These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#701 - 2013-07-30 15:13:13 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:


Telling you that you are wrong isn't an insult.

Calm down, your rage is irritating.


I used the exact same language that you used.

If you don't like it then don't start it.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#702 - 2013-07-30 15:14:48 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


The dumbest things I have seen so far is you. Ships should never be balanced on how much they cost ever because no matter how much that cost is we can afford it.



Spoken by someone who has not paid for a ship in years, or has a personal cash flow measured in the hundreds of millions / day, at the very least.



I think its just a troll. He is well aware his alliance dropped the tempest fleet issue doctrine because it wasn't cost effective. He may have even been the one who made that decision.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#703 - 2013-07-30 15:17:02 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I don't have an ETA for Singularity unfortunately. We are having some trouble getting stuff moved there atm and we aren't sure when it will be resolved completely. Will be before 1.1 release of course, so hopefully theres enough time for us to react a bit to sisi testing before it goes live.

My position on the Vagabond remains relatively unchanged. Its the second most popular HAC after Zealot currently, doing about as much damage per day in PVP as Maelstrom or Apocalypse or Maller or Omen or Cyclone. From there we are giving it significant buffs in this pass in the form of mitigation through the role bonus, added cap recharge, added electronics stats, and a new free bonus to shield boosting. I'm happy to concede that the Cynabal makes it seem like the Vaga should be better, but as I've said, this is a problem with the Cynabal not the Vaga. I think the Vaga is probably at the very bottom of the list of HACs that I would worry about.


well the fact that a cyna can fit 425's which give another 9km range is a big issue surely????

Here is some tweaks for you:
- make blaster eagle viable .. a lot more speed, stronger damage bonus, a 5th low, lower sig
- Deimos - needs more tank , lower sig, bigger falloff bonus/replace mwd bonus
- Zealot - more speed small dronebay
- Sacrilege- 6th low , more dps, more speed, HM is odd bonus, lower sig
- Ishtar - at least 200 m/s should be basic for HAC's, strange bonus separation just reduce sentry bonus, reduce sig
- Cerb - nerf HAM range already make javs worth using and replace flight time with explosion velocity bonus, reduce sig

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
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#704 - 2013-07-30 15:17:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:


Except not all of us are still running incursions in 5b Nightmares Roll

That just proves that the only people who would fly these "buffed" HACs are the stupid and the stupidly rich.


3 hours in an anom or level 4 mission then.


3 hours of grinding for a HAC that is marginally better than a T1 cruiser that takes 15 minutes of grinding or a Faction cruiser that takes an hour of grinding.

Which would you pick?

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#705 - 2013-07-30 15:17:59 UTC
Cearain wrote:



I think its just a troll. He is well aware his alliance dropped the tempest fleet issue doctrine because it wasn't cost effective. He may have even been the one who made that decision.


Actually I was they guy in the navy Megathron.
Meytal
Doomheim
#706 - 2013-07-30 15:20:57 UTC
jonnykefka wrote:
Dear Rise and/or Fozzie,

Quick point from the perspective of people who actually fight in W-space: These are basically useless to us next to the Tech 3.

These are great if you can dictate range. If you jump through a gate and already have 10k on the gate, and are expecting people to not be sitting right on it, and have a minute before they can jump back if they aggress, yeah, these will work great, I like them for that.

We need ships that can jump through a wormhole into a fleet sitting at zero, appear within 5km, and not instantly die. Right now that's the tech 3, and mostly the proteus. We were hoping that with the HAC rebalance, we would have some kind of alternative options. We do not.

If the T3 rebalance also makes them so tankless that they become too fragile to jump into a hostile fleet, we don't really have reason to jump through a hole unless we vastly outnumber the enemy force. If it doesn't, then we still have no alternatives to the T3, and yeah, we know that some T3 fits right now are kind of broken.

As much as W-space PvP is a minority compared to k-space pvp, in rebalancing cruiser-sized ships, and T2 and T3 ships in particular, please do keep us in mind. You don't have to tailor them to our needs, but it would be nice if we ended up with cruiser-sized ships that were remotely functional when they jump through a WH and brawl at 0. The sacrilege is the closest to that of this set, and just put that next to a HAM legion to realize how inadequate it really is.

Just keep us in mind.

Regards,

Wormhole PVP

The right tool for the job. You wouldn't bring a HAC to any kind of a decent (W-space) fleet fight because of the reasons you mentioned. For a capital fight/gank, or a fleet fight, leave the T2s at home and go with the heavier T3s. Even the high-dps command ships should probably stay in the SMA because they're a little flimsy, though you might bring some of them to a capital gank where you wouldn't bring a HAC.

However for a quick and dirty encounter, whether a small fleet fight or a quick gank, consider the T2 which is disposable compared to the T3, and is the primary reason I fly HACs. If things go sideways, you're out 150-200m which isn't that big of a deal. I'm happy with the upcoming Cerberus changes, and can accept the upcoming Sacrilege changes.


I do echo your sentiments about not destroying T3 cruisers. We need the ability to fit for DPS while sacrificing tank, or fit for tank while sacrificing DPS. I only regularly fly Amarr and Caldari, and I'm quite satisfied with where they sit right now.

Wormhole fleet fights are indeed different, one reason being that we can't cyno into the system at a safe spot and then warp as a fleet to the targets to engage. If we are entering a hostile system, we can be focus fired off the field one at a time as soon as we decloak, particularly since we have such a small radius where we land after the jump. We need the T3 ships the way they exist now.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#707 - 2013-07-30 15:21:49 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:


Except not all of us are still running incursions in 5b Nightmares Roll

That just proves that the only people who would fly these "buffed" HACs are the stupid and the stupidly rich.


3 hours in an anom or level 4 mission then.


3 hours of grinding for a HAC that is marginally better than a T1 cruiser that takes 15 minutes of grinding or a Faction cruiser that takes an hour of grinding.

Which would you pick?


Just ignore him, he's got no idea.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#708 - 2013-07-30 15:22:14 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:


3 hours of grinding for a HAC that is marginally better than a T1 cruiser that takes 15 minutes of grinding or a Faction cruiser that takes an hour of grinding.

Which would you pick?


I would choose the megathron that is over twice as expensive before fittings. The vaga will have an advantage over the t1 counterpart which is the main selling point.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#709 - 2013-07-30 15:24:31 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Danny John-Peter wrote:

So you think 170/250 DPS at 25k is fine for a range bonused T2 Cruiser which is designed to kite, you have some strange ideas.


Back before BC rebalance, the Hurricane did (and still does) about 100 dps at 25km, and everyone regarded the Hurricane as the one and only skirmish battlecruiser. With 425mm Autos and Barrage, it does 223 dps at 25km with dual gyro dual TE.

So tell me why a Vaga with dual gyro dual TE using 220mm Autos with Barrage, dealing 239 dps at 25km, flying more than twice as fast as the Hurricane, with less than a third signature radius, is bad.



because that 239dps at 25km isnt good enough to ill stuff you want to kill in a vaga.
(bigger ships than destroyers frigs or some t1 cruisers)
and to kill those you can easily fly other ships that do the same stuff better.
or do you prefere to fly a vaga just to murder frigs ?
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#710 - 2013-07-30 15:25:57 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
The cerb has been terrible for so long, that anything other than its current state people are happy with.


I wish It would get a 25m3 drone bay and/or a 10% damage bonus to all missile types.

Then it would be good.



dude.. just pay attention. Rise is even worried that cerberus is too pwoerful now. ANd with reason. I already preemptively bought a few bbecause this thing now outclasses COMPLETELY any other hac on killing BCs with impunity.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#711 - 2013-07-30 15:27:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Cearain wrote:



I think its just a troll. He is well aware his alliance dropped the tempest fleet issue doctrine because it wasn't cost effective. He may have even been the one who made that decision.


Actually I was they guy in the navy Megathron.


Did goons use a navy megathron doctrine or a regular megathron doctrine, in fountain? Are regular megas better than the navy megas?

Goons always post to nerf any ships that can't easilly be flown by noobs because getting noobs into large blobs is how they win.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#712 - 2013-07-30 15:28:34 UTC
Meytal wrote:


Wormhole fleet fights are indeed different, one reason being that we can't cyno into the system at a safe spot and then warp as a fleet to the targets to engage. If we are entering a hostile system, we can be focus fired off the field one at a time as soon as we decloak, particularly since we have such a small radius where we land after the jump. We need the T3 ships the way they exist now.


Not going to happen.
Go back and watch some of the comments by CCP dev's at Fansfest, then look at some of the comments by the likes of malcanis and mynnna. They all HATE WH's, and wish people had never colonized them.

And as an added bonus, when they destroy the T3, they are in effect nerfing the income of the wh community, as no one will be buying them, and margins drop.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#713 - 2013-07-30 15:30:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
The cerb has been terrible for so long, that anything other than its current state people are happy with.


I wish It would get a 25m3 drone bay and/or a 10% damage bonus to all missile types.

Then it would be good.



dude.. just pay attention. Rise is even worried that cerberus is too pwoerful now. ANd with reason. I already preemptively bought a few bbecause this thing now outclasses COMPLETELY any other hac on killing BCs with impunity.


How are you so sure, we can't even test the ship. Its all just guessing right about now.


Rise is worried... so what. Rise is not perfect or all knowing. Otherwise everybody wouldn't be raging so hard in this thread.


I predict that with a 15m3 drone bay, any interceptor will lock this thing down so quickly.. The cerb pilot will just log.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#714 - 2013-07-30 15:32:03 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:


Except not all of us are still running incursions in 5b Nightmares Roll

That just proves that the only people who would fly these "buffed" HACs are the stupid and the stupidly rich.


3 hours in an anom or level 4 mission then.


3 hours of grinding for a HAC that is marginally better than a T1 cruiser that takes 15 minutes of grinding or a Faction cruiser that takes an hour of grinding.

Which would you pick?


Just ignore him, he's got no idea.


Yes, I have no idea what I'm talking about, meanwhile you fly almost exclusively Cynabals and have exactly ONE kill this month.
Cause you have a far better idea than I Roll

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#715 - 2013-07-30 15:34:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:


Except not all of us are still running incursions in 5b Nightmares Roll

That just proves that the only people who would fly these "buffed" HACs are the stupid and the stupidly rich.


3 hours in an anom or level 4 mission then.


3 hours of grinding for a HAC that is marginally better than a T1 cruiser that takes 15 minutes of grinding or a Faction cruiser that takes an hour of grinding.

Which would you pick?


Just ignore him, he's got no idea.


Yes, I have no idea what I'm talking about, meanwhile you fly almost exclusively Cynabals and have exactly ONE kill this month.
Cause you have a far better idea than I Roll


wtf Shocked, I wasn't even talking about you.

and I can't play because of IRL reasons, and I've only flown one cynabal EVER which blew up a month ago P.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#716 - 2013-07-30 15:34:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:


3 hours of grinding for a HAC that is marginally better than a T1 cruiser that takes 15 minutes of grinding or a Faction cruiser that takes an hour of grinding.

Which would you pick?


I would choose the megathron that is over twice as expensive before fittings. The vaga will have an advantage over the t1 counterpart which is the main selling point.


I'm not talkign about the Vaga anymore, the main issue is ships like the Muninn.
The Vaga is ok, I'm not exactly impressed though. When CCP fiddle with the Cynabal it'll do what its supposed to.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#717 - 2013-07-30 15:38:39 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:

and I can't play because of IRL reasons, and I've only flown one cynabal EVER which blew up a month ago P.


You didn't specify who you were talking about, seemed like you were calling me out on my PVP knowledge Smile sorry for the misunderstanding.

And yea I never listen to anything coming from a Goon, they got to where they are in EVE somehow, and it wasn't by having experienced pilots in difficult to train and fly ships.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp
#718 - 2013-07-30 15:39:58 UTC
Lucien Cain wrote:
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.

I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.

I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.

This really, really needs to happen.


F...ing THIS! Just do that and the discussion concerning the SAC will be over at last.
Changing the Role Bonus into+ 25% Missile damage may work wonders aswell.


Just reposting this to make surre CCP RISE saw this
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#719 - 2013-07-30 15:45:51 UTC
RISE

I think we all would like to know if you will reduce the cost of HAC's?
Also at the rate you're going these will have no chance of becoming OP

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
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#720 - 2013-07-30 15:47:23 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hi all

Wanted to post and let you know I haven't disappeared or something, just had to go home and sleep and stuff.

I've been reading all of this and will continue to do so. I would not expect any changes at the scale of this last iteration, maybe some small tweaks after a few more days of feedback at the most.

We are a little concerned that some overpowered configurations might be popular following these changes, but I know many of you are still worried they aren't powerful enough. I'll keep reading for now and if we decide to make any changes you will be the first to know.

Thanks!



Called it... god forbid you listen to reason.