These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#1481 - 2013-07-24 10:24:00 UTC
I made a chart so people can easily see the difference between the three vexor hulls.

[PIC] Excel chart

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#1482 - 2013-07-24 10:26:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyaron wars
As I understand CCP viewed all these ships from fleet perspective while completely forgetting about solo/small scale gangs. I kind of liked new bonuses for these ships, but I don't understand why there's no EHP/PG/CPU/ECCM buff for them?
If we will take an Ishtar as an example, that ship cannot compete with Vexor/Navy vexor fitting/HP wise. Sacrilege still has a pitiful DPS (390 or something), there are many T1 cruiser able to outtank it and outdps it. So basically we have a ship that takes long time to train for, more isk to pay for and less things to do with. I loved to fly dualrep armor ishtar back in a days. Now it's completely worthless due to lack of HP vs incoming damage.
I still think boosting some HP and giving these ships a chance to fit slightly better compared to lower tier ships would be nice.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1483 - 2013-07-24 10:31:05 UTC
Lucine Delacourt wrote:
My first thoughts:

- Double web Deimos seems like it could be better than most are giving it credit for.

- 40% Scout Drone damage per level or something similar instead of the generic 20% drone damage bonus would promote hit and run Ishtar tactics and separate it from the plethora of cruiser/BC sized drone hulls.

- The Sac still seems a bit lackluster, a little more CPU/Cap if you want a Neut or Tinker setup or switch a high for a low if you want it buffered.

- The ASB Vaga will eat faces.

- Zealot is pretty close. Not sure what to do without OPing it.



An ishtar with a sign radius of a frigate fitted with MSE's using battleship guns (sentries) DDA's sentry rigs and 40% bonus would not be OP at all, really.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1484 - 2013-07-24 10:37:12 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:



An ishtar with a sign radius of a frigate fitted with MSE's using battleship guns (sentries) DDA's sentry rigs and 40% bonus would not be OP at all, really.



Nope because would get jacked up by a frigate.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1485 - 2013-07-24 10:43:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
Stridsflygplan wrote:
the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?



why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere...

the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct

to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed.

when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus.






Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters.

Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it.


i dont get your "irony" i never porposed the things you said and wont...
the problem lies in "the same job" and "cheaper" it should be better then those ships and and a little bit diffrent. mostly you see stabber/fstabber in small fleets (2-5 ships).

vaga should be able to be flown solo effectively (but not easy).
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1486 - 2013-07-24 10:49:41 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:



An ishtar with a sign radius of a frigate fitted with MSE's using battleship guns (sentries) DDA's sentry rigs and 40% bonus would not be OP at all, really.



Nope because would get jacked up by a frigate.


Can't fit light drones?-imho that frigate would have hard time killing it unless with support, except if it's another faction fitted passive shield ishtar.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#1487 - 2013-07-24 10:52:11 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
VAGABOND - ... This has nice racial continuity ...


Give the Jaguar a 7.5% bonus to shield boosting, then this statement will be true.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1488 - 2013-07-24 10:52:53 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
Stridsflygplan wrote:
the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?



why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere...

the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct

to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed.

when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus.






Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters.

Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it.


i dont get your "irony" i never porposed the things you said and wont...
the problem lies in "the same job" and "cheaper" it should be better then those ships and and a little bit diffrent. mostly you see stabber/fstabber in small fleets (2-5 ships).

vaga should be able to be flown solo effectively (but not easy).



And vaga already can, hit&run tactics used by many vaga pilots with asb fits work dam good and are very nasty setups, if Rise keeps the rep bonus it will just be the fastest solo hit&run ship in the game ratters and solo dudes frigate pilots should be really afraid at the sight of one of these.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1489 - 2013-07-24 10:53:07 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Stridsflygplan wrote:
the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast?



why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere...

the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct

to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed.

when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus.






It remains that every time they touched the ship on last 7 years it got slower and slowr. It needs to STOP or in another 5years it will be slower than a carrier

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1490 - 2013-07-24 10:53:51 UTC
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
VAGABOND - ... This has nice racial continuity ...


Give the Jaguar a 7.5% bonus to shield boosting, then this statement will be true.



oo yes.. THAT I could droll upon :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
GallowsCalibrator
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1491 - 2013-07-24 10:57:29 UTC  |  Edited by: GallowsCalibrator
I put something up on Twitter to the effect, but figured it'd get better discussion here:

Rather than having all the HACs have the MWD role bonus, have 4 of them with a 50% bonus to rep amount of Ancillary shield and Armour repairers? The idea being that they have some obscene solo survivability/burst tank, making them more obviously Combat ships, whilst the other 4 with the MWD bonuses fit more Attack-based roles (rush in, blow the crap out of things).

(The reasoning on making the bonus ancillary-only is to make these tanks fearsome, but not sustainable.)

With this idea, the Zealot, Cerberus, Deimos and Vagabond would keep the MWD role bonus, whilst the Sacrilege, Eagle, Ishtar and Muninn get tankier.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#1492 - 2013-07-24 10:58:06 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
VAGABOND - ... This has nice racial continuity ...


Give the Jaguar a 7.5% bonus to shield boosting, then this statement will be true.



oo yes.. THAT I could droll upon :P

Cool
it would certainly benefit me as one who loves the Jaguar. it doesn't need the optimal range bonus if I use autocannons P

also, droll = ?
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#1493 - 2013-07-24 11:00:01 UTC
GallowsCalibrator wrote:
I put something up on Twitter to the effect, but figured it'd get better discussion here:

Rather than having all the HACs have the MWD role bonus, have 4 of them with a 50% bonus to rep amount of Ancillary shield and Armour repairers? The idea being that they have some obscene solo survivability/burst tank, making them more obviously Combat ships, whilst the other 4 with the MWD bonuses fit more Attack-based roles (rush in, blow the crap out of things).

(The reasoning on making the bonus ancillary-only is to make these tanks fearsome, but not sustainable.)

With this idea, the Zealot, Cerberus, Deimos and Vagabond would keep the MWD role bonus, whilst the Sacrilege, Eagle, Ishtar and Muninn get tankier.

You have the wrong idea of Combat and Attack roles.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1494 - 2013-07-24 11:19:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

...... ratters and solo dudes frigate pilots should be really afraid at the sight of one of these.


yeah and thats the problem alot of ships can be dangerous to pve fitted ratters tahst nothing special.
and there are enough ships that can be hard for solo frig pilots too.

there needs to be a ship that can maybe pick of a ship from a small pvp fleet and get away with it of flown good.
thats why i advocated it to loose falloff range get tracking bonus (large enough to not loose major parts of its dmg to its speed) so it can have a arty fit fight in kite range (longpoint) and get away.

so it would be diffrent from a stabbe/fstabber but powerfull and unique.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#1495 - 2013-07-24 11:23:20 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Mole Guy wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Ever think the issue with all cruisers and battlecruisers were the fitting of oversized modules? Which became possible due to the rigs (giving more grid to allow these fittings).

It would be easier to "properly" balance all these ships by restricting the battleship modules from being used on cruisers. A 100mn afterburner on a cruiser? That's a battleship engine. 1600mm plates, those are battleship plates, xlarge ancillary shield boosters, battleship (heck technically capital ship) mods on a non battleship hull... Heck I think there are ships that can fit two of those.

You can actually get the full effects of the changes as a whole by gong through the typical fits, which always involve in someway shape or form, fitting the largest tank mods in the game, on a ship they should have Never been able to fit them.

i agree 100%
altho i have a 1600mm plate on my sac, it shouldnt be able to fit. it IS a bs module.
if u look at it tho, if we only fit 800's or 400's even, cruisers would be SO damn weak we wouldnt undock anywhere.

xlarge asb on a cruiser? no way...but we couldnt survive any other way. imagine a sac against a autocannon nado with only 1 400 plate...
it would be over before it started.
give the mods a boost, but limit them to a certain ship size might fix it, but what if i want to be bait? 3x 1600's on my damnation etc.

if we had speed, if we had tank, or something else all together, we might survive with 400 plate or medium shield xtenders.
i personally dont want to waste the cash trying to make it work...


This is a common misconception. Just because 1600 plates require the most power grid, they are not "Battleship" modules. The wonderful thing about this game is that you can come up with novel, exotic fits using different modules. Your proposed change would kill that.

I disagree with you both 100%.


Exotic Fits?!?! There is nothing exotic about it, its becoming the "Standard". You come with anything BUT that, ejected from fleet, incursion, group, etc.

And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers.

Yaay!!!!
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
#1496 - 2013-07-24 11:23:27 UTC
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
VAGABOND - ... This has nice racial continuity ...

Give the Jaguar a 7.5% bonus to shield boosting, then this statement will be true.

Not the place, but hell YES please.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#1497 - 2013-07-24 11:38:34 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers.

And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1498 - 2013-07-24 12:01:11 UTC
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers.

And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted.

Looking at the Zelot, a single 1600mm reinforced steel plate II add 2x the armor HP as the ship has to start with but somehow only would account for 23% of the total mass after put on the ship.
How does that make any sense?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1499 - 2013-07-24 12:02:18 UTC
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers.

And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted.


My mega had three of them when it was pressed into fleet duty. We used to fly triple played geddons in the south.

Restrict the plates and extenders, you just cut like 40% eHP off everything south of battleships.

And bye bye passive medium tanks while you are at it.

Bad idea. Those modules were never size indexed.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1500 - 2013-07-24 12:07:56 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
And yes those are oversized and should have never been capable of being fit on cruisers.

And as luck would have it, THEY ARE FITTABLE ON CRUISERS. Battleships just have enough power to have more of them fitted.

Looking at the Zelot, a single 1600mm reinforced steel plate II add 2x the armor HP as the ship has to start with but somehow only would account for 23% of the total mass after put on the ship.
How does that make any sense?


Well at least you are taking that idea and running with it.

You know what armour for space craft really is? It's three or four layers of thin material with gaps between then, the first couple absorb the directed energy, and the last two protect the hull.

I used to test it for NASA.....so yeah twice the armour for a quarter of the mass does make sense.

.....and leave sense out of my eve, we DON'T want real physics around here.