These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#381 - 2013-07-18 17:20:05 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
I would like to see a real bonus for the ishtar instead of +50 m3 of drones a level. Just give it a 375 m3 like dedicated drone carriers should have and give it a drone velocity bonus or something. The +5 km max range is weak, but at least it's a bonus.

.


agreed. how about a sentry drone damage bonus?

from what i understand the reason the ishtar had 15 slot layout even though it was a drone boat was due tot he 50m3 bonus. but if you noticed the ishtar now only get 14 slots which would indicate the 50m3 bonus should go out the door and replaced with something usefull like extra cpu or something of that nature.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#382 - 2013-07-18 17:25:48 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Capqu, so aggressive =/

I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.


Do it to the navy cara while you are at it. In fact, why don't you just give all ships that have a missile bonus a bonus to medium missile launchers in general?

You don't see a battlecruiser with a bonus to autocannons and excluding arty... >_>

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

gawrshmapooo
J33 Monocombine
#383 - 2013-07-18 17:26:46 UTC
Two step wrote:
Sac should get some sort of scram/disrutper/web range/strength bonus instead of the mostly useless cap bonus.


My dual armor rep wtfpwn tank disagrees.

I sell combat boosters of every strength and type. Message me to get your edge.
Wu Fey
Devil's Evil Spirits
#384 - 2013-07-18 17:27:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Wu Fey
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.



5 low slots on an (amarr) armor tanker just feels bad Sad
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#385 - 2013-07-18 17:28:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Considering that we've been shouting at the top of our lungs for a year that T2 won't get buffed as much as T1 was, I don't know why you're surprised.


Ok so follow me here:

Aside from leaving a cap recharge bonus on a missile ship (the sac called its mad at you) what justifies every buying one of these over an ABC or t1 cruiser?

I know you say you can't help how we feel and blah blah about the ships power levels but these simply do NOT shine above their t1 cruiser and ships like the Tornado/Talos to ever justify putting into use.

They're not really giving pilots or fleets any kind of incentive to put them into play, like take a Deimos for example: who cares, i can fit out 10 thoraxes for the price of one Deimos hull and get nearly the same performance from them and expect largely the same results in a fight.

Same with the Vexor and Ishtar.

The ships are just too close in performance levels currently to justify spending 250 million for a single fitted ship when you can buy 10 of its lower tech counterparts and get nearly the same effect.

I know you guys try not to let price influence your balance choices, and I've even defended you on it after what you did to my titan, but at some point you have to look at the cost to projected effect values and know that HAC's will simply stay shelved as long as things like tornados can easily project more damage at greater ranges than they can for cheaper, and attack cruisers can match or exceed their damage for a pittance of what a hac costs.

They can tank, big deal, you've so skewed the game towards massive alpha at this point that over a certain gang size tanks stopped mattering.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#386 - 2013-07-18 17:30:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Drunken Bum wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
So you guys have been on this active tank kick and I like it a lot, and this is a place I am massively confused:

The Sac.



You make it plainly obvious that its cap recharge bonus is somewhat out of place and yet do nothing to lend to the common fitting of the dual rep armor sac. If you were to give it that sweet resist bonus and a 5-7.5% boost to armor reps as well I think you'd put that ship in a fairly nice place for the heavy tackle role you want it to have.

Nobody cares about its drone bay, though the PG boost is super nice, I would strongly urge that you get rid of that 5% cap recharge bonus for an armor rep bonus and then it would be come a fairly strong hac for what people like to do with it.

Two tanking bonuses? Come on now lets not be silly. I for one am stoked for the sac.

I love sac.

Sac.


Exactly what changed to make you so happy? It got a few more drones? Or was it the ability to use the now anemic HMLs?

Nothing about one of the two most useless HACs changed at all.

EDIT: And to be specific, having two tanking bonuses would allow it to specialize in doing SOMETHING well, because at this point in time it doesn't do anything well

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#387 - 2013-07-18 17:30:28 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
The Sacrilege suffers a lot from a low count of low slots:

I would suggest bumping up the damage on the launchers, dropping the count to 4, and adding a 6th low slot so that it can actually tank and fit any sort of damage mod on it.

Theoretically, it should be one of the most tanky hac's out there currently, but trying to fit any type of damage mod on there totally inhibits this ability since it reduces tank to 4 or even 3 slots.

I would also leave the power grid as is, and replace the Cap bonus to a 100% per level boost to range and amount of NOSFERATU's only. This way the Sac gets slightly more offense by slightly draining the capacitor off other ships at pretty nice ranges (~60km to cope for HML range), but can't bleed them dry without the Neuts.

If you don't do that, then you're not going to have much counter to perma MWD fit Sacs as the cap bonus is seriously OP when used in conjunction with some other items.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#388 - 2013-07-18 17:30:39 UTC
Also people, stop trying to take the cap bonus from my sacrilege, i don't want to fit a damn cap booster on it. Its fine like it is.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#389 - 2013-07-18 17:34:03 UTC
Knoppaz wrote:
..a shield boost bonus for the Vaga?
..on a 6/4/5 layout?
..really?
Roll



Xl-ASB Vaga was already waaaaaaay good, now will just be in god mode [On] bye bye cynabals (which is also good)

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
NinjaStyle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#390 - 2013-07-18 17:39:07 UTC  |  Edited by: NinjaStyle
Ok overall fairly happy with changes and some things are allready being mentioned that I think is correct but.

The Deimos.... why is it so slow? it's clearly only gonna be viable for close range brawling since it has the falloff bonus and yet a easy dps appliable ship like the Cerb will be allmost as fast? ontop of that the Deimos allso has the highest Sig of all the HACs and yet it's a CR Brawler?!?!?! this is even weirder when it's an armor ship! you probably think this ship somehow fills some niche but honestly when I look at it all I see is alot of sub par preformance!

I'd allso like to point out that the Deimos will have the exact same layout as the Exequror Navy has now after it's changes! it's kinda laughable but that falloff bonus is the only MINOR saving grace of the Deimos here... because the Exequror Navy will be superior in: Agility, Velocity and Signature (and more but w/e) and these are the kinds of things I look for in a CR ship and yet I find this ship to be Lacking in all but one thing over the Exequror Navy: The fitting atleast it has that going for it! but then again the Exequror is so hard to fit with the things that I want that this might be a mistake to begin with? lol?

I hope i've made a dent in what you think of the changes to the Deimos I will be reading this thread alot in the near future thats for sure!

Shield Deimos?
Something else Deimos?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#391 - 2013-07-18 17:42:38 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
NinjaStyle wrote:

The Deimos.... why is it so slow? it's clearly only gonna be viable for close range brawling since it has the falloff bonus?


go read the long range medium thread... there rise clearly states that the deimos is a rail ship. Roll

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Butzewutze
Doomheim
#392 - 2013-07-18 17:42:43 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Heck I would have done this for all drone boats

Drone Support Bays. Able to fit Combat Utility Drones, Electronic Warfare drones and Logistic Drones. Cannot hold Combat Drones.

For example. The Ishtar would get the following.

Ishtar.

Stats:
Combat Drone Bay Bandwidth 125
Combat Drone Bay Size 125
Utility Drone Bay Bandwidth 75
Utility Drone Bay Size. 75

Max amount of Combat Drones that can be launched, 5
Max amount of Utility/EWAR/LOGI drones able to be launched, 5

Total number of drones that can be launched, 10 (5 combat drones, 5 Utility/ewar/logi drones). (the amount of Ewar/Utility/Logi drones launch-able can be balanced or reduced as needed dependent on the ship size).


Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus:
10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage)
10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level
50 m3 extra Drone Bays (Utility Drone Bay and Combat Drone Bay) per level

Everybody would get to use the extra ewar drones that Nobody uses (such as the Sensor Dampening Drones, Target Painting Drones, Webifier Drones, Tracking Disruptor Drones, Energy Neutralizing Drones).

Heck I would do this to Every Ship, balance out those that have drone bays, move all those ewar drones nobody uses to a specific bay that specific ships can have an actual use for, and be able to use them all. You would at least make the Ishtar a definite differentiating type of droneboat.

Can even apply that to the Myrmidon, Vexors, Dominix, Proteus, Prophecy, Armageddon, Arbirator, etc. Can balance out the extra utility dronebay and allow more drone based moves and combat.

There ya go, Ishtar fixed and made all those useless drones useful now.


I really like that idea. +1
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#393 - 2013-07-18 17:43:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
haven't read thread replies, but first impresions:

Cerb has 10 more lock range than any other HAC, why?
Why did cerb get drones but Zealot not? (Amarr supposed to be drone secondary race now)
Cerb too agile
Sac needs more agility
Munin should have got a mid instead of low
Ishtar has mostly structure hp and got more? for what fitting reinforced bulkheads?What?.


How are these buffed sniper roles going to mesh with Attack BCs? Will they just outclass ABCs with the new gun buffs?

Cerb is way too win with these changes. Snipey Kitey never catch me while I doo loads of damage (6 launchers with sac only 5)

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#394 - 2013-07-18 17:43:59 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
NinjaStyle wrote:

The Deimos.... why is it so slow? it's clearly only gonna be viable for close range brawling since it has the falloff bonus?


go read the long range medium thread... there raise clearly states that the deimos is a rail ship. Roll


I think Rise needs to read the deimos description again and then compare it too the eagle the supposed sniper and the thorax..

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
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#395 - 2013-07-18 17:44:09 UTC
The Ishtar might be cool, the Eagle will definitely be a nullsec fleet concept within 6 months, and the Vaga looks cool (very specialized while still having alternative purposes, excellent work there).

Oh and 4 midslots on the Diemost, that will be exclusively shield tanked from here on foward (but it won't get flown because it costs too much compared to a Thorax).

The main problem with HACs now, and even after the change is that they aren't worth the 500% increase in cost over their T1 counterparts.

The Vaga looks nice, and the Eagle will be a good sniper, but the Diemost won't be worth the jump in cost from a Thorax, the Zealot and a number of other HACs will be in the same boat they were in before, not worth the additional cost.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
NinjaStyle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#396 - 2013-07-18 17:44:12 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
NinjaStyle wrote:

The Deimos.... why is it so slow? it's clearly only gonna be viable for close range brawling since it has the falloff bonus?


go read the long range medium thread... there raise clearly states that the deimos is a rail ship. Roll


Never... just Never..
Swidgen
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#397 - 2013-07-18 17:44:12 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Rise...can you give us a view of what niche the HAC is supposed to fill in the Eve patheon of ships?

Perhaps we're seeing ITT the first arguments for simply removing an entire class of ships from the game. No more HACs would certainly give the upcoming Command Ships and T3 rebalancing a lot more room to maneuver. Maybe re-role some of the favorite hulls (e.g. Vagabond, Ishtar) into another class while preserving most of their current capabilitites.

Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, and if they're outclassed by some of the Navy hulls and ABCs today, and post-rebalance they still come up short in so many ways.... maybe it's time to retire the HAC as a thing.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#398 - 2013-07-18 17:44:23 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:

Ishtar has mostly structure hp and got more? for what fitting reinforced bulkheads?What?.

No you don't have enough CPU for that.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#399 - 2013-07-18 17:50:11 UTC
Swidgen wrote:

Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, and if they're outclassed by some of the Navy hulls and ABCs today, and post-rebalance they still come up short in so many ways.... maybe it's time to retire the HAC as a thing.


What's the chance at large long range weapons hitting HAC's? How well do you think these same HACs will be able to hit ABCs at longer ranges?

What is better to use in an RR situation, a Navy Hull (with no resist bonus, no mwd sig bonus) or an AHAC?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#400 - 2013-07-18 17:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Swidgen wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
CCP Rise...can you give us a view of what niche the HAC is supposed to fill in the Eve patheon of ships?

Perhaps we're seeing ITT the first arguments for simply removing an entire class of ships from the game. No more HACs would certainly give the upcoming Command Ships and T3 rebalancing a lot more room to maneuver. Maybe re-role some of the favorite hulls (e.g. Vagabond, Ishtar) into another class while preserving most of their current capabilitites.

Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, and if they're outclassed by some of the Navy hulls and ABCs today, and post-rebalance they still come up short in so many ways.... maybe it's time to retire the HAC as a thing.


Well basically the only niche left to fill is the vagabond approach of speed and damage projection., a more mobile version of ABC's
HICS , bc's, navy bc's navy combat cruisers all do the tanky brawling approach that RISE seems to think these fill..

The sniping approach only really works on the AHAC AB ships muninn, zealot.
The eagle has strange bonuses for the sniping role but these bonuses work well for a blaster version but lacks the dps, lows and speed to do it well :(
Cerberus .. well missiles and sniping .. i think the Naga being a railboat settled that..

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