These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1981 - 2013-08-13 15:09:26 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
100 pages hitting so, what's the final word on HACs Rise?


@ People wanting Vaga to get stupid buffs:

Go on SiSi, fit one properly and if you can't ask someone to tell you how to, then try to take strong boosters fit pirate implants use OGB then come here tell us how bad your vaga is.

No short range weapon system should ever be able to hit past 15/17 km without modules/rigs to achieve this. You can come with as many arguments as you think are valid, they're not, and Rise (Kill2) knows it better than most of you what this would make Vaga look like.

If you guys after this Vaga buff can't succeed with, it' not the ships fault but simple because you guys are horrible with at fittings and flying it point blank, it's about time you admit it.

So, now this is said, you guys could stop polluting this thread with pages of horrible ideas arguments and wtf stuff about Vaga, actually talk a bit more about other ships in real need of buffs unlike the Vaga


Scorch disagrees, (as do javelins and general missile range boni).
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1982 - 2013-08-13 15:23:08 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
100 pages hitting so, what's the final word on HACs Rise?


@ People wanting Vaga to get stupid buffs:

Go on SiSi, fit one properly and if you can't ask someone to tell you how to, then try to take strong boosters fit pirate implants use OGB then come here tell us how bad your vaga is.

No short range weapon system should ever be able to hit past 15/17 km without modules/rigs to achieve this. You can come with as many arguments as you think are valid, they're not, and Rise (Kill2) knows it better than most of you what this would make Vaga look like.

If you guys after this Vaga buff can't succeed with, it' not the ships fault but simple because you guys are horrible with at fittings and flying it point blank, it's about time you admit it.

So, now this is said, you guys could stop polluting this thread with pages of horrible ideas arguments and wtf stuff about Vaga, actually talk a bit more about other ships in real need of buffs unlike the Vaga


Scorch disagrees, (as do javelins and general missile range boni).

hell, fit lasers with standard on a zealot and you get 18 optimal + 4k falloff
Allandri
Liandri Industrial
#1983 - 2013-08-13 15:49:10 UTC
Sentry Ishtar is extremely strong, maybe even a little OP
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#1984 - 2013-08-13 16:10:07 UTC
Why do the Gallente, which are the upcoming 'Armor-Skirmish' race, have such big, big signatures radiuses on their HACs?

I mean, come on, around 130+10 would be better, somewhere between Amarr and Caldari. Or switch it with the Amarr sigs.

But 150m Sig on a Deimos, that's like... wtf man.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1985 - 2013-08-13 16:23:00 UTC
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Why do the Gallente, which are the upcoming 'Armor-Skirmish' race, have such big, big signatures radiuses on their HACs?

I mean, come on, around 130+10 would be better, somewhere between Amarr and Caldari. Or switch it with the Amarr sigs.

But 150m Sig on a Deimos, that's like... wtf man.


It's not just HACs. Gallente have bad sig pretty much all the time.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1986 - 2013-08-13 16:32:15 UTC
First things first, I agree that a large amount of the large alliances taxes-
errrm I mean moon poo has to get removed from the blueprint copies we can invent so that HACs are in line with thier performance and pricetags.


Now as far as I can tell all Caldari, Gallente and Amarr HACs can burn with their mwd's on forever if they wish, so thank you for that.

I just have some concerns about the Sacrilege and the Cerberus.

Both of them can carry heavy missiles and the range on them seems fine, but I think heavy missiles don't have that "punch" they used to have.
You can hit ship at amazing ranges but when those missiles impact they poke a ship instead of hurting it and it doesn't feel right.

I haven't tried hams yet but with rlml's both are very capable anti support ships.

Even my Eagle is looking okay with rails now. Just don't gimp the tracking of medium rails as proposed, you know that most other ships can close range to that Eagle quickly enough to become a threat and below 40km it will be time to go.

Anything in close to scram-range and even those pimped railguns won't save you from an expensive loss.

Which turns me to dat Deimos.
Now that boat is so..., let's say she will be good, very good.

The Ishtar will definately be flown and she can be fitted now.

Now I have to check out the Zealot and see, if they fixed some more things on SiSi.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1987 - 2013-08-13 16:50:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Tried HACs on SiSi.

+1, hilarious.

multiple for the vaga/deimos design.
Gul Amarr
Orange County Cruisers
#1988 - 2013-08-13 17:20:11 UTC
Jysella Halcyon wrote:
Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.

The 50% sig bloom reduction doesn't fit that for HACs and porting it from AFs is lazy thinking. AFs love that 50% sig reduction because they are ships that spend most of their time hoping to up-engage against cruisers, BCs, and BS. The same thing they loved to do before their buff from heavy tackle to relevence, but now they do it better while also being respectable fighting ships in their own right (how many AFs did we see in AT X and XI?) in a small-gang environment. You bring AFs on a roam when mobility and up-engagement are important. The AF role bonus helps them do this by cutting down the likelihood of them dying on their approach to their larger targets.

Still with me? Good.

Here's where that role bonus falls apart ported to a larger class. AFs engaging BCs and up (the common targets at the time before the cruiser rebalance) were relying on not getting hit as their primary tank. Frigates of all shapes lean on high speed and small sigs to avoid being wiped out by large targets. They use their (buffed) MWD to close range and then by and large go propless once in weapons range. They lean just as heavily on their MWD to get them from target to target because their weapons ranges are generally very short. Their bonus helps them stay alive to deal their damage by mitigating incoming fire while they move from target to target.

HACs are rarely used on TQ in anything but blobs of Zealots (with the occasional BL Munnin or Agony Deimos fleets) that don't need MWD to close range because they have lasers with scorch. TWEED Deimos dual-prop but once in range fight much like a Zealot gang but with blasters. They don't need help surviving the approach, they need help surviving the brawl where scrams negate the MWD role bonus. HACs have falen by the wayside in the kiting and sniping roles due to the better power and projection of ABCs. A kiting-oriented MWD bonus on ships that are at home in the furball is counter-intuitive in a way not seen on frigates - HACs aren't forced to rely on sig-tanking for dear life, it's just a nice bonus to being small in a BS-gun world.

But this isn't a BS-gun world. Small-gangs overwhelmingly prefer more mobile cruisers and BCs which track a HAC just fine. Out in the fleet-driven world of sovwar fleets, large, long-range guns are only common in large numbers, large enough to have enough people who can track small hings in tight orbits just fine to kill them. More common in the last wars were fleets of massed caracals - which have no problem hiting a HAC of any sort, though an AB HAC will have some mitigation.

Finally, AFs are worth the price differential over their T1 cousins. a T2-fitted T1 frigate will run about 10M isk. A T2-fitted AF will run 30-40M isk, or 3-4x the price of T1. Faction frigates are popular but are outperformed slightly by AFs in combat and have a corresponding price tag of around 20-30M isk. Pirate Frigates are either ignored by players or are named beginning with D and run about double an AF but with the versatility to make the price worth it.

A T2-fitted T1 cruiser runs in the same ballpark as an AF (30-35M). We would expect, then, for the price ramp of 3-4x to hold true for HAC prices, but a reasonable fit for the common HACs will clock in around 160-200M isk with a premium for the less common ones owing to fewer builders. This is a price bump of 5-7x the T1 price. If they constituted a similar power bump over the Frigate-AF transition this might be reasonable, but they don't. Many of the HACs are overshadowed entirely by their own T1 versions. The new versions in this thread bring the power comparison into line, but don't address the fact that unlike AFs, HACs fill no niche on their own at their price point. AFs are THE choice for mobile, survivable damage. Destroyers out-damage them but can't tank nearly as well and Frigates and interceptors are more mobile but don't tank or dish out enough damage to compete. HACs are not specialized ewar platforms and can either brawl or kite - but there are better options at a lower price point for both roles. ABCs have the corner on the kiting/sniping market at half the price of a HAC. Combat BCs out-brawl HACs. HACs only have an advantage over these classes when brawling with BS, and BS are usually only found in large enough numbers to make brawling with them a question of logistics, not the core classes you've brought.

The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it.


This sums it up very nicely.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1989 - 2013-08-13 18:45:49 UTC
Gul Amarr wrote:
Jysella Halcyon wrote:
Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.

The 50% sig bloom reduction doesn't fit that for HACs and porting it from AFs is lazy thinking. AFs love that 50% sig reduction because they are ships that spend most of their time hoping to up-engage against cruisers, BCs, and BS. The same thing they loved to do before their buff from heavy tackle to relevence, but now they do it better while also being respectable fighting ships in their own right (how many AFs did we see in AT X and XI?) in a small-gang environment. You bring AFs on a roam when mobility and up-engagement are important. The AF role bonus helps them do this by cutting down the likelihood of them dying on their approach to their larger targets.

Still with me? Good.

Here's where that role bonus falls apart ported to a larger class. AFs engaging BCs and up (the common targets at the time before the cruiser rebalance) were relying on not getting hit as their primary tank. Frigates of all shapes lean on high speed and small sigs to avoid being wiped out by large targets. They use their (buffed) MWD to close range and then by and large go propless once in weapons range. They lean just as heavily on their MWD to get them from target to target because their weapons ranges are generally very short. Their bonus helps them stay alive to deal their damage by mitigating incoming fire while they move from target to target.

HACs are rarely used on TQ in anything but blobs of Zealots (with the occasional BL Munnin or Agony Deimos fleets) that don't need MWD to close range because they have lasers with scorch. TWEED Deimos dual-prop but once in range fight much like a Zealot gang but with blasters. They don't need help surviving the approach, they need help surviving the brawl where scrams negate the MWD role bonus. HACs have falen by the wayside in the kiting and sniping roles due to the better power and projection of ABCs. A kiting-oriented MWD bonus on ships that are at home in the furball is counter-intuitive in a way not seen on frigates - HACs aren't forced to rely on sig-tanking for dear life, it's just a nice bonus to being small in a BS-gun world.

But this isn't a BS-gun world. Small-gangs overwhelmingly prefer more mobile cruisers and BCs which track a HAC just fine. Out in the fleet-driven world of sovwar fleets, large, long-range guns are only common in large numbers, large enough to have enough people who can track small hings in tight orbits just fine to kill them. More common in the last wars were fleets of massed caracals - which have no problem hiting a HAC of any sort, though an AB HAC will have some mitigation.

Finally, AFs are worth the price differential over their T1 cousins. a T2-fitted T1 frigate will run about 10M isk. A T2-fitted AF will run 30-40M isk, or 3-4x the price of T1. Faction frigates are popular but are outperformed slightly by AFs in combat and have a corresponding price tag of around 20-30M isk. Pirate Frigates are either ignored by players or are named beginning with D and run about double an AF but with the versatility to make the price worth it.

A T2-fitted T1 cruiser runs in the same ballpark as an AF (30-35M). We would expect, then, for the price ramp of 3-4x to hold true for HAC prices, but a reasonable fit for the common HACs will clock in around 160-200M isk with a premium for the less common ones owing to fewer builders. This is a price bump of 5-7x the T1 price. If they constituted a similar power bump over the Frigate-AF transition this might be reasonable, but they don't. Many of the HACs are overshadowed entirely by their own T1 versions. The new versions in this thread bring the power comparison into line, but don't address the fact that unlike AFs, HACs fill no niche on their own at their price point. AFs are THE choice for mobile, survivable damage. Destroyers out-damage them but can't tank nearly as well and Frigates and interceptors are more mobile but don't tank or dish out enough damage to compete. HACs are not specialized ewar platforms and can either brawl or kite - but there are better options at a lower price point for both roles. ABCs have the corner on the kiting/sniping market at half the price of a HAC. Combat BCs out-brawl HACs. HACs only have an advantage over these classes when brawling with BS, and BS are usually only found in large enough numbers to make brawling with them a question of logistics, not the core classes you've brought.

The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it.


This sums it up very nicely.


Confirming that quoting giant walls of text with a single line in the reply adds a lot to the discussion.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.

Dev Tesla
Deep Matter Inc.
#1990 - 2013-08-13 19:16:06 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
Gul Amarr wrote:
Jysella Halcyon wrote:
Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.

The 50% sig bloom reduction doesn't fit that for HACs and porting it from AFs is lazy thinking. AFs love that 50% sig reduction because they are ships that spend most of their time hoping to up-engage against cruisers, BCs, and BS. The same thing they loved to do before their buff from heavy tackle to relevence, but now they do it better while also being respectable fighting ships in their own right (how many AFs did we see in AT X and XI?) in a small-gang environment. You bring AFs on a roam when mobility and up-engagement are important. The AF role bonus helps them do this by cutting down the likelihood of them dying on their approach to their larger targets.

Still with me? Good.

Here's where that role bonus falls apart ported to a larger class. AFs engaging BCs and up (the common targets at the time before the cruiser rebalance) were relying on not getting hit as their primary tank. Frigates of all shapes lean on high speed and small sigs to avoid being wiped out by large targets. They use their (buffed) MWD to close range and then by and large go propless once in weapons range. They lean just as heavily on their MWD to get them from target to target because their weapons ranges are generally very short. Their bonus helps them stay alive to deal their damage by mitigating incoming fire while they move from target to target.

HACs are rarely used on TQ in anything but blobs of Zealots (with the occasional BL Munnin or Agony Deimos fleets) that don't need MWD to close range because they have lasers with scorch. TWEED Deimos dual-prop but once in range fight much like a Zealot gang but with blasters. They don't need help surviving the approach, they need help surviving the brawl where scrams negate the MWD role bonus. HACs have falen by the wayside in the kiting and sniping roles due to the better power and projection of ABCs. A kiting-oriented MWD bonus on ships that are at home in the furball is counter-intuitive in a way not seen on frigates - HACs aren't forced to rely on sig-tanking for dear life, it's just a nice bonus to being small in a BS-gun world.

But this isn't a BS-gun world. Small-gangs overwhelmingly prefer more mobile cruisers and BCs which track a HAC just fine. Out in the fleet-driven world of sovwar fleets, large, long-range guns are only common in large numbers, large enough to have enough people who can track small hings in tight orbits just fine to kill them. More common in the last wars were fleets of massed caracals - which have no problem hiting a HAC of any sort, though an AB HAC will have some mitigation.

Finally, AFs are worth the price differential over their T1 cousins. a T2-fitted T1 frigate will run about 10M isk. A T2-fitted AF will run 30-40M isk, or 3-4x the price of T1. Faction frigates are popular but are outperformed slightly by AFs in combat and have a corresponding price tag of around 20-30M isk. Pirate Frigates are either ignored by players or are named beginning with D and run about double an AF but with the versatility to make the price worth it.

A T2-fitted T1 cruiser runs in the same ballpark as an AF (30-35M). We would expect, then, for the price ramp of 3-4x to hold true for HAC prices, but a reasonable fit for the common HACs will clock in around 160-200M isk with a premium for the less common ones owing to fewer builders. This is a price bump of 5-7x the T1 price. If they constituted a similar power bump over the Frigate-AF transition this might be reasonable, but they don't. Many of the HACs are overshadowed entirely by their own T1 versions. The new versions in this thread bring the power comparison into line, but don't address the fact that unlike AFs, HACs fill no niche on their own at their price point. AFs are THE choice for mobile, survivable damage. Destroyers out-damage them but can't tank nearly as well and Frigates and interceptors are more mobile but don't tank or dish out enough damage to compete. HACs are not specialized ewar platforms and can either brawl or kite - but there are better options at a lower price point for both roles. ABCs have the corner on the kiting/sniping market at half the price of a HAC. Combat BCs out-brawl HACs. HACs only have an advantage over these classes when brawling with BS, and BS are usually only found in large enough numbers to make brawling with them a question of logistics, not the core classes you've brought.

The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it.


This sums it up very nicely.


Confirming that quoting giant walls of text with a single line in the reply adds a lot to the discussion.


Considering Rise used a count of people that were for or against things as a measurement for the balance success, having more people "vote" to agree that HACs are over-priced seems logical. Now, where does that leave your post? Since it clearly accomplishes so much...

I for one agree with Jysella Halcyon. I don't see myself wanting to fly a HAC at any point when a BC will do the job I'm looking to do at a fraction the cost.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1991 - 2013-08-13 19:29:54 UTC
Dev Tesla wrote:

I for one agree with Jysella Halcyon. I don't see myself wanting to fly a HAC at any point when a BC will do the job I'm looking to do at a fraction the cost.


Good for you then.

For me, there won't be any substitutes for Deimos and Ishtar, which will both prefect ships for what I do and nothing in their price range really comes even close.



.

Gul Amarr
Orange County Cruisers
#1992 - 2013-08-13 19:31:10 UTC
Nag'o wrote:


Confirming that quoting giant walls of text with a single line in the reply adds a lot to the discussion.



Considering it serves moving it to the next page so more people read it, it does.

The guy quoting it on the same page as the original post, or your post of course is a different issue.

As a matter of fact that post is worth more than the hundreds of posts where people complain about [insert fav HAC] not being strong enough whilst they don't see the fundamental problems with this sad excuse of an overhaul:

- The MWD bonus mostly helps them vs BS, but survivability vs BS never was their problem.
- T1 cruisers outmaneuver them, former Tier 1+2 BCs outbrawl them and ABC's outmaneuver and outdamage them regardless of the MWD sig bonus, whilst they're considerably more expensive to produce than all of the above and are taking longer to train at the same time.


This 'rebalance' is so incredibly FUBAR I can't believe it.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1993 - 2013-08-13 19:39:40 UTC
Dev Tesla wrote:


I for one agree with Jysella Halcyon. I don't see myself wanting to fly a HAC at any point when a BC will do the job I'm looking to do at a fraction the cost.


This argument again? /facepalm


W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1994 - 2013-08-13 19:43:19 UTC
The mwd bonus reduced all rincoming missile damage when mwding, it makes it very hard for abcs to kill the hac and it reduced drone dps.

Its not usefull if you brawl, and unlike on the frig hulls it feels like a incredible lazy bonus but its not broken.

What else do you want? Mwd speed? Still useless in a brawl. AB speed? Makes 100mn cerbs and co way to op. And so on, a good role bonus can be very hard to implement.

Not directly relevant, ABCs need a mobility buff and a flat tracking maulus of 25% (and the talos needs a new bonus)
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1995 - 2013-08-13 19:44:31 UTC
Dev Tesla wrote:

Considering Rise used a count of people that were for or against things as a measurement for the balance success, having more people "vote" to agree that HACs are over-priced seems logical. Now, where does that leave your post? Since it clearly accomplishes so much...

I for one agree with Jysella Halcyon. I don't see myself wanting to fly a HAC at any point when a BC will do the job I'm looking to do at a fraction the cost.


Maybe that's what liking a post is for?

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.

Prester Tom
Death By Design
#1996 - 2013-08-13 19:47:43 UTC
When inties? they're a little redundant with the tackle t1 frigs now. Sneak in 'sader optimal bonus please Big smile
Dev Tesla
Deep Matter Inc.
#1997 - 2013-08-13 19:48:41 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
Dev Tesla wrote:

Considering Rise used a count of people that were for or against things as a measurement for the balance success, having more people "vote" to agree that HACs are over-priced seems logical. Now, where does that leave your post? Since it clearly accomplishes so much...

I for one agree with Jysella Halcyon. I don't see myself wanting to fly a HAC at any point when a BC will do the job I'm looking to do at a fraction the cost.


Maybe that's what liking a post is for?


I smell troll.
Stridsflygplan
Deliverance.
Arrival.
#1998 - 2013-08-13 20:34:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Stridsflygplan
Tried the HACs on the test server. I think the Vagabond needs +10 to +30 more power grid since it has some really tight and enjoying fitting cases. mainly its when you try fitting projectile rigs that use power grid that you get problems. Maybe its just wishful thinking from my side but it would help it get that little extra fitting versatility Cool
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
#1999 - 2013-08-13 20:56:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Baron vonDoom
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
it makes it very hard for abcs to kill the hac.



Rises own DPS Graph shows how a Neutron Talos still outdamages a Zealot at hitting a Sac with the bonus between ~16-38 km at 60° transversal and full speed - by the looks of it it's without drones and doesn't take into account that the Talos can mitigate some transversal through maneuvering.

Needless to say that the Talos is also faster and thus able to dictate range - bad times for a ham Sac, even with the missile velocity bonus.

I wouldn't exactly call that very hard.

It also shows quite nicely how medium turrets aren't really affected by the bonus (scorch pulses are the worst tracking short range turrets, so it will affect others even less), so it wont help vs. other turret BC's or Cruisers.

Totally warrants their cost and skilltime, really...

If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only.
Krissinator
No strings attached foundation
#2000 - 2013-08-13 20:57:12 UTC
I dont see why gallente and amarr is the only ones that have 2 HACs each that are actually usefull for pvp (thinking of small scale pvp) i think a good idea would be to look in to the eagle and the muninn again to see if there is any changes that would make them usefull to any hac pilot :) the muninn as well as the vagabond would really be great with a shield boost.. boost :P and i guess it wont repurpose it just as with the vaga, it will just get more reason to own one. the eagle i have never understood much other than just for sniping. but the naga/talos/nado/oracle stole that role..