These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
kraiklyn Asatru
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#341 - 2013-07-29 19:32:37 UTC
Dear Rise,

CCP wrote:

Name: Vagabond
Hull: Stabber Class
Role: Heavy Assault Cruiser

The fastest cruiser invented to date, this vessel is ideal for hit-and-run ops where both speed and firepower are required. Its on-board power core may not be strong enough to handle some of the larger weapons out there, but when it comes to guerilla work, the Vagabond can't be beat.

Developer: Thukker Mix

Improving on the original Stabber design, Thukker Mix created the Vagabond as a cruiser-sized skirmish vessel equally suited to defending mobile installations and executing lightning strikes at their enemies. Honoring their tradition of building the fastest vessels to ply the space lanes, they count the Vagabond as one of their crowning achievements.

Minmatar Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 5% bonus to max velocity per level

Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff range and 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage per level



Could you at least fix the text for the new ASB vagabond, its annoyingly incorrect for so long now.
Yuri Lebbie
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#342 - 2013-07-29 19:33:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuri Lebbie
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Giving them MJDs would allow for both sniper and brawler setups to thrive, with each getting a use to make- or collapse-range. What else this unique bonus would allow for is a ship that is truly unique and different from its T1, BC, T3 counterparts.



While this would be an awesome change to give T2s something to make them unique, and I think would be a good idea, I do not think that they will do this. A bit too radical of a change from what they are putting together plans for.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#343 - 2013-07-29 19:34:47 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.

They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad...

Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88
Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#344 - 2013-07-29 19:35:30 UTC
Is there no one else going orgasmic over those additional 40ish % cap on a vaga?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#345 - 2013-07-29 19:38:05 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Rise, why did you listen to everything except the MWD bloom reduction feedback? It is a useless bonus as it even still makes the ships too large to avoid damage form BS sized weapons and they are still to slow to out run the tracking.

Apparently it's enough to mitigate 25% of the damage sitting still. "shrug"

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#346 - 2013-07-29 19:38:39 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.

They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad...

Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88
Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95



Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#347 - 2013-07-29 19:39:15 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship....
I don't know why we'd want a Gallente ship to reflect the Gallente play style of in-your-face with blasters.... What?


totally right? silly gal for actually wanting a in your face blaster setup.Roll

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#348 - 2013-07-29 19:43:46 UTC
Feedback:

Sacrilege:
Not terrible. I would fly it in this proposed form however I'm not sure that utility high is completely necessary. I would prefer that high to be moved to a low but otherwise it looks very nice.

Zealot:
The medium LR turret rebalance helps beam fits a little however can I haz some CPU and maybe some drones pleaze? Just an extra 30 terraflops and 15 M/bit would make this ship fantastic.

Cerberus:
I think this ship needs to lose the drone bay or at the very least reduced to two lights from three . Otherwise this looks very nice.

Eagle:
This thing looks great especially when coupled with the medium LR turret rebalance. It will need to be tested on SiSi but I have a feeling it will need 15-25M/bit drone capacity.

Diemost:
I'd prefer the MWD cap bonus to be dropped for a tracking bonus. Also please give it back some armour and structure. It really needs it. Otherwise very good.

Ishtar:
Oh my lord this thing will be incredible. I can see these things blotting out the stars with their drones. Also; am I the only one who has noticed that this thing DIDN'T lose it's 5% hybrid damage bonus? Sneaking that extra turret in just gave it an equivalent flat 33% bonus to ANY turret. (you just need to use that extra fitting to fit one though ha ha)

Fagabond:
I really don't know what to think about this. I understand that you're rolling the velocity bonus into the hull which is good but I'm not sure about the shield boost bonus. I can see it working okay but I'm still unsure. I also don't like how much damage it deals. It's pretty poor at the minute and your TE nerf has hurt AC kiting (which was needed to be honest). I think this ship needs an extra turret and then it will shine in the roles you're looking at putting it in. It's tank is pretty thin so making it a glass cannon on rocket powered roller skates might just work. Tier 3's would be pretty terrified of them then.

Muninn:
A little lackluster in the damage department. The optimal bonus really pushes this ship into using artillery as AC's get no benefit from that bonus. I'm not saying you can't fit AC's but it's basically an armour version of the Eagle. So you need to give it the same love as the eagle and give it the fitting room to fit arty and tank easily. I think it's a little shy on PG and pushing the other utility high to a low would go a long way.


Otherwise things are looking better.

I think I might have to start calling you "CCP Rise Again" as it seems to take at least two laps round the track for you to get these things right Blink

However it proves you listen and take onboard feedback and criticism. Even though half the people on these forums haven't got a bloody clue (me included half the time)
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#349 - 2013-07-29 19:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Chessur
Make HAC's the final word in kiting platforms. That would be amazing. Make them really fast cruisers, with good projection. Leave just enough EHP on them so they can pull rang / mitigate incoming DPS with speed / sig. DPS should be above T1 cruiser level. All ships should have the ability to apply good DPS with short guns at 35k++

Or if that doesn't suit your fancy, make them have two hulls each accomplishing different roles.

Brawly: Sac, Eagle, Ishtar, Muninn

Kity: Vaga, Deimos, Cerb, Zealot

Give both hulls seperate role bonuses, and give them bonuses specific to they style of specialized play you wish.

I am still blow away by the fact that you, nor any one at CCP has yet to sit down and give a very logical explanation as to where you see HAC's in the current lineup of ships. No Doing that first step, would go a long way into properly creating a forum of discussion as to what bonuses HAC's should have, in order to fulfill their intended goal.

CCP Rise wrote:
Hello!

Lets get back to this HAC thing. The first HAC proposal raised discussion around tons of topics (you can find it HERE if you don't believe me). Common ones included our overall design for tech levels, the way HACs intersect with tech 1, tech 3, and faction ships and of course specific input on ship-by-ship stats and performance. I want to try and cover as much of this as possible so get some tea or something.

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.

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.

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.

  • All HACs will gain 7-8 sensor strength, putting their average Sensor Strength at 22 which is right around combat battleship range.
  • All HACs gain 15k to 25k lock range
  • All HACs have their cap recharge per second set to around 5.5 rather than the former 3.5 - 4.5 cap/sec

    • Along with these changes, we are going to go ahead with the originally proposed role bonus. I've seen and participated in tons of talk about this bonus and I keep seeing the same problem - the tracking formula is not intuitive and the confusion leads to this bonus looking less powerful than it actually is. I've made another set of graphs to help illustrate, but please keep in mind that this is just one example and results may vary.


    The bolded part, makes sense. You clearly define a role, and then list what steps you take in order for HAC's to fulfill that role. However in this case, you have failed on so many accounts. Fast, mobile cruisers? You're kidding right? They are (apart from the vaga / deimos) slower than all of their navy / t1 counterparts. As for their tank, BC's / Navy BC's completely **** all over them. I think that you can do better with HACs, much better than your current idea of shoving them into a really uncomfortable position for a cruiser.
    Jerick Ludhowe
    Internet Tuff Guys
    #350 - 2013-07-29 19:46:24 UTC
    Omnathious Deninard wrote:
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    But looking at all this..

    What is the point of the HAC's?

    What role do they serve? Because they seem to be expensive mini bc's with high res.. and that just isn't very interesting.

    Lets not forget that they only have 1/2 the EHP of a BC though.


    Smaller sigs, higher speeds, and much better resistances compared to bcs means they will have much much much stronger fleet level tanks (with logi of course) than a BC.

    The game is a bit more involved than just comparing ehp values, just an fyi :P
    X Gallentius
    Black Eagle1
    #351 - 2013-07-29 19:49:59 UTC
    TrouserDeagle wrote:
    X Gallentius wrote:
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    X Gallentius wrote:
    These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.

    They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
    So... Bad...

    Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88
    Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95

    Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue.

    Not really, they (AFs) are borderline OP against other T1 frigates - but their slowness gives T1 frigates an area to be competitive. AFs (and HACs) should shine in logi situations - especially against ship hulls that are larger than they are. AFs do that really well, and their slowness makes sure they do not completely crush the engagement envelope of other frigates.
    Jerick Ludhowe
    Internet Tuff Guys
    #352 - 2013-07-29 19:51:06 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?


    /facepalm
    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #353 - 2013-07-29 19:54:11 UTC
    Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?


    /facepalm


    and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm.

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

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
    Boris Amarr
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #354 - 2013-07-29 19:54:53 UTC
    Zealot has 3 usefully bonus (bonus for capacitor is useless as on other amarr ships), but other HAC's has 4. Also Zealot doesn't have drone bay at all. Is it normal?
    Garviel Tarrant
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #355 - 2013-07-29 19:56:24 UTC
    X Gallentius wrote:
    TrouserDeagle wrote:
    X Gallentius wrote:
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    X Gallentius wrote:
    These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.

    They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
    So... Bad...

    Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88
    Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95

    Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue.

    Not really, they (AFs) are borderline OP against other T1 frigates - but their slowness gives T1 frigates an area to be competitive. AFs (and HACs) should shine in logi situations - especially against ship hulls that are larger than they are. AFs do that really well, and their slowness makes sure they do not completely crush the engagement envelope of other frigates.





    AF's really REALLY aren't borderline op but ok.

    BYDI recruitment closed-ish

    FT Diomedes
    The Graduates
    #356 - 2013-07-29 19:59:34 UTC
    Interesting changes, but a role bonus such as +25% to AB speed would be more interesting.

    CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

    Lloyd Roses
    Artificial Memories
    #357 - 2013-07-29 20:02:19 UTC
    Chessur wrote:

    The bolded part, makes sense. You clearly define a role, and then list what steps you take in order for HAC's to fulfill that role. However in this case, you have failed on so many accounts. Fast, mobile cruisers? You're kidding right? They are (apart from the vaga / deimos) slower than all of their navy / t1 counterparts. As for their tank, BC's / Navy BC's completely **** all over them. I think that you can do better with HACs, much better than your current idea of shoving them into a really uncomfortable position for a cruiser.



    I disagree. especially the bolded part help quite a lot. It's not the fastest, but it surely it is the fastest with that tank. Reduced sigbloom and those increased resistances just make for a better ship in logiroams where you expect to actually tank the damage. They are slower compared to navy cruisers, but they also inflict more damage, and god damn that capacitor.

    That higher sensorstrength might be less of an impact, but hey - it's for free it seems.

    Putting aside the weird rangebonus on that sacriledge (as useful as on a damnation I want to bet, should be scrapped for something accuracy-like) and the utilityhigh on the muninn (optimal/tracking bonus, some 1k PG and an armortank... sure), it really looks legit. Deimos-sig is a little very big for what it is intending to do.
    Altrue
    Exploration Frontier inc
    Tactical-Retreat
    #358 - 2013-07-29 20:02:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
    I still think the Cerb won't be used at all, but it's more a missile problem now, because imo you did the right thing with the hull :)

    I'm a bit dissapointed to see the Eagle so slow compared to the others. I'm using it as a blaster boat solo in wormholes and honestly that's fun ! Too bad that it feels like you didn't consider giving other fitting options for the eagle, like you did for the vagabond. Also, a bit of drone bay would be welcome... Okay okay, I'm dreaming, but let's be honest : only a few HAC are shield tanked, and none of them are designed for short-range weapons.

    Signature Tanking Best Tanking

    [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

    Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #359 - 2013-07-29 20:08:53 UTC
    Marlona Sky wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
    ISHTAR

    Rather than the blanket 10% tracking and optimal drone bonus, we split the bonus into two more specialized bonuses. One to Sentry drone optimal and tracking, and another on Heavy Drone speed and tracking.


    So basically you took what should have been one bonus and spread it across two bonus slots. This really feels like a dual weapon bonus of some ship hulls that everyone mostly agreed is a terrible idea. This is not a good idea. X


    perhaps if the sentry drone bonus is reduced to 5% it would then make sense as the sentry drone bonus is a very strong bonus atm until gardes and curators get a nerf anyway.

    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
    Arthur Aihaken
    CODE.d
    #360 - 2013-07-29 20:10:34 UTC
    18 pages of griping... guess that means they should be left as is.

    I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.