These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#241 - 2013-07-18 15:02:38 UTC
+1 on the Ishtar CPU. It has always been the reason this ship can't fully shine.

The CPU rigs were a godsend when they came in, and then the drone damage mods helped the ship a lot, but they reintroduced the CPU issue as well.

Lots of good ideas here...

(I also agree that the 50m3 bay/level is a goofy bonus, but I trained HAC 5 years ago. I like the analogy of fitting 1 gun and getting +1 gun per level on other ships :) )

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
David Kir
Hotbirds
#242 - 2013-07-18 15:03:35 UTC
Voith wrote:
riando wrote:
Guys, I hope you're joking,
" Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler"
Or you know nothing about vaga, or ... i hope you're joking, vaga its a kite long range ship! It has not slots from active tank!
So, ideal would be maximize bonus for tracking&faloff. And nothing new not need!

Holy **** people.

The vaga got nothing but buffs.

It's called an ASB. Look it up, fit one, experience Godmode on Vaga.


It did get a minor speed nerf.

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#243 - 2013-07-18 15:03:47 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright I've been pretty busy today but I'm trying to catch up on feedback. Here's some initial thoughts:

I'll look at the Ishtar fitting. To me it seems like one of the stronger HACs already and it gained a bonus to damage projection and application so I didn't see a need to give it even more buffs. I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots. All that said, I'll have another look.


So.. you don't expect the Ishtar, a Heavy Assault Cruiser, to use Cruiser sized Modules?

Why is it constantly Gallente, and Drone Ships, that get random gimping?

If you "balanced" any of the other HACs around using Frigate modules people would laugh.

Wait, people ARE laughing at the Ishtar changes!
Ivol Kishtani
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#244 - 2013-07-18 15:04:35 UTC
David Kir wrote:
Ivol Kishtani wrote:
Does anyone use the Muninn as a long range platform? I would think a 4th mid would be more useful than an additional low.


It's often used in armor alpha gangs, and quite effectively so.
The extra low gives it that little bit of tank or damage it needs.
BL Muninn+Huginn gangs are infamous.


BL Muninn gangs are shield not armor.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#245 - 2013-07-18 15:05:06 UTC
David Kir wrote:
Voith wrote:
riando wrote:
Guys, I hope you're joking,
" Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler"
Or you know nothing about vaga, or ... i hope you're joking, vaga its a kite long range ship! It has not slots from active tank!
So, ideal would be maximize bonus for tracking&faloff. And nothing new not need!

Holy **** people.

The vaga got nothing but buffs.

It's called an ASB. Look it up, fit one, experience Godmode on Vaga.


It did get a minor speed nerf.


But it got a major tank buff. And although it lost some of it's range control ability, it's still easily the fastest cruiser hull other than the egregious Cynabal.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#246 - 2013-07-18 15:05:07 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher.


"Amazing" is exactly the right word.


sarcasm malcanis or expressing that HAMS range is still insanely high atm

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
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#247 - 2013-07-18 15:05:15 UTC
Lol @ all these wormhole guys thinking T3s don't need to be massively nerfed/deleted entirely
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#248 - 2013-07-18 15:06:03 UTC
IN THE ISHTAR you seriously you really gonna be like "oh there's that talos lemme drop heavies on him" please its a joke needs sentry bonus or ship is not viable in any other form except ahac and even then its better with sentries
David Kir
Hotbirds
#249 - 2013-07-18 15:06:41 UTC
Lixia Saran wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
This worries me for the T3 balance, many of these ships cant compete with the Navy balance pass. Will this mean T3 ships will be worse than T1?


Yup.
All hail the great "rebalance".
Nothing wrong with paying 400 M for a hull and subssytems, plus risk 3-5 days SP every time you fly it, for the privilege of gutting the rigs every time you want to change its role.

Yes, will be doing that instead of buying 20 T1 cruiser hulls that outperform the T2 and T3 equivalent.


Agreed entirely. The mob hunger for T3 nerfs risks doing real damage to the game.


Agreed here as well. I can barely see the justification of flying a vaga over a SFI (granted one's a shield the other's mostly an armor ship) because of the price difference vs the 'gain' in power.


This.
400 mil (for the unfitted ship) and 3 days of training are enough to justify their existence in the current form.
Just rebalance the Accelerated Ejection Bay, and you'll have fixed the major source of imbalance.

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#250 - 2013-07-18 15:06:43 UTC
Gripen wrote:
Oh... once again this stupid MWD signature bonus which makes choosing between MWD and AB even more no-brainer decision. Instead of adding choices you remove them from the game again and again.
CCP Rise wrote:
... afterburner variations that are already very strong ...

I must confess, that I haven't been active for last year but isn't ABHACs just one trick pony against incompetent foes who fail at trivial thing of providing webbing support and keeping it alive and this format popularity sharply declined after short initial spark of novelty? Am I wrong here?


maybe if they buffed AB's it would be a more genuine choice

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
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#251 - 2013-07-18 15:06:58 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
David Kir wrote:
Voith wrote:
riando wrote:
Guys, I hope you're joking,
" Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler"
Or you know nothing about vaga, or ... i hope you're joking, vaga its a kite long range ship! It has not slots from active tank!
So, ideal would be maximize bonus for tracking&faloff. And nothing new not need!

Holy **** people.

The vaga got nothing but buffs.

It's called an ASB. Look it up, fit one, experience Godmode on Vaga.


It did get a minor speed nerf.


But it got a major tank buff. And although it lost some of it's range control ability, it's still easily the fastest cruiser hull other than the egregious Cynabal.


SO why take a vaga when you can take a sfi?
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#252 - 2013-07-18 15:07:13 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.


the fact that you don't even mention rlml when talking about the cerb shows just how out of touch these changes really are. hmls are garbage, there is no point in using them instead of rapid lights unless you force it by making extremely specific, narrow ship bonuses that only affect one and not the other. that's a pretty big hint of awful design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
David Kir
Hotbirds
#253 - 2013-07-18 15:08:21 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
David Kir wrote:
Voith wrote:
riando wrote:
Guys, I hope you're joking,
" Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler"
Or you know nothing about vaga, or ... i hope you're joking, vaga its a kite long range ship! It has not slots from active tank!
So, ideal would be maximize bonus for tracking&faloff. And nothing new not need!

Holy **** people.

The vaga got nothing but buffs.

It's called an ASB. Look it up, fit one, experience Godmode on Vaga.


It did get a minor speed nerf.


But it got a major tank buff. And although it lost some of it's range control ability, it's still easily the fastest cruiser hull other than the egregious Cynabal.


I know, it was just to point out that it did get ONE nerf.

Friends are like cows: if you eat them, they die.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#254 - 2013-07-18 15:09:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
CCP Rise wrote:
I'll look at the Ishtar fitting. To me it seems like one of the stronger HACs already and it gained a bonus to damage projection and application so I didn't see a need to give it even more buffs. I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots. All that said, I'll have another look.
The problem is that the Ishtar has problem running S-sized mods in its high slots, to say nothing about any kind of highslot drone mod or remote support mod. Giving it a proper amount of CPU is not so much a buff as it is a balancing of the ship. The new drone mods (and especially their T2 variants) have already ruled out any kind of highslot extravaganza, and even with the old T1 mods, you were always at the very edge of what the CPU would allow…

…with small guns fitted. By all means, keep the CPU limited, but then do something that lets it actually fit the modules that are in line with the ship's main purpose. If that means going outside of the ship balancing act and changing the drone mods, or if it means giving the ship a fitting bonus doesn't particularly matter (to me… Maximus Andendare disagrees). What matters is that everything you want to fit on an Ishtar eats CPU like crazy before you even get to such extravagances as turrets.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#255 - 2013-07-18 15:09:33 UTC
It would be nice to do something interesting like a +100% velocity bonus to Afterburners, instead of the MWD sig reduction bonus.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Blodhgarm Dethahal
8 Sins of Man
Stray Dogs.
#256 - 2013-07-18 15:09:34 UTC
Just 2 things..

One.. On the Sacrilidge.. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid of the utility high slot for a 6th low, I want this thing to be a tanking machine (or fit more DPS, whichever one comes first). It would vastly help with its brawling capibility I think.

Two.. Tracking Bonus would be nice on the Diemos instea of MWD bonus.
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#257 - 2013-07-18 15:10:44 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


While the Sacrilege didn't gain bonuses or slot changes, the added PG and added drone bay push it over the edge I think it would become a solid heavy brawler with a lot of utility. I spent some time trying to find a 4th bonus that fits better than the cap recharge bonus but it's actually very difficult. I think keeping its character as a really sturdy bruiser seems more interesting than anything else I've come across, but I'll keep watching feedback on this. Its really important to me that this both useful and fun.


How about limiting the damage bonus just to HAMs and give it a 20% per level velocity for HAMs, so it simply works like the SAC before the HAM range nerf as heavy tanked medium range missile platform with up to 60km range? It doesn't need more drones. Another launcher or a little bit higher damage bonus would be more helpful(because of the limited low slots) HACs are not primary brawling ships and the sac overlapping in the brawling role with HAM Drake is what makes it so bad.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#258 - 2013-07-18 15:11:39 UTC
Capqu wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.


the fact that you don't even mention rlml when talking about the cerb shows just how out of touch these changes really are. hmls are garbage, there is no point in using them instead of rapid lights unless you force it by making extremely specific, narrow ship bonuses that only affect one and not the other. that's a pretty big hint of awful design


If they thought HMLs were garbage, they'd probably be fixing HMLs, rather than handing out RLML bonuses.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#259 - 2013-07-18 15:12:23 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Capqu wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.


the fact that you don't even mention rlml when talking about the cerb shows just how out of touch these changes really are. hmls are garbage, there is no point in using them instead of rapid lights unless you force it by making extremely specific, narrow ship bonuses that only affect one and not the other. that's a pretty big hint of awful design


If they thought HMLs were garbage, they'd probably be fixing HMLs, rather than handing out RLML bonuses.


i'm not saying they think they are garbage, they clearly think they're fine because rise thinks they are worth using ever

which they aren't

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#260 - 2013-07-18 15:12:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
CCP RISE

I'm getting the impression here that people don't want more tank they want more options like... dps and speed, projection, tracking, armour tanking being viable without becoming unable to fit things like guns etc... more fitting ability like cpu.. and more interesting bonuses.

Bottom line here is brawling HACS aren't a great role because other ships do it better like bc's navy bc's T3's etc...

MWD bonus fits with ships that kite like a vaga, HAM cerberus .. but these need speed buffs too work.
Also sort out the strange resistances they should be more omni rather than ranging from 90% -0%

Oh and don't forget HICS or is it HACS what's the difference anymore?

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