These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#281 - 2013-07-29 17:30:57 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery


Have you ever tried to fit 180's or 220's on your hull? -doesn't seem so, 180's are simply drones/frigate assassins and dps difference with 425's is acceptable considering such high tracking of those guns.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#282 - 2013-07-29 17:32:05 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hello!

(snip)

Lets start with role. We've had several presentations and posts and dev blogs now which explain that tech 1 is general and tech 2 is specialized. While this is certainly our high-level goal, it will be compromised occasionally when the specifics of a certain project have other goals that pull in another direction. HACs are an example. The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization', but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers.


Let me first respond to this point. When HAC's were first introduced, ABC's T3s and tiericide weren't even on the horizon. Tech2 was pretty much all "insert_hull on steroids."
Can you PLEASE give me an example of the "the specifics of a certain project [has] other goals that pull in another direction"? Recon? Specialized! Check. Stealth Bombers? Specialized! Check. Covert-Ops? Specialized! Check.

Assault Frigs? ...Ah! This must be the 'certain project' that you had in mind, as the AF lineup is entirely about "T1-On-Steroids"! But wait... AF's get +2 slots over T1, +~50% EHP, better dps, better projection... lots of incentive to pay ~20x the cost, ~200x the training time, no insurance, etc. Where is the +2 slots for HAC? Where is the +XX% EHP? Where is the Roid-rage that I expected...?

CCP Rise wrote:
With the rebalance effort here, we discussed entirely new roles or specializations that would be more in-line with the high level ideas we have laid out for all EVE ships, but ultimately decided that it wasn't worth completely throwing out the ships we had. Not only do they have a lot of history in the game, which leads to attachment, but they also have a lot of legitimate use already which we wanted to avoid disrupting if possible.


I don't suppose that you'd be willing to share the "high level ideas [you] have laid out for all EVE ships"? No? Just a hint? Please? No?

Then perhaps you'd care to explain why those ideas would necessitate "completely throwing out the ships we had"? None of the ideas/proposals/wish-lists in the previous thread (nor this one, so far) would necessitate throwing out ANYTHING. I've Said it before and here it is again: Tiericide to date has done great things for the landscape of warfare in Eve. Revolutionary things. Please don't let the HAC re-balancing be the point of failure. These hulls can be re-purposed to also do great and revolutionary things for the face of warfare.

As for "lot of legitimate use already," tell that argument to the people who previously flew what are now logi or disruption frigs/cruisers as combat/mining boats. I'm sure they'd LOVE to hear how you are suddenly concerned with changing the role of a hull. The hull owners WILL GET OVER IT, as long as the changes are overall positive. you're CCP FFS! The hand of the Almighty Sandbox Owner! Dump a F^c%ing Truck Load into the box!

CCP Rise wrote:

Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.


Yes, we would like their role (roles?) more clear and pronounced. How does this pass clarify the role? Anyone? Anyone? I get that you're in love with the MWD bloom bonus, but we're not.
"HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment." I think that the Deimos missed this memo. The unofficial name change will live on, I'm afraid.
"...namely electronics..." Again, you've lost me on this one. I must have missed, somewhere in the 89 pages of the last HAC thread of which I read every post, the person who suggested that the only real thing that HACs needed was some more sensor strength...

Don't get me wrong on this one. I DO like that the sensor strength and cap recharge have been buffed (mostly... poor, poor Sac, and yes, I ran the numbers. No more dual armor reppers for that one. Buffer tank only, gentlemen.), but again, the overarching sense that I get is that CCP/Rise in specific is not willing to define a capital 'R' Role for the HACs.

CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, lets get to specifics. The big takeaway from feedback (both CSM and public thread) was that we have more room to make HACs more powerful without putting too much pressure on their competition, so watch for that as you read through all the changes. Note: the differences appearing in (parentheses) are as compared to the version of ship on TQ currently, not the first iteration.


Yes, there's LOTS of room to make HACs more powerful... but the competition, right now, NEEDS SOME PRESSURE. ABC's? More DPS and WAY cheaper. T3s? More DPS, More Tank, More speed, Smaller Sig. Navy? Not enough Role difference to make a difference and cheaper. T1s FFS? Let's not go there.

[/me is mostly underwhelmed]

+2 fitting slots over T1, find a Role bonus that makes HACs stand out.

PS. Thanks for putting another CPU into the Ishtar.
sten mattson
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#283 - 2013-07-29 17:34:05 UTC
zealot needs drones :(

IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!!
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#284 - 2013-07-29 17:34:58 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.

I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.

The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.

The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues

Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.

If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.

If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it.


Oh right rails = lots of falloff and blasters have amazing optimal range. And I mean when you are in optimal range that falloff is helping tracking right!

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
#285 - 2013-07-29 17:35:14 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
Phox Jorkarzul wrote:
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
Phox Jorkarzul wrote:
RISE how about a RoF bonus over the MWD one

EDIT

Or tell me why that was not a good call...


A triple damage bonus on a blaster ship would be kind of silly.

Michael Harari wrote:

The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery


Medium autocannons awful for kiting? Have I accidentally started posting in mirror universe eve-o?


Well it can lose one of the Damage for a tank or tracking, or 5% increase to speed for the MWD....which wouldn't be that bad


You're a ******* idiot, do you know that?


I see that Grarr Dexx of Snuffbox has called me an idiot without giving a clear reason why. Since he's part of the "kings of lowsec" he must be right. Who am I to have an opinion on how a ship could better in my eyes and more useful. Bow to Snuff, Bow to Snuff.

Blasters for life

https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#286 - 2013-07-29 17:36:30 UTC
Dear Rise and/or Fozzie,

Quick point from the perspective of people who actually fight in W-space: These are basically useless to us next to the Tech 3.

These are great if you can dictate range. If you jump through a gate and already have 10k on the gate, and are expecting people to not be sitting right on it, and have a minute before they can jump back if they aggress, yeah, these will work great, I like them for that.

We need ships that can jump through a wormhole into a fleet sitting at zero, appear within 5km, and not instantly die. Right now that's the tech 3, and mostly the proteus. We were hoping that with the HAC rebalance, we would have some kind of alternative options. We do not.

If the T3 rebalance also makes them so tankless that they become too fragile to jump into a hostile fleet, we don't really have reason to jump through a hole unless we vastly outnumber the enemy force. If it doesn't, then we still have no alternatives to the T3, and yeah, we know that some T3 fits right now are kind of broken.

As much as W-space PvP is a minority compared to k-space pvp, in rebalancing cruiser-sized ships, and T2 and T3 ships in particular, please do keep us in mind. You don't have to tailor them to our needs, but it would be nice if we ended up with cruiser-sized ships that were remotely functional when they jump through a WH and brawl at 0. The sacrilege is the closest to that of this set, and just put that next to a HAM legion to realize how inadequate it really is.

Just keep us in mind.

Regards,

Wormhole PVP
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#287 - 2013-07-29 17:39:41 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.

I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.

The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.

The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues

Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.

If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.

If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it.



The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#288 - 2013-07-29 17:40:06 UTC
Orakkus wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

what?


All T2 resists are RACIAL based. Not based on being armor or shield. Minamtar have rsist improved against Amarr, Amarr have resist improved agaisnt minmatar. Gallente and Caldari hate each other the same way.

It has no correlation to how the ship should tank!


They are both actually. You don't see Amarr Tech 2 ships with improved shield resists do you? Gallente? How about Tech 2 armor resists for Caldari? No, my concern is that the Muninn has, up until this time, Tech 2 shield resists, which wasn't that great for a 3 midslot sniper HAC. So, with the higher armor rate and significantly more low-slots, it is reasonably for me to ask if the Tech 2 bonuses that were normally applied to shields, were instead going to be applied to the armor on the Muninn.



Dude AMMAR HAVE SHIELD AND ARMOR improved resists. As MINAMTARE and ANY race!! The bonus is applied in BOTH layers!!!!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#289 - 2013-07-29 17:43:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.

I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.

The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.

The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues

Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.

If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.

If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it.



The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails.


Then I have nothing to tell you cause I would not send that ship in at point blank range to go shoot a target with ion blasters... I'll bring a thorax, shoot it with neutrons, and laugh as the ship blows up.

The Deimos will not survive under fire

Yaay!!!!
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#290 - 2013-07-29 17:44:13 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile


As always with Fozzie and I there is only Soon no Soon tm

If you feel cheated because of the Ishtar "only having three bonuses" you may want to consider that actually it has 7

Sentry drone optimal
Sentry drone tracking
Heavy drone mwd speed
Heavy drone tracking
Drone damage
Drone hitpoints
Drone control range

Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvements for HACs makes the Ishtar look very scary.



Thats like saying a hybrid gun bonus is really two bonuses because it applies to rails and blasters.. But i know what you're saying. also even with that bonus Ogres still get kited by BC's....


Ok now to the ships

Sacrilige

1. I liked the sac being able to run a Medium repper and staying cap stable.. I'm not sure if it still can.. If it can't i'm going to be sad.

2. I HATE HATE HATE that velocity bonus. Thats basically giving in to the people who want to be able to use the sac for the exact same thing as the damn zealot and thats silly aHac gangs. Should have given it a less blob friendly bonus like a application bonus to keep it different from the zealot.

Zealot
I would go into my hate of counter productive bonuses Rof/capRe but the zealot is largely fine..


Cerberus

While my main complaint about the last version of the cerb was it being slow as balls. Which you seem to have addressed some.

The fact remains that flight time is a really **** bonus... Should give it an application bonus or just another velocity bonus instead.

Eagle

The eagle still has one problem.. The fact that it has a great tank while opperating at a range where almost no other ships that could be with it in a fleet will have a great tank. So it will be chilling with 60k ehp with lol sniper zealots with 10k ehp. Not really a critizizm of the ship it self i just don't see a great use for it. Also you know, it gets outperformed by tier 3's in almost every way.

Deimos

"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."

Rep bonus? Its the only traditional tanking bonus that isn't represented in the Hac's... i really hate how i feel like this Demios was balanced around the idea of using a shield tank........

Ishtar

Seems that my complaining about the bay bonus worked \o/

I think splitting up sentry drones and heavy drones into two different bonuses is extremelly silly.. Don't really see the point of that.

Vagabond

Why does the vagabond get five bonuses?

Thats basically what you have done with the speed thing.. The sac doesn't get all the awesome cap it used to have, why does the vagabond get to be 35% faster than any other HAC? Don't think its weak enough to warrant that....

Other then that i don't really care about it, i just think thats really stupid.

Munin

Pretty sure i will continue to not use the munin..


other HAcs got their speed boosted as well. If you want to count that as a bonus.. then the cerberus got the old vagabond speed bonus as well now! Just stop being melodramatic!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#291 - 2013-07-29 17:46:02 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery


Have you ever tried to fit 180's or 220's on your hull? -doesn't seem so, 180's are simply drones/frigate assassins and dps difference with 425's is acceptable considering such high tracking of those guns.



The geatest loss is on the effrective range. 425 mm are the only ones that allow you to do USEFUL damage on the border of tackle range.


"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#292 - 2013-07-29 17:49:00 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.

I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.

The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.

The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues

Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.

If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.

If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it.



The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails.


Then I have nothing to tell you cause I would not send that ship in at point blank range to go shoot a target with ion blasters... I'll bring a thorax, shoot it with neutrons, and laugh as the ship blows up.

The Deimos will not survive under fire


Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them.
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#293 - 2013-07-29 17:54:08 UTC
When can we expect to see the round 3 changes? Because you hardly did anything of note, other than fixing the obvious ishtar CPU problem. The added ECM / Cap was a very good step in the right direction. However everything else is really terrible ingards to HAC's, their role, and their role bonus.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#294 - 2013-07-29 18:02:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile


As always with Fozzie and I there is only Soon no Soon tm

If you feel cheated because of the Ishtar "only having three bonuses" you may want to consider that actually it has 7

Sentry drone optimal
Sentry drone tracking
Heavy drone mwd speed
Heavy drone tracking
Drone damage
Drone hitpoints
Drone control range

Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvements for HACs makes the Ishtar look very scary.



Thats like saying a hybrid gun bonus is really two bonuses because it applies to rails and blasters.. But i know what you're saying. also even with that bonus Ogres still get kited by BC's....


Ok now to the ships

Sacrilige

1. I liked the sac being able to run a Medium repper and staying cap stable.. I'm not sure if it still can.. If it can't i'm going to be sad.

2. I HATE HATE HATE that velocity bonus. Thats basically giving in to the people who want to be able to use the sac for the exact same thing as the damn zealot and thats silly aHac gangs. Should have given it a less blob friendly bonus like a application bonus to keep it different from the zealot.

Zealot
I would go into my hate of counter productive bonuses Rof/capRe but the zealot is largely fine..


Cerberus

While my main complaint about the last version of the cerb was it being slow as balls. Which you seem to have addressed some.

The fact remains that flight time is a really **** bonus... Should give it an application bonus or just another velocity bonus instead.

Eagle

The eagle still has one problem.. The fact that it has a great tank while opperating at a range where almost no other ships that could be with it in a fleet will have a great tank. So it will be chilling with 60k ehp with lol sniper zealots with 10k ehp. Not really a critizizm of the ship it self i just don't see a great use for it. Also you know, it gets outperformed by tier 3's in almost every way.

Deimos

"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."

Rep bonus? Its the only traditional tanking bonus that isn't represented in the Hac's... i really hate how i feel like this Demios was balanced around the idea of using a shield tank........

Ishtar

Seems that my complaining about the bay bonus worked \o/

I think splitting up sentry drones and heavy drones into two different bonuses is extremelly silly.. Don't really see the point of that.

Vagabond

Why does the vagabond get five bonuses?

Thats basically what you have done with the speed thing.. The sac doesn't get all the awesome cap it used to have, why does the vagabond get to be 35% faster than any other HAC? Don't think its weak enough to warrant that....

Other then that i don't really care about it, i just think thats really stupid.

Munin

Pretty sure i will continue to not use the munin..


other HAcs got their speed boosted as well. If you want to count that as a bonus.. then the cerberus got the old vagabond speed bonus as well now! Just stop being melodramatic!


So the Vagabond isn't 32% faster than the cerb? It already has a great tank, silly sig and just great bonuses all around, it doesn't need to be that much faster. Should be the fastest imo, just not head and shoulders faster like it is now.

Edit: Also since the topic came up.. Can you make the thorax capable of fitting a 1600 plate and electrons without a ACR? because that kind of ruins the ship. ktnx.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#295 - 2013-07-29 18:02:47 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:

Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them.


well since its a shield tank you can always use a reactor core II or a rig slot right? i mean in the meta everyone knows just how op the diemos is.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#296 - 2013-07-29 18:03:58 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:

Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them.


well since its a shield tank you can always use a reactor core II or a rig slot right? i mean in the meta everyone knows just how op the diemos is.


I think he assumed you weren't making an awful shield thorax.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

MinutemanKirk
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#297 - 2013-07-29 18:04:48 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
[SACRILEGE

We wanted to get rid of the cap recharge bonus, as it is both kind of dated and strange


Glad you saw the wisdom in not wasting a bonus slot on a useless bonus.

CCP Rise wrote:
Deimos

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.


You have got to be shitting me. X



I was about to say the same thing.

Here are a few "compelling replacements" to this absolutely outdated and worthless (especially with the 4th mid and increased cap recharge rate) bonus:
Tracking bonus. If it's too OP than make the ship slower so it can't apply that DPS (blasters) as well.
An MWD SPEED bonus. Again, if it's too OP in the current form then tone down the total base speed.
An AB speed bonus. Something that none of the other HAC's would have while still fitting in current meta.
(I can't believe I'm saying this) An Armor repair bonus. Fits with current Gallente designs, within the parameters of the new Minmatar philosophies, and might encourage more solo work with them. This should, I believe, be the last considered as armor repair bonuses have been proven to be weak in the past.

On a positive note, I do like most of the other changes. Ishtar has some fitting space and had an outdated bonus removed. Vaga should be useful again and I should finally have a reason to fly Caldari HACs.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#298 - 2013-07-29 18:04:48 UTC
Chessur wrote:
When can we expect to see the round 3 changes? Because you hardly did anything of note, other than fixing the obvious ishtar CPU problem. The added ECM / Cap was a very good step in the right direction. However everything else is really terrible ingards to HAC's, their role, and their role bonus.


indeed i was hopping for a industrial mrk 2 or gal bs mark II...

but instead that wow factor was replaced by a wtf factor.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#299 - 2013-07-29 18:06:30 UTC
In case anyone wonders:

New rail deimos (no cap changes yet)

http://i.imgur.com/jOAaNsy.png

(thats more ehp/speed then pretty much any t3 any t3.

Dps graph comparing it to all t3s dps wise bar the talos (which is op) transverasl 0

http://i.imgur.com/aWKw7RW.png

With full transverasl:


http://i.imgur.com/DCBNOlZ.png

(red line is deimos btw).


totally non op, its totally not a higher ehp, speedier talos with way better tracking.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#300 - 2013-07-29 18:06:54 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:

Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them.


well since its a shield tank you can always use a reactor core II or a rig slot right? i mean in the meta everyone knows just how op the diemos is.


I think he assumed you weren't making an awful shield thorax.


pro tip never assume

it makes an
ass out of
u and
meBlink

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.