These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1361 - 2013-08-02 19:01:28 UTC
What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1362 - 2013-08-02 19:04:42 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense.


it must an AB Railgun thing... like it has the sig or speed to pull it off

The eagle will still be the poor caldari HAC that everyone laughs at and would't waste 200mil + and the training time to use over a much cheaper and more effective Naga.

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
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#1363 - 2013-08-02 19:06:07 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Sorry I didn't say anything about the Caldari HACs, it's because I think they are probably both in really good shape.

We are seriously concerned that the Cerb will be too strong. The biggest issue is probably Rapid Light Missile Launchers which have incredibly damage application and projection for such a tiny fitting investment. I think its a good dynamic to be choosing between raw damage potential and application, but a rlml Cerb will be kind of insane. And in general the ship is shedding a lot of its past handicaps such as terrible speed and fitting difficulty.

The Eagle is a little harder to judge, but I think it's probably more towards the side of being too strong than being too weak. The Eagle is definitely more of a fleet ship than a small scale skirmisher, but it got much much better for that role in this pass. Added sensor stats, lower sig, added fitting, and most importantly the trade of a utility high for an extra mid means that we are expecting ahac style eagle fleets to be very strong, especially when you consider the rail buff. We'll have to see how it goes but we are not worried about the Eagle.

About the price question - I would say if its rising in price but you don't think its worth it that you shouldn't buy it, but clearly someone thinks it will be worth it. I don't think the price of HACs necessarily would be required for their power level, but I also don't think it needs to be lowered. With these changes they will more than justify the price for lots of players (me included).


Wait: So the Cerberus' anti-frigate capabilities (unless RLMLs now actually pose a threat to things your own size) threaten to make it too strong, while ignoring HML and Assault missile performance? I'm not sure I'm getting this part here.

As for the Eagle: The rail 'buff' also includes making it's medium guns (put on a reasonably fast cruiser) track only somewhat better than battleship blasters. Bad tracking, on a fast ship, meant to fight faster targets... Is a buff? I guess that's a solid way to give railgun ships absolutely tiny engagement envelopes or something.

I am not convinced at all that either HAC is in a good position- placing the current set of changes (for both HACs and command ships) on Singularity to allow for large scale testing and additional feedback would be a very good idea, IMO.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1364 - 2013-08-02 19:06:34 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, I'm still kind of out of it and I'll probably give another check-in here after the weekend, but here's where I stand for now:

I think our biggest concern is the Deimos. While the combination of the new layout and speed, added to the rail buff probably makes for a skirmisher that will be extremely powerful, we do appreciate the fact that a lot of people feel disappointed with it as an in-your-face brawler. I think the expected performance as a brawler varies quite a bit based on what kind of PVP you like (what size etc), but I would like to push it back towards that role in some way. We want to at least give back some of the base hp in armor, maybe at the cost of some of the added shield hp. I don't have numbers for this yet but I'll get them to you guys early next week. The other thing I would really like to do is give the Deimos an armor rep bonus. I think it could fit in nicely as a replacement for the MWD cap use bonus as long as the cap recharge is high enough that the kiting fits are handicapped. This wouldn't have much affect on large fleet AHAC type application, but would open up more possibilities at small scale. It also fits really well racially compared to the cap use bonus which is sort of unusual. I'm sure a lot of you won't love an active bonus because it doesn't apply to your style of play, but it would come in at little-to-no cost and offer smaller scale fighters more diversity and a more efficient brawler.


I GOT THROUGH!

\o/ (Yes i'm taking full credit >=[)

Then i don't really have anything else to complain about with the HAC's.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1365 - 2013-08-02 19:09:21 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, I'm still kind of out of it and I'll probably give another check-in here after the weekend, but here's where I stand for now:

I think our biggest concern is the Deimos. While the combination of the new layout and speed, added to the rail buff probably makes for a skirmisher that will be extremely powerful, we do appreciate the fact that a lot of people feel disappointed with it as an in-your-face brawler. I think the expected performance as a brawler varies quite a bit based on what kind of PVP you like (what size etc), but I would like to push it back towards that role in some way. We want to at least give back some of the base hp in armor, maybe at the cost of some of the added shield hp. I don't have numbers for this yet but I'll get them to you guys early next week. The other thing I would really like to do is give the Deimos an armor rep bonus. I think it could fit in nicely as a replacement for the MWD cap use bonus as long as the cap recharge is high enough that the kiting fits are handicapped. This wouldn't have much affect on large fleet AHAC type application, but would open up more possibilities at small scale. It also fits really well racially compared to the cap use bonus which is sort of unusual. I'm sure a lot of you won't love an active bonus because it doesn't apply to your style of play, but it would come in at little-to-no cost and offer smaller scale fighters more diversity and a more efficient brawler.


I GOT THROUGH!

\o/ (Yes i'm taking full credit >=[)

Then i don't really have anything else to complain about with the HAC's.


Ishtar is still stuck with sentry blobbing or lol heavy drones. Complain about that. Maybe the sacrilege's lowslots as well, if you want.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1366 - 2013-08-02 19:14:05 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, I'm still kind of out of it and I'll probably give another check-in here after the weekend, but here's where I stand for now:

I think our biggest concern is the Deimos. While the combination of the new layout and speed, added to the rail buff probably makes for a skirmisher that will be extremely powerful, we do appreciate the fact that a lot of people feel disappointed with it as an in-your-face brawler. I think the expected performance as a brawler varies quite a bit based on what kind of PVP you like (what size etc), but I would like to push it back towards that role in some way. We want to at least give back some of the base hp in armor, maybe at the cost of some of the added shield hp. I don't have numbers for this yet but I'll get them to you guys early next week. The other thing I would really like to do is give the Deimos an armor rep bonus. I think it could fit in nicely as a replacement for the MWD cap use bonus as long as the cap recharge is high enough that the kiting fits are handicapped. This wouldn't have much affect on large fleet AHAC type application, but would open up more possibilities at small scale. It also fits really well racially compared to the cap use bonus which is sort of unusual. I'm sure a lot of you won't love an active bonus because it doesn't apply to your style of play, but it would come in at little-to-no cost and offer smaller scale fighters more diversity and a more efficient brawler.


I GOT THROUGH!

\o/ (Yes i'm taking full credit >=[)

Then i don't really have anything else to complain about with the HAC's.


Ishtar is still stuck with sentry blobbing or lol heavy drones. Complain about that. Maybe the sacrilege's lowslots as well, if you want.


Ehh i have enough things to complain about with the link "nerf"

I'm not quite bitter enough to get something i like and just go straight to whining about other things :P

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1367 - 2013-08-02 19:17:04 UTC
ON the ishtar the drone split is weird and sentries are a little OP atm so dropping it to 5% sorts out the whole issue

The cerberus again why do we need so many range bonuses on caldari HACS? it usually suggests they are trying to make up for something .. also sniping with missiles is a waste of time besides cruise missiles maybe seems silly to waste 2 bonuses when one range bonus should be enough and the second bonus could be something more useful like explosion velocity.

On RML please just delete these things they make no sense having frig weapons on cruiser hulls.
Navy caracal with the explosion radius surely can do a good job against frigs using javelins .. just buff javelins or add a anti frig T2 option to HAMs/HM's or invent new missiles like say an light assault missile with a launcher that improves it tracking for less dps and easier fitting... something that makes more sense anyway as you don't see medium guns with frig ammo ..

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
Red Woodson
Estrale Frontiers
#1368 - 2013-08-02 19:17:45 UTC
I realize it may be a bit late in the game to be suggesting this, but have you considered reducing the mass on these ships to at least a good bit below T1? This would allow them to fit through wormholes easier to help soften the blow to T3 wormhole fleets we all know is coming. From a k-space perspective, it would make them slightly cheaper to move via jump and titan bridges, for anyone that actually cared about isotope and loz consumption. The reason i figure it is a bit too late in the game is that you would of course also have to adjust the agility stat, as well as possibly other stuff, to keep their performance similar under ab, mwd, and in the alignment time department.

The good news is the link changes combined with the mwd sig bonus and the Medium LR gun buff make open up some MWD doctrines that operate just outside loki web range. The bad news is, at a guess, the link nerfs appear to me to have done nasty things to ahac doctrines. Oh well, win some loose some i guess.

And it seems all of the hacs have been boosted for solo/small gang stuff, though some maybe not enough. Time will tell.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1369 - 2013-08-02 19:18:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
CCP Rise wrote:
Sorry I didn't say anything about the Caldari HACs, it's because I think they are probably both in really good shape.

We are seriously concerned that the Cerb will be too strong. The biggest issue is probably Rapid Light Missile Launchers which have incredibly damage application and projection for such a tiny fitting investment. I think its a good dynamic to be choosing between raw damage potential and application, but a rlml Cerb will be kind of insane. And in general the ship is shedding a lot of its past handicaps such as terrible speed and fitting difficulty.

The kinetic-only bonus is still a problem - it was easier to justify on the Cerb previously whilst the Sacrilege was HAM-only (there was a nice symmetry there of kinetic ammo only, any launcher, versus HAM only, any ammo) but with the Sac getting HML bonuses too I really don't see why this should continue.

Quote:
The Eagle is a little harder to judge, but I think it's probably more towards the side of being too strong than being too weak.


:psyduck:

Quote:
The Eagle is definitely more of a fleet ship than a small scale skirmisher, but it got much much better for that role in this pass. Added sensor stats, lower sig, added fitting, and most importantly the trade of a utility high for an extra mid means that we are expecting ahac style eagle fleets to be very strong, especially when you consider the rail buff. We'll have to see how it goes but we are not worried about the Eagle.

The Eagle has a fundamental problem in that extreme-range sniping is both barely required in the modern game, and when it is, the role is aptly covered by the Naga already. especially with the 1.1 turret tweaking pushing medium guns closer towards their large counterparts (more damage, less tracking) rather than diversifying the two categories.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1370 - 2013-08-02 19:20:16 UTC
Active rep bonuses need to go the way of the Dodo. Not sure how giving an active rep bonus to the Deimos makes it any better in real PVP situations.

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

Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1371 - 2013-08-02 19:22:10 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

We are seriously concerned that the Cerb will be too strong. The biggest issue is probably Rapid Light Missile Launchers which have incredibly damage application and projection for such a tiny fitting investment. I think its a good dynamic to be choosing between raw damage potential and application, but a rlml Cerb will be kind of insane. And in general the ship is shedding a lot of its past handicaps such as terrible speed and fitting difficulty.

The problem isn't RLMLs. The problem is the Cerb's bonuses, how the Cerb's bonuses combine with RLMLs, and how terrible HMLs are nowadays.

The Cerb has two range bonuses, which means that it can throw missiles farther than any other medium missile platform. For RLMLs, this pushes them out to unbonused HML ranges, which is a very good range to be. It's within the hull's lock range and well outside of point range. For PvE, it more than covers all reasonable ranges in level 2 & 3 missions, which is where the RLML Cerb would excel.

HMLs on the Cerb, on the other hand, are totally wasted. A significant portion of their range is outside your lock range, so you need to gimp your fit a bit for some lock-range sensor boosters in order to actually use that range. At those huge ranges, PvP opponents will just warp off before your first couple volleys even get to them, and you'll never see PvE enemies that far away. Plus, HMLs have terrible damage application, especially since the Cerb can lob them past target painter range.

So the choice between RLMLs and HMLs on the Cerb is basically "do you want to hit everything well at reasonable ranges" or "do you want to only hit big things at absurd ranges"--an easy enough choice.

The fix is simple. First, fix HMLs so they don't suck anymore. Second, drop one of the Cerb's range bonuses for either a damage/ROF bonus or a tanking bonus. Caldari don't need two sniping HACs, and sniping with missiles is silly anyway.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1372 - 2013-08-02 19:26:07 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense.


it must an AB Railgun thing... like it has the sig or speed to pull it off

The eagle will still be the poor caldari HAC that everyone laughs at and would't waste 200mil + and the training time to use over a much cheaper and more effective Naga.


how far does it shoot with null?

could you do something like
full rack of nuetron balsters

10mn ab
tracking comp
em hardner
two invul
large extender

lows:
dcu II
TE
2 mag stabs

rigs:
bust accelerator
shield expander

though i do agree it really needs 25m3 and mb to be usefull

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#1373 - 2013-08-02 19:27:27 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

I think our biggest concern is the Deimos. While the combination of the new layout and speed, added to the rail buff probably makes for a skirmisher that will be extremely powerful, we do appreciate the fact that a lot of people feel disappointed with it as an in-your-face brawler. I think the expected performance as a brawler varies quite a bit based on what kind of PVP you like (what size etc), but I would like to push it back towards that role in some way. We want to at least give back some of the base hp in armor, maybe at the cost of some of the added shield hp. I don't have numbers for this yet but I'll get them to you guys early next week. The other thing I would really like to do is give the Deimos an armor rep bonus. I think it could fit in nicely as a replacement for the MWD cap use bonus as long as the cap recharge is high enough that the kiting fits are handicapped. This wouldn't have much affect on large fleet AHAC type application, but would open up more possibilities at small scale. It also fits really well racially compared to the cap use bonus which is sort of unusual. I'm sure a lot of you won't love an active bonus because it doesn't apply to your style of play, but it would come in at little-to-no cost and offer smaller scale fighters more diversity and a more efficient brawler.

Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design. The complaints range quite a bit but I think the most legitimate one is that the Vaga struggles to project damage compared to its competition (Deimos/Cerberus mostly). I think you have to accept that the Vaga has huge advantages in some other areas that should easily outweigh its slightly lower damage projection. Compared to Cerberus for instance, you have an enormous speed advantage, a utility high, and significantly lower Signature. How valuable you think these things are will vary of course, but you can't expect the Vaga to push damage out as well or it simply becomes better in all cases.

Deimos armor: YES! Adding shields and taking away armor was a needless nerf to an already thinly tanked ship.
Deimos bonus: I actually *like* the MWD bonus but understand im in the minority heh

Vagabond: I'd venture that you're confused about the resistance because you're confused about the ship. The Vagabond is not the Hurricane. It's not a close range shield AC brawler that moonlights as an artillery platform. It's a kiting AC ship, fighting at the edge of point range. It's competition is not the Deimos (close range) or the Cerberus (any range). You're focusing too much on improving the Vaga's performance in a role it's not really suited to do with it's HP, fittings, and weapons layout (dual prop XL ASB fits are more of a novelty than a standard). Going from your proposed shield boost bonus to another fall off bonus will not impact the Vaga's close range brawling capabilities nor give it enough range to remotely compete against the Cerberus.

But it WOULD return the Vaga's ability to fight competitively in the 20-25km, which is what soloers and small gangers (the people that use the vaga) are craving. The Vaga shouldnt be the best in all cases, but it should be the best in THAT case. Anything else and the breadth of the "value variance" is from little to nothing.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1374 - 2013-08-02 19:29:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
CCP Rise wrote:

Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design. The complaints range quite a bit but I think the most legitimate one is that the Vaga struggles to project damage compared to its competition (Deimos/Cerberus mostly). I think you have to accept that the Vaga has huge advantages in some other areas that should easily outweigh its slightly lower damage projection. Compared to Cerberus for instance, you have an enormous speed advantage, a utility high, and significantly lower Signature. How valuable you think these things are will vary of course, but you can't expect the Vaga to push damage out as well or it simply becomes better in all cases.


Maybe you should give us some numbers instead of leaving if for us to deconstruct. People need to see a typical fit so they can see things like the dps, range, speed and tank before they can give you any meaningful feedback... so show us a typical fit

I think the problem is that you may be suffering from eft warrior syndrome with a lot of the HACs. A vaga is not a braying ship so it stands to reason that it needs to be able to project it's damage at kiting range. Given that fact, who cares about a utility high (used for neuts in most cases) when you are in a kiting ship?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1375 - 2013-08-02 19:34:10 UTC
if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.

so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1376 - 2013-08-02 19:35:57 UTC
Im not sure I understand the line of thinking here . . . Earlier in this thread, you said
CCP Rise wrote:
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.

Then later you made this comment about the Sacrilege . . .
CCP Rise wrote:
Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for its layout and bonuses but because of the power of the resist buff it's very easy for it to become too strong. We also really like that it tends to fit in to fleets as a ship with enormous utility rather than being all tank and gank like a lot of the other HACs. For that reason we really wanted to leave the utility high and the 4th mid. It would often make a better straight up brawler with another low, but by going the route we went of adding more drone dps and more fitting room, we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things.

These two things seem to be in conflict with each other.

I feel like these HACs should be super specialized, and im not sure being a "utility ship" is a specialization . . .
Lucien Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1377 - 2013-08-02 19:36:46 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for its layout and bonuses but because of the power of the resist buff it's very easy for it to become too strong. We also really like that it tends to fit in to fleets as a ship with enormous utility rather than being all tank and gank like a lot of the other HACs. For that reason we really wanted to leave the utility high and the 4th mid. It would often make a better straight up brawler with another low, but by going the route we went of adding more drone dps and more fitting room, we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things.


.


I'm sorry but that is absolute nonsens. By no means does the utility high slot give this ship a stronger position in comparison to the old HAC or other HACs in particular. The drones are pretty much useless since their dmg output without certain boni is negligible. A stronger tank, ergo a 6th low would have been a considerably more useful change, allowing the ship to take a position as a truly heavy brawler. Now all it ends up to be is a slightly above average jack of all trades with NO PARTICULAR STRENGTHS. The ship deserves atleast one advantage over ships of similiar size and class to stand its own in the heat of Combat. Please reconsider your decision again.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1378 - 2013-08-02 19:37:18 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
The Eagle is a little harder to judge, but I think it's probably more towards the side of being too strong than being too weak. The Eagle is definitely more of a fleet ship than a small scale skirmisher, but it got much much better for that role in this pass. Added sensor stats, lower sig, added fitting, and most importantly the trade of a utility high for an extra mid means that we are expecting ahac style eagle fleets to be very strong, especially when you consider the rail buff. We'll have to see how it goes but we are not worried about the Eagle.
You don't think that the Eagle is still doing an underwhelming amount of damage with only having 5 turrets and a single damage bonus? I get that optimal range is a Caldari thing, but that doesn't help the damage that the Eagle is going to put out. It should be given a 6th turret (with single damage bonus) or boost the damage bonus to 7.5% or even 10% per level.

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

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

Lucien Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1379 - 2013-08-02 19:40:24 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Im not sure I understand the line of thinking here . . . Earlier in this thread, you said
CCP Rise wrote:
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.

Then later you made this comment about the Sacrilege . . .
CCP Rise wrote:
Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for its layout and bonuses but because of the power of the resist buff it's very easy for it to become too strong. We also really like that it tends to fit in to fleets as a ship with enormous utility rather than being all tank and gank like a lot of the other HACs. For that reason we really wanted to leave the utility high and the 4th mid. It would often make a better straight up brawler with another low, but by going the route we went of adding more drone dps and more fitting room, we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things.

These two things seem to be in conflict with each other.

I feel like these HACs should be super specialized, and im not sure being a "utility ship" is a specialization . . .


Common sense is still alive in the community. God bless you.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1380 - 2013-08-02 19:44:39 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense.


it must an AB Railgun thing... like it has the sig or speed to pull it off

The eagle will still be the poor caldari HAC that everyone laughs at and would't waste 200mil + and the training time to use over a much cheaper and more effective Naga.


how far does it shoot with null?

could you do something like
full rack of nuetron balsters

10mn ab
tracking comp
em hardner
two invul
large extender

lows:
dcu II
TE
2 mag stabs

rigs:
bust accelerator
shield expander

though i do agree it really needs 25m3 and mb to be usefull


So it's like zealots but worse in every way.