These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1501 - 2013-08-04 20:43:52 UTC
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
I like it, but why is the Diemos(t) loosing tank?


to make sure it keeps in trend with its unofficial real name XD

besides its still really powerful, and the noobs havent figured out that all you need to do to survive and attack from one, is put your hand over you eyes and press the "return fire button" XD.


also the vagabond needs both its launcher slots.

sticking rapid lights on it to kill frigs is fun. besides webbing kills the shield tank.. in fact.. give some of its low slots to the mediums. like 2.

after all its suppose to be a shield tank right? how can it tackle or solo and tank like that? it cant.



The real problem of Deimost is not his firepower everyone agrees with this, the real Deimost and major problem is the lack of tools to achieve his job and his job being at shooting right in the face it needs to be able to get there already.

Armor/structure is being taken, slight more speed, good but once is web and scram (Prot/Lachesis/Arazu/Huggin/Rapier/Loki) how fast it goes and how interesting it is the mwd cap bonus to make it achieve his job? -nothing, and to add insult to injury with less EHP it will die even more faster so instead of Deimost from now on it will be called Diefaster

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1502 - 2013-08-04 22:55:16 UTC
Maybe repeating myself helps ... .

Imo what a vagabond should end up with is 2.8km/s, 7 sec agility, 486dps with barrage (current number but with a burst rig) maybe 20-50more dps, a 38km faloff range with emp/fusion/plasma, and a 55km range with barrage and about 6% more grid.


This changes nothing of it as a brawler, its dps stays more or less the same, i wouldnt expect any armour fits and if they come up, great. Just to emphasize this, this wouldnt change a thing once you caught the vaga.

For kiting, well, this proposed vaga now would have about 250 turret dps at 40km with barrage, 160ish with emp/fusion, so it wouldnt intrude on zealot terretory, (strong armour tank + 406 turret dps at 40km with dual heat sinks + scorch), nor on eagle (500dps at 50+ and an enourmous tank) nor on cerb (again, big tank and 450dps with rlmls at 70km, or 650dps with hams to 45km) so in pure dps at range it wouldnt intrude on any other hac terretory. And at 20km a blaster shield deimos would still rip it a new one.

It also will not make it op in 1v1s, a bad pilot can easily be sligshotted by a better pilot (espcially a 7.8 agility pilot) and up close it still is a t1 cruiser with higher dps, easy prey for any comeptent hac (ishtar reps 1k dps with a rep + maar setup with heat, and still over 500 without paste, combined with 600dps and a heated speed of 2.3km/s, tahts before any implants or links).

Now how to achieve this, either tweak the faloff bonus and keep the shield repping bonus, or remove the shield repping one for a second falloff bonus.

Now how to get the higher speed? Quite a few ways to do that atm, that basicely is just a od II in the lows, so utility high -> lowslot would do it, or give it more base speed. You also just could give it the fitting for 425s + dual LSE + mwd (a deimos has the fitting to do that with its long range version, as does the cerb/eagle and so on) without having to use rig slots, so that they can be used for speed mods you also achieve that.


So if you want to make the vagabond a viable kiter, give it a second falloff bonus, increase itspower grid by a few % and you are done. Now you could test if for fine tuning a little bit more dps would be good.

Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1503 - 2013-08-04 23:22:31 UTC
Shereza wrote:


Roime wrote:
Was it really a must to drop the utility highs from the Ishtar?


Um, the ishtar gained 2 utility high slots. High slot + no applicable weapon bonus for any hardpoints = utility slot, and the ishtar has no turret bonuses in this latest suggestion. Even if you didn't look at it that way the ishtar is only losing one high slot which means only one utility slot lost; you're not being forced to fit a fourth gun into the new fourth turret hardpoint.


Let me put it this way: In order to fit the same utility as in the current version, you have to give up about 100 dps compared to the old version.





.

The Renner
Canadian Operations
#1504 - 2013-08-05 00:07:00 UTC
Good changes.

Although I would like to see the Sacrilege lose the utility high and gain a low slot.
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#1505 - 2013-08-05 06:08:19 UTC
Should any specialised ship have a utility slot?

...I think all their slots should be dedicated to the HACs role.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1506 - 2013-08-05 06:38:48 UTC
Mei Khlolov wrote:
The current proposed Deimos changes are as close to perfect as they're gonna get. I get frustrated with my fellow gallente pilots as they want every goddamn ship to brawl. How many brawlers does a race need?



When the main weapon system the race you fly is blasters with secondary rails and drones you can expect that race engineers to be smart enough to give their ships the tools and abilities to achieve their job, it turns out they're not that smart and actually not only don't seem able to detect the specific ships tools needs but on top rely on AI and other races tanking mods to be effective enough.

Gallente got a lot better for sure.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Devon Weeks
Asteroid Mining Industries
Salt Mining Industrialists
#1507 - 2013-08-05 06:40:47 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Should any specialised ship have a utility slot?

...I think all their slots should be dedicated to the HACs role.


To an extent, I agree with this. But, certain ship simply aren't equipped to do their job without that utility high. The Deimos, for example, uses a nos to maintain its ability to gun in neut range or run a local rep. Now, with the slot going to the mids, you can switch the nos to a cap booster for the same effect. Not really an issue anymore. But, on a ship without the 4th mid or a dedicated drone boat like the Ishtar, I can see having a utility high.
Devon Weeks
Asteroid Mining Industries
Salt Mining Industrialists
#1508 - 2013-08-05 06:45:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Devon Weeks
Quote:
The current proposed Deimos changes are as close to perfect as they're gonna get. I get frustrated with my fellow gallente pilots as they want every goddamn ship to brawl. How many brawlers does a race need?


Really? We kite with the Talos. We kite with the Myrmidon, although it is capable of both. We kite with the Ishkur. We snipe with the Domi, Mega, or Hype. I mean, if I go through all Gallente ships, very few are dedicated brawlers. Most are actually pretty diverse ships that can be fit to do either. The only "dedicated" brawlers I can think of are the Thorax, Deimos, and Brutix. If you haven't figured out how to do something other than brawl with the other Gallente ships, I think you should probably re-examine them.

If anything, Gallente ships suffer from a lack of specialization across the board. They have pretty even slot layouts with a preference for lows over mids. A large number of them can shield or armor tank due to the balance of slots. It's not really accurate to say we have too many brawling boats. Other than maybe the Astarte, there aren't any other dedicated tech 2 brawlers if you push the Deimos toward kiting.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1509 - 2013-08-05 07:25:33 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Should any specialised ship have a utility slot?

...I think all their slots should be dedicated to the HACs role.


HACs role = kill **** and survive, on TQ you need utility highs to achieve this, unless you fly in sov blobs- in which case nothing really matters, just bring more.

.

Tuxedo Catfish
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1510 - 2013-08-05 09:34:04 UTC
Mei Khlolov wrote:
The current proposed Deimos changes are as close to perfect as they're gonna get. I get frustrated with my fellow gallente pilots as they want every goddamn ship to brawl. How many brawlers does a race need?

If you've just gotta change the deimos more, please don't hurt its kiting ability. It looks awesome as it is now (including MWD bonus!)


It's not a question of how many. It's a question of having a brawler that can actually *catch* things -- unlike the Brutix and its t2 variants. The only ship that really fits that description is the shield Thorax -- the Talos can catch things, but it's a kiter -- but it desperately lacks hit points, a problem going t2 usually solves.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1511 - 2013-08-05 10:36:49 UTC
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
Mei Khlolov wrote:
The current proposed Deimos changes are as close to perfect as they're gonna get. I get frustrated with my fellow gallente pilots as they want every goddamn ship to brawl. How many brawlers does a race need?

If you've just gotta change the deimos more, please don't hurt its kiting ability. It looks awesome as it is now (including MWD bonus!)


It's not a question of how many. It's a question of having a brawler that can actually *catch* things -- unlike the Brutix and its t2 variants. The only ship that really fits that description is the shield Thorax -- the Talos can catch things, but it's a kiter -- but it desperately lacks hit points, a problem going t2 usually solves.


How do all the ships slower than Brutix *catch* things?

You know it's barely slower than the Cane and Cyclone.

.

Commander BroudMoore
Free Galactic Enterprises
#1512 - 2013-08-05 10:44:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander BroudMoore
Split bonus that Ishtar got isnt really inline with other ships. Long range drones bonus and short range drone bonus should count as one bonus (not two) just like turret bonus. I mean turret bonuses dont count as two bonuses even though they apply to both, long range and short range turrets.

Speaking of turrets, Istar has no reason to fit hybrid turrets since there is no bonus for them.

So for Ishtar:
- the split drones bonus should count as one bonus.
- some sort of hybrid bonus should be added to make this gallente hull remain "Gallente" (and not some gallente-minmatar hybrid) even hybrid turret cap use bonus works as it might make blasters more tempting than Autocannons. Without a hybrit turret bonus there isnt really anything to think about.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1513 - 2013-08-05 11:24:36 UTC
Not sure if the choice between blasters and ACs is that straightforward. If you intend to fight in web range, blasters are better in tracking and dps, ACs pull ahead beyond 10km. Damage type vs ammo switching time is toss (highly situational), which leaves ACs with range and lolcap advantage. Comparing Ions and 425mms.

I do agree with you about other things, tho.

.

Sigras
Conglomo
#1514 - 2013-08-05 11:28:59 UTC
Roime wrote:
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Should any specialised ship have a utility slot?

...I think all their slots should be dedicated to the HACs role.


HACs role = kill **** and survive, on TQ you need utility highs to achieve this, unless you fly in sov blobs- in which case nothing really matters, just bring more.

Please tell me more about how a vindicator cant tank and gank without a utility high . . .

or what about the following ships?
The Rokh
The Abaddon
The ABCs
The Zealot

Clearly utility high slots are not necessary.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1515 - 2013-08-05 11:35:39 UTC
Roime wrote:
Not sure if the choice between blasters and ACs is that straightforward. If you intend to fight in web range, blasters are better in tracking and dps, ACs pull ahead beyond 10km. Damage type vs ammo switching time is toss (highly situational), which leaves ACs with range and lolcap advantage. Comparing Ions and 425mms.

I do agree with you about other things, tho.

How is the cap advantage in any way a joke? I think you misunderstand, the advantage is not that ACs save you SO much cap that you can now run a tank or something, the advantage is that ACs still fire when you're neuted to 0 and blasters turn off.

If ACs used .01 cap per activation, the advantage would be lolz because nobody cares about the small amount of cap the medium blasters use; its the fact that they need you to have cap to use, and ACs currently dont.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1516 - 2013-08-05 11:38:57 UTC  |  Edited by: W0lf Crendraven
Commander BroudMoore wrote:
Split bonus that Ishtar got isnt really inline with other ships. Long range drones bonus and short range drone bonus should count as one bonus (not two) just like turret bonus. I mean turret bonuses dont count as two bonuses even though they apply to both, long range and short range turrets.

Speaking of turrets, Istar has no reason to fit hybrid turrets since there is no bonus for them.

So for Ishtar:
- the split drones bonus should count as one bonus.
- some sort of hybrid bonus should be added to make this gallente hull remain "Gallente" (and not some gallente-minmatar hybrid) even hybrid turret cap use bonus works as it might make blasters more tempting than Autocannons. Without a hybrit turret bonus there isnt really anything to think about.


Imo you think of it in a wrong way, you shouldnt balance about boni, you should design around results and the use stats/boni accordingly so that you may reach those results.

As you said, the split bonus and no bonused guns may make the ishtar seem weak.

But if you look at results, the shield ishtar has 45k ehp, and puts out 1013dps preheat. (with heavy drones that track with 0.4)

http://i.imgur.com/qtKOoP5.png

A active armour ishtar tank over 800dps with heat (over 1k with a maar) while putting out 660 dps, preheat with full tackle.

http://i.imgur.com/s3mscC7.png (edit, is a oldish fit, still havnt changed to for the exra cpu)

Another damage or tanking bonus would make it absurdly op. So while the boni look weak the end result is very very strong.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1517 - 2013-08-05 11:42:36 UTC
Roime wrote:
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Should any specialised ship have a utility slot?

...I think all their slots should be dedicated to the HACs role.

on TQ you need utility highs to achieve this, unless you fly in sov blobs


Nope. Disagree on that point. I'd say a utility high is damn useful if you are flying solo and want to neut enemies or use nos to keep cap. But by no means are utility highs utterly vital to act as a Heavy Assault ship, it has to be decided ship by ship.

The T3s have always overshadowed the HACs at this heavy assault role, particularly Legion and Prot. Most setups you'll see will have a full set of weapons in the high slot. Doesn't stop them being brutally effective. Sure you can argue that's just due to how powerful they are in general but the point remains.
Taking the Sacrilege as an example, the extra lowslot instead of a utility slot would make it more survivable in most cases. I'm liking the utility high on the Sac though, but looking at the Zealot, I'm very glad it doesn't have one as it'd be useless.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1518 - 2013-08-05 11:45:50 UTC
Utility highs are on most ships only usefull for soloing (medium neut on vaga for example) and play a very little role once you have 2 pilots, the sac however gets a whole lot from its high, a a type medium rep tanks 500dps on another sac making rr hacs viable, a energy transfer can be used to negate neuting and cap stable medium neuts on all fleet ships are a pita for enemy logis.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1519 - 2013-08-05 11:49:34 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Roime wrote:
Not sure if the choice between blasters and ACs is that straightforward. If you intend to fight in web range, blasters are better in tracking and dps, ACs pull ahead beyond 10km. Damage type vs ammo switching time is toss (highly situational), which leaves ACs with range and lolcap advantage. Comparing Ions and 425mms.

I do agree with you about other things, tho.

How is the cap advantage in any way a joke? I think you misunderstand, the advantage is not that ACs save you SO much cap that you can now run a tank or something, the advantage is that ACs still fire when you're neuted to 0 and blasters turn off.

If ACs used .01 cap per activation, the advantage would be lolz because nobody cares about the small amount of cap the medium blasters use; its the fact that they need you to have cap to use, and ACs currently dont.


I don't find that a crucial advantage on a ship that already does +475 cap immune dps. You capitalize on the AC cap advantage only in situations where you are neuted completely dry, while losing +50dps in other situations, including those where you can keep blastering with properly timed cap injections. I fly my Ishtars active tanked, so the cap booster is a given.

I find blasters better in most cases, but ymmv and every fight is different.

.

Lucien Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1520 - 2013-08-05 12:58:03 UTC
The Renner wrote:
Good changes.

Although I would like to see the Sacrilege lose the utility high and gain a low slot.


I second this. Thank you very much.