These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

The eagle and the Zealot
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kalihira
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#1 - 2015-06-15 16:44:54 UTC
Being pure turret boats (no drones), would it be a bad idea to give the Eagle and the Zealot a 6th turret slot, plus fitting room to accommodate them? They have very nice range bonusses, but dps wise, both are lacking in the dps department, especially compared to the other HACs.

some random number crunching assuming perfect skills and T2 fittings:

Eagle 3x magstab
current 5 turrets:
250mm railgun, navy antimatter; 449 dps (41km optimal)
proposed 6 turrets:
250mm railgun, navy antimatter; 539 dps (41km optimal)

current 5 turrets:
neutron blaster cannon, void; 587 dps (7,6km optimal)
proposed 6 turrets:
250mm railgun, navy antimatter; 704 dps (7,6km optimal)

Zealot 2x heatsink
current 5 turrets:
Heavy pulse laser, navy multifrequency; 509 dps (12km optimal) , scorch; 406 dps (33km optimal)
proposed 6 turrets:
Heavy pulse laser, navy multifrequency; 611 dps (12km optimal) , scorch; 487 dps (33km optimal)

current 5 turrets:
Heavy beam laser, navy multifrequency; 557 dps (23km optimal) , aurora; 323 dps (81km optimal)
proposed 6 turrets:
Heavy beam laser, navy multifrequency; 668 dps (23km optimal) , aurora; 388 dps (81km optimal)
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#2 - 2015-06-15 17:23:23 UTC
Not saying yes or no to it either way, but if they get added, the ships need more cap.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Juan Mileghere
The Corporate Raiders
#3 - 2015-06-15 17:56:20 UTC
Not a huge fan for doing it for the Eagle, the Zealot on the other hand might not be terrible to do it to

Blobbing Explained
Leto Aramaus
Frog Team Four
#4 - 2015-06-15 18:56:39 UTC
No, they should not get more DPS.

The Deimos gets barely more DPS than other turret HACs, and TRASH range.

Increase Deimos DPS or EHP.

Deimos is love, Deimos is life.

The UI update we deserve
FT Cold
FT Cold Corporation
#5 - 2015-06-15 19:04:25 UTC
The zealot and eagle are already strong ships, I think that the aversion that some players feel towards them has more to do with the strength of t3s and isthars than anything else. The only thing that I'm not a fan of is the zealot's laser cap bonus, which I was very disappointed hadn't been replaced with another bonus when HACs were rebalanced. That said, being relatively slow cruisers and not having a drone bay is severely limiting for some uses, probably more so for the zealot than the eagle, which can easily use scram web blaster fits.
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
#6 - 2015-06-15 19:04:25 UTC
Fly a command ship if you need more DPS.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#7 - 2015-06-15 19:23:11 UTC
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
Fly a command ship if you need more DPS.


This would be a valid suggestion if the train for it wasn't the most **** train ever
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#8 - 2015-06-15 20:10:07 UTC
Wynta wrote:
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
Fly a command ship if you need more DPS.


This would be a valid suggestion if the train for it wasn't the most **** train ever


It is a pain.. i just got done training it a week or so ago. However its not much different from training for capitals or marauders.. its just training skills you wont ever use unless in a fleet. Im a 90% solo player, so theyre pretty close to useless for me.. but dat sleipnir.. mmm. Makes it worth it, now i can train other races much quicker.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Stay Feral
#9 - 2015-06-15 20:50:32 UTC
Leto Aramaus wrote:
No, they should not get more DPS.

The Deimos gets barely more DPS than other turret HACs, and TRASH range.

Increase Deimos DPS or EHP.

Deimos is love, Deimos is life.



While we're at it make the muninn worth a damn, make a low slot into a mid slot. That'd be 4 mids and 5 lows.

The only one who used Muninns was BL and even they dropped them.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Xequecal
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2015-06-15 20:53:38 UTC
The main problem with the Zealot is that the Ishtar exists.
The main problem with the Eagle is that the Tengu exists.

Fixing either of those problems entails massive amounts of power creep.
Kalihira
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#11 - 2015-06-15 21:41:44 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
The zealot and eagle are already strong ships, I think that the aversion that some players feel towards them has more to do with the strength of t3s and isthars than anything else. The only thing that I'm not a fan of is the zealot's laser cap bonus, which I was very disappointed hadn't been replaced with another bonus when HACs were rebalanced. That said, being relatively slow cruisers and not having a drone bay is severely limiting for some uses, probably more so for the zealot than the eagle, which can easily use scram web blaster fits.


Exactly the points raised I was looking for.
Not having a drone bay is my main "problem" with these ships, hence the idea for a 6th turret. I'm not saying either of the ships are weak though, just that they can use a little extra love. Both ships have fantastic tanks, especially the eagle, and very nice projection, which should be their "thing" when lacking drones, and have similar dps in comparison to other hacs that are in a good place (imo: deimos, ishtar, cerberus, sacriliege).

The T3 problem is another thing all together, but I am comparing them to these hacs. Thats also one of the reasons im picking out these two hacs to discuss. In light CCPs statement that T2 should be for specific roles, and T3 should be versatile, I think this change is justified. In fact, they T3 equivalent fits equal or outclass them in all but a bit of speed and range.
Kalihira
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#12 - 2015-06-15 21:43:51 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
The main problem with the Zealot is that the Ishtar exists.
No it isn't
Xequecal wrote:
The main problem with the Eagle is that the Tengu exists.
exactly

Xequecal wrote:
Fixing either of those problems entails massive amounts of power creep.
No they don't per definition.
Kalihira
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#13 - 2015-06-15 21:53:51 UTC
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
Fly a command ship if you need more DPS.
or just fly a deimos/sac/cerb/ishtar. Not the point here. I'm throwing out a suggestion to bring the two hacs mentioned in line with the other ones, dps wise. Im ok with them in all other respects, and I would like to keep them turret only.
J A Aloysiusz
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-06-15 22:05:15 UTC  |  Edited by: J A Aloysiusz
The muninn needs the most help in the HAC class. It is unable to fit a reasonable armor tank with 720s due to powergrid, its incredibly polarized armor resistances make it unusable against anything other than lasers, and it no longer enjoys its niche as a strong shield 720 kiter, due to the power creep of multiple other ships.

Zealot could use some help as well. If it were to be changed though, the zealot would simply get a slightly higher damage bonus.

Eagle isn't that bad, it's just only useful when flown en masse.
Bleedingthrough
#15 - 2015-06-15 22:23:34 UTC
Kalihira wrote:

The T3 problem is another thing all together, but I am comparing them to these hacs. Thats also one of the reasons im picking out these two hacs to discuss. In light CCPs statement that T2 should be for specific roles, and T3 should be versatile, I think this change is justified. In fact, they T3 equivalent fits equal or outclass them in all but a bit of speed and range.


Comparing HACs with T3s is wrong. Skill point loss and price tag is a huge balancing factor.
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
#16 - 2015-06-15 23:54:16 UTC
Kalihira wrote:
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
Fly a command ship if you need more DPS.
or just fly a deimos/sac/cerb/ishtar. Not the point here. I'm throwing out a suggestion to bring the two hacs mentioned in line with the other ones, dps wise. Im ok with them in all other respects, and I would like to keep them turret only.


What youre doing is comparing apples and oranges, a Deimos has a falloff bonus and active tanking, while Eagle gets a different set of advantages. Speak: theyre balanced in different ways. What youre asking for is to make them plain OP.
The only HAC that needs serious help is the Muninn and thats largely a question of slot layout and fitting resources.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#17 - 2015-06-16 01:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Wynta wrote:
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
Fly a command ship if you need more DPS.


This would be a valid suggestion if the train for it wasn't the most **** train ever


It is a pain.. i just got done training it a week or so ago. However its not much different from training for capitals or marauders.. its just training skills you wont ever use unless in a fleet. Im a 90% solo player, so theyre pretty close to useless for me.. but dat sleipnir.. mmm. Makes it worth it, now i can train other races much quicker.


Indeed, my alt is 3 days away from maxing out CS5 for the Sleipnir. Would like to also train for the Abso, but that bad cap recharge and lack of range bonus is deterring. Maybe Astarte? Now if only CCP add that MMJD cooldown reactivation reduction role bonus and the CSs would return to the golden age again making their ridiculous long training time justified.
Kalihira
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#18 - 2015-06-16 09:43:21 UTC
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
Kalihira wrote:
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
Fly a command ship if you need more DPS.
or just fly a deimos/sac/cerb/ishtar. Not the point here. I'm throwing out a suggestion to bring the two hacs mentioned in line with the other ones, dps wise. Im ok with them in all other respects, and I would like to keep them turret only.


What youre doing is comparing apples and oranges, a Deimos has a falloff bonus and active tanking, while Eagle gets a different set of advantages. Speak: theyre balanced in different ways. What youre asking for is to make them plain OP.
The only HAC that needs serious help is the Muninn and thats largely a question of slot layout and fitting resources.


And you advise me to fly a whole different class altogether.... So tell me, how are they balanced compared to eachother? An example: when they did the HAC rebalance, they gave the sac a projection boost, and increased its drone bay. Nowdays, the sac is in line with most other hacs. Im simply stating that to give the same kind of treatment to the mentioned hacs, I would like to see an extra turret, so they retain their 'gunship' uniqueness. They will still be on the slow end of the HAC spectrum, and lack the utility of drones. On the other side, they have fantastic range, and be on par with dps. Are the numbers I presented so out of whack that they would make them OP?

And yes, the muninn, and also the vaga to a degree, need alot more love, but that deserves a forum thread on its own.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#19 - 2015-06-16 12:39:49 UTC
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
The muninn needs the most help in the HAC class. It is unable to fit a reasonable armor tank with 720s due to powergrid

not trying to defend or challenge original proposal, but to question the silly attitude that you should be able to fit top tier guns per default without any trade off. You know there are 650mm guns which are underutilized, like basically all guns below the biggest in their class are considered crap (which was never any different btw). CCP should do something about it, to make these smaller guns useful or in
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#20 - 2015-06-16 14:49:53 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
The muninn needs the most help in the HAC class. It is unable to fit a reasonable armor tank with 720s due to powergrid

not trying to defend or challenge original proposal, but to question the silly attitude that you should be able to fit top tier guns per default without any trade off. You know there are 650mm guns which are underutilized, like basically all guns below the biggest in their class are considered crap (which was never any different btw). CCP should do something about it, to make these smaller guns useful or in


650s got half the alpha and even less dps than 720s. It's a broken weapon system, don't pretend it exists.
12Next page