These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#1661 - 2013-08-06 21:37:16 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.

I think we are reaching a good place here =)


But the Eagle ISN'T good.

It's role still isn't clearly defined. The railgun changes (mostly their hit to tracking) are going to hurt the Eagle and force it into ranges that don't make it useful. It's not going to be a good close range ship either because it doesn't have any drones at all. I see absolutely no reason to use an Eagle over a Zealot still.
Dev Tesla
Deep Matter Inc.
#1662 - 2013-08-06 21:38:00 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
smug



First, to comment on your pro/con post about page 79...

it's about 5 to 1 ratio of negative post to positive on this thread, and actually worse now than in early pages.

Secondly, you can't post about player support post when none of them can even tell you why other than.... "oh hacs are slightly better than before"

Third, you have still not received any positive support for the sacrilege, and honestly, it has absolutely no role that the zealot could not fill better/easier if dedicated to that cause besides a different weapon system.

Forth, you have not addressed cost concerns one bit when players have openly pointed out that the price point of hacs in no way accounts for their non-unique role, reduced efficiency at task compared to other ships, and other glaring flaws.

You have yet to give hac's a role.... and there is no sense of balance within even the ship class itself. There are some obvious winners and losers in the bunch.... for a class that's alerady underperforming as a whole, what does that say about the losers within the class.

=========================
Then there is the MWD role bonus for hacs has been bashed to **** and back, but you refuse to budge on it. Next to nobody has supported it, but you blindly continue to see it as a good thing... even when the predominant use of hacs doesn't even suggest using a MWD ever, if often.

=========================
Last and most important:

Fun factor: Without a role, these ships have completely lost out on the most obvious point of a rebalance... FUN.

There is just nothing unique to these ships to make them worth flying. Player's have been screaming at you for creativity, but you refuse to offer up any. What kind of smug obnoxious ass do you have to be to completely ignore what your paycheck players have been asking you for.

Nobody has asked for you to make them OP, just different in some way. But no, you refuse to even try.

Thanks for nothing.


+1 I'm Down with this post.

A bit harsh at the end. Blink
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#1663 - 2013-08-06 21:40:54 UTC
glepp wrote:
It seems to me like the Deimos can do a bit of everything decently, but nothing really well.

It's got tank enough to brawl, sure, and it's fast, but the sig radius still hurts in relation to other AHACs.
It can solo with the rep bonus, but lacks a utility high to neut off small stuff.
It can kite with rails but lacks a tracking bonus to take advantage of the damage.

Oh well, i guess it's true that a compromise means everyone is equally unhappy.


I don't know dude. I think the OLD deimos was a pretty good ship in very limited niches and this just buffs it in every way - enough that I can see it's comfortable range expanding quite a lot. It is very well placed to take advantage of the buffs to the electronic suite, extra mid and substantially increased mobility. And the extra cap (without MWD) and fitting isn't hurting anything either.

I see what you are saying about the sig radius, but the MWD fits got a massive sig buff thanks to the role bonus, and the AB fits a slight one. The old sig levels weren't the thing holding this hull back and I don't think they will be a real problem now.

It may lack the utility high, but it does have the drones for a couple small flights in a solo config - not exactly the most frig susceptible hac (*cough* zealot and eagle *cough, cough*). And the extra mid is a huge asset as well since you can run a cap booster now with full tackle. An Ion or Electron Deimos isn't going to have too much to worry about in the frig category I don't think.

I feel like how rails work out depends more on the med long range turret rebalance. It will be something to watch but non-tracking bonused rails should work on this thing with a decent pilot - otherwise I am sure Rise won't give up until we reach some sort of reasonable status. Much like a ton of people having problems conceptualizing the proposed vaga in a world with the current Cynabal I have an issue imaging the rail deimos when the tracking bonused Talos exists. We shall see I guess.

Either way a world with a tankier, faster, extra mid deimos is a world I am looking forward to playing in.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1664 - 2013-08-06 21:43:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Dev Tesla wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
smug



First, to comment on your pro/con post about page 79...

it's about 5 to 1 ratio of negative post to positive on this thread, and actually worse now than in early pages.

Secondly, you can't post about player support post when none of them can even tell you why other than.... "oh hacs are slightly better than before"

Third, you have still not received any positive support for the sacrilege, and honestly, it has absolutely no role that the zealot could not fill better/easier if dedicated to that cause besides a different weapon system.

Forth, you have not addressed cost concerns one bit when players have openly pointed out that the price point of hacs in no way accounts for their non-unique role, reduced efficiency at task compared to other ships, and other glaring flaws.

You have yet to give hac's a role.... and there is no sense of balance within even the ship class itself. There are some obvious winners and losers in the bunch.... for a class that's alerady underperforming as a whole, what does that say about the losers within the class.

=========================
Then there is the MWD role bonus for hacs has been bashed to **** and back, but you refuse to budge on it. Next to nobody has supported it, but you blindly continue to see it as a good thing... even when the predominant use of hacs doesn't even suggest using a MWD ever, if often.

=========================
Last and most important:

Fun factor: Without a role, these ships have completely lost out on the most obvious point of a rebalance... FUN.

There is just nothing unique to these ships to make them worth flying. Player's have been screaming at you for creativity, but you refuse to offer up any. What kind of smug obnoxious ass do you have to be to completely ignore what your paycheck players have been asking you for.

Nobody has asked for you to make them OP, just different in some way. But no, you refuse to even try.

Thanks for nothing.


+1 I'm Down with this post.

A bit harsh at the end. Blink


just a bit harsh :) he has made some effort after the first round you have to give him some credit for that others just wouldn't even do that or interact as much as he does.
But at the same time he does seem to have a bit of a blind spot for fine details and certain ships and his mind seems to get made up without much chance of changing it... sounds a bit like fozzie actually

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
#1665 - 2013-08-06 21:48:43 UTC
Rynnik wrote:
glepp wrote:
It seems to me like the Deimos can do a bit of everything decently, but nothing really well.

It's got tank enough to brawl, sure, and it's fast, but the sig radius still hurts in relation to other AHACs.
It can solo with the rep bonus, but lacks a utility high to neut off small stuff.
It can kite with rails but lacks a tracking bonus to take advantage of the damage.

Oh well, i guess it's true that a compromise means everyone is equally unhappy.


I don't know dude. I think the OLD deimos was a pretty good ship in very limited niches and this just buffs it in every way - enough that I can see it's comfortable range expanding quite a lot. It is very well placed to take advantage of the buffs to the electronic suite, extra mid and substantially increased mobility. And the extra cap (without MWD) and fitting isn't hurting anything either.

I see what you are saying about the sig radius, but the MWD fits got a massive sig buff thanks to the role bonus, and the AB fits a slight one. The old sig levels weren't the thing holding this hull back and I don't think they will be a real problem now.

It may lack the utility high, but it does have the drones for a couple small flights in a solo config - not exactly the most frig susceptible hac (*cough* zealot and eagle *cough, cough*). And the extra mid is a huge asset as well since you can run a cap booster now with full tackle. An Ion or Electron Deimos isn't going to have too much to worry about in the frig category I don't think.

I feel like how rails work out depends more on the med long range turret rebalance. It will be something to watch but non-tracking bonused rails should work on this thing with a decent pilot - otherwise I am sure Rise won't give up until we reach some sort of reasonable status. Much like a ton of people having problems conceptualizing the proposed vaga in a world with the current Cynabal I have an issue imaging the rail deimos when the tracking bonused Talos exists. We shall see I guess.

Either way a world with a tankier, faster, extra mid deimos is a world I am looking forward to playing in.


I'm finding it hard to imagine even fitting rails never-mind using them on an Deimos ...
the deimos i want to see is a blaster AAR deimos.... but i'm not convinced with its range a stronger falloff bonus is needed and ofc cap issues and AAR's being somewhat underwhelming atm 15% won't do much to fix it.

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
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp
#1666 - 2013-08-06 21:51:23 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
smug



First, to comment on your pro/con post about page 79...

it's about 5 to 1 ratio of negative post to positive on this thread, and actually worse now than in early pages.

Secondly, you can't post about player support post when none of them can even tell you why other than.... "oh hacs are slightly better than before"

Third, you have still not received any positive support for the sacrilege, and honestly, it has absolutely no role that the zealot could not fill better/easier if dedicated to that cause besides a different weapon system.

Forth, you have not addressed cost concerns one bit when players have openly pointed out that the price point of hacs in no way accounts for their non-unique role, reduced efficiency at task compared to other ships, and other glaring flaws.

You have yet to give hac's a role.... and there is no sense of balance within even the ship class itself. There are some obvious winners and losers in the bunch.... for a class that's alerady underperforming as a whole, what does that say about the losers within the class.

=========================
Then there is the MWD role bonus for hacs has been bashed to **** and back, but you refuse to budge on it. Next to nobody has supported it, but you blindly continue to see it as a good thing... even when the predominant use of hacs doesn't even suggest using a MWD ever, if often.

=========================
Last and most important:

Fun factor: Without a role, these ships have completely lost out on the most obvious point of a rebalance... FUN.

There is just nothing unique to these ships to make them worth flying. Player's have been screaming at you for creativity, but you refuse to offer up any. What kind of smug obnoxious ass do you have to be to completely ignore what your paycheck players have been asking you for.

Nobody has asked for you to make them OP, just different in some way. But no, you refuse to even try.

Thanks for nothing.



Agree`d. CCP Rise I know your working hard, but please. give it one more go, give us a round 3 to the balance and youll be loved...
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1667 - 2013-08-06 21:57:36 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Third, you have still not received any positive support for the sacrilege, and honestly, it has absolutely no role that the zealot could not fill better/easier if dedicated to that cause besides a different weapon system.

Fun factor: Without a role, these ships have completely lost out on the most obvious point of a rebalance... FUN.


Agreed with the rest of the post but not so sure on some of this bit. The Sacrilege looks pretty fun to me, HAM Legion with less tank and a fraction of the cost. I'm liking it. *shrugs* Zealot is never going to be able to run around with a decent active tank and an ability to neut enemies.
Currently half of the new HAC look a bit poor as people are no doubt mentally comparing them to T3s as they are now. I'd love them to get a bigger boost, but then they might just end up overdoing it.

I really want these changes dumped on Sisi so we can actually go and play with this, rather than bitching on the forum.
I'm sure there is room to boost them a bit after some actual testing rather than theorycrafting.
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#1668 - 2013-08-06 22:23:09 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
I'm finding it hard to imagine even fitting rails never-mind using them on an Deimos ...


Yah, I agree. As I alluded to before, I also personally see this as more of a 'rail' problem then a 'deimos' problem - like you I am not tempted to fit med rails on ANYTHING. Any hull that compensated enough to make them viable would probably stand in the way of achieving good balance for that turret in the long run rather then helping out.

I don't think I can theory craft my way into comfort with the proposed med long range turret changes either. For me that is something that really needs SiSi testing prior to judging.

Harvey James wrote:
the deimos i want to see is a blaster AAR deimos.... but i'm not convinced with its range a stronger falloff bonus is needed and ofc cap issues and AAR's being somewhat underwhelming atm 15% won't do much to fix it.


More range on a deimos makes me start to get the homogenization twitch, 50% falloff bonus is a pretty sweet place imo and a nice tweak from the thorax base hull with the half again range plus second damage bonus for that 'heavy assault feel'. I think the extra mid nails the cap issue pretty nicely tbh. I am still up in the air about AAR's overall - when I do fly them I like them best in a hybrid tank. We shall see of course.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#1669 - 2013-08-06 22:26:57 UTC
Rynnik wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
I'm finding it hard to imagine even fitting rails never-mind using them on an Deimos ...


Yah, I agree. As I alluded to before, I also personally see this as more of a 'rail' problem then a 'deimos' problem - like you I am not tempted to fit med rails on ANYTHING. Any hull that compensated enough to make them viable would probably stand in the way of achieving good balance for that turret in the long run rather then helping out.

I don't think I can theory craft my way into comfort with the proposed med long range turret changes either. For me that is something that really needs SiSi testing prior to judging.

Harvey James wrote:
the deimos i want to see is a blaster AAR deimos.... but i'm not convinced with its range a stronger falloff bonus is needed and ofc cap issues and AAR's being somewhat underwhelming atm 15% won't do much to fix it.


More range on a deimos makes me start to get the homogenization twitch, 50% falloff bonus is a pretty sweet place imo and a nice tweak from the thorax base hull with the half again range plus second damage bonus for that 'heavy assault feel'. I think the extra mid nails the cap issue pretty nicely tbh. I am still up in the air about AAR's overall - when I do fly them I like them best in a hybrid tank. We shall see of course.


Giving an extra mid to fit a mandatory cap booster isn't choice, it's the illusion of choice. The moment a module becomes mandatory, you might as well just remove a slot from the ship and build the module into the base stats. At least then it removes this circle-jerk slot layout nonsense they have going on.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1670 - 2013-08-06 22:30:02 UTC
It makes me sad the one of the most desired things for the Deimos was ignored because of lol rail fits.
The tracking bonus would be much better than the falloff bonus.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#1671 - 2013-08-06 22:36:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rynnik
PinkKnife wrote:
Giving an extra mid to fit a mandatory cap booster isn't choice, it's the illusion of choice. The moment a module becomes mandatory, you might as well just remove a slot from the ship and build the module into the base stats. At least then it removes this circle-jerk slot layout nonsense they have going on.


Meh, there are fits that I would easily double web instead of web/scram/cap booster. And dual prop full tackle. And 4 mid shield fits are a go. And tracking computers for after ABCs get nerfed to the ground and sniper hacs are king (lol). And...

If a cap booster in a fourth mid is mandatory for the way you fly it that is cool. But you really shouldn't imply that no one else could find a different way to employ that additional slot.
Berial Inglebard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1672 - 2013-08-06 22:41:56 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.

Removed cap use for MWD bonus
Added Armor Repair amount bonus
Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure
Removed small amount of base shield hp
Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss

The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.

Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!


And the Vagabond continues on the track towards uselessness.


The Vaga has received nothing but buffs and you still aren't happy. This is exactly how power creep happens.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1673 - 2013-08-06 22:43:41 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
It makes me sad the one of the most desired things for the Deimos was ignored because of lol rail fits.
The tracking bonus would be much better than the falloff bonus.


Tracking bonus is one of the most powerful bonuses in game, and Rise is quite right in saying that it would simply make Deimos op. Especially on Gallente ships that have the best tracking weapons to begin with, see what the Talos and Domi whines are all about.

I also find range bonus more useful for AHAC fleets, blasters have plenty of tracking, more range gives better results. It also has 4 mids.

This Deimos version rocks and I can finally undock in one and not feel completely suicidal.





.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#1674 - 2013-08-06 22:50:57 UTC
Roime wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
It makes me sad the one of the most desired things for the Deimos was ignored because of lol rail fits.
The tracking bonus would be much better than the falloff bonus.


Tracking bonus is one of the most powerful bonuses in game, and Rise is quite right in saying that it would simply make Deimos op. Especially on Gallente ships that have the best tracking weapons to begin with, see what the Talos and Domi whines are all about.


Thats the thing, it doesn't have to be a gun bonus to be useful, the MWD bonus was at least unique, this current deimos is just a slightly better Brutix for triple the price. It doesn't do anything new or unique, or add any additional gameplay, its just one tiny little notch between battlecruiser and battleship, yawn.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1675 - 2013-08-06 22:53:40 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
Roime wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
It makes me sad the one of the most desired things for the Deimos was ignored because of lol rail fits.
The tracking bonus would be much better than the falloff bonus.


Tracking bonus is one of the most powerful bonuses in game, and Rise is quite right in saying that it would simply make Deimos op. Especially on Gallente ships that have the best tracking weapons to begin with, see what the Talos and Domi whines are all about.


Thats the thing, it doesn't have to be a gun bonus to be useful, the MWD bonus was at least unique, this current deimos is just a slightly better Brutix for triple the price. It doesn't do anything new or unique, or add any additional gameplay, its just one tiny little notch between battlecruiser and battleship, yawn.

All the MWD bonus would do is give more cap for the same though. Still the same gameplay. So how does it really differentiate from the same notch you mentioned?
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#1676 - 2013-08-06 23:11:34 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
Roime wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
It makes me sad the one of the most desired things for the Deimos was ignored because of lol rail fits.
The tracking bonus would be much better than the falloff bonus.


Tracking bonus is one of the most powerful bonuses in game, and Rise is quite right in saying that it would simply make Deimos op. Especially on Gallente ships that have the best tracking weapons to begin with, see what the Talos and Domi whines are all about.


Thats the thing, it doesn't have to be a gun bonus to be useful, the MWD bonus was at least unique, this current deimos is just a slightly better Brutix for triple the price. It doesn't do anything new or unique, or add any additional gameplay, its just one tiny little notch between battlecruiser and battleship, yawn.

All the MWD bonus would do is give more cap for the same though. Still the same gameplay. So how does it really differentiate from the same notch you mentioned?


It doesn't, but it at least separated the Deimos from the Brutix in terms of unique things. Point being now that they ARE being rebalanced, why stick with the same boring thing we have already? Now even MORE homogenized and boring?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1677 - 2013-08-06 23:15:26 UTC
Boss McNab wrote:


Agree`d. CCP Rise I know your working hard, but please. give it one more go, give us a round 3 to the balance and youll be loved...



http://imgur.com/QwTvNy6

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1678 - 2013-08-06 23:20:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Voith
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
What the **** is wrong with you people?

The Proposed vagabond is fantastic.. Stop being so damn awful..

If they weren't awful they wouldn't be dumb pubbies.


The changes are fine.

The problem is everyone looked around and wanted their pet ship to be overpowered. Since none of the ships are looking to be that overpowered a lot of people are getting butt hurt.
LaserzPewPew
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#1679 - 2013-08-06 23:28:50 UTC  |  Edited by: LaserzPewPew
@ccp rise

Hacs need to have a ROLE. At the moment, t1 cruisers and pirate cruisers share the same role and are better pound for pound.

You intend to make hacs role as a slippery skirmish ships. This is great, you want hacs to be amazing solo/small gang ships, but it's missing something.

You need a defining bonus.

Remove the sig bloom entirely or a massive afterburner bonus and restrict them from 100mn. You want them to be skirmish ships, so they need to engage a target on their own and get out. You also need them slippery, but when they get caught they die horribly. This rewards skilled pilots well and punishes the bads harshly.

Also, when was the last time a ship had two separate bonuses, one for rails and then one for blasters? Or autos and artys? Or hams and heavy launchers? Or beams and pulse? A heavy drone's version of an optimal bonus IS it's speed. It should be ONE bonus for tracking/optimal/speed without penalizing. I have the inclination that you simply don't know what to do with ather bonus so you split them up and reduced the potency of both.

Tldr: Creativity is good. Find some.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1680 - 2013-08-06 23:31:46 UTC
Voith wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
What the **** is wrong with you people?

The Proposed vagabond is fantastic.. Stop being so damn awful..

If they weren't awful they wouldn't be dumb pubbies.


The changes are fine.

The problem is everyone looked around and wanted their pet ship to be overpowered. Since none of the ships are looking to be that overpowered a lot of people are getting butt hurt.


please point to the post that was asking for the ships to be op...

no one wanted op they just were excited with a new direction for hacs.

but with the power of nostalgia ccp are sticking with the basic hacs and just enhancing it and that got people upset.

no one wants op they just would like unique.

i thought a great unique bonus would be a 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules...

that would give hacs that certain "je ne ce quoi" you know something that is special just for that class.

tbh i am ok with the changes just a little disillusioned because i was really hoping for more changes akin to battleships...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.