These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Battlingbean
Wings of the Dark Portal
#881 - 2013-07-30 22:41:27 UTC
Enough about probably over buffed ships that were good before the changes.

Lets talk about the Eagle?
Endeis
Reckless-Endangerment
Manifesto.
#882 - 2013-07-30 22:43:53 UTC
I said earlier that Vaga needs more dps, I agree with a lot of what I've read after that saying it needs more dps at range specifically to avoid this brawler vaga idea. It does like 150dps at 30k, it really can't kill much atm.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#883 - 2013-07-30 22:46:42 UTC
paritybit wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:

Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.

Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.

Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.


It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option

I think you are giving up on the best option too readily.

paritybit wrote:
which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates.

Too many ships already fill that role, otherwise I would probably be arguing the same.

With the number of medium gun hulls being so vast, we at the very least need to have the T2 ones in specialist roles. You have plenty of room for beefier but *whatever* alternatives to the t1 cruisers in the vast selection of cruiser and battlecruiser variants available. Keeping HACs in that general combat role is bad both for HACs and for everything else that shares that bracket.
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#884 - 2013-07-30 22:47:28 UTC
Now seems like a good time to re-post part of my comments from a few pages ago. On discussing the hulls that will likely 'make the cut' or 'not':

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?

Addendum: Also please consider splitting the HAC lineup into two; you already have 4 that look like they'll be perfectly viable on this pass. The other 4 could use a different role bonus and some re-thinking.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#885 - 2013-07-30 22:47:53 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
paritybit wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:

Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.

Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.

Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.


It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. They have a different engagement profile and you fly them differently. I still think the relationship between Tech 1 Cruisers and Heavy Assault Cruisers will be dysfunctional (because most people fit Tech 1 Cruisers with microwarpdrives already, so there's no real fitting difference), but it will be a little better than what's being proposed now.


Not if we all whine hard enough.



i reduced my expectations....


...realisticly all i wat now is to get more pg on the vaga.
Knoxx Golem Asator
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#886 - 2013-07-30 22:52:12 UTC
Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.

So here goes my million dollar question:


ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.



o7
paritybit
Solarmark
#887 - 2013-07-30 22:53:51 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
paritybit wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:

Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.

Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.

Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.


It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option

I think you are giving up on the best option too readily.

paritybit wrote:
which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates.

Too many ships already fill that role, otherwise I would probably be arguing the same.

With the number of medium gun hulls being so vast, we at the very least need to have the T2 ones in specialist roles. You have plenty of room for beefier but *whatever* alternatives to the t1 cruisers in the vast selection of cruiser and battlecruiser variants available. Keeping HACs in that general combat role is bad both for HACs and for everything else that shares that bracket.


Well, it's hard to see the light past all the cries that the buff isn't going far enough to make HACs the ultimate combat cruisers. Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#888 - 2013-07-30 22:55:05 UTC
Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:
Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.

So here goes my million dollar question:


ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.



o7

Ishtar was boosted to 340 CPU (see OP)
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#889 - 2013-07-30 22:59:13 UTC
Considering how long they've been in the dog house, possible temporary HAC OPness is not really something i as a PVP player would be terribly upset with. Be bold with your solutions Rise/Fozzie, if your fears come true it'd be easier to tone down one or two use cases than leave HACs as a class still in a bad place until the next time they come up for balance.

10%/level drone bonuses for the Ishtar, return the Deimos armor, take that lovely man's suggestion for adjusting the Sacri slot layout, drop Eagle shield resist bonus for a damage or tracking bonus, drop the Vaga shield boost bonus for a falloff bonus,

AND MAKE THE MWD BONUS WORTH (it's not a bad idea, but it needs to be 75% to have any traction)

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#890 - 2013-07-30 23:03:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Bad Bobby
paritybit wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
paritybit wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:

Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.

Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.

Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.


It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option

I think you are giving up on the best option too readily.

paritybit wrote:
which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates.

Too many ships already fill that role, otherwise I would probably be arguing the same.

With the number of medium gun hulls being so vast, we at the very least need to have the T2 ones in specialist roles. You have plenty of room for beefier but *whatever* alternatives to the t1 cruisers in the vast selection of cruiser and battlecruiser variants available. Keeping HACs in that general combat role is bad both for HACs and for everything else that shares that bracket.


Well, it's hard to see the light past all the cries that the buff isn't going far enough to make HACs the ultimate combat cruisers. Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Yes, but there is a reason why we pay CCP to make this game for us: We are all terrible at game design.
Sarkelias Anophius
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#891 - 2013-07-30 23:17:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarkelias Anophius
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.


Shameless re-bump. Many agree this is a worthy idea. I hope you're reading this, CCP Rise. We can revive one of the most underpowered and underappreciated HACs in the game, without making it OP in any way, by implementing this redesign alone.

Hear the prayer of every Amarr Victor and fix this darn ship.
Knoxx Golem Asator
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#892 - 2013-07-30 23:17:55 UTC
nikar galvren wrote:
Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:
Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.

So here goes my million dollar question:


ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.



o7

Ishtar was boosted to 340 CPU (see OP)



Sorry can you give me a link so i can read?
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#893 - 2013-07-30 23:20:30 UTC
Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:
nikar galvren wrote:
Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:
Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.

So here goes my million dollar question:


ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.



o7

Ishtar was boosted to 340 CPU (see OP)



Sorry can you give me a link so i can read?


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3409697#post3409697

scroll to the Ishtar details
Knoxx Golem Asator
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#894 - 2013-07-30 23:26:48 UTC
ty
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#895 - 2013-07-30 23:29:09 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Considering how long they've been in the dog house, possible temporary HAC OPness is not really something i as a PVP player would be terribly upset with....

This is Eve, 'temporary OP'ness' has so far meant 2-3 years or forever .. and even if .. what would end their reign when the time comes, we are pretty much done with the "normal pew hull" tiericide. Best not Big smile
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#896 - 2013-07-30 23:47:04 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Considering how long they've been in the dog house, possible temporary HAC OPness is not really something i as a PVP player would be terribly upset with....

This is Eve, 'temporary OP'ness' has so far meant 2-3 years or forever .. and even if .. what would end their reign when the time comes, we are pretty much done with the "normal pew hull" tiericide. Best not Big smile

This is 2013, CCP's dedicated balance team would like to say hello and welcome you

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Blastil
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#897 - 2013-07-31 00:02:31 UTC
I like these much better. At least gallente have ONE working HAC. Now as for the other one:

I'm not sure why you're nerfing the diemos so hard on hitpoints? why the mad dash for this? its already a fragile ship, and giving it a 4th mid won't make it a shield tanker through magic and pixy dust.

Its only hope is to be like the taranis: omni tanked, relying on high damage and high hitpoints to do anything significant. At least give me my honor structure tank back rise...
Kick Rocks
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#898 - 2013-07-31 00:09:07 UTC
nikar galvren wrote:
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.


They might be if your post was slightly less...rude.

I certainly don't like it when people shove words in my mouth. Rise and CCP might be different but I wouldn't bet on it. I personally do not feel that being correct entitles me to be an ass, but that is just me.

That being said I get what you are saying and understand your frustration. I don't care that much because I fly Muninns because I like the way they look, which is why I fly most of my ships. It is just internet spaceships to me but I don't hate on you or anyone else for caring. This thread had been very entertaining.

Yes, I am an alt.  No, I do not care how you feel about that.  
Shadow McGregor
Into the Ether
Out of the Blue.
#899 - 2013-07-31 00:37:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadow McGregor
Overall there is some promise to be had here. I like that you have increased the CPU for the Ishtar and remove the drone bay bonus, thank you. Although changing the Sentry Tracking/Range bonus 10% to 7.5% and making it the Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonus instead of Gallente Cruiser Bonus is very disappointing. I also agree with a previous poster in saying that the speed bonus should not be centered around just Heavy Drones which received a strong nerf when the AI was upgraded to the rats, maybe consider doing a 5% Drone MWD speed bonus. This would have good results in PVP allowing light drones to catch the faster frigs aswell.

ISHTAR

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed (was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage)
10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level
5% bonus to Drone MWD speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)

Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers
Fittings: 780 PWG(+80), 340 CPU(+55)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400 (-6) / 1600 (-18) / 2300 (+191)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400 (+275) / 265s (-70s) / 5.28/s (+1.9)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+4) / .52 / 11100000 / 8.43s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+250)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+20km) / 294 / 7
Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+7)
Signature radius: 145

This Ishtar could be used for both PVE and PVP options.
Koshie Naranek
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#900 - 2013-07-31 00:42:20 UTC
A few thoughts, but I am probably way off.

Recently every time a Minmatar ship has been redesigned it has been cursed.

The Tempest looks so good. And now is the worst tech 1 BS in the game (7/6/6 slot layout please, who the hell armor tanks this thing with only 6 low slots and still have room for gyro's). Two neuts are nice, if you are trying to kill supers. You will still have one high utility slot left. Geddon is your new neut boat anyways.

The Stabber (especially the vaga variant) looks a lot better, but its a shield tanker with 4 mid slots.

The Muninn (no the Rupture hull hasn't been redesigned, but it should be, but after the Moa...WTF) should get that extra high slot transferred to a mid, not a low slot. Everyone shield tanks Muninns for a reason.

I know you are trying to add variety but Minmatar are shield tankers by nature. Not armor tankers. Look at the t2 resist profile for shields vs armor on mini ships. We have Gallente and Amarr for armor tanking.

I should have posted anonymously, as I am just rambling. But these are some thoughts I've had for a while.


But overall thanks Rise for the changes. All the changes. You must have some really thick skin. Or a lot of tear collection buckets.