These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1241 - 2013-07-22 16:44:30 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
dude compare T3's EHP with T1 cruisers and then blankly stare at the main reason ooohh... look it has about three times the amount .. that's not normal ... then look at the dps difference...


Look at the DPS.
- Thorax - 2 Magstabs 5 Neutrons, Void - 522 DPS
- Loki - 2 Gyros 6 425mms, RF EMP - 525 DPS

Now look at the cost.
- Thorax - 10m
- Typical Armor Tanked Loki - 400m

And the SP loss.
- Thorax SP loss - 0sp
- Typical Armor Tanked Loki ~ 7 days of training (Subsystem 5, Minmatar Strat Cruiser 4)


So, a T3 costs 40x as much before bling (which any good T3 pilot has), and costs the pilot 7 days of training every time one explodes.


[Condescending Wonka] Tell me again about how T3s are OP compared to T1 Cruisers? [/Condescending Wonka]


So you decided to compare a Gallente cruiser with Minmatar T3, and exaggerate the training time by a comfortable 3-4 days? Understandable if you want to push your agenda, but still looks blatantly stupid.

Proteus: 1004dps, 112K EHP, 400mil
Thorax: 40mil

So real cost difference is only 10x, 3-4 days of training and you get twice as much dps and about six times more EHP. And HACs are barely better than T1, but take longer to train than T3.

This increase in performance is completely out of whack when compared with performance increases between other ship classes.

.
Ja'ho sun
Series of The Ridiculous
#1242 - 2013-07-22 16:49:12 UTC
NetheranE wrote:
Ja'ho sun wrote:
NetheranE wrote:

*snippage*
<



the cost and effort to build HACs does not warrant the need for reduced effects of ecm. the 10% to fleet bonus is just silly, as well as the remote assistance idea. plus the reduced sig bloom to micro is awesome. instead of getting hit for just about full dng every time, incoming dps has now dropped just about 30%. that's with just the role bonus alone. not a useless role bonus.

the cerb needs only 5 more grid to fit the extra launcher. 150 more PG is just too much and leaves me thinking, wtf are u trying to fit on the damn thing. dropping the ROF bonus would cripple the cerb, and the ship does enough dps to melt faces that much more with the new launcher slot. CCP Rise just expanded its already great ability that much more.

I agree on the diemos it needs to have its hp back. I mean really its not a shield tanked ship its armor plz fix this


the cost of HACs is EXACTLY what warrants this kind of powerhouse bonus. A 10% fleet bonus would simply give ~3% more resistance, or ~5% more tackle range, and ~2.5% smaller sig. very small bonuses that should simply compile to pull them over their t1 and navy counter parts (which are still better with these changes, dont you see a problem there?) The RR bonus would actually give flesh to the ships, as their minuscule tanks are a critical problem to their use and success. The EWAR bonus is simply something that doesnt make them immune, as its a RESISTANCE, but give them an advantage in gang and fleet warefare. A 25% resistance to webs simply means instead of being 60% webbed you get 45% webbed. So you're still slowed, you're just not :gg: slowed like a thorax would be.
Also, at ~1000-1500% the cost of a t1 cruiser, they had better be at LEAST 100% better.

what kind of fool are you? do you leave your MWD running permanently in a fight? As I specifically listed, there are practically no HACs that leave their MWD running sufficiently long to warrant a reduction in their sig bloom. Most HACs wont even be under fire most of the time before their MWDs are off, so the amount of actual time that the bonus is even applicable is negligible.
l2logic

have you TRIED to fit a cerb with more than 1 large shield extender WITHOUT a bunch of cap-gobbling hardeners?
I assume not.
I dont have my EFT on this computer, otherwise is throw fit after fit at you until your dense skull has accepted the obvious.
Dropping the RoF bonus, WHILE gaining 5% MORE damage per level would not cripple the cerb, but simply shift its damage style. Rather than a constant flow of dps, it has spaced hammering volleys, which is perfectly fine.
How about you learn to read, come back to my post, and try to take it all in at once, before you start picking more of my statements out of context and generally missing the entire point of my post?

kthnxbye


so not needed to insult ppl to get ur point across.
the cost does not warrant the need. period. if u cant see that then what else can I say.

in regard to the fleet bonus, it not just the 3% resists the armor will give that is of concern here, its the other bonuses that can effect it as well for example loki links. I think ppl rage enough about them. even if u were to limit link types, the duel rep setups would become an issue. 3% may not seem like much, but when put in the right hands it becomes something u just don't fight without loads of ppl.

with ships like the vaga, cerb and shield Ishtar, the micro bonus is again not lost. these ships need to keep range when under fire or not. how can u expect some1 who is getting shot, trying to stay at range to just cut their micro so their sig goes down?
this will lead to a dead kiting ship. before u go on to say anything about perms micro in a kiting ship, no1 should do this and I doubt any1 does if they know what they are doing.

taking this into account when running micro with this boost u will be able to reduce the damage by flying right. at this point in time, if ur in range of a talos no matter wat u do u wil get hit for just about full damage.
the cerb should not fit 2 extenders, its a cruiser not a BC. removing the ROF bonus on the cerb will make heavies pointless to fit. as it is atm (pre-patch) u can only push at max 440 dps before heat, a little more the 500 with heat. it gets worse with HAC lvl 4. this is the same with hams, there reason for ROF on ham boats. hams don't have the volley and heavies don't have the ROF.

the exception to this rule is the drake due to its excessive tank ability.



Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#1243 - 2013-07-22 16:51:52 UTC
Roime wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
dude compare T3's EHP with T1 cruisers and then blankly stare at the main reason ooohh... look it has about three times the amount .. that's not normal ... then look at the dps difference...


Look at the DPS.
- Thorax - 2 Magstabs 5 Neutrons, Void - 522 DPS
- Loki - 2 Gyros 6 425mms, RF EMP - 525 DPS

Now look at the cost.
- Thorax - 10m
- Typical Armor Tanked Loki - 400m

And the SP loss.
- Thorax SP loss - 0sp
- Typical Armor Tanked Loki ~ 7 days of training (Subsystem 5, Minmatar Strat Cruiser 4)


So, a T3 costs 40x as much before bling (which any good T3 pilot has), and costs the pilot 7 days of training every time one explodes.


[Condescending Wonka] Tell me again about how T3s are OP compared to T1 Cruisers? [/Condescending Wonka]


So you decided to compare a Gallente cruiser with Minmatar T3, and exaggerate the training time by a comfortable 3-4 days? Understandable if you want to push your agenda, but still looks blatantly stupid.

Proteus: 1004dps, 112K EHP, 400mil
Thorax: 40mil

So real cost difference is only 10x, 3-4 days of training and you get twice as much dps and about six times more EHP. And HACs are barely better than T1, but take longer to train than T3.

This increase in performance is completely out of whack when compared with performance increases between other ship classes.



this is one of the reasons hac's need to sit in the middle of cruisers and t3's.

cruisers > faction cruisers > hacs > t3's is the way it should be but currently the distinction between them is so small in some cases might as well not bother

OMG when can i get a pic here
JerseyBOI 2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1244 - 2013-07-22 17:02:00 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Roime wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
dude compare T3's EHP with T1 cruisers and then blankly stare at the main reason ooohh... look it has about three times the amount .. that's not normal ... then look at the dps difference...


Look at the DPS.
- Thorax - 2 Magstabs 5 Neutrons, Void - 522 DPS
- Loki - 2 Gyros 6 425mms, RF EMP - 525 DPS

Now look at the cost.
- Thorax - 10m
- Typical Armor Tanked Loki - 400m

And the SP loss.
- Thorax SP loss - 0sp
- Typical Armor Tanked Loki ~ 7 days of training (Subsystem 5, Minmatar Strat Cruiser 4)


So, a T3 costs 40x as much before bling (which any good T3 pilot has), and costs the pilot 7 days of training every time one explodes.


[Condescending Wonka] Tell me again about how T3s are OP compared to T1 Cruisers? [/Condescending Wonka]


So you decided to compare a Gallente cruiser with Minmatar T3, and exaggerate the training time by a comfortable 3-4 days? Understandable if you want to push your agenda, but still looks blatantly stupid.

Proteus: 1004dps, 112K EHP, 400mil
Thorax: 40mil

So real cost difference is only 10x, 3-4 days of training and you get twice as much dps and about six times more EHP. And HACs are barely better than T1, but take longer to train than T3.

This increase in performance is completely out of whack when compared with performance increases between other ship classes.



this is one of the reasons hac's need to sit in the middle of cruisers and t3's.

cruisers > faction cruisers > hacs > t3's is the way it should be but currently the distinction between them is so small in some cases might as well not bother



"After talking with several CSM member on possibly gearing HACs to decently engage the blob there is apparently some members who strongly dislike the idea of smaller groups being able to engage larger forces and have an impact.

So much for CSM members caring about what is best for the game. Yes, I know, CSM members only pushing their own agenda non-shocker."
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#1245 - 2013-07-22 17:06:05 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Angry Mustache wrote:

~Stuff about how T3s are OP~


I call BS on your tank numbers. A T2 fit Proteus will have 114k EHP, not 147k EHP. To get that 147k EHP, T2 trimarks and faction resist modules would be required.


If a Thorax costs 30m, and a Proteus costs 400m, you get 50% more DPS and 4x more tank, for 1300% of the cost of a T1 cruiser. PLUS you risk your SP every time you fly it.


Given the unique SP loss and the extreme jump in cost, that seems quite balanced. The only change I would make is change the Proteus's tank bonus from 10% per level to 5% per level, since that's what the Loki has. I'd do the same thing to the Legion's armor HP bonus.



Honestly, stop calling for a T3 nerf until after HACs get a reasonable buff. This is just the first pass, they will make another pass, and that better have more EHP/DPS.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1246 - 2013-07-22 17:08:14 UTC
I wanted to take the time to add my piece.

These changes are utterly disappointing. I've been looking forward to the hac buff for years. Everyone's known they needed something new and something to make them exciting for the longest time. This is a chance to do that, and instead were getting anywhere from no buff to something that makes them a tiny bit better at what they already do.

This isn't what anyone wants, and it'd be such a horrible waste to do only this to hacs. Have an inch of creativity, please
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1247 - 2013-07-22 17:16:30 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Honestly, stop calling for a T3 nerf until after HACs get a reasonable buff. This is just the first pass, they will make another pass, and that better have more EHP/DPS.


This (one of the sanest arguments thus far).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#1248 - 2013-07-22 17:17:32 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Roime wrote:


So you decided to compare a Gallente cruiser with Minmatar T3, and exaggerate the training time by a comfortable 3-4 days? Understandable if you want to push your agenda, but still looks blatantly stupid.

Proteus: 1004dps, 112K EHP, 400mil
Thorax: 40mil

So real cost difference is only 10x, 3-4 days of training and you get twice as much dps and about six times more EHP. And HACs are barely better than T1, but take longer to train than T3.

This increase in performance is completely out of whack when compared with performance increases between other ship classes.


What I want to know is where are you that a Thorax costs 40m?

5x Ions = 6.5m
Scram, Web, MWD, utility mid, = 4m
DCU, 800mm, 2x EANM, Mag Stab, = 5m
3x Trimarks = 8.1m
Thorax Hull = 10m

Total = 33.6m
Stop exagerating the price of a T1 cruiser.

Now the Proteus DPS,
845 DPS with 3 T2 magstabs, 6x Neutrons witih Void

Cost difference ~ 12 times as much

Stop exaggerating the DPS and cost difference to advance your position.


HACs suck. This buff is not enough. Look at the other comments, no one is happy with these changes, they are insufficient.
You are comparing T3s, which are fine and not at all overused, to the single worst ship class in EVE.

Stop being a bad.



Now maybe we should discuss buffing HACs? After all, this is a HAC buff thread.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1249 - 2013-07-22 17:25:33 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:



Now maybe we should discuss buffing HACs? After all, this is a HAC buff thread.


no its not a buff thread its a balance thread... some stuff get a buff others get thier balls cutt of and worn around rises head.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#1250 - 2013-07-22 17:25:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
power creep!

its NOT power creep when u are rebalancing.
you set t1 cruiser power level, now set t2 HEAVY ASSAULT cruisers at their power level. things have grown up around these tech 2 critters and gotten more powerful in general.

they need to follow the path set aside for them already.

i DO understand that these ships are specialists. they specialize in dps and survival.
recon specialize in ewar and/or stealth. logi, healing.

hacs tho...HEAVY ASSAULT SHIPS. they dish out damage. they survive encounters. they have massive training times compaired to t1 cruisers, therefore should be masters of their trade (which is bringin the pain).
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#1251 - 2013-07-22 17:36:26 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
MeBiatch wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:



Now maybe we should discuss buffing HACs? After all, this is a HAC buff thread.


no its not a buff thread its a balance thread... some stuff get a buff others get thier balls cutt of and worn around rises head.



Balance thread? Lets be honest, it needs to be a buff thread. Even if Rise is determined to break some HACs (dat shield booster bonus on the Loki)

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
SkyMeetFire
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1252 - 2013-07-22 17:42:09 UTC  |  Edited by: SkyMeetFire
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.




So I have a question about the Sacrilege and about Khanid ships in general. I'll try to keep it brief since I know you have plenty of other comments to read.

Comparing the Vaga to the Sacrilege, why does the Vaga, an already popular and powerful ship, get its previous bonus rolled into the hull and a second bonus to buff an already powerful configuration (ASB w/ABs), while the Sacrilege, which I'd guess is rather unpopular, does not. I can understand a second tanking bonus being overpowered, but isn't there other options with damage application (such as missile explosion velocity bonus) or mobility control (perhaps a weak web bonus?) that would help its role or current shortcomings better?

Regarding Khanid Ships, why is it considered balanced in the design that they have received only a bonus to the damage of the short range variant of the weapon system, while all other missile bonuses are for both types? This is a feature not found on any race in the game (Stealth Bombers are the only other ships with a short only bonus, which are consistent across races), and it only serves to reinforce Amarrs relative lack of flexibility compared to the other races. Or is the removal of this feature on the new Sacrilege an admission that it is not actually balanced? I would not mind seeing the Heretic, Vengence, Malediction, and the new combat oriented Damnation following this trend.

Oh and a question to pass along to the art/lore guys - Why is the Purifier manufactured by Vizam and not Khanid? It seems as far as lore it would make more sense, and I think a Khanid skin would look incredible on the new Purifier model.

Other than my reservations on the Sacrilege, I think you are doing a great job with the balancing pass. Keep up the good work, and I eagerly anticipate your revised balancing proposals.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1253 - 2013-07-22 17:50:35 UTC
The sacrilege would make sense with a missile velocity bonus .. maybe a 5% too keep cerb as the more kitey one.

On the cerb i was really hoping that flight time would be removed for a explosion velocity bonus .. like a big corax as no one uses the cerb for sniping .

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
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1254 - 2013-07-22 17:54:21 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

What I want to know is where are you that a Thorax costs 40m?

5x Ions = 6.5m
Scram, Web, MWD, utility mid, = 4m
DCU, 800mm, 2x EANM, Mag Stab, = 5m
3x Trimarks = 8.1m
Thorax Hull = 10m

Total = 33.6m
Stop exagerating the price of a T1 cruiser.

Now the Proteus DPS,
845 DPS with 3 T2 magstabs, 6x Neutrons witih Void

Cost difference ~ 12 times as much

Stop exaggerating the DPS and cost difference to advance your position.


HACs suck. This buff is not enough. Look at the other comments, no one is happy with these changes, they are insufficient.
You are comparing T3s, which are fine and not at all overused, to the single worst ship class in EVE.

Stop being a bad.

Now maybe we should discuss buffing HACs? After all, this is a HAC buff thread.


You said Thorax only costs 10mil?

Anyway, EFT land, where the price of that setup is 38.7mil. My Thorax lossmails are closer to 50mil.

Proteus has a flight of Hammers, like Thorax- which incidentally does only 367dps without drones, less than half.

Yes, I obviously agree that this HAC rebalancing effort was terrible and CCP needs to go back to the drawing board, but that doesn't change the fact that T3s are indeed OP- compared to any other ship class in EVE, not just HACs. And these two cannot be looked into in isolation, HACs and T3s in HAC fits share the exact same role.

Unless they are given a distinctly separate role, and T3s adjusted further from that, these two will always compete from the same role and the one with more dps and tank wins. Buffing HACs to compete with current T3s just results in new, massively OP ships.

.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1255 - 2013-07-22 17:56:57 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
The sacrilege would make sense with a missile velocity bonus .. maybe a 5% too keep cerb as the more kitey one.

On the cerb i was really hoping that flight time would be removed for a explosion velocity bonus .. like a big corax as no one uses the cerb for sniping .


i think allot of the sacs problems would be fixed if ccp just added te/tc to work on missiles.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#1256 - 2013-07-22 18:00:56 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
Roime wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

~Snip~


You said Thorax only costs 10mil?

Anyway, EFT land, where the price of that setup is 38.7mil. My Thorax lossmails are closer to 50mil.

Proteus has a flight of Hammers, like Thorax- which incidentally does only 367dps without drones, less than half.

Yes, I obviously agree that this HAC rebalancing effort was terrible and CCP needs to go back to the drawing board, but that doesn't change the fact that T3s are indeed OP- compared to any other ship class in EVE, not just HACs. And these two cannot be looked into in isolation, HACs and T3s in HAC fits share the exact same role.

Unless they are given a distinctly separate role, and T3s adjusted further from that, these two will always compete from the same role and the one with more dps and tank wins. Buffing HACs to compete with current T3s just results in new, massively OP ships.



Thorax hull costs 10m
And in Jita, a Thorax costs 33.9m, so EVE's pricing system is off again. It probably averages all the regions, and that brings the cost up.

Anyway, Thorax does 400 DPS without drones.

Again, you cannot give me examples of how a T3 is OP! You can say it all you want but you have to give examples, beyond just Thorax VS Proteus.

HACs and T3s share a similar role, but T3s cost more and have SP penalties, so they had better have better performance than HACs, otherwise nobody would fly them.

One overtanked T3 doesn't mean ALL T3s are OP.


Seriously, HACs need a bigger buff than CCP is currently considering. When the buff HACs need gets here, and Command ships have been rebalanced, THEN we can look at T3s.

Until then, you're just comparing an utterly crap ship class to a perfectly balanced (in some cases slightly over tanked) ship class.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Mr Doctor
Therapy.
Brave Collective
#1257 - 2013-07-22 18:14:28 UTC
Oh SHUT UP!




/reset thread.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#1258 - 2013-07-22 18:20:33 UTC
Mr Doctor wrote:
Oh SHUT UP!




/reset thread.


I second this Big smile

Any word from CCP if they have time before the next weekend of the Alliance Tournament to make changes?

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Felix Leclerc
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1259 - 2013-07-22 18:46:04 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:

HACs and T3s share a similar role, but T3s cost more and have SP penalties, so they had better have better performance than HACs, otherwise nobody would fly them.



No. T3s cost should be justified by their modularity and ability to outperform a T1 hull in a particular area when fitted for that role. They absolutely should not outperform a T2 (specialist!) hull when fitted for the same role in which the T2 is specialized... Otherwise the T2 becomes somewhat pointless.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1260 - 2013-07-22 18:53:05 UTC
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage)
10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage


Because a 50% bonus to drone tracking is not overpowered?

Yeah, lets just have Ishtars in every fight and snipe away every interceptor and frigate in 2 volleys, regardless of transversal. It's already bad enough with Domis.