Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

[Odyssey 1.1] Heavy Assault Cruisers - round two

Jump to first DEV post
Author
Caldari State
#1341 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:10
No mention of the Eagle or Cerberus in that address at all.

I'm losing hope here for being able to fly Caldari T2 ships and not feel a massive sense of shame, between this and the Command Ships thread. At least they're trying with Gallente.

(Seriously just drop the kinetic damage bonus and turn it into a generic missile damage bonus or RoF or SOMETHING stop trying to take away one of the biggest advantages missiles have over guns, for Caldari only, while giving Amarr and Minmatar to basically have what Caldari, the 'missile specialist' faction, don't have.)
Amarr Empire
#1342 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:12
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, I'm still kind of out of it and I'll probably give another check-in here after the weekend, but here's where I stand for now:

[Generally excellent observations and comments]

Also - if you want to hear me get grilled about HACs and other things as well, tune in to EVE Radio tonight at midnight EVE time where DJ Funkybacon is going to interview me on all this stuff.

Thank you for addressing many of the points that most of the posters have been concerned about. Excellent, consise observations and explanation of reasons/reasoning.

I'd still like +2 slots, I think it would give significantly more flexibility in how each individual HAC can play to it's strength, and (imo) wouldn't be OP if there were little to no increased fitting that came with the extra slot.

Also, can you comment on the reasoning that lead the Eagle to it's current state? Is there any chance for a bit of a speed buff or change of a bonus to something more combat-friendly?

Thanks for your work!
#1343 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:13  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Also on Deimos i think the armour rep bonus makes sense but more as a kiter like the ASB Vaga so a stronger falloff bonus would make sense and please don't remove shield HP for armour it could do with more of each not less.
Please focus the Deimos on blasters like a blaster Vaga.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Shadow Cartel
#1344 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:22
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, I'm still kind of out of it and I'll probably give another check-in here after the weekend, but here's where I stand for now:

I think our biggest concern is the Deimos. While the combination of the new layout and speed, added to the rail buff probably makes for a skirmisher that will be extremely powerful, we do appreciate the fact that a lot of people feel disappointed with it as an in-your-face brawler. I think the expected performance as a brawler varies quite a bit based on what kind of PVP you like (what size etc), but I would like to push it back towards that role in some way. We want to at least give back some of the base hp in armor, maybe at the cost of some of the added shield hp. I don't have numbers for this yet but I'll get them to you guys early next week. The other thing I would really like to do is give the Deimos an armor rep bonus. I think it could fit in nicely as a replacement for the MWD cap use bonus as long as the cap recharge is high enough that the kiting fits are handicapped. This wouldn't have much affect on large fleet AHAC type application, but would open up more possibilities at small scale. It also fits really well racially compared to the cap use bonus which is sort of unusual. I'm sure a lot of you won't love an active bonus because it doesn't apply to your style of play, but it would come in at little-to-no cost and offer smaller scale fighters more diversity and a more efficient brawler.


If you want the deimos to use rails, switch it to optimal bonus so it scales better. Falloff bonus makes antimatter just better than a few other ammos, so you don't have to think about switching, but it also limits how far it can go, because the proper mid and long range ammos don't do so much for it.

Also, if you want me to shield tank my deimos, just come out and say it. Would prefer rep bonus on ishtar tbh, but yeah, rep bonus would be nice.
RAZOR Alliance
#1345 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:25  |  Edited by: Hashi Lebwohl
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, I'm still kind of out of it and I'll probably give another check-in here after the weekend, but here's where I stand for now:

.


Where do you address the Eagle - it is crap - you admit it is the worst HAC but you've had so little to say about how you intend to fix it.. Here's everything you've had to say about the poor bird https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3417222#post3417222


Nobody flies an Eagle - thus nobody really defends it because you are not taking anything away that they would miss.

Just admit you haven't a clue what to do with it and remove it from the game... or say why it should remain.. either will do.What?
#1346 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:26
CCP Rise
With the Deimos I agree more gearing toward armor is a good thing, the armor rep bonus will help it with that as well, but please change that silly falloff bonus to a tracking bonus.

About the Ishtar -1 slot, it makes no sense for drone ships to have -1 slot, drones don't have that much of an advantage and certainly no "extra" utility compared to other ships. If anything other ships have gained extra utility over drone ships with the proliferation of drone bays on ships.
  - 
#1347 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:29
Also if you want deimos to use armour reps than besides improving cap of deimos you might want to talk to fozzie about improving armour reps in general there have been many threads on just how bad it is ranging from long cycle time, huge cap consumption particularly as a single rep even AAR's aren't good enough.

on AAR's things like
- reduce reload time/ change mechanics to inject based so 75% reps and 15-20secs until nanite paste is reloaded/injected .. its nanites not massive cap boosters come on!!
- reduce cycle time .. maybe reps often but reps less so its more of a continuous repping rather than massive chunks every now and again which isn't very useful if you're a small buffer ship
- reduce powergrid
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
#1348 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:29
The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.

How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus?
Shadow Cartel
#1349 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:32
NeoNexus wrote:
The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.

How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus?


That would make it worse. Range bonuses are really great.
#1350 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:33
Danny John-Peter wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Alright, I'm still kind of out of it and I'll probably give another check-in here after the weekend, but here's where I stand for now:

Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design. The complaints range quite a bit but I think the most legitimate one is that the Vaga struggles to project damage compared to its competition (Deimos/Cerberus mostly). I think you have to accept that the Vaga has huge advantages in some other areas that should easily outweigh its slightly lower damage projection. Compared to Cerberus for instance, you have an enormous speed advantage, a utility high, and significantly lower Signature. How valuable you think these things are will vary of course, but you can't expect the Vaga to push damage out as well or it simply becomes better in all cases.



Because the new "Bonus" you gave it is terrible and won't really be used.

Ships with high speed and low EHP have to have decent applied DPS to make use of said speed, otherwise you get a ship with good disengagement options and not much else.


Also the fact that you're not allowing it to fit the top guns that the other ships get including the cynabal that adds 9km range unless you want to gimp the fit with pg rigs.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
#1351 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:35
RISE

Please talk to us about price and why with T2 prices rising would we want to spend 200mil quickly rising on ships that are worse in most ways to ABC's or even T1 cruisers?
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
#1352 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:41
TrouserDeagle wrote:
NeoNexus wrote:
The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.

How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus?


That would make it worse. Range bonuses are really great.

As a close range brawling ship falloff is just a bad tracking bonus. With blasters you will be in web range the whole time, with rails a tracking bonus is still better as rails have bad tracking.
  - 
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
#1353 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:44
TrouserDeagle wrote:
NeoNexus wrote:
The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.

How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus?


That would make it worse. Range bonuses are really great.


sure range is always nice, but given that rails will have their tracking nerfed, are you sure that it won't need it?
Shadow Cartel
#1354 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:48
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
NeoNexus wrote:
The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.

How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus?


That would make it worse. Range bonuses are really great.

As a close range brawling ship falloff is just a bad tracking bonus. With blasters you will be in web range the whole time, with rails a tracking bonus is still better as rails have bad tracking.


For rails at least, being further away means you track better, and you can use shorter range ammo for more damage, and you have a longer max range. Optimal > tracking for LR optimal guns (beams/rails).
C C P Alliance
#1355 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:52
Sorry I didn't say anything about the Caldari HACs, it's because I think they are probably both in really good shape.

We are seriously concerned that the Cerb will be too strong. The biggest issue is probably Rapid Light Missile Launchers which have incredibly damage application and projection for such a tiny fitting investment. I think its a good dynamic to be choosing between raw damage potential and application, but a rlml Cerb will be kind of insane. And in general the ship is shedding a lot of its past handicaps such as terrible speed and fitting difficulty.

The Eagle is a little harder to judge, but I think it's probably more towards the side of being too strong than being too weak. The Eagle is definitely more of a fleet ship than a small scale skirmisher, but it got much much better for that role in this pass. Added sensor stats, lower sig, added fitting, and most importantly the trade of a utility high for an extra mid means that we are expecting ahac style eagle fleets to be very strong, especially when you consider the rail buff. We'll have to see how it goes but we are not worried about the Eagle.

About the price question - I would say if its rising in price but you don't think its worth it that you shouldn't buy it, but clearly someone thinks it will be worth it. I don't think the price of HACs necessarily would be required for their power level, but I also don't think it needs to be lowered. With these changes they will more than justify the price for lots of players (me included).
@ccp_rise
#1356 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:53
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
NeoNexus wrote:
The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.

How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus?


That would make it worse. Range bonuses are really great.

As a close range brawling ship falloff is just a bad tracking bonus. With blasters you will be in web range the whole time, with rails a tracking bonus is still better as rails have bad tracking.


For rails at least, being further away means you track better, and you can use shorter range ammo for more damage, and you have a longer max range. Optimal > tracking for LR optimal guns (beams/rails).

If it was an optimal range bonus I would agree with you completely, but it is a falloff bonus which extends the range for 1/2 damage.
  - 
#1357 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:55
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
NeoNexus wrote:
The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.

How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus?


That would make it worse. Range bonuses are really great.

As a close range brawling ship falloff is just a bad tracking bonus. With blasters you will be in web range the whole time, with rails a tracking bonus is still better as rails have bad tracking.


For rails at least, being further away means you track better, and you can use shorter range ammo for more damage, and you have a longer max range. Optimal > tracking for LR optimal guns (beams/rails).


Gal will never get optimal range bonus. Ane tracking is more useful then falloff for rails as rails have terrible base falloff
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
Winter Expansion new ship request
Shadow Cartel
#1358 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:56
MeBiatch wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
NeoNexus wrote:
The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.

How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus?


That would make it worse. Range bonuses are really great.

As a close range brawling ship falloff is just a bad tracking bonus. With blasters you will be in web range the whole time, with rails a tracking bonus is still better as rails have bad tracking.


For rails at least, being further away means you track better, and you can use shorter range ammo for more damage, and you have a longer max range. Optimal > tracking for LR optimal guns (beams/rails).


Gal will never get optimal range bonus. Ane tracking is more useful then falloff for rails as rails have terrible base falloff


They don't actually, and they really don't if you make a lol shield setup like Rise apparently wants you to. I suggest both blasters and rails be made into optimal range weapons and have all range bonuses switched to optimal. All this half-and-half stuff is bad.
#1359 Posted: 2013.08.02 18:57
CCP Rise wrote:

Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design.


Oh it's pretty simple really.

The Vagabond was crap before the HAC change (compared to everything else. Tier 3s mainly, Cynabal obviously, and any kind of kiting platforms tbh).

Now what changed ? It's capstable (It's great, sure, but considering all other HACs got the same treatment, well...).

It has a shield boost bonus, which brings you to two possibilities. LASB, which is pretty bad and forces you to drop the very useful medium neut. XLASB, which is good, but heavely gimps your ship.

If you don't use the shield boost bonus, which you seem to talk a lot about, then you're back with the old Vagabond + capstability. Which isn't REALLY all that better.

Did I mention you can't fit it with T2 LSEs with 425mms ? It won't fit even with 220mms and the neutralizer. It needs implants or meta 4 LSEs.

What most of us are asking for is a PWG increase. That will increase damage projection (Because we'll be able to fit 425mms), damage itself (Same thing, because of 425mms), and it might even open up the fitting possibilities for arties, full buffer (2x LSE T2s) or XLASB (with 220mms) setups.

It's not about changing bonuses, it's not about adding bonuses, it's not about switching everything around. It's about adding some PWG to make it fittable without a massive amount of implants/rigs and whatnot.

Also, the Vagabond is probably the most "advanced", most "powerful" medium autocannon user, except maybe for the Sleipnir. It's also a HEAVY ASSAULT Cruiser. I believe it being able to fit 425mms without much issues wouldn't be a massive balancing problem. Especially if you consider the LR weapons rebalancing and the Deimos/Cerberus rebalancing.
#1360 Posted: 2013.08.02 19:00
CCP Rise wrote:
Sorry I didn't say anything about the Caldari HACs, it's because I think they are probably both in really good shape.

We are seriously concerned that the Cerb will be too strong. The biggest issue is probably Rapid Light Missile Launchers which have incredibly damage application and projection for such a tiny fitting investment. I think its a good dynamic to be choosing between raw damage potential and application, but a rlml Cerb will be kind of insane. And in general the ship is shedding a lot of its past handicaps such as terrible speed and fitting difficulty.

The Eagle is a little harder to judge, but I think it's probably more towards the side of being too strong than being too weak. The Eagle is definitely more of a fleet ship than a small scale skirmisher, but it got much much better for that role in this pass. Added sensor stats, lower sig, added fitting, and most importantly the trade of a utility high for an extra mid means that we are expecting ahac style eagle fleets to be very strong, especially when you consider the rail buff. We'll have to see how it goes but we are not worried about the Eagle.

About the price question - I would say if its rising in price but you don't think its worth it that you shouldn't buy it, but clearly someone thinks it will be worth it. I don't think the price of HACs necessarily would be required for their power level, but I also don't think it needs to be lowered. With these changes they will more than justify the price for lots of players (me included).


If you think the eagle is in a good state than maybe you should do an eagle thread and see how many other people agree and more importantly to ask for other options if you find it hard to judge... Naga is a better Rails option ..just throwing that out there
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Forum Jump