These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1661 - 2014-08-27 15:27:47 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
[quote=Barton Breau]
Another one that do not get eve.. well waht I coudl expect from someone in a N NPC corp. NPC corp characters shoudl not be able to post in the balance forum. They are usually clueless or just trolling and hidding behind the NPC corp ticker.
.



So from Fanfest we have the quote about the 80/20 split between raven levellers (people running missions I assume) and those who try the other things in eve. The 'other' things aren't just PvP, they include industry, exploration, trading etc. So of that 20% who do more than missions a smaller % will be pure PvP combat players. Eve is made up of all of its components and all the better for it.



YEst those are completely irrelevant in a BALANCE SHIPS discussion.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1662 - 2014-08-27 15:31:10 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
irrelevant you failed to state why the ishtar shoudl have more cargo than any other HAC. The vag uses less cargo than the others because you carry at most 1 or 2 replacements for the ancilliary boosters. A deimos and zealot uses way more charges just to work. THe ishtar doe snot even NEED a cargo hold!!
But...but...muh spare drones
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1663 - 2014-08-27 15:34:58 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
irrelevant you failed to state why the ishtar shoudl have more cargo than any other HAC. The vag uses less cargo than the others because you carry at most 1 or 2 replacements for the ancilliary boosters. A deimos and zealot uses way more charges just to work. THe ishtar doe snot even NEED a cargo hold!!
But...but...muh spare drones


...and the loot, don't forget the loot
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1664 - 2014-08-27 15:39:57 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
[quote=Barton Breau]
Another one that do not get eve.. well waht I coudl expect from someone in a N NPC corp. NPC corp characters shoudl not be able to post in the balance forum. They are usually clueless or just trolling and hidding behind the NPC corp ticker.
.



So from Fanfest we have the quote about the 80/20 split between raven levellers (people running missions I assume) and those who try the other things in eve. The 'other' things aren't just PvP, they include industry, exploration, trading etc. So of that 20% who do more than missions a smaller % will be pure PvP combat players. Eve is made up of all of its components and all the better for it.

YEst those are completely irrelevant in a BALANCE SHIPS discussion.



It isn't irrelevant when someone states that PvP combat is the only thing in eve that matters and therefore the only consideration in ship design and balance. Do the devs not need to balance any mining barge to allow them to be ganked but not too easily then? Which also comes back around to all 'PvE' activities having some element of PvP to them.

And please don't dismiss the 'PvE' elements as unecessary since that means you would also believe the x% of people who run 'PvE' elements of the game in preference to anything else are irrelevant. See how much cash CCP would have left for the devsto work on a pure PvP combat game if all the 'PvE' folks unsubbed. It would make Eve and incredibly dull one trick pony.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1665 - 2014-08-27 15:45:56 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Please.. tell me you were drunk when you tought that the logic dictataes ishtar and vagabond should have more cargo than deimos and zealot.


deimos has had a good tank, and should be limited by how many cap boosters it can hold. Not once have i outlasted a deimos in cap boosters. Plus, they did give the deimos a cargo buff just like all the other HACs (except Sac, from what i can tell). Went from 315 to 415, 100 extra m3. Vaga in comparison went from 360m3 to 415. So only a 55m3 difference there. Deimos got a pretty big bump in comparison.

Deimos is one of the best brawlers and best active tanking HAC. I don't see why it should have some uber cargo capacity. Most deimos i see have null/faction AM and sometimes void as ammo. The rest is cap boosters and nanite paste.

Vagabond has to carry barrage, fusion, emp, plasma and sometimes titanium sabot, plus cap boosters/nanite paste. Using an XLASB fit, i would only have enough room to for 2 reloads of the XLASB in my cargo using navy 400's. Which is not bad, but annoying that i have to keep flying back and forth to refill my cargo after 1-2 fights.

This also opens up cap booster + LSB tanking as an alternative to ASB tanking on the vagabond, since it can finally fit more than 7-8 800's. If you're kiting, you have to fly with MWD + tank running, which will burn through cap boosters pretty quick.

I'm happy with vaga cargo change. Ishtar is kind of sketchy though, since you can just fit a bunch of drones in your cargo, abandon drones, drop drones from cargo, refill drone bay.



irrelevant you failed to state why the ishtar shoudl have more cargo than any other HAC. The vag uses less cargo than the others because you carry at most 1 or 2 replacements for the ancilliary boosters. A deimos and zealot uses way more charges just to work. THe ishtar doe snot even NEED a cargo hold!!


First. Spellcheck, use it. Your replies are always a mess.

Second, i did state the added cargo on the ishtar is sketchy. Read the last sentence. I agree it didnt really need more cargo. You also obviously glazed over the fact the deimos got more cargo added in this pass than most of the other HACs. As mentioned, deimos has one of the best active tanks, you dont need 600m3 of cargo to have a neverending stream of cap boosters and a 700-900 sustained tank.

Do you rep and mwd constantly in your deimos? Once you get point/web, mwd goes off to conserve cap. That means booster is only feeding tank/guns. Vaga for kiting will need booster and mwd running which will draw quite a bit cap. So yea, it needed more room for cap boosters. If deimos active tank is so crippled by cargo, then why are they all over stomping faces in fights?


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

Make the Muninn great again!
Nick Bete
Highsec Haulers Inc.
#1666 - 2014-08-27 15:50:00 UTC
Both sides of the game are important and relevant in this discussion as long as ships can be dual purposed. I know people who run Ishtars and Cerbs in missions rather than hulking BS hulls. Like it or not both roles need to be accounted for.

Can we drop the pointless PVE vs PVP bickering and get back to the subject of ship balancing, please? The poor Eagle and Muninn need some serious help (as does the Tempest, but to a lesser degree).

Can someone please explain how giving the Muninn an extra few meters per second speed will make it useful? I just don't see it.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1667 - 2014-08-27 16:59:07 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Barton Breau wrote:


If i chose to take my mind outside the box that far then there would be little "pve" left in the game, mining - pvp - you are racing other miners to asteroids/ice, undercut them on sales, sell to other players...


Which is exactly what miners are doing. Go try mining White Glaze in Haleima and see how competitive it is to get a reasonable amount. It's PvP just without shooting each other. This is nowhere near outside the box, it's not even crawling it's way through the packing beads...


Yeh, this is too crazy even for me, good luck ma'am (coz, obviously, longer hair == woman :) ).

Have fun.
Myrkul Nightshade
Doomheim
#1668 - 2014-08-27 20:14:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Myrkul Nightshade
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
[quote=Barton Breau]
Another one that do not get eve.. well waht I coudl expect from someone in a N NPC corp. NPC corp characters shoudl not be able to post in the balance forum. They are usually clueless or just trolling and hidding behind the NPC corp ticker.
.



So from Fanfest we have the quote about the 80/20 split between raven levellers (people running missions I assume) and those who try the other things in eve. The 'other' things aren't just PvP, they include industry, exploration, trading etc. So of that 20% who do more than missions a smaller % will be pure PvP combat players. Eve is made up of all of its components and all the better for it.

YEst those are completely irrelevant in a BALANCE SHIPS discussion.



It isn't irrelevant when someone states that PvP combat is the only thing in eve that matters and therefore the only consideration in ship design and balance. Do the devs not need to balance any mining barge to allow them to be ganked but not too easily then? Which also comes back around to all 'PvE' activities having some element of PvP to them.

And please don't dismiss the 'PvE' elements as unecessary since that means you would also believe the x% of people who run 'PvE' elements of the game in preference to anything else are irrelevant. See how much cash CCP would have left for the devsto work on a pure PvP combat game if all the 'PvE' folks unsubbed. It would make Eve and incredibly dull one trick pony.



PVP surely isn't the only thing that matters, but it is at least 100 times more susceptible to balancing issues than any other aspect of EVE.

If you go PVE in a suboptimal ship, you'll probably still make some ISK. If you mine in the 2nd best mining fit for your situation, you'll certainly still make some ISK.

If you PVP in a ship that can't go toe to toe with someone else's ship then you'll only win if you face a real dufus. Some dude who doesn't know his mouse from his arse, and keeps reaching for the wrong one.

Anyway, rebalancing doesn't hurt the other aspects either. So it's not an "either - or" situation.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1669 - 2014-08-28 00:41:07 UTC
Myrkul Nightshade wrote:

PVP surely isn't the only thing that matters, but it is at least 100 times more susceptible to balancing issues than any other aspect of EVE.

If you go PVE in a suboptimal ship, you'll probably still make some ISK. If you mine in the 2nd best mining fit for your situation, you'll certainly still make some ISK.

If you PVP in a ship that can't go toe to toe with someone else's ship then you'll only win if you face a real dufus. Some dude who doesn't know his mouse from his arse, and keeps reaching for the wrong one.

Anyway, rebalancing doesn't hurt the other aspects either. So it's not an "either - or" situation.



Finnaly someoen with brains to understandthe basics. Thank you.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kyuuseishu
Pikachu's Paradise
#1670 - 2014-08-28 11:23:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyuuseishu
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Myrkul Nightshade wrote:

PVP surely isn't the only thing that matters, but it is at least 100 times more susceptible to balancing issues than any other aspect of EVE.

If you go PVE in a suboptimal ship, you'll probably still make some ISK. If you mine in the 2nd best mining fit for your situation, you'll certainly still make some ISK.

If you PVP in a ship that can't go toe to toe with someone else's ship then you'll only win if you face a real dufus. Some dude who doesn't know his mouse from his arse, and keeps reaching for the wrong one.

Anyway, rebalancing doesn't hurt the other aspects either. So it's not an "either - or" situation.



Finnaly someoen with brains to understandthe basics. Thank you.


So you finally found the one person out of god knows how many pages who agrees with your philosophy of the game, despite the miriad of players who have disagreed with your sentiment. So basically someone as narrow minded and ignorant as yourself.

Both PvE and PVP are susceptible to the same level of balance issues, but chances are they coincide. Make a ship too powerful in PVP, this affects the PVE balance, hence why the Ishtar was seen as the defacto ship for pirate sites. Sure the discussion isn't warranted in PVP oriented ships, but when a ship class is generally used in a PVE environment aswell as PVP, it needs to be ensured they are still useful in that respect. Since we are on the subject of HAC's, where the Ishtar and a few others are used in PVE, then it is an aspect which needs to be considered.

Also, as some others already reiterated, without the PVE element of this game, it would be an empty shell, a shadow of what could have been.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1671 - 2014-08-28 16:55:12 UTC
Kyuuseishu wrote:
So you finally found the one person out of god knows how many pages who agrees with your philosophy of the game, despite the miriad of players who have disagreed with your sentiment. So basically someone as narrow minded and ignorant as yourself.

Both PvE and PVP are susceptible to the same level of balance issues, but chances are they coincide. Make a ship too powerful in PVP, this affects the PVE balance, hence why the Ishtar was seen as the defacto ship for pirate sites. Sure the discussion isn't warranted in PVP oriented ships, but when a ship class is generally used in a PVE environment aswell as PVP, it needs to be ensured they are still useful in that respect. Since we are on the subject of HAC's, where the Ishtar and a few others are used in PVE, then it is an aspect which needs to be considered.

Also, as some others already reiterated, without the PVE element of this game, it would be an empty shell, a shadow of what could have been.

two pages. No, PVE is not at the same acceptable level of balance. Go back to other rebalancing threads and see how many times people argued about PVE balance. The only exception to this is the marauder thread, but even then it had a much larger portion of PVP discussion on a ship that probably 90% of those people weren't going to use (not that that matters really). Regardless of how ships are balanced in a PVP aspect, someone will always find a way to either adapt it or move on to a different ship, considering there is no pure PVE ship, not even the marauder. PVE will survive and thrive regardless of ship changes, but the ships are all dependant on having purpose in combat or else we will never see them outside of a station.

And no, eve would not be an empty shell. There would be a smaller community if it was gone, but never empty.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#1672 - 2014-08-28 17:05:51 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Kyuuseishu wrote:
So you finally found the one person out of god knows how many pages who agrees with your philosophy of the game, despite the miriad of players who have disagreed with your sentiment. So basically someone as narrow minded and ignorant as yourself.

Both PvE and PVP are susceptible to the same level of balance issues, but chances are they coincide. Make a ship too powerful in PVP, this affects the PVE balance, hence why the Ishtar was seen as the defacto ship for pirate sites. Sure the discussion isn't warranted in PVP oriented ships, but when a ship class is generally used in a PVE environment aswell as PVP, it needs to be ensured they are still useful in that respect. Since we are on the subject of HAC's, where the Ishtar and a few others are used in PVE, then it is an aspect which needs to be considered.

Also, as some others already reiterated, without the PVE element of this game, it would be an empty shell, a shadow of what could have been.

two pages. No, PVE is not at the same acceptable level of balance. Go back to other rebalancing threads and see how many times people argued about PVE balance. The only exception to this is the marauder thread, but even then it had a much larger portion of PVP discussion on a ship that probably 90% of those people weren't going to use (not that that matters really). Regardless of how ships are balanced in a PVP aspect, someone will always find a way to either adapt it or move on to a different ship, considering there is no pure PVE ship, not even the marauder. PVE will survive and thrive regardless of ship changes, but the ships are all dependant on having purpose in combat or else we will never see them outside of a station.

And no, eve would not be an empty shell. There would be a smaller community if it was gone, but never empty.



depending on how one defines PVE but it would be an empty shell as there would be no ships to pvp in (mining, ratting, missions, exploration are all PVE)

not saying that pve should be a major point in re-balancing just that the game revolves around some form of pve currently to supply pvp.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1673 - 2014-08-28 19:44:03 UTC
Kyuuseishu wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Myrkul Nightshade wrote:

PVP surely isn't the only thing that matters, but it is at least 100 times more susceptible to balancing issues than any other aspect of EVE.

If you go PVE in a suboptimal ship, you'll probably still make some ISK. If you mine in the 2nd best mining fit for your situation, you'll certainly still make some ISK.

If you PVP in a ship that can't go toe to toe with someone else's ship then you'll only win if you face a real dufus. Some dude who doesn't know his mouse from his arse, and keeps reaching for the wrong one.

Anyway, rebalancing doesn't hurt the other aspects either. So it's not an "either - or" situation.



Finnaly someoen with brains to understandthe basics. Thank you.


So you finally found the one person out of god knows how many pages who agrees with your philosophy of the game, despite the miriad of players who have disagreed with your sentiment. So basically someone as narrow minded and ignorant as yourself.

Both PvE and PVP are susceptible to the same level of balance issues, but chances are they coincide. Make a ship too powerful in PVP, this affects the PVE balance, hence why the Ishtar was seen as the defacto ship for pirate sites. Sure the discussion isn't warranted in PVP oriented ships, but when a ship class is generally used in a PVE environment aswell as PVP, it needs to be ensured they are still useful in that respect. Since we are on the subject of HAC's, where the Ishtar and a few others are used in PVE, then it is an aspect which needs to be considered.

Also, as some others already reiterated, without the PVE element of this game, it would be an empty shell, a shadow of what could have been.



95% of humanity, in any segment of society or of any oganization are too stupid to be able to contribute on any rational thinking.

As a rule of thumb majority is always wrong.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1674 - 2014-08-28 20:33:48 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Kyuuseishu wrote:
So you finally found the one person out of god knows how many pages who agrees with your philosophy of the game, despite the miriad of players who have disagreed with your sentiment. So basically someone as narrow minded and ignorant as yourself.

Both PvE and PVP are susceptible to the same level of balance issues, but chances are they coincide. Make a ship too powerful in PVP, this affects the PVE balance, hence why the Ishtar was seen as the defacto ship for pirate sites. Sure the discussion isn't warranted in PVP oriented ships, but when a ship class is generally used in a PVE environment aswell as PVP, it needs to be ensured they are still useful in that respect. Since we are on the subject of HAC's, where the Ishtar and a few others are used in PVE, then it is an aspect which needs to be considered.

Also, as some others already reiterated, without the PVE element of this game, it would be an empty shell, a shadow of what could have been.

two pages. No, PVE is not at the same acceptable level of balance. Go back to other rebalancing threads and see how many times people argued about PVE balance. The only exception to this is the marauder thread, but even then it had a much larger portion of PVP discussion on a ship that probably 90% of those people weren't going to use (not that that matters really). Regardless of how ships are balanced in a PVP aspect, someone will always find a way to either adapt it or move on to a different ship, considering there is no pure PVE ship, not even the marauder. PVE will survive and thrive regardless of ship changes, but the ships are all dependant on having purpose in combat or else we will never see them outside of a station.

And no, eve would not be an empty shell. There would be a smaller community if it was gone, but never empty.



depending on how one defines PVE but it would be an empty shell as there would be no ships to pvp in (mining, ratting, missions, exploration are all PVE)

not saying that pve should be a major point in re-balancing just that the game revolves around some form of pve currently to supply pvp.

I can agree with that.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#1675 - 2014-08-28 22:00:39 UTC
The other HACs still need to be brought in line, or at least be given an edge. For instance, give the Cerebus a bonus in reduction to the reload time for RLMLs, make the Vagabond the true king of kiting by giving it the speed boost it deserves, and so on.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1676 - 2014-08-29 08:32:38 UTC
Rowells wrote:


And no, eve would not be an empty shell. There would be a smaller community if it was gone, but never empty.


If there aren't enough plyers there wouldn't be enough income to justify staff costs and keep the game running though. All players whether they be PvE or PvP oriented are needed to make Eve the game that it is.

On the point I made: I wasn't arguing that ships should be balanced for PvE, in fact I often argue the PvE activities (at least thos involving direct combat) should be balenced towards requiring PvP fit ships rather than the super tuned ratting ships etc. I also see nothing wrong with some ships seeing greater utility in PvE activities than in PvP activities, if all ships were equally good at everything it would reduce ship choice/pilot style to a question of which shape and colour a player prefers (though I have to admit I refuse to fly certain ships because they are just too ugly).

Balancing can never be reduced to purely PvP combat considerations as those ships are also used for ganking, shuttling stuff around, etc etc. If no consideration is made towards the impact of changes on all aspects of the game it would be very easy to unbalance the game and drive away Pve/FW/exploration players etc. PvP is hugely important as it drives destruction and therefore need for new goods. Production of those goods is equally important in my mind to drive the cycle of destruction, but also because a large number of players simply enjoy that side of the game.

In terms of this topic most calls seem to be to nerf the ishtar but I don't agree on destroying its utiliy in its current form. The ship is fragile if rigged for pure drone work, and not so powerful in dps terms if fit for tank. I wouldn't mind a medium sentry class being introduced though to balance down the dps perhaps but that would need testing to see if the ship becomes an also ran without the crap tank/good dps balance. If the other hacs are underwhelming compared to the ishtar then they should be slightly buffed to improve their niche rather than trashing a ship that works well currently.
Kirasten
Perkone
Caldari State
#1677 - 2014-08-29 23:22:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirasten
I always thought that simply dropping a mid and maybe give it an armor bonus to the ishtar would do the trick. Make people armor tank it and it will be fine
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1678 - 2014-08-30 01:08:24 UTC
Kirasten wrote:
I always thought that simply dropping a mid and maybe give it an armor bonus to the ishtar would do the trick. Make people armor tank it and it will be fine


the problem is the high dps output at long ranges well beyond any other cruiser aswell as the ability too drop and run .. and replace any killed dps

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
Kirasten
Perkone
Caldari State
#1679 - 2014-08-30 01:14:25 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Kirasten wrote:
I always thought that simply dropping a mid and maybe give it an armor bonus to the ishtar would do the trick. Make people armor tank it and it will be fine


the problem is the high dps output at long ranges well beyond any other cruiser aswell as the ability too drop and run .. and replace any killed dps


That's kind of the point. Make it unattractive to shield tank, slowing it down and forcing it to either choose between tank and dps.
unslaught
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1680 - 2014-08-30 13:12:52 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
irrelevant you failed to state why the ishtar shoudl have more cargo than any other HAC. The vag uses less cargo than the others because you carry at most 1 or 2 replacements for the ancilliary boosters. A deimos and zealot uses way more charges just to work. THe ishtar doe snot even NEED a cargo hold!!
But...but...muh spare drones



huge cargo = exploration

don't think you need to search any further then that..