These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#461 - 2013-07-29 23:27:07 UTC
Ender Wiggan wrote:
Don't be assholes guys. They're clearly trying to iterate towards a solution that works for as many people as possible. No balance pass is going to make everyone happy.

That being said, there are a lot of improvements that could be made to this current iteration. The Sac changes proposed by Sarkelias come to mind. The weird bonuses on the Ishtar as well. The sig explosions from T1 to T2, specifically on the Deimos but on other HACs as well just don't make sense. The Eagle is still a red-headed step child. It's not fast enough to kite (and its damage is aneimic), its sig + shield tanking reduce the effectiveness as an up close brawler.

Good steps, but at least another iteration to go still.



There were tons of suggestions in the first iteration thread that would fix HACs and not make them OP.

CCP, tell us what their role is! We can't be helpful in our suggestions until we know what the role is supposed to be. If that role is better versions of T1 Cruisers then give them more DPS, more EHP, and another slot. Only then will they be able to compete with ABCs, T1 cruisers (the massive jump in cost warrants a massive bump in effectiveness), and battlecruisers.

As they are, HACs are underpowered and overpriced.
Except the Ishtar, because seriously wtf are you doing with all these OP drone boats (I'm looking at you Dominix).

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#462 - 2013-07-29 23:27:56 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:


2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.


Not hardly, simply saying something is true without posting any actual facts doesn't actually make it real, and in this case you're wrong.

X Gallentius wrote:
3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support.


Survivability in a game dominated by group alpha is laughable.

Speed when they are matched or outpaced by t1 cruisers that cost 1/15th of their hull price is laughable

Better EWAR stats when the EWAR game for jamming is a joke of a game of chance meaning that even if your SS was 10 million theres still a chance that a single light EC-300 jams you

I wont even touch the cap comment since its just silly, cap isn't a problem until it is and then you fit an injector and its not again

They already perform well in a gang, that gang is called armor HACs, and thats largely the only role they're used in simply because you dont skirmish in a 150 million isk hull when you can get the same or better results in either a 10 million isk t1 cruiser hull or a 60 million isk ABC hull.


Diminishing Returns: T1 Cruiser Hull - 10 Mil. Faction Navy Cruiser Hull - 50-100 mil, T2 HAC - 150 mil. Check.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#463 - 2013-07-29 23:33:30 UTC
Kais Fiddler wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Wow ! I'm realizing people are complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high slot for a mid slot...

Then, I understand why CCP is rather conservative in these changes. The ships are mostly only better than before in a lot of ways, and yet people cry, and often for no real reason, like the Sacrilege capacitor or the Vagabond shield boost bonus.

I'm losing hope for humanity.

We're not complaining about the ishtar, which is being buffed in reasonable and powerful ways. The deimos isn't getting that kind of love however.

Yup, and the Ishtar was already reasonably powerful, and yet it receive the Dominix treatment. It's rather scary in fact.

The new mid slot for the Deimos can account for almost whatever it could need. Asking for a tracking bonus on top of it is understandable as it would be insanely powerful, but 7 (seven !) low slots ?! Come on...

What is a bit comical in all these balancing thread is that gallente pilots are asking for more low slots and despise mid slots when amarr pilots are begging for more mid slots from all their heart. No wonder why people don't understand why gallente ship have blasters and armor tank : what they need is an "I win" button with shiny graphics and nothing else will satisfy them.
Ender Wiggan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#464 - 2013-07-29 23:33:38 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:


2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.


Not hardly, simply saying something is true without posting any actual facts doesn't actually make it real, and in this case you're wrong.

X Gallentius wrote:
3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support.


Survivability in a game dominated by group alpha is laughable.

Speed when they are matched or outpaced by t1 cruisers that cost 1/15th of their hull price is laughable

Better EWAR stats when the EWAR game for jamming is a joke of a game of chance meaning that even if your SS was 10 million theres still a chance that a single light EC-300 jams you

I wont even touch the cap comment since its just silly, cap isn't a problem until it is and then you fit an injector and its not again

They already perform well in a gang, that gang is called armor HACs, and thats largely the only role they're used in simply because you dont skirmish in a 150 million isk hull when you can get the same or better results in either a 10 million isk t1 cruiser hull or a 60 million isk ABC hull.


Diminishing Returns: T1 Cruiser Hull - 10 Mil. Faction Navy Cruiser Hull - 50-100 mil, T2 HAC - 150 mil. Check.


Except that T2's are meant to perform on par with Navy Cruisers but be more "specialised" whatever that means. For the "specialisation" we have, I don't agree that we're getting a 50 mil performance increase over faction.
Tuxedo Catfish
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#465 - 2013-07-29 23:35:12 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Wow ! I'm realizing people are complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high slot for a mid slot...

Then, I understand why CCP is rather conservative in these changes. The ships are mostly only better than before in a lot of ways, and yet people cry, and often for no real reason, like the Sacrilege capacitor or the Vagabond shield boost bonus.

I'm losing hope for humanity.


Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs.
nikar galvren
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#466 - 2013-07-29 23:37:01 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:


2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.


Not hardly, simply saying something is true without posting any actual facts doesn't actually make it real, and in this case you're wrong.

X Gallentius wrote:
3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support.


Survivability in a game dominated by group alpha is laughable.

Speed when they are matched or outpaced by t1 cruisers that cost 1/15th of their hull price is laughable

Better EWAR stats when the EWAR game for jamming is a joke of a game of chance meaning that even if your SS was 10 million theres still a chance that a single light EC-300 jams you

I wont even touch the cap comment since its just silly, cap isn't a problem until it is and then you fit an injector and its not again

They already perform well in a gang, that gang is called armor HACs, and thats largely the only role they're used in simply because you dont skirmish in a 150 million isk hull when you can get the same or better results in either a 10 million isk t1 cruiser hull or a 60 million isk ABC hull.


Diminishing Returns: T1 Cruiser Hull - 10 Mil. Faction Navy Cruiser Hull - 50-100 mil, T2 HAC - 150 mil. Check.


T1 cruiser with Performance=X: 10Mil.
Navy cruiser with performance=1.4 * X: 50-100Mil.
T2 HAC with performance = 1.15 * X: 150-180Mil.

The diminishing returns argument does not hold for the HAC lineup.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#467 - 2013-07-29 23:37:56 UTC
no seriously guys think about it.

what is missing from hacs? resilience.

so its role bonus should help it add that.

but a 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules. would do this!

need to have that mwd with heat on to win that fight now you can last longer

need that extra dps for fleets now you can hit harder

need that extra ehp from resist mods now you can be hit longer

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
#468 - 2013-07-29 23:39:58 UTC  |  Edited by: M1k3y Koontz
MeBiatch wrote:
no seriously guys think about it.

what is missing from hacs? resilience.

so its role bonus should help it add that.

but a 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules. would do this!

need to have that mwd with heat on to win that fight now you can last longer

need that extra dps for fleets now you can hit harder

need that extra ehp from resist mods now you can be hit longer


They would still lack the EHP and DPS to be practical.
Edit: to be clear, it would be a cool role bonus, but they would still require more EHP at the very least.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Tuxedo Catfish
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#469 - 2013-07-29 23:43:56 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

Yup, and the Ishtar was already reasonably powerful, and yet it receive the Dominix treatment. It's rather scary in fact.

The new mid slot for the Deimos can account for almost whatever it could need. Asking for a tracking bonus on top of it is understandable as it would be insanely powerful, but 7 (seven !) low slots ?! Come on...

What is a bit comical in all these balancing thread is that gallente pilots are asking for more low slots and despise mid slots when amarr pilots are begging for more mid slots from all their heart. No wonder why people don't understand why gallente ship have blasters and armor tank : what they need is an "I win" button with shiny graphics and nothing else will satisfy them.


It's irritating (though not surprising) that when people see Gallente ships finally being brought up to par, they scream "overpowered" just because they're not used to them being competetive.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#470 - 2013-07-29 23:45:22 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
no seriously guys think about it.

what is missing from hacs? resilience.

so its role bonus should help it add that.

but a 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules. would do this!

need to have that mwd with heat on to win that fight now you can last longer

need that extra dps for fleets now you can hit harder

need that extra ehp from resist mods now you can be hit longer


They would still lack the EHP and DPS to be practical.


150 sig radius is pretty small. so ahacs just got a boost. though i do agree i am sad that they did not 'round up' the base hp.

personally the only hac lacking imo is the deimos and in a previous post i think i might have fixed it.

5% to armor
5% to medium hybrid damage
7.5% to tracking
7.5% to rate of fire
4 turret slots 5 high slots.

it would turn the diemos into a mini megathron

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#471 - 2013-07-29 23:48:08 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:


This is what I would like to see, from the last thread.

Gallente Cruiser
+5% Armor HP per Level
+5% Medium Hybrid Damage per level.
Heavy Assault Ships
+7.5% medium hybrid tracking per level
+5% medium hybrid damage.

+7.5% medium hybrid rate of fire per level
i would then reduce to 4 turrets but keep 5 high slots so its gets a high slot back... think of it as a mini mega.

I'm not too concerned with a utility high slot, I just don't like the falloff bonus and the MWD cap bonus, in my opinion, is not terrible it would be better served as a armor HP bonus.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#472 - 2013-07-29 23:48:45 UTC
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs.

Yes people are complaining about the high to mid slot of the Deimos.
Anyway, what would it need to have satisfying performances for you ? Yes, it's not exactly 50% better than a Talos, yet it's better than a Talos in a number of ways -- in fact, it only lack dps compared to it, but is better at everything else.

BTW, I've seen some good use of the Deimos, suggesting that it's far from so bad as people are saying it to be.

In fact, with these changes, I can see them have the same place AF have between cruisers and frigates, but keep their speed, and now earn a boosted electronic.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#473 - 2013-07-29 23:52:27 UTC
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
It's irritating (though not surprising) that when people see Gallente ships finally being brought up to par, they scream "overpowered" just because they're not used to them being competetive.

Things often need to be overpowered for a lot of people to see them as "competitive". But then, they are not "competitive" but overpowered.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#474 - 2013-07-29 23:52:44 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:


This is what I would like to see, from the last thread.

Gallente Cruiser
+5% Armor HP per Level
+5% Medium Hybrid Damage per level.
Heavy Assault Ships
+7.5% medium hybrid tracking per level
+5% medium hybrid damage.

+7.5% medium hybrid rate of fire per level
i would then reduce to 4 turrets but keep 5 high slots so its gets a high slot back... think of it as a mini mega.

I'm not too concerned with a utility high slot, I just don't like the falloff bonus and the MWD cap bonus, in my opinion, is not terrible it would be better served as a armor HP bonus.


i like the options that a utility gives. the updated nos would be key on this deimos setup or a nuet or a cyno or a cloak or a scan probe launcher or a salvager or tractor beam... especially if the role bonus was switched to 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules.

personally i am a big fan of the new mega. and i would make the diemos a mini mega.

5% to armor
5% to medium hybrid damage

7.5% to tracking
7.5% to rate of fire

4 turret slots 5 high slots

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#475 - 2013-07-29 23:53:35 UTC
nikar galvren wrote:

T1 cruiser with Performance=X: 10Mil.
Navy cruiser with performance=1.4 * X: 50-100Mil.
T2 HAC with performance = 1.15 * X: 150-180Mil.
The diminishing returns argument does not hold for the HAC lineup.

Show us where your 1.15 number comes from.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#476 - 2013-07-29 23:55:16 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:


This is what I would like to see, from the last thread.

Gallente Cruiser
+5% Armor HP per Level
+5% Medium Hybrid Damage per level.
Heavy Assault Ships
+7.5% medium hybrid tracking per level
+5% medium hybrid damage.

+7.5% medium hybrid rate of fire per level
i would then reduce to 4 turrets but keep 5 high slots so its gets a high slot back... think of it as a mini mega.

I'm not too concerned with a utility high slot, I just don't like the falloff bonus and the MWD cap bonus, in my opinion, is not terrible it would be better served as a armor HP bonus.


i like the options that a utility gives. the updated nos would be key on this deimos setup or a nuet or a cyno or a cloak or a scan probe launcher or a salvager or tractor beam... especially if the role bonus was switched to 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules.

personally i am a big fan of the new mega. and i would make the diemos a mini mega.

But, this is a T2 ship, which are supposed to be specialized, the mega is a T1 ship where you are supposed to have lots of options.
I would support the thorax to become a mini mega though.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#477 - 2013-07-30 00:00:45 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

But, this is a T2 ship, which are supposed to be specialized, the mega is a T1 ship where you are supposed to have lots of options.
I would support the thorax to become a mini mega though.


IMO Utility/versatility can be a specialty. like a swiss army knife

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Tuxedo Catfish
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#478 - 2013-07-30 00:06:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tuxedo Catfish
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs.

Yes people are complaining about the high to mid slot of the Deimos.
Anyway, what would it need to have satisfying performances for you ? Yes, it's not exactly 50% better than a Talos, yet it's better than a Talos in a number of ways -- in fact, it only lack dps compared to it, but is better at everything else.


It's not better than a Talos. It has inferior range, inferior damage, inferior speed, and while it has a superior tank the range at which it has to engage renders that point moot.

Nobody would prefer a Deimos to a Zealot in a large-scale AHAC fleet because it has inferior damage and tracking; this may change with the railgun buff, but considering that in exchange for that buff rails are eating a 15% tracking nerf, I'm not so sure. (I know they are used somewhat, but mostly as a sop to people who haven't trained lasers.)

Nobody would prefer a Deimos to a tier 3 battlecruiser -- or even a Muninn! -- in a sniping fleet because it has neither especially good range nor especially good tracking, and on top of this it's slow to align.

Very few people would prefer a Deimos over a Vagabond for small gang PvP because the Deimos is slow, unable to catch up with opponents, and cannot project damage. With the proposed changes it would no longer be able to fit a neut or a cloak without cutting into its damage; soloing in a Deimos was already a bad idea and this would make it worse.

It's also an abysmal ratting ship, but I'll let that slide since the Ishtar makes up for it.

Anyways, I would be content if they reverted the decision to lower its ehp, kept the rest of the hull changes, swapped the falloff bonus for tracking, and replaced the MWD cap bonus with something small but useful -- decreased heat damage, decreased armor mass penalty, something along those lines.

I would be happy if they did that, but instead of a small sympathy bonus they just gave it tracking + falloff.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#479 - 2013-07-30 00:09:48 UTC
before even reading the OP, i would like to express my gratitude for the thoroughness of the balancing team and their willingness to listen to (constructive) feedback.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#480 - 2013-07-30 00:17:26 UTC
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:
Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs.

Yes people are complaining about the high to mid slot of the Deimos.
Anyway, what would it need to have satisfying performances for you ? Yes, it's not exactly 50% better than a Talos, yet it's better than a Talos in a number of ways -- in fact, it only lack dps compared to it, but is better at everything else.


It's not better than a Talos. It has inferior range, inferior damage, inferior speed, and while it has a superior tank the range at which it has to engage renders that point moot.

Compared to a shield tanked blaster talos, a shield tanked 250mm rail deimos will be a lot quicker, much more agile, and slightly tankier with much better resists. It will also have more range, ~50% better tracking once you account for the difference in the signature resolutions of the turrets (comparing null L to CNAM M, i.e. the ammo types you'd use for point range kiting in each case), around 75% of the raw dps, a more flexible drone bay, and a stronger capacitor.