These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Hyperion] Heavy Assault Cruiser tweaks

First post First post First post
Author
Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#481 - 2014-07-30 08:27:54 UTC
Azure Rayl wrote:
Why not drop the ishtar's drone bandwidth to 100mbit/sec . Nothing else would need to be changed then :P


Because ships are not balanced according to how they perform in a 1v1. In a fleet fight, the change you are suggesting makes virtually no difference.

Blobskillz McBlub
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#482 - 2014-07-30 08:30:58 UTC
what the Tempest needs is a tracking bonus. remove the damage bonus and make it a tracking bonus keep the ROF bonus. 7/6/6 slotlayout to go with this and you got yourself a great ship.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#483 - 2014-07-30 08:40:10 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Azure Rayl wrote:
Why not drop the ishtar's drone bandwidth to 100mbit/sec . Nothing else would need to be changed then :P


Because ships are not balanced according to how they perform in a 1v1. In a fleet fight, the change you are suggesting makes virtually no difference.




This.

I suspect many of the posters here haven't been in a scrap with...let's call it 30+ Ishtars.

"Pop the drones" - There are 150 all over the place, good luck with that. And they have spares.
"Drones are static" - Great so we have 30 ishtars doing turns for 2km/s burning away from their drones with reduced MWD sig. Because, you know, that's easy to stop or hold them down. And they'll totally not pull you into drone optimals.


The counter to a modestly sized ishtar fleet is to utterly, utterly blob them to death (and perhaps/probably depending on how heavy you blob still lose on isk) or bring more ishtars.
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#484 - 2014-07-30 08:50:24 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:

1: All ECM's need to start functioning against drone carriers. A jammed ship loses it's signal to the drones makes sense. Let's implement it. Tracking disrupters should also translate over to drones. If people could use a tracking disrupter to cut the range of Ishtar sentries we would not even be having a discussion on Ishtar nerfing. This topic also carries over to the next one because....
probably you intended to write "drone ships", but your slipped term exposes a slight problem with this proposal: carriers (the worst sentry offenders, worse than ishtars) are ewar immune.
we need a solution that works on carriers too.
Quote:

2: Drones currently don't use ammo. That's fine. They need that to function in the game. But you know what else doesn't use ammo? Lasers. You know what they use as ammo? Cap!

drone _ARE_ ammo.
or do you want the simmetry to be complete and make lasers be outside their ship, have separated hp and explode when somebody looks at them funny?
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#485 - 2014-07-30 08:53:19 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
After digging into this we were both happy and a bit surprised to find that there weren't a lot of clear changes needed. Battleships especially seem to be in a pretty solid place.

And by "solid" you mean essentially relegated to missions, incursions and null-sec fleets...? Battleships need a serious buff to overall hitpoints to even begin to offset the various nerfs - in particular, the huge hit to warp speed. You can solo in a strategic cruiser or command ship - but it's basically suicide to venture outside of high-sec in a battleship.

and for "battleships relegated to incursions" you mean "three pirate hull"
nobody uses anything else than vindi, mach and nightmares in incursions.
recent changes put even marauders out of incursions favored ships.
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#486 - 2014-07-30 08:59:41 UTC
Sakura Nihil wrote:
Why can't we push off the changes that affect ship bonuses and the like until after the tournament? I thought that was the whole point of this 6-week patch release schedule, so that if something wasn't ready, or would cause adverse consequences for gameplay, it could be delayed.

Glad to see CCP management appreciates our hard work trying to put on a good show.

rule 1: adapt or die.
Colt Blackhawk
Doomheim
#487 - 2014-07-30 09:02:16 UTC
My 5cents because I have been in many Ishtar fleet with Mordus Angels and Triumvirate.
This nerf is not enough. Ishtar is op as f...

I have been in 80+ Ishtar fleets with scimi support and we fought something like 50 caps (dreads and archons) + whole 80 or 100+ baltec bs fleet plus frig tackle fleet at once and we killed a ton of bs, several caps and tons of frigs with losing almost nothing.
After that enemies countered shield Ishtars with Navpocs and it worked really well. So everyone switched to armor Ishtars.
Honestly there was a time "Ishtar 24/7 "without even considering flying another hac. I was really tired of Ishtars :(
There are strategies about countering Ishtars fleets, yes. But in total this ship is far too op.
Get down drone tracking to 2.5% per level and we shall see. But down tp 5% is really not enough.

Muninn needs love like hell. Buff it more.

[09:04:53] Ashira Twilight > Plant the f****** amarr flag and s*** on their smoking wrecks.

Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#488 - 2014-07-30 09:07:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Valleria Darkmoon
I have to be honest here, I HATE the Ishtar, despite the fact I'm well skilled for it. I can't stand "minion" style gameplay in any game and EVE is no different in that regard. I like drones as a supplemental as opposed to a primary tool for the ship I fly. (Note that this is my own personal feeling and I'm not suggesting drone ships shouldn't exist, I'm just saying I personally don't like them, no matter how strong they are and find it a little frustrating that most fleets call for Ishtars as the ships of the line because there is so little that compares and I am willing to put aside my personal feelings for the benefit of my group). I'm glad to see it getting nerfed because I don't like it being practically the default ship and tbh I fly support when I can, just to not have to be in one. That being said I can't see this change significantly affecting its appeal, and on top of it all I think it's one of the ugliest hulls in the game, at least if it was pretty my dislike of it might be mitigated in some way.

The best way I can think of to sum it up is like this. Seeing the results of the HAC changes after they'd been live a few months made me think of The Justice League from DC Comics. Most of the HACs are like Batman, competent and good at what they do but forever locked in the shadow of the far superior Superman (who obsoletes every other member of the team) for any of the heavy lifting, so to speak. Well the Ishtar is Superman, does fine for damage projection and application, can be nano and shield tanked or heavy and armor tanked and all variants of it are tough to beat. The Ishtar may not be the stand out best at every conceivable combat role but as an overall package nothing else comes close.

I would really like to see other ships being competitive choices with the Ishtar and while this is a step in the right direction I think there's a few stairs left to climb. A big part of the issue though is that the highs on the Ishtar are somewhat irrelevant often being fit with small guns if any at all or downsized modules allowing a large part of the fitting to be devoted to making a really strong tank. The issue is that with drone ships there is no direct way or addressing this short of removing slots and I don't want to suggest that either.

I had a very fleeting thought at one point where I thought it'd be neat if T2 combat hulls only got T2 resist profiles on their primary tanking method which at least would probably make sense from a lore perspective, why would the Amarr bother to boost the shield resistance output of a Vengeance or Sacrilege when they are so focused on strong armor that it's just assumed the shields will fly off at the first sign of danger, presumably it takes a lot of extra effort to strengthen the shields as well as the armor. So Amarr/Gallente would get T2 resists on armor only and Caldari/Minmatar would get T2 shield resists only, but from a game perspective some of these ships are setup so they can work either way and I'd hate to see some of those variants removed as viable options because of a change like that (Minmatar particularly is rarely so clean cut). Though in the Ishtar's case it would have made shield fits unappealing since they'd have to deal with a standard T1 resistance profile on their shields so at least it could have freed up some roles where the Ishtar is clearly not boss. Would it be worth removing the unorthodox fits to get at the Ishtar?

I'm inclined to say no, but it might be possible to convince me otherwise (see stated bias above).

Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.

Vulfen
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#489 - 2014-07-30 09:14:35 UTC
I like the changes you have put on here Rise

a 8-4-7 Tempest is good aswell, however i would like to mention that this should apply to the Republic Fleet Tempest aswell as the vanilla.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#490 - 2014-07-30 09:20:34 UTC
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:
I would really like to see other ships being competitive choices with the Ishtar and while this is a step in the right direction I think there's a few stairs left to climb. A big part of the issue though is that the highs on the Ishtar are somewhat irrelevant often being fit with small guns if any at all or downsized modules allowing a large part of the fitting to be devoted to making a really strong tank. The issue is that with drone ships there is no direct way or addressing this short of removing slots and I don't want to suggest that either.



You could take away the control range bonus forcing fitting DLAII which are not light on CPU and potentially tweak CPU to suit.

Slots remain the same, but for extreme ranges you hammer the CPU.

(Not run numbers, might not be workable)
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad
WE FORM V0LTA
#491 - 2014-07-30 09:22:21 UTC
Vulfen wrote:
I like the changes you have put on here Rise

a 8-4-7 Tempest is good aswell, however i would like to mention that this should apply to the Republic Fleet Tempest aswell as the vanilla.



I'd rather not. Tempest fleet issue is 8-5-7, why would you want to nerf it that hard?
Maeltstome
Academy of the Unseen Arts
#492 - 2014-07-30 09:23:54 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Battleships especially seem to be in a pretty solid place....
PS - how would you feel about an 8/4/7 Tempest?


Battleships are in an awful place right now. Small to Medium scale (100v100 ish) battles are almost always in T3's, Hac's and Logi with assorted tackle.

BS Damage application is problematic - The dominix using sentry drones gets around this. I understand that when you are testing, undocking in a Battleship and fighting a few people doesn't get to the root of why BS's aren't being used.

BS's are slow to warp and position - this means that they almost never fight on their own terms - the enemy choses the engagement. BS size weapons have a projection advantage over smaller weapons, but T2/T3 hulls general have a range bonus on weapons, making them equally effective at longer ranges, but with massive tracking advantages.

Next is the HP Values: T3's especially can reach insane levels of EHP with a very small amount of fitting slots required. BS's don't distinguish themself enough in terms of raw HP (Either because BS HP is to low or T2/3 cruisers is too high)

Finally logistics - a packaged BS is 50,000M³ - a Packaged cruiser/T3 is 5,000M³. Especially now with the changes to Jump Fuel and reprocessing values, this NEEDS to be lowered. It's not even slightly practical for large scale fleets to be moved around in 0.0 - cruiser fleets are disposable and logistically sound. This change alone might make BS more popular. BS are supposed to be the fleet shipss, right? How come people mostly use them for PVE and jumping 1v10 into gatecamps of battlecruisers to record their latest PVP video?

P.S.

Tempest 7-5-7. 1 Utility high is enough, but that 5th Mid means ECCM, SEBO, W/E. Otherwise i'd probably just stay with the Megathron.
Vulfen
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#493 - 2014-07-30 09:35:25 UTC
Schmell wrote:
Vulfen wrote:
I like the changes you have put on here Rise

a 8-4-7 Tempest is good aswell, however i would like to mention that this should apply to the Republic Fleet Tempest aswell as the vanilla.



I'd rather not. Tempest fleet issue is 8-5-7, why would you want to nerf it that hard?


What i meant was another low slot for the RF Pest i.e 8-4-8
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#494 - 2014-07-30 09:37:14 UTC
Vulfen wrote:
Schmell wrote:
Vulfen wrote:
I like the changes you have put on here Rise

a 8-4-7 Tempest is good aswell, however i would like to mention that this should apply to the Republic Fleet Tempest aswell as the vanilla.



I'd rather not. Tempest fleet issue is 8-5-7, why would you want to nerf it that hard?


What i meant was another low slot for the RF Pest i.e 8-4-8


pretty bland, having so many ships with the same slot layout.
Harreeb Alls
Defenders of Red Stars Blue Line
Nec Aspera Terrent
#495 - 2014-07-30 09:45:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Harreeb Alls
I feel battlecruisers and battleships are in dire need of a balance pass. Many BC's are completely obsoleted by faction cruisers. The issue with BC's and BS is their speed and damage application is pathetic in a world where everything is going 2k to 5k per second.

Oracles, Tornadoes, Talos, and Naga's are still good, but Drakes, Hurricanes, Harbingers, and Brutix are in a terrible spot. They lack speed, agility, dmg projection, and damage application. (All the things that faction cruisers excel at ) You have to scram web most stuff just to be able to apply any dmg to it, and you can't catch anything because you're way too slow. You can't run because you align like a brick. So if your enemy has you outnumbered/outgunned you die in a fire, if you outnumber or outgun them, they leave.

BS's at least have big drone bays so you can actually do dmg to things, but if your not in a dominix your drones aren't actually doing much dmg. They have the same problems as BC's only much worse. The only thing I see BS's doing nowadays in pvp is smart-bombing pods or pipe-bombing frigate fleets.

The armageddon with it's neut bonus's was a stroke of genius. You should perhaps consider giving other BS's some ewar bonus's. Perhaps give the minny BS's a web or paint role bonus, the gallente a point/scram range bonus. The caldari and amarr both have ewar BS's.

The sniper BC's, Tech 3's, Faction cruisers, and T2 cruisers make flying a BC or BS gang non-viable. There is nothing balanced about it.


Then again, why even field a battleships gang, you'll just get into a fight and hear "They lit a cyno"
Maeltstome
Academy of the Unseen Arts
#496 - 2014-07-30 09:47:37 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Vulfen wrote:
Schmell wrote:
Vulfen wrote:
I like the changes you have put on here Rise

a 8-4-7 Tempest is good aswell, however i would like to mention that this should apply to the Republic Fleet Tempest aswell as the vanilla.



I'd rather not. Tempest fleet issue is 8-5-7, why would you want to nerf it that hard?


What i meant was another low slot for the RF Pest i.e 8-4-8


pretty bland, having so many ships with the same slot layout.


Regular Pest: 7-5-7, same stats as now
Fleet Pest: 8-5-7, 7 guns, 5% Damage, 10% Falloff per level.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#497 - 2014-07-30 09:50:03 UTC
Blobskillz McBlub wrote:
what the Tempest needs is a tracking bonus. remove the damage bonus and make it a tracking bonus keep the ROF bonus. 7/6/6 slotlayout to go with this and you got yourself a great ship.



NO NO NO trackign bonus is a HORRIBLE bonus on AC. You are alwasy in falloff up to a point that more damage bonus or a falloff bonus would do effectively MORE dps even to a target trayign to outtrack you.

Also if you drop the damage bonusthe temepst will do less damage than most battlecruisers.

Stop with this nonsesne ideas that were not even submited to some math.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#498 - 2014-07-30 09:51:54 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Vulfen wrote:
Schmell wrote:
Vulfen wrote:
I like the changes you have put on here Rise

a 8-4-7 Tempest is good aswell, however i would like to mention that this should apply to the Republic Fleet Tempest aswell as the vanilla.



I'd rather not. Tempest fleet issue is 8-5-7, why would you want to nerf it that hard?


What i meant was another low slot for the RF Pest i.e 8-4-8


pretty bland, having so many ships with the same slot layout.


Regular Pest: 7-5-7, same stats as now
Fleet Pest: 8-5-7, 7 guns, 5% Damage, 10% Falloff per level.


so you add a falloff bonus, but it still has absolutely no damage at all. this is a projectiles problem and a tempest problem. I think there should be changes to both.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#499 - 2014-07-30 09:52:57 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Vulfen wrote:
Schmell wrote:
Vulfen wrote:
I like the changes you have put on here Rise

a 8-4-7 Tempest is good aswell, however i would like to mention that this should apply to the Republic Fleet Tempest aswell as the vanilla.



I'd rather not. Tempest fleet issue is 8-5-7, why would you want to nerf it that hard?


What i meant was another low slot for the RF Pest i.e 8-4-8


pretty bland, having so many ships with the same slot layout.


Regular Pest: 7-5-7, same stats as now
Fleet Pest: 8-5-7, 7 guns, 5% Damage, 10% Falloff per level.



must be rof not damage. AC have reduced base DPS because they expect a ROF bonus. Yet it woudl still ahve a too much reduced damage on a ship that laready have low damage.

At the battleship rebalance thread I made the calculations. You would need 7 guns and 6% Rof bonus to keep the same damage potential.



Tempest could keep current layout IF the current damage bonus was increased.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#500 - 2014-07-30 09:55:32 UTC
Harreeb Alls wrote:
I feel battlecruisers and battleships are in dire need of a balance pass. Many BC's are completely obsoleted by faction cruisers. The issue with BC's and BS is their speed and damage application is pathetic in a world where everything is going 2k to 5k per second.

Oracles, Tornadoes, Talos, and Naga's are still good, but Drakes, Hurricanes, Harbingers, and Brutix are in a terrible spot. They lack speed, agility, dmg projection, and damage application. (All the things that faction cruisers excel at ) You have to scram web most stuff just to be able to apply any dmg to it, and you can't catch anything because you're way too slow. You can't run because you align like a brick. So if your enemy has you outnumbered/outgunned you die in a fire, if you outnumber or outgun them, they leave.

BS's at least have big drone bays so you can actually do dmg to things, but if your not in a dominix your drones aren't actually doing much dmg. They have the same problems as BC's only much worse. The only thing I see BS's doing nowadays in pvp is smart-bombing pods or pipe-bombing frigate fleets.

The armageddon with it's neut bonus's was a stroke of genius. You should perhaps consider giving other BS's some ewar bonus's. Perhaps give the minny BS's a web or paint role bonus, the gallente a point/scram range bonus. The caldari and amarr both have ewar BS's.

The sniper BC's, Tech 3's, Faction cruisers, and T2 cruisers make flying a BC or BS gang non-viable. There is nothing balanced about it.


Then again, why even field a battleships gang, you'll just get into a fight and hear "They lit a cyno"


LEave dumb paint bonuses outside battleships. Its already very hard to convince a Cruiser pilot to bring a target painter. You would just make the tempest even worse witha TP bonus when its the battleship that LEAST bennefit from TP the target.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"