These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#1401 - 2013-07-23 18:11:48 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
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.



Yep this is basically how the frigates work and its pretty well balanced.

navy frigates have less ehp and dps but are a bit faster than t2 frigates.

Destroyers (equivalent of battlecruisers)) tend to have slightly more ehp and more dps than t2 but are slower and cant active tank as well. They are also a bit cheaper than t2 firgates.

Pirate faction ships tend to be even faster than the navy frigates and just as much dps as t2 frigates but not the ehp.

It is working well with the frigate classes why not use the same general model with cruisers?

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1402 - 2013-07-23 18:13:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Cearain wrote:
DeadDuck wrote:
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.



Yep this is basically how the frigates work and its pretty well balanced.

navy frigates have less ehp and dps but are a bit faster than t2 frigates.

Destroyers (equivalent of battlecruisers)) tend to have slightly more ehp and more dps than t2 but are slower and cant active tank as well. They are also a bit cheaper than t2 firgates.

Pirate faction ships tend to be even faster than the navy frigates and just as much dps as t2 frigates but not the ehp.

It is working well with the frigate classes why not use the same general model with cruisers?



Yeah that would be great, one big DPS hull and one big tank hull, and let god sort them out.


It would bring balance to the force and all that.
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#1403 - 2013-07-23 18:14:32 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Crazy KSK wrote:
Onictus wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

In conclusion, T3s aren't an issue,
Back to the topic this thread is supposed to be focused on now so Rise can buff HACs into being not terribad.


I agree but people are screaming up and down for T3 nerfs because they are rolling all over the HACs roll whatever that is. My entire point was that HACs need to be buffed to the point that they offer SOME advantage in the roll over the T2s.

Because right now HACs are the only ones that don't.


I think the only advantage i could see them getting right now is price/efficiency but does that even matter in null?



Sure it does, these things don't grow on trees SRP aside line members usually have to buy the hull.

So you choice becomes insurable BC or uninsurable T2 that is going to get targeted first. I have apretty much every HAC except the Eagle and SAC, I usually fly something ~anything~ else over them.


so then if HACs got t1 BC stats with cruiser-esque speed there would be t3 fleets replaced by HAC fleets?

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1404 - 2013-07-23 18:16:58 UTC
Crazy KSK wrote:

so then if HACs got t1 BC stats with cruiser-esque speed there would be t3 fleets replaced by HAC fleets?


Perhaps, they would certainly get more of a shake than the do now.

I've seen basically munnin and zealot fleets and a couple vaga roams in the middle for years.

We have all spent weeks at a time in BCs and T3s at this point.
Snape Dieboldmotor
Minotaur Congress
#1405 - 2013-07-23 18:26:57 UTC
In my mind HACs should be defensive powerhouses. They should have a reputation as being hard to kill especially by large weapons. The ideal weapon to use against a HAC should be medium sized weapons.

That's my 2 ISK...
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#1406 - 2013-07-23 18:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Onictus wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

In conclusion, T3s aren't an issue,
Back to the topic this thread is supposed to be focused on now so Rise can buff HACs into being not terribad.


I agree but people are screaming up and down for T3 nerfs because they are rolling all over the HACs roll whatever that is. My entire point was that HACs need to be buffed to the point that they offer SOME advantage in the roll over the T2s.

Because right now HACs are the only ones that don't.


Agreed.

The sniper role for HACs is definitely dead though, ABCs assured that.

A brawler role (Sac, Ishtar, Deimos, Muninn) and a kiting role (Vaga, Cerb, Eagle, Zealot) would be best in my opinion.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1407 - 2013-07-23 18:30:37 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Onictus wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

In conclusion, T3s aren't an issue,
Back to the topic this thread is supposed to be focused on now so Rise can buff HACs into being not terribad.


I agree but people are screaming up and down for T3 nerfs because they are rolling all over the HACs roll whatever that is. My entire point was that HACs need to be buffed to the point that they offer SOME advantage in the roll over the T2s.

Because right now HACs are the only ones that don't.


Agreed.

The sniper role for HACs is definitely dead though, ABCs assured that.

A brawler role and a kiting role would be best in my opinion.



Like I said big tank and big damage.
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1408 - 2013-07-23 18:30:58 UTC
Snape Dieboldmotor wrote:
In my mind HACs should be defensive powerhouses. They should have a reputation as being hard to kill especially by large weapons. The ideal weapon to use against a HAC should be medium sized weapons.

That's my 2 ISK...


Role Bonus: -75% damage from non-Medium Weapon systems. +75% damage from Medium Weapon systems.

It would be a coding nightmare, but...
zen zubon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1409 - 2013-07-23 18:36:18 UTC
Why most all blaster boats be max dps then die, why not make it tanky, you already made a Max dps no tank blaster boat in the navy exequror, shouldn't the deimos be more like a poor mans blaster proteus?
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1410 - 2013-07-23 18:37:43 UTC
zen zubon wrote:
Why most all blaster boats be max dps then die, why not make it tanky, you already made a Max dps no tank blaster boat in the navy exequror, shouldn't the deimos be more like a poor mans blaster proteus?



Exactly.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#1411 - 2013-07-23 18:41:07 UTC
Personal thoughts:


Maybe scratch the idea of having 8 heavy assault cruisers, 2 per race, rename the skill into 'Assault Cruisers' and offer 2 lines of them: Heavy Assault cruisers and Light Assault cruisers.

Heavy Assault Cruisers are more meant for the hard work, like Sacrileges for example. Sturdy, but kind of slow ships designed for brawling with good to excellent damage output.

Light Assault cruisers more suited towards skirmishing, focusing on mobility, significantly less dps, but by far better in application.

For example a (very unique) bonus like 'x% reduction to Medium [blah] Turret Signature Resolution'. I'm not sure about the math how this is basically just a tracking bonus or something different, but i just don't like the idea of having 8 ships in the more or less same role that already partially are outperformed by other ships.

For example, the Ishtar. It has 125mbit of Drones on a cruiserhull, which is outstanding, but then again, the Navy Vexor and Gila do offer the same only without Tech 2 Resistances and a different slotlayout.



So basically, a new lineup might look like the following:

Heavy Assault Cruisers:
-Sacrilege | HAM Brawler with Missile Explosion Radius instead of capacitor bonus / mwd capacitor bonus?
-Muninn | sturdy artillery Platform for medium to long range engagements / Dmg bonuses, Optimum Bonuses, Tracking Bonuses
-Eagle | sturdy Rail-Platform for medium to long range engagements.
-Ishtar | Drone Brawler, possibly with a huge chunk of mobility (mwd speed) towards heavy drones?

These cruisers would have heavy dps potential and be quite tanky, but lack a lot of mobility and maneuverbility of Light Assault cruisers. Basically, Battlecruisers with smaller sig and similar tanks. 550-600 DPS heated might be a good spot for the long rangers, ~650-700 for the brawlers. Amarr / Caldari with resistance bonus, Gallente / Minmatar with Hitpoint-Bonus?


Light Assault Cruisers:

Zealot | Laser DPS, long range (Scorching to 50-55, maybe?)
Vagabond | Autocannon ship for close range engagements, very good tracking, AB bonus?
Cerberus | HAM / RLM for close range, AB bonus?
Deimos | Rail DPS, long range

These cruisers would have normal cruiser dps potential, but with a lot more mobility and survivability.

Contrary to the Heavy Assault cruisers, the ranges have just switched. Amarr and Gallente for ranging, minmatar and caldari for brawling. Basically, their tanking potential would be lower than that of the HAC lineup, with 40-45k ehp maybe, but combined with good mobility on afterburners and small signatures for the brawlers (90-100m sig, 800m/s with AB?)

Their damage application would be threatening to frigs, but the maximum DPS somewhere around 300-400 dps.



General concept: Long Range Cruisers (Amarr & Gallente LAC, Minmatar & Caldari HAC) get the mwd signature bonus, Close Range Cruisers get Afterburner Speed Bonus.

HAC have huge sig (120-140), LAC have small sig (90-100).

HAC have high damage potential but can't really apply on small targets, LAC have mediocore damage but CAN apply it to small targets
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1412 - 2013-07-23 18:45:04 UTC
Along those lines.

I have some differing opinions, but that is here no there.
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#1413 - 2013-07-23 18:56:31 UTC
Onictus wrote:

Like I said big tank and big damage.


I'm glad that after all this discussion about the need of t2 ships to have specialized functions, we're back to the "t1 cruisers on steroids" idea.

Seriously, a t2 generalist combat ship is conceptually unsound. Kiter and brawler are concepts that apply just as well to faction and t1 ships. Simply splitting HACs into kiters and brawlers is setting them up as a straight upgrade to t1/navy cruiser. T2 ships don't need to be better, they need to be unique (in a useful way).
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1414 - 2013-07-23 19:01:58 UTC
Milton Middleson wrote:
Onictus wrote:

Like I said big tank and big damage.


I'm glad that after all this discussion about the need of t2 ships to have specialized functions, we're back to the "t1 cruisers on steroids" idea.

Seriously, a t2 generalist combat ship is conceptually unsound. Kiter and brawler are concepts that apply just as well to faction and t1 ships. Simply splitting HACs into kiters and brawlers is setting them up as a straight upgrade to t1/navy cruiser. T2 ships don't need to be better, they need to be unique (in a useful way).


Big damage or being hard to pop is always useful.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#1415 - 2013-07-23 19:06:04 UTC
Try creating unique roles for a shipline that was designed as heavy t1 cruisers. They are in a niche with T1 cruisers and Battlecruisers. You can't just make them unique unless you pull them out of that niche completely. You have to make them unique within the niche. Which is basically... a combination. The best of both worlds at the price of long skilltime investments. Granting them light ewar capabilities steps on the Tech 3's intended role. Making them covert would be...

well, that might be actually interesting, but that's something Tech 3's do, too.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1416 - 2013-07-23 19:07:53 UTC
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Try creating unique roles for a shipline that was designed as heavy t1 cruisers. They are in a niche with T1 cruisers and Battlecruisers. You can't just make them unique unless you pull them out of that niche completely. You have to make them unique within the niche. Which is basically... a combination. The best of both worlds at the price of long skilltime investments. Granting them light ewar capabilities steps on the Tech 3's intended role. Making them covert would be...




THIS

Except that T2 cruisers don't have a half bill buy in.
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1417 - 2013-07-23 19:10:35 UTC
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Try creating unique roles for a shipline that was designed as heavy t1 cruisers. They are in a niche with T1 cruisers and Battlecruisers. You can't just make them unique unless you pull them out of that niche completely. You have to make them unique within the niche. Which is basically... a combination. The best of both worlds at the price of long skilltime investments. Granting them light ewar capabilities steps on the Tech 3's intended role. Making them covert would be...

well, that might be actually interesting, but that's something Tech 3's do, too.



Only problem with covert is that that role is already filled by the Recon ship line. AND Ewar, come to think of it...
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
#1418 - 2013-07-23 19:13:36 UTC
Going over this thread back and forth and testing different things in EFT I agree with previous posters that we need two roles for HAC's: Kitting and Brawling, since it is near impossible to balance eight kitting ships. Someone(s) even suggested that we differentiate the names for those two roles: Heavy Assault Cruisers, and the new one, Strike Attack Cruisers. With two groups of ships its easer to iterate on them when later needed.

So basically the HAC would be the brawling ships and the SAC the kitters. To further work upon this they need different roleboni. The suggested 50% reduced Microwarpdrive Signatrue penalty could stay with the kitters and the brawlers get a unique one, I suggest:

50% reduction of heat damage absorbed by modules.


Please bring suggestions/ideas/constructive criticism to this.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1419 - 2013-07-23 19:19:12 UTC
Lord Eremet wrote:
Going over this thread back and forth and testing different things in EFT I agree with previous posters that we need two roles for HAC's: Kitting and Brawling, since it is near impossible to balance eight kitting ships. Someone(s) even suggested that we differentiate the names for those two roles: Heavy Assault Cruisers, and the new one, Strike Attack Cruisers. With two groups of ships its easer to iterate on them when later needed.

So basically the HAC would be the brawling ships and the SAC the kitters. To further work upon this they need different roleboni. The suggested 50% reduced Microwarpdrive Signatrue penalty could stay with the kitters and the brawlers get a unique one, I suggest:

50% reduction of heat damage absorbed by modules.


Please bring suggestions/ideas/constructive criticism to this.


Laudable, but finite.

I think tanking bonuses would be better, but that can also be handled with fittings.
Ja'ho sun
Series of The Ridiculous
#1420 - 2013-07-23 19:24:54 UTC
NetheranE wrote:
The statement that HACs should be split into two roles was probably the best piece of advice said so far.

Change the skill name to "Assault Cruiser," and add in the lore of the two sets of respective AC's that they are either a HEAVY assault cruiser or a SKIRMISH assault cruiser.

Skirmish assault cruisers should be all about hit-and-run or guerilla warfare combat, using their racial specific weapon sets. They would need to be able to get in, do good damage and get out; or be able to dictate against their opponents while applying consistently against them. They should ~10% more base HP points than their t1 counterparts, and be about 35% faster base (Vagabond being slightly faster than this @ ~45%).
Heavy assault cruisers would be fleet doctrine based. While slower and less projecting/applying than their skirmish breathern, their staying power and EWAR resilience is literally unmatched. If there was ever a ship type to put most fleets in their place, these are the ships you want. They should have ~30% more base HP points than their t1 counterparts, but only be about 15% faster base.

Skirmish Assault Cruisers:
Deimos, Vagabond, Cerberus, Zealot
*OPTION 1* Role Bonus: Immune to non-direct interdiction, No drawback for Astronautic Rigs
*OPTION 2* Role Bonus: -80% Microwarpdrive Signature Bloom Penality, No drawback for Astronautic Rigs



This fitting should BARELY fit in both CPU and PG, so to fit HAMs, one would need to lose a BCU and upgrade the PDS to a RCU. This would balance between the two weapon systems. Signature should be ~Deimos, and this should be the least agile/speedy of the Skirmish HACs, but by no more than 5% from its nearest competitor in both categories. Forcing the loss of the LASB for 3 BCSs or LASB+RCU+2 BCSs is a fair option as well. Mass should also be reduced to similar with the Vagabond.



the cost and effort to build does not warrant ewar resilience. immune to bubbles may be much for null warfare, however the tanks (so long as it is at most 15% buff to tank) on hacs are not so extreme (plus just because they can go though bubbles doesn't mean their logi can).
80% is too much for a sig reduction, 65 to 75% would be more in line. there should still be drawbacks for fitting rigs.

idk that the cerb should have another slot, since its better off with the 6th launcher. 6 mids would mean more tank then it needs (as ppl would want enough fitting for a second extender on a cruiser of all things) and another low would make it too fast for its bonuses (nano for last low ofc).

on an off note, why fit a small cap booster to a cruiser. sure u can fit 1 navy 400 but that helps so little for the same cycle time as a med booster which can hold 1 800 or multiple 400s. I understand the fitting cost, but oh man, the sacrifice off cap for higher dps is just not worth it imo. nuets will murder u