These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
M1k3y Koontz
THE AESIR.
#801 - 2013-07-19 16:58:53 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
"If I'm supposed to be a rail gun kitting ship, why would someone fly me instead of the Eagle?" - Deimos



Well Deimos is a BLASTER boat :P


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=260025&find=unread

CCP intends for a Diemost to fit rails and snipe.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#802 - 2013-07-19 16:59:23 UTC
3 MAJOR problems here:

1: The zealot needs a drone bay. You are not giving it a tracking bonus, so it can still be kited and killed by a t1 frigate. This is entirely unacceptable. Why not give it both? Swapping optimal range bonus for tracking speed would work, and giving it a drone bay comparable to the t1 omen would make it an excellent close-range brawler.

2: The sacrilege continues to suffer from the lack of an additional fitting slot. If all of the new HAC loadouts had +1 slot, a 6th lowslot would currently solve all the issues it has in regards to balancing tank and dps.

3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.
Gnoshia
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#803 - 2013-07-19 17:01:31 UTC
Syri Taneka wrote:
The problem with the Eagle and Munnin on today's battlefield is that both are completely outmoded by the Tier 3 (Attack) Battlecruisers, which do BS-level damage with very high range potential and have a staggering degree of mobility for their hull size. Compared to these ships, Sniper-HACs are simply not cost-effective (both in pure isk cost and in training time). As a result, the Eagle has become the go-to for blaster brawling with a shield buffer, while the Munnin is... ignored completely.

The Cerberus is similarly plagued. Kiting isn't very effective if your enemy decides not to try and run you down, and since a HAC cannot point at the same range a Cerb can engage at, you'll either end up being chased down by something which you can't kill, or your target will warp out (wasting ammo). The only thing I fly a Cerb for is anti-frigate support in HAC gangs, by fitting Rapid Light Missile Launchers (which are simply devastating to small craft, at much higher target velocities than medium guns can typically manage). Unfortunately, the Cerb also has a very weak tank compared to other HACs, largely because of the EM hole which forces a hardener to be fit in the mids.

So, what these ships need:

The listed changes for the Eagle are perfectly fine. With the Optimal Range bonuses, you can engage reliably at 20-30km with Null M (or 10-15km with Void M), making the only realistic utility high option (a small neut/NOS) pointless, which subsequently makes the extra mid much more useful.

The Munnin needs to be re-optimized for close combat. Where the Vagabond is a highly mobile, "strike and fade," type ship, the Munnin should be an armed-to-the-teeth brick. Less maneuverable, but nasty once in range.

The Cerberus should play to its only current strength as well: Killing small craft. Drop the Flight Time bonus in favor of an Explosion Velocity buff, and consider making the Kin damage bonus an un-typed one OR drop the damage bonus altogether in favor of a shield resist bonus.


I don't much care for pigeon holing the Cerberus into an anti-frigate ship. I think just adding a rapid light missiles to the current missiles bonuses now is sufficient. The ship just needs a buff to its base stats, particularly speed and fitting and maybe boost the tank some and it'll be in a good spot. Un-typing the damage bonus though would be a good change I'll give you that.
Gnoshia
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#804 - 2013-07-19 17:05:18 UTC
Mirei Jun wrote:
First let me say, thank you for looking at HACs. This has been a long time coming. The following criticism and suggestions are meant to be constructive.

SACRILEGE - This ship doesn't have enough low slots to take advantage of its great defense and cap bonuses. In skirmish warfare it should be able to fit active armor reps. In larger fights it should have enough lows to be very tough.

However, 4 mid slots is a good thing and fits it's role as a utility ship. So what should be done? I suggest removing its extra high slot. This means players that want to focus more on utility through neutralizers will need to give up a bit of damage to do it. At the same time the ship will get enough lows to armor tank properly. The new improved drone bay will mitigate some of the issues here, as well.

Suggestion: Change the slot load out to 5H, 4M, 6L

ZEALOT - Its working as intended. The new MWD bonus will make it even better.

CERBERUS - This ship is getting a much needed damage boost with 6 launchers. Its high slots are no longer wasted.

However, the kinetic missile bonus is legacy in nature. This ship needs to be able to pack a punch equally well with any of the four damage types.

The second issue is a combination of slot load out and targeting range. This ship was designed to "poke" from very long distances. However the Cerb's targeting range simply doesn't match its design. This has been a problem for a long time. Additionally, to get the targeting range you need you give up those much needed mid slots, or worse get less efficient results by using low slots while giving up damage (or speed). This ship doesn't get any kind of resist bonus and needs enough mids to withstand some punishment. Furthermore, HAM fits should be an option. with only 5 mids close range fits are risky.

I suggest giving up a low slot for an additional mid and boosting the base targeting range. With the new speed boost this ship will be able to race about the battle field firing missiles from long ranges, or burn up close and dish out punishment with HAMs while having decent survivability.


Suggestions: Change the slot load out to 6H, 6M, 3L. Change the base targeting range to (at least) 100km (even more would not hurt). Change the kinetic damage bonus to a flat missile damage bonus.


EAGLE - I think the overall changes here are good. The biggest problem with the current Eagle is actually fitting. The PG buff aims to address this. Increasing its slot efficiency is also a much needed improvement.

However, this ship suffers from the exact same problem as the Cerb -serious targeting range issues.

Suggestion: Increase the base targeting range to at least 100km.


DEIMOS - I'm excited to see the results of these changes. No more worthless high slot and more speed is good. The new role bonus is going to benefit the Deimos immensely.

One huge problem for the Deimos was fitting. Its PG was abysmal. We'll have to see if 40 PG is enough (probably so).


ISHTAR - More gun slots with less specialization in guns and more focus on drones -great!

The question still remains how in the world we're suppose to actually use those gun slots with such terrible a PG, but that's a good drawback for this ship.

Honestly this was what the Navy Vexor should have been. The new Ishtar totally overshadows the Navy Vexor and officially makes it worthless. I suggest revisiting that ship when you have a chance.

VAGABOND - This is an interesting change. It doesn't do a thing to the old style of Vaga combat, but adds new options. X-Large ASB, anyone? We'll have to see how this plays out.


MUNINN - This is another ship I believe will immensely benefit from the new HAC role bonus. It will be faster with a better slot spread. I think it will become a staple in kiting HAC gangs. Again, we'll have to see how this plays out.


I am excited to see the end results of the HAC changes. Overall it still seems like these ships aren't strong enough over the T1 versions to justify the significantly higher cost. I, for one will be doing a lot of testing when the changes go live.

Thanks again!


Some good suggestions here, I approve.

+1
Major Killz
Tr0pa de elite.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#805 - 2013-07-19 17:07:30 UTC
For about a year or so I've been making jokes about CCP possibly introducing a signature bonus to heavy assault cruisers. You know, when ever conversation on "HACS" come up. Which I find silly because I believe introducing signature bonuses to assault frigates was a mistake. *Cant wait to see what kind of signature changes they'll do to interceptors Roll*

So I was literary bombarded with mails about how I should be working for CCP. I'll put signature bonuses on EVERYTHING and make bank while doing nothing really. This thread is stupid and just about all ship changes bar tech 1 cruisers and Navy cruisers since 2011 have been RTARDO.

Things on the frigate level has been so CRAP it's ridiculous. In an attempt to make all frigates viable CCP reduced it to a handful when there was MUCH MORE competition. In fact I see the same with tech 1 cruisers and battle-cruisers.

I mean if you're not flying a Vexor or Caracal/Bellicose what are you really doing? Remember the changes to damps and tracking disruptor's? SO BAD ITS AMAZING and the funny thing is that those modules were hella OP anyway. The only thing back then was not many people used them. There were dudes using damp celetis and damps on random ships in fleets back then but not as much as now.

Hurricane died because of Teir 3 battle-cruisers and p much the same for the Harbinger and not so much the Drake. I really don't like the Cyclone with HAms. I like how CCP replaced the drake with the armour Drake too (prophecy). So its safe to say the performance scaling of many classes of ships are just REALLY fuc*ed.

Also! Maybe the Vagabond should have a bonus to shield AMOUNT instead of boosting or whatever? Even removing the high slot for another mid even though no neut would be interesting. I've flown all the HACS solo and I'd be interested in the Mumin solo with the changes suggested so far and the same with sacrilege and Cerberus. Can I get some more grid out of the Ishtar and another Low slot please?


Anyway. Good luck with trying to figure this out because I find it difficult myself. The thing is CCP has made this game even more imbalanced. There's serious overlap between Caldari and Minmatar missile ships and the same between amarr and Gallente drone ships. There has been a serious random effort to ignore power creep. Tech 1 frigates that have more damage and tank than tech 2 frigates. The same with tech 1 cruisers and the Overlap between teir 3 battle-cruisers and battleships.
CCP seems not to even notice. In fact they suggested they would make changes and ignore these things and come back later on. Well to me its clear there is no intent on doing so and its not even noticed or maybe ignored. With the current meta you would have to do some serious OP to make HACS worth it over tech 1 cruisers much less navy cruisers. You may notice that the proposed ishtar is not much better than a Vexor Navy issue. Infact all the proposed Hacs seem to be on par with or worse than FACTION NAVY CRUISERS.

TDLR: Power creep and overlap needs to be LOOKED AT NOW. FACTION NAVY CRUISERS ARE AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN THE proposed HAC CHANGES. BATTELCRUISERS BAR TIER 3 ARE IN A STRANGE PLACE BAR PROPHECY WHICH IS THE NEW DRAKE (drake still good). Why is CCP's ANSWER TO EVERYTHING A SIGNATURE BONUS?

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ![/u]

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#806 - 2013-07-19 17:10:35 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:

3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.



Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids.

Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore.

I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

M1k3y Koontz
THE AESIR.
#807 - 2013-07-19 17:16:40 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:

3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.



Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids.

Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore.

I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids.



Thing is the brawling isn't what a Vaga is for! Vagabonds, or should I say Minmatar, are the skirmish warfare race.

What the Vaga ACTUALLY needed was more EHP and grid (to beat out the Cynabal) and instead of a shield boost bonus (which is ignored on all Minmatar ships except the Cyclone) a bonus to tracking or agility or something that helped its kiting ability.

A 5th mid would also be called for


All HACs should have 16 slots [except the Ishtar,15 slots]

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#808 - 2013-07-19 17:25:16 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:

3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.



Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids.

Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore.

I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids.



+2 mids would make it a bit too powerfull when you think about fitting possibilities and how much out of whack shield modules are for a fast kiting ship, but 5 indeed is a must have for any decent shield ship.

The question is, is Vaga really a shield ship or an armor one? Lol current bonus says shield but slots numbers....lol ?

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#809 - 2013-07-19 17:26:48 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:

3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.



Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids.

Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore.

I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids.



Thing is the brawling isn't what a Vaga is for! Vagabonds, or should I say Minmatar, are the skirmish warfare race.

What the Vaga ACTUALLY needed was more EHP and grid (to beat out the Cynabal) and instead of a shield boost bonus (which is ignored on all Minmatar ships except the Cyclone) a bonus to tracking or agility or something that helped its kiting ability.

A 5th mid would also be called for


All HACs should have 16 slots [except the Ishtar,15 slots]


I disagree the vaga needs to "beat out" the cynabal at the same role. I'm more interested in variety.

I would be happy if it is no longer fixed into the function of being a kiter.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#810 - 2013-07-19 17:38:16 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
"If I'm supposed to be a rail gun kitting ship, why would someone fly me instead of the Eagle?" - Deimos



Well Deimos is a BLASTER boat :P


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=260025&find=unread

CCP intends for a Diemost to fit rails and snipe.



That post does not state in ANY form that they intend the deimos to have that role. Just points that is CAN with certain specific capabilities.

Incredible how people like to over interpret things.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Drunken Bum
#811 - 2013-07-19 17:40:37 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
3 MAJOR problems here:

1: The zealot needs a drone bay. You are not giving it a tracking bonus, so it can still be kited and killed by a t1 frigate. This is entirely unacceptable. Why not give it both? Swapping optimal range bonus for tracking speed would work, and giving it a drone bay comparable to the t1 omen would make it an excellent close-range brawler.

2: The sacrilege continues to suffer from the lack of an additional fitting slot. If all of the new HAC loadouts had +1 slot, a 6th lowslot would currently solve all the issues it has in regards to balancing tank and dps.

3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.

1 the zealots fine

2 the new sac looks awesome. I love sac.

3 agreed.

After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary.  -Fozzie

Merii Kha'sen
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#812 - 2013-07-19 17:44:33 UTC
The Sacrilege needs the "spare" high moved to a lowslot. This means that it can be an even more insane active-tank brick, even if it does terrible damage because of missiles being terrible.

Zealot is fine as is. It could use some more CPU or PG (5% of each?) but overall it's fine.

Vagabond needs to be slowed down so it's not the end-all uncatchable invulnerable ASB'ed HAC.
DeadDuck
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#813 - 2013-07-19 17:44:46 UTC  |  Edited by: DeadDuck
Marlona Sky wrote:
"If I'm supposed to be a close range brawler, why do I have a bonus for a long range weapon?" - Sacrilege


So a inty like a stiletto can not hold him forever, since a sacrilege simply doesn't have the range to hit it due to lack of range.... and it's the only one in it's class with that problem... Roll
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#814 - 2013-07-19 17:45:49 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:


Yes.

One brawler one sniper for each race:
50% range bonus for the snipers,
50% damage bonus for the brawlers?


This is amazing and I love it.
M1k3y Koontz
THE AESIR.
#815 - 2013-07-19 17:45:50 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Kagura Nikon wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
"If I'm supposed to be a rail gun kitting ship, why would someone fly me instead of the Eagle?" - Deimos



Well Deimos is a BLASTER boat :P


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=260025&find=unread

CCP intends for a Diemost to fit rails and snipe.



That post does not state in ANY form that they intend the deimos to have that role. Just points that is CAN with certain specific capabilities.

Incredible how people like to over interpret things.


Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.


Cearain wrote:


I disagree the vaga needs to "beat out" the Cynabal at the same role. I'm more interested in variety.

I would be happy if it is no longer fixed into the function of being a kiter.


If the Vaga is a T2, specialized, ship, and the Cynabal is a generic faction ship, the T2 ship should be better at its specalized role than the faction ship.

If the Vaga had more shield HP and grid it would work better as a kiting ship AND as a brawling ship.
Tto fit an XL ASB and Dual 180s an ancillary rig is required. Dual 180s, not even 220s.

And with the shield boost bonus an overheated XL ASB reps almost the entire capacity of the Vaga's shields, which is just ludicrous.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

EXIA MIKOSZ
Strike Birds Zero
#816 - 2013-07-19 17:49:38 UTC
CCP if you want give SACRILEGE a chance in these changes put 1 low slot!!!!
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#817 - 2013-07-19 17:50:15 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
[

Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.





Implication in this case come smuch more from your mind than anything else.

I coudl state that the reason he decided to use this ship was because the Talos is also gallente. And my assertion would have the same level of assurance or insanity as yours.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

M1k3y Koontz
THE AESIR.
#818 - 2013-07-19 17:59:32 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
[

Its implied since they used the brawler Diemost to compare rather than the sniper Eagle.





Implication in this case come smuch more from your mind than anything else.

I coudl state that the reason he decided to use this ship was because the Talos is also gallente. And my assertion would have the same level of assurance or insanity as yours.


Eagle and Diemost both use hybrids, Talos uses hybrids, if they wanted to compare a sniper ship to a Talos they could have used the Eagle and made more sense.

Also I recall someone saying the Diemost was to be a sniper, which I found ridiculous...

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Gorgoth24
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#819 - 2013-07-19 18:01:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorgoth24
I don't like the change of the ishtar to a sentry boat as it was most used as a brawler. Really feel it has the same role as the navy vexor with the same fitting issues.

No matter how the sac is bonused I still see them camping gates for most of their usage. But maybe that's just me. Ship seems fine as it is

I'm not quite sure about buffing the vaga, but I'll defer to you guys since it's an active buff.

Overall I'm more skeptical of these changes then the T1 ones

EDIT: After watching some ATXI footage I retract my statement about the ishtar and other drone boats. I see where you're going with that
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#820 - 2013-07-19 18:02:41 UTC
good thing the eagle is a long range death machine. its a little too ugly to be within viewing range.