These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tuxedo Catfish
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#741 - 2013-07-30 16:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tuxedo Catfish
Marcel Devereux wrote:
Edward Pierce wrote:
I want to reiterate that the Deimos being left with the outdated MWD cap bonus is wrong for the same reasons it was bad on the Thorax, just like you decided to change the speed bonus on the Stabber and Vagabond, you should change that old bonus on the Deimos.

Give the Deimos an armor rep bonus that is also inline with the Gallente line of ships and integrate that MWD cap bonus into the hull.

CCP Rise wrote:
We wanted to replace the outdated base speed bonus with something that would be fun and interesting but wouldn't have a huge effect on the power of the ship, as it was already the second most used HAC. CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales.

I find it really annoying how you can follow one line of logic for one racial line of ships and not another; this exact same logic applies for the Deimos being left with the MWD cap bonus, yet you're fine leaving it in there?


I hate to agree, but give the Deimos the armor rep bonus.


An armor rep bonus would be better than the MWD bonus, but still bad unless CCP intends to fix the deficiencies of active armor tanking in Odyssey 1.1 as well.

Give it a tracking bonus and higher base armor hp. Or hell, give it tracking + armor repair instead of falloff + MWD cap -- I don't think that combination exists on any current ship, so it would still be unique and interesting.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#742 - 2013-07-30 16:57:19 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
I miss LR HACs.

Is there any chance that something could be done to bring them back?

What would be the technical cost of introducing a role bonus to the HAC line that reduces the effective range of warp disruptors used against them?

Assuming you do not want to increase the base sensor strength of HACs any more than you already have and you do not want to reduce their signature radius any further, would it be possible to give them a role bonus that in some other way reduces the effectiveness of combat probes used against them?

Those two measures could go a long way to bringing some strength (and a unique role) back to HACs as skirmishers while still justifying their high cost versus the alternatives.
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
#743 - 2013-07-30 17:14:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Vizvig
Gneeznow wrote:

I like how you assume everyone in the game makes isk at the same rate you do

For average single character (not player) 2 hours of F1 pushing, if you has better than average give interviev on TV how you do it, if they want listen it Big smileBig smileBig smile.

If shorter lesser than average...
Natalia Drops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#744 - 2013-07-30 17:22:57 UTC
Officially chomping at the bit to get all this goodness up on SiSi for some testing Twisted

Looking good so far guys.
Lucien Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#745 - 2013-07-30 17:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucien Cain
nikar galvren wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi all

Wanted to post and let you know I haven't disappeared or something, just had to go home and sleep and stuff.

I've been reading all of this and will continue to do so. I would not expect any changes at the scale of this last iteration, maybe some small tweaks after a few more days of feedback at the most.

We are a little concerned that some overpowered configurations might be popular following these changes, but I know many of you are still worried they aren't powerful enough. I'll keep reading for now and if we decide to make any changes you will be the first to know.

Thanks!

Translation:

"Thank you for all your constructive comments and suggestions, but we've decided that you don't really know what these ships are good at, or even what they should be used for. We do, and we're not going to tell you.

Suffice it to say that all of our previous assertions regarding Tech2 specializations were simply to give the playerbase some hope for the future, and after the massive boost given to the Tech1's and Navy cruisers, we are at a loss as to how to give the HAC hulls a distinct specialization, so we're going to conveniently ignore that part.

We already recognize that a few of these HACs will be popular, and the rest will remain on the shelf, so to speak, but as the number of popular HACs is anticipated to increase from the currently used two (Zealot and Vagabond) to FOUR (Zealot, Vaga, Ishtar and Cerb), we're pretty happy with that.

Again, thank you for all the time, effort and thought that you have put into two threads now. We know that you are passionate about having a gaming experience that is fun and rewarding, and understand that you saw a unique opportunity to enhance a game that we all love in an underused and much-needed area. Sorry it won't work out that way."

[/me is almost disgusted with herself for getting her hopes up]

Let's take a quick look at the 4 that will likely be popular in 1.1:

Zealot - The current baseline. Good sig (AB), great dmg projection, decent tank, holds up well under reps
Vagabond - 1/2 speed, 1/2 shield thank. only lacking *a little* in projection, otherwise fine
PROPOSED Ishtar - some nice changes here, only concern is that it's being forced into a shield tank role (ref. Gallente lore). :Drones: aside, great projection.
PROPOSED Cerberus - Finally enough dps, great projection, nice speed

What I see all of these having in common? DPS, and the ability to apply that DPS. These feature a winning combination of Speed, Sig, DPS and dmg projection. A large portion of their survivability comes directly from the T2 resist profiles, but also have the capability of fitting a significant tank without unduly impacting the ability to land hits on target.

Now for the other 4. Perhaps not surprisingly, these four are the ones that don't have the combination of speed & projection...

Sacrilege - Slow as balls. Option to EITHER fit tank OR fit dps, and even if you fit dps it's still not going to be impressive. Bonus to HML is nice, but low dps makes that fit unlikely. Bonus to HAM range will mitigate speed disadvantage somewhat, but closing range will still be an issue. Used to be able to dual active tank like a boss... not so much soon(TM).
RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Keep the dps where it is, change the missile velocity bonus to explosion radius or explosion velocity. 25m3 drones. +1 low or move the utility high to a low. (personal wish list: Please roll the whole cap bonus into the hull).

Eagle - Also slow as balls. Slower than even the Sac. How is this thing supposed to brawl? Is it supposed to brawl? Dual optimal range bonuses imply 'sniper,' but that's a role better filled by ABC's. The only HAC of these four that has only a single damage bonus, giving it weaker raw dps than pretty much anything with a cruiser-sized gun mount.
RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: If you want it to be able to brawl, drop one optimal bonus for another damage bonus to give it some alpha. Increase speed to 200 so it can compete. If you're going for a dedicated sniper platform, then drop the shield resist bonus for extra tracking. Medium rails will thank you.

Deimos - It can bring the pain, it just has trouble bringing it close enough... Especially if you take 10-15% of its raw hit points away. The MWD capacitor bonus is rendered superfluous by the proposed cap recharge rates. Personal pet peeve: Why do the Gallente hulls have more structure hit points than shield or armor? Haven't they read the "Hull Tanking Elite" certificate writeup?
RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Don't be daft - give this thing some armor hit points to work with. Also, drop the MWD bonus in favor of a bonus that either allows blaster dps to be applied at range or increases tracking. This thing already does beastly dps, so reduce the dronebay to 25m3. Web range bonus might also be an option.

Munin - Good arty platform, but completely overshadowed by Tornadoes. Optimal range bonus does ~nothing for autocannons. Only 3 mids severely limits the fitting options.
RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Give Autocannons some love. Change the 10% optimal bonus to 5% optimal and 5% falloff. Smooth the T2 resist profile on this one to be slightly more uniform. Boost armor HP to 2200. Consider moving the utility high to a mid.

For these last four, can you PLEASE consider a different Role bonus than the MWD bloom? And PLEASE consider 16 fitting slots?

Still throwing in my 2 cents, even though I honestly doubt Rise is actually listening...


Your logic is so sound that I'm starting to fall in love with you darling. In all seriousness, you nailed the whole problem accurately. Take notes CCP!

BTW: Liked
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#746 - 2013-07-30 17:23:18 UTC
Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#747 - 2013-07-30 17:23:49 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
I miss LR HACs.

Is there any chance that something could be done to bring them back?

What would be the technical cost of introducing a role bonus to the HAC line that reduces the effective range of warp disruptors used against them?

Assuming you do not want to increase the base sensor strength of HACs any more than you already have and you do not want to reduce their signature radius any further, would it be possible to give them a role bonus that in some other way reduces the effectiveness of combat probes used against them?

Those two measures could go a long way to bringing some strength (and a unique role) back to HACs as skirmishers while still justifying their high cost versus the alternatives.


some web resistance would be a nice bonus

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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#748 - 2013-07-30 17:25:01 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due...


no point in a tracking bonus as the thorax already has it ... a stronger falloff bonus or a second one makes more sense

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
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#749 - 2013-07-30 17:32:22 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due...


no point in a tracking bonus as the thorax already has it ... a stronger falloff bonus or a second one makes more sense

A fall off bonus is worthless compared to a tracking bonus, you should be within web and scram range with blasters anyway.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#750 - 2013-07-30 17:34:16 UTC
Lucien Cain wrote:
nikar galvren wrote:

[wall of despair] snip! [/wall of despair]


Your logic is so sound that I'm starting to fall in love with you darling. In all seriousness, you nailed the whole problem accurately. Take notes CCP!

BTW: Liked


Thank you. I seriously hope that CCP is taking notes.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#751 - 2013-07-30 17:35:14 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due...


no point in a tracking bonus as the thorax already has it ... a stronger falloff bonus or a second one makes more sense

A fall off bonus is worthless compared to a tracking bonus, you should be within web and scram range with blasters anyway.


you don't have too if you have the range much like the Talos who kites

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
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#752 - 2013-07-30 17:38:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Harvey James wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due...


no point in a tracking bonus as the thorax already has it ... a stronger falloff bonus or a second one makes more sense

I think I'd still look more closely at a bonus to reduce sig radius. The Deimos does plenty of damage and should now be fast enough to deliver it, but a lot of it's focus should be on survivability (done in a way that doesn't harm it's ability to get damage on target).
While it will be a very viable rail platform now, with blasters it's going to be in extremely close and a sig bonus helps not only get them in there alive, but stay alive once they get there. And if you do go rails, a low sig certainly doesn't hurt... especially combined with it's role bonus.
I'd love to see it go from one of the least survivable ships in the game to one of the most survivable ships in the game (at least in a small gang setting).

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#753 - 2013-07-30 17:41:31 UTC
I'm kind of OK with most of these. Boring as **** but ok.


Only thing is that i think the Sac should get an application bonus instead of a blobbing bonus.

Cerb should get something more useful then a flight time bonus.

Deimos should get a rep bonus instead of the MWD cap bonus.

I know you really want to fit a deimos with rails for some bizare reason but i see no compelling reason to use it over a navy exeq for that. I would much rather you make it a proper blaster brawler.

Eagle should have a bonus that makes all aBC's on grid spontanioiusly explode, then it might get used.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#754 - 2013-07-30 17:41:45 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:


RANGE CONTROL doesn't mean you're playing wow nightelfe hunter in Eve. Vagabond goes way faster than any other HAC in the game and can perfectly control/mitigate incoming dmg with this specific advantage that is probably the strongest attribute for solo/gang pvp, the reason why cynabals are so good is not really the amount od dps they can push but the ability to dictate range and mitigate incoming dps (dual prop, large ASB)



I dont understand how any of that is relevant.



You, Danny John-Peter, are literally too stupid to insult
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#755 - 2013-07-30 17:41:53 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due...


no point in a tracking bonus as the thorax already has it ... a stronger falloff bonus or a second one makes more sense

A fall off bonus is worthless compared to a tracking bonus, you should be within web and scram range with blasters anyway.


you don't have too if you have the range much like the Talos who kites

But it is not a Talos, they use two completely different size weapon, are two completely different classes of ships.
Trying to force the Deimos into that role with a falloff bonus is a mistake.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Snape Dieboldmotor
Minotaur Congress
#756 - 2013-07-30 17:43:49 UTC
Does anybody think the ishtar is overpowered? I'll be curious to see how it compares on the test server.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#757 - 2013-07-30 17:44:51 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
I miss LR HACs.

Is there any chance that something could be done to bring them back?

What would be the technical cost of introducing a role bonus to the HAC line that reduces the effective range of warp disruptors used against them?

Assuming you do not want to increase the base sensor strength of HACs any more than you already have and you do not want to reduce their signature radius any further, would it be possible to give them a role bonus that in some other way reduces the effectiveness of combat probes used against them?

Those two measures could go a long way to bringing some strength (and a unique role) back to HACs as skirmishers while still justifying their high cost versus the alternatives.


some web resistance would be a nice bonus

I think that web or scram resistance would be seriously overpowered, particularly given the potency of current ABHACs.

What you need in a skirmisher is a ship that finds it a little easier to disengage than other vessels. Frigates and destroyers can manage this to a good degree due to speed and agility. For a class of cruisers to be able to do it to a limited degree would be a wonderous thing.

If you go brawling or you get brawled, you will void that ability to disengage as you get tackled down, but that's the kind of dynamic you want.
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
#758 - 2013-07-30 17:44:54 UTC
EPILOGUE

Summary of two threads: out of eight hacs 2 was actually boosted and the rest was left to either stay crap or as they are now with minor cosmetic changes. Some fluff was later added to make them look good on paper but in the long run it really means nothing. Giving tham that much needed mobility to make them distinct from other ship classes was that one thing CCP didn't want to do. Therfor most HAC's will remain as of today, mostly unused and laughed at, because there are better ships for the jobb.

THE END
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#759 - 2013-07-30 17:45:10 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I'm kind of OK with most of these. Boring as **** but ok.


Only thing is that i think the Sac should get an application bonus instead of a blobbing bonus.

Cerb should get something more useful then a flight time bonus.

Deimos should get a rep bonus instead of the MWD cap bonus.

I know you really want to fit a deimos with rails for some bizare reason but i see no compelling reason to use it over a navy exeq for that. I would much rather you make it a proper blaster brawler.

Eagle should have a bonus that makes all aBC's on grid spontanioiusly explode, then it might get used.

I'd like to see the Eagle get a significant tracking bonus personally. Making it absolutely lethal against support, and would certainly also help it out in the mythical duel between it and a Naga or Talos (better damage application and better tank).

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Thorvik
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#760 - 2013-07-30 17:50:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Thorvik
CCP Rise wrote:


For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with.

...


The Vaga, as you have it now, is ****. It's not a kiter and it's a poor brawler. Used to be an awesome solo ship and now..... :(

Since you insist on having an XLASB on there we will be alpha'd off the field if we come across a gang with a Tornado and any other ship. Yes we don't have to fit one but to not fit one would force us into anemic DPS with smaller guns. Put a point on and become an expensive wet paper bag in space. Get rid of point and you lose your prey.

It's not that the Cynabal is too good relative to the Vaga. It's better performance for the cost. Vagas are just too expensive for what you are proposing. It's original role was as a kiting solo ship.

Cynabal, SFI and even the stabber is better performance for the ISK. It really saddens me but, like I said before, I'll put my Vaga away for another day.