These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1181 - 2014-08-06 12:24:45 UTC
Well, Janice, thank you for quoting the exact reason why, instead of fixing the larger problem, CCP should just gut the Ishtar instead.

I don't care either way, to be honest. Any of the three solutions works for me, I would just rather not have to revisit this issue with carriers as well as the Ishtar, since sentry drones are the problem with both.

"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.
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1182 - 2014-08-06 12:44:37 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Vulfen wrote:
How about this -

make the drone sentry and heavy drone bonus apply to all drones
then make this a medium drone aimed ship

This is what i was thinking

Gallentee Cruiser Bonuses
7.5% Bonus to drone MWD, Tracking & Optimal range per level
10% Bonus to drone Damage & HP

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonues
+1 Drone controled per level
+5km Drone control range per level

Reduce bandwidth to 100

This would mean that in an optimal fit it is designed to work with 10 medium drones.
but it can still field 4 sentries if needed.


more like 50 bandwidth, 30% bonus to medium drone damage/hp per level, and swap the drone controlled bonus to a non-bonus like armour reps.
I don't really like just drone mwd bonuses. should be drone speed with equal drone tracking bonus. or they could just fix the 'drones catch up and fire a volley, drones slow down and go out of range for 30s, drones catch up' thing, but obviously that'll never happen.


Yea i dont mind either of these methods but i think it needs to be a ship still capable of sentries
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#1183 - 2014-08-06 13:02:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarisen Gream
Just thinking. . . maybe to fix the Ishtar - Domi, CCP should change how Drone Control Range works.

Instead of the current method - It should be the range in which players can issue "combat" orders, aggressive orders etc.
The combat range would be set by the targeting/locking range of the players ships.

This would mean we would need to reduce the base DCR in all the ships. Give a bonus in DCR in roles/level. Reduce the DCR increase from skills.

i.e. Thorax would have a base of say 10km drone control range. And a ship targeting range of say 35km. The player could issue combat/attack orders to drone with in 10km, those drones could attack things up to 35km away.
Vexor would have a base 10km DCR. Gain 1km per cruiser level. So at max skill say it could order drones 25km away, and have a targeting range of 50km.

This would make drones act more like mounted combat weapons. + Drones should count as mounted weapons toward a ships hull.
2.5 Drones to a turret. 2.5 light would = 1 small. 2.5 medium = 1 medium hard point. 2.5 heavy/sentry = 1 Large hard point.

This would make ships like the Domnix drop from 6 hard points to 3. This effect would be toward ships which use drones as their primary source of damage. So a Thorax which say is limited to 5 lights, wouldn't lose a medium hard point.

Edit: Forgot - due to drones being limited attack range based on ships targeting range, EWAR effects on targeting would effect the drones. . .

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1184 - 2014-08-06 13:05:38 UTC
Amarisen Gream wrote:
Just thinking. . . maybe to fix the Ishtar - Domi, CCP should change how Drone Control Range works.

Instead of the current method - It should be the range in which players can issue "combat" orders, aggressive orders etc.
The combat range would be set by the targeting/locking range of the players ships.

This would mean we would need to reduce the base DCR in all the ships. Give a bonus in DCR in roles/level. Reduce the DCR increase from skills.

i.e. Thorax would have a base of say 10km drone control range. And a ship targeting range of say 35km. The player could issue combat/attack orders to drone with in 10km, those drones could attack things up to 35km away.
Vexor would have a base 10km DCR. Gain 1km per cruiser level. So at max skill say it could order drones 25km away, and have a targeting range of 50km.

This would make drones act more like mounted combat weapons. + Drones should count as mounted weapons toward a ships hull.
2.5 Drones to a turret. 2.5 light would = 1 small. 2.5 medium = 1 medium hard point. 2.5 heavy/sentry = 1 Large hard point.

This would make ships like the Domnix drop from 6 hard points to 3. This effect would be toward ships which use drones as their primary source of damage. So a Thorax which say is limited to 5 lights, wouldn't lose a medium hard point.


trashing combat drones to fix sentries.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#1185 - 2014-08-06 13:09:19 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Amarisen Gream wrote:
Just thinking. . . maybe to fix the Ishtar - Domi, CCP should change how Drone Control Range works.

Instead of the current method - It should be the range in which players can issue "combat" orders, aggressive orders etc.
The combat range would be set by the targeting/locking range of the players ships.

This would mean we would need to reduce the base DCR in all the ships. Give a bonus in DCR in roles/level. Reduce the DCR increase from skills.

i.e. Thorax would have a base of say 10km drone control range. And a ship targeting range of say 35km. The player could issue combat/attack orders to drone with in 10km, those drones could attack things up to 35km away.
Vexor would have a base 10km DCR. Gain 1km per cruiser level. So at max skill say it could order drones 25km away, and have a targeting range of 50km.

This would make drones act more like mounted combat weapons. + Drones should count as mounted weapons toward a ships hull.
2.5 Drones to a turret. 2.5 light would = 1 small. 2.5 medium = 1 medium hard point. 2.5 heavy/sentry = 1 Large hard point.

This would make ships like the Domnix drop from 6 hard points to 3. This effect would be toward ships which use drones as their primary source of damage. So a Thorax which say is limited to 5 lights, wouldn't lose a medium hard point.


trashing combat drones to fix sentries.



Not really! My max combat drone range with out boost is 57km. . . most of my ships which i fly have a targeting range of 60-90. . . yes, I couldn't give combat orders to combat drones tell they got back into range of the DCR, but they could fight much farther away!

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Anthar Thebess
#1186 - 2014-08-06 13:11:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
TrouserDeagle wrote:

gardes and mega pulse lasers aren't so out of whack.


Unless you are using them on Isthar , Dominix

Then the best tracking drone , top DPS one too, is having range of a scripted SCORCH.
So we are again talking about bigger tracking , and more damage than SCORCH.

Now try to put those lasers on a Cruiser ( isthar ) or capital ( carrier).
You cannot because those guns L class, so only attack battlecruisers and battleships, and only those ships get bonus for them.

I'm not against bonuses sentry have to PVE - every one have to make some isk, the more isk flows in , the more you can spend on ships.

But in PVP sentry drones are just out of league now.
What is worst, the more of them you have - this is more and more visible.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1187 - 2014-08-06 13:15:27 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:

gardes and mega pulse lasers aren't so out of whack.


Unless you are using them on Isthar , Dominix

Then the best tracking drone , top DPS one too, is having range of a scripted SCORCH.
So we are again talking about bigger tracking , and more damage than SCORCH.

Now try to put those lasers on a Cruiser ( isthar ) or capital ( carrier).
You cannot because those guns L class, so only attack battlecruisers and battleships, and only those ships get bonus for them.

I'm not against bonuses sentry have to PVE - every one have to make some isk, the more isk flows in , the more you can spend on ships.

But in PVP sentry drones are just out of league now.
What is worst, the more of them you have - this is more and more visible.


yes, bonuses do indeed improve the stats of weapons.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#1188 - 2014-08-06 15:06:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Janice en Marland wrote:
In general sense, why should a ship that is easier to train for and build be more powerful? That doesn't seem like balance.

A Crow is easier to train for and build than an Ishtar. Are you implying that an Ishtar should be a "more powerful" fast tackler than a Crow?

I certainly hope not.

My point is that different ships have different roles. ABCs fill one set of roles. HACs fill another. You can't just say that one ship is "more powerful" than another without adding the context of a specific role. Looking at HACs across the board, it's pretty easy to see that HACs and ABCs we never meant to fill the same roles. The fact that the Ishtar can fill the roles of either, often while outperforming all other ABCs and HACs, is the problem.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#1189 - 2014-08-06 15:06:52 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:

gardes and mega pulse lasers aren't so out of whack.


Unless you are using them on Isthar , Dominix

Then the best tracking drone , top DPS one too, is having range of a scripted SCORCH.
So we are again talking about bigger tracking , and more damage than SCORCH.

Now try to put those lasers on a Cruiser ( isthar ) or capital ( carrier).
You cannot because those guns L class, so only attack battlecruisers and battleships, and only those ships get bonus for them.

I'm not against bonuses sentry have to PVE - every one have to make some isk, the more isk flows in , the more you can spend on ships.

But in PVP sentry drones are just out of league now.
What is worst, the more of them you have - this is more and more visible.


yes, bonuses do indeed improve the stats of weapons.



It takes bonuses to make every other group of weapons useable. sentry drones are solid on there own then bonuses are applied
Janice en Marland
Cross Saber Holdings
#1190 - 2014-08-06 15:32:43 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Janice en Marland wrote:
In general sense, why should a ship that is easier to train for and build be more powerful? That doesn't seem like balance.

A Crow is easier to train for and build than an Ishtar. Are you implying that an Ishtar should be a "more powerful" fast tackler than a Crow?

I certainly hope not.

My point is that different ships have different roles. ABCs fill one set of roles. HACs fill another. You can't just say that one ship is "more powerful" than another without adding the context of a specific role. Looking at HACs across the board, it's pretty easy to see that HACs and ABCs we never meant to fill the same roles. The fact that the Ishtar can fill the roles of either, often while outperforming all other ABCs and HACs, is the problem.

Interceptors and ABCs have been called OP quite often. They just perform their roles well and people assume they are OP because of it. Do I believe an Ishtar should be an overall better ship than a T2 frig and T1 BC? Yes. It doesn't necessarily need to be nerfed(especially to the degree some wish it would be) to balance it accordingly to the other HACs. I believe the other HACs need more defined roles and slight buffs.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#1191 - 2014-08-06 15:51:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Janice en Marland wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
This "Ishtar has bonuses to battleship weapons" line that keeps coming up is interesting. We talked about it some earlier here. There's parts of it that we can agree about but it's also something that makes drones interesting across all drone using/bonused ships. You could use the same argument to say that Dominix's shouldn't get bonuses to light drones or that Vexors shouldn't be able to use lights or heavies or sentries.

We feel that in general it's an interesting and positive part of drone design that they aren't fixed to ship sizes nearly as strictly as other weapon types. We just need to find ways to have balanced ships as well.

I actually agree with CCP Rise on this. Sentry Drones (along with Heavy Drones) should not, in any way, shape or form, be limited to use only on battleships. I have no problem with cruisers using Sentry or Heavy Drones. At the same time, I still qualify them as "battleship class" weapons, so their use needs to be balanced accordingly.

I won't speak for others, but in my mind "battleship class" is about attributes and fitting, not a hard limit on fitting something to only a battleship. Does anyone dispute that a 100MN AB or MWD is a "battleship class" module, even though you can fit it on cruisers or battlecruisers? Does anyone dispute that Torpedo Launchers are a "battleship class" weapon, even though you can fit them on Stealth Bombers? I doubt it.

The examples I listed above have something in common: fitting requirements. To fit an oversized module on a ship, you either need to use a large portion of the ship's fitting to do so (AB/MWD) or be flying a ship with a bonus specifically to allow it to use oversized modules (Stealth Bomber/ABC).

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the problem isn't with the Ishtar's bonuses, or even with Sentry Drones, it's with the Ishtar's drone bandwidth. In the Ishtar, we have a cruiser hull with bonuses specifically to sentry (and heavy) drones that can use as many sentry (and heavy) drones as a battleship hull. While I don't feel this is inherently bad game design (ABCs for example fit full racks of oversized guns), I feel that having a class of ships with only one member being able to do this is.

I see two possible solutions here:

1. Reduce the Ishtar's drone bandwidth.
2. Rebalance the entire HAC line so that they all use battleship-class weapons like the Ishtar does.

I see #2 as possible, yet not worthwhile, or even desirable, so I won't go there. Instead, let's talk about the Ishtar's Bandwidth.

Right now, the Ishtar's bonuses (neglecting CCP's announced changes) are as follows:

125m^3 drone bay

Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone max velocity and tracking speed

Heavy Assault Cruisers Bonuses:
5km bonus to Drone operation range
7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed

We want to keep the Ishtar's role as a sentry sniper without it being overpowered. To this end, I think that we need to re-align it's bonuses away from heavy drones, and change how it's drone bandwidth works. What I'd propose is this:

50m^3 drone bay

Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed

Heavy Assault Cruisers Bonuses:
5km bonus to Drone operation range
10m^3 bonus to drone bandwidth

This would allow Ishtar pilots to field between 2 and 4 sentry drones, depending on their skills, and put it roughly on par with other HACs in sniping fits in terms of damage output (with 3 sentries at HAC III) or slightly ahead (with 4 sentries at HAC V). I left the bonus to sentry drone range and tracking as-is to offset the loss of one or more drones. And I dropped the heavy drone bonus because, in my mind, HACs are meant to fill specialist roles, and getting specialist bonuses to multiple drone types seems more like a generalist role. This change would allow the Ishtar to continue excelling as a sniper HAC without making all other sniper HACs irrelevant, and limit it's ability to murder cruisers with heavy drones at close range with the same fit.

Thoughts?

(I would also suggest similar changes for other cruiser hulls with 100+ drone bandwidth, but those are topics for other threads.)

EDIT: Fixed some typos.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Shock Beer
Never Not AFK
#1192 - 2014-08-06 16:42:00 UTC
Can the sacrilege please get a look in. Its just not a good ship all round. Its missile projection and DPS is bad compared to cerberus and its tank is so damn average because of its slot layout.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1193 - 2014-08-06 16:48:16 UTC
Shock Beer wrote:
Can the sacrilege please get a look in. Its just not a good ship all round. Its missile projection and DPS is bad compared to cerberus and its tank is so damn average because of its slot layout.


your wrong
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#1194 - 2014-08-06 16:50:56 UTC
Personally I think the Assault Cruiser bonus should be:
3km bonus to Drone operation range
7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range

The tracking bonus and control range is what is really making them powerful. Nerf the tracking speed and it make it harder for the drones to hit targets. Might also want to think about taking away the bonus to drone hitpoints.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1195 - 2014-08-06 17:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Adrie Atticus
Janice en Marland wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Janice en Marland wrote:
In general sense, why should a ship that is easier to train for and build be more powerful? That doesn't seem like balance.

A Crow is easier to train for and build than an Ishtar. Are you implying that an Ishtar should be a "more powerful" fast tackler than a Crow?

I certainly hope not.

My point is that different ships have different roles. ABCs fill one set of roles. HACs fill another. You can't just say that one ship is "more powerful" than another without adding the context of a specific role. Looking at HACs across the board, it's pretty easy to see that HACs and ABCs we never meant to fill the same roles. The fact that the Ishtar can fill the roles of either, often while outperforming all other ABCs and HACs, is the problem.

Interceptors and ABCs have been called OP quite often. They just perform their roles well and people assume they are OP because of it. Do I believe an Ishtar should be an overall better ship than a T2 frig and T1 BC? Yes. It doesn't necessarily need to be nerfed(especially to the degree some wish it would be) to balance it accordingly to the other HACs. I believe the other HACs need more defined roles and slight buffs.


Other HACS getting buffs? Sure.

1 of each rage having a HAC on the power level of Ishtar? Yes please with a cherry on the top! We can stop using anything bigger than a cruiser because we'll have low sig, loads of speed and stupid DPS in all the races. Battleships will be null and void in PvP for good, we can turn them into something else then. Maybe give PvE-only bonuses to half of them and the other half should be EWAR boats.

Let's say we take a look at Muninn and what it would need to match the Ishtar:

*+3 med slot. -1 low slot, -1 high slot
*Roughly 60 m/s base speed
*Lots more of cap for perma MWD + 2x TC
*Selectable Engagement range, tracking and DPS of
--40+18; 0.0666; 702 dps
--70+12; 0.0355; 661 dps
--72+50; 0.051; 620 dps
--105+40; 0.0222; 579 dps
*No more ammo usage, it's a selectable switch on the gun

Guess what the Huginn bonus would have to be per level to reach these numbers? +10% damage and +10% RoF on top of the HAC bonuses of 10% optimal and 7,5% tracking when using 2x TC instead of 1x of the Ishtar with the figures above.

Ishtar is the odd one out and it has to be brought in line with others.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1196 - 2014-08-06 18:03:57 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Janice en Marland wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Janice en Marland wrote:
In general sense, why should a ship that is easier to train for and build be more powerful? That doesn't seem like balance.

A Crow is easier to train for and build than an Ishtar. Are you implying that an Ishtar should be a "more powerful" fast tackler than a Crow?

I certainly hope not.

My point is that different ships have different roles. ABCs fill one set of roles. HACs fill another. You can't just say that one ship is "more powerful" than another without adding the context of a specific role. Looking at HACs across the board, it's pretty easy to see that HACs and ABCs we never meant to fill the same roles. The fact that the Ishtar can fill the roles of either, often while outperforming all other ABCs and HACs, is the problem.

Interceptors and ABCs have been called OP quite often. They just perform their roles well and people assume they are OP because of it. Do I believe an Ishtar should be an overall better ship than a T2 frig and T1 BC? Yes. It doesn't necessarily need to be nerfed(especially to the degree some wish it would be) to balance it accordingly to the other HACs. I believe the other HACs need more defined roles and slight buffs.


Other HACS getting buffs? Sure.

1 of each rage having a HAC on the power level of Ishtar? Yes please with a cherry on the top! We can stop using anything bigger than a cruiser because we'll have low sig, loads of speed and stupid DPS in all the races. Battleships will be null and void in PvP for good, we can turn them into something else then. Maybe give PvE-only bonuses to half of them and the other half should be EWAR boats.

Let's say we take a look at Muninn and what it would need to match the Ishtar:

*+3 med slot. -1 low slot, -1 high slot
*Roughly 60 m/s base speed
*Lots more of cap for perma MWD + 2x TC
*Selectable Engagement range, tracking and DPS of
--40+18; 0.0666; 702 dps
--70+12; 0.0355; 661 dps
--72+50; 0.051; 620 dps
--105+40; 0.0222; 579 dps
*No more ammo usage, it's a selectable switch on the gun

Guess what the Huginn bonus would have to be per level to reach these numbers? +10% damage and +10% RoF on top of the HAC bonuses of 10% optimal and 7,5% tracking when using 2x TC instead of 1x of the Ishtar with the figures above.

Ishtar is the odd one out and it has to be brought in line with others.


This is what i said to him a few pages back.. if all HACS have 700+ dps with low sig, high resists, why fly BS? Muninn cap is actually pretty decent, its mid layout is what fucks it over. But yea, i would like to do 700 dps in my muninn at 40km. Like the ishtar. 

If ccp listens to Janice's advice. Instead of a rebalance tweak, lets make CCP spend more resources rebalancing all the HACs again to fix the ishtar. Sounds logical. To get other HACs and their weapons to perform like ishtar, all slots would need to be looked at, weapon systems buffed and overall a big waste of resources.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#1197 - 2014-08-06 18:13:06 UTC
How many BS PvP fleets do you see? I don't see many out there in lowsec, unless a structure is being bashed. When did 700 become BS DPS? Most of BS put out over 1000 dps.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1198 - 2014-08-06 18:15:58 UTC
The 1st rule of a balance discussion in the Features and Ideas forum is "if it killed me, it's unbalanced". Now all of a sudden the one class of drones that don't move are OP. We've come a long way from AHACs, Abaddons and Arty Maelstroms being that most unbalanced things ever!
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1199 - 2014-08-06 18:39:35 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
How many BS PvP fleets do you see? I don't see many out there in lowsec, unless a structure is being bashed. When did 700 become BS DPS? Most of BS put out over 1000 dps.


When you're having a fleet scrap and actually have to tank it.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#1200 - 2014-08-06 18:55:56 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
How many BS PvP fleets do you see? I don't see many out there in lowsec, unless a structure is being bashed. When did 700 become BS DPS? Most of BS put out over 1000 dps.

Try getting 1000 DPS out of a battleship without using short-range ammo. Heck, try getting 700DPS out of battleships at 80+km at all. Also, try getting anything close to sentry drone tracking out of any battleship turret at all.

Incidentally, a blaster Ishtar using Ogre IIs can break 1000 DPS, almost 800 of which is from the drones, and apply that damage to cruisers far better than battleships can.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs