These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[Hyperion] Heavy Assault Cruiser tweaks

First post First post First post
Author
Meandering Milieu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#621 - 2014-07-31 03:07:06 UTC
Seraph Essael wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
We expect that some of you will feel this is far too gentle on the Ishtar, and we understand that (it's what we heard from the CSM as well), but we get releases very often now and we're happy to be conservative here, rather than nuke it out of the game, and just make more changes if they're needed in the following release.

So you know the CSM have stated this isn't enough and you expect the player base will think this too. But what you're saying is "bugger it, we're not going to listen and do this minor tweak (that will just be negated by stuffing on another omnidirectional) anyway?". What's the point of the CSM if you don't even consider what they're saying?


Ishtars don't have infinite slots you know. Stuffing an extra omni will hurt, even if only a little. For a shield ishtar it means either less tank or less mobility. For an armor ishtar it means either less mobility or less ewar.

Meandering Milieu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#622 - 2014-07-31 03:13:50 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
-snip-


I could argue, but won't. Only thing that bugged me that I wanted to address is that I think you may be wrong about drone assign post nerf.

Last I checked it wasn't 50 players worth of drones to one person, but 50 drones total to one person. This means, for one person, 10 people with 5 drones max can assign. A bit different from 50 people to 1 person.

I could be wrong, but don't think I am.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#623 - 2014-07-31 03:46:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
CCP Rise wrote:
We expect that some of you will feel this is far too gentle on the Ishtar, and we understand that (it's what we heard from the CSM as well), but we get releases very often now and we're happy to be conservative here, rather than nuke it out of the game, and just make more changes if they're needed in the following release.

When you guys start consistently hitting your release dates with the promised features I'll place a bit more stock in your estimates. As it now stands you're 0/2; the industry update was omitted entirely from Kronos and there was effectively nothing other than the deferred industry update in Crius. The numerous post-Crius patches and extended downtimes to essentially fix the numerous issues and problems introduced with Crius doesn't bode well for Hyperion - which is shaping up to be Kronos "light" at this point.

You guys are still operating under the premise that you have a lot of time to address these rebalance issues. You don't - you're on borrowed time. Unless you start taking some risks and introduce some new content, EVE is going to creep past the point of no return with respect to subscriber losses.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Corben Arctus
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#624 - 2014-07-31 03:52:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Corben Arctus
I don't care about battleships; and the Ishtar nerf... well it doesn't do much. But thanks for not destroying it right away, maybe something good will come from this mini-expansion model after all.

Like some people here already mentioned, please take another good look at the Minmatar HACs.

The Vagabond is kinda meh nowadays, bordering on irrelevant.

The Muninn is pretty much completely irrelevant where I live. It's a ship that can only be used if you have a group of 20 people flying it, alpha'ing smaller stuff.

I've seen people solo'ing whole fleets in Ishtars; I've seen small gangs of Cerberus' annihilate other gangs.

Please Rise, Fozzie; do something about Muninns (and give Vagabonds some love too).
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#625 - 2014-07-31 03:56:25 UTC
Corben Arctus wrote:
Like some people here already mentioned, please take another good look at the Minmatar HACs.

The Vagabond is kinda meh nowadays, bordering on irrelevant.

The Muninn is pretty much completely irrelevant where I live. It's a ship that can only be used if you have a group of 20 people flying it, alpha'ing smaller stuff.

I don't fly either, but enough have commented that they're both the equivalent of "suck lite" - so yeah, why not.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Corben Arctus
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#626 - 2014-07-31 04:00:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Corben Arctus
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Corben Arctus wrote:
Like some people here already mentioned, please take another good look at the Minmatar HACs.

The Vagabond is kinda meh nowadays, bordering on irrelevant.

The Muninn is pretty much completely irrelevant where I live. It's a ship that can only be used if you have a group of 20 people flying it, alpha'ing smaller stuff.

I don't fly either, but enough have commented that they're both the equivalent of "suck lite" - so yeah, why not.


I don't fly the Muninn either, because none of my friends do.

Getting together a fleet of arty Ruptures or a small gang of Nados is just so much better and costs much less.

As for the Vaga: it's just a slower, somewhat tankier Stabber really. It does more paper dps, but then again... projectiles.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#627 - 2014-07-31 06:00:37 UTC
If tempest will be 8/4/7, it should come with a slight increase to PG too. Also some dronebay love for being able to field different size drones.

In fact, please increase PG and drone bay regardless.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#628 - 2014-07-31 06:01:35 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Sentry drones have enormous downsides. They can be killed like other drones AND they don't return to your ship. There's a reason they were never used at all until assist + these tracking/optimal bonuses came along.

What?
...
The Sentry has about 2500 EHP, so it takes a lot of time to kill that one sentry.

In fact, it has about 8000 EHP.
And to those people who cannot refit drones from cargo - it takes some practice, but quite feasible.
So, 6 flights of sentries on the Ishtar equals 240k EHP to deal with.
Gunz blazing Ronuken
Insane's Asylum
#629 - 2014-07-31 06:12:31 UTC
Any chance you can give bc sized ships and battleships a little warp speed improvement CCP Rise?
Silverbackyererse
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#630 - 2014-07-31 08:26:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Silverbackyererse
Create a "sentry only" drone bay for Ishtar (maybe carriers too). Limit the numbers it can carry to one flight.

Any chance of giving the Cerberus some more RLML love? Larger mag would be nice.

+1 to drone bay on the Eagle. Extra speed is welcome.
Ray Kyonhe
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#631 - 2014-07-31 09:03:11 UTC
Harvey James wrote:

Vagabond
- please nerf its speed ... resilience is the theme of HACS remember so why is it just as quick as a stabber and cynabal???

Because it, like, almost single thing it really good at, like, running.

Survey/voting system inbuilt to the game client: link_Reforming corp and taxation system: link_New PvE content (reward collective gameplay): link

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#632 - 2014-07-31 09:39:18 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Impressively scattered discussion so far. I can respond to a few things directly:

"Battleships are not in a good place, you crazy Rise" - an important distinction here is that I meant battleships are in a relatively good place WITHIN the class. Whether or not they are healthy relative to other classes is more complicated, but if there's issues there (because of bombers for instance) we would more likely want to deal with that problem from the other direction (by making changes to bombers for instance) rather than changing every BS to compensate. Between Duckslayer's insults he mentioned MWD cap use on BS being a problem which I agree with and I may try to get a change for that in shortly.

It's not really more complicated - battleships are borderline useless outside of PvE (regardless of whether battleships are fine "WITHIN" the class). It's not just bombers - you'd also have to adjust strategic and command cruisers as well. They need more EHP at a bare minimum: 0% for attack battlecruisers, 25% for combat battlecruisers, 0% for Maruaders and BlackOps and 50% for all T1, Faction and Pirate battleships. It wouldn't hurt to bump the scan resolution on the entire class as well. Just because they may look good "on paper" doesn't mean they have a practical application outside of high-sec or null fleets.

If one really wants to start thinking outside the box:
• Battlecruisers should get a -1 warp core bonus; battleships -2
• Battlecruisers should get a -10% defense against neuts; battleships -20%
• Battlecruisers should get a -25% reduction against webs; battleships -50%

Again, attack battlecruisers, Marauders and BlackOps excluded from the list. None of these changes would make battleships "op" - but it would extend their survivability such that people might actually start soloing and using them in small gangs again.



While hat type of approach woulg go a long way into makign them powerful, one must be careful with changes on that scope. Create lots of imbalances and unpredicted issues if you are not careful. Simply giving 50% web resistance for battleship might be enough to push them. Mybe even only 33% would be enough.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#633 - 2014-07-31 09:50:47 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Impressively scattered discussion so far. I can respond to a few things directly:

"Battleships are not in a good place, you crazy Rise" - an important distinction here is that I meant battleships are in a relatively good place WITHIN the class. Whether or not they are healthy relative to other classes is more complicated, but if there's issues there (because of bombers for instance) we would more likely want to deal with that problem from the other direction (by making changes to bombers for instance) rather than changing every BS to compensate. Between Duckslayer's insults he mentioned MWD cap use on BS being a problem which I agree with and I may try to get a change for that in shortly.

It's not really more complicated - battleships are borderline useless outside of PvE (regardless of whether battleships are fine "WITHIN" the class). It's not just bombers - you'd also have to adjust strategic and command cruisers as well. They need more EHP at a bare minimum: 0% for attack battlecruisers, 25% for combat battlecruisers, 0% for Maruaders and BlackOps and 50% for all T1, Faction and Pirate battleships. It wouldn't hurt to bump the scan resolution on the entire class as well. Just because they may look good "on paper" doesn't mean they have a practical application outside of high-sec or null fleets.

If one really wants to start thinking outside the box:
• Battlecruisers should get a -1 warp core bonus; battleships -2
• Battlecruisers should get a -10% defense against neuts; battleships -20%
• Battlecruisers should get a -25% reduction against webs; battleships -50%

Again, attack battlecruisers, Marauders and BlackOps excluded from the list. None of these changes would make battleships "op" - but it would extend their survivability such that people might actually start soloing and using them in small gangs again.



While hat type of approach woulg go a long way into makign them powerful, one must be careful with changes on that scope. Create lots of imbalances and unpredicted issues if you are not careful. Simply giving 50% web resistance for battleship might be enough to push them. Mybe even only 33% would be enough.

Might be best to just use a formula based on the mass if the ship. More effective against faster, agile ships. Less effective against heavy slow ships.
Ray Kyonhe
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#634 - 2014-07-31 10:16:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ray Kyonhe
Trinkets friend wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Sentry drones have enormous downsides. They can be killed like other drones AND they don't return to your ship. There's a reason they were never used at all until assist + these tracking/optimal bonuses came along.


What?

Dude, you have no idea of how the game is played if this is the official CCP line on sentries.

Yes, they can be killed by other drones. But usually, the sentries are dropped out of the drone control range (<58km) of the target, meaning you have to motor towards the sentries (lel) to even task your own drones to attack ONE of the sentries (which takes forever to lock). Then your drones have to slowboat toward the sentry you have targeted. Your drones then miss their first few shots due to MWDing too fast. The Sentry has about 2500 EHP, so it takes a lot of time to kill that one sentry. Then you lock the next senty.

meanwhile, the Ishtar has done;
08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1145!
08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1811!
08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1567!
08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1399!
08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1457!
08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1124!
08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1800!
08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1777!
08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1657!
08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1345!

QED, you know nothing, John Snow. Let alone the fact that the Ishtar owning the sentry drones is MWDing around at 2300m/s cap stable, at 80km while you are suffering 860 inbound DPS which hits perfectly as you orbit his drones at 58km trying to follow CCP Rise's Elite PVP Advice that addressing the Sentry set kills the Ishtar. hint: it doesn't.

or you try to chase down the ishtar itself, which works just as well, considering he will stay away from his set of Gardes, allowing you to make the mistake of staying in the perfect optimal of his set of Gardes. Or just drop a second or third set.

Yes, the drone assist meta wasn't used in EVE, you are correct. My second point in this demonstration of your ignorance, is that the drone assist feature existed in EVE for years. The meta of the game did not favor it because, to whit,
1) DDA's did not exist for the vast majority of this time, restricting the Ishtar to around the 500-550 DPS range. Adding DDA's unboxed the demon.
2) The Ishtar up until it got broken in Rubicon courtesy of yourself and CCP Fozzie, was too hard to fit, resulting in sub-optimal levels of tank. in fact, it was notoriously hard to do anything with it related to PVP simply because you ran out of CPU just by buying the damn thing. This was addressed, again by the infinite wisdom of CCP, by the addition of CPU rigs. However, this was then superceded by the problem that
4) The ishtar could never be cap stable with a MWD, and under way at 1200m/s, it's sig was so bloated (especially shield fit) that it would just get alpha'd off the field or grind to a stop after 45 seconds
5) Geckos also did not exist for brawler work. Then you nincumpoops put them in the game, because ommni-everything heavy drones is a good idea (tm).

For years, flying a weakly tanked, sig-bloated, relatively slow fitting-impossible, capacitor-bereft drone-assignation meta using expensive ships, was far less preferable to welpcanes, arty Maels, hellcats, Drakes, Tengufleets, etc, etc. Why bother with the Ishtar when naga sniping gangs or Talos gangs were far more effective, far more mobile and cheaper?

Then suddenly, magically, you had DDA's, CPU out the wazoo, buffed drone parameters favoring OMGsniper sentries, low-sig permarun MWD with no cap modules at all, and a reasonable tank, to boot. You just couldn't have more than fifty ishtars assign drones to one player to "balance"this all out.

The facts of the matter is that various factors and patches and new modules, topped off by the giant turdy cherry on top of the HAC de-balance, all combined to turn a tried and discarded drone-assign meta into an overpowered killdozer meta which scaled from gangs of two (Ishtar + tackle in lowsec = wtf) to gangs of 200...now "nerfed" to wings of 50. It's called a convergence of things which caused the meta to suddenly, within the space of 6 months, become not only viable, but so self-obviously OP that you would be insane not to do it.

CCP Rise, you and CCPFozzie should be commended for so rapidly realising the Ishtar is out of balance. I mean, six months is a short period of time to notice this graph.

I wonder how long until you realise the Deimos is unbalanced? That it needs to lose about 60 PG and 20 CPU and 5% capacitor, to stop it being unkillable by any other ship in a 1v1, aside from something with neuts and (ahahaha, I lafff) a 1200 DPS active tank and unlimited capacitor.

Just +1 this isn't enough. I've already tired to hear "Ishtar" on just any queustion of "Which ship I should aim to for best PvE?". LV4? Ishtar! Low/null anomalies? Ishtar! Low lv WHs? Ishtar! DED sites? Ishtar of course! It seems like we don't need any other hulls anymore, because Ishtar can do PvE reasonably well even while fitted for PvP, and at the same time very few other solo setups will be able to threaten it in any possible way. This devoid players of choices what in turn makes the game duller.

Survey/voting system inbuilt to the game client: link_Reforming corp and taxation system: link_New PvE content (reward collective gameplay): link

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#635 - 2014-07-31 10:17:40 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Need to be very careful with blanket battleship buffs. Whilst almost all are worthless outside of (as stated) high sec/epic fleet battles, there are a couple that would start to become nigh unstoppable with the right combination of buffs in the small arena.


Edit: Something perhaps to consider is making the weapon bonuses cascade down the stack - much like how the rattlesnake has bonuses to all missiles.

So bonus battleships in weapon types, unlimited to sizes. So if people really wanted the worlds fattest destroyer, they could make one.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#636 - 2014-07-31 10:40:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Trinkets friend wrote:


I wonder how long until you realise the Deimos is unbalanced? That it needs to lose about 60 PG and 20 CPU and 5% capacitor, to stop it being unkillable by any other ship in a 1v1, aside from something with neuts and (ahahaha, I lafff) a 1200 DPS active tank and unlimited capacitor.



- - - -

Battleship-wise, how about you give the Tempest uber webs? You have the Scorpion (for people who can't afford an equally-priced Jamgu or Failcon) for ECM. You have the Geddon with 38km neuts for people who aren't rich enough to ddrop a Bhaalgorn. Yet you have somehow, no uber webbing battleship aside from the Vindicator which gets 90% webs and fulfils a niche role as station-camping troll fit. You even have the barghest for ridiculous long-point glorious lossmail creation (I mean, whatevs, it sucks out-of-the-box)

I'm not asking for 40km webs. I'm not asking for 30km webs. But a Tempest with 20km webs and the current slot layout would be pretty much what the BS field needs. This would solve the damage application problem, provide BS gangs with ceptor defence. 5 mids would force fitting compromise for twin web setups.



I defended 20 km webs on tempest and 8% rof bonus for a while. But no one cared seems.

Funninly enough.. your other statement points basically the only thing a tempest can do better than maelstrom and typhoon, kill a deimos :P (although dominix is still better)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#637 - 2014-07-31 10:49:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
afkalt wrote:
Need to be very careful with blanket battleship buffs. Whilst almost all are worthless outside of (as stated) high sec/epic fleet battles, there are a couple that would start to become nigh unstoppable with the right combination of buffs in the small arena.


Edit: Something perhaps to consider is making the weapon bonuses cascade down the stack - much like how the rattlesnake has bonuses to all missiles.

So bonus battleships in weapon types, unlimited to sizes. So if people really wanted the worlds fattest destroyer, they could make one.



It is rather easy to predict what can and cannot be done. A bit more damage would not break anything. Otherwise all combat would be with shield tanked vindicators. A bit more EHP neither. Warp core resistance is a bit more tricky and could make them much more powerful on small scale and would nerf solo pvp (but still not a totally bad idea). A small web resistance would also be ok. They are not fast to start, but would make them more than simply sitting ducks when tackled, and would make AB battleships somewhat useful.

The MJD was the largest buff battleships ever received, and still was not enough. Any of the proposed changes in this thread is far less than the MJD. So I doubt any of those would break anything.

Making webgs in general effect by 100% their base effect only to ships up to X times the mass of the tackler and reducing in a slope after that would be a GREAT buff to battleships and battlecruisers. Probably exactly the type is really needed.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Diivil
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#638 - 2014-07-31 10:54:51 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Need to be very careful with blanket battleship buffs. Whilst almost all are worthless outside of (as stated) high sec/epic fleet battles, there are a couple that would start to become nigh unstoppable with the right combination of buffs in the small arena.


Edit: Something perhaps to consider is making the weapon bonuses cascade down the stack - much like how the rattlesnake has bonuses to all missiles.

So bonus battleships in weapon types, unlimited to sizes. So if people really wanted the worlds fattest destroyer, they could make one.


As stated before most t1 battleships are not in a bad place compared to each other. The problem is that bombers make all shield BS unuseable. And then tidi and firewalling make all the missile ones unuseable at any scale of over 200vs200. You have about a minute to broadcast for reps and if the reps are running before missiles land then you are not dying. On top of this ECM is currently useless due to absolutely massive sensor strength buffs to all ships across the board making the Scorpion unuseable.

So while you can say that t1 BS are not in a bad place compared each other in reality they are in a really bad place because of outside factors. Out of all t1 BS only 3 are actually worth using as the main line ship in large fleet battles: Apoc, Domi and Mega. Armageddon is not bad but it doesn't work as a main line ship. Abaddon is not horrible but generally we see Apocs used over it.

In my opinion t1 BS don't need buffs except in special cases of Scorpion, Hyperion and possibly Tempest. It's that the things that make them bad need to be nerfed: bombs, sensor strengths, super easy firewalling and strength of remote repairs. All these things cause massive problems to many ship classes as well so nerfing them shouldn't be a problem.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#639 - 2014-07-31 10:58:34 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:

You guys are still operating under the premise that you have a lot of time to address these rebalance issues. You don't - you're on borrowed time. Unless you start taking some risks and introduce some new content, EVE is going to creep past the point of no return with respect to subscriber losses.


*sigh*, I'll bite I suppose.

New content like what, Arthur?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Darth Fett
Iris Covenant
The Gorgon Empire
#640 - 2014-07-31 11:00:22 UTC
CCP Rise
Sentries/heavy drones is large size weapon. dps*optimal of ishtars is 500% more that others HACs, this nerf reduce it to OMG only 450%.
Cruisers must not have ability to use L weapons - so max 50 bandwidth to all cruisers and only medium drones bonus.