These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#481 - 2013-07-30 00:22:58 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
But, this is a T2 ship, which are supposed to be specialized, the mega is a T1 ship where you are supposed to have lots of options.
I would support the thorax to become a mini mega though.

Isn't that exactly what it is now that it has tracking/damage bonuses and slew of drones? What more could one possibly want in a cruiser?
MeBiatch wrote:
IMO Utility/versatility can be a specialty. like a swiss army knife

The knives with less tools are superior as they are easier to lug around, have what you need and don't act as grime magnets .. the ones with a bazillion tools are clunky/unwieldy, contain stuff you'll never need and are a chore to maintain.

HACs are the former, T1 are the latter. Spin can go both ways Smile

PS: I wish the Zealot had a superfluous utility highslot that could be/was converted into a slot on the God-rack with no significant sacrifices asked for .. the mere thought of a straight swap of a utility for a mid makes me want to accuse CCP of being dirty filthy Gallente lovers.
PPS: Give batteries an oomph!
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#482 - 2013-07-30 00:23:55 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs.

Yes people are complaining about the high to mid slot of the Deimos.
Anyway, what would it need to have satisfying performances for you ? Yes, it's not exactly 50% better than a Talos, yet it's better than a Talos in a number of ways -- in fact, it only lack dps compared to it, but is better at everything else.

BTW, I've seen some good use of the Deimos, suggesting that it's far from so bad as people are saying it to be.

In fact, with these changes, I can see them have the same place AF have between cruisers and frigates, but keep their speed, and now earn a boosted electronic.


I'm complaining about the change of a utility high to a mid slot and its quite funny you don't even have a grasp why:

The utility high is an OFFENSIVE slot, allowing you primarily to either fit a Neut (so an AB rifter can't kill you solo) or a NOS, so you can keep your guns going a bit better when being neuted (which happens in most brawl situations). Heck some people even fit a smartbomb to try podding people after exploding their ship or even an offline salvager or cloak for other ancillary roles to improve its looting or make it easier to fly solo through nullsec - probably roles you've never even considered.

If CCP are so adamant about keeping the same total number of slots then it'd make more sense to remove another turret, up the damage bonus to compensate and have the 5th slot remain a utility high. I know I won't complain about having to pay 2m less on blasters and ammo.

The 4th mid slot is great, no complaints about that here as it makes it finally able to fit web, scram, cap booster and MWD and opens up a bit of utility for other creative uses of mids like a shield tank, MWD + AB fit or tracking comps / sensor boosters for rail fits so it can actually partake in sniper HAC fleets without FCs telling you to ***K OFF as if you're having a laugh.

4th mid is great, but the point is that removing the utility high "in trade for the 4th mid" pigeon-holes this relatively poor HAC into an even smaller hole, and with the additional changes arguably makes it an even worse brawling blaster ship (especially comparing it to the relative cost of say the updated Thorax).

Do you comprehend now why many people are unhappy with the utility slot change or will you stick to your narrow minded view and blame humanity again in some adolescent whine because we can't all be like you? Cheers.
Tuxedo Catfish
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#483 - 2013-07-30 00:24:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tuxedo Catfish
Tsubutai wrote:

Compared to a shield tanked blaster talos, a shield tanked 250mm rail deimos will be a lot quicker, much more agile, and slightly tankier with much better resists. It will also have more range, ~50% better tracking once you account for the difference in the signature resolutions of the turrets (comparing null L to CNAM M, i.e. the ammo types you'd use for point range kiting in each case), around 75% of the raw dps, a more flexible drone bay, and a stronger capacitor.


25% less damage is huge. Not to mention that the Talos has the option of increasing its damage even further by switching to CNAM, while the Deimos is already using its highest-damage ammunition. I don't like the idea of a shield + railguns Deimos very much for conceptual reasons -- it's too much like a Caldari ship -- but I don't think it would be overpowered.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#484 - 2013-07-30 00:30:09 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:


Diminishing Returns: T1 Cruiser Hull - 10 Mil. Faction Navy Cruiser Hull - 50-100 mil, T2 HAC - 150 mil. Check.



Makes up random assertions about numbers...


X Gallentius wrote:
nikar galvren wrote:

T1 cruiser with Performance=X: 10Mil.
Navy cruiser with performance=1.4 * X: 50-100Mil.
T2 HAC with performance = 1.15 * X: 150-180Mil.
The diminishing returns argument does not hold for the HAC lineup.

Show us where your 1.15 number comes from.




Demands to see somebody else's proof of numbers.


Just to be clear so you get it: Hacs are not outperforming t1 cruisers in many regards, so the diminishing return is coming from where, since I already showed you all the holes in your original reasoning for the price increase.

Tanks: for the price of a hac you get more tank and better insurance return from a battleship
Damage: t1 cruisers can outclass most Hacs in outright damage dealt up close
Damage Projection: ABC's outclass HAC's in every way with damage projection, a single painter negates this sweet role buff

Insurance, hull cost, rig slots, fitting slots in some cases overall fitting ability, speed.....theres just so many places that HAC's are outclassed by cheaper hulls, your diminishing returns argument is laughable.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#485 - 2013-07-30 00:32:30 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs.

Yes people are complaining about the high to mid slot of the Deimos.
Anyway, what would it need to have satisfying performances for you ? Yes, it's not exactly 50% better than a Talos, yet it's better than a Talos in a number of ways -- in fact, it only lack dps compared to it, but is better at everything else.


It's not better than a Talos. It has inferior range, inferior damage, inferior speed, and while it has a superior tank the range at which it has to engage renders that point moot.

Compared to a shield tanked blaster talos, a shield tanked 250mm rail deimos will be a lot quicker, much more agile, and slightly tankier with much better resists. It will also have more range, ~50% better tracking once you account for the difference in the signature resolutions of the turrets (comparing null L to CNAM M, i.e. the ammo types you'd use for point range kiting in each case), around 75% of the raw dps, a more flexible drone bay, and a stronger capacitor.

Just FYI a shield tanked Deimos and a shield tanked Talos have the same resist profile. And both are crap, meaning at the end of the day the thing that matters most is that the Talos gets an extra rig slot to plug those holes with and more base shield s than a Deimos.

In other words the Talos is better.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#486 - 2013-07-30 00:43:45 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
But, this is a T2 ship, which are supposed to be specialized, the mega is a T1 ship where you are supposed to have lots of options.
I would support the thorax to become a mini mega though.

Isn't that exactly what it is now that it has tracking/damage bonuses and slew of drones? What more could one possibly want in a cruiser?
MeBiatch wrote:
IMO Utility/versatility can be a specialty. like a swiss army knife

The knives with less tools are superior as they are easier to lug around, have what you need and don't act as grime magnets .. the ones with a bazillion tools are clunky/unwieldy, contain stuff you'll never need and are a chore to maintain.

HACs are the former, T1 are the latter. Spin can go both ways Smile

PS: I wish the Zealot had a superfluous utility highslot that could be/was converted into a slot on the God-rack with no significant sacrifices asked for .. the mere thought of a straight swap of a utility for a mid makes me want to accuse CCP of being dirty filthy Gallente lovers.
PPS: Give batteries an oomph!


i never complained about the 4th mid slot on the diemos.

what i would like to have is my cake and the ability to eat it too.

by replacing one of the damage bonus to a 7.5% bonus to rate of fire and reducing to 4 turrets and 5 high slots

you maintain you dps and gain that ability to if you wanted fit that 5th high slot.

moreover one less turret means you have leftover pg to fit nuetrons or 250s and tank

plus if you remove the mwd bonus and replace with a 5% to armor bonus you then get a nice armor tanky gal hybrid ship that has options and survivability

plus changing the role bonus to 37.5% reduction to heat damage to modules will give hacs the resilience they are looking for.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#487 - 2013-07-30 00:46:42 UTC
For their price, HACs kinda suck.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#488 - 2013-07-30 01:01:54 UTC
Vyktor Abyss wrote:

If CCP are so adamant about keeping the same total number of slots then.....



This is really the problem. They are not balancing the ships in diverse ways. First they make all the bonuses about the same (eg, nerf the 5% resist bonus) and then give the same number of slots.

Eve used to be interesting with some ship having some really great bonuses but maybe not as many slots, or combined with another not so great bonus. Now they are just trying to make every minutia equivalent. Sad

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#489 - 2013-07-30 01:18:43 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
For their price, HACs kinda suck.


So continue flying tec1 cruisers or faction ones. I will be flying Hacs again. Cool
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#490 - 2013-07-30 01:21:00 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
For their price, HACs kinda suck.


So continue flying tec1 cruisers or faction ones. I will be flying Hacs again. Cool


No thanks.

I'd rather fly a solo battleship than a solo hac. So much more power and options, HACs aren't really "specialized" like CCP claims. Just a big waste of isk.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#491 - 2013-07-30 01:25:32 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
DeadDuck wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
For their price, HACs kinda suck.


So continue flying tec1 cruisers or faction ones. I will be flying Hacs again. Cool


Not sure if rich or stupid... [/Futurama meme]

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#492 - 2013-07-30 02:05:39 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
DeadDuck wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
For their price, HACs kinda suck.


So continue flying tec1 cruisers or faction ones. I will be flying Hacs again. Cool


No thanks.

I'd rather fly a solo battleship than a solo hac. So much more power and options, HACs aren't really "specialized" like CCP claims. Just a big waste of isk.



solo battleship?

If you mean pvp I don't know about that.

I tend to agree with you and everyone saying hacs may still not be worth the cost. But battleships aren't really a decent comparison any more than t1 cruisers are on the other side of the coin.


I think hacs will make better solo ships than battleships unless you just want to fit smarties. Also although BSes insure better (assuming they are not the old tier1 ships with extra materials) their mods and rigs also cost more.

IMO hacs should be compared with navy and pirate cruisers as well as bcs and navy bcs.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
NinjaTurtle
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#493 - 2013-07-30 02:15:40 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


can be reloaded over the course of a long fight.


sixty second reload time. I don't think you have a very realistic idea of what occurs to an asb vagabond in that time period.
Morgan Madsen
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#494 - 2013-07-30 02:46:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Morgan Madsen
CCP Rise wrote:
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff
5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage

Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 1050 PWG(+60), 360 CPU(+10)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400(+25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.5/s (+1.4)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 270 / 6
Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7)
Signature radius: 150(-10)


Can we please get rid of the micro cap bonus on this please?

CCP Rise wrote:
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.


I think everybody would rather have a tracking or active armor rep bonus than this ****** bonus.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#495 - 2013-07-30 02:55:16 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:


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.


Garv have a look at the recharge rate, he integrated the 5%/lvl into the hull on top of the extra cap recharge he gave all the Hacs, it now has insane cap. Another Damage or ROF bonus would have been better I agree.

Garviel Tarrant wrote:

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.


HAMS.

Garviel Tarrant 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."

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........


It will actually make a pretty good Talos, but I'd rather 7.5% tracking/lvl

Garviel Tarrant wrote:


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.


The vagabond is weak as **** currently and needs help.

Garviel Tarrant wrote:

Munin

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


It is a god damn abortion.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#496 - 2013-07-30 03:12:09 UTC
NinjaTurtle wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


can be reloaded over the course of a long fight.


sixty second reload time. I don't think you have a very realistic idea of what occurs to an asb vagabond in that time period.

It has a skilled pilot and realizes it will need to reload so it gets into a favorable position to do so instead of being a noob and acting surprised when the reload happens?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#497 - 2013-07-30 03:33:07 UTC
Sac armor resistance bonus
Eagle shield resistance bonus
Vega shield active bonus


Where is the gal tanking bonus?
Remove the mwd bonus and replace with a 5% to armor bonus.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#498 - 2013-07-30 03:40:51 UTC
Voith wrote:
NinjaTurtle wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


can be reloaded over the course of a long fight.


sixty second reload time. I don't think you have a very realistic idea of what occurs to an asb vagabond in that time period.

It has a skilled pilot and realizes it will need to reload so it gets into a favorable position to do so instead of being a noob and acting surprised when the reload happens?

there's no favorable position in which the Vagabond can reload its tank for 60s and still maintain tackle or damage. That's not skill related, that's basic PVP mechanic limits.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Kaz Mafaele
D-sync
D-sync.
#499 - 2013-07-30 03:41:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaz Mafaele
first off I want too say the generic boosts you have given across the board do a great job of ssolidifying the intended role of HACS as a extra resilient combat ship.

but it still seems like the vega is in a lot of trouble with its damage capability

the thing that amazes me is you have gone completely the wrong direction with the ishtar you rolled the drone bay into the hull and fixed the fitting and tthat's awesome. but then too take its place you basically just split a existing bonus in two and heavily nerfed it. Is it just me that thinks that I mean the only thing you gain is sentry optimal i feel like im taking crazy pills. If I am wrong will someone lay it out for me?

my mistake it was previously a bonus too tracking and optimal not speed and optimal id still rather have the flexibility of bonused light and medium drones though
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#500 - 2013-07-30 03:57:23 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Voith wrote:
NinjaTurtle wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


can be reloaded over the course of a long fight.


sixty second reload time. I don't think you have a very realistic idea of what occurs to an asb vagabond in that time period.

It has a skilled pilot and realizes it will need to reload so it gets into a favorable position to do so instead of being a noob and acting surprised when the reload happens?

there's no favorable position in which the Vagabond can reload its tank for 60s and still maintain tackle or damage. That's not skill related, that's basic PVP mechanic limits.

You mean to tell me a close range skirmisher can't perma tank several hundred DPS and be one of the fastest ships in the game?


Wow, CCP must suck at balance.