These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Devon Weeks
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1781 - 2013-08-07 23:00:16 UTC
Quote:
Its completly capstable with mwd on, it fits easily with ions (2 medium reppers + medium cap booster need less grid then a 1600 plate) and rails track nearly any cruiser (mabye not a loki linked vaga with halos) perfectly at 20km, no matter its transversal.


And, fighting with ions at that range makes it vulnerable to any number of tactics. What you've just laid out isn't something we haven't dealt with and countered before.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1782 - 2013-08-07 23:04:29 UTC
Ions at that range? 1.9 +7.5km with antimatter is perfetct range for a brawl at 500 tpye of cruiser.

It also is shared by all blaster ships. And that argument is completely irrelevant, it doesnt matter that you can counter a brawler, if that brawler is op compared to other brawlers its op, not fine.
Devon Weeks
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1783 - 2013-08-07 23:13:53 UTC
Quote:
Ions at that range? 1.9 +7.5km with antimatter is perfetct range for a brawl at 500 tpye of cruiser.It also is shared by all blaster ships. And that argument is completely irrelevant, it doesnt matter that you can counter a brawler, if that brawler is op compared to other brawlers its op, not fine.


Compared to which brawlers is it OP? Compared to ASB brawlers with their cap-free activation? Compared to a brawling battleship? Something is going to be the "best" cruiser brawler. It sounds like you're upset that it might just be the Deimos. And, I'm not even sure it will be the best.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1784 - 2013-08-07 23:36:57 UTC
If there is a best one it is beeing done wrong that is the very meaning of op, also asb brawlers suck, you have to take the eft value and divide it through 2-4 so you get the actual tanking value (you only have 1 booster running at a time, so half it and most asbs dont run for very lomg only 36 seconds for a large one for example while the reload is 60 secs so to get the sustained number you need to nearly half it yet again), a deimos does as said 500+ dps and tanks 1k dps has full tackle, a dual asb eagle tanks 550dps sustained and deals less then 500dps.

If you think any sort of asb tank bar on a vaga is op you are beeing delusional.


You argument basicely is, yes it will be op but thats ok.
Devon Weeks
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1785 - 2013-08-07 23:46:47 UTC
No. My argument is that Eve doesn't want or need perfect balance and that having a best in category is just fine. If everything could get identical performance, this game would be boring.
Romar Thel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1786 - 2013-08-07 23:50:46 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Another small update

Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45)
Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)



ok, and where is the actual boosting?
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1787 - 2013-08-08 00:30:30 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
If there is a best one it is beeing done wrong that is the very meaning of op, also asb brawlers suck, you have to take the eft value and divide it through 2-4 so you get the actual tanking value (you only have 1 booster running at a time, so half it and most asbs dont run for very lomg only 36 seconds for a large one for example while the reload is 60 secs so to get the sustained number you need to nearly half it yet again), a deimos does as said 500+ dps and tanks 1k dps has full tackle, a dual asb eagle tanks 550dps sustained and deals less then 500dps.

If you think any sort of asb tank bar on a vaga is op you are beeing delusional.


You argument basicely is, yes it will be op but thats ok.


I would aruge that the Eagle is teribly under powered, not that the deimos is over powered.
Av Ra
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1788 - 2013-08-08 01:25:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Av Ra
Devon Weeks wrote:
Really? We're still on this "Diemost is OP tank" kick? Maybe people should do the math on what you're giving up in order to fit this 1k dps tank. Powergrid is still the choke point on the Deimos and forces you to make tough choices between tank and gank. I think it's pretty balanced now. If it face melts with neutrons, it's a couple of good alpha strikes away from death. If you go with a plate or full buffer, you have little to no margin for error in getting position on your target with your electron blasters. If you shield kite, anything firing EM damage at 40km is going to eat you alive, and a shield resistance tank is not the greatest without another slot.. The Deimos didn't get a little buff to tank and an active tank bonus and magically transform into a Proteus. This idea that it is now OP it a result of people considering its fullest potential in every category while not considering that it can't meet them all at once.


This guy gets it.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1789 - 2013-08-08 02:21:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
a dual asb eagle tanks 550dps sustained


You managed to leave out the fact that running the asbs don't take cap, you know.... One of the most important features of the modules? Obviously that has no relevance in a comparison of brawling setups that engage at ranges which expose them to all size of nuets tho, right?!.... (I'm being facetious on that lest part btw)

So please do us all a favor and don't straw man the "argument" of someone when you yourself are being dishonest in the comparison...




P.S. I'll be waiting for your straw man claiming that "I think the Eagle is fine".
Alex Tutuola
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1790 - 2013-08-08 04:17:32 UTC
Eagle is not fine. It needs a signature reduction and speed increase to be anywhere near a viable fleet ship. Otherwise, HAC fleets will remain zealot only, as it is the only ship that performs at the ranges, damages, and sig to speed ratios necessary to compete with attack battlecruisers. I am not arguing for it to become a solo/small gang boat (though I'm certain you could try to make it so), but if it is to show up in any doctrine ships in the future, it needs a base signature of 125, and base speed of 200 m/s.

You have stated, Rise, that you intend the eagle to be a fleet ship. Please alter its stats so that it can effectively do so. Thank you.

I feel like a broken record, but clearly it has to be repeated if the devs are going to see it.
Devon Weeks
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1791 - 2013-08-08 05:20:20 UTC
Quote:
Eagle is not fine. It needs a signature reduction and speed increase to be anywhere near a viable fleet ship. Otherwise, HAC fleets will remain zealot only, as it is the only ship that performs at the ranges, damages, and sig to speed ratios necessary to compete with attack battlecruisers. I am not arguing for it to become a solo/small gang boat (though I'm certain you could try to make it so), but if it is to show up in any doctrine ships in the future, it needs a base signature of 125, and base speed of 200 m/s.

You have stated, Rise, that you intend the eagle to be a fleet ship. Please alter its stats so that it can effectively do so. Thank you.

I feel like a broken record, but clearly it has to be repeated if the devs are going to see it.


What are your criteria for a fleet ship? It did get a pretty substantial powergrid boost and an extra midslot. It has a pretty high sensor strength, and its sig radius isn't all that high. I could see these ships playing a couple of roles in fleets. Like most ships, their natural strengths have to be considered, and what you're going up against is more likely to determine whether it is viable than what the Eagle itself is capable of.
Alex Tutuola
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1792 - 2013-08-08 05:36:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex Tutuola
Devon Weeks wrote:
Quote:
Eagle is not fine. It needs a signature reduction and speed increase to be anywhere near a viable fleet ship. Otherwise, HAC fleets will remain zealot only, as it is the only ship that performs at the ranges, damages, and sig to speed ratios necessary to compete with attack battlecruisers. I am not arguing for it to become a solo/small gang boat (though I'm certain you could try to make it so), but if it is to show up in any doctrine ships in the future, it needs a base signature of 125, and base speed of 200 m/s.

You have stated, Rise, that you intend the eagle to be a fleet ship. Please alter its stats so that it can effectively do so. Thank you.

I feel like a broken record, but clearly it has to be repeated if the devs are going to see it.


What are your criteria for a fleet ship? It did get a pretty substantial powergrid boost and an extra midslot. It has a pretty high sensor strength, and its sig radius isn't all that high. I could see these ships playing a couple of roles in fleets. Like most ships, their natural strengths have to be considered, and what you're going up against is more likely to determine whether it is viable than what the Eagle itself is capable of.



It needs a better speed to signature ratio if it's going to beat an ABC fleet in equal numbers. It doesn't have the range to just snipe said fleet, as they are using battleship weapons. The current sig radius doesn't look that bad, but consider that after fittings, it's going to have 190m from a dual LSE (as seems to be the point of another mid and additional PG) before factoring in the effect of shield rigs. If kept to single LSE, that starts you at 165m before rigs. With an afterburner active, you are still slower than the 1600mm plated HACs.

It will never be able to fight a zealot fleet on equal terms, so the speed/sig ratio isn't going to affect that. Eagle fleet takes range or dies, because the zealot fleet enjoys the benefits of short range tracking. I'm not asking it to beat the zealot on equal terms. That fight is going to come down to which fleet has the better commander and/or interdictor pilots.

However, when Rise says he wants the eagle to be a "fleet ship", I have to assume that we're not talking about blasters here. It's going to need to take lesser damage from battleship class weapons. If it doesn't get that boost, it will never* make it into a large fleet.

* Unless Black Legion takes that as a challenge and starts kicking everybody's butts with eagles instead of muninns.

EDIT: Pound for pound is probably a bad analogy when discussing a cruiser fighting a battlecruiser.
Devon Weeks
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1793 - 2013-08-08 05:59:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Devon Weeks
Quote:
It needs a better speed to signature ratio if it's going to beat an ABC fleet pound for pound.


I think part of problem is that you're expecting it do something it just isn't meant to do. Battlecruisers in general are sort of the natural predator of cruiser hulls.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1794 - 2013-08-08 07:17:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassius Invictus
Lucien Cain wrote:


Now my 2 Cents. I'm aware that the 4th Mid of the SAC has it's uses, just as all Midslots are usually a good addition to a ships overall capabilities. Now looking at the SAC what Role does it actually fill? Where does it truly shine in comparison to other HACs in a specific Role? As said before it's pretty much a Jack of all trades without specific strengths or weaknesses. While many seem to be ok with that i personally see this as being simply boring and uninspired.

This is what i propose.
High - 6 Slots
Mid - 3 Slots
Low - 6 Slots

Since the SAC has built in it's amazing Cap-reload capabilities, a 4th Mid commonly used for Cap Injectors (assuming the rest is used for MWD, WEB, SCRAM) would be pretty much useless. It would also create a certain Balance of clear defined Strengths(Tank+Attack) and Weaknesses (against the buffed Nosferatus and already awesome Neuts). With such a change there would be no denying that this is a Heavy Brawler. One Mid less would balance it out decently without creating an overpowered PWN-Machine.


To add my two cents to your comment and my other comments I think that the problem with SAC (and our discussion on slot layout) derives from the fact that we do see a clear role for SAC. Its current version is more geared towards solo or small gang pvp. In this case a 4th mid slot is essential, and the utility hi slot is also good. For normal gangs (10+) those slots are useless however. Sac is there to gank and tank and only this ration matters. Also it doesn’t need cap injections so no 4th mid slot - it will be buffer tank (also sorry guys for criticizing you earlier for cap booster use - I had buffer tank only Sac picture in my head :)).

So it is a job for CCP to give it a well-defined role (and in current state it doesn’t have it). In my opinion it should be a fleet ship as amarr are generally not good solo (they are too slow for that), although Sac was a notable exception. I see it as a close range heavy brawler that has less dps than Deimos but much more tank. So again - remove either hi or mid slot and add 6th low.

CCP pls don’t make it the jack of all trades ship - it’s against your own philosophy to specialize t2 ships.
Alex Tutuola
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1795 - 2013-08-08 08:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex Tutuola
Devon Weeks wrote:


I think part of problem is that you're expecting it do something it just isn't meant to do. Battlecruisers in general are sort of the natural predator of cruiser hulls.


This is true, when discussing battlecruisers wielding the same class of weaponry. However, I don't think it's asking too much for a cruiser class vessel to outrun battleship guns with an afterburner on. The zealot seems to have this going for it. Considering that the zealot received almost no changes so far, it seems to be the bar. Even with the changes I propose, it will not compete with the zealot in its own arena. It won't compete right now with attack battlecruisers. What, then, are you suggesting it is supposed to be fighting? It has no drone bay, so it isn't going to do well fighting down a class. It hasn't the speed to skirmish. It has the possibility to mount a tank relevant to HAC fleets, but is too big and slow to compete there, in addition to tracking issues in optimal against other HACs.

Since it needs long range weapons to make full use of its bonuses, it isn't going to get much benefit from blasters. That being so, it won't have the tracking to compete with assault frigate fleets. Since you are arguing against it being able to outrun battleship weapons, that leaves us with a ship that can't fight it's own size, larger, or smaller.

What are you suggesting it is to be used for?
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1796 - 2013-08-08 08:37:58 UTC
Romar Thel wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Another small update

Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45)
Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)



ok, and where is the actual boosting?



with skills its quite a bit though i would have hoped for about 10 pg more
Devon Weeks
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1797 - 2013-08-08 08:57:35 UTC
Quote:
What are you suggesting it is to be used for?


Well, before we get deep into analysis of the ship, have you crunched the numbers to figure out its new dps with the updated rails or its maximum range? I think the combination of the hull with the new rails are going to be pivotal in pinning down this ship's role.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
Ushra'Khan
#1798 - 2013-08-08 09:33:14 UTC
Alex Tutuola wrote:
Devon Weeks wrote:


I think part of problem is that you're expecting it do something it just isn't meant to do. Battlecruisers in general are sort of the natural predator of cruiser hulls.


This is true, when discussing battlecruisers wielding the same class of weaponry. However, I don't think it's asking too much for a cruiser class vessel to outrun battleship guns with an afterburner on. The zealot seems to have this going for it. Considering that the zealot received almost no changes so far, it seems to be the bar. Even with the changes I propose, it will not compete with the zealot in its own arena. It won't compete right now with attack battlecruisers. What, then, are you suggesting it is supposed to be fighting? It has no drone bay, so it isn't going to do well fighting down a class. It hasn't the speed to skirmish. It has the possibility to mount a tank relevant to HAC fleets, but is too big and slow to compete there, in addition to tracking issues in optimal against other HACs.

Since it needs long range weapons to make full use of its bonuses, it isn't going to get much benefit from blasters. That being so, it won't have the tracking to compete with assault frigate fleets. Since you are arguing against it being able to outrun battleship weapons, that leaves us with a ship that can't fight it's own size, larger, or smaller.

What are you suggesting it is to be used for?


what about a supplementation for ABC-sniper fleets (as you seem very focussed on them?)
eagle should easily achieve similar ranges, at which it actually won't need much tracking. compared to its ABC-brethren it has additionally a smaller signature resolution, so way better dmg-application at range.
it could easily pick frigs apart who try to burn to your fleet in order to get a warp-in.
from the looks of it, the eagle could be a better supplement to naga fleets then the muninn is right now.

when compare the eagle to the zealot, you kind of have to consider, that the eagle is already more agile than zealot before tank. with tank this can only get more pronounced and complaning, that a caldari ship isn't made for signature tanking is just hilarious :)

DeadDuck
Gladiators of Rage
Goonswarm Federation
#1799 - 2013-08-08 09:42:48 UTC
Romar Thel wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Another small update

Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45)
Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)



ok, and where is the actual boosting?



Shocked
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1800 - 2013-08-08 10:17:11 UTC
Devon Weeks wrote:
No. My argument is that Eve doesn't want or need perfect balance and that having a best in category is just fine. If everything could get identical performance, this game would be boring.


Get out, you have nothing to say in a balancing thread, and with that attitude nothing you say should be taken seriously.