These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#401 - 2013-07-29 21:35:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
come on RISE we need some answers here :

- like Alekseyev Karrde said have you considered a 75% MWD bonus or at the very least decrease sig radius of all ships to Attack cruiser level?
- Eagle do you really think 370dps with Null is acceptable when the Deimos can do double that and about 500m/s more ?
-Which leads on to the Deimos you really haven't thought of a better bonus than the mwd bonus?
you mustn't have thought very hard a falloff bonus or at least a improved falloff bonus makes much more sense here.
Also think a mini tough Talos and the ship suddenly makes sense and with shield buff and more range it might be worth using.
- even with these changes do you expect people to pay up-to 200mil all in for these underwhelming ships?

-Cerberus does it need 200km HM's? explosion velocity or even shield boost bonus is better here
-Vaga could it at least fit 425's like the cyna please?
- Also do you agree that all HACS need more dps?
- Also ishtar split bonus is odd either drop the sentry drone bonus to 5% or do something else that doesn't waste a bonus
- Also more HP please
- Also that 16th slot will we ever get that?
-Also any new skills to reduce (extender/mwd) sig radius?

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
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#402 - 2013-07-29 21:38:28 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:


2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.


Not hardly, simply saying something is true without posting any actual facts doesn't actually make it real, and in this case you're wrong.

X Gallentius wrote:
3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support.


Survivability in a game dominated by group alpha is laughable.

Speed when they are matched or outpaced by t1 cruisers that cost 1/15th of their hull price is laughable

Better EWAR stats when the EWAR game for jamming is a joke of a game of chance meaning that even if your SS was 10 million theres still a chance that a single light EC-300 jams you

I wont even touch the cap comment since its just silly, cap isn't a problem until it is and then you fit an injector and its not again

They already perform well in a gang, that gang is called armor HACs, and thats largely the only role they're used in simply because you dont skirmish in a 150 million isk hull when you can get the same or better results in either a 10 million isk t1 cruiser hull or a 60 million isk ABC hull.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Lucien Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#403 - 2013-07-29 21:39:31 UTC
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
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


The last tunes to the Sacrilege are perfect. No touching it anymore pls.


Are you serious? The work isn't done yet. The Sacs damage output and tanking ability is still meh compared to other HACs, hell even T1 Cruisers. I'm pretty much ok with it not being a damage dealer but 6 lows would make it useful instead of simply overrated. The Sacs tank NEEDS some serious loving. Atleast that role should be defined instead of turning it into a half assed Jack of all trades.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#404 - 2013-07-29 21:44:10 UTC
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
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.

Seriously, you view 25% more range (with the same flight time) for your high damage short range weapons system as a useless bonus?

Now, I'll agree I'd prefer perhaps a bonus that allowed them to apply that damage better... especially since a range bonus would be of more benefit to a faster hull.... but I don't find that bonus to be useless. Sometimes getting in range with a Sac can be problematic.


Also bear in mind it's a 50% bonus. The 25% was a typo.

Thanks for the catch, I missed that.

So yeah, even more so.

It also makes me wonder if there will be a Sac HML doctrine arise to rival the old drake doctrines.

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
#405 - 2013-07-29 21:44:12 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
come on RISE we need some answers here :


Generally they prefer to answer the easy questions like 'hey rise what's a hac :DD'.
Lucien Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#406 - 2013-07-29 21:47:04 UTC
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.

I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.

I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.

This really, really needs to happen.


F...ing THIS! Just do that and the discussion concerning the SAC will be over at last.
Changing the Role Bonus into+ 25% Missile damage may work wonders aswell.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#407 - 2013-07-29 21:48:33 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Cearain wrote:
I think when we see people actually using hacs we can then decide that they need their speed nerfed. But the fact that they cost a 150 mill more than t1 should provide them with some additional benefit. Otherwise they will remain in the hangar.


1. If we're supposed to wait until the ships are flown before giving our opinion, then why is anybody posting in this thread?

2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.

3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support.


1) fair enough

2) The cost of these ships is only a bit less than faction bcs. E.g., Navy harb going for about 180mil. Its unclear that these ships will even compete with plain vanilla BCs that cost 1/4 what these ships cost.

3) I don't think they survive better than plain bcs which cost 1/3 the price, or faction bcs for a bit more.

Again I think these changes are pretty good. But for 155-170 million I'm not still not sure they are going to be competitive.

Only comparing them with t1 hulls that are 150 mill cheaper is not really helpful. If you want to compare them to a cheaper hull at least compare them to the navy cruisers that cost about half as much.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#408 - 2013-07-29 21:48:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
come on RISE we need some answers here :


Generally they prefer to answer the easy questions like 'hey rise what's a hac :DD'.


You're a genius at making friends

I lolled.


Also everyone suggesting to remove guns from ships.

There are very few ships where this would be acceptable.. Why? Think how much less cool your ship will look with fewer guns on it.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#409 - 2013-07-29 21:48:52 UTC
Cerberus looks really ridiculous to me, it has enough PG now to fit 6 launchers, MWD, and an XLASB with just two ACR I rigs. You can then get 750 DPS with 3 BCU and a damage control in the lows, and then you can decide if you want web and ECCM in your mids or more tank. XLASB and two invulns is an 1800 DPS Kin/Therm tank, great for laughing in the face of any Talos-heavy gang.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#410 - 2013-07-29 21:52:19 UTC
Have to agree on the points with the Sacrilege. It should have -1 high slot to low slot, -1 launcher (4 total) and 10%/level of missile damage. That'd make it a superb tanking platform, keep its damage competitive and provide a utility high.

For everyone else crying out for drones in the Zealot: really the proliferation of drone bays is troubling. I'm not sure why we went from a "drone specialized" race, added a "drone interested" race and now, it seems, every race needs to have some sort of drone bay....which, btw, we all know is just going to be stuffed with EC-300s. Please stop the proliferation of drones for every ship. Not every ship needs a drone bay. I mean, I honestly wonder why ships like the Vigil got a drone at all. Some of these choices for drone bays don't make any sense, tbh. So no, please don't add a drone bay to the Zealot (and perhaps remove them from others).

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

darius mclever
#411 - 2013-07-29 21:53:57 UTC
so far so happy. needs testing of course ... but could we really drop that drone bay on the cerb for something else?
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp
#412 - 2013-07-29 21:55:20 UTC
Lucien Cain wrote:
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.

I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.

I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.

This really, really needs to happen.


F...ing THIS! Just do that and the discussion concerning the SAC will be over at last.
Changing the Role Bonus into+ 25% Missile damage may work wonders aswell.



CCP RISE , CCP FOZZIE hope you had your note pads out for that amazing idea! he just did your job for you.
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#413 - 2013-07-29 21:55:57 UTC
I was going to rant about the proposed changes, but decided instead to politely point out that as proposed, I'm unlikely to fly any of the HACs for any of my Eve activities.

Why? Because quite simply, they offer insufficient incentive to offset the cost of the hull. There are simply too many other cheaper or more effective (or both) alternatives to accomplish the same thing. Give them a specific role and make them excel in that role OR make them general enough for me to effectively be able to perform multiple different functions on the same hull.

(Preferably the specialization. That IS what T2 is supposedly all about, isn't it?)
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#414 - 2013-07-29 21:56:59 UTC
Boss McNab wrote:
Lucien Cain wrote:
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.

I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.

I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.

This really, really needs to happen.


F...ing THIS! Just do that and the discussion concerning the SAC will be over at last.
Changing the Role Bonus into+ 25% Missile damage may work wonders aswell.



CCP RISE , CCP FOZZIE hope you had your note pads out for that amazing idea! he just did your job for you.


+1
Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#415 - 2013-07-29 21:57:29 UTC
Lucien Cain wrote:
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.

I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.

I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.

This really, really needs to happen.


F...ing THIS! Just do that and the discussion concerning the SAC will be over at last.
Changing the Role Bonus into+ 25% Missile damage may work wonders aswell.


I wish i could like more than once
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#416 - 2013-07-29 21:59:14 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Have to agree on the points with the Sacrilege. It should have -1 high slot to low slot, -1 launcher (4 total) and 10%/level of missile damage. That'd make it a superb tanking platform, keep its damage competitive and provide a utility high.

For everyone else crying out for drones in the Zealot: really the proliferation of drone bays is troubling. I'm not sure why we went from a "drone specialized" race, added a "drone interested" race and now, it seems, every race needs to have some sort of drone bay....which, btw, we all know is just going to be stuffed with EC-300s. Please stop the proliferation of drones for every ship. Not every ship needs a drone bay. I mean, I honestly wonder why ships like the Vigil got a drone at all. Some of these choices for drone bays don't make any sense, tbh. So no, please don't add a drone bay to the Zealot (and perhaps remove them from others).


Because the Dev's don't have a clue how to balance without using drones and the CSM are a bunch of fanboy blow hards who refuse to stand up to the Devs.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#417 - 2013-07-29 21:59:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
RISE

Any intention on T2 resist profiles changing to a more omni T2 resist profile? 90% on some and 10% on others is just plain mad

Also any changes on the manufacturing side? a Kaalakiota cerb would be awesome

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
Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#418 - 2013-07-29 22:00:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Baren
RollSOO CCP please tell meRoll


RollWhat makes these ``SPECIALIZED`` ships that you told us you made soo ``SPECIALIZED`` we already told you in the first thread to make specialized roles. Why have you not done that. Roll


RollPLEASE CCP TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW YOU MADE T2 CRUISERS SOOO SPECIALIZED IN THIS BALANCERoll
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#419 - 2013-07-29 22:01:47 UTC
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.

I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.

I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.

This really, really needs to happen.

Good idea if they're not going to give all of them an extra slot. Recharge rate bonus should be wholly absorbed into the capacitor. Its not as if doing that will make it overpowered or something.

Pull a hyperion ccp. do it.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2013-07-29 22:02:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
I'm Down wrote:

Because the Dev's don't have a clue how to balance without using drones and the CSM are a bunch of fanboy blow hards who refuse to stand up to the Devs.

Funny you should say that, because they cant seem to balance drones at all.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.