These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#501 - 2013-07-30 04:08:02 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Grath Telkin wrote:

Just to be clear so you get it: Hacs are not outperforming t1 cruisers in many regards, so the diminishing return is coming from where, since I already showed you all the holes in your original reasoning for the price increase.

Tanks: for the price of a hac you get more tank and better insurance return from a battleship
Damage: t1 cruisers can outclass most Hacs in outright damage dealt up close
Damage Projection: ABC's outclass HAC's in every way with damage projection, a single painter negates this sweet role buff

Insurance, hull cost, rig slots, fitting slots in some cases overall fitting ability, speed.....theres just so many places that HAC's are outclassed by cheaper hulls, your diminishing returns argument is laughable.

Just to be clear so you get it:

1. Hacs clearly outperform T1 cruisers. No question. Their tank, resistance to ewar, resistance to cap warfare, sig radius while mobile, and ability to stay moving (better cap regen) are substantially superior to T1 cruisers. T1 cruisers have similar dps and are slightly faster. The engagement envelope of a T1 cruiser will be swamped by HACs. You know this, and your one-sided comparison using only dps numbers to make your point is laughable at best.

2. Comparing a HAC to a BS is moronic as well. Different roles. Yet you decide to pick one aspect of their stats to make your point? (which is what, a BS is bigger than a cruiser hull?)

3. Comparing an ABC is equally moronic since they have completely different roles. But yes, if you put a HAC into the role of an ABC it's going to lose. Put an ABC into a HACs role and it will compare poorly as well.
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
#502 - 2013-07-30 04:11:02 UTC
Voith wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Voith wrote:
NinjaTurtle wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


can be reloaded over the course of a long fight.


sixty second reload time. I don't think you have a very realistic idea of what occurs to an asb vagabond in that time period.

It has a skilled pilot and realizes it will need to reload so it gets into a favorable position to do so instead of being a noob and acting surprised when the reload happens?

there's no favorable position in which the Vagabond can reload its tank for 60s and still maintain tackle or damage. That's not skill related, that's basic PVP mechanic limits.

You mean to tell me a close range skirmisher can't perma tank several hundred DPS and be one of the fastest ships in the game?


Wow, CCP must suck at balance.


If I get to a situation where I need a Ancillary Shield Booster to survive then I done some horrible piloting already and it will just likely only prolong the pain before I explode.

So in those six-tie seconds, am I supposed to disengage and run off?

When things goes south bad things usually happen a lot fasten than that.
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#503 - 2013-07-30 04:26:24 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
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 agree.

As uninspiring and lame as these changes feel, at least the devs are listening to the players.

Hacs are arguably the group of ships in the game in the worst situation atm. They have been in a bad spot for a long time, and see only limited situation use. I really hope the devs take the time and care to address their flaws. Stealth bombers were in a similar situation for a long time, being a generally awful and useless ship, and a radical idea made them into a really cool group of ships.

We're hoping CCP brings out something similar.
Thorvik
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#504 - 2013-07-30 04:29:47 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
Alright, I did some EFTWarrioring on the Vagabond.

Here are the possible fits :

Dual LSE ie the Regular Vagabond. Needs a PWG implant and there is no way it can fit 425mms, of course.

XLASB, MWD + AB + WD with Dual 180mms. Still needs a 1% CPU implant even at all V with meta 4 gear.

LASB, ShieldBoostAmplifier, Disruptor MWD with 220mms. It fits confortably, but it's worse than every other Vagabond fits.

Pith *-Type Large Shield booster, medium capbooster, MWD, Disrupt with 220mms and no neutra.

The Dual LSE one is outclassed by every kiting platform right now. Outclassed by the Talos, by the new Cerberus and by the Cynabal of course.

The XLASB thingy is a kiting thing. It works because of the ASB, not because of the hull. It's sort of workable but 180mm guns really are pathetic if you want to kite.

LASB version is ********.

Pith *-type version should work but yeah, buy a Cynabal instead.

The Vagabond needs some help, because right now it's really lackluster compared to everything else.

Either go -1 highslot + 1 medslot and make it a true shield HAC, or give it a good PWG boost so that a XLASB + 220mm fit is possible. Short of that, there is no job a Vagabond does a Cynabal doesn't do better.


This^


The Vaga still sucks in your current iteration. Mine will remain mothballed until some other time... :(
Mr Ignitious
Lifeline Industries
#505 - 2013-07-30 04:52:29 UTC
I was super pissed with some of the first round stuff. I'm pretty happy now. I think the ishtar is still too slow and heavy and the cerb is probably too fast, but w/e.

I like this pass over all.
Kais Fiddler
Perkone
Caldari State
#506 - 2013-07-30 04:56:09 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:

Just to be clear so you get it: Hacs are not outperforming t1 cruisers in many regards, so the diminishing return is coming from where, since I already showed you all the holes in your original reasoning for the price increase.

Tanks: for the price of a hac you get more tank and better insurance return from a battleship
Damage: t1 cruisers can outclass most Hacs in outright damage dealt up close
Damage Projection: ABC's outclass HAC's in every way with damage projection, a single painter negates this sweet role buff

Insurance, hull cost, rig slots, fitting slots in some cases overall fitting ability, speed.....theres just so many places that HAC's are outclassed by cheaper hulls, your diminishing returns argument is laughable.

Just to be clear so you get it:

1. Hacs clearly outperform T1 cruisers. No question. Their tank, resistance to ewar, resistance to cap warfare, sig radius while mobile, and ability to stay moving (better cap regen) are substantially superior to T1 cruisers. T1 cruisers have similar dps and are slightly faster. The engagement envelope of a T1 cruiser will be swamped by HACs. You know this, and your one-sided comparison using only dps numbers to make your point is laughable at best.

2. Comparing a HAC to a BS is moronic as well. Different roles. Yet you decide to pick one aspect of their stats to make your point? (which is what, a BS is bigger than a cruiser hull?)

3. Comparing an ABC is equally moronic since they have completely different roles. But yes, if you put a HAC into the role of an ABC it's going to lose. Put an ABC into a HACs role and it will compare poorly as well.


Yes lets not compare each class of ship with each other. Clearly that would be a waste of time and effort.
Naoru Kozan
Perkone
Caldari State
#507 - 2013-07-30 05:04:42 UTC
Thorvik wrote:
SMT008 wrote:
Alright, I did some EFTWarrioring on the Vagabond.

Here are the possible fits :

Dual LSE ie the Regular Vagabond. Needs a PWG implant and there is no way it can fit 425mms, of course.

XLASB, MWD + AB + WD with Dual 180mms. Still needs a 1% CPU implant even at all V with meta 4 gear.

LASB, ShieldBoostAmplifier, Disruptor MWD with 220mms. It fits confortably, but it's worse than every other Vagabond fits.

Pith *-Type Large Shield booster, medium capbooster, MWD, Disrupt with 220mms and no neutra.

The Dual LSE one is outclassed by every kiting platform right now. Outclassed by the Talos, by the new Cerberus and by the Cynabal of course.

The XLASB thingy is a kiting thing. It works because of the ASB, not because of the hull. It's sort of workable but 180mm guns really are pathetic if you want to kite.

LASB version is ********.

Pith *-type version should work but yeah, buy a Cynabal instead.

The Vagabond needs some help, because right now it's really lackluster compared to everything else.

Either go -1 highslot + 1 medslot and make it a true shield HAC, or give it a good PWG boost so that a XLASB + 220mm fit is possible. Short of that, there is no job a Vagabond does a Cynabal doesn't do better.


This^


The Vaga still sucks in your current iteration. Mine will remain mothballed until some other time... :(





HINT: fit an invul. Boost to the cap recharge now means an Invul won't utterly kill your cap.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#508 - 2013-07-30 05:20:14 UTC
Kais Fiddler wrote:
Yes lets not compare each class of ship with each other. Clearly that would be a waste of time and effort.
Yes, it's clearly a waste of time to compare a single feature from different ship classes without looking at other features as well. Thank you for agreeing.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#509 - 2013-07-30 06:00:41 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Kais Fiddler wrote:
Yes lets not compare each class of ship with each other. Clearly that would be a waste of time and effort.
Yes, it's clearly a waste of time to compare a single feature from different ship classes without looking at other features as well. Thank you for agreeing.


We're actually looking at the overall performance of the hacs, what you get out of it, and comparing that to what you get out of the similarly priced hulls that are significantly cheaper.

If you like flying around in Armor Hacs and have too much money and thus like wasting isk on crappy ships who are we to judge you, but at the current abilities you are always, and i do mean ALWAYS better buying any other hull than a HAC.

Nothing you can say can change that as a fact.

T1 cruisers have more raw damage, ABC's project more damage, and the cost, which is the driving factor for everything that happens in eve is better spent on a Battleship.

If tank is what you really want, spend 3 HAC's and just buy a T3 ship, its faster to train into than a HAC and does everything a HAC can do better.

Your arguments aren't based in fact, you like HAC's, I get it, you're a fan boy of CCP, I get that too, I used to be both of those things, but the problems that exist with HAC's are CCP's own balance teams doing. They made the t1 cruisers so good that its impossible to justify the price of the t2 hulls in comparison.

Who cares about how resilient a ship is when its just going to be alpha'd anyway? Oh look I hae all these hit points and I just ran into a gang of X who collectively don't give one flying rats ass about how resilient your ships hull is. CCP did this, they can fix it, the fix is simple, reducing the cost of the hull is an option that brings it back into competition.

Leaving it as is leaves it where it is, and nothing that you can say justifies a ship being that much more expensive than all its other options.

Also your first point completely contradicts itself you should work on that.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#510 - 2013-07-30 06:20:44 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Grath Telkin wrote:
last quote


Cost reduction is certainly a reasonable measure... but they'd have to reduce the cost pretty drastically. The issue then overlaps with the faction cruisers and making them obsolete.

The better option is to add a unique level to HAC's. Simply put, they are not a larger version of their assault frigate friends. MWD bonus in no way scales with ships, so trying the same trick twice here makes no sense.

I'm actually ok with the Idea of Ewar resiliance, but why not actually make it useful. Make HAC's the only sub capital ships in game that have Immunities to Tracking disruptors, Jammers, and Sensor damps while maintaining all the other ewar effects such as webs and scrams.

You will still have vulnerable Logistics and other ships, you just won't lose your offensive power so easily anymore. It actually makes them worth using in a specific role while not making them OP as ****.

I'm actually bat **** scared of what they are planning for command ships now after seeing 2 iterations of the HAC ideas.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#511 - 2013-07-30 06:20:47 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Kais Fiddler wrote:
Yes lets not compare each class of ship with each other. Clearly that would be a waste of time and effort.
Yes, it's clearly a waste of time to compare a single feature from different ship classes without looking at other features as well. Thank you for agreeing.


We're actually looking at the overall performance of the hacs, what you get out of it, and comparing that to what you get out of the similarly priced hulls that are significantly cheaper.

If you like flying around in Armor Hacs and have too much money and thus like wasting isk on crappy ships who are we to judge you, but at the current abilities you are always, and i do mean ALWAYS better buying any other hull than a HAC.

Nothing you can say can change that as a fact.

T1 cruisers have more raw damage, ABC's project more damage, and the cost, which is the driving factor for everything that happens in eve is better spent on a Battleship.

If tank is what you really want, spend 3 HAC's and just buy a T3 ship, its faster to train into than a HAC and does everything a HAC can do better.

Your arguments aren't based in fact, you like HAC's, I get it, you're a fan boy of CCP, I get that too, I used to be both of those things, but the problems that exist with HAC's are CCP's own balance teams doing. They made the t1 cruisers so good that its impossible to justify the price of the t2 hulls in comparison.

Who cares about how resilient a ship is when its just going to be alpha'd anyway? Oh look I hae all these hit points and I just ran into a gang of X who collectively don't give one flying rats ass about how resilient your ships hull is. CCP did this, they can fix it, the fix is simple, reducing the cost of the hull is an option that brings it back into competition.

Leaving it as is leaves it where it is, and nothing that you can say justifies a ship being that much more expensive than all its other options.

Also your first point completely contradicts itself you should work on that.


Alpha only is of importance once you reach higher numbers, for small scale (sub 20man) gangs tanking value and resitance are more important then pure ehp, as you dont encounter many alpha gangs (and mwd hacs alreeady are a hardcounter to abcs at that scale). So imo the alpha argument doesnt count for that.


You are right regarding the rest tho.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#512 - 2013-07-30 06:37:46 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
My concerns with the Ishtar remain.

It goes from having a bonused weapons system that can be overheated (in a 1v1 PVP environment where your goal is to destroy the opponent before their reinforcements arrive) to not having an overheatable bonused weapons system.

In short its burst DPS drops a lot.

Given that this ship was (IMO) one of the finest solo roaming ships in the game, I will be sad to see it lose that aspect.

That said, a 37.5% bonus to heavy drone speed is unique and powerful for anyone that prefers to engage at medium range (rather than my preferred short range) with their Ishtar.

You do realize that adding that fourth turret adds more dps than 3 bonused guns right?

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#513 - 2013-07-30 06:50:55 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
If tank is what you really want, spend 3 HAC's and just buy a T3 ship, its faster to train into than a HAC and does everything a HAC can do better.


Imo this is the key point of the entire discussion. I've always thought that HACs should do what Tengu in its most usual build does - they should be small, fast, agile, sig and speed tanking dps ships. Even their price and training time suggest as much.
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#514 - 2013-07-30 07:09:15 UTC
Rise, any chance you can change new Sacriledge missile velocity bonus to explosion velocity bonus (tweak numbers as you wish). Since with sac you need to brawl. Removing utility high and adding another low would also be great
Jack C Hughes
State War Academy
Caldari State
#515 - 2013-07-30 07:18:33 UTC
Sacrilege could fit 5Hams, a medium nos, dual rep with damage control and adaptive nano membrane, ballistic controll, mwd and medium cap booster with a 1% cpu implants in current version. I just wonder why giving it more pg and cpu make it better. The pg and cpu are just fine.

The diemost still die most. give it an extra mid and then reduce its armor is just... not working.

For those who hate the new vege just go and see kovorix's vega solo.
with x-large asb and dual180 auto cannon it is so powerful within 10 km.
if you take blue pills and overheat that is 962 defense, which is before bonus.
After add 37.5 on to sheild boost that is 1322 (which means in most of the time you don't need to boost all the time).
The largest limitation is the total sheild amount of vega might be less than the xl asb boost but now it gets more sheild.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#516 - 2013-07-30 07:20:31 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
[Navy Vexor] is (depending on FW warzone status) cheaper.


The price of that ship is the market price and independent of FW warzone status. I you buy it cheaper due to FW mechanisms you're still paying the opportunity cost for not selling it at market price.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#517 - 2013-07-30 07:22:17 UTC
It's unfortunate that Gallente can't have a viable dualprop AHAC (no tank, no nos, useless bonuses) anymore, there is a gaping hole in the lineup for cheaper alternative to a Proteus. As a shield rail kiter the Deimos looks decent, seems to outclass null Talos in many aspects- it's just very disappointing that the traditional blaster brawler meta has been abandoned by the devs.

And again: drones and especially their UI really, really need to be looked at if you continue to make drone-only ships.

Just like armor tanking 2.0.

.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#518 - 2013-07-30 07:26:53 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

Heavy drone mwd speed


Can you please confirm that the drone speed bonus is limited to MWD speed? (What about the VNI's?)
If so, could you please fix the bonus description?

The bonus only says speed - which should be warp and orbit, since the proteus subsystem specifically says 'drone MWD speed'.
Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#519 - 2013-07-30 07:38:45 UTC
Hm.. I've compared main source of tank on vexor hulls (armor) as gallente is most known as a close range armor brawlers and I am a bit confused.

Right now on TQ Vexor has 2000 base armor, Navy Vexor 3000 and ishtar has 1618. In these thread you are indicated that armor HP on ishtar will be nerfed. I do not understand this feature. Why ishtar cannot have same HP as vexor has?
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
#520 - 2013-07-30 07:49:15 UTC
While I will say again that some of the changes to HACs are good, and improved. I after reading these posts I think we can agree that there is little direction in the changes. HAC do not do anything better in the game that can not be done with the new Navy Cruisers for 1/2 the price or the pirate faction cruisers for double it.

Well I like the changes to the Ishtar and Zealot, but the Sac, Deimos and Eagle all feel like they have no real place. The Sac, doesn't have the range, tank, or speed of the Cerb, so it can't be a missile kite or a missile brawler. The Deimos won't be able to catch targets because of a lack of speed, with blasters it has poor damage projection. People are saying shield fit like a Talos but they forget that the Talos has a 7.5% Tracking bonus, and medium guns are about to take a 15% loss in tracking so again it will be unable to project damage. The Eagle will be able to snipe are crazy ranges, but only if targets are standing still, again because of the tracking loss, and while you can use TE's to boost it, then you won't the MFS to give you the damage you need cause the alpha on rails will still be low. The Eagle may have hope as a ASB Blaster Brawler, with its double Opt range bonus, which would be nasty, but still I don't see any clear path for AHACs.

What happen to the ship Lines that we were going to get, or is that only for the Tech ones? I can see where the Ishtar line up in and Attack Line like the Mrym and Domi. But the Deimos doesn't fit Combat ships which are tanker than attack ships and it doesn't fit Attack ships because it lacks speed or means to apply its DPS.

I think that all the HAC have to be put into line to show what their is. I also think that I would CCP with the rebalance so that have goals that they want ach ship to do. Right now outside the Zealot, Ishtar, and Cerb there doesn't seem to be a clear goal for the ship. They don't specialize in any one area, until other T2 ships, Black Op, EWAR, and Logi. I know that are meant to be Assault Ships, but with the new Medium Turret Buff, I think they are too much like ABC's. HAC's need to have their ID over other ships.

CCP Rise, could you please put the HACs into the ship lines so we could better see what you were thinking and have a better way of looking at them.

Blasters for life

https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com