These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 - round two

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#141 - 2013-07-29 14:55:40 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Roime wrote:
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Roime wrote:
Much better, but there's a typo in the OP- Ishtar has one slot less than the others.



Trolling.....?? its a drone boat, they always have 1 less for having drone utility.

As for the Vaga OP people, I hope your Tornado Alphaed into oblivion, gods know it would only take one and maybe a friend.



Drone utility? What's that? Do you mean giving up all your dps to get the same utility as all other ships?


Because 500 dps without using a single pg or cpu are so not worth giving up a slot for....


^
QFT
Drahlios Orrewuh
Unleashed' Fury
The Initiative.
#142 - 2013-07-29 14:56:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Drahlios Orrewuh
Ok, all the favourite ships were fixed quiet well. At least now we can see some direction on HACs and that you want them in new purpose. Maybe change the name of the ship class, too? As for now it sounds like THE damage boats, but they are not ;-)

I am worried by the Deimos though. Don't know how the other guys think about it and maybe let us fokus some discussion on that ship.
So ccp wanted HACs to tank more. Why do you cut off such a luge chunk of armor off the (obviously) armor tanking deimos? it has lowest shield/armor rates of all the HACs, still it is designed to be more close range?
Sounds to me like a one hit candidate.

I would suggest you remove 300 hull hp, set the armor hp back to 2050 or 2000 and give it a little chance to survive the first alpha.
Also: blasters... first they were buffed, then they were slowed down again. That tracking problem added towards a range problem is something that was conseiled by the huge advantage of the talos. But Talos uses large Blasters, please consider that one, and crappy small/med blasters were never that famous.
Just rethink about adding something to those part of the Weapon group Blasters or the Deimos to make it more comparable to the other HACs.

Oh, and of the deimos should be designed as a kiting long range ship... still cannot see that. maybe i got you all wrong. But that ship really was flying under the radar for years now ;)
Tuxedo Catfish
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2013-07-29 14:57:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tuxedo Catfish
Quote:

For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.


Give it a tracking bonus! Please! It was a wonderful change on the Thorax, it would be the perfect change here.

The Deimos is never going to compete with the Eagle at extreme range, let alone with real sniping ships. Making it more of an anti-support ship makes much more sense, and would also give it more solo viability (which it'll need if it's losing the high slot it could have spent on a neut.)
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#144 - 2013-07-29 14:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Pesadel0
Thank you for giving a bonus to a ship (vagabond) when we minmatar players said that it wasn't needed and we would like more to remain a skirmish ship, basically saying "hey guys you can still fly and dont use the bonus" is completely ******** and basically telling us to f*** off .

I find it funny also that you want us to shield tank and be awesome with only 4 meds , i mean 2 are used for a MWD and the booster that leaves us with what 2 other mids to what ? 1 point and another slot to put a tank? Or you want us to dual tank using our 5 lows?
Lucien Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2013-07-29 14:58:30 UTC
Much better, looks like you really gave it a thought this time around.

The SAC is nearly perfect, but in all honesty why keep the utility high? Either add a 6th Launcher which would really boost it's damage or add 6th low to turn it into a more viable Tank. Do one of these and the discussion about the SAC will be over at last.

Cheers
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union
Hatakani Trade Winds Combine
#146 - 2013-07-29 14:59:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rovinia
The high sensor strengh alone is a huge buff and will make HAC's the most resilient Combat ships against ECM (ab)use. It's not a huge niche, but they at last finaly have a niche Blink

Also like the other changes, looks much bether than the first draft. Only thing i miss is the addition of a 3th Rig slot.
sten mattson
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#147 - 2013-07-29 14:59:54 UTC
Lucien Cain wrote:
Much better, looks like you really gave it a thought this time around.

The SAC is nearly perfect, but in all honesty why keep the utility high? Either add a 6th Launcher which would really boost it's damage or add 6th low to turn it into a more viable Tank. Do one of these and the discussion about the SAC will be over at last.

Cheers


it needs the utility high, for anti tackle.

aside from that , i agree that it needs one more low and it would be prefect

IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!!
Kururugi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#148 - 2013-07-29 15:00:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Kururugi
Crazy KSK wrote:
text

DUDE PLEASE, COMMAS, PERIODS!
That being said, I'm in favor of giving each hac 1 extra slot.
NaltDi
Russian Thunder Squad
Against ALL Authorities
#149 - 2013-07-29 15:00:29 UTC
Vagabond:
Give the **** agillity bonus instead shield boost bonus. Please.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#150 - 2013-07-29 15:01:49 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
Was nothing learned from the Drake/Tengu years? Straight


I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people learned how to firewall.

Sure if you only fly nullsec blobs. How about solo small gang FW? Anyway, firewall is an imperfect solution to no specific missile defense ewar. Firewalling did not kill off the Drake omnipresence. It was the HM and ship changes that finally put it in its place. Meanwhile smarties have always been a better drone defense.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#151 - 2013-07-29 15:03:57 UTC
Rovinia wrote:
The high sensor strengh alone is a huge buff and will make HAC's the most resilient Combat ships against ECM (ab)use. It's not a huge niche, but they at last finaly have a niche Blink

Also like the other changes, looks much bether than the first draft.


NANANANANAAANANANANA T3s + dIssolution sub NANANANANANANANAANANA
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#152 - 2013-07-29 15:05:11 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

MUNINN

Lowering Signature Radius a bit but no large changes here.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

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

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed

Slot layout: 6H(-1), 3M, 6L(+1); 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-2)
Fittings: 1160 PWG, 355 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1300(+50) / 255s (-80s) / 5.1/s (+1.4)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+25km) / 294 / 6(+1)
Sensor strength: 21 Ladar(+8)
Signature radius: 125(-5)


Okay, I am curious about one thing, and one thing only in regards to your changes to the Muninn. Will the new Muninn have Tech 2 Armor resists or Tech 2 shield resists, in line with the "versatility" of Minmatar racial ships?

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#153 - 2013-07-29 15:05:53 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Pesadel0 wrote:
Thank you for giving a bonus to a ship (vagabond) when we minmatar players said that it wasn't needed and we would like more to remain a skirmish ship, basically saying "hey guys you can still fly and dont use the bonus" is completely ******** and basically telling us to f*** off .

I find it funny also that you want us to shield tank and be awesome with only 4 meds , i mean 2 are used for a MWD and the booster that leaves us with what 2 other mids to what ? 1 point and another slot to put a tank? Or you want us to dualçç tank using our 5 lows?



^ This.

HACs need one more slot each, 5th mid for the Vaga, 6th low for the Sac, 6th high for the Diemost, 4th mid for the Muninn etc.
HACs need more tank, and more DPS, or they will be out sniped by ABCs, outtanked by BCs, and out cost'ed by their T1 variants.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
DeadDuck
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#154 - 2013-07-29 15:07:02 UTC
OK LOVE IT NOW TAKE THEM ASAP TO SINGULARITY Big smile
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#155 - 2013-07-29 15:09:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
great 2nd pass. the sac cap bonus is freakin sic. and the velocity change is the one i axed for...well, that and burner, but hey.
still not there tho imo.

slight change.
1. role wasnt very defined. if its just a better t1, its not powerful enough compared to t1.
2. cost is too high to justify this ship.
3. training too high to justify this ship.

either make it cheaper and make the training time less or make all of the ships have a bump in dps across the board.

i like the addition of range and drones on the sac.
the rest had great changes.
very impressed with round 2.

cant wait to jump in the sac, turn everything on and stay cap stable.

atleast it will have cap when it dies.

needs -1 high, +1 low.

but, we will see.
Ju0ZaS
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2013-07-29 15:11:22 UTC
The deimos would be far better off having a tracking bonus instead of the MWD bonus.

Are you going to fight me or do you expect to bore me to death with your forum pvp?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#157 - 2013-07-29 15:13:09 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Roime wrote:
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Roime wrote:
Much better, but there's a typo in the OP- Ishtar has one slot less than the others.



Trolling.....?? its a drone boat, they always have 1 less for having drone utility.

As for the Vaga OP people, I hope your Tornado Alphaed into oblivion, gods know it would only take one and maybe a friend.



Drone utility? What's that? Do you mean giving up all your dps to get the same utility as all other ships?


Because 500 dps without using a single pg or cpu are so not worth giving up a slot for....


Destroyble, easily avoidable dps. It has less grid and CPU than all others, meaning that even with empty highs it can't fit any more tank than the others after turrets/launchers.

Not to mention that having only drones as dps works only in sov blobs and PVE.

.
DeadDuck
Trust Doesn't Rust
Goonswarm Federation
#158 - 2013-07-29 15:14:23 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.

move the utility high to an extra low.

love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying


Well I also like the sacrilege and with the proposed changes this ship will be very, very dangerous. TBH I will be flying them again =)
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#159 - 2013-07-29 15:14:53 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Deacon Abox wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
Was nothing learned from the Drake/Tengu years? Straight


I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people learned how to firewall.

Sure if you only fly nullsec blobs. How about solo small gang FW? Anyway, firewall is an imperfect solution to no specific missile defense ewar. Firewalling did not kill off the Drake omnipresence. It was the HM and ship changes that finally put it in its place. Meanwhile smarties have always been a better drone defense.


You want to realpost?

The drake was abusive because it was a ridiculously cheap platform with average DPS and a decidedly above average tank. The Tengu (HML tengu especially) was abusive because of a miniscule sig radius, exceptional speed with AB, and a ridiculously large tank.

The Cerberus gets some of these - speed, damage and sig similar to the Tengu, but considerably lower EHP, cheaper than the Tengu but quite a bit more expensive than the drake. It's certainly strong, but probably okay.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#160 - 2013-07-29 15:16:27 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos?


Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos.


Fair enough... Though I would have loved to see a heat reduction bonus like on the t3 subsystem. Something like 5% per level... That would give the ship some staying power without op it.

I dunno maybe its just me but having a bonus just for mwd kinda pigeon holes the ship to mwd only.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.