These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1161 - 2013-07-21 22:40:48 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?


i would support this...

have a light assault crusier (the attack version)

then heavy assault crusier (the combat version)

though that would require more skills and that just might upset some people but i say **** it... lets get it done.


Intriguing though they would have to have different role bonuses ..
Would be interesting if CCP would consider doing this and they could add extra ships to help fufill them so there are 2 ships per class... or just split them up so 1 per class.. an option

light assault cruiser ... Vaga plus 7

heavy assault cruiser ... the rest of them :) plus 1 to replace vaga

would be interesting to add missile minnie and drone amarr ships.

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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1162 - 2013-07-21 22:44:05 UTC
Kynric wrote:
I am disappointed with these changes in that they do not deliver specialized ships. I had imagined that a T1 ship would be delivered to a naval architect who is then given a specific mission/engagment profile and the instructions to carve off everything not essential to that purpose while greatly enhancing the characteristics that are central to that purpose. Drones, speed, mass, agility, scan res, max targets, sensor strength, shield, armor, hull, slots, bonuses and all of the other characteristics that make up our ships would be examined. Those that are needed for the ships purpose would be enhanced while those not essential would be compromised to make room for the enhancements.

For example, a fast attack cruiser would lose drones as they are not useful for kiting. Perhaps the ships lock time would be penalized while the sensor strength is decreased as well as those also are not eseential to kiting, but the locking range might be increased as that is useful for a kite. At a different shipyard an architect might squeeze the damage and tank of a battlecruiser into the cruiser hull, but at the cost of having the mids to tackle, the drones which so often mean operational flexibility and the scan res to lock quickly. This ship would be as good as a battleruiser at damage, be as mobile as crusier yet lack enough of what a battlecruiser does that it could not possibly be a replacement for either the battlecruiser or the alternative t1 cruiser in general usage. Another architect might create a screening ship which retains or even enhances scan res, has great projection and effectiveness against frigate sized vessels but at the cost of raw damage. Yet another shipyard might take up the task of creating a ship that could dance and weave through an enemy camp with confidence because it is less vulnerable to the scrams and webs which stop other ships. Each of these examples would be a useful ship for a specialized purpose while retaining the need for the more generalized T1 ship.

In the rock-paper-scissors world of eve each of these ships would have a purpose and be very good at that purpose, while having compromised the ability to be good or even passable at other tasks. This is what specialized means to me. The current batch of ships is neither particularly interesting nor particularly specialized.


An interesting and more thorough approach than CCP takes they tweak a few stats/bonuses and call it an overhaul .. Lol .. like they would know one if it hit them in the face

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
Blue Absinthe
Wardec U
#1163 - 2013-07-21 22:45:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Blue Absinthe
CCP Rise wrote:
I'm currently chatting with CSM and some other game design folk about working on the Ishtar a bit. Probably no update on what we come to as a conclusion until tomorrowish.


Might be too late to comment here, but....

The biggest issue with the Ishtar is it's deeply unsatisfying due to design flaws which are being propagated forward here. It's anti-fun. It's better to have to have a ship with 1 high, medium and low slot that you can fit than a ship with 100 slots that you can't fit anything in. It's really unsatisfying to leave slots empty, or have no flexibility in fitting, it'd be better just to remove slots. If you're worried about the strength of the ship you should find a better way to constrain that than giving it hardly any CPU. People legit fit civilian lasers onto Ishtars as a fairly standard module.... you can't want that surely.

Secondary issue is that drone bay bonus. Someone hit the nail on the head when they said it'd be like having a single turret hard point ship that gains one turret point per skill level. Again just feels really bad, better to give it a bigger bay and no bonus.

Half the problem is you're using a really unfun and dissatisfying mechanic to gate the power of the ship and the rest is that the presentation is bad. I really think even with a few changes you could have exactly the same ship/fits that you're looking at in testing and people would get excited about the ship (as an example, remove the drone bay bonus and split the range/tracking of the drone bonus into two - it would be the same ship but people would feel better about it. Maybe remove a high slot and give it some CPU.)
Christopher Multsanti
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#1164 - 2013-07-21 22:57:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Christopher Multsanti
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?



Actually I like this and was thinking something similar.

Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship.

Inty Hacs

Cerb
Zealot
Vaga
Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.

Assault Frig Hacs

Eagle
Muninn
Sac
Ishtar <- again, unsure on this one


And give each class bonuses to operate each role.

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1165 - 2013-07-21 23:02:04 UTC
Just thinking if HAC's remain at 15 slots.. then recons will be reduced to 14 slots i would assume following the pattern on from disruption cruisers 13 slots..

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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1166 - 2013-07-21 23:05:01 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?


i would support this...

have a light assault crusier (the attack version)

then heavy assault crusier (the combat version)

though that would require more skills and that just might upset some people but i say **** it... lets get it done.

There would be no reason for a new skill set, just look at force recons and combat recons, same skill 2 different styles of the same ship


ok rename the skill to assault cruiser then... cuss having a light heavy assault cruiser would sound oxymoronic.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1167 - 2013-07-21 23:05:42 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?



Actually I like this and was thinking something similar.

Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship.

Inty Hacs

Cerb
Zealot
Vaga
Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.

Assault Frig Hacs

Eagle
Muninn
Sac
Vexor <- again, unsure on this one


And give each class bonuses to operate each role.


I think CCP's terminology for those two classes would be "Attack" for "Inty" (I assume these are kiters) and "Combat" for "Assault Frig" (I think you meant brawlers?)

Your breakup of them looks good, its hard to kite with drones, but I think the Deimos is a brawler more so than a kiter...

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#1168 - 2013-07-21 23:10:38 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?



Actually I like this and was thinking something similar.

Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship.

Inty Hacs

Cerb
Zealot
Vaga
Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.

Assault Frig Hacs

Eagle
Muninn
Sac
Ishtar <- again, unsure on this one


And give each class bonuses to operate each role.


I am not sure I like this. Lately in my opinon amongst the forrum posts there has been too much emphasis on symmetry between the races. I would like to see each race get cool things but they need not be symmetrical.

In fact I would be happier with a much greater asymmetry if for example next update one race got a third recon, while another got a third hac, someone else got another battleship and someone else got something new that doesnt currently exist at all like a destroyer that allowed the other ships to move drones from their cargo to their drone bay in the field, an industrial that was optimized for moving ships or a stealth bomber that uses blaters instead of torps.

The current idea that everyone gets one of this, two of that, three of something else seems rather crippling. Along those lines there are probably many different purposes for a hac and each races answer need not have an equivalent version. It is more important that we have interesting new ships than to have ships that fit neatly into sets of four.
Christopher Multsanti
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#1169 - 2013-07-21 23:17:40 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?



Actually I like this and was thinking something similar.

Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship.

Inty Hacs

Cerb
Zealot
Vaga
Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.

Assault Frig Hacs

Eagle
Muninn
Sac
Vexor <- again, unsure on this one


And give each class bonuses to operate each role.


I think CCP's terminology for those two classes would be "Attack" for "Inty" (I assume these are kiters) and "Combat" for "Assault Frig" (I think you meant brawlers?)

Your breakup of them looks good, its hard to kite with drones, but I think the Deimos is a brawler more so than a kiter...


Exactly as I meant yep :)

And the choice of having deimos as kiter rather than brawler is a bit strange for me as I still love my 1600 plate blasterax but as you say I think it's to hard to kite with drones which is why i chose the Ishtar as Brawler.

But I have never flown either ship in pvp ever so I would not have a fecking clue about either of those ships lol.

Haulers Kill Vagabond!
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic
#1170 - 2013-07-21 23:19:48 UTC
Heavy Assault Cruisers, what this says to me is that they need to do good damage and good tank and then also have either good speed with the bonus only affecting short range weapons(Sac/HAMs) or good projection only affecting long range weapons(Zealot/Beams)
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#1171 - 2013-07-21 23:55:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
if these are some of the kewl things planned for marauders, i fear for the future of my eve playing...

omg, these are SO underwhelming.

a ship we train 2 months for=crap.

i have an idea, if this is the future of t2 ships, give us the sp for ewar, AF, HACS, Reconn, hics, command, Marauders and everything else t2 back and let us apply it to something useful like civilian mining drones or something.

t2 are made after they see whats wrong with t1. the navy then gets it, and then beefs it up. ONLY THEN, do they make the t2 and fix all the problems with t1 and make the specialize in 1 area.

all i have to say is wow...yawn.

i was SO excited when i read the news, i went and took a nap... =\

if this is what we have to look forward too, please, dont publish command ship changes. they are bad enough
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1172 - 2013-07-22 00:02:15 UTC
Alivea Starborn wrote:
So: why doesn't one of the Gallente HACs have an armor repair bonus?

There's an Amarr HAC with an armor resistance bonus, a Caldari HAC with a shield resist bonus, and a Minmatar HAC with a shield boost bonus, but no Gallente repair bonus.



Those already have problems fitting highest tier guns and all the stuff without fittings rigs/mods, give them one repair bonus and it's another wasted bonus.

Ishtar? can't fir drone mods properly already

Deimos? can't make any decent fit without at least 1 fitting rig

Don't give Rise bad ideas like this one plz or he might as well do it Lol

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Allandri
Liandri Industrial
#1173 - 2013-07-22 00:12:21 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
if these are some of the kewl things planned for marauders, i fear for the future of my eve playing...

omg, these are SO underwhelming.

a ship we train 2 months for=crap.

i have an idea, if this is the future of t2 ships, give us the sp for ewar, AF, HACS, Reconn, hics, command, Marauders and everything else t2 back and let us apply it to something useful like civilian mining drones or something.

t2 are made after they see whats wrong with t1. the navy then gets it, and then beefs it up. ONLY THEN, do they make the t2 and fix all the problems with t1 and make the specialize in 1 area.

all i have to say is wow...yawn.

i was SO excited when i read the news, i went and took a nap... =\

if this is what we have to look forward too, please, dont publish command ship changes. they are bad enough

You obviously don't understand the integral philosophy of this game. Tech 2 is a specialization, nothing more
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1174 - 2013-07-22 00:15:02 UTC
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?



Actually I like this and was thinking something similar.

Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship.

Inty Hacs

Cerb
Zealot
Vaga
Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.

Assault Frig Hacs

Eagle
Muninn
Sac
Ishtar <- again, unsure on this one


And give each class bonuses to operate each role.



TBH the Ishtar would make better the kiter than the deimos.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1175 - 2013-07-22 00:22:31 UTC
JerseyBOI 2 wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?



Actually I like this and was thinking something similar.

Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship.

Inty Hacs

Cerb
Zealot
Vaga
Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.

Assault Frig Hacs

Eagle
Muninn
Sac
Ishtar <- again, unsure on this one


And give each class bonuses to operate each role.



TBH the Ishtar would make better the kiter than the deimos.



If the rail changes are as good as advertised, that is highly debatable.

With heavy drones being near useless due to travel time, that means sentries, and you are going to lose a LOT of sentries kiting.
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1176 - 2013-07-22 00:23:17 UTC  |  Edited by: JerseyBOI 2
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?



Actually I like this and was thinking something similar.

Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship.

Inty Hacs

Cerb
Zealot
Vaga
Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.

Assault Frig Hacs

Eagle
Muninn
Sac
Vexor <- again, unsure on this one


And give each class bonuses to operate each role.


I think CCP's terminology for those two classes would be "Attack" for "Inty" (I assume these are kiters) and "Combat" for "Assault Frig" (I think you meant brawlers?)

Your breakup of them looks good, its hard to kite with drones, but I think the Deimos is a brawler more so than a kiter...
.

back in the day (yes post-nano nerf) you could run an effective kiting Ishtar w/sentries. Things got tankier (medium rigs), faster so no longer viable (T2 drone damage mods taking care of DPS prob now). The drone tracking/optimal bonus is a step in the right direction except: speed still not there (all HACS) w/out loki links/snakes, and for the ishtar specifically, omnis and drone speed mods need to be high slot mods...oh and MOAR CPU
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1177 - 2013-07-22 00:26:49 UTC
Onictus wrote:
JerseyBOI 2 wrote:
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?



Actually I like this and was thinking something similar.

Divide the hacs up into two classes Cruiser version inty and Cruiser version assault ship.

Inty Hacs

Cerb
Zealot
Vaga
Deimos <- maybe not sure on this one.

Assault Frig Hacs

Eagle
Muninn
Sac
Ishtar <- again, unsure on this one


And give each class bonuses to operate each role.



TBH the Ishtar would make better the kiter than the deimos.



If the rail changes are as good as advertised, that is highly debatable.

With heavy drones being near useless due to travel time, that means sentries, and you are going to lose a LOT of sentries kiting.



Yes you do, but still gratifying when pulled off
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1178 - 2013-07-22 00:35:22 UTC
Although TBH I could give no fucks as to WHICH racial HAC became a fast kitey ship, as long as there was one to choose from.
I think most would agree that the game needs ships with kiting ability (not snipers). Well maybe not bears who only stop bearing to join TIDI ****** blob orgies. Okay maybe badies who think kiting takes no skill and are cowardly faggots too.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#1179 - 2013-07-22 00:42:53 UTC
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?



I think the navy cruisers should generally be higher speed and lower sig.

But really eve is about creative fittings. Most ships shouldn't have set "roles" ccp should give them some reasonable bonuses, slots and stats for the cost and let the players figure out how to use them.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Shadow Cartel
#1180 - 2013-07-22 00:52:54 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Allandri wrote:
Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?



I think the navy cruisers should generally be higher speed and lower sig.

But really eve is about creative fittings. Most ships shouldn't have set "roles" ccp should give them some reasonable bonuses, slots and stats for the cost and let the players figure out how to use them.



Yes, but at the same time T2 ships are created to fulfill a role, like Black Ops, Bombers, Recons, Interceptors, Hictors/Dictors.

HACs should be the same thing, they should be designed with a role in mind, but then left open enough beyond that role's bonuses to allow the players to decide how to best fit and apply the role bonus.

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