

Ok so anyone who has ever seen my streams knows I pretty much religiously fly the nano ishtar and have done so since about 2009. You lose a lot of isk from leaving drones behind but they are extremely versatile if flown right which balances them out.

Please let the Vexor Navy Issue be the armor repping tanky vexor. We don't need two of these. There's also the myrmidon for this purpose. Please let the Ishtar retain it's mobility and speed like the rest of the hacs and not limit the drone specialists to slow in your face ships like blasters.

Also giving hacs a mwd bonus then reducing their speed and making them an armor tanking ship makes no ******* sense at all..

Thanks

P.s. If you want to see some highlights checkout twitch.tv/ryanjuk (Again mainly for kil2's purposes)


So what bonuses would you like the Ishtar to have? ... sentry based? heavies? or a new medium variation?

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
Franky Saken
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1373 - 2013-07-23 15:38:25 UTC
Rise, I have a question but I hope you don't mind me as I haven't looked through 70 pages of thread to see if this question was asked.

I thought it was CCP's line of reasoning to have T2s be really specialised at a specific task. For the Vagabond I thought that was the role of anti-tackle (which fits well with kiting gangs) while going pretty fast.

It's hard for me to stroke that image of the vagabond with what now seem to be mixed, and even conflicting, bonusses (shield rep and falloff).

There's no complaining from me about adding basically a free bonus to the Vagabond I just want to know why you've picked this one and not, say, a tracking bonus or something more specific to the "go fast, shoot things while running" that the vaga fit so well for.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1374 - 2013-07-23 15:38:35 UTC
Quote:
I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.

A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).

So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.

But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1?


I think the vigilant definitely outperforms any possible brawling fit a Deimos could ever use... which suggests a more Vaga based approach .. i just don't why anyone would use a HAC to brawl or even snipe when you have ABC's and bc's and Faction cruisers all which can outperform HAC's up close and at extreme ranges.
Also i would like to see the ishtar being a more mobile medium drone based ship sentries don't match mobile ships at all and Nvexor has the heavies.. I would suggest making the muninn an armour version of the vaga and improve the eagle to be a blaster boat the optimal range bonuses do actually help here its the mobility and dps that is missing

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
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1375 - 2013-07-23 15:58:46 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Quote:
I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.

A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).

So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.

But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1?


I think the vigilant definitely outperforms any possible brawling fit a Deimos could ever use... which suggests a more Vaga based approach .. i just don't why anyone would use a HAC to brawl or even snipe when you have ABC's and bc's and Faction cruisers all which can outperform HAC's up close and at extreme ranges.
Also i would like to see the ishtar being a more mobile medium drone based ship sentries don't match mobile ships at all and Nvexor has the heavies.. I would suggest making the muninn an armour version of the vaga and improve the eagle to be a blaster boat the optimal range bonuses do actually help here its the mobility and dps that is missing


CCP forgetting to do the BC nerf is basically the issue.
Medium-sized drone ships based around using medium drones would be nice. Massive bandwidth is really a mixed blessing - yes I want 700 dps, but I don't want drones that go 1km/s and are unable to track anything. Nexor is a start, but really it needs much more drone speed for heavies to be a suitable weapon for a cruiser, it'd make more sense to just drop the bandwidth and up the damage, rather than give it the 10 bonuses required to make heavies usable. I don't get your thing about vigilants - they cannot really tank like a deimos is supposed to be able to. Regarding eagles and muninns, the muninn lacks a little powergrid, but is otherwise fine. Turning everything into plebby mid-range null/barrage/scorch 'skirmishers' is a pretty terrible idea, much like dishonour run-away blaster ships is a terrible idea.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1376 - 2013-07-23 15:59:16 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey again

So we had the tournament this weekend and then I was out of the office yesterday. I'm getting started on this topic again today, but as evidenced by this enormous thread, there's plenty to do. I think we will have another CSM review step before getting the new version (which isn't even finished yet) back to you guys. If things go well, I'll have a new pass for you guys by the end of this week, if things go slow it would probably be start of next week.

Thanks for all the feedback and ideas. A lot of you have different ideas about these ships, but hopefully we can distill some good stuff and do a revision that you're all excited about.


Lovely, please try and spend more than five minutes on it this time around.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1377 - 2013-07-23 16:05:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Quote:
I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.

A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).

So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.

But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1?


I think the vigilant definitely outperforms any possible brawling fit a Deimos could ever use... which suggests a more Vaga based approach .. i just don't why anyone would use a HAC to brawl or even snipe when you have ABC's and bc's and Faction cruisers all which can outperform HAC's up close and at extreme ranges.
Also i would like to see the ishtar being a more mobile medium drone based ship sentries don't match mobile ships at all and Nvexor has the heavies.. I would suggest making the muninn an armour version of the vaga and improve the eagle to be a blaster boat the optimal range bonuses do actually help here its the mobility and dps that is missing


CCP forgetting to do the BC nerf is basically the issue.
Medium-sized drone ships based around using medium drones would be nice. Massive bandwidth is really a mixed blessing - yes I want 700 dps, but I don't want drones that go 1km/s and are unable to track anything. Nexor is a start, but really it needs much more drone speed for heavies to be a suitable weapon for a cruiser, it'd make more sense to just drop the bandwidth and up the damage, rather than give it the 10 bonuses required to make heavies usable. I don't get your thing about vigilants - they cannot really tank like a deimos is supposed to be able to. Regarding eagles and muninns, the muninn lacks a little powergrid, but is otherwise fine. Turning everything into plebby mid-range null/barrage/scorch 'skirmishers' is a pretty terrible idea, much like dishonour run-away blaster ships is a terrible idea.


Well the muninn thing still works with Arties just look at the Tornado falloff bonus.. and the vigilant can probably fit a 1600 plate a deimos struggles to do that .. also vigilant has web bonus and will prob get more HP when they buff them.
Anyway HAC's are wasted on brawling when there are tons of ships that can brawl well with blasters... the vexor being one of them for a cheap price aswell.
Or the navy brutix if you want to pay 200mil rather than use a diemost.

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
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#1378 - 2013-07-23 16:15:43 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Quote:
I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.

A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).

So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.

But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1?


I think the vigilant definitely outperforms any possible brawling fit a Deimos could ever use... which suggests a more Vaga based approach .. i just don't why anyone would use a HAC to brawl or even snipe when you have ABC's and bc's and Faction cruisers all which can outperform HAC's up close and at extreme ranges.


ABCs are bad up close brawling. They have horrible tracking and very weak tanks.


Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#1379 - 2013-07-23 16:17:38 UTC
TBH I think of HACS as fast damage ships with a robust Tank. That would mean that they have to be positioned between BC's and Faction cruisers

In terms of speed: slightly slower then Faction Cruisers, due to is heavier tank, but way faster then BC's. That would mean in the range of the 1600 m/s to 1800 m/s

In terms off tank: Less EHP then BC's but better then Faction Cruisers. That would mean a tank of 60K to 75K EHP

In terms of damage: Better damage then Faction Cruisers and almost the same has BC's (except the old tier 3 ones). That would mean a a damage between 650-750 DPS.

All these salted with the proper virtues of each race:

The minni Hacs will be faster then the others but less tanky.

The Amarr ones will have have more tank but less speed.

The Gallentean will be in the midle with less speed then Minmatar and less tanky then the amarr ones but with more DPS.

The caldari ones with slower speed of them all, with a tank near the Galentean ones but capable of deploying the damage at longer distances.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1380 - 2013-07-23 16:18:44 UTC
Cearain wrote:


ABCs are bad up close brawling. They have horrible tracking and very weak tanks.




Ever see a nano-talos? They brawl pretty good.