Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1825
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello!
Lets get back to this HAC thing. The first HAC proposal raised discussion around tons of topics. Common ones included our overall design for tech levels, the way HACs intersect with tech 1, tech 3, and faction ships and of course specific input on ship-by-ship stats and performance. I want to try and cover as much of this as possible so get some tea or something.
Lets start with role. We've had several presentations and posts and dev blogs now which explain that tech 1 is general and tech 2 is specialized. While this is certainly our high-level goal, it will be compromised occasionally when the specifics of a certain project have other goals that pull in another direction. HACs are an example. The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization', but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers.
With the rebalance effort here, we discussed entirely new roles or specializations that would be more in-line with the high level ideas we have laid out for all EVE ships, but ultimately decided that it wasn't worth completely throwing out the ships we had. Not only do they have a lot of history in the game, which leads to attachment, but they also have a lot of legitimate use already which we wanted to avoid disrupting if possible.
Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.
All HACs will gain 7-8 sensor strength, putting their average Sensor Strength at 22 which is right around combat battleship range. All HACs gain 15k to 25k lock range All HACs have their cap recharge per second set to around 5.5 rather than the former 3.5 - 4.5 cap/sec Along with these changes, we are going to go ahead with the originally proposed role bonus. I've seen and participated in tons of talk about this bonus and I keep seeing the same problem - the tracking formula is not intuitive and the confusion leads to this bonus looking less powerful than it actually is. I've made another set of graphs to help illustrate, but please keep in mind that this is just one example and results may vary.
DAMAGE GRAPHS
On the left is the damage that three different ships (Null Blaster Talos, HML Drake and AHAC Zealot) do to a Sacrilege with its MWD on without the role bonus. On the right is after the role bonus. You can see that the Zealot, which tracks extremely well, isn't heavily affected, but the Talos and the Drake lose about 25% of their DPS. Now we can have a new discussion about how important that 25% is, but its important to understand that we are usually talking about an extremely significant amount of damage mitigation when MWD is active. And again, we know that not all HACs will be running MWDs, but we feel that those configurations are plenty powerful and prefer to support a larger variety of applications by adding the MWD bonus.
Alright, lets get to specifics. The big takeaway from feedback (both CSM and public thread) was that we have more room to make HACs more powerful without putting too much pressure on their competition, so watch for that as you read through all the changes. Note: the differences appearing in (parentheses) are as compared to the version of ship on TQ currently, not the first iteration. |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1825
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
f |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1825
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Going upstairs for food, be right back to answer questions =) |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
456
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Still worried on the shield boost bonus on a ship with only 4 mids. It bee lines the ship on a basic single fit.
IF you want to do that at least give it a bit more CPU otherwise ALL vagabonds will be 180 mm ASB boats with EXACT same fit.
The sacriledge is much better.
The cerberus.. I still fear might become too powerful with speed. but the metagame might not let that happen.. we must wait and see on this case
Well.. I just hope when you reach the recons you do not forget to make the Huggin the same thing you made the bellicose... |
Kururugi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Oh snap I came right on time! Time to get readin' |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Disappointed that they all kept the MWD bloom bonus and the fact that the Cerberus kept the kinetic damage bonus
|
Ix Method
Khanid Regional Directorate
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
/me wipes away a tear
Thanks you. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
640
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Capqu
Love Squad
185
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
rise
thanks for everything
i'm so sorry about atxi http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
209
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
Reserved How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1366
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Still worried on the shield boost bonus on a ship with only 4 mids. It bee lines the ship on a basic single fit.
The sacriledge is much better.
The cerberus.. I still fear might become too powerful with speed. but the metagame might not let that happen.. we must wait and see on this case
Well.. I just hope when you reach the recons you do not forget to make the Huggin the same thing you made the bellicose...
The presence of the bonus still doesn't force you to use the bonus, any more than it did in the first iteration. hth. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Zer Res
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Thanks for the Eagle PG and especially for the Ishtar fitting buffs! |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
614
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:The cerberus.. I still fear might become too powerful with speed. but the metagame might not let that happen.. we must wait and see on this case "Cerberus" and "too powerful" in the same sentence. That's a first.
Anyway, THANK YOU SO MUCH for the CPU on the Ishtar, CCP Rise! |
Arrgthepirate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
83
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'm really excited about the Eagle, Ishtar, and Vagabond. However, I feel that the kinetic damage bonus on the Cerebus is another relic of the past. Can't it just be a slightly reduced bonus to all missile damage? |
Kristoffon Ellecon
The Bastards Shadow Cartel
84
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:35:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.
I think you're doing great work overall. IMHO all the proposed changes are good so my only comment is: please don't ruin the Cynabal I trust you will manage to keep it a powerful ship, inline with its cost, that can be flow in a variety of ways -- armor, shield buffer, shield active, ac, arty, etc, and pretty please with a cherry on top don't nerf its speed. Thank you. |
Capqu
Love Squad
185
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Arrgthepirate wrote:I'm really excited about the Eagle, Ishtar, and Vagabond. However, I feel that the kinetic damage bonus on the Cerebus is another relic of the past. Can't it just be a slightly reduced bonus to all missile damage?
nah dude, its already super strong
you need to let rapid lights into your life http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
118
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
Some positive changes there.
I still don't understand why you maintain the 4/5/5 setup on the Ishtar, though and not go 4/4/6 to get away from the predominant shieldtank - which is what the Gila is there for.
The heavy drone bonus might be useful one day - if you ever get to fix heavy/med drones in general, so they don't die while warping to their targets (or back into the drone bay in PvE). |
Biron Soringard
Enheduanni holdings The Enheduanni
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
These definitely sound much better than the previous iteration. While I do still have a few concerns, they mostly have to deal with the metagaming of New Eden, and thus can't really be counted on too heavily for balance purposes, as the meta is constanty changing and morphing with the times.
So, overall, they look promising. The Ishtar's Heavy Drone Velocity bonus is pretty interesting. |
Shade Millith
Bite Me inc Bitten.
82
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:36:00 -
[19] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Still worried on the shield boost bonus on a ship with only 4 mids. It bee lines the ship on a basic single fit.
You are not required to use every single bonus on a ship. It's still the old vagabond. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
24
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:37:00 -
[20] - Quote
I like it, but why is the Diemos(t) loosing tank? |
|
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
641
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:38:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Rise, this is what I would call a good job, 10x better than the first balancing pass.
The Ishtar's fitting issues are mostly fixed.
The Ishtar's drone bay bonus thingy is fixed.
The Cerberus fitting issues and capacitor issues are fixed.
The Sacrilege gets a bonus that makes it usable in fleets, that's great.
The Deimos gets the very needed adjustments in addition to the slot layout change.
The Muninn gets better at armor things, well, ok.
The only thing that I'm a little bit disappointed about is the fact that you kept the 4 medslots on the Vagabond. A 5th medslot instead of the 6th highslot would have been a demonstration of "We want specialization".
T2 ships are specialized, pirate ships are more versatile. The Vagabond gets 5 medslots but no neut, the Cynabal gets 5 medslots without T2 resistances, but gets the neut. Vaga = Specialized, Cynabal = Versatile.
But I can live with the changes you want to make, it's alright |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
209
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:38:00 -
[22] - Quote
Shade Millith wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Still worried on the shield boost bonus on a ship with only 4 mids. It bee lines the ship on a basic single fit. You are not required to use every single bonus on a ship. It's still the old vagabond. I'm more worried about the T3's and how they're going to ruin them.
And the old Vagabond sucks, thanks Cynabal! *Cheesy infomercial smile* How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Trifle Donier
Sham Rocks Incorporated
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:39:00 -
[23] - Quote
Giving the Ishtar one bonus for sentries and one for heavies is basically the same as it only having 3 bonuses compared to every other ships 4.
Its like giving the deimos a 5% bonus to blaster damage per level, then removing the microwarpdrive bonus and giving it a seperate 5% bonus to railgun damage per level (oh crap don't give them ideas!).
Also why limit it to just heavies? Shouldn't it at least apply to mediums / lights as well ? |
Darling Hassasin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:40:00 -
[24] - Quote
You have the Cerberus and Eagle backwards in the sense that the three light drones (or better 5) should go to the Eagle and not the Cerberus.
The Cerberus will be faster and uses missiles that do some damage to small targets. The Eagle is slower and trying to snipe with rails it has no chance of hitting small &*^ or using blasters it has no range to shoot at a 24km orbiter...
FIX it m8
Sacriledge looks like maybee it went too far...
Deimos is good would be better with replacing the fall off bonus with something more universally applicable...
... but thats all minor issues compared with the Carberus / Eagle thingy I explained above. |
Sir John Halsey
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:41:00 -
[25] - Quote
CERBERUS:
Why do you guys insist in keeping the same kinetic bonus on some ships while making it more generic on other ships? And no rapid light missiles bonus? Only HAMs? |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:45:00 -
[26] - Quote
Wow, sacrilege retained some of that cap bonus and now has some projection with missiles. Altho i was hoping for an extra low i'm satisfied, and that CPU bonus is also nice, was always missing some (ishtar too). Great job Rise |
SidtheKid100
Pitchfork Militia Catastrophic Uprising
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:45:00 -
[27] - Quote
Very excited about the Ishtar now, thank you so much! The cap recharge bonus for all HACs sounds like it's going to be very helpful, especially for the skirmish/kitey ones. I like it.
However, I'm still a little confused about the decision to remove armor and hull hp from the Deimos in return for a pitiful amount of shield hp. It's not a shield tanking ship, as the slot layout and overall hp distribution would indicate. Why remove the HP that it usually puts resists on? I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I prefer posting with my main. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
187
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:47:00 -
[28] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Still worried on the shield boost bonus on a ship with only 4 mids. It bee lines the ship on a basic single fit.
The sacriledge is much better.
The cerberus.. I still fear might become too powerful with speed. but the metagame might not let that happen.. we must wait and see on this case
Well.. I just hope when you reach the recons you do not forget to make the Huggin the same thing you made the bellicose... The presence of the bonus still doesn't force you to use the bonus, any more than it did in the first iteration. hth.
Why do people keep saying this?
The vaga was **** in it's role before the changes, saying "well you can still use a **** ship if you want", really doesn't help. The mid range kiting fast ship thing is done better with a tier 3 full stop. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
227
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:48:00 -
[29] - Quote
ISHTAR
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed and tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
So do the range/tracking/speed bonus apply to medium/small drones? Why reduce the tracking bonus from the original plan?
Although heading in the right direction I feel the original Domi like 10% to all drone tracking and optimal and a separate 7.5% to drone speed would be more flexible and simpler without being OTT.
Like the improvements in CPU + lock range for it. Fear God and Thread Nought |
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:48:00 -
[30] - Quote
Looks much better :) Would like to see that utility high of the Sac removed in exchange to another low-slot. That ship looks soooo great, would love to fly it. Needs to be a bit better for that though.
Also, with the Ishtar getting almost the same insane bonus as the Dominix, I wonder if you have missed some stacking issues there. You can get a 85km optimal Garde II with Frig-Tracking ability there no problemo... |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
614
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:48:00 -
[31] - Quote
Trifle Donier wrote:Giving the Ishtar one bonus for sentries and one for heavies is basically the same as it only having 3 bonuses compared to every other ships 4.
Its like giving the deimos a 5% bonus to blaster damage per level, then removing the microwarpdrive bonus and giving it a seperate 5% bonus to railgun damage per level (oh crap don't give them ideas!).
Also why limit it to just heavies? Shouldn't it at least apply to mediums / lights as well ? They are sort of different tho. Heavies get speed and tracking, sentries get optimal and tracking.
The bonus is also 7.5%, which would be too much speed for warriors, and small and medium drones are mostly fine in terms of speed anyway.
Ogre II's will tear ass like there is no tomorrow now, and you have the CPU to fit all the DDA's you want. |
Gorski Car
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:50:00 -
[32] - Quote
Cerberus is going to be pretty awesome. RLML Life. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
94
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:51:00 -
[33] - Quote
Now the sac gets a useless missile velocity bonus (you ****** hmls over completly and hams are usualy used for brawling) and loses its big up, its incredible cap.
Bad change, also vaga is op and ffs no the biggest problem with the vagabond isnt the cynabal, they both are **** because of range and power creep and of course cause of t3s and because you buff brawling out of its ass and enrf kiting to hell.
The cynabal needs a big buff (and yes other priate cruisers abr the gila need one as well) and the vaga needs a even bigger buff, but not one making it a op brawler (600dps and over 80k ehp, before impalnts/links) but one making it a good kiter. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
85
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:54:00 -
[34] - Quote
Excellent changes. I eagerly look forward to these in Odyssey 1.1. So what's next: Marauders, Black Ops, Pirates? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
614
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:55:00 -
[35] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Now the sac gets a useless missile velocity bonus (you ****** hmls over completly and hams are usualy used for brawling) and loses its big up, its incredible cap.
Bad change, also vaga is op and ffs no the biggest problem with the vagabond isnt the cynabal, they both are **** because of range and power creep and of course cause of t3s and because you buff brawling out of its ass and enrf kiting to hell.
The cynabal needs a big buff (and yes other priate cruisers abr the gila need one as well) and the vaga needs a even bigger buff, but not one making it a op brawler (600dps and over 80k ehp, before impalnts/links) but one making it a good kiter. Clearly, out of all the HAC's, the Vagabond is the worst kiter. Get out. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
612
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:55:00 -
[36] - Quote
I really like the boosted sensor strength and lock range, but all the gunships are still absolutely RUINED by a single td |
Christopher Multsanti
Frag Executors ROMANIAN-LEGION
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:56:00 -
[37] - Quote
Thank you for round 2. Maybe I was asking to much for the vaga, as I do remember the days when the vaga was flown with a LSE and small gisti booster. I really like the cap changes and the sensor strength changes!! Any words on how this will affect ECM drones? |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
95
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:56:00 -
[38] - Quote
No all hacs suck for kiting, pretty much everything sucks for kiting in the days of 2km/s cruisers and 3km/s navy crusiers, and the vaga gets turned into a anti kiting ship.
Vaga is a good kiting hac, meaning its a ****** kiter in general and needs a buff to that. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
105
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:57:00 -
[39] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:I like it, but why is the Diemos(t) loosing tank?
The Deimos still dies if anybody looks at it |
Tehmajor
Absolute Massive Destruction Cult of War
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:58:00 -
[40] - Quote
the diemost really needs a bump in tank, as for the ishtar i would like to see the damage boost applied to heavy's meds and lights. also it would be lovely to see a tanking bonus on one of the gallente hacs. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
209
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:59:00 -
[41] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: Bad change, also vaga is op and ffs no the biggest problem with the vagabond isnt the cynabal, they both are **** because of range and power creep and of course cause of t3s and because you buff brawling out of its ass and enrf kiting to hell.
The cynabal needs a big buff (and yes other priate cruisers abr the gila need one as well) and the vaga needs a even bigger buff, but not one making it a op brawler (600dps and over 80k ehp, before impalnts/links) but one making it a good kiter.
I bolded the the parts of that post that I believe reached a new level of stupid. Either you're trolling or you're the more ignorant EVE player to post on this thread.
Vaga needs a better buff though, it doesn't have the PG to perform its job properly. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:02:00 -
[42] - Quote
the sac just lost its cap bonus as it wasnt incorprated into the hull compared to the other HAcs , or rather , everyone else got it too , which makes the sac less interesting now.
tbh we werent interested in the range bonus , an explosion velocity bonus would have suited us just fine btw :P
zealot still lacking some way to deal with frigs when tackled , be it utility high , or 4 mids , or a flight of light drones.
i find it funny that only the cerb, zealot and eagle dont have drones. i can understand why the caldari dont have them but the amarr are supposed to be the lazors+drones race. Hek! even the minnies have more drones and utility highs! IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
187
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:02:00 -
[43] - Quote
Having to right this whole thing again because the forum swallowed it
Role changes:
Nice move giving them all capacitor and sensor strength, that will be appreciated.
50% mwd bonus is still lackluster, your own graphs show how little it does against a talos and for a lot of the HACs they'll only be using their MWD to get to the target then it's off. Take your time and come up with something better. Sigs on all the hacs should be LESS than T1 to follow the T1 frig/AF continuation.
Sac: Did you integrate some of the cap bonus on top of the new cap bonus to all of the HACS? Still needs it's utility high put to a low slot. I would have preferred damage over projection, but it's still a decent bonus.
Diemos: Signature is still way too big. AF's have a lower sig than their t1 counterparts. Gallente have lower sigs than Caldari. Here you are violating two rules, not only is the sig massive compared with the Thorax (30m bigger), but it's HIGHER than the Eagle, needs changing.
You can't think of anything to replace the mwd cap bonus (which is now more useless because all the hacs will have good cap), 7.5%/lvl tracking, there you go, free idea, who cares if it's the same as the thorax, it's good.
A bit extra fitting wouldn't be bad and reverse the hp nerfs.
Ishtar:
Thank the lord there's some CPU. Integrating the drone bay bonus was a good idea, but I don't understand why you nerfed the tracking/range bonus to give it a speed bonus. Since heavies are soooo crap and slow, if it was 50% it wouldn't be overpowered. As it stands the T1! dominix will be better at being a drone boat than the Ishtar. Make that speed bonus 20%/lvl or I'd rather have back the extra 2.5% tracking and range/lvl on the other bonus.
Vagabond:
You keep saying the new bonuses won't affect it's ability to be used as it was (a kiter), but it's role was overtaken by both tier 3's and the TE nerf, which forced you into using Barrage all the time. You don't even have enough PG to fit 425's with 2 LSE's. It needs enough PG to fit arty, then it can now do kiting or the role you've stuck it in which is dual 180 xl asb brawler, because it isn't good at anything else/doesn't have the fitting to do it.
Muninn:
This ship is still just rubbish. I explained ad-norsium in the older thread why it needs an extra turret (instead of the utility high) and the PG to fit the extra 720+some more. I will take a loki or a Sleipnir every time over this piece of junk. It doesn't have the DPS to do a brawl AB HAC setup, it hasn't got the pg or the alpha to do arty+armour effectively and it hasn't got the mids to do shield, it's a bloody abortion and I really wish you'd stop gimping this lame dog.
Faildari:
No comment, I cants FIRE THE MISSILES!
Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Ro'Dauqa
SkREW CREW Local Down
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:03:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
DEIMOS
For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
Please DONT EVEN THINK OF CHANGING MWD BONUS ON DEIMOS!!! was scrolling slowly all the way down to deimos hoping the bonus still there... i would probly rage quit for a month or smthing if it was changed : D please leave mwd bonus alone!
otherwise great stuff hacs got some love finaly! ty great job |
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:04:00 -
[45] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2863135#post2863135
So is this off the table? Just curious, would be difficult to pull off for some of the ships by the looks of it. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
95
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:04:00 -
[46] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: Bad change, also vaga is op and ffs no the biggest problem with the vagabond isnt the cynabal, they both are **** because of range and power creep and of course cause of t3s and because you buff brawling out of its ass and enrf kiting to hell.
The cynabal needs a big buff (and yes other priate cruisers abr the gila need one as well) and the vaga needs a even bigger buff, but not one making it a op brawler (600dps and over 80k ehp, before impalnts/links) but one making it a good kiter.
I bolded the the parts of that post that I believe reached a new level of stupid. Either you're trolling or you're the more ignorant EVE player to post on this thread. Vaga needs a better buff though, it doesn't have the PG to perform its job properly.
Cyna sucks bad atm (vaga does so as well), if you think the cynabal is good you havnt flown one in ages. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:05:00 -
[47] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
vaga is op the vaga needs a even bigger buff, making it a good kiter. the biggest problem with the vagabond isnt the cynabal cynabal needs a big buff
Fire CCP Rise and hire this guy right here |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
187
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:05:00 -
[48] - Quote
Ro'Dauqa wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
DEIMOS
For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
Please DONT EVEN THINK OF CHANGING MWD BONUS ON DEIMOS!!! was scrolling slowly all the way down to deimos hoping the bonus still there... i would probly rage quit for a month or smthing if it was changed : D please leave mwd bonus alone! otherwise great stuff hacs got some love finaly! ty great job
Please bury yourself in the sand. It was moderately useful before he changed the cap on all the HACS, as it gave you substantially more cap to get your fat arse to the target, now it's not needed and I'd like 7.5% tracking/lvl like the thorax and some extra pg so you can role round with 250mm rails and 1600 plate+mwd snuffing fools. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
SkyMeetFire
The Rising Stars The Initiative.
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:06:00 -
[49] - Quote
Like it. Much better across the board than before. Focusing on the Sacs biggest weakness of power projection will help significantly to make it a more useful ship across the board. I seriously think that one little bonus change moves it from one of the weakest HACs to at least middle of the pack. HAM Armor HACs time?
Slightly ancillary question, but I asked it before so I might as well try again - are you going to start moving Khanid away from damage bonii to only short range missiles? They are the only racial provider that gets such a limited bonus and that is part of the reason Amarr has been such a non-versatile race for the last few years. You guys have done great to increase versatility in the recent re-balances (especially with the Amarr drone line), and it'd be great if the Malediction, Vengeance, Heretic, and Damnation all got the same treatment the Sacrilege gets here. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1843
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:07:00 -
[50] - Quote
The sac recharge rate is actually wrong in the OP, will fix it. Forgot to adjust it after we removed the bonus.
The Cerberus kinetic bonus is not a relic in the same way that the Sacrilege recharge bonus or the Ishtar drone bay bonus were. We talked a lot about the role of damage specific bonuses with the CSM, as they raised the same concerns. Its obvious that the bonus is a bit of a handicap from the perspective of the Cerberus pilot, but we like the gameplay it adds and so we would only want to remove it if the Cerb was really needing more power, which isn't the case.
Knowing what kind of damage your opponent is likely to do is just as interesting as knowing which kind of damage your opponent is likely to be weak to. It lets creates interesting decisions for both the Cerb pilot and the Cerb's opponents and we like that. |
|
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
486
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:09:00 -
[51] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:I like it, but why is the Diemos(t) loosing tank?
Obviously the Deimos was far too survivable....
|
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
217
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:10:00 -
[52] - Quote
Why does the sacrilege only get a 5%/level missile velocity bonus when all other range-bonused missile hulls get 10%? |
Capqu
Love Squad
185
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:10:00 -
[53] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The sac recharge rate is actually wrong in the OP, will fix it. Forgot to adjust it after we removed the bonus.
The Cerberus kinetic bonus is not a relic in the same way that the Sacrilege recharge bonus or the Ishtar drone bay bonus were. We talked a lot about the role of damage specific bonuses with the CSM, as they raised the same concerns. Its obvious that the bonus is a bit of a handicap from the perspective of the Cerberus pilot, but we like the gameplay it adds and so we would only want to remove it if the Cerb was really needing more power, which isn't the case.
Knowing what kind of damage your opponent is likely to do is just as interesting as knowing which kind of damage your opponent is likely to be weak to. It lets creates interesting decisions for both the Cerb pilot and the Cerb's opponents and we like that.
preach it
the cerb would be too strong if it didnt have SOME kind of weakness, and kinetic damage is a small price to pay for 350 perfectly applied dps @ 105k while cruisin' at 2kms http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:10:00 -
[54] - Quote
Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
100
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:10:00 -
[55] - Quote
Would this make vagabonds part of a tinker team? |
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:11:00 -
[56] - Quote
Deimos needs a bonus like "will stay in space after it exploded for 5 seconds" so everyone can make it on the killmail :) |
Akimo Heth
State War Academy Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:12:00 -
[57] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The sac recharge rate is actually wrong in the OP, will fix it. Forgot to adjust it after we removed the bonus.
The Cerberus kinetic bonus is not a relic in the same way that the Sacrilege recharge bonus or the Ishtar drone bay bonus were. We talked a lot about the role of damage specific bonuses with the CSM, as they raised the same concerns. Its obvious that the bonus is a bit of a handicap from the perspective of the Cerberus pilot, but we like the gameplay it adds and so we would only want to remove it if the Cerb was really needing more power, which isn't the case.
Knowing what kind of damage your opponent is likely to do is just as interesting as knowing which kind of damage your opponent is likely to be weak to. It lets creates interesting decisions for both the Cerb pilot and the Cerb's opponents and we like that.
Doesn't it take away decisions from the Cerb pilot and add them to the opponent with a net of zero added gameplay? In light of the LR weapon buff not applying to missiles, I disagree that it isn't going to be in need of dps in 1.1. |
Sir John Halsey
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:14:00 -
[58] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The sac recharge rate is actually wrong in the OP, will fix it. Forgot to adjust it after we removed the bonus.
The Cerberus kinetic bonus is not a relic in the same way that the Sacrilege recharge bonus or the Ishtar drone bay bonus were. We talked a lot about the role of damage specific bonuses with the CSM, as they raised the same concerns. Its obvious that the bonus is a bit of a handicap from the perspective of the Cerberus pilot, but we like the gameplay it adds and so we would only want to remove it if the Cerb was really needing more power, which isn't the case.
Knowing what kind of damage your opponent is likely to do is just as interesting as knowing which kind of damage your opponent is likely to be weak to. It lets creates interesting decisions for both the Cerb pilot and the Cerb's opponents and we like that.
Maybe, but still ... it doesn't make sense... anyway: what about ceberus + shield extenders + mwd = huge a** sig = certain death. Why not raising the shield resistance the same you did with eagle? |
Akimo Heth
State War Academy Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:14:00 -
[59] - Quote
Capqu wrote:CCP Rise wrote:The sac recharge rate is actually wrong in the OP, will fix it. Forgot to adjust it after we removed the bonus.
The Cerberus kinetic bonus is not a relic in the same way that the Sacrilege recharge bonus or the Ishtar drone bay bonus were. We talked a lot about the role of damage specific bonuses with the CSM, as they raised the same concerns. Its obvious that the bonus is a bit of a handicap from the perspective of the Cerberus pilot, but we like the gameplay it adds and so we would only want to remove it if the Cerb was really needing more power, which isn't the case.
Knowing what kind of damage your opponent is likely to do is just as interesting as knowing which kind of damage your opponent is likely to be weak to. It lets creates interesting decisions for both the Cerb pilot and the Cerb's opponents and we like that. preach it the cerb would be too strong if it didnt have SOME kind of weakness, and kinetic damage is a small price to pay for 350 perfectly applied dps @ 105k while cruisin' at 2kms
Learn how explosion velocity works and how it is really low on HM's preventing "perfectly applied dps" @ 105k on a non-stationary target. |
Crysantos Callahan
EntroPrelatial Industria Here Be Dragons
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:15:00 -
[60] - Quote
First of all, thx for the new iteration and feedback. The problem I still have is the following - many people aired their concerns about the position of HACs as T2 spec in comparison to T1 cruisers and Tier 3 BC - for long range engagement the BC will still be the cheaper and more viable option, for close range combats many HACs lack the ability for killing small stuff. Maybe you could address that issue with the next iteration, we're on a good way.
I like many changes, I still would like to see the following to make the ships work better:
- all missile based ships should get ROF not racial dmg type boni, see cerberus kinetic dmg - Sacrilege wants that 6th launcher like cerberus - Zealot could use 25m3 drone bay for frigs
The reason for the MWD/AB discussion isnt only the dmg/sig bloom issue but the "invulnerability" to scrams for its speed. This is why I'd like to see it on the HACs or at least part of the HACs, like the zealot.
as usual my complaint:
- substitute the HAC prereq of Energy Upgrades V with something useful, depending on the role it should fulfill (for example AB 5, Acc Control 5, Hull Upgrades 5, etc. stuff that makes sense for this group to make it work) |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1846
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:17:00 -
[61] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos?
Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos.
|
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
132
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:18:00 -
[62] - Quote
I see a muninn with a lockrange almost matching tremorrange \o/
I really LOVE the decision to boost their capacitors, it's one crucial trait of the T1/Navy cruisers they are lacking. +1 for perma-mwd-hacs!
It actually looks a lot like Cerberus might become a thing (with RLML), but that's just my impression.
One of the big winners of that rebalance might be (imo) the vaga, with adjusted cap. I only correct my own spelling. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
170
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:19:00 -
[63] - Quote
Ishtar looks interesting and all around better. But as mentioned it benefits at best from only 3 bonuses at any one time. And if your using medium drones then only two...but I guess if you want it to specialize in this way that's ok I suppose, will have to see how it plays out.
The Diemost is a bit weak. Really looks to be the one boat that needed a bit of help and frankly the targeting range bonus is not really that much of a benefit, except to perhaps counter damps a bit and rail fits. But if you want to rail gun it then fly an eagle. Biggest issue here is as a brawler reducing the tank makes this boat too squishy. The speed boost is nice but you all hit it way too hard in the ehp.
1. Restore the ehp 3. Replace the MWD cap bonus with a bonus to AB speed. This would really make the diemos unique and make it a dual prop monster that benefits as it burns into the brawl from the role bonus and can then power with enough speed in close with the AB and blasters hammering. (though it may struggle to track but that can be managed with some buddy team TP's and webs. ) |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1846
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:20:00 -
[64] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Why does the sacrilege only get a 5%/level missile velocity bonus when all other range-bonused missile hulls get 10%?
To be honest I'm surprised this got through without any of us catching it. Switched it to 10% Thanks.
|
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
95
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:24:00 -
[65] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Tsubutai wrote:Why does the sacrilege only get a 5%/level missile velocity bonus when all other range-bonused missile hulls get 10%? To be honest I'm surprised this got through without any of us catching it. Switched it to 10% Thanks.
Why do you think a range bonus on the sacri would be a good idea (keep in mind that hmls are almost completely useless)? |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
62
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:24:00 -
[66] - Quote
Akimo Heth wrote:Capqu wrote:
preach it
the cerb would be too strong if it didnt have SOME kind of weakness, and kinetic damage is a small price to pay for 350 perfectly applied dps @ 105k while cruisin' at 2kms
Learn how explosion velocity works and how it is really low on HM's preventing "perfectly applied dps" @ 105k on a non-stationary target.
I believe capqu is talking about the RLML version of the Cerberus, which can indeed hit out to about 90 with light missiles for 300 DPS. given the extreme precision of light missiles, 380 @ 71 doesn't seem too unreasonable either with furies. http://themittani.com -á- your one stop site for all News Eve Related |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:26:00 -
[67] - Quote
Move the diemost tank out of structure and shield and put it in the armor. It makes it possible to brawl the ship and not get alpha off the field, also if people raill/shield fit it. Well some inane ball of fire reference. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
642
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:29:00 -
[68] - Quote
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. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:29:00 -
[69] - Quote
Capqu wrote:
preach it
the cerb would be too strong if it didnt have SOME kind of weakness, and kinetic damage is a small price to pay for 350 perfectly applied dps @ 105k while cruisin' at 2kms
Delayed paper DPS |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
95
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:30:00 -
[70] - Quote
Also in case anyone cares, try flying a kiting ship when something like that is going to exist
http://i.imgur.com/omX9rre.png (no cap/sensor strenght changes yet; no it will have even better cap).
Thats 98k ehp after the booster is dry (4.25*9*2117 + 17754 = 98729.25). |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6811
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:33:00 -
[71] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Tsubutai wrote:Why does the sacrilege only get a 5%/level missile velocity bonus when all other range-bonused missile hulls get 10%? To be honest I'm surprised this got through without any of us catching it. Switched it to 10% Thanks. Why do you think a range bonus on the sacri would be a good idea (keep in mind that hmls are almost completely useless)?
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits? Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:33:00 -
[72] - Quote
Rise, pls. 4 mid muninn.
Pls. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
188
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:35:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos? Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos.
No it wouldn't. Seriously they are properly **** at the moment. Rails are getting their tracking nerfed a lot blasters on the diemos...might as well use a proteus or a brutix navy. Moving the Deimos into a rail ship would be a nice niche for it and the tracking bonus would be useful there.
I will bare my arse on an Icelandic winter if giving it a 7.5%/lvl tracking bonus makes them the FOTM. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
132
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:35:00 -
[74] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Capqu wrote:
preach it
the cerb would be too strong if it didnt have SOME kind of weakness, and kinetic damage is a small price to pay for 350 perfectly applied dps @ 105k while cruisin' at 2kms
Delayed paper DPS
6-10 seconds delayed 98.5% applied though. No one ever talked about fitting HAMS or HMLs to a cerb. This is 2013! I only correct my own spelling. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
210
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:36:00 -
[75] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Also in case anyone cares, try flying a kiting ship when something like that is going to exist http://i.imgur.com/omX9rre.png (no cap/sensor strenght changes yet; no it will have even better cap). Thats 98k ehp after the booster is dry (4.25*9*2117 + 17754 = 98729.25).
Couple of things: It requires THREE fitting implants, your 98k ehp assumes that it won't get alpha'd of the field with that **** poor 17k EHP, and I could fit up a Cynabal that would do the job better for probably the same cost or less. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
210
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:36:00 -
[76] - Quote
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 is what needs to happen ^ How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
122
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:38:00 -
[77] - Quote
Looks a lot better. Liking the stronger caps, more fitting and the more useful bonuses particularly on the Ishtar/Sacrilege.
I'm slightly torn on the missile speed bonus for the Sac though, part of me would like something for damage application instead of range. But I'm happy with either!
Any chance of an extra 1-2% cpu + grid on the Zealot to make it less of a squeeze even with perfect skills? |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:39:00 -
[78] - Quote
I think by adding a strong missile velocity bonus to the sacrilege you'll kind of cancel out the fact that it can now also fit heavy missiles. Other than that, these changes are amazing, and I'll be rolling my Ishtars out a hell of a lot more, and the Vagabonds too.
Is this 7.5% optimal and tracking bonus a prelude to what will happen to the Dominix? I don't see this 10% bonus (utterly brutal) surviving much longer past the Alliance Tournament. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
95
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:39:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
Your not going to kite with hams in a sac, and without webs on your primary the dps is terrible.
M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Also in case anyone cares, try flying a kiting ship when something like that is going to exist http://i.imgur.com/omX9rre.png (no cap/sensor strenght changes yet; no it will have even better cap). Thats 98k ehp after the booster is dry (4.25*9*2117 + 17754 = 98729.25). Couple of things: It requires THREE fitting implants, your 98k ehp assumes that it won't get alpha'd of the field with that **** poor 17k EHP, and I could fit up a Cynabal that would do the job better for probably the same cost or less.
Yes, 17k ehp (more then a omen or a stabber) is totally going to get alphaed, if you dont like the implants, drop a low or a rigslot.
And no a cynabal can never match that, dont talk out of your ass. |
Deirdre Anethoel
Antimatter Delivery Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:39:00 -
[80] - Quote
- Rapid light missile cerberus might be too much on small scale engagements. Damage applied perfectly to frigates, huge range and good speed may be too much. - Sacrilege still can't use RLM, could be an interesting option. The missile velocity bonus makes it way too similar to other, existing ships to my taste too. More damage or a explosion radius or speed bonus could have been good to keep it's specificities. - The eagle is still bad because it doesn't have a role. Two optimal bonuses is awful for a brawling ship, and the resist bonus is bad for a sniping ship. It could be interesting to sneak a falloff bonus somewhere in here to make it viable with blasters too, offering the opportunity to play it as a brawler. Or a tracking bonus strong enough to make medium railguns viable at medium range to make sure it can be used as a tanky fleet ship? Because I don't really have any hope for it as a sniper, with tier3 BCs around. - Vagabond is going to break the very small scale engagement balance, and especially solo. It was already used here sometimes, and is going to be the best ship by far. Imagine a cynabal with a bonus to ancillary shield boosters. Yes, it won't impact on it's larger - The munnin suffers from the same problem as the eagle, but here, the conflict lies between the bonuses (sniping oriented) and the slot layout (no, armor snipers aren't viable, and yes, 3 mid slots is low). It also suffers from the comparison with tier3 BCs. |
|
SerratedX
Fistful of Finns Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:39:00 -
[81] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote: Couple of things: It requires THREE fitting implants, your 98k ehp assumes that it won't get alpha'd of the field with that **** poor 17k EHP, and I could fit up a Cynabal that would do the job better for probably the same cost or less.
W0lf is a well known troll on the FHC forums, its better just to ignore everything he says. |
Capqu
Love Squad
185
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:40:00 -
[82] - Quote
ATTN CERBERUS USERS
stop talking about things that aren't rapid lights, t i a http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
progodlegend
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
135
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:42:00 -
[83] - Quote
Arrgthepirate wrote:I'm really excited about the Eagle, Ishtar, and Vagabond. However, I feel that the kinetic damage bonus on the Cerebus is another relic of the past. Can't it just be a slightly reduced bonus to all missile damage?
Consider Caldari ships lucky that they atleast have the option to use different damage types if they so choose.
Lasers and Hybrids are stuck doing a certain damage type that is overall pretty easy to tank if you want to. It would be pretty unbalanced to have every missile ship be able to choose their own damage type. |
Dave PSI
Haendlergilde Gilde Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:44:00 -
[84] - Quote
The Eagle is still as bad as it is since the Armor buff for all ships years ago. Back in the days, it was possiblke to 1-2 volley frigs.
It simply needs a second damage bonus (like every other HAC) to be used again. Replace the "4% bonus to shield resistances" with it, since tank isn't that important for a sniper.
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
612
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:44:00 -
[85] - Quote
Jackie Fisher wrote:
Although heading in the right direction I feel the original Domi like 10% to all drone tracking and optimal and a separate 7.5% to drone speed would be more flexible and simpler without being OTT.
Domi is already OP, i dont see why the ishtar should improve on it. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
97
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:47:00 -
[86] - Quote
SerratedX wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: Couple of things: It requires THREE fitting implants, your 98k ehp assumes that it won't get alpha'd of the field with that **** poor 17k EHP, and I could fit up a Cynabal that would do the job better for probably the same cost or less.
W0lf is a well known troll on the FHC forums, its better just to ignore everything he says.
Im never troling in regards of ship fittings and balance issues, kiting at the moment sucks, everything got a lot faster and everything can now project damage very well, afs got buffed, abcs are incredible anti kiting platforms (as are all bs), medium guns now all reach 20+ k range. A vagabond gets easily outdps by a rail thorax a omen and even a stabber has pretty much the same dps.
It sucks as a pure kiter, it now will be a very good anti kiter and a good brawling ship in general but tis kiting abilitys still suck, a vaga should be able to push 300+ dps with turrets at 40km, no 150. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
189
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:47:00 -
[87] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: Yes, 17k ehp (more then a omen or a stabber) is totally going to get alphaed, if you dont like the implants, drop a low or a rigslot.
And no a cynabal can never match that, dont talk out of your ass.
Considering one shield boost cycle basically fills your entire shield, you have to let your shield run to 0 before you boost or you're just wasting boost and when you're at low shields, yes you are one nado hit+ a little bit more from being alpha'd.
The cynabal gets an extra mid, an extra rig and a whole lot more fitting. If you use that extra mid on a shield boost amp, which co-incidentally gives you almost the same bonus as the 7.5%/lvl, you can fit a similar ship. The cargo hold on the cynabal is the only annoyance.
[Cynabal, X:L ASB Dual Prop.] Internal Force Field Array I Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Dread Guristas Co-Processor
10MN Afterburner II Gistum C-Type 10MN Microwarpdrive X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Shield Boost Amplifier II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Projectile Ambit Extension II
Even gets the ability to kite. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
210
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:47:00 -
[88] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
Your not going to kite with hams in a sac, and without webs on your primary the dps is terrible. M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Also in case anyone cares, try flying a kiting ship when something like that is going to exist http://i.imgur.com/omX9rre.png (no cap/sensor strenght changes yet; no it will have even better cap). Thats 98k ehp after the booster is dry (4.25*9*2117 + 17754 = 98729.25). Couple of things: It requires THREE fitting implants, your 98k ehp assumes that it won't get alpha'd of the field with that **** poor 17k EHP, and I could fit up a Cynabal that would do the job better for probably the same cost or less. Yes, 17k ehp (more then a omen or a stabber) is totally going to get alphaed, if you dont like the implants, drop a low or a rigslot. And no a cynabal can never match that, dont talk out of your ass.
The fact that the Vaga is square-peg-round-holed into a single fit that is tight beyond what most pilots can fit that has to run with 3 implants, drugs, and overheat everything just to get those numbers is pitiful.
Look at the other HACs, none of them have such tight fittings, none of them have to fly with so many implants, none of htem have to overheat all their mods and use boosters, hoping they don't get side effects, just to get a decent fit.
The Vaga needs a buff, and that "fit" isn't what the Vaga should be.
Edit: And you're boosting all of your shields in one boost, tell me again how that won't get alpha'd? Oh yea, it will get alpha'd, that or it will lose some of that mythical 98k EHP.
Lost the ASB bonus on the Vaga, give it another range bonus or tracking bonus, give it another mid. Then it won't suck. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
210
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:48:00 -
[89] - Quote
SerratedX wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote: Couple of things: It requires THREE fitting implants, your 98k ehp assumes that it won't get alpha'd of the field with that **** poor 17k EHP, and I could fit up a Cynabal that would do the job better for probably the same cost or less.
W0lf is a well known troll on the FHC forums, its better just to ignore everything he says.
That's what I figured, thanks. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
613
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:49:00 -
[90] - Quote
Akturous wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: Yes, 17k ehp (more then a omen or a stabber) is totally going to get alphaed, if you dont like the implants, drop a low or a rigslot.
And no a cynabal can never match that, dont talk out of your ass.
Considering one shield boost cycle basically fills your entire shield, you have to let your shield run to 0 before you boost or you're just wasting boost and when you're at low shields, yes you are one nado hit+ a little bit more from being alpha'd. The cynabal gets an extra mid, an extra rig and a whole lot more fitting. If you use that extra mid on a shield boost amp, which co-incidentally gives you almost the same bonus as the 7.5%/lvl, you can fit a similar ship. The cargo hold on the cynabal is the only annoyance. [Cynabal, X:L ASB Dual Prop.] Internal Force Field Array I Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Dread Guristas Co-Processor 10MN Afterburner II Gistum C-Type 10MN Microwarpdrive X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Shield Boost Amplifier II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Projectile Ambit Extension II Even gets the ability to kite.
t2 resists
|
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
97
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:49:00 -
[91] - Quote
Akturous wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: Yes, 17k ehp (more then a omen or a stabber) is totally going to get alphaed, if you dont like the implants, drop a low or a rigslot.
And no a cynabal can never match that, dont talk out of your ass.
Considering one shield boost cycle basically fills your entire shield, you have to let your shield run to 0 before you boost or you're just wasting boost and when you're at low shields, yes you are one nado hit+ a little bit more from being alpha'd. The cynabal gets an extra mid, an extra rig and a whole lot more fitting. If you use that extra mid on a shield boost amp, which co-incidentally gives you almost the same bonus as the 7.5%/lvl, you can fit a similar ship. The cargo hold on the cynabal is the only annoyance. [Cynabal, X:L ASB Dual Prop.] Internal Force Field Array I Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Dread Guristas Co-Processor 10MN Afterburner II Gistum C-Type 10MN Microwarpdrive X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Shield Boost Amplifier II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Projectile Ambit Extension II Even gets the ability to kite.
That costs a ton more then the vaga, tanks 1 third, and has a huge sig. Vaga is miles ahead. |
Gyttfryd
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:50:00 -
[92] - Quote
The cap bonus on the Sacrilege was one of its core components allowing it to tank well (which is basically the only thing it does right atm) and now you're removing that bonus and give it a range bonus which *may* allow it to kite (regarding the low base speed and the armor tank this is highly questionable) HMLs only reduce the sacs already rerrible dps even further. And the added drones wont support your "kiting" either. Make it the brawler it should be with high resistances and the necessary cap to run a dual rep. If you want to tweak sth then start at it's dps, it's pretty terrible and adding some drones will help a small bit but won't encourage the unique amarr missile boat (needs MOAR missiles ;)
|
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
189
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:51:00 -
[93] - Quote
Not as valuable as pwn agility and top sized guns, but yes there's that. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
189
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:52:00 -
[94] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
That costs a ton more then the vaga, tanks 1 third, and has a huge sig. Vaga is miles ahead.
Tanks 1/3, yes maths, it's a difficult thing. It actually tanks 80% as much as the Vaga.
You are a flat out mong. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
394
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:53:00 -
[95] - Quote
Wow CCP you just absolutely MURDERED the Sacrilege. All active setups are absolutely useless now. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
97
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:53:00 -
[96] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
Your not going to kite with hams in a sac, and without webs on your primary the dps is terrible. M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Also in case anyone cares, try flying a kiting ship when something like that is going to exist http://i.imgur.com/omX9rre.png (no cap/sensor strenght changes yet; no it will have even better cap). Thats 98k ehp after the booster is dry (4.25*9*2117 + 17754 = 98729.25). Couple of things: It requires THREE fitting implants, your 98k ehp assumes that it won't get alpha'd of the field with that **** poor 17k EHP, and I could fit up a Cynabal that would do the job better for probably the same cost or less. Yes, 17k ehp (more then a omen or a stabber) is totally going to get alphaed, if you dont like the implants, drop a low or a rigslot. And no a cynabal can never match that, dont talk out of your ass. The fact that the Vaga is square-peg-round-holed into a single fit that is tight beyond what most pilots can fit that has to run with 3 implants, drugs, and overheat everything just to get those numbers is pitiful. Look at the other HACs, none of them have such tight fittings, none of them have to fly with so many implants, none of htem have to overheat all their mods and use boosters, hoping they don't get side effects, just to get a decent fit. The Vaga needs a buff, and that "fit" isn't what the Vaga should be.
As if fitting matters, it fits (and you cna easily get it to fit without implants) and it counts, you always heat your invul and you always heat the asb (if you dont you are bad), and those were the only heated modules on the ship (you see that they both work for over 2 minutes permaheating).
The maulus of the bluepill is neglectable, shield doesnt matter much as it isnt a buffer fit nor does optimal, beeing faloff absed (nor does cap tbh, the nos is enough to keep tacke/invul running).
That isnt what the vaga should be, but its going to be. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
97
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:54:00 -
[97] - Quote
Akturous wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
That costs a ton more then the vaga, tanks 1 third, and has a huge sig. Vaga is miles ahead.
Tanks 1/3, yes maths, it's a difficult thing. It actually tanks 80% as much as the Vaga. You are a flat out mong.
Cyna tank 724 with heat, vaga 2.1k. |
gawrshmapooo
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:57:00 -
[98] - Quote
Gyttfryd wrote:The cap bonus on the Sacrilege was one of its core components allowing it to tank well (which is basically the only thing it does right atm) and now you're removing that bonus and give it a range bonus which *may* allow it to kite (regarding the low base speed and the armor tank this is highly questionable) HMLs only reduce the sacs already terrible dps even further. And the added drones wont support your "kiting" either. Make it the brawler it should be with high resistances and the necessary cap to run a dual rep. If you want to tweak sth then start at it's dps, it's pretty terrible and adding some drones will help a small bit but won't encourage the unique amarr missile boat (needs MOAR missiles ;)
Gonna quote that. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
189
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:58:00 -
[99] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Akturous wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
That costs a ton more then the vaga, tanks 1 third, and has a huge sig. Vaga is miles ahead.
Tanks 1/3, yes maths, it's a difficult thing. It actually tanks 80% as much as the Vaga. You are a flat out mong. Cyna tank 724 with heat, vaga 2.1k.
How did you even get into Tuskers, Suli must think you suck some good phallus mate.
http://my.jetscreenshot.com/demo/20130729-nmw3-305kb
Edit, I'm actually the mong and forgot about the new bonus, so ignore that. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
189
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:59:00 -
[100] - Quote
Gyttfryd wrote:The cap bonus on the Sacrilege was one of its core components allowing it to tank well (which is basically the only thing it does right atm) and now you're removing that bonus and give it a range bonus which *may* allow it to kite (regarding the low base speed and the armor tank this is highly questionable) HMLs only reduce the sacs already rerrible dps even further. And the added drones wont support your "kiting" either. Make it the brawler it should be with high resistances and the necessary cap to run a dual rep. If you want to tweak sth then start at it's dps, it's pretty terrible and adding some drones will help a small bit but won't encourage the unique amarr missile boat (needs MOAR missiles ;)
He edited back in the cap bonus.
So now you get both the 5%/lvl integrated into the hull, as well as the extra cap from the whole HAC cap buff, making your cap fantastic. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
|
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
395
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:59:00 -
[101] - Quote
Now that you've killed all active tank dual rep Sacrileges, can you add another low? 3 lows for armor tank is rather pathetic with 2 BCU. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
97
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:02:00 -
[102] - Quote
Akturous wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Akturous wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
That costs a ton more then the vaga, tanks 1 third, and has a huge sig. Vaga is miles ahead.
Tanks 1/3, yes maths, it's a difficult thing. It actually tanks 80% as much as the Vaga. You are a flat out mong. Cyna tank 724 with heat, vaga 2.1k. How did you even get into Tuskers, Suli must think you suck some good phallus mate. http://my.jetscreenshot.com/demo/20130729-nmw3-305kb
http://imgur.com/omX9rre
(if you werent in sc id call you bad names now) |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
457
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:05:00 -
[103] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:The cerberus.. I still fear might become too powerful with speed. but the metagame might not let that happen.. we must wait and see on this case "Cerberus" and "too powerful" in the same sentence. That's a first. Anyway, THANK YOU SO MUCH for the CPU on the Ishtar, CCP Rise!
Speed and missiles combined have ALWAYS resulted in "TOO POWERFUL". Need to be careful when combining those. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3203
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:06:00 -
[104] - Quote
Much better, but there's a typo in the OP- Ishtar has one slot less than the others.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
192
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:07:00 -
[105] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
(if you werent in sc id call you bad names now)
(edit, and no dualprop is not the wa yto go, but its a valid option)
Yeah I edited my post to state that I am infact the mong as I forgot about the 7.5%/lvl.
You need dual prop or anything with a web will really make you pay. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
98
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:12:00 -
[106] - Quote
You need ualprop to sigtank some and to kill frigates that have you scrammed, both can be dont in other ways. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:16:00 -
[107] - Quote
Well not a roll bonus hand picked thoughtfuly for each ship as i had hoped but whatevs
I will say a few things tho:
1: I think they could use alittle more HP across the board, not way above their T1 but just a tad, and especialy dont go in reverse on the poor DIEmost!
2: Give the Vaga more fitting pllllllllllleeeeeeaassseeee, either more PG so it can fit bigger guns, or more CPU since it is now suposed to fit a shield boster some of the time.
3: lower their sig another 10 across the board, 150 on the diemos is still HUGE!
The cerb looks great, hell i think it may jut be the new Vaga if the vaga dosent get more grid.
The Sac looks interesting i will definatly try it out as a duleprop HAM kiter or can anyone say Podla Sac's?
Oh and I still have no idea if you want the Eagle to be a brawler with those 6 mids and shield resists, or a sniper with the doble range bonus, please pick one, its such a confused ship.
Muninn needs another mid, 3 mids just makes it out as a terible zealot.
That is all, better but i still wish they where cheeper, they arnt BSs where peopel might pay a allot more for them, they are cruisers and people arnt likely going to pay 170mil unless 0.0 doctorens say to. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:17:00 -
[108] - Quote
To be honest, the vagabond looks like a very lackluster kiter in the face of the new cerberus and rail deimos, which both have vastly superior projection without giving up much in the way of mobility when fit appropriately. It really needs a substantial increase in PG in order to be able to fit 425s and a proper tank if it's supposed to be a capable solo/small-gang ship. XLASB brawling setups are a lot less effective now that their novelty has passed, and they can't stand up to more conventional brawlers in a point blank slugfest, so they're kind of reduced to gimmicky ships for running down things like lone Tier 3s and faction cruisers, which seems like a disappointingly niche role. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
210
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:17:00 -
[109] - Quote
Vaga definitely needs more shield HP to XLASB effectively (Rise, if you expect us to LASB, I will lose the last of my respect for you, LASBs suck) otherwise the Vaga will get alpha'd since its shield boost is the same as its shield HP, meaning the Vaga pilot has to wait until he has NO SHIELDS to boost, or lose tank. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Kururugi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:18:00 -
[110] - Quote
Are you trying to phase out regular Armor Repairers for pvp just like how you did with regular Shield Boosters by replacing them with the ancill kit? Sorry if that sounds a bit accusatory, just something that came in my mind. |
|
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:19:00 -
[111] - Quote
What no five light drones for the Eagle? It would make the ship a lot more flexible and interesting.
As for the rest of the shipchanges: You added a lot of cpu to the Ishtar. Will be interesting to see how people will fit it.
The rest of them I have to digest slowly first. except one: I didn't think you would back down about the new (useless) shieldboost boni on the vagabond.
Cynabal prices likely skyrocketed another 30% as of today. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
137
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:21:00 -
[112] - Quote
I am very, very shocked by the complete disregard to any of the advice given to you on the forums.
Sac: Again, 50% MWD bonus is a waste (you even admit this yourself) - No damage application bonus. HAM / HML Is useless unless you have hard tackle on a target - Speed: Still one of the slowest cruisers out there. - Missile velocity bonus: Again CCP, why do you need increased velocity if they only thing this ship can do is brawl? Really another poor, and barckward choice. - Needs another low slot.
Zealot: - No change in its pathetic cap - Still slow as hell, completely eclipsed by the Nomen - MWD sig bonus is wasted here again, because most zealots used in fleet are AB
Deimos: - Its faster which is good, its going to be a nice rail sniper (provided it can mitigate tracking with its speed)
Ishtar: - Drones suck for PvP so I really have no comment - Still Slow as hell
Vagabond: - I am easily the most shocked with this change. - The fastest cruiser by far - Still retains the OP shield boost bonus
The reality of the vagabond is that this hull alone will completely shut down solo / small gang vs blob play. Vagas are so fast that it will be difficult to out pace them. They have an amazing tank (when properly fit). Don't even get me started on the application of snakes / crystals / links. A vaga will be able to easily kill just about anything it comes across. It can kite, and easily tank any damage coming from 20+ out, or against T1 cruisers / other HAC's / Pirate / Navy cruisers can simply F1 approach and face **** them.
The vaga is still poor for kiting, because it still only has a 10% falloff range, and is unable to really project damage. The vaga is now easily the king of all the cruisers bar non. Very horrible reasoning / change to the hull.
Muninn:
Again you did nothing to really help / change the muninn along. - Speed: Still way to slow in the current meta -Bonuses still lacking for projectile ships
Cerberus: I am amazed at how delusional you are, thinking that the cerbs speed is some how going to allow it to kite. - Still doesn't have a damage application bonus for HAM / HML With out that, cerb needs to get into hard tackle range, or be forced to fly with a bonused TP ship - Still doesn't have the low slots it needs to effectively nano - Missile 'sniping' is a complete waste. If you have not noticed, Tier 3 BC's hvae got that role down pat. Stop trying to force the cerb into an outdated, and horrible playstyle.
Eagle: Wow. The one ship that needed the most help, and you have done nothing. -Speed: 180 are you kidding me? Still way to slow - Only 4 Lows, really really lacking for a rail boat - again the eagle has no useful role. Its eclipsed in the sniping world, and in the brawling world will easily get outplayed by ships that are faster, and hit harder.
I again would like to re-iterate how shocking the complete, and willful disregard to eve-o suggestions is to me. This will be my last post on the subject, because clearly trying to have a rational conversation about these ships, gets thrown to the wayside.
You still don't have a good idea for HACs. So instead of trying to come up with something new, you are going to be placing them in the same place they were before:
Horrible brawlers, that have less EHP / DPS than BS / BC / Command ships, or horrible snipers that are completely eclipsed by Tier 3 BC's.
Start training for your vagas boys. |
Balthazar Lestrane
Viziam Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:22:00 -
[113] - Quote
+1, massive improvements to the Ishtar and Sacrilege, the minor buffs to the others are cool but dayum, that Ishtar is looking mighty fine. ETA on 1.1? |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
98
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:23:00 -
[114] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vaga definitely needs more shield HP to XLASB effectively (Rise, if you expect us to LASB, I will lose the last of my respect for you, LASBs suck) otherwise the Vaga will get alpha'd since its shield boost is the same as its shield HP, meaning the Vaga pilot has to wait until he has NO SHIELDS to boost, or lose tank.
I first assumed that same since you boost 1780 out of 2180 per asb cyle, but thats still1.4k ehp (doesnt sound like a lot but thats about as much as a standard (nonarty) medium sized gun hits you for per volley) and you can bleed armour/structure for quite a bit, you just cant wait and you need to boost immeditaly once you get below 14%. |
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1651
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Still worried on the shield boost bonus on a ship with only 4 mids. It bee lines the ship on a basic single fit.
Let's pretend outside of the gimmick ASB Vagabond that the standard mid-layout on Vagabonds hasn't been LSE/LSE/MWD/Point and then your argument might hold some water.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:25:00 -
[116] - Quote
Noun bonus (plural-ábonuses)
Something extra that is good. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
211
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:28:00 -
[117] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vaga definitely needs more shield HP to XLASB effectively (Rise, if you expect us to LASB, I will lose the last of my respect for you, LASBs suck) otherwise the Vaga will get alpha'd since its shield boost is the same as its shield HP, meaning the Vaga pilot has to wait until he has NO SHIELDS to boost, or lose tank. I first assumed that same since you boost 1780 out of 2180 per asb cyle, but thats still1.4k ehp (doesnt sound like a lot but thats about as much as a standard (nonarty) medium sized gun hits you for per volley) and you can bleed armour/structure for quite a bit, you just cant wait and you need to boost immeditaly once you get below 14%.
Yes because a Vaga will definitely be flying against a single ship 14%, thats a ridiculously small margin of error, and when fighting a gang of 5-10 players that 14% evaporates in less than a second. I know that from experience, so don't try to make up some nonsense.
The Vaga will get alpha'd or lose tank because it boosts too early. Give it more HP, another mid, and scrap the ASB bonus. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
457
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:30:00 -
[118] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Akturous wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Akturous wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
That costs a ton more then the vaga, tanks 1 third, and has a huge sig. Vaga is miles ahead.
Tanks 1/3, yes maths, it's a difficult thing. It actually tanks 80% as much as the Vaga. You are a flat out mong. Cyna tank 724 with heat, vaga 2.1k. How did you even get into Tuskers, Suli must think you suck some good phallus mate. http://my.jetscreenshot.com/demo/20130729-nmw3-305kb http://imgur.com/omX9rre(if you werent in sc id call you bad names now) (edit, and no dualprop is not the wa yto go, but its a valid option)
WTF you guys doing? Cynabals use 100 MN AB!!!!!
|
GeneralNukeEm
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:32:00 -
[119] - Quote
Quote:We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change. How is 7.5% tracking per level for medium hybrid turrets not a compelling replacement for MWD cap use? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
457
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:33:00 -
[120] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Still worried on the shield boost bonus on a ship with only 4 mids. It bee lines the ship on a basic single fit.
Let's pretend outside of the gimmick ASB Vagabond that the standard mid-layout on Vagabonds hasn't been LSE/LSE/MWD/Point and then your argument might hold some water.
Sisue is.. before . that fit was used because there was ntohign better to do. Now.. it will become almost mandatory and ASB are much more complicated to fit (the X L one that peopel will try to squeeze anyway). |
|
Lixia Saran
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:33:00 -
[121] - Quote
Overall the changes look nice albeit some concerns that I have over the two HACs that I know best:
Sacrilege: Im a bit concerned about the cap change killing the active tank setup, but I'd have to run the fit with the new numbers. Bottom line, I hope it doesnt lose too much active tank
Vagabond: Oh boy... I feel we haven't really moved enough on this one. Even tho it'll be able to run its mwd a bit longer, the new bonus kinda pigeonhole it into an XLASB setup and still, imho, isn't worth the price over flying an SFI or Cynabal. I would have loved to see another mid slot to allow for a fit with 2x LSEs + SSB/MSB or LSE + MSB + SBA or LSE + Hardener + Booster, to give us the option to adapt the tank a little bit.
Furthermore, the Vaga could really use a fitting upgrade to allow it to sport 425mms.
And as a closing comment: it should be manufactured by core complexion (including the paintjob :P). |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
99
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:35:00 -
[122] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vaga definitely needs more shield HP to XLASB effectively (Rise, if you expect us to LASB, I will lose the last of my respect for you, LASBs suck) otherwise the Vaga will get alpha'd since its shield boost is the same as its shield HP, meaning the Vaga pilot has to wait until he has NO SHIELDS to boost, or lose tank. I first assumed that same since you boost 1780 out of 2180 per asb cyle, but thats still1.4k ehp (doesnt sound like a lot but thats about as much as a standard (nonarty) medium sized gun hits you for per volley) and you can bleed armour/structure for quite a bit, you just cant wait and you need to boost immeditaly once you get below 14%. Yes because a Vaga will definitely be flying against a single ship 14%, thats a ridiculously small margin of error, and when fighting a gang of 5-10 players that 14% evaporates in less than a second. I know that from experience, so don't try to make up some nonsense. The Vaga will get alpha'd or lose tank because it boosts too early. Give it more HP, another mid, and scrap the ASB bonus.
I agree on the changes you want (it needs more fitting to and a second range bonus), i disagree on your statement, if every second you are recieving more then 1.4k damage in ine second you are looking at such a incredible amount of dps that you can permarun the asb anyways. Yes there is a margin of error and yes you could lose some ehp due to overrepping but even if you lose 20%, thats still a cruiser with more then 80k ehp.
It will outbrawl most bcs and pretty much all cruisers. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:38:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Rise what speaks against giving all the HACs one more slot?
munin ,vaga and eagle all need another gun their top end dps is just not comparable to tech 1 battlecruisers neither is the tank of both gallente hulls they desperately need another low and a buff to their terribly low base armor hp the sacrilege does quite low dps with only space for 1bcu if it wants a decent tank another low would fix that the sacrilege also does depend on its capacitor recharge you need to roll the whole of its bonus into the hull if you want to change it like that
the all around capacitor recharge increase is a nice addition giving hacs a lot more time with their MWDs on
here is what it would look like
Sacrilege: +1low +170pg allows it to be fitted as a heavy tackle with cap booster and dual bcu
Zealot: +1mid +10cpu enables it to have greater all around utility and damage projection
Cerberus: +1low +165pg +80cpu allows it to fit greater tank by use of RCU or greater speed by use of a nano or OI
Eagle: +1 high +1gun +225pg -400shield keeps it competitive with battle cruisers in the sniping role while not overtaking them in dps
Deimos: +1low +285pg +30cpu +450 this gives it a choice of increasing its tank or dps
ishtar: +1low +175pg +80cpu +400armor 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed and tracking having only 5 lows split between tank and dps makes it fall short in both departments 6 lows allows it to shine in both it also has the base armor hp of a thorax that just seems off to me
Vaga: +1gun +1low +145pg +150shield +20cpu -shield boost bonus +10%to med proj falloff per level with the tracking enhancer nerf the vagas dps at range is pitiful a shield boost bonus is not gonna help it if it can't break the shield recharge on an armor ship
Muninn: +1med +1gun +215pg +120shield the muninn also suffers from poor dps and the fact that 3 slots are not enough for a shield tank
pls Rise plug this into the fitting tool of your choice an play with it a bit you will see it is perfect Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
162
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:39:00 -
[124] - Quote
Capqu wrote:CCP Rise wrote:The sac recharge rate is actually wrong in the OP, will fix it. Forgot to adjust it after we removed the bonus.
The Cerberus kinetic bonus is not a relic in the same way that the Sacrilege recharge bonus or the Ishtar drone bay bonus were. We talked a lot about the role of damage specific bonuses with the CSM, as they raised the same concerns. Its obvious that the bonus is a bit of a handicap from the perspective of the Cerberus pilot, but we like the gameplay it adds and so we would only want to remove it if the Cerb was really needing more power, which isn't the case.
Knowing what kind of damage your opponent is likely to do is just as interesting as knowing which kind of damage your opponent is likely to be weak to. It lets creates interesting decisions for both the Cerb pilot and the Cerb's opponents and we like that. preach it the cerb would be too strong if it didnt have SOME kind of weakness, and kinetic damage is a small price to pay for 350 perfectly applied dps @ 105k while cruisin' at 2kms It already is too strong with these proposed stats.
It is too agile. It has drones it does not need because it can reach out and blap frigs already with it's missiles. RLMLs would never let them get close, and precision heavys won't have range limitations with the double range bonus.
Conversely, the Sac is a cow. And if it is to have any tank it will need a plate (more cow). Also, 5 lows but a utility high? Damage will be anemic to that of the Cerb, and the Cerb will run circles around it. The 50/50 drone bay on the Sac is sort of stupid. If you put a full flight of mediums in, no frig defense. If you put two flights of lights then where is the supposed damage tradeoff with the Cerb's extra launcher. Did I mention the Sac will be a total cow compared to the Cerb?
If you are going to put a few drones on a Caldari ship it should be the Eagle. Give it 3 or 4 light drones.
The Zealot needs 3 or 4 light drones as well. If Amarr is going to be the new second drone race then this ship deserves some drones. And no Caldari HAC should have more droneage.
Munnin is still burdened by 3 mids. Why? It appears to me to be the new ass of HACs.
The Diemos and Ishtar. Well at least you gave the Ishtar some much needed CPU. However, why is that tracking and velocity bonus only on Heavys? You don't seemed concerned about frig obsolescence with the RLML or Precision HML Cerb? So why are drones not invited to the party?
Vaga meh, Diemos meh.
In sum a better iteration than the first rollout. The sensor strength bonus is a great idea. These should be souped up Cruisers able to fight with the BSs. But some unevenness within the class will emerge. Sniper or perma-mwd HAM Cerb fleets in 3 . . 2 . . Was nothing learned from the Drake/Tengu years? |
Comto Aldent
Circulus Exousias
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:39:00 -
[125] - Quote
Looks like i'm going right into HAC training for the Ishtar, get use out of training it now. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
99
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:40:00 -
[126] - Quote
GeneralNukeEm wrote:Quote:We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change. How is 7.5% tracking per level for medium hybrid turrets not a compelling replacement for MWD cap use?
CCP beeing bad and overbuffing rails, current proposed deimos is a talos with way better tracking, better range, more ehp and speed and 80% of the dps, add another 7.5% tarcking and you will have a ship that has the tracking of a zealot with scorch and the dps of a oracle (it already is a better oracle). |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
211
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:40:00 -
[127] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vaga definitely needs more shield HP to XLASB effectively (Rise, if you expect us to LASB, I will lose the last of my respect for you, LASBs suck) otherwise the Vaga will get alpha'd since its shield boost is the same as its shield HP, meaning the Vaga pilot has to wait until he has NO SHIELDS to boost, or lose tank. I first assumed that same since you boost 1780 out of 2180 per asb cyle, but thats still1.4k ehp (doesnt sound like a lot but thats about as much as a standard (nonarty) medium sized gun hits you for per volley) and you can bleed armour/structure for quite a bit, you just cant wait and you need to boost immeditaly once you get below 14%. Yes because a Vaga will definitely be flying against a single ship 14%, thats a ridiculously small margin of error, and when fighting a gang of 5-10 players that 14% evaporates in less than a second. I know that from experience, so don't try to make up some nonsense. The Vaga will get alpha'd or lose tank because it boosts too early. Give it more HP, another mid, and scrap the ASB bonus. I agree on the changes you want (it needs more fitting to and a second range bonus), i disagree on your statement, if every second you are recieving more then 1.4k damage in ine second you are looking at such a incredible amount of dps that you can permarun the asb anyways. Yes there is a margin of error and yes you could lose some ehp due to overrepping but even if you lose 20%, thats still a cruiser with more then 80k ehp. It will outbrawl most bcs and pretty much all cruisers.
And when did the Vaga become a brawler! Come on CCP, there are better bonuses than this shield boost bonus. You KNOW it will only be applied to XLASBs, which are ridiculously hard to fit and just aren't that good on the current Vaga hull.
There have been suggestions on how to fix the Vaga from players, its time to listen to the people who actually fly them and make it decent. Time to listen to people who actually fly ALL the HACs and either decrease the build cost or make them better, because they simply aren't worth 130m. People may say otherwise now but when these changes go live there will be the same Cynabal blobs, same T3 blobs, and same battleship blobs that have and will continue to rule EVE. Except the Ishtar because wow, those bonuses? Really? As if the Domi wasn't blapping everything already fast enough. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
James1122
Calamitous-Intent
80
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:41:00 -
[128] - Quote
Changes look good,
Looking forward to them being rolled onto SISI for testing.
Will there be another balance wave/pass once you guys have SISI feedback ?
Edit: Or buckingham , whatever its called these days.... Two Step for CSM |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:41:00 -
[129] - Quote
Roime wrote:Much better, but there's a typo in the OP- Ishtar has one slot less than the others.
Trolling.....?? its a drone boat, they always have 1 less for having drone utility.
As for the Vaga OP people, I hope your Tornado Alphaed into oblivion, gods know it would only take one and maybe a friend.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1367
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:41:00 -
[130] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Was nothing learned from the Drake/Tengu years?
I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people learned how to firewall. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
99
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:42:00 -
[131] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vaga definitely needs more shield HP to XLASB effectively (Rise, if you expect us to LASB, I will lose the last of my respect for you, LASBs suck) otherwise the Vaga will get alpha'd since its shield boost is the same as its shield HP, meaning the Vaga pilot has to wait until he has NO SHIELDS to boost, or lose tank. I first assumed that same since you boost 1780 out of 2180 per asb cyle, but thats still1.4k ehp (doesnt sound like a lot but thats about as much as a standard (nonarty) medium sized gun hits you for per volley) and you can bleed armour/structure for quite a bit, you just cant wait and you need to boost immeditaly once you get below 14%. Yes because a Vaga will definitely be flying against a single ship 14%, thats a ridiculously small margin of error, and when fighting a gang of 5-10 players that 14% evaporates in less than a second. I know that from experience, so don't try to make up some nonsense. The Vaga will get alpha'd or lose tank because it boosts too early. Give it more HP, another mid, and scrap the ASB bonus. I agree on the changes you want (it needs more fitting to and a second range bonus), i disagree on your statement, if every second you are recieving more then 1.4k damage in ine second you are looking at such a incredible amount of dps that you can permarun the asb anyways. Yes there is a margin of error and yes you could lose some ehp due to overrepping but even if you lose 20%, thats still a cruiser with more then 80k ehp. It will outbrawl most bcs and pretty much all cruisers. And when did the Vaga become a brawler! Come on CCP, there are better bonuses than this shield boost bonus. You KNOW it will only be applied to XLASBs, which are ridiculously hard to fit and just aren't that good on the current Vaga hull. There have been suggestions on how to fix the Vaga from players, its time to listen to the people who actually fly them and make it decent. Time to listen to people who actually fly ALL the HACs and either decrease the build cost or make them better, because they simply aren't worth 130m. People may say otherwise now but when these changes go live there will be the same Cynabal blobs, same T3 blobs, and same battleship blobs that have and will continue to rule EVE. Except the Ishtar because wow, those bonuses? Really? As if the Domi wasn't blapping everything already fast enough.
Since they proposed these changes. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
372
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:42:00 -
[132] - Quote
First, overall, generally good. Love that you guys improved the sensor strengths for some built-in "dishonor drone" resilience.
But, I still have to disagree with the bonuses on the Ishtar. As others have pointed out, and rightly so, we again see a case--intentional in this case--that a Gallente ship has yet another wasted bonus. If I'm using Sentries I get 3x bonuses, and if I'm using heavy drones, I get 3 bonuses. But never will I get 4x bonus' worth unless I'm flying--lol--a mixed heavy/sentry wing, which unless I'm just absolutely terrible at Eve, would never do. Great for incorporating the drone bay and giving it a CPU buff! But, come on, Rise, you can't be serious that I'd use one bonus at a time. The comparison to giving other ships bonuses to long-range or short-range weapons (broken up) is valid. You guys have to recognize this.
Further, if your intent was to buff Ishtar's Heavy uses, then you effectively obsoleted the Navy Vexor, since it's bonus is only 5% to drone speed. Why would I take a Navy Vexor with only 25% drone velocity and tracking when I can take an Ishtar with 37.5% heavy speed and tracking, have a larger drone bay, MWD reduction bonus, etc.?? By all accounts--T2 resists, stronger sensor strength, etc., the Ishtar is going to be better in every case.
Also curious about the 7.5% optimal/tracking vs the Domi's 10%. You do realize that the overpowered nature of the Domi's bonuses were in a limited sphere-engagement AT XI environment? In "real" Eve, fights aren't bound to one location like they are in the tournament, so I think it's a bit of a miss to reduce the bonus simply because of any overlap with an obviously overpowered ship in a limited environment with its own set of rules. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Novah Soul
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:44:00 -
[133] - Quote
Things are looking quite a bit better now. I'm especially happy about the Cerb and Ishtar changes. Doing good work here, Rise. ;) |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
372
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:45:00 -
[134] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Roime wrote:Much better, but there's a typo in the OP- Ishtar has one slot less than the others.
Trolling.....?? its a drone boat, they always have 1 less for having drone utility. As for the Vaga OP people, I hope your Tornado Alphaed into oblivion, gods know it would only take one and maybe a friend. This is the biggest line of **** in the game. Please explain how a drone ship somehow has more "utility" when it has to forego its damage to get this utility?? It would seem like other ships with turret or launcher bonused damage AND a drone bay have infinitely more utility out if their drone bays, given the proliferation of drone bays on nearly every ship. For example, I can launch 5x EC-300s on a Drake AND still apply bonused damage simultaneously! Yet, on an Ishtar, if I launch utility drones, I can't do **** for damage. Explain, again, how this makes sense??
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3203
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:46:00 -
[135] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Roime wrote:Much better, but there's a typo in the OP- Ishtar has one slot less than the others.
Trolling.....?? its a drone boat, they always have 1 less for having drone utility. As for the Vaga OP people, I hope your Tornado Alphaed into oblivion, gods know it would only take one and maybe a friend.
Drone utility? What's that? Do you mean giving up all your dps to get the same utility as all other ships?
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
616
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:47:00 -
[136] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote: having only 5 lows split between tank and dps makes it fall short in both departments 6 lows allows it to shine in both
That makes literally no sense at all. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
211
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:49:00 -
[137] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: Since they proposed these changes.
Nobody proposed an ASB vaga... I was thinking more fitting, more tank, but nope, we got sensor strength. Its a good thing, but its not what HACs need to be revenant again. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
372
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:49:00 -
[138] - Quote
Deimos still looks ridiculous with the MWD cap bonus. Again, like a broken record, we're looking at a Gallente ship with a WASTED bonus if I decide to fit an AB (the role bonus not so much, because every ship would lose out on it with AB). Honestly, the Sac's old cap recharge bonus would be much better here if you're going to use some wonky bonus. Optimally, it'd be a useful bonus, like 5% armor hp per level, but if that's going to be too op (since we all know the Deimos was VASTLY OVERPOWERED on TQ), then give it a bonus that will be useful for all fits.
Also, the Eagle will probably still struggle to find uses, given that it's damage will still fall below the curve in most cases. Dual optimal bonuses are nice--and very Caldari--but you gotta realize that sacrificing damage for them isn't an option if you want the ship to be utilized. Give it 10% damage/lvl if that's the case. Or even 7.5%. Otherwise, good pass overall.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
616
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:52:00 -
[139] - Quote
Roime wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Roime wrote:Much better, but there's a typo in the OP- Ishtar has one slot less than the others.
Trolling.....?? its a drone boat, they always have 1 less for having drone utility. As for the Vaga OP people, I hope your Tornado Alphaed into oblivion, gods know it would only take one and maybe a friend. Drone utility? What's that? Do you mean giving up all your dps to get the same utility as all other ships? Because 500 dps without using a single pg or cpu are so not worth giving up a slot for.... |
Cardavet
Jester's Hole
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:52:00 -
[140] - Quote
Ive got rise figured out now, He posts round 1 changes that he knows are bad and will cause outrage to get people posting, since normally we cant be bothered to leave the cesspit of GD forum.
he reads all the flames, saves all the good ideas, makes the round 2 changes, and comes out looking like a genius |
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:55:00 -
[141] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Roime wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Roime wrote:Much better, but there's a typo in the OP- Ishtar has one slot less than the others.
Trolling.....?? its a drone boat, they always have 1 less for having drone utility. As for the Vaga OP people, I hope your Tornado Alphaed into oblivion, gods know it would only take one and maybe a friend. Drone utility? What's that? Do you mean giving up all your dps to get the same utility as all other ships? Because 500 dps without using a single pg or cpu are so not worth giving up a slot for....
^ QFT |
Drahlios Orrewuh
Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:56:00 -
[142] - Quote
Ok, all the favourite ships were fixed quiet well. At least now we can see some direction on HACs and that you want them in new purpose. Maybe change the name of the ship class, too? As for now it sounds like THE damage boats, but they are not ;-)
I am worried by the Deimos though. Don't know how the other guys think about it and maybe let us fokus some discussion on that ship. So ccp wanted HACs to tank more. Why do you cut off such a luge chunk of armor off the (obviously) armor tanking deimos? it has lowest shield/armor rates of all the HACs, still it is designed to be more close range? Sounds to me like a one hit candidate.
I would suggest you remove 300 hull hp, set the armor hp back to 1750 or 1700 and give it a little chance to survive the first alpha. Also: blasters... first they were buffed, then they were slowed down again. That tracking problem added towards a range problem is something that was conseiled by the huge advantage of the talos. But Talos uses large Blasters, please consider that one, and crappy small/med blasters were never that famous. Just rethink about adding something to those part of the Weapon group Blasters or the Deimos to make it more comparable to the other HACs.
Oh, and of the deimos should be designed as a kiting long range ship... still cannot see that. maybe i got you all wrong. But that ship really was flying under the radar for years now ;)
|
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:57:00 -
[143] - Quote
Quote: For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
Give it a tracking bonus! Please! It was a wonderful change on the Thorax, it would be the perfect change here.
The Deimos is never going to compete with the Eagle at extreme range, let alone with real sniping ships. Making it more of an anti-support ship makes much more sense, and would also give it more solo viability (which it'll need if it's losing the high slot it could have spent on a neut.) |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:57:00 -
[144] - Quote
Thank you for giving a bonus to a ship (vagabond) when we minmatar players said that it wasn't needed and we would like more to remain a skirmish ship, basically saying "hey guys you can still fly and dont use the bonus" is completely ******** and basically telling us to f*** off .
I find it funny also that you want us to shield tank and be awesome with only 4 meds , i mean 2 are used for a MWD and the booster that leaves us with what 2 other mids to what ? 1 point and another slot to put a tank? Or you want us to dual tank using our 5 lows? |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:58:00 -
[145] - Quote
Much better, looks like you really gave it a thought this time around.
The SAC is nearly perfect, but in all honesty why keep the utility high? Either add a 6th Launcher which would really boost it's damage or add 6th low to turn it into a more viable Tank. Do one of these and the discussion about the SAC will be over at last.
Cheers |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
147
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:59:00 -
[146] - Quote
The high sensor strengh alone is a huge buff and will make HAC's the most resilient Combat ships against ECM (ab)use. It's not a huge niche, but they at last finaly have a niche
Also like the other changes, looks much bether than the first draft. Only thing i miss is the addition of a 3th Rig slot. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:59:00 -
[147] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:Much better, looks like you really gave it a thought this time around.
The SAC is nearly perfect, but in all honesty why keep the utility high? Either add a 6th Launcher which would really boost it's damage or add 6th low to turn it into a more viable Tank. Do one of these and the discussion about the SAC will be over at last.
Cheers
it needs the utility high, for anti tackle.
aside from that , i agree that it needs one more low and it would be prefect
IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Kururugi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:00:00 -
[148] - Quote
DUDE PLEASE, COMMAS, PERIODS! That being said, I'm in favor of giving each hac 1 extra slot. |
NaltDi
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:00:00 -
[149] - Quote
Vagabond: Give the **** agillity bonus instead shield boost bonus. Please.
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
163
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:01:00 -
[150] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:Was nothing learned from the Drake/Tengu years? I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people learned how to firewall. Sure if you only fly nullsec blobs. How about solo small gang FW? Anyway, firewall is an imperfect solution to no specific missile defense ewar. Firewalling did not kill off the Drake omnipresence. It was the HM and ship changes that finally put it in its place. Meanwhile smarties have always been a better drone defense. |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
99
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:03:00 -
[151] - Quote
Rovinia wrote:The high sensor strengh alone is a huge buff and will make HAC's the most resilient Combat ships against ECM (ab)use. It's not a huge niche, but they at last finaly have a niche Also like the other changes, looks much bether than the first draft.
NANANANANAAANANANANA T3s + dIssolution sub NANANANANANANANAANANA |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:05:00 -
[152] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: MUNINN
Lowering Signature Radius a bit but no large changes here.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
Slot layout: 6H(-1), 3M, 6L(+1); 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-2) Fittings: 1160 PWG, 355 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1300(+50) / 255s (-80s) / 5.1/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+25km) / 294 / 6(+1) Sensor strength: 21 Ladar(+8) Signature radius: 125(-5)
Okay, I am curious about one thing, and one thing only in regards to your changes to the Muninn. Will the new Muninn have Tech 2 Armor resists or Tech 2 shield resists, in line with the "versatility" of Minmatar racial ships? |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
211
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:05:00 -
[153] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Thank you for giving a bonus to a ship (vagabond) when we minmatar players said that it wasn't needed and we would like more to remain a skirmish ship, basically saying "hey guys you can still fly and dont use the bonus" is completely ******** and basically telling us to f*** off .
I find it funny also that you want us to shield tank and be awesome with only 4 meds , i mean 2 are used for a MWD and the booster that leaves us with what 2 other mids to what ? 1 point and another slot to put a tank? Or you want us to dual+º+º tank using our 5 lows?
^ This.
HACs need one more slot each, 5th mid fro the Vaga, 6th low for the Sac, 6th high for the Diemost, 4th mid for the Muninn etc. HACs need more tank, and more DPS, or they will be out sniped by ABCs, outtanked by BCs, and out cost'ed by their T1 variants.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:07:00 -
[154] - Quote
OK LOVE IT NOW TAKE THEM ASAP TO SINGULARITY |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
298
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:09:00 -
[155] - Quote
great 2nd pass. the sac cap bonus is freakin sic. and the velocity change is the one i axed for...well, that and burner, but hey. still not there tho imo.
slight change. 1. role wasnt defined. if its just a better t1, its not powerful enough compared to t1. 2. cost is too high to justify this ship. 3. training too high to justify this ship.
either make it cheaper and make the training time less or make the ship have a bump in dps across the board.
i like the addition of range and drones on the sac. the rest had great changes. very impressed with round 2.
cant wait to jump in the sac, turn everything on and stay cap stable.
atleast it will have cap when it dies.
needs -1 high, +1 low.
but, we will see. |
Ju0ZaS
Mentally Assured Destruction
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:11:00 -
[156] - Quote
The deimos would be far better off having a tracking bonus instead of the MWD bonus. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3204
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:13:00 -
[157] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Roime wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Roime wrote:Much better, but there's a typo in the OP- Ishtar has one slot less than the others.
Trolling.....?? its a drone boat, they always have 1 less for having drone utility. As for the Vaga OP people, I hope your Tornado Alphaed into oblivion, gods know it would only take one and maybe a friend. Drone utility? What's that? Do you mean giving up all your dps to get the same utility as all other ships? Because 500 dps without using a single pg or cpu are so not worth giving up a slot for....
Destroyble, easily avoidable dps. It has less grid and CPU than all others, meaning that even with empty highs it can't fit any more tank than the others after turrets/launchers.
Not to mention that having only drones as dps works only in sov blobs and PVE.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:14:00 -
[158] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying
Well I also like the sacrilege and with the proposed changes this ship will be very, very dangerous. TBH I will be flying them again =)
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1367
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:14:00 -
[159] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:mynnna wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:Was nothing learned from the Drake/Tengu years? I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people learned how to firewall. Sure if you only fly nullsec blobs. How about solo small gang FW? Anyway, firewall is an imperfect solution to no specific missile defense ewar. Firewalling did not kill off the Drake omnipresence. It was the HM and ship changes that finally put it in its place. Meanwhile smarties have always been a better drone defense.
You want to realpost?
The drake was abusive because it was a ridiculously cheap platform with average DPS and a decidedly above average tank. The Tengu (HML tengu especially) was abusive because of a miniscule sig radius, exceptional speed with AB, and a ridiculously large tank.
The Cerberus gets some of these - speed, damage and sig similar to the Tengu, but considerably lower EHP. It's certainly strong, but probably okay. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:16:00 -
[160] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos? Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos.
Fair enough... Though I would have loved to see a heat reduction bonus like on the t3 subsystem. Something like 5% per level... That would give the ship some staying power without op it.
I dunno maybe its just me but having a bonus just for mwd kinda pigeon holes the ship to mwd only. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:16:00 -
[161] - Quote
@ CCP
so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg? this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.
and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
163
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:19:00 -
[162] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:mynnna wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:Was nothing learned from the Drake/Tengu years? I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people learned how to firewall. Sure if you only fly nullsec blobs. How about solo small gang FW? Anyway, firewall is an imperfect solution to no specific missile defense ewar. Firewalling did not kill off the Drake omnipresence. It was the HM and ship changes that finally put it in its place. Meanwhile smarties have always been a better drone defense. You want to realpost? The drake was abusive because it was a ridiculously cheap platform with average DPS and a decidedly above average tank. The Tengu (HML tengu especially) was abusive because of a miniscule sig radius, exceptional speed with AB, and a ridiculously large tank. The Cerberus gets some of these - speed, damage and sig similar to the Tengu, but considerably lower EHP, cheaper than the Tengu but quite a bit more expensive than the drake. It's certainly strong, but probably okay. Sure, keep defending what you know you will be blobbing with next . . I suppose I would too in your position. But maybe step back and have some concern for the game as a whole? Is that too much to a . . nm |
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:19:00 -
[163] - Quote
I cant see the sacrilege without a nosferatu/neutralizer/utility high Then again I do need another low slot for other things Solution: gimme another slot Hacs are a bit dry on slots |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
100
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:22:00 -
[164] - Quote
Buff the vagas speed by quite a bit (2.8km/s without heat or so with nothing but a mwd), give it another range bonus so it does 400dps with drones at 40km or so. And (very) slighty increase the fitting.
This changes in no way how it performs as a brawler, it just makes it a very good kiter, the cynabal still has its niche as due to the extra mid it get more versatility.
It still wouldt impact any other ships role nor would it change fleet battles it would just make it viable again. |
Kirtar Makanen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:25:00 -
[165] - Quote
Is there a reason that the cerberus kept its damage bonus order (i.e. generic attached to HAC, kinetic attached to cruiser)? While this could easily be due to balance issues (i.e. the RoF is more powerful), I think it could make sense that the cruiser skill would grant the generic effect. In fact, the battlecruiser analog, the nighthawk, has the RoF bonus attached to the base command skill rather than the T2 skill. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
214
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:26:00 -
[166] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:@ CCP
so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg? this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.
and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days
Rise is happy with a brawling Vaga because of his precious XLASB vaga that he made a video about. Too bad we aren't all Kil2. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
373
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:27:00 -
[167] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Rise wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos? Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos. Fair enough... Though I would have loved to see a heat reduction bonus like on the t3 subsystem. Something like 5% per level... That would give the ship some staying power without op it. I dunno maybe its just me but having a bonus just for mwd kinda pigeon holes the ship to mwd only. This would be amazing! Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this pass is the one we're going to be stuck with.
However, I don't think pigeon-holing the Deimos into a MWD setup is all that bad IF it had the ehp to actually brawl, since we all know on TQ currently the Deimos is considered *the* most overpowered, heaviest tanking, best brawling HAC around (/sarcasm). But given that Rise dramatically cut down its hp amounts for lolshield hp, Deimos will likely retain its moniker of Diemost.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Vtra
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:27:00 -
[168] - Quote
Kick that Sac missile velocity bonus up to 15% now that would be specialized. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1367
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:27:00 -
[169] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:mynnna wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:mynnna wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:Was nothing learned from the Drake/Tengu years? I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people learned how to firewall. Sure if you only fly nullsec blobs. How about solo small gang FW? Anyway, firewall is an imperfect solution to no specific missile defense ewar. Firewalling did not kill off the Drake omnipresence. It was the HM and ship changes that finally put it in its place. Meanwhile smarties have always been a better drone defense. You want to realpost? The drake was abusive because it was a ridiculously cheap platform with average DPS and a decidedly above average tank. The Tengu (HML tengu especially) was abusive because of a miniscule sig radius, exceptional speed with AB, and a ridiculously large tank. The Cerberus gets some of these - speed, damage and sig similar to the Tengu, but considerably lower EHP, cheaper than the Tengu but quite a bit more expensive than the drake. It's certainly strong, but probably okay. Sure, keep defending what you know you will be blobbing with next . . I suppose I would too in your position. But maybe step back and have some concern for the game as a whole? Is that too much to a . . nm
Nah we'll be sticking with megathrons for the blobbing, as they've proven to be exceptionally effective. Perhaps some of the smaller combat groups will try out the Cerberus after the war, though they're also enamored with Eagles and especially 450 DPS 280k EHP rail Tengus.
Your candid admission that you'd be incapable of objective analysis if you were on the CSM is nice (albeit completely irrelevant) but please don't project your own failings onto anyone else, least of all me. Thanks. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Landaz
Raven's Flight Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:30:00 -
[170] - Quote
Did u guys just killed the active tank sac? |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
101
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:31:00 -
[171] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:MeBiatch wrote:CCP Rise wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos? Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos. Fair enough... Though I would have loved to see a heat reduction bonus like on the t3 subsystem. Something like 5% per level... That would give the ship some staying power without op it. I dunno maybe its just me but having a bonus just for mwd kinda pigeon holes the ship to mwd only. This would be amazing! Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this pass is the one we're going to be stuck with. However, I don't think pigeon-holing the Deimos into a MWD setup is all that bad IF it had the ehp to actually brawl, since we all know on TQ currently the Deimos is considered *the* most overpowered, heaviest tanking, best brawling HAC around (/sarcasm). But given that Rise dramatically cut down its hp amounts for lolshield hp, Deimos will likely retain its moniker of Diemost.
Rep boni on any hulls are terrible, they force the ship into one specific niche and are vcery bad design. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:32:00 -
[172] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:[b]VAGABOND
... The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.
Good luck with that. Cynabal and vaga are almost identical ships that are currently stuck in the same exact role. The vaga, due to its reisists, was the one that could have more easilly broke out of the mold to allow it a brawler role. Now cynabals are obsolete until they are buffed to make vagas obsolete. If you try to buff cynabals to the point they can break out of that role they will just be op.
Other than that these ships are looking really good. Finally they are worth the isk. Yes even the vaga now that it is a better cynabal for less isk. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:35:00 -
[173] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos? Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos.
I missed this the first time around.
The Muninn has a double damage, range, and tracking bonus, and yet remains a niche doctrine ship at best. I really don't see how the Deimos, with inferior alpha and a falloff bonus instead of optimal, would end up being overpowered in the same context. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
214
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:37:00 -
[174] - Quote
Cearain wrote:CCP Rise wrote:[b]VAGABOND
... The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.
Good luck with that. Cynabal and vaga are almost identical ships that are currently stuck in the same exact role. The vaga, due to its reisists, was the one that could have more easilly broke out of the mold to allow it a brawler role. Now cynabals are obsolete until they are buffed to make vagas obsolete. If you try to buff cynabals to the point they can break out of that role they will just be op. Other than that these ships are looking really good. Finally they are worth the isk. Yes even the vaga now that it is a better cynabal for less isk.
I disagree with a brawling Vagabond, it doesn't have the fitting, the DPS, or the tank to brawl. It was designed originally as a kiting ship, now with minimal changes it is being pigeonholed as a brawler.
This will not work CCP, either make the Vaga a kiter or make it a better brawler, because as it is it isn't worth 130m How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
749
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:37:00 -
[175] - Quote
You taking into account the future eWar revamp (ie. going to tie all eWar to the sensor strength) or are you just fishing for brownie points from ECM haters? Gunboats are considerably harder hit by the omnipresence of TD's than by the occasional ECM boat (relevant words bolded for your convenience).
CCP Rise wrote:...On the right is after the role bonus. You can see that the Zealot, which tracks extremely well, isn't heavily affected, but the Talos and the Drake lose about 25% of their DPS..... Doesn't look that way, looks roughly on par with a ship wielding the biggest bore BS guns .. both have their dps lowered in the 10-20km bracket but beyond that the neutrons climb steadily to their maximum theoretical dps .. think you are the only one I have ever heard refer to HPLII's having excellent tracking .. hahahaha
You NEED to hit the ABC's with a 25-50% tracking penalty!
Was going to moan about the Sac target being way outside its target envelope where a HAM ship is useless but noticed the range bump. What is the reasoning behind that now that it can field HML's by the way? For it to brawl efficiently it needs damage application and/or fight control .. not range, seems like a bit of a schizo-hull to be honest. Suggestion: Neut/Nos amount or Explosion radius/velocity will fit it better.
Otherwise much better, slightly more focused than before even if the MWD sig bonus still doesn't sit well with me, too null oriented for my taste. Ishtar/Cerberus are going to be more annoying adversaries than the Faga was during the nano-age.
CCP wrote:For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change. I hear the armour rep bonus is immensely popular on the small scale at least after the AAR introduction (tongue in cheek .. or is it! ) Would certainly make it into the quintessential brawler. |
HazeInADaze
L'Avant Garde
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:39:00 -
[176] - Quote
These changes look great. I really like the increased sensors and capacitors.
The cerb now looks a definite upgrade on the caracal and the Ishtar looks downright nasty. You gave it a bonus to heavy drones and took away the hybrid bonus; but then added another turrent.... |
PavlikX
You are in da lock
77
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:39:00 -
[177] - Quote
I worried about Sacriledge. Obviously one more low slot needed (at least) |
Kirtar Makanen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:39:00 -
[178] - Quote
Landaz wrote:Did u guys just killed the active tank sac? How much did it actually lose (compared to HAC V, not base) given the broad spectrum increase in capacitor? |
Valterra Craven
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:41:00 -
[179] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The sac recharge rate is actually wrong in the OP, will fix it. Forgot to adjust it after we removed the bonus.
The Cerberus kinetic bonus is not a relic in the same way that the Sacrilege recharge bonus or the Ishtar drone bay bonus were. We talked a lot about the role of damage specific bonuses with the CSM, as they raised the same concerns. Its obvious that the bonus is a bit of a handicap from the perspective of the Cerberus pilot, but we like the gameplay it adds and so we would only want to remove it if the Cerb was really needing more power, which isn't the case.
Knowing what kind of damage your opponent is likely to do is just as interesting as knowing which kind of damage your opponent is likely to be weak to. It lets creates interesting decisions for both the Cerb pilot and the Cerb's opponents and we like that.
Just no....
Seriously, you need to look over the pro's and cons of missiles to realize why this bonus is just stupid.
Pros. Same damage to target at any range Choose your damage No tracking
Cons Flight time Hitting smaller targets does less damage (Popping frigs with large guns is still possible given the right traversals)
By having this stupid bonus you are essentially removing one of the biggest selling points of using missiles... |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
173
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:41:00 -
[180] - Quote
So, the Sacrilege still has a useless high slot, and no ability to tank in the lows if it wants any level of decent damage... awesome.
Remove the high slot, add a low slot. It's currently -2 low slots on the zealot, and has a bonus that only recovers one of those slots tank wise. How can you expect it to be a brawler if it's tank is garbage. You already hurt it's tank with the resist bonus changes. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
459
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:43:00 -
[181] - Quote
Cearain wrote:CCP Rise wrote:[b]VAGABOND
... The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.
Good luck with that. Cynabal and vaga are almost identical ships that are currently stuck in the same exact role. The vaga, due to its reisists, was the one that could have more easilly broke out of the mold to allow it a brawler role. Now cynabals are obsolete until they are buffed to make vagas obsolete. If you try to buff cynabals to the point they can break out of that role they will just be op. Other than that these ships are looking really good. Finally they are worth the isk. Yes even the vaga now that it is a better cynabal for less isk.
That could have been easily solved by moving a vaga low slot into mid slot with the shield boost bonus. Would make it the most brawlish. Also increase vagabond agility a bit (improve).
Nerf cynabal agility a tiny bit, and can even increase a bit its max speed.
One becomes the closer range more resilient and the other keeps the "stay very far away "role. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:43:00 -
[182] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:I hear the armour rep bonus is immensely popular on the small scale at least after the AAR introduction (tongue in cheek .. or is it! ) Would certainly make it into the quintessential brawler.
I realize you're probably joking but good god, no. CCP should retire the armor repair bonus and never put it on another ship ever again until such time as it's possible to fit upsized armor reps on a ship the way it is with shields. Or never at all, I'm honestly fine with either. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1863
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:44:00 -
[183] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:@ CCP
so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg? this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.
and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days Rise is happy with a brawling Vaga because of his precious XLASB vaga that he made a video about. Too bad we aren't all Kil2.
Would love to see this video if you can link it for me =)
Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far.
For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with.
Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
459
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:46:00 -
[184] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:CCP Rise wrote: MUNINN
Lowering Signature Radius a bit but no large changes here.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
Slot layout: 6H(-1), 3M, 6L(+1); 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-2) Fittings: 1160 PWG, 355 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1300(+50) / 255s (-80s) / 5.1/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+25km) / 294 / 6(+1) Sensor strength: 21 Ladar(+8) Signature radius: 125(-5)
Okay, I am curious about one thing, and one thing only in regards to your changes to the Muninn. Will the new Muninn have Tech 2 Armor resists or Tech 2 shield resists, in line with the "versatility" of Minmatar racial ships?
what?
All T2 resists are RACIAL based. Not based on being armor or shield. Minamtar have rsist improved against Amarr, Amarr have resist improved agaisnt minmatar. Gallente and Caldari hate each other the same way.
It has no correlation to how the ship should tank!
|
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:47:00 -
[185] - Quote
GeneralNukeEm wrote:Quote:We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change. How is 7.5% tracking per level for medium hybrid turrets not a compelling replacement for MWD cap use? I agree, 7.5% tracking would make me want to fly the deimos. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
460
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:48:00 -
[186] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:@ CCP
so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg? this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.
and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days Rise is happy with a brawling Vaga because of his precious XLASB vaga that he made a video about. Too bad we aren't all Kil2. Would love to see this video if you can link it for me =) Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far. For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with. Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
I would be a bit nervous about these 2 as well. But the metagame might not allow too much of those 2.
Question Rise.. can you tell us what are the LIKELY next classes that you shall visit? (not askign for ay time, just which direction.. completing t2 cruisers before moving of size? ) |
Novah Soul
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:50:00 -
[187] - Quote
Regarding the cap of the Zealot vs. the Sac, why does the ship with the capless system have more cap, not to mention faster regen, then the one with the lasers? Seems a bit backwards to me. |
Higgs Maken
The Metal Box Company Confederated States of EVE
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:51:00 -
[188] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
ISHTAR
I think the Ishtar had the most alarm bells after the first wave of feedback so it got some of the biggest changes. First of all, we rolled the drone bay bonus into the base stats and replaced it. Rather than the blanket 10% tracking and optimal drone bonus, we split the bonus into two more specialized bonuses. One to Sentry drone optimal and tracking, and another on Heavy Drone speed and tracking. Along with that we made a big adjustment to fitting Big smile
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed and tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 780 PWG(+80), 340 CPU(+55) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400 (-6) / 1600 (-18) / 2300 (+191) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400 (+275) / 265s (-70s) / 5.28/s (+1.9) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+4) / .52 / 11100000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+250) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+20km) / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+7) Signature radius: 145
=============================================================================
Wouldn't it be better if bonus were 7.5% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range for Gallente Cruiser and 7.5% bonus for drone speed and shield/armor resistance for Heavy Assault Cruiser. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
173
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:51:00 -
[189] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:@ CCP
so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg? this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.
and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days Rise is happy with a brawling Vaga because of his precious XLASB vaga that he made a video about. Too bad we aren't all Kil2. Would love to see this video if you can link it for me =) Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far. For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with. Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
Blind leading the blind
2% ecm resistance as explained in my last post...
virtually no more resistance to sensor dampening... it's like you literally did nothing, and people are too clueless to even realize it. |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:51:00 -
[190] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:@ CCP
so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg? this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.
and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days Rise is happy with a brawling Vaga because of his precious XLASB vaga that he made a video about. Too bad we aren't all Kil2. Would love to see this video if you can link it for me =) Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far. For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with. Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
Lul our expectations are a bit over the top on a ship that is supposedly shield tanking with 4 meds?And really nerfing the cyna wont make people fly more the vaga , what will make them is move to better ships at speed/agi skirmish.
What you dont seem to grasp is , if you want the vaga to brawl take one low and put one med, or leave it has is and give it another bonus, agi,speed, whatever. |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1864
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:51:00 -
[191] - Quote
Quote:Question Rise.. can you tell us what are the LIKELY next classes that you shall visit? (not askign for ay time, just which direction.. completing t2 cruisers before moving of size? )
I can't be specific, but I can tell you that you should be watching for a post from Fozzie coming up soon =)
|
|
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:52:00 -
[192] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:So, the Sacrilege still has a useless high slot, and no ability to tank in the lows if it wants any level of decent damage... awesome.
Remove the high slot, add a low slot. It's currently -2 low slots on the zealot, and has a bonus that only recovers one of those slots tank wise. How can you expect it to be a brawler if it's tank is garbage. You already hurt it's tank with the resist bonus changes.
I suppose we can all agree that adding a 6th low(without removing the 6th High) would be the most appealing change to the whole SAC issue. A very doable adjustment i might add. :-) |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
101
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:52:00 -
[193] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Cearain wrote:CCP Rise wrote:[b]VAGABOND
... The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.
Good luck with that. Cynabal and vaga are almost identical ships that are currently stuck in the same exact role. The vaga, due to its reisists, was the one that could have more easilly broke out of the mold to allow it a brawler role. Now cynabals are obsolete until they are buffed to make vagas obsolete. If you try to buff cynabals to the point they can break out of that role they will just be op. Other than that these ships are looking really good. Finally they are worth the isk. Yes even the vaga now that it is a better cynabal for less isk. That could have been easily solved by moving a vaga low slot into mid slot with the shield boost bonus. Would make it the most brawlish. Also increase vagabond agility a bit (improve). Nerf cynabal agility a tiny bit, and can even increase a bit its max speed. One becomes the closer range more resilient and the other keeps the "stay very far away "role.
Why seriously that would nerf it even more for kiting and force it to be a brawler. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:54:00 -
[194] - Quote
Higgs Maken wrote: Wouldn't it be better if bonus were 7.5% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range for Gallente Cruiser and 7.5% bonus for drone speed and shield/armor resistance for Heavy Assault Cruiser.
The proposed Ishtar is already really good; doing this would just step on the Prophecy's toes, I think. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
460
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:55:00 -
[195] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Question Rise.. can you tell us what are the LIKELY next classes that you shall visit? (not askign for ay time, just which direction.. completing t2 cruisers before moving of size? ) I can't be specific, but I can tell you that you should be watching for a post from Fozzie coming up soon =)
Should I be scared? |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
147
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:55:00 -
[196] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Question Rise.. can you tell us what are the LIKELY next classes that you shall visit? (not askign for ay time, just which direction.. completing t2 cruisers before moving of size? ) I can't be specific, but I can tell you that you should be watching for a post from Fozzie coming up soon =)
soonGäó or soon? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
461
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:56:00 -
[197] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Cearain wrote:CCP Rise wrote:[b]VAGABOND
... The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.
Good luck with that. Cynabal and vaga are almost identical ships that are currently stuck in the same exact role. The vaga, due to its reisists, was the one that could have more easilly broke out of the mold to allow it a brawler role. Now cynabals are obsolete until they are buffed to make vagas obsolete. If you try to buff cynabals to the point they can break out of that role they will just be op. Other than that these ships are looking really good. Finally they are worth the isk. Yes even the vaga now that it is a better cynabal for less isk. That could have been easily solved by moving a vaga low slot into mid slot with the shield boost bonus. Would make it the most brawlish. Also increase vagabond agility a bit (improve). Nerf cynabal agility a tiny bit, and can even increase a bit its max speed. One becomes the closer range more resilient and the other keeps the "stay very far away "role. Why seriously that would nerf it even more for kiting and force it to be a brawler.
Yes it would.. as I stated in my post would make them into different ships.. vagabond a Brawlish kiter and the cynabal as a full kitter.
You can make the opposite if youw ant, but its easier to make a HAC the brawlish one than the pirate ship.
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
346
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:57:00 -
[198] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Lul our expectations are a bit over the top on a ship that is supposedly shield tanking with 4 meds?And really nerfing the cyna wont make people fly more the vaga , what will make them is move to better ships at speed/agi skirmish.
What you dont seem to grasp is , if you want the vaga to brawl take one low and put one med, or leave it has is and give it another bonus, agi,speed, whatever. Ships are shield tanking with 4 med slot for years with great success... |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:57:00 -
[199] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:I'm Down wrote:So, the Sacrilege still has a useless high slot, and no ability to tank in the lows if it wants any level of decent damage... awesome.
Remove the high slot, add a low slot. It's currently -2 low slots on the zealot, and has a bonus that only recovers one of those slots tank wise. How can you expect it to be a brawler if it's tank is garbage. You already hurt it's tank with the resist bonus changes. I suppose we can all agree that adding a 6th low(without removing the 6th High) would be the most appealing change to the whole SAC issue. A very doable adjustment i might add. :-)
Actually let it stay with the current slot layout. Adds a ton of flexibility to the number of valid setups that you will be able to use in TQ.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
374
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:58:00 -
[200] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far. You're happy with the Ishtar only having three bonuses at a time? Why is it that CCP is happy gimping Gallente ships?
Ishtar has three effective bonuses at a time when flown properly, Deimos completely wastes a bonus when fit with an AB, and there are far too many to list that lose out on a bonus when fit for buffer. How does this make any sense, because if I'm missing something here, please let me know. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:59:00 -
[201] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:@ CCP
so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg? this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.
and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days Rise is happy with a brawling Vaga because of his precious XLASB vaga that he made a video about. Too bad we aren't all Kil2. Would love to see this video if you can link it for me =) Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far. For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with. Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
over the top? ( i never meant to restore it to its op times opness) i woul trade in a lot for just haveingt better dmg/ ammo choice while flying the vaga. i hate barrage cause its a curse to minmatar ship design. id love to have more flexibility in ammo (sure some purposes would need to use barrage) but esp since the nerf (but not just because of it) barrage is the only choice you have cause its the only way to make most intresting minnie ships work.
some kind off toppic...: the only thing barrage should be is a ammo which allows to shoot acs a little but further in case of emergencys. not being the only way to kite effective. my ideas how to fix this by giveing med arty the role of med range kite weapon (would need some fixes) but would add amo flexibility and nice alpha vs trade of ppl could get under their guns which should be the counter to a true kite ship rather than to outlast it
[edit] i m not implying that arty would be the only way to fix the problem so if you dont like the idea dont tell me my proposal is **** if you agree with the problem |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:00:00 -
[202] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:CCP Rise wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Why is a tracking bonud compelling on a thorax but not a diemos? Because Thorax doesn't also have a falloff bonus and a second damage bonus. The combination would just be way too much on the Deimos. I missed this the first time around. The Muninn has a double damage, range, and tracking bonus, and yet remains a niche doctrine ship at best. I really don't see how the Deimos, with inferior alpha and a falloff bonus instead of optimal, would end up being overpowered in the same context. CCP Rise could you address this? I don't see a real concern over the deimos getting a tracking bonus. I'd love to try using a deimos as an anti-support ship, but as it stands its only use is as a quickly killed brawler which gets a quirky cap bonus if using an MWD. Not exactly something you'd see often in anything other than a gate camp gang in null sec. |
Bishop Xsi
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:01:00 -
[203] - Quote
Quote:All HACs will gain 7-8 sensor strength, putting their average Sensor Strength at 22 which is right around combat battleship range. All HACs gain 15k to 25k lock range All HACs have their cap recharge per second set to around 5.5 rather than the former 3.5 - 4.5 cap/sec
I really like these buffs coupled with the MWD sig radius bonus. The combination allows these hulls to mitigate -- but not eliminate -- various ewar effects, which gives them a greater degree of freedom in choosing engagements.
That's exactly the kind of balancing I want to see for specialized ships (even though I didn't know I wanted it until now). |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:01:00 -
[204] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:Lul our expectations are a bit over the top on a ship that is supposedly shield tanking with 4 meds?And really nerfing the cyna wont make people fly more the vaga , what will make them is move to better ships at speed/agi skirmish.
What you dont seem to grasp is , if you want the vaga to brawl take one low and put one med, or leave it has is and give it another bonus, agi,speed, whatever. Ships are shield tanking with 4 med slot for years with great success...
Ohh really.. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
214
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:02:00 -
[205] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:@ CCP
so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg? this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.
and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days Rise is happy with a brawling Vaga because of his precious XLASB vaga that he made a video about. Too bad we aren't all Kil2. Would love to see this video if you can link it for me =) Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far. For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with. Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
All right, someone did a video with a dual prop XLASB Vaga, and it did well. Ofc these videos are done by people who could fly an eagle and kill a 20 man blob.
We'll see how the new Vaga performs but I'm not getting my hopes up for something that beats the Cynabal in the original kiting role.
The sensor strength bonus was a good move though. I don't see it making HACs worth the price though, especially given how good T1 cruisers and ABCs are when cost is considered. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
214
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:03:00 -
[206] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Question Rise.. can you tell us what are the LIKELY next classes that you shall visit? (not askign for ay time, just which direction.. completing t2 cruisers before moving of size? ) I can't be specific, but I can tell you that you should be watching for a post from Fozzie coming up soon =)
Soon (TM) or soon? How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1037
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:07:00 -
[207] - Quote
Zdat job on Ishtar: very good, I still have trouble with definition of this HAC using battleship guns (sentries/heavies) but looks sexy now
Zdat job on the Sac: me likes, dmg projection and application was a serious issue on top of being a slug, now it's clearly better.
Zdat job on Vagabond: Zip Zap yabadaba doo !! 295m/s base speed? - looks at Cynabals :sharkteethsmile:
Zdat job on Cerberus: so if I understood correctly "Missile bonus" means RL/HM/HAM? -and zdat little speed boost, very good.
Deimos, you know when you see something ok but you don't know why you're not satisfied? - looks better for that little speed bonus, while the overall EHP loss me thinks it's a bit too heavy, mixed feelings here.
Eagle: well rails/mwd fitted doesn't matter how fast it goes but how agile (turn maneuver warp off etc) still looks the HACs red haired child (no disrespect or mocking), blasters will have a nice dmg projection, good tank, maybe in numbers can be a very good alternative to Deimos "in tha face" setups
Zealot: well as you said it's a very good ship, it has always been so it's just getting better, faster and getting better guns so, good.
Also: Mr Rise, why do you guys have the feeling HACs don't deserve a 3rd rig slot? -common opinion is taht this wouldn't make them any more versatile at their role than T3's but would reinforce one of their major abilities, either more dmg or tank and thus help them make their place more comfortable vs T3's dps abilities (T2's should have more dmg but not sustainable because T3's can mitigate quite well incoming dmg with sign/resists and buffer while delivering decent dps)
Thx for taking some time to answer this rig point eventually.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
395
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:07:00 -
[208] - Quote
Chessur wrote:I am very, very shocked by the complete disregard to any of the advice given to you on the forums.
Sac: Again, 50% MWD bonus is a waste (you even admit this yourself) - No damage application bonus. HAM / HML Is useless unless you have hard tackle on a target - Speed: Still one of the slowest cruisers out there. - Missile velocity bonus: Again CCP, why do you need increased velocity if they only thing this ship can do is brawl? Really another poor, and barckward choice. - Needs another low slot.
Zealot: - No change in its pathetic cap - Still slow as hell, completely eclipsed by the Nomen - MWD sig bonus is wasted here again, because most zealots used in fleet are AB
Vagabond: - I am easily the most shocked with this change. - The fastest cruiser by far - Still retains the OP shield boost bonus
Start training for your vagas boys.
THIS
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2449
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:10:00 -
[209] - Quote
I like the clearer role distinction and the bonuses you added across the board. They add some bang for your buck that the 50% MWD sig role bonus does not.
I think your graph clearly illustrates that there is a very minor, temporary and situational bonus imparted with a seemingly large 50% number.
I think your graph also clearly illustrates how hard you guys nerfed the **** out of HML drakes*.
I think the Ishtar is happier now than the last round, and improved overall. But I saw what you did there reducing 10% into two 7.5% bonuses that can never be used at the same time. Ishtar will still has unhappy for missing bonuses AND missing a slot.
*HML-anything really
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
HazeInADaze
L'Avant Garde
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:11:00 -
[210] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far.
For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with.
I think the cerb and Ishtar are now upgrades like the zealot is over the omen. And I think that us just fine - climbing into a HAC should feel like power. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
618
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:12:00 -
[211] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Would love to see this video if you can link it for me =)
Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far.
Don't worry about it. We were all devastated when the first iteration came with the same bad CPU, and we are all just jumping for joy because it got what it should get.
It can only ever use 3 bonuses as well (yeah guys it's "bonuses" not boni. Get it right), so that limits it a bit. And drones can go pop :) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2349
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:12:00 -
[212] - Quote
Why is the diemos' HP/EHP taking such a huge hit?
While the "extra" shields certainly help shield versions, the TWEED version (dual prop AHAC essentially) really focuses on close range brawling. Losing 20% of it's hull (-536 of 2536), and 15% of its armor HP (-290 of 2040) seems like pretty hefty hits for an extra 190 shields.
What is your reasoning for such a brutal reduction?
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:12:00 -
[213] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Let me say a few things here about the shield boost bonus and why we chose it. We wanted to replace the outdated base speed bonus with something that would be fun and interesting but wouldn't have a huge effect on the power of the ship, as it was already the second most used HAC. CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales. For some reason this has been interpreted by many as a repurposing of the Vagabond as a brawler. IT IS NOT, I PROMISE. If I was going to use the new Vagabond, I would be looking to do the same exact thing that its always been good at - skirmish. However, I would be excited about the fact that you can replace one of your large shield extenders with a large ancillary shield booster, which in one reload creates more hitpoints than the extender (before links/boosters/heat which make it even better), but can be reloaded over the course of a long fight. The Vaga is actually extremely good at taking advantage of that potential because of being able to control its time in the engagement with its impressive speed. If this doesn't sound attractive, ignore the active bonus! The ship will perform exactly as it always has with the double extender fit except now it mitigates tons of damage because of the role bonus.
Vagabond gets to lose it's outdated bonus but not the Deimos?
The Deimos should lose that MWD cap bonus and have it integrated into the hull; replace it with another "harmless bonus" like active armor rep bonus so it doesn't get terribly unbalanced. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1369
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:13:00 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far.
It is only because I was still in bed ;)
The Ishtar still suffers from the (ridiculous) -1 slot, in this case a low slot. It was welcomed to see the MWD bonus only apply to the heavy drones as a 7.5% bonus really screws with my light drones on my Proteus. With a single DNC it puts Ogre II MWD velocity up to 1800m/s which is fast enough to catch most cruisers.
The Deimos could have used the 10% falloff changed to 7.5% tracking, a much better bonus IMO
If I may ask, will you be removing 1 slot form all advanced cruisers? If not why are HAC not getting +1 slot all around? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:14:00 -
[215] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Lucien Cain wrote:I'm Down wrote:So, the Sacrilege still has a useless high slot, and no ability to tank in the lows if it wants any level of decent damage... awesome.
Remove the high slot, add a low slot. It's currently -2 low slots on the zealot, and has a bonus that only recovers one of those slots tank wise. How can you expect it to be a brawler if it's tank is garbage. You already hurt it's tank with the resist bonus changes. I suppose we can all agree that adding a 6th low(without removing the 6th High) would be the most appealing change to the whole SAC issue. A very doable adjustment i might add. :-) Actually let it stay with the current slot layout. Adds a ton of flexibility to the number of valid setups that you will be able to use in TQ.
Or add a 5th Mid and turn it into a veritable shield Tanker! Maximum flexibility there. Now that would be ridiculous....right? Seriously, all the SAC needs is a 6th low and it will be perfect without making it OP.
|
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
48
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:15:00 -
[216] - Quote
The only positive changes I am taking away from this after my first read are this:
>Sensor strength buffing was an excellent idea to help their EWAR capacity
>The Ishtar fitting additions are beautiful
>You rolled the bay bonus into the hull on the Ishtar
>Bringing the Vaga's speed back up was a calculated nod to us bittervets
>You didnt shitter on the Zealot
However, the negatives I took are still far more numerous. These changes are still not quite enough.
>They still have crap EHP
>Buffing their sensor strength, lock range and a bit of cap DOES NOT give them a distinct "role"
>You stuck with the terrible MWD bonus. Seriously, half these ships wont be running that module under any tolerable fire, 'cause they'll in the thick of it.... Much "hurr" with this one.
>You gave the Ishtar a fair slap in the face with the weird sentry/heavy bonus split. This makes it worse than the Domi, and the Ishtar is a SPECIALIZED drone ship, and the Domi is a GENERALIZED combat battleship. :CCPRISE:
>Velocity bonus on the Sacrilege, and you took away it superior cap? FFS RIIISEEEEEEEEEE
>What the hell with the Eagle's speed? Seriously, its not hard to buff it to being around 190. Why is this a problem, or are you getting paid by the CSM Nullbears to make it a purely NullSec fleet ship?
>"No compelling bonus" for the Deimos? Tracking?
>Seriously, velocity on the Sacrilege? I think I'm going to cry myself to sleep tonight.
>Lawl. Muninn. That should be slang for "runt" or "pathetic animal" in EVE.
While I applaud you for Round 2's signs of slightly more potential, I'm beginning to think this is really no better on a ship-by-ship basis. Actually in someways, I'm thinking its worse... Hell, at this point, at a ship by ship basis, I think this is worse than what you did in Round 1. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
642
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:18:00 -
[217] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with.
A sensible PWG boost isn't really "over the top", considering the possible Vagabond fits all require a ridiculous amount of fitting implants/T2 ACRs and whatnot. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
374
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:18:00 -
[218] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why is the diemos' HP/EHP taking such a huge hit?
While the "extra" shields certainly help shield versions, the TWEED version (dual prop AHAC essentially) really focuses on close range brawling. Losing 20% of it's hull (-536 of 2536), and 15% of its armor HP (-290 of 2040) seems like pretty hefty hits for an extra 190 shields.
What is your reasoning for such a brutal reduction?
Obviously because Deimos is vastly overpowered on TQ.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Lord Sheer
E-Carbon Industries
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:19:00 -
[219] - Quote
Much improved, although I still think the high cost of HACs justifies a little more EHP. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:19:00 -
[220] - Quote
RISE
close but no cigar.. here's why 15 slots is still workable if you gave stronger damage bonuses like bc's got 10% and would free up slots for lows or mids as ships like sacrilege and eagle need an extra low. Damage in general is still not very compelling for the extra price over navy cruisers or ABC's etc. Also is price being considered as 150-200mil is too much even with the improvements.
Eagle you're missing a playstyle out here the blaster 20km kiter is very difficult to achieve with poor damage(no drones don't help) and the still shockingly low speed and the extra low for a TE or nano is needed.
Sacrilege is still missing the 6th low it needs and more mobility combined with better dps would be nice but grats on the bonus change.
Muninn have you considered a falloff bonus here? a armour vaga as arties still work well with falloff bonus.a la Tornado
Cerberus is better it needed speed but i would still switch its useless flight time to explosion velocity.. seriously 200km HM's why?????
Deimos replace mwd cap bonus with a falloff bonus or remove it and increase the falloff bonus to 15%.
Ishtar very pleased you listened here it needed some proper attention.. CPU especially and the 7.5% instead of 10% as the domi's is OP really.. which brings me too sentries in general .. well gardes and curators .. as they do what ogre's do but with much better range and more applicable dps without the danger of being smartbombed or picked off by frigs and the travel time.
Last thing is the sig radius is still too irrelevant of using mwd 150 on deimos is mad!!! Have you considered any new skills to reduce sig radius (Extenders/mwd) which i have mentioned but got no reply in other thread? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:20:00 -
[221] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: what?
All T2 resists are RACIAL based. Not based on being armor or shield. Minamtar have rsist improved against Amarr, Amarr have resist improved agaisnt minmatar. Gallente and Caldari hate each other the same way.
It has no correlation to how the ship should tank!
They are both actually. You don't see Amarr Tech 2 ships with improved shield resists do you? Gallente? How about Tech 2 armor resists for Caldari? No, my concern is that the Muninn has, up until this time, Tech 2 shield resists, which wasn't that great for a 3 midslot sniper HAC. So, with the higher armor rate and significantly more low-slots, it is reasonably for me to ask if the Tech 2 bonuses that were normally applied to shields, were instead going to be applied to the armor on the Muninn. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
301
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:21:00 -
[222] - Quote
Why does the ishtar's speed bonus not apply to medium or light drones, and if you're limiting it to heavy drones, why not increase it so they actually can go fast? Why is there no armour ship with a rep bonus? Ishtar or deimos pls, I want my honour brawler with AAR. How will you stop people from fitting battleship ASBs to the vagabond, and are there further nerfs planned for ASBs? XLASBs and MASBs are horribly OP. Why are caldari and khanid ships getting bonuses to all missiles, instead of the original plan for short and long range kinetic on caldari, short range all damages on khanid? |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1865
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:23:00 -
[223] - Quote
Quote:Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile
As always with Fozzie and I there is only Soon no Soon tm
If you feel cheated because of the Ishtar "only having three bonuses" you may want to consider that actually it has 7
Sentry drone optimal Sentry drone tracking Heavy drone mwd speed Heavy drone tracking Drone damage Drone hitpoints Drone control range
Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvement HACs are getting has the Ishtar looking very scary. |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
104
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:25:00 -
[224] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why is the diemos' HP/EHP taking such a huge hit?
While the "extra" shields certainly help shield versions, the TWEED version (dual prop AHAC essentially) really focuses on close range brawling. Losing 20% of it's hull (-536 of 2536), and 15% of its armor HP (-290 of 2040) seems like pretty hefty hits for an extra 190 shields.
What is your reasoning for such a brutal reduction?
Obviously because Deimos is vastly overpowered on TQ.
Have you every flown in a proper hac gang on tq.
Atm its sac>>>>>>>>>>deimos>zealot>ishtar>armour vaga>>rest. So yes compared to other hacs the deimos is op. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4160
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:25:00 -
[225] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
You have got to be shitting me. . |
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:26:00 -
[226] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvement HACs are getting has the Ishtar looking very scary.
Yes! Please fix the Domi! 85km optimal Garde II with tracking that can hit most frigs is TOO POWERFUL! |
Kumduh
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:28:00 -
[227] - Quote
I love my Domi's increased optimal range and tracking, and I think it's cool that the Ishtar is getting a similar treatment, but does it really NEED the extra optimal? Why not give it a speed and tracking bonus to ALL drones and just ditch the optimal buff altogether? It is a cruiser with a MWD role bonus, does it really need to be able to track and snipe anything within 100k simply with Guard IIs? It's nice that you're trying to give Heavies a place, but that is a very niche bonus, so why not let lights and mediums share in the fun?
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Drone velocity per level 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to drone tracking speed per level
I would think that +speed and +tracking would help the mobile drones apply damage just as well as +optimal and would also cut back on the power creep that is an optimal range buff to sentries. I'll fully admit, though, that I don't know diddly about the math involved behind how light/medium/heavy drones keep up with and track their target, so maybe making them go really fast would actually hurt them in some way.
Anyways, I appreciate all the work that goes into this. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
33
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:29:00 -
[228] - Quote
I am sure that someone else said this, but for the Deimos what about losing a 5% Damage for a Rate of Fire boost, Dropping the MWD bonus for a tracking bonus. Would that Overpower it or make it weaker than it is now. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:29:00 -
[229] - Quote
I will not fly any of this ships anytime soon, but the Munnin sounds so... meeh. For what I understood in this thread it is used in a very small niche, I really hope it is bloody AWESOME in that so small niche, otherwise it is just a waste.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
374
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:29:00 -
[230] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why is the diemos' HP/EHP taking such a huge hit?
While the "extra" shields certainly help shield versions, the TWEED version (dual prop AHAC essentially) really focuses on close range brawling. Losing 20% of it's hull (-536 of 2536), and 15% of its armor HP (-290 of 2040) seems like pretty hefty hits for an extra 190 shields.
What is your reasoning for such a brutal reduction?
Obviously because Deimos is vastly overpowered on TQ. Have you every flown in a proper hac gang on tq. Atm its sac>>>>>>>>>>deimos>zealot>ishtar>armour vaga>>rest. So yes compared to other hacs the deimos is op. You should train Internet Sarcasm to V, since obviously you missed the ball on that one big time. Also, Zealot is going to be *the* HAC, not the Sac.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
Morwen Lagann
Tyrathlion Interstellar
788
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:29:00 -
[231] - Quote
I'm pretty happy with the changes in general as listed. I like the 50% MWD bloom reduction bonus, and I also like the other changes that were rolled in for sensor strength, lock range and cap recharge.
As for specific ships:
Sacrilege: Sad to see the Sac lose its cap regen bonus (because it was always hilarious with active-rep Sacs, and even more so with the AARs added to the game), but the range bonus is a good trade imo, especially with the addition of HMLs to the missile damage bonus it has. Zealot: This ship was already in pretty good shape balance-wise, so I'm cool with the lack of (significant) change here.
Cerberus: I like the addition of another launcher slot, though that utility high that's being used to replace it is pretty useful (we don't talk about Tristans and Cerbs, k). I'm not entirely sold on keeping the kinetic damage bonus, though. Eagle: I've never actually flown an Eagle, but increased fitting, plus the changes to medium railguns, make this sound like it might be fun to try out sometime.
Deimos: I can't really express how glad I am to see the Deimos keeping its MWD cap penalty reduction bonus (the Thorax losing it as part of the first round of Tiericide made me very sad), though I will miss that utility highslot a bunch. On the other hand, the added midslot will mean that you can have dualprop and both a scram and a web on it if you go blasters, and this makes me very happy, because it was one of the annoying limitations of going dualprop with the Deimos. Ishtar: Very happy with the changes here. The changed bonuses solidly put it into the droneboat category it belongs in as a Creodron ship, and make it an appetizing alternative to the Navy Vexor. Rolling the drone bay bonus into the base stats was also a very good idea; it was one bonus that always annoyed me with both the Ishkur and Ishtar. And of course, the increase to fitting, especially the CPU, has been needed since the dark ages of EVE. Just go look on omgrawr for further details.
Vagabond: I think the new shield boost bonus makes the Vagabond a much more attractive ship for soloing/small-gang warfare while also not reducing the effectiveness of the current standard Vagabond fit in fleet use. Pretty happy with the changes here. Muninn: I've never flown a Muninn, so I can't really say much here to these changes. Morwen Lagann Director, Tyrathlion Interstellar |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
105
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:31:00 -
[232] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Why is the diemos' HP/EHP taking such a huge hit?
While the "extra" shields certainly help shield versions, the TWEED version (dual prop AHAC essentially) really focuses on close range brawling. Losing 20% of it's hull (-536 of 2536), and 15% of its armor HP (-290 of 2040) seems like pretty hefty hits for an extra 190 shields.
What is your reasoning for such a brutal reduction?
Obviously because Deimos is vastly overpowered on TQ. Have you every flown in a proper hac gang on tq. Atm its sac>>>>>>>>>>deimos>zealot>ishtar>armour vaga>>rest. So yes compared to other hacs the deimos is op. You should train Internet Sarcasm to V, since obviously you missed the ball on that one big time. Also, Zealot is going to be *the* HAC, not the Sac.
You completly miss the point, it really is pretty much the second best hac and where hacs are concerned sort of op. |
Kesi Raae
Anatidae Rising
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:31:00 -
[233] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvements for HACs makes the Ishtar look very scary.
Are the slightly reduced drone bonuses of the Ishtar hinting at a change to the Dominix's bonuses? They seem immensely powerful on TQ
Their drones track too well for a Battleship, imo, Berserkers from a Dominix with two TC's have the effective tracking (yes, taking in to account signature radius) of a 200mm small Autocannon!
10% Optimal bonus seems fine for a BS, but the tracking bonus is a bit much and I would like to see it toned down or removed. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
33
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:31:00 -
[234] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Deimos
We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change. You have got to be shitting me.
Lol that is what I thought too.
I mean Rate of Fire, tracking, more Dps lots better things. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
ImaGrapeYou Aldent
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:33:00 -
[235] - Quote
How come you made changes to specific drones on the Ishtar? I think you should have a drone MWD bonus instead of the split, and then still have the tracking/optimal range. The Ishtar was better with the last bonus if you ask me, the fitting is a nice change though. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
301
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:34:00 -
[236] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile As always with Fozzie and I there is only Soon no Soon tm If you feel cheated because of the Ishtar "only having three bonuses" you may want to consider that actually it has 7 Sentry drone optimal Sentry drone tracking Heavy drone mwd speed Heavy drone tracking Drone damage Drone hitpoints Drone control range Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvements for HACs makes the Ishtar look very scary.
Yeah for sentry blobbing. Making it better with combat drones will mean it's still good when you guys get around to nerfing drone assignment and omnis, and for when you don't want to commit to dropping stationary drones that you have no hope of recovering. |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
157
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:35:00 -
[237] - Quote
Much better changes but I still think the deimos should keep its utility high, if it did it would be an excellent small gang brawler, as the changes are now it's just an inferior zealot with a drone bay |
Alsyth
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:36:00 -
[238] - Quote
Overall:
+ capacitor, scanrange very welcome addition
- You just killed Falcon & Rook for med gang warfare, any long range HAC will just **** them in every situation. Recon ECM range is so low they have absolutely no chance. Should they be only used as lame alt of so-called solo pvpers?
- Still much too slow... You boosted ALL faction cruiser to very good speed. These HAC are nowhere near "mobile". They will get caught and scrammed easily, making their MWD bonus irrelevant.
- +1 slot would have been much better imo along with much better fitting for all of them. Assault ship give +2 slots over T1 (+20%, 10->12), while HAC only give +1 slot (14->15, +7%). You could then put ECCM, Sebo, or cap booster/battery depending on what you need.
- still totally unconvinced by this MWD sig bonus except for Vaga. Even though I understand the tracking formula really well. Will help against HML/HAM (poor thing...), Cruise/Torp (OK, this I understand) and BS guns with low tracking only
- HML need a boost, your example showing how HML are as badly affected by sig reduction as BATTLESHIP weapons, when medium guns are virtually not affected should make you realize it.
Sacrilege: + overall very nice, and different from Legion. - give it rapid light missile bonuses, no reason not to. Splitting bonuses like you are doing (Ishtar) is really, really annoying for everyone. Why not giving Deimos only a blaster bonus? Makes no sense....
Zealot: + very nice, if a bit OP as anti-support/Recon.
Deimos: + welcome slot change ~ Need to test with new rails - still underwhelming with blasters compared to Proteus who does everything better
Ishtar: + finally a real fitting! cap & lockrange welcome, once again - optimal+tracking on sentries OP
Cerberus: + all bonus applying to all missiles, even rapid light launchers? Then it's awesome. If not it's bad. - still nowhere near fast
Eagle: + welcome slot change ~ will depend on new rails, looking further to testing it. Will probably be terribad when compared to Tengu for same role though.
Vagabond: + shield bonus interesting ~ prob a bit OP with all the buffs it gets - stealth speed nerf... petty Rise!
Muninn: + lockrange will help a lot - still really underwhelming, especially knowing that arty dps will stay bad after the change
|
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:36:00 -
[239] - Quote
Morwen Lagann wrote: Deimos: I can't really express how glad I am to see the Deimos keeping its MWD cap penalty reduction bonus (the Thorax losing it as part of the first round of Tiericide made me very sad), though I will miss that utility highslot a bunch.
Would you still be sad if it were simply rolled into the hull? |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
159
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:38:00 -
[240] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:- You just killed Falcon & Rook for med gang warfare
You say this like it's a bad thing |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1374
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:38:00 -
[241] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:- You just killed Falcon & Rook for med gang warfare, Mission Accomplished! Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4165
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:41:00 -
[242] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:ISHTAR
Rather than the blanket 10% tracking and optimal drone bonus, we split the bonus into two more specialized bonuses. One to Sentry drone optimal and tracking, and another on Heavy Drone speed and tracking.
So basically you took what should have been one bonus and spread it across two bonus slots. This really feels like a dual weapon bonus of some ship hulls that everyone mostly agreed is a terrible idea. This is not a good idea. . |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4165
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:43:00 -
[243] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:- You just killed Falcon & Rook for med gang warfare, any long range HAC will just **** them in every situation.
Pretty sure the Falcon & Rook have been killing solo/small and medium gang warfare for a long time now. . |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
865
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:45:00 -
[244] - Quote
Well they still don't really have a role, but these changes look a lot better and maybe will buff them enough that it won't matter. I certainly look forward to trying them all. Now go do command ships. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4166
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:46:00 -
[245] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Morwen Lagann wrote: Deimos: I can't really express how glad I am to see the Deimos keeping its MWD cap penalty reduction bonus (the Thorax losing it as part of the first round of Tiericide made me very sad), though I will miss that utility highslot a bunch.
Would you still be sad if it were simply rolled into the hull?
That MWD capacitor bonus is a joke. Here is a 'compelling' bonus that is more useful:
+5% to hull resistances
Now it might actually be called a Deimos instead of a Diemost. Besides, any brawler Deimos will be using the 4th mid slot for a cap injector, which means the cap bonus from the MWD is pointless. . |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
758
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:48:00 -
[246] - Quote
Wish cerb would lose that kinetic damage bonus. If will prevent it from ever being a fleet ship. Enemy spies see you are using cerbs? Tank for kinetic and GG.
Also 15 m3 drone bay? Comon now, Either remove this and buff the missile a little bit more or make it 25 m3.
Waiting for HAC changes 3.0 :) |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
160
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:48:00 -
[247] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Morwen Lagann wrote: Deimos: I can't really express how glad I am to see the Deimos keeping its MWD cap penalty reduction bonus (the Thorax losing it as part of the first round of Tiericide made me very sad), though I will miss that utility highslot a bunch.
Would you still be sad if it were simply rolled into the hull? That MWD capacitor bonus is a joke. Here is a 'compelling' bonus that is more useful: +5% to hull resistances Now it might actually be called a Deimos instead of a Diemost. Besides, any brawler Deimos will be using the 4th mid slot for a cap injector, which means the cap bonus from the MWD is pointless.
I could really get behind the cap bonus if it kept its utility high |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
865
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:49:00 -
[248] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Rise wrote:ISHTAR
Rather than the blanket 10% tracking and optimal drone bonus, we split the bonus into two more specialized bonuses. One to Sentry drone optimal and tracking, and another on Heavy Drone speed and tracking. So basically you took what should have been one bonus and spread it across two bonus slots. This really feels like a dual weapon bonus of some ship hulls that everyone mostly agreed is a terrible idea. This is not a good idea.
2 bonuses twice tbh so its hard to compare. I mean a lot of turret users would just love optimal and tracking to count as one bonus :). Plus you cant swap your launchers for turrets mid fight, if you could the dual bonus would not be so bad in any case (think old phoon with 8 turrets, 8 launchers and the ability to swap between autos and cruise as need arose). As it is they have folded the old drone bonus into the hull so from that perspective ishtar is doing quite well.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
301
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:52:00 -
[249] - Quote
Lol again @ that damage graph
tier 3 BCs totally balanced guys, they still totally wreck hacs at all ranges, just very slightly less |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1204
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:53:00 -
[250] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile As always with Fozzie and I there is only Soon no Soon tm If you feel cheated because of the Ishtar "only having three bonuses" you may want to consider that actually it has 7 Sentry drone optimal Sentry drone tracking Heavy drone mwd speed Heavy drone tracking Drone damage Drone hitpoints Drone control range Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvements for HACs makes the Ishtar look very scary.
Thats like saying a hybrid gun bonus is really two bonuses because it applies to rails and blasters.. But i know what you're saying. also even with that bonus Ogres still get kited by BC's....
Ok now to the ships
Sacrilige
1. I liked the sac being able to run a Medium repper and staying cap stable.. I'm not sure if it still can.. If it can't i'm going to be sad.
2. I HATE HATE HATE that velocity bonus. Thats basically giving in to the people who want to be able to use the sac for the exact same thing as the damn zealot and thats silly aHac gangs. Should have given it a less blob friendly bonus like a application bonus to keep it different from the zealot.
Zealot I would go into my hate of counter productive bonuses Rof/capRe but the zealot is largely fine..
Cerberus
While my main complaint about the last version of the cerb was it being slow as balls. Which you seem to have addressed some.
The fact remains that flight time is a really **** bonus... Should give it an application bonus or just another velocity bonus instead.
Eagle
The eagle still has one problem.. The fact that it has a great tank while opperating at a range where almost no other ships that could be with it in a fleet will have a great tank. So it will be chilling with 60k ehp with lol sniper zealots with 10k ehp. Not really a critizizm of the ship it self i just don't see a great use for it. Also you know, it gets outperformed by tier 3's in almost every way.
Deimos
"We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change."
Rep bonus? Its the only traditional tanking bonus that isn't represented in the Hac's... i really hate how i feel like this Demios was balanced around the idea of using a shield tank........
Ishtar
Seems that my complaining about the bay bonus worked \o/
I think splitting up sentry drones and heavy drones into two different bonuses is extremelly silly.. Don't really see the point of that.
Vagabond
Why does the vagabond get five bonuses?
Thats basically what you have done with the speed thing.. The sac doesn't get all the awesome cap it used to have, why does the vagabond get to be 35% faster than any other HAC? Don't think its weak enough to warrant that....
Other then that i don't really care about it, i just think thats really stupid.
Munin
Pretty sure i will continue to not use the munin.. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
|
Higgs Maken
The Metal Box Company Confederated States of EVE
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:57:00 -
[251] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Higgs Maken wrote: Wouldn't it be better if bonus were 7.5% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range for Gallente Cruiser and 7.5% bonus for drone speed and shield/armor resistance for Heavy Assault Cruiser.
The proposed Ishtar is already really good; doing this would just step on the Prophecy's toes, I think. For resistance I'm referring to resistance for drone and not ship. I just find most drone beside sentry pop easily. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:59:00 -
[252] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:[quote=CCP Rise] Quote:Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile Rep bonus? Its the only traditional tanking bonus that isn't represented in the Hac's... i really hate how i feel like this Demios was balanced around the idea of using a shield tank........ ..
We are already looking at that, possible shield Kite, which makes me sad cause I shields and kiting, but while its better I still feel the EVI is as good in small gang Armor fleets. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1369
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:02:00 -
[253] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Ishtar: very good, I still have trouble with definition of this HAC using battleship guns (sentries/heavies) but looks sexy now
Heavy Drones (and by respect Sentries) have not been considered battleship drones since Red Moon Rising. The Vexor was overhauled then to use 3 heavy drones and not to use medium drones. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
163
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:02:00 -
[254] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Deacon Abox wrote: Sure, keep defending what you know you will be blobbing with next . . I suppose I would too in your position. But maybe step back and have some concern for the game as a whole? Is that too much to a . . nm Nah we'll be sticking with megathrons for the blobbing, as they've proven to be exceptionally effective. Perhaps some of the smaller combat groups will try out the Cerberus after the war, though they're also enamored with Eagles and especially 450 DPS 280k EHP rail Tengus. Your candid admission that you'd be incapable of objective analysis if you were on the CSM is nice (albeit completely irrelevant) but please don't project your own failings onto anyone else, least of all me. Thanks.
My failings? Have I run for CSM, or do I plan too? No. What I said was all about you. My alleged "failings" are irrelevant. Yours, unfortunately, are very relevant. No projection, just disgusted resignation to how you are viewing your role.
I'm sure all your former Drake blob corpies are salivating at the Cerb. As are you. It will be next, as you say along with other Caldari ships. This game is still too tilted in favor of ranged shield tanked blob sniping. Or in smaller scale fights shield tanked kiting setups. And of course with so many of your people invested in Caldari and missile skills already the new Cerb will be very attractive. The Mega will prove more expensive, less agile, more cap dependent, more subject to ewar, bombing, etc.
And oh look, a begrudging admission that the Cerb is possibly OP from CCP Rise now. But will anything be done about it. Very probably not. There will be no reduction in agility. The Sac will be an absolute brick in comparison. The unneeded drone bay will not be removed and given to the Eagle and Zealot. New Cerb blobs to replace the old Drake blobs of old, and Tengu blobs since those will eventually get trimmed.
But hey, that is the CSM. The game revolving around coalition monoculture ship blob tactics. And you are of course a part of that. I only hope the small gang FW pocket of relative freedom from that **** stays unharmed by your focus. In this environment the kiting Cerb will get lots of use, similar to the Hookbill. And counters (usually involving a second ship) will have to be developed. But it will be sad to see Cerbs being used the same ways and in the same numbers as Drakes used to be out there in Null. |
Alsyth
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:03:00 -
[255] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Alsyth wrote:- You just killed Falcon & Rook for med gang warfare, any long range HAC will just **** them in every situation. Pretty sure the Falcon & Rook have been killing solo/small and medium gang warfare for a long time now.
Except CCP is not killing them for so-called "solo" at all (when they are the most annoying).
Only for med gang (and big gangs too, ofc), where they are one of the only way for a med gang to break a heavy-logi comp, which has actually been killing small/med gang warfare in lowsec much more than ecm as far as I am concerned. By med gang I'm thinking 15+, where a Falcon is not that much of a hassle unless you rely on logistic too much.
And Blackbird is now plain better, fighting out of range of all but eagle & cerberus. Same problem as T1 ewar frigs being better than T2, I cannot understand why anyone would be happy about that.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
374
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:06:00 -
[256] - Quote
Rise, any comment on the Ishtar's Heavy drone bonus and its effect on the Navy Vexor? 7.5%/lvl outclasses Navy Vexor's 5%/level, and it largely seems like the Ishtar, with its stronger sensor str, faster & better tracking drones, larger bay, T2 resists, etc. make it a clear winner. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1369
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:10:00 -
[257] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Rise, any comment on the Ishtar's Heavy drone bonus and its effect on the Navy Vexor? 7.5%/lvl outclasses Navy Vexor's 5%/level, and it largely seems like the Ishtar, with its stronger sensor str, faster & better tracking drones, larger bay, T2 resists, etc. make it a clear winner. It is supposed to outclass the Vexor Navy Issue. The biggest problem with the Ishtar iteration 1 is it was completely out classed by the Vaxor Navy Issue.
Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:10:00 -
[258] - Quote
I don't think I really mind the MWD penalty, as I completely trust you when you say that it's more valuable than people might think. The problem I see is specifically with the Zealot, and this problem may affect the others.
It's powergrid is just too small to fit into the MWD style of play that you're almost enforcing with the role bonus. A downgrade of guns and removal of a 1600mm plate means it would probably fit with an 800mm or so, but it feels like the zealot should be using those upper tier (heavy pulse) of guns. And also a 1600mm plate, in order to maintain its durability.
17k EHP with the 800mmplate (and only the plate) is not enough to justify the near 175m pricetag that these sell for, when you can get 2k more than that with a harbinger without any fitting whatsoever.
This is my main problem with HACs right now, while they have a good sig, and high resists, they just don't manage to get enough EHP in comparison to something that's 1/5th of the price. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
69
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:10:00 -
[259] - Quote
Quote: when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization'
With this second pass you made the specialization a bit more distinct, next to the MWD Sig spec, thank you.
The Eagle, one of the worst HAC, finally Is getting more fitting room to be a medium range plinker, but still no drones eh
I can understand the Zealot not having drones, with it's 7 lows, but the Eagle is still underpowered when (frig/cruiser) combat gets closer. Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/13cGuW0 |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
303
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:11:00 -
[260] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Rise, any comment on the Ishtar's Heavy drone bonus and its effect on the Navy Vexor? 7.5%/lvl outclasses Navy Vexor's 5%/level, and it largely seems like the Ishtar, with its stronger sensor str, faster & better tracking drones, larger bay, T2 resists, etc. make it a clear winner. It is supposed to outclass the Vexor Navy Issue. The biggest problem with the Ishtar iteration 1 is it was completely out classed by the Vaxor Navy Issue.
I think actually they're supposed to be different somehow. |
|
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:11:00 -
[261] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Morwen Lagann wrote: Deimos: I can't really express how glad I am to see the Deimos keeping its MWD cap penalty reduction bonus (the Thorax losing it as part of the first round of Tiericide made me very sad), though I will miss that utility highslot a bunch.
Would you still be sad if it were simply rolled into the hull? That MWD capacitor bonus is a joke. Here is a 'compelling' bonus that is more useful: +5% to hull resistances Now it might actually be called a Deimos instead of a Diemost. Besides, any brawler Deimos will be using the 4th mid slot for a cap injector, which means the cap bonus from the MWD is pointless.
I'm sure CCP would make it 4% to stay in line with the other armor resist bonuses, but the thought of a Gallente ship with a defensive bonus that's actually GOOD instead of this armor repair nonsense would be worth giving up my tracking bonus crusade.
EDIT: I misread hull for armor. Now I'm not really sure if I still agree. An armor bonus would be great, though! |
Darco Aldent
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:12:00 -
[262] - Quote
I think some people escpect too much from HACs, i even saw someone say : i would rather have a legion or a sleipneir then a... , i mean come on, its still a cruiser. and with all the bonuses i cannot belive how some people still say that T1 is stronger . Maybe Hacs were used allot before T3 ships and attack bc-s but now they are not, do not espect rise to buff them soo much so that everyone starts to fly them again like years ago in small gank. Time will tell. Great job Rise for listeting to people, i really like the buffs to fittings(cap recharge for mwd is great) and the mwd bonus |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:12:00 -
[263] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Rise, any comment on the Ishtar's Heavy drone bonus and its effect on the Navy Vexor? 7.5%/lvl outclasses Navy Vexor's 5%/level, and it largely seems like the Ishtar, with its stronger sensor str, faster & better tracking drones, larger bay, T2 resists, etc. make it a clear winner.
The VNI will still be used as a cheaper alt, for the Ishtar. I think that good place for, a happy medium between the T1 and the T2. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Stay Frosty.
79
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:13:00 -
[264] - Quote
What many people seem to want every time balance iterations come around is more buffs--better tracking, better range, particularly. But the power creep has gotten out of hand, especially when fighting up. Tracking, especially, has exploded since the T1 cruiser changes. Pretty soon what will be needed is a re-re-balance of frigates etc. IMO what's needed is a fundamental change to the way tracking works in this game. The ability to, say, spiral out of tracking of larger guns gets less viable every update. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6815
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:15:00 -
[265] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Rise, any comment on the Ishtar's Heavy drone bonus and its effect on the Navy Vexor? 7.5%/lvl outclasses Navy Vexor's 5%/level, and it largely seems like the Ishtar, with its stronger sensor str, faster & better tracking drones, larger bay, T2 resists, etc. make it a clear winner.
Navy Vexor is faster and more agile, has extra tracking and speed for drones smaller than heavies, and is (depending on FW warzone status) cheaper. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1369
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:15:00 -
[266] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Rise, any comment on the Ishtar's Heavy drone bonus and its effect on the Navy Vexor? 7.5%/lvl outclasses Navy Vexor's 5%/level, and it largely seems like the Ishtar, with its stronger sensor str, faster & better tracking drones, larger bay, T2 resists, etc. make it a clear winner. It is supposed to outclass the Vexor Navy Issue. The biggest problem with the Ishtar iteration 1 is it was completely out classed by the Vaxor Navy Issue. I think actually they're supposed to be different somehow. The T2 are supposed to be more specialized than all other varations, CCP Fozzie decided to make navy cruisers more specialized than there T1 counterparts, while maintaining some flexability. So the Vexor Navy Issue gets 5% to all drone tracking and MWD velocity, the Ishtar gets 7.5% to heavy drone MWD velocity and tracking, also 7.5% to sentry optimal and tracking. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1206
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:16:00 -
[267] - Quote
Also would you stop balancing these things around the stupid ******* talos?
Thats one of the biggest issues with all of these changes, its being balanced around of class of ships thats ******* broken. The what those graphs show is basically how a talos murders the Hac at pretty much any range. Yes the sensor strength is awesome, yes the cap is nice but none of these long range hacs will be worth **** until the ABC's either get a reduction in speed or like a 25% tracking penalty. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:16:00 -
[268] - Quote
RISE how about a RoF bonus over the MWD one
EDIT
Or tell me why that was not a good call... Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1038
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:17:00 -
[269] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Wish cerb would lose that kinetic damage bonus. If will prevent it from ever being a fleet ship. Enemy spies see you are using cerbs? Tank for kinetic and GG.
Also 15 m3 drone bay? Comon now, Either remove this and buff the missile a little bit more or make it 25 m3.
Waiting for HAC changes 3.0 :)
lvl5 HAC = +25% dmg and this bonus was never a problem when using Drakes or Tengus, it will be less of one using RLs or HAMs, it is one with overnerf HM's still
15m3 drone bay = 3 ECM drones and unless your target is specifically ECCM fitted you should be able to put at least one jam cycle on it (training skills helps) I can barely see this new Cerb using something else than HAMs or RL's unless HM's get buff to new LR med weapons level. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:18:00 -
[270] - Quote
Zealot without drones again!!! Why ??? |
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
614
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:19:00 -
[271] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:@ CCP
so you wont fix the vagabond problem that it has to use barrage to do any dmg? this problem keeps it from fullfilling its role as point range kiter, but it seems you feel diffrent about this.
and i strongly believe the stats of beeing one of the most used cruisers is just an afterglow of its former glorious days Rise is happy with a brawling Vaga because of his precious XLASB vaga that he made a video about. Too bad we aren't all Kil2. Would love to see this video if you can link it for me =) Generally pretty happy with this feedback. Little nervous about Ishtar and Cerb because of everyone being so happy, but hopefully we haven't gone too far. For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with. Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
374
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:19:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Rise, any comment on the Ishtar's Heavy drone bonus and its effect on the Navy Vexor? 7.5%/lvl outclasses Navy Vexor's 5%/level, and it largely seems like the Ishtar, with its stronger sensor str, faster & better tracking drones, larger bay, T2 resists, etc. make it a clear winner. Navy Vexor is faster and more agile, has extra tracking and speed for drones smaller than heavies, and is (depending on FW warzone status) cheaper. Ok, I guess Fozzie could have responded, too. <3
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:19:00 -
[273] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote:RISE how about a RoF bonus over the MWD one
EDIT
Or tell me why that was not a good call...
A triple damage bonus on a blaster ship would be kind of silly.
Michael Harari wrote: The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery
Medium autocannons awful for kiting? Have I accidentally started posting in mirror universe eve-o? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:22:00 -
[274] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Also would you stop balancing these things around the stupid ******* talos?
Thats one of the biggest issues with all of these changes, its being balanced around of class of ships thats ******* broken. The what those graphs show is basically how a talos murders the Hac at pretty much any range. Yes the sensor strength is awesome, yes the cap is nice but none of these long range hacs will be worth **** until the ABC's either get a reduction in speed or like a 25% tracking penalty.
The one in the graph is also completely stationary, rather than zeroing transversal with its overpowered speed and agility to hit for full damage. |
Gneeznow
L'Avant Garde
89
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:24:00 -
[275] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Lol again @ that damage graph
tier 3 BCs totally balanced guys, they still totally wreck hacs at all ranges, just very slightly less
This. Haven't seen a muninn or eagle since tornados were introduced to the game, why would anyone bother? Tier3 BCs just outperform all sniper hacs by a mile and are cheaper to boot. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:25:00 -
[276] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Phox Jorkarzul wrote:RISE how about a RoF bonus over the MWD one
EDIT
Or tell me why that was not a good call... A triple damage bonus on a blaster ship would be kind of silly. Michael Harari wrote: The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery
Medium autocannons awful for kiting? Have I accidentally started posting in mirror universe eve-o?
Well it can lose one of the Damage for a tank or tracking, or 5% increase to speed for the MWD....which wouldn't be that bad Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:28:00 -
[277] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote: Well it can lose one of the Damage for a tank or tracking, or 5% increase to speed for the MWD....which wouldn't be that bad
I absolutely agree. :) |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:28:00 -
[278] - Quote
The mwd cap bonus is a joke. Look at the new nos. Furthermore you would think a tech ii mwd would be better on a diemos due to more base cap but the meta mwd is actually better due to less cap activation cost.
To me the mwd us akin to cap recharge or max speed... They are all lazy bonus that should be built in but at for some reason you dont want to fix.
At the very least make it a duel bonus like 7.5% to cap and mwd velocity increase. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:28:00 -
[279] - Quote
Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:30:00 -
[280] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Phox Jorkarzul wrote:RISE how about a RoF bonus over the MWD one
EDIT
Or tell me why that was not a good call... A triple damage bonus on a blaster ship would be kind of silly. Michael Harari wrote: The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery
Medium autocannons awful for kiting? Have I accidentally started posting in mirror universe eve-o? Well it can lose one of the Damage for a tank or tracking, or 5% increase to speed for the MWD....which wouldn't be that bad
You're a ******* idiot, do you know that? |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1038
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:30:00 -
[281] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery
Have you ever tried to fit 180's or 220's on your hull? -doesn't seem so, 180's are simply drones/frigate assassins and dps difference with 425's is acceptable considering such high tracking of those guns.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:32:00 -
[282] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello!
(snip)
Lets start with role. We've had several presentations and posts and dev blogs now which explain that tech 1 is general and tech 2 is specialized. While this is certainly our high-level goal, it will be compromised occasionally when the specifics of a certain project have other goals that pull in another direction. HACs are an example. The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization', but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers.
Let me first respond to this point. When HAC's were first introduced, ABC's T3s and tiericide weren't even on the horizon. Tech2 was pretty much all "insert_hull on steroids." Can you PLEASE give me an example of the "the specifics of a certain project [has] other goals that pull in another direction"? Recon? Specialized! Check. Stealth Bombers? Specialized! Check. Covert-Ops? Specialized! Check.
Assault Frigs? ...Ah! This must be the 'certain project' that you had in mind, as the AF lineup is entirely about "T1-On-Steroids"! But wait... AF's get +2 slots over T1, +~50% EHP, better dps, better projection... lots of incentive to pay ~20x the cost, ~200x the training time, no insurance, etc. Where is the +2 slots for HAC? Where is the +XX% EHP? Where is the Roid-rage that I expected...?
CCP Rise wrote:With the rebalance effort here, we discussed entirely new roles or specializations that would be more in-line with the high level ideas we have laid out for all EVE ships, but ultimately decided that it wasn't worth completely throwing out the ships we had. Not only do they have a lot of history in the game, which leads to attachment, but they also have a lot of legitimate use already which we wanted to avoid disrupting if possible.
I don't suppose that you'd be willing to share the "high level ideas [you] have laid out for all EVE ships"? No? Just a hint? Please? No?
Then perhaps you'd care to explain why those ideas would necessitate "completely throwing out the ships we had"? None of the ideas/proposals/wish-lists in the previous thread (nor this one, so far) would necessitate throwing out ANYTHING. I've Said it before and here it is again: Tiericide to date has done great things for the landscape of warfare in Eve. Revolutionary things. Please don't let the HAC re-balancing be the point of failure. These hulls can be re-purposed to also do great and revolutionary things for the face of warfare.
As for "lot of legitimate use already," tell that argument to the people who previously flew what are now logi or disruption frigs/cruisers as combat/mining boats. I'm sure they'd LOVE to hear how you are suddenly concerned with changing the role of a hull. The hull owners WILL GET OVER IT, as long as the changes are overall positive. you're CCP FFS! The hand of the Almighty Sandbox Owner! Dump a F^c%ing Truck Load into the box!
CCP Rise wrote: Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.
Yes, we would like their role (roles?) more clear and pronounced. How does this pass clarify the role? Anyone? Anyone? I get that you're in love with the MWD bloom bonus, but we're not. "HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment." I think that the Deimos missed this memo. The unofficial name change will live on, I'm afraid. "...namely electronics..." Again, you've lost me on this one. I must have missed, somewhere in the 89 pages of the last HAC thread of which I read every post, the person who suggested that the only real thing that HACs needed was some more sensor strength...
Don't get me wrong on this one. I DO like that the sensor strength and cap recharge have been buffed (mostly... poor, poor Sac, and yes, I ran the numbers. No more dual armor reppers for that one. Buffer tank only, gentlemen.), but again, the overarching sense that I get is that CCP/Rise in specific is not willing to define a capital 'R' Role for the HACs.
CCP Rise wrote:Alright, lets get to specifics. The big takeaway from feedback (both CSM and public thread) was that we have more room to make HACs more powerful without putting too much pressure on their competition, so watch for that as you read through all the changes. Note: the differences appearing in (parentheses) are as compared to the version of ship on TQ currently, not the first iteration.
Yes, there's LOTS of room to make HACs more powerful... but the competition, right now, NEEDS SOME PRESSURE. ABC's? More DPS and WAY cheaper. T3s? More DPS, More Tank, More speed, Smaller Sig. Navy? Not enough Role difference to make a difference and cheaper. T1s FFS? Let's not go there.
[/me is mostly underwhelmed]
+2 fitting slots over T1, find a Role bonus that makes HACs stand out.
PS. Thanks for putting another CPU into the Ishtar. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:34:00 -
[283] - Quote
zealot needs drones :( IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:34:00 -
[284] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it.
Oh right rails = lots of falloff and blasters have amazing optimal range. And I mean when you are in optimal range that falloff is helping tracking right! There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:35:00 -
[285] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Phox Jorkarzul wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Phox Jorkarzul wrote:RISE how about a RoF bonus over the MWD one
EDIT
Or tell me why that was not a good call... A triple damage bonus on a blaster ship would be kind of silly. Michael Harari wrote: The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery
Medium autocannons awful for kiting? Have I accidentally started posting in mirror universe eve-o? Well it can lose one of the Damage for a tank or tracking, or 5% increase to speed for the MWD....which wouldn't be that bad You're a ******* idiot, do you know that?
I see that Grarr Dexx of Snuffbox has called me an idiot without giving a clear reason why. Since he's part of the "kings of lowsec" he must be right. Who am I to have an opinion on how a ship could better in my eyes and more useful. Bow to Snuff, Bow to Snuff. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
223
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:36:00 -
[286] - Quote
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 |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
305
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:39:00 -
[287] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it.
The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
461
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:40:00 -
[288] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: what?
All T2 resists are RACIAL based. Not based on being armor or shield. Minamtar have rsist improved against Amarr, Amarr have resist improved agaisnt minmatar. Gallente and Caldari hate each other the same way.
It has no correlation to how the ship should tank!
They are both actually. You don't see Amarr Tech 2 ships with improved shield resists do you? Gallente? How about Tech 2 armor resists for Caldari? No, my concern is that the Muninn has, up until this time, Tech 2 shield resists, which wasn't that great for a 3 midslot sniper HAC. So, with the higher armor rate and significantly more low-slots, it is reasonably for me to ask if the Tech 2 bonuses that were normally applied to shields, were instead going to be applied to the armor on the Muninn.
Dude AMMAR HAVE SHIELD AND ARMOR improved resists. As MINAMTARE and ANY race!! The bonus is applied in BOTH layers!!!! |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:43:00 -
[289] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it. The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails.
Then I have nothing to tell you cause I would not send that ship in at point blank range to go shoot a target with ion blasters... I'll bring a thorax, shoot it with neutrons, and laugh as the ship blows up. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
461
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:44:00 -
[290] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile As always with Fozzie and I there is only Soon no Soon tm If you feel cheated because of the Ishtar "only having three bonuses" you may want to consider that actually it has 7 Sentry drone optimal Sentry drone tracking Heavy drone mwd speed Heavy drone tracking Drone damage Drone hitpoints Drone control range Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvements for HACs makes the Ishtar look very scary. Thats like saying a hybrid gun bonus is really two bonuses because it applies to rails and blasters.. But i know what you're saying. also even with that bonus Ogres still get kited by BC's.... Ok now to the ships Sacrilige1. I liked the sac being able to run a Medium repper and staying cap stable.. I'm not sure if it still can.. If it can't i'm going to be sad. 2. I HATE HATE HATE that velocity bonus. Thats basically giving in to the people who want to be able to use the sac for the exact same thing as the damn zealot and thats silly aHac gangs. Should have given it a less blob friendly bonus like a application bonus to keep it different from the zealot. ZealotI would go into my hate of counter productive bonuses Rof/capRe but the zealot is largely fine.. CerberusWhile my main complaint about the last version of the cerb was it being slow as balls. Which you seem to have addressed some. The fact remains that flight time is a really **** bonus... Should give it an application bonus or just another velocity bonus instead. EagleThe eagle still has one problem.. The fact that it has a great tank while opperating at a range where almost no other ships that could be with it in a fleet will have a great tank. So it will be chilling with 60k ehp with lol sniper zealots with 10k ehp. Not really a critizizm of the ship it self i just don't see a great use for it. Also you know, it gets outperformed by tier 3's in almost every way. Deimos"We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change." Rep bonus? Its the only traditional tanking bonus that isn't represented in the Hac's... i really hate how i feel like this Demios was balanced around the idea of using a shield tank........ IshtarSeems that my complaining about the bay bonus worked \o/ I think splitting up sentry drones and heavy drones into two different bonuses is extremelly silly.. Don't really see the point of that. VagabondWhy does the vagabond get five bonuses? Thats basically what you have done with the speed thing.. The sac doesn't get all the awesome cap it used to have, why does the vagabond get to be 35% faster than any other HAC? Don't think its weak enough to warrant that.... Other then that i don't really care about it, i just think thats really stupid. MuninPretty sure i will continue to not use the munin..
other HAcs got their speed boosted as well. If you want to count that as a bonus.. then the cerberus got the old vagabond speed bonus as well now! Just stop being melodramatic!
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
461
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:46:00 -
[291] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Michael Harari wrote:The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery Have you ever tried to fit 180's or 220's on your hull? -doesn't seem so, 180's are simply drones/frigate assassins and dps difference with 425's is acceptable considering such high tracking of those guns.
The geatest loss is on the effrective range. 425 mm are the only ones that allow you to do USEFUL damage on the border of tackle range.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
305
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:49:00 -
[292] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it. The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails. Then I have nothing to tell you cause I would not send that ship in at point blank range to go shoot a target with ion blasters... I'll bring a thorax, shoot it with neutrons, and laugh as the ship blows up. The Deimos will not survive under fire
Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
144
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:54:00 -
[293] - Quote
When can we expect to see the round 3 changes? Because you hardly did anything of note, other than fixing the obvious ishtar CPU problem. The added ECM / Cap was a very good step in the right direction. However everything else is really terrible ingards to HAC's, their role, and their role bonus. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1207
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:02:00 -
[294] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile As always with Fozzie and I there is only Soon no Soon tm If you feel cheated because of the Ishtar "only having three bonuses" you may want to consider that actually it has 7 Sentry drone optimal Sentry drone tracking Heavy drone mwd speed Heavy drone tracking Drone damage Drone hitpoints Drone control range Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvements for HACs makes the Ishtar look very scary. Thats like saying a hybrid gun bonus is really two bonuses because it applies to rails and blasters.. But i know what you're saying. also even with that bonus Ogres still get kited by BC's.... Ok now to the ships Sacrilige1. I liked the sac being able to run a Medium repper and staying cap stable.. I'm not sure if it still can.. If it can't i'm going to be sad. 2. I HATE HATE HATE that velocity bonus. Thats basically giving in to the people who want to be able to use the sac for the exact same thing as the damn zealot and thats silly aHac gangs. Should have given it a less blob friendly bonus like a application bonus to keep it different from the zealot. ZealotI would go into my hate of counter productive bonuses Rof/capRe but the zealot is largely fine.. CerberusWhile my main complaint about the last version of the cerb was it being slow as balls. Which you seem to have addressed some. The fact remains that flight time is a really **** bonus... Should give it an application bonus or just another velocity bonus instead. EagleThe eagle still has one problem.. The fact that it has a great tank while opperating at a range where almost no other ships that could be with it in a fleet will have a great tank. So it will be chilling with 60k ehp with lol sniper zealots with 10k ehp. Not really a critizizm of the ship it self i just don't see a great use for it. Also you know, it gets outperformed by tier 3's in almost every way. Deimos"We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change." Rep bonus? Its the only traditional tanking bonus that isn't represented in the Hac's... i really hate how i feel like this Demios was balanced around the idea of using a shield tank........ IshtarSeems that my complaining about the bay bonus worked \o/ I think splitting up sentry drones and heavy drones into two different bonuses is extremelly silly.. Don't really see the point of that. VagabondWhy does the vagabond get five bonuses? Thats basically what you have done with the speed thing.. The sac doesn't get all the awesome cap it used to have, why does the vagabond get to be 35% faster than any other HAC? Don't think its weak enough to warrant that.... Other then that i don't really care about it, i just think thats really stupid. MuninPretty sure i will continue to not use the munin.. other HAcs got their speed boosted as well. If you want to count that as a bonus.. then the cerberus got the old vagabond speed bonus as well now! Just stop being melodramatic!
So the Vagabond isn't 32% faster than the cerb? It already has a great tank, silly sig and just great bonuses all around, it doesn't need to be that much faster. Should be the fastest imo, just not head and shoulders faster like it is now.
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:02:00 -
[295] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them.
well since its a shield tank you can always use a reactor core II or a rig slot right? i mean in the meta everyone knows just how op the diemos is.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1207
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:03:00 -
[296] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them.
well since its a shield tank you can always use a reactor core II or a rig slot right? i mean in the meta everyone knows just how op the diemos is.
I think he assumed you weren't making an awful shield thorax. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
MinutemanKirk
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:04:00 -
[297] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Rise wrote:[SACRILEGE
We wanted to get rid of the cap recharge bonus, as it is both kind of dated and strange Glad you saw the wisdom in not wasting a bonus slot on a useless bonus. CCP Rise wrote:Deimos
We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change. You have got to be shitting me.
I was about to say the same thing.
Here are a few "compelling replacements" to this absolutely outdated and worthless (especially with the 4th mid and increased cap recharge rate) bonus: Tracking bonus. If it's too OP than make the ship slower so it can't apply that DPS (blasters) as well. An MWD SPEED bonus. Again, if it's too OP in the current form then tone down the total base speed. An AB speed bonus. Something that none of the other HAC's would have while still fitting in current meta. (I can't believe I'm saying this) An Armor repair bonus. Fits with current Gallente designs, within the parameters of the new Minmatar philosophies, and might encourage more solo work with them. This should, I believe, be the last considered as armor repair bonuses have been proven to be weak in the past.
On a positive note, I do like most of the other changes. Ishtar has some fitting space and had an outdated bonus removed. Vaga should be useful again and I should finally have a reason to fly Caldari HACs. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:04:00 -
[298] - Quote
Chessur wrote:When can we expect to see the round 3 changes? Because you hardly did anything of note, other than fixing the obvious ishtar CPU problem. The added ECM / Cap was a very good step in the right direction. However everything else is really terrible ingards to HAC's, their role, and their role bonus.
indeed i was hopping for a industrial mrk 2 or gal bs mark II...
but instead that wow factor was replaced by a wtf factor. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:06:00 -
[299] - Quote
In case anyone wonders:
New rail deimos (no cap changes yet)
http://i.imgur.com/jOAaNsy.png
(thats more ehp/speed then pretty much any t3 any t3.
Dps graph comparing it to all t3s dps wise bar the talos (which is op) transverasl 0
http://i.imgur.com/aWKw7RW.png
With full transverasl:
http://i.imgur.com/DCBNOlZ.png
(red line is deimos btw).
totally non op, its totally not a higher ehp, speedier talos with way better tracking.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:06:00 -
[300] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:MeBiatch wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them.
well since its a shield tank you can always use a reactor core II or a rig slot right? i mean in the meta everyone knows just how op the diemos is. I think he assumed you weren't making an awful shield thorax.
pro tip never assume
it makes an ass out of u and me There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:10:00 -
[301] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:MeBiatch wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them.
well since its a shield tank you can always use a reactor core II or a rig slot right? i mean in the meta everyone knows just how op the diemos is. I think he assumed you weren't making an awful shield thorax. pro tip never assume it makes an ass out of u and me
Sheild thorax>armour thorax. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:11:00 -
[302] - Quote
this is teh deimos i would like to see:
DEIMOS
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus and decrease MicroWarpdrive cap activation cost
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 15% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 4(-1) turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+160), 360 CPU(+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400(+25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.5/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7) Signature radius: 150(-10)
This would fix the diemos not make it op and actually make the falloff bonus usefull.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:13:00 -
[303] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:this is teh deimos i would like to see:
DEIMOS
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus and decrease MicroWarpdrive cap activation cost
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 15% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 4(-1) turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+160), 360 CPU(+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400(+25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.5/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25m3) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7) Signature radius: 150(-10)
This would fix the diemos not make it op and actually make the falloff bonus usefull.
You are bad. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
145
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:15:00 -
[304] - Quote
Minus the deimos having horrible speed, agree 100% Deimos / vaga / ishtar are just so far beyond the other HAC's atm. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:16:00 -
[305] - Quote
I for one am overall disappointed by V2.
The Good:
Cap recharge buff is great for T2. Ishtar changes in general. Yay CPU! Rolling in the drone bay and buffing Heavy drone speed/tracking was much needed. Moar Sensor strength! Not quite Blackbird immunity, but ECM resilience is good.
The Bad:
Nerf Cap recharge on Sacrilege. It used to do only one thing well... now it does nothing well, except maybe as a blob HAM platform if your alliance is too rich to care what the hull costs. Possibly overbuff Vagabond... but only comparatively. The only one of these that now looks like it will be viable in a defined subset of roles. Perhaps ALL HACs should shine in certain ways like the Vaga now will. If T2s are to be specialized, where's the specialization? If HACs are to be generalized (on-steroids), where's the +2 fitting slots? Where's the versatility?
The Ugly:
MWD bloom bonus for all! Who CARES what your ship strengths are!
I'll post more observations/suggestions later, when I get over the taste of bile in my mouth. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:16:00 -
[306] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:MeBiatch wrote:this is teh deimos i would like to see:
DEIMOS
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus and decrease MicroWarpdrive cap activation cost
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 15% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 4(-1) turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+160), 360 CPU(+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400(+25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.5/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25m3) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7) Signature radius: 150(-10)
This would fix the diemos not make it op and actually make the falloff bonus usefull. You are bad.
why 7.5% to rate of fire makes up for the turret loss and damage bonus. so one less turret means less cap used to fire guns. and gives the ship its utility slot back.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1207
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:17:00 -
[307] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:MeBiatch wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them.
well since its a shield tank you can always use a reactor core II or a rig slot right? i mean in the meta everyone knows just how op the diemos is. I think he assumed you weren't making an awful shield thorax. pro tip never assume it makes an ass out of u and me Sheild thorax>armour thorax.
If you don't mind either having no webs or no tank.. Sure.
Sure is easier to fit atleast..
Seriously Armor/shield needs a comprehensive fitting rebalance. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:19:00 -
[308] - Quote
My problem with hacs is the same. I want a role for these ships, and these changes still fail to give them that. What were these ships meant to do, what exactly are they specialized at? Thats a question that needs to be answered before they are fine tuned to be good at it. The changes for now are only coming from the approach of slap some more stats on them until they become desirable to fly. Unfortunately, I think changes like this will always leave hacs feeling like a meh ship that is limited to specific and specialized roles.
By just slapping stats on them you are giving them general bonuses for a generalized ship. They'll have some ewar as strong as bs, but not be nearly as tough. They'll be a little better than cruisers, but cost far more. They wont have the dps of battle cruisers, but sig tank better.
Basically what you end up with in all of these situations is a ship that may be better sometimes at some things, but generally is in some sort of middle ground between the three, yet costs more than all the other options, and isn't nearlly good at its role in the middle as a t3 ship. On the whole I find these changes entirely underwhelming, but at least you've given them enough stats now that about half are useless. If this is the route you take, I suggest you keep looking at the other half. The deimos and vaga both especially just dont feel there yet |
Kane Fenris
NWP
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:25:00 -
[309] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Michael Harari wrote:The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery Have you ever tried to fit 180's or 220's on your hull? -doesn't seem so, 180's are simply drones/frigate assassins and dps difference with 425's is acceptable considering such high tracking of those guns.
this is partly true
180's murder small stuf but th dps isnt just "a bit smaller" because of falloff you have a significant dmg reduction aut long kite ranges and therefore limit your vaga's engagement potential further.
the problem with 425's is vice versa + eventuall grid issues.
still 220s are the "best choice" but they dont have the 425's range pattern which i find is the minimum you need to have a actual edge over most ships that arent just outclassed by you beeing plain stronger. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1369
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:26:00 -
[310] - Quote
CCP Rise, why did you listen to everything except the MWD bloom reduction feedback? It is a useless bonus as it even still makes the ships too large to avoid damage form BS sized weapons and they are still to slow to out run the tracking. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:29:00 -
[311] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Michael Harari wrote:The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery Have you ever tried to fit 180's or 220's on your hull? -doesn't seem so, 180's are simply drones/frigate assassins and dps difference with 425's is acceptable considering such high tracking of those guns. this is partly true 180's murder small stuf but th dps isnt just "a bit smaller" because of falloff you have a significant dmg reduction aut long kite ranges and therefore limit your vaga's engagement potential further. the problem with 425's is vice versa + eventuall grid issues. still 220s are the "best choice" but they dont have the 425's range pattern which i find is the minimum you need to have a actual edge over most ships that arent just outclassed by you beeing plain stronger.
425s still horribly wreck small ships all the time with falloff bonus and TEs. Why you have to be bad? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
619
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:30:00 -
[312] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Morwen Lagann wrote: Deimos: I can't really express how glad I am to see the Deimos keeping its MWD cap penalty reduction bonus (the Thorax losing it as part of the first round of Tiericide made me very sad), though I will miss that utility highslot a bunch.
Would you still be sad if it were simply rolled into the hull? It's not a hull attribute, so not possible. Speed, cap recharge and dronebay are core attributes. You would have to make it a role bonus. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:34:00 -
[313] - Quote
I am a fan of the fact that the Cerberus will now be able to comfortably fit six launchers, tank and a MWD. Good change, we'll see where this takes the ship in future.
Eagle: Your rail changes strike me as something that'll basically make the Eagle try to be a ship whose purpose is 'drop reasonably high long range DPS into something at dumb ranges that is practically stationary', which doesn't make it very useful at all. I don't remember the numerical relation of pre-hybrid buff railgun tracking to after, but what I do remember is back in the day completely ditching medium railguns and putting lasers on Caldari ships because they were so abominably bad at actually hitting things, at optimal. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:34:00 -
[314] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Michael Harari wrote:The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery Have you ever tried to fit 180's or 220's on your hull? -doesn't seem so, 180's are simply drones/frigate assassins and dps difference with 425's is acceptable considering such high tracking of those guns. this is partly true 180's murder small stuf but th dps isnt just "a bit smaller" because of falloff you have a significant dmg reduction aut long kite ranges and therefore limit your vaga's engagement potential further. the problem with 425's is vice versa + eventuall grid issues. still 220s are the "best choice" but they dont have the 425's range pattern which i find is the minimum you need to have a actual edge over most ships that arent just outclassed by you beeing plain stronger. 425s still horribly wreck small ships all the time with falloff bonus and TEs. Why you have to be bad?
yes you can wreck small ships with 425... thats not the problem with 425's
the problem with 425's youll clip your dmg with barrage loaded easy |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
152
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:34:00 -
[315] - Quote
I see why you dropped the Diemos hp, it keeps everything around the 5k hp mark (before resists etc), except the vaga which has speed for tank; but with the vaga you've shown that you consider individual usage when looking at hp.
I fail to see why this fell by the wayside with the Diemos hp drop, it hardly seems justified given the closer range kill-or-be-killed combat style the ship supports. I think this alone will help kill the Diemos as a close range brawler. If that's the intention then fair enough, the rail change may accomodate this, but it is a favourite playstyle and I'll be sad to see it fade a little more into the background with such an iconic ship. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:38:00 -
[316] - Quote
When are deimos' green engine trails coming back? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
619
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:38:00 -
[317] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote: The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery
The what now? |
Dave PSI
Haendlergilde Gilde Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:40:00 -
[318] - Quote
Dear CCP Rise, could you explain your thoughts on the Eagle? Like i said before it is the worst Hac since years. The nearly only reason it get sold in Jita is because it get reprozessed (i probably reprozessed 500+ myself, so i know what i am talking about) when the material prices change.
What did you dramatically changed, so that people will now begin to use them? Why does it not have a second damage bonus, like every other hac? If you are sniping, why would you use an Eagle instead of a Zealot or a Minunn?
This ship needs much more loving or nobody will ever use it. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:41:00 -
[319] - Quote
I notice you really haven't got an idea of what an Eagle should do - so its a kinda brawler, but not since it lacks damage/ tracking or falloff bonuses and drones. Or its a kinda sniper, but not since it cannot "head shot" anything.
You could devote the entire ship to a sniper role, but give it cannot clean kill its targets it needs to survive at range ... introduce medium micro jump drives and give the Eagle bonuses for its use - take away the shield % bonus or one of the optimal bonuses |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:42:00 -
[320] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it. The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails. Then I have nothing to tell you cause I would not send that ship in at point blank range to go shoot a target with ion blasters... I'll bring a thorax, shoot it with neutrons, and laugh as the ship blows up. The Deimos will not survive under fire
Before I start ranting, I'll say this..
1) I like quoting myself.
2) The Deimos is in somewhat of a bad place, and its not inherently the ship, its the play style people want from it. You really do have two camps here regarding this ship. The first is the point blank blaster max damage fit, the second is this shield fit kiting rail fit. Now the kiting fit isn't a big issue, but there is a very VERY large camp out there that do not want the Deimos to be the Gallente Version of the Eagle. Now there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship....
It really isn't. With Blasters, it really does not have the projection with damage, even with the fall off bonus, and the reason isn't because of the range that blasters get, its because it will Die in a ball of melted scrap because it has to get into range. Now if your flying a thorax, its not a big deal, 10 million isk ship, few modules, probably 30 mil. This ship is 150 million at the lower end. Its chiefly the main complaint that people have in regards to using a regular industrial vs using a deep space transport.
"Why am I going to use a 150 million isk ship vs a 1 million isk ship if they both get caught and blown to hell. They'll both die in a ball of fire if someone catches them."
Now this arguement has been argued.. ALLOT, but its specifically pertinent to the Deimos as you have to fly this ship, as a blaster setup, at 10km to apply viable damage, which is both in Scrambling Range (shutting down MWD propulsion), and also its in POINT BLANK RANGE of the fleet/fighters. This is not the ship you want to put in the frontline, as it does not have the defenses to survive as a frontline ship.
The Diemos would need the following IF you want this to be a viable frontline HAC.
1) Don't split the Hybrid Turret damage into two different bonuses, merge them into 1 (instead of 5%, just make it 10% bonus Medium Hybrid Turret Damage.
2) With the free slot you have by combining the above (moving it all into Gallente Cruiser), increase its hit points. I'd say about 5% per level. It should bring the typical 35 to 50k ehp Diemos to around 68 to 75k ehp, giving both some dynamic to fitting active reps, or a passive tank, and giving it enough time to brawl its way through the fire to actually land a shot or two.
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Armor Hit Points per level. "Do it here as it forces people to level up Heavy Assault Cruiser if they want a brawling Deimos."
I hate (actually i REALLY hate) doing the whole hit point bonus with a ship, but this is really the only way I can see this ship living as a blaster boat. It needs the buffer, which gives it about an extra 10 to 15 seconds under fire, to get in range. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4417
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:46:00 -
[321] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:I see why you dropped the Diemos hp, it keeps everything around the 5k hp mark (before resists etc), except the vaga which has speed for tank; but with the vaga you've shown that you consider individual usage when looking at hp.
I fail to see why this fell by the wayside with the Diemos hp drop, it hardly seems justified given the closer range kill-or-be-killed combat style the ship supports. I think this alone will help kill the Diemos as a close range brawler. If that's the intention then fair enough, the rail change may accomodate this, but it is a favourite playstyle and I'll be sad to see it fade a little more into the background with such an iconic ship. I've been wondering how a bonus to reduce sig radius significantly would pan out for it, or perhaps a AB speed bonus (which would make for some interesting dual prop fits).
Also, I really like the Eagle (always have) but I'm still a bit concerned about it. I guess we'll have to see how the rail buffs affect it. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:49:00 -
[322] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Dude AMMAR HAVE SHIELD AND ARMOR improved resists. As MINAMTARE and ANY race!! The bonus is applied in BOTH layers!!!!
I WAS going to come back at you with facts and figures about how you were clearly wrong and my e-peen was bigger than yours.
Sadly, twas not the case and I see the errors of my ways. I will hang my head in shame for the rest of the afternoon. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1208
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:52:00 -
[323] - Quote
But looking at all this..
What is the point of the HAC's?
What role do they serve? Because they seem to be expensive mini bc's with high res.. and that just isn't very interesting. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1369
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:55:00 -
[324] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:But looking at all this..
What is the point of the HAC's?
What role do they serve? Because they seem to be expensive mini bc's with high res.. and that just isn't very interesting. Lets not forget that they only have 1/2 the EHP of a BC though. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1208
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:56:00 -
[325] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:But looking at all this..
What is the point of the HAC's?
What role do they serve? Because they seem to be expensive mini bc's with high res.. and that just isn't very interesting. Lets not forget that they only have 1/2 the EHP of a BC though.
Note the "mini"
I guess i should have said BAD mini bc's BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:00:00 -
[326] - Quote
What exactly is the reasoning behind nerfing the Deimos's armor and hull? I mean, it wasn't exactly a brick in the first place. We call it the Diemost for a reason. Also, removing the utility high that was mostly used for a Nos to run a repper in favor of a mid, I'm torn about. I guess it depends on whether that extra 60 powergrid is going to be enough for a cap booster with bigger guns, which I don't think it will at first glance. I'll do the math later. The changes seem not only underwhelming but almost brutal to the Deimos. It's almost pigeon holed now into buffer shield tanking with medium rails. Was it the intent to push it towards kiting rather than brawling? |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:07:00 -
[327] - Quote
Dave PSI wrote:Dear CCP Rise, could you explain your thoughts on the Eagle? Like i said before it is the worst Hac since years. The nearly only reason it get sold in Jita is because it get reprozessed (i probably reprozessed 500+ myself, so i know what i am talking about) when the material prices change.
What did you dramatically changed, so that people will now begin to use them? Why does it not have a second damage bonus, like every other hac? If you are sniping, why would you use an Eagle instead of a Zealot or a Minunn?
This ship needs much more loving or nobody will ever use it.
This, and not only thins, but for the Muninn aswell! What did you really do to these ships to make them usefull? fixing the Cerb, Ishtar, Sac, And Vaga, but forget the actualy 2 least used hacs of them all. |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp Infinity Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:07:00 -
[328] - Quote
Just a few things I noticed:
THE SACRILIGE: becuase you added the missle velocity bonus it seems like it will primarily do almost do the same job as a zealot but with selectable damge but at a lower DPS..
I still dont understand why you lowered its EHP...
wouldn`t it be better with some type of damage application bonus? explosion velocity or radius, 4%bonus to missle damage. i dunno.
The DEIMOS: Still seems a little behind the rest, with no way to actually apply its damge.
THE CERBERUS: though i dont like the bonus to kenetic damage i used its a tough one to work around, what about a 4% bonus to all missle damage types.
THE ISHTAR: WHY YOU NO ADD EXTRA LOW SLOT :( we are now forced to shield tank the ishatar and the GILA already does that soo well. THE BONUSes are a little odd as well.
LIKE these ships should all have their own little niche, |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:08:00 -
[329] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Thank you for giving a bonus to a ship (vagabond) when we minmatar players said that it wasn't needed and we would like more to remain a skirmish ship, basically saying "hey guys you can still fly and dont use the bonus" is completely ******** and basically telling us to f*** off .
I find it funny also that you want us to shield tank and be awesome with only 4 meds , i mean 2 are used for a MWD and the booster that leaves us with what 2 other mids to what ? 1 point and another slot to put a tank? Or you want us to dual tank using our 5 lows? calm down. they rolled the other bonuses into the hull. Nothing has really changed except a boost in speed and reduced MWD sig, which is really good. If you didnt use shield boosters before then it doesnt even matter. 1 MWD 2 extenders and 1 point and shes good to go, just like always. and its strength has always been speed, so trying to say you want more tank is changing its role. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:11:00 -
[330] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Dave PSI wrote:Dear CCP Rise, could you explain your thoughts on the Eagle? Like i said before it is the worst Hac since years. The nearly only reason it get sold in Jita is because it get reprozessed (i probably reprozessed 500+ myself, so i know what i am talking about) when the material prices change.
What did you dramatically changed, so that people will now begin to use them? Why does it not have a second damage bonus, like every other hac? If you are sniping, why would you use an Eagle instead of a Zealot or a Minunn?
This ship needs much more loving or nobody will ever use it. This, and not only thins, but for the Muninn aswell! What did you really do to these ships to make them usefull? fixing the Cerb, Ishtar, Sac, And Vaga, but forget the actualy 2 least used hacs of them all. check the blog on medium rails, beams, and arties. theyre all getting a boost. especially rails (+30%) dps |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:14:00 -
[331] - Quote
the eagle and the munnin really need thaty targeting range bonus. not gonna need the extra sebo to go out to max range |
Arushia
Nova Labs New Eden Research.
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:15:00 -
[332] - Quote
I like the range bonus on the Sacrilege, and finally the Ishtar gets a decent CPU.
I still think both of them could swap a mid for a low though.
Tired of lab queues in high-sec? Check out New Eden Research |
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:16:00 -
[333] - Quote
still not happy you're pidgeon holing the deimos into a shield tanked kiter with 250mm rails. on the up side, at least it'll see some action after collecting dust in my hangar for years.
no chance of at least keeping the EHP where it is?
navy exeq still outperforms it in the brawler role near as I can tell. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:22:00 -
[334] - Quote
These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
374
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:24:00 -
[335] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:I see why you dropped the Diemos hp, it keeps everything around the 5k hp mark (before resists etc), except the vaga which has speed for tank; but with the vaga you've shown that you consider individual usage when looking at hp.
I fail to see why this fell by the wayside with the Diemos hp drop, it hardly seems justified given the closer range kill-or-be-killed combat style the ship supports. I think this alone will help kill the Diemos as a close range brawler. If that's the intention then fair enough, the rail change may accomodate this, but it is a favourite playstyle and I'll be sad to see it fade a little more into the background with such an iconic ship. It's quite obvious that CCP is shifting these ships into kiting roles (since we all know how much Gallentean playstyle is to kite things around), ushered in by the medium turrets buff, and evidenced by the armor/hull changes going to shield, increased speed, MWD sig bloom reduction, addition of midslots, etc. What CCP is missing is that people still won't fly these overpriced HACs when a T1 does the same paper tank/high dps builds and can also kite. It's sad that these ships are becoming a mish-mash of the same with the push toward long-range weapons systems and MWD uses. I guess T3s will still be the go-to for brawling setups, and when they get a treatment, I'm sure we'll use BCs again.
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:You could devote the entire ship to a sniper role, but give it cannot clean kill its targets it needs to survive at range ... introduce medium micro jump drives and give the Eagle bonuses for its use - take away the shield % bonus or one of the optimal bonuses The true gist here is that HACs should have been given a fitting bonus so they could use MJDs. Giving them MJDs would allow for both sniper and brawler setups to thrive, with each getting a use to make- or collapse-range. What else this unique bonus would allow for is a ship that is truly unique and different from its T1, BC, T3 counterparts. As much as a Thorax would like to, it could never use an MJD. It would have been nice to have the option on the Diemost so it could have had some compelling reason to pay so much more for such a miniscule performance bonus. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1208
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:25:00 -
[336] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So...
Bad... BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:26:00 -
[337] - Quote
I'm happy with the new Cerberus.
Thank you. |
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:31:00 -
[338] - Quote
I still don't dig it. Breaking it down by change:
The capacitor changes are certainly nice, but a lot of the HACs didn't have problems with capacitor:
- Sacrilege and Muninn don't need cap for their guns
- Almost all mainstream Zealot fits are AB fits and were capstable before the changes
- Deimos was cap-stable before the changes
- The Vagabond needed to pulse the MWD anyways to effectively deal damage.
(And on a side note, it still doesn't help against ships facing neuts. Especially with the recent Armageddon buffs, neuts are becoming more common on the battlefield again, and three HACs have lost their option highs. The only real beneficiaries of the capacitor change are the Cerberus, and people using the Vagabond in a non-DPS heavy tackling role.)
The lock ranges are somewhat nice, if only because it means that the Beam Zealot no longer needs a sebo. But otherwise, they're non-contributory. At best, it gives them a tiny bit more resilience versus damps... but not enough. Even with the Cerberus and its absurd 118km lock range (130km in fleet), it only takes one damp to drop it to 49km, and two for 24km.
Now, breaking it down by ship:
- Sacrilege: My thoughts on it largely remain the same as in the first pass. It's good -- probably the one HAC that benefited most from the first round of changes -- and its capacitor is still amazingly good for a ship with no cap-based weapons. Having a Caracal's missile range just makes it that much better.
- Zealot: While the changes to it are nice, it still has the same problems as it did after the first pass:
-- Soloers are going to skip it due to no drones, no option high, and only 3 mid slots -- 200-man fleets are going to prefer Legions due to the superior tank and sensor strength -- Small gang fleets are still going to use it in the same fit as before
About the only benefit from the second round of changes is that AB HPL zealots are now capstable. But, frankly, they're an AB boat and only have one mid-slot free, so they should be. Really, if I could ask for one change to the Zealot, it'd be to bump its base power grid up to 1260 (+80). This would address the fact that every PvP armor Zealot fit being used today requires at least one ACR.
- Cerberus: The improved capacitor eliminates several of my concerns from the previous round -- at least it can kite now. The extra grid is also a HUGE welcome: a HAM fit with two LSEs is now quite easy.
It is still a very thinly tanked hull -- 44k EHP with four tank mods and two tank rigs -- and I suspect that both small and large gangs will continue to prefer the Tengu for its far superior tank. However, I think soloers will now love this ship. It might make a good close skirmisher at very small gang sizes. Perhaps, bump up the base shields a bit more?
- Eagle: Continues to be junk. The extra grid and capacitor is welcome, but the ship continues to be pigeonholed into a single role: that of the far skirmisher, where it competes with the Tornado/Naga/Talos and the Muninn.
Despite the improvements in power grid, you still need either an ACR or an RCU2 to fit a full rack of railguns and two LSEs, so in the end, the changes only afford us fitting a DCU instead of a PDS. We still end up in the same space we were before: it's a Naga competitor with twice the cost, half the DPS, half the alpha, but triple the tank.
About the only argument I can make for it now is that with Loki links it might be small enough to ignore bombing runs... which is not a great selling point. I am not comfortable with a hull that is only interesting for a single role in a single fleet comp, especially when its nearest competitors require half the SP investment and half the cost. (And whose cost doesn't fluctuate with nullsec politics.)
- Deimos: Still problematic. The increased grid is a welcome gift, as it at least allows you to fit MWD+1600+ions smoothly. However, I think the Deimos is still in search of a role.
Armor setups continue to suffer from the loss of the option high -- the lack of offensive cap warfare (neut) makes it less appealing to gangs than before, and the lack of defensive cap warfare (nos) makes it less useful to soloers. Shield setups continue to suffer from the lack of tracking -- you can't track with rails on TQ today, and you track worse with the new medium rails. Even blaster Deimoses today need to be careful with tracking; Null and Void generally can't be used while orbiting.
With the new capacitor changes, the MWD cap bonus makes even less sense. The ship was already cap stable while running MWD+tackle+guns before; it's even more so now. This makes me reluctant to put injectors in the new fourth mid, because they serve purely as an anti-neut option; before, I could use a nosferatu for anti-neut.
Why not replace the MWD cap bonus with a weak (3-5%) tracking bonus? This would make shield rail Deimoses viable as a slower, harder-hitting alternative to Vagabond/Cerberus, and simultaneously improve the armor Deimos' flexibility by allowing it to use Void/Null ammo effectively.
(continued in next post)
|
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:31:00 -
[339] - Quote
(continued from previous post)
- Ishtar: The gentle nerf to sentry drone ranges isn't a huge deal -- it's about a 5km loss on Gardes. The extra grid and CPU is certainly pleasant -- you can pack on a T2 plate now comfortably.
However, the bonuses don't make a ton of sense to me; it strikes me as a ship whose bonuses are entirely dependent on usage. For people using the Ishtar with heavies (especially the so-called "AFKtar" PvE fits), there is no benefit to them training the HAC skill past one. People using sentries, on the other hand, must train it to 5. It's a strange dichotomy, and one that's not easily explained.
What I would have preferred to see is tying all drone bonuses to HAC, and put the drone control range bonus on Gallente Cruiser. Alternately, leave the Ishtar's bonuses focused on sentries, and give the Gila some bonuses focused on Heavies.
- Muninn: As above, so below. It wasn't really making use of its cap, so the cap changes don't change anything; it wasn't threatened by ECM, so the sensor strength changes don't change anything. The previous round changed almost nothing about this ship, either.
- Vagabond: Still subpar.
The extra capacitor is nice, certainly (~8min runtime now for MWD+point), and I admit that the sig reduction is going to reduce its incoming DPS. Bringing it's speed back up is nice too. But, I still firmly believe that the shield tank bonus is not useful.
Even if we take Rise's example of LASB+LSE, there's two fundamental concerns:
First, you have to run the LASB for at least five cycles in order to have the same aggregate HP as 2x LSE, and it's an effective tank of 400dps. Meanwhile, you have 20k EHP of total buffer, 15k of which is in the shields. This yields the following breakdown:
- < 400dps incoming: You stay alive, up until you run out of cap boosters
- 400-700dps incoming: You will eventually die (especially when you run out of boosters), but it'll be better than 2x LSE
- > 700dps incoming: You'll die faster than you would have with 2x LSE.
Lots of ships put out that much these days: any of the Tier3 BCs, any BS, and most of the Vagabond's HAC brethren.
And, what do we give up in order to fit that? The extra CPU that's been added to the Vagabond is nice, but CPU hasn't been its problem -- it's grid. The Vagabond has always been very tight on grid, and a LASB+LSE fit makes it worse. In order to make it fit, you have to do one of three painful choices:
- Use a 3% grid implant (i.e. no snakes)
- Use an ACR rig (i.e. you give up either a polycarb or a resist rig)
- Downgrade two of your five guns from 220mms to Dual 180mms.
It's just not a good tradeoff.
I'm glad that you guys acknowledged that the desirability (or lack thereof) of the Vagabond is directly tied to the desirability of the Cynabal. However, "the Cynabal is getting nerfed Soon (TM)" doesn't really help us now. At best, all it means is: "Market manipulators should stockpile Vagabonds, even though they're ****, because eventually they'll become a one-eyed king in a land of blind men."
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
374
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:32:00 -
[340] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship.... I don't know why we'd want a Gallente ship to reflect the Gallente play style of in-your-face with blasters....
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
kraiklyn Asatru
T.R.I.A.D
322
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:32:00 -
[341] - Quote
Dear Rise,
CCP wrote: Name: Vagabond Hull: Stabber Class Role: Heavy Assault Cruiser
The fastest cruiser invented to date, this vessel is ideal for hit-and-run ops where both speed and firepower are required. Its on-board power core may not be strong enough to handle some of the larger weapons out there, but when it comes to guerilla work, the Vagabond can't be beat.
Developer: Thukker Mix
Improving on the original Stabber design, Thukker Mix created the Vagabond as a cruiser-sized skirmish vessel equally suited to defending mobile installations and executing lightning strikes at their enemies. Honoring their tradition of building the fastest vessels to ply the space lanes, they count the Vagabond as one of their crowning achievements.
Minmatar Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 5% bonus to max velocity per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff range and 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage per level
Could you at least fix the text for the new ASB vagabond, its annoyingly incorrect for so long now. |
Yuri Lebbie
Jester's Hole
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:33:00 -
[342] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Giving them MJDs would allow for both sniper and brawler setups to thrive, with each getting a use to make- or collapse-range. What else this unique bonus would allow for is a ship that is truly unique and different from its T1, BC, T3 counterparts.
While this would be an awesome change to give T2s something to make them unique, and I think would be a good idea, but I do not think that they will do this. A bit too radical of a change from what they are putting together plans for. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:34:00 -
[343] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
132
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:35:00 -
[344] - Quote
Is there no one else going orgasmic over those additional 40ish % cap on a vaga? I only correct my own spelling. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4417
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:38:00 -
[345] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Rise, why did you listen to everything except the MWD bloom reduction feedback? It is a useless bonus as it even still makes the ships too large to avoid damage form BS sized weapons and they are still to slow to out run the tracking. Apparently it's enough to mitigate 25% of the damage sitting still. "shrug" To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
307
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:38:00 -
[346] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95
Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:39:00 -
[347] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship.... I don't know why we'd want a Gallente ship to reflect the Gallente play style of in-your-face with blasters....
totally right? silly gal for actually wanting a in your face blaster setup. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
302
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:43:00 -
[348] - Quote
Feedback:
Sacrilege: Not terrible. I would fly it in this proposed form however I'm not sure that utility high is completely necessary. I would prefer that high to be moved to a low but otherwise it looks very nice.
Zealot: The medium LR turret rebalance helps beam fits a little however can I haz some CPU and maybe some drones pleaze? Just an extra 30 terraflops and 15 M/bit would make this ship fantastic.
Cerberus: I think this ship needs to lose the drone bay or at the very least reduced to two lights from three . Otherwise this looks very nice.
Eagle: This thing looks great especially when coupled with the medium LR turret rebalance. It will need to be tested on SiSi but I have a feeling it will need 15-25M/bit drone capacity.
Diemost: I'd prefer the MWD cap bonus to be dropped for a tracking bonus. Also please give it back some armour and structure. It really needs it. Otherwise very good.
Ishtar: Oh my lord this thing will be incredible. I can see these things blotting out the stars with their drones. Also; am I the only one who has noticed that this thing DIDN'T lose it's 5% hybrid damage bonus? Sneaking that extra turret in just gave it an equivalent flat 33% bonus to ANY turret. (you just need to use that extra fitting to fit one though ha ha)
Fagabond: I really don't know what to think about this. I understand that you're rolling the velocity bonus into the hull which is good but I'm not sure about the shield boost bonus. I can see it working okay but I'm still unsure. I also don't like how much damage it deals. It's pretty poor at the minute and your TE nerf has hurt AC kiting (which was needed to be honest). I think this ship needs an extra turret and then it will shine in the roles you're looking at putting it in. It's tank is pretty thin so making it a glass cannon on rocket powered roller skates might just work. Tier 3's would be pretty terrified of them then.
Muninn: A little lackluster in the damage department. The optimal bonus really pushes this ship into using artillery as AC's get no benefit from that bonus. I'm not saying you can't fit AC's but it's basically an armour version of the Eagle. So you need to give it the same love as the eagle and give it the fitting room to fit arty and tank easily. I think it's a little shy on PG and pushing the other utility high to a low would go a long way.
Otherwise things are looking better.
I think I might have to start calling you "CCP Rise Again" as it seems to take at least two laps round the track for you to get these things right
However it proves you listen and take onboard feedback and criticism. Even though half the people on these forums haven't got a bloody clue (me included half the time) |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
148
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:45:00 -
[349] - Quote
Make HAC's the final word in kiting platforms. That would be amazing. Make them really fast cruisers, with good projection. Leave just enough EHP on them so they can pull rang / mitigate incoming DPS with speed / sig. DPS should be above T1 cruiser level. All ships should have the ability to apply good DPS with short guns at 35k++
Or if that doesn't suit your fancy, make them have two hulls each accomplishing different roles.
Brawly: Sac, Eagle, Ishtar, Muninn
Kity: Vaga, Deimos, Cerb, Zealot
Give both hulls seperate role bonuses, and give them bonuses specific to they style of specialized play you wish.
I am still blow away by the fact that you, nor any one at CCP has yet to sit down and give a very logical explanation as to where you see HAC's in the current lineup of ships. No Doing that first step, would go a long way into properly creating a forum of discussion as to what bonuses HAC's should have, in order to fulfill their intended goal.
CCP Rise wrote:Hello! Lets get back to this HAC thing. The first HAC proposal raised discussion around tons of topics (you can find it HERE if you don't believe me). Common ones included our overall design for tech levels, the way HACs intersect with tech 1, tech 3, and faction ships and of course specific input on ship-by-ship stats and performance. I want to try and cover as much of this as possible so get some tea or something. Lets start with role. We've had several presentations and posts and dev blogs now which explain that tech 1 is general and tech 2 is specialized. While this is certainly our high-level goal, it will be compromised occasionally when the specifics of a certain project have other goals that pull in another direction. HACs are an example. The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization', but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers. With the rebalance effort here, we discussed entirely new roles or specializations that would be more in-line with the high level ideas we have laid out for all EVE ships, but ultimately decided that it wasn't worth completely throwing out the ships we had. Not only do they have a lot of history in the game, which leads to attachment, but they also have a lot of legitimate use already which we wanted to avoid disrupting if possible. Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor. All HACs will gain 7-8 sensor strength, putting their average Sensor Strength at 22 which is right around combat battleship range. All HACs gain 15k to 25k lock range All HACs have their cap recharge per second set to around 5.5 rather than the former 3.5 - 4.5 cap/sec Along with these changes, we are going to go ahead with the originally proposed role bonus. I've seen and participated in tons of talk about this bonus and I keep seeing the same problem - the tracking formula is not intuitive and the confusion leads to this bonus looking less powerful than it actually is. I've made another set of graphs to help illustrate, but please keep in mind that this is just one example and results may vary.
The bolded part, makes sense. You clearly define a role, and then list what steps you take in order for HAC's to fulfill that role. However in this case, you have failed on so many accounts. Fast, mobile cruisers? You're kidding right? They are (apart from the vaga / deimos) slower than all of their navy / t1 counterparts. As for their tank, BC's / Navy BC's completely **** all over them. I think that you can do better with HACs, much better than your current idea of shoving them into a really uncomfortable position for a cruiser. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
492
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:46:00 -
[350] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:But looking at all this..
What is the point of the HAC's?
What role do they serve? Because they seem to be expensive mini bc's with high res.. and that just isn't very interesting. Lets not forget that they only have 1/2 the EHP of a BC though.
Smaller sigs, higher speeds, and much better resistances compared to bcs means they will have much much much stronger fleet level tanks (with logi of course) than a BC.
The game is a bit more involved than just comparing ehp values, just an fyi :P
|
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:49:00 -
[351] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95 Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue. Not really, they (AFs) are borderline OP against other T1 frigates - but their slowness gives T1 frigates an area to be competitive. AFs (and HACs) should shine in logi situations - especially against ship hulls that are larger than they are. AFs do that really well, and their slowness makes sure they do not completely crush the engagement envelope of other frigates.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
492
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:51:00 -
[352] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1171
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:54:00 -
[353] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm
and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
60
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:54:00 -
[354] - Quote
Zealot has 3 usefully bonus (bonus for capacitor is useless as on other amarr ships), but other HAC's has 4. Also Zealot doesn't have drone bay at all. Is it normal? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1211
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:56:00 -
[355] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95 Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue. Not really, they (AFs) are borderline OP against other T1 frigates - but their slowness gives T1 frigates an area to be competitive. AFs (and HACs) should shine in logi situations - especially against ship hulls that are larger than they are. AFs do that really well, and their slowness makes sure they do not completely crush the engagement envelope of other frigates.
AF's really REALLY aren't borderline op but ok. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
167
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:59:00 -
[356] - Quote
Interesting changes, but a role bonus such as +25% to AB speed would be more interesting. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
133
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:02:00 -
[357] - Quote
Chessur wrote: The bolded part, makes sense. You clearly define a role, and then list what steps you take in order for HAC's to fulfill that role. However in this case, you have failed on so many accounts. Fast, mobile cruisers? You're kidding right? They are (apart from the vaga / deimos) slower than all of their navy / t1 counterparts. As for their tank, BC's / Navy BC's completely **** all over them. I think that you can do better with HACs, much better than your current idea of shoving them into a really uncomfortable position for a cruiser.
I disagree. especially the bolded part help quite a lot. It's not the fastest, but it surely it is the fastest with that tank. Reduced sigbloom and those increased resistances just make for a better ship in logiroams where you expect to actually tank the damage. They are slower compared to navy cruisers, but they also inflict more damage, and god damn that capacitor.
That higher sensorstrength might be less of an impact, but hey - it's for free it seems.
Putting aside the weird rangebonus on that sacriledge (as useful as on a damnation I want to bet, should be scrapped for something accuracy-like) and the utilityhigh on the muninn (optimal/tracking bonus, some 1k PG and an armortank... sure), it really looks legit. Deimos-sig is a little very big for what it is intending to do. I only correct my own spelling. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
515
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:02:00 -
[358] - Quote
I still think the Cerb won't be used at all, but it's more a missile problem now, because imo you did the right thing with the hull :)
I'm a bit dissapointed to see the Eagle so slow compared to the others. I'm using it as a blaster boat solo in wormholes and honestly that's fun ! Too bad that it feels like you didn't consider giving other fitting options for the eagle, like you did for the vagabond. G££ <= Me |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:08:00 -
[359] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Rise wrote:ISHTAR
Rather than the blanket 10% tracking and optimal drone bonus, we split the bonus into two more specialized bonuses. One to Sentry drone optimal and tracking, and another on Heavy Drone speed and tracking. So basically you took what should have been one bonus and spread it across two bonus slots. This really feels like a dual weapon bonus of some ship hulls that everyone mostly agreed is a terrible idea. This is not a good idea.
perhaps if the sentry drone bonus is reduced to 5% it would then make sense as the sentry drone bonus is a very strong bonus atm until gardes and curators get a nerf anyway. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
88
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:10:00 -
[360] - Quote
18 pages of griping... guess that means they should be left as is. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:10:00 -
[361] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm.
what i find odd about HM's and HAM'S is that HM furies do more dps than HAM javelins do .. whats up with that? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Onslaughtor
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:14:00 -
[362] - Quote
Sacrilege would be perfect if you moved the utility high to a low.
Deimos needs some more hitpoints. Thanks to natively poorer Gellente t2 resists it has a fairly weak AHAC tank even if you try.
Muninn is clearly designed for using artillery yet it has a hard time fitting them, Maybe change the 10% optimal to a 5% optimal and falloff per level. That or give it a bit more fitting space, tho I think that could be a bad idea.
Other than those things I like them.
Also just for the sake of bringing it up, the 2 rigs slots. Are there any plans on changing this? Because rigs as they stand play a HUGE part in how a ship preforms and because T2 ships are only able to fit 2 they have a harder time being better than their t1 counterparts and get horribly shafted when it comes to T3. Just wanted to bring this to your attention and let you think on it. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1211
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:18:00 -
[363] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm. what i find odd about HM's and HAM'S is that HM furies do more dps than HAM javelins do .. whats up with that?
Because they should. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:22:00 -
[364] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship.... I don't know why we'd want a Gallente ship to reflect the Gallente play style of in-your-face with blasters.... totally right? silly gal for actually wanting a in your face blaster setup.
The problem is the Gallente design model is fundamentally broken; big slow armor tanks and blasters with no range. It's a combination of bad and bad with no counterbalance, especially for cruiser-sized ships; battleships are always slow regardless of how they're fit (and have MJDs, which are a wonderful way around this problem), while frigates can get away with just fitting a damage control and perhaps some other resist mods.
Making armor faster isn't a good choice since it's the defining weakness of an armor tank, and when you start adding range to blasters you start looking suspiciously like Minmatar. The Talos is as good as it is, perhaps even overpowered, because it's un-Gallente: it has both range and speed.
The way I see it, there are two options: either redesign the Gallente HACs to have shield tanks with a decisive speed advantage and enough EHP to brawl at point blank range -- and I mean actually enough, not like the Thorax where shields + blasters means you'll explode instantly -- or leave them armor-tanked, but let them track well enough for railguns + antimatter to be at least somewhat competetive with Scorch and Barrage.
(To CCP's credit, I think the proposed Ishtar changes have already achieved this balance with drones, which just leaves the Deimos.)
I prefer the latter solution since I think ultra-fast shield-tanked blaster ships would be a great direction to take the Serpentis ship line, but that's just me. |
flind
Merhn Ghostly Fleet
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:22:00 -
[365] - Quote
RIP Sacra. Useless +25% to missile speed and loses its awesome capa bonus - yeah, she was imba before so CCP decided to nerf her. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
394
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:26:00 -
[366] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying
The last tunes to the Sacrilege are perfect. No touching it anymore pls. BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp Infinity Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:26:00 -
[367] - Quote
CCP RISE & CCP FOZZIE,
I hope we will being seeing a third round revision thread before you guys launch it. that is, unless you plan on having to balance them again in the next year or two. You should really take the time, listen to all the great forum feed back, and make a purpose for all these ships. Yes the CSM is great but you have hundreds of players giving you great feed back. Please use it, and listen to what the majority is telling you, even if you individually or a few CSM`s want to to something different. Please take into account you have a whole community of players that have put alot of work it to helping you build amazing T2 cruiser class as well.
I am very disappointed, and I feel that the forums ideas aren`t been looked into enough. Despite so many people not liking the ``one size fits all`` 50% reduction to MWD sig radius bonus, you have kept it. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
113
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:28:00 -
[368] - Quote
Diemos is still a flying coffin with the words (I brought it on the field and I have blasters, kill me please) written on it. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
309
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:31:00 -
[369] - Quote
flind wrote:RIP Sacra. Useless +25% to missile speed and loses its awesome capa bonus - yeah, she was imba before so CCP decided to nerf her.
Yeah buffer tanking and firing missiles requires so much cap. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:33:00 -
[370] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship.... I don't know why we'd want a Gallente ship to reflect the Gallente play style of in-your-face with blasters.... totally right? silly gal for actually wanting a in your face blaster setup. The problem is the Gallente design model is fundamentally broken; big slow armor tanks and blasters with no range. It's a combination of bad and bad with no counterbalance, especially for cruiser-sized ships; battleships are always slow regardless of how they're fit (and have MJDs, which are a wonderful way around this problem), while frigates can get away with just fitting a damage control and perhaps some other resist mods. Making armor faster isn't a good choice since it's the defining weakness of an armor tank, and when you start adding range to blasters you start looking suspiciously like Minmatar. The Talos is as good as it is, perhaps even overpowered, because it's un-Gallente: it has both range and speed. The way I see it, there are two options: either redesign the Gallente HACs to have shield tanks with a decisive speed advantage and enough EHP to brawl at point blank range -- and I mean actually enough, not like the Thorax where shields + blasters means you'll explode instantly -- or leave them armor-tanked, but let them track well enough for railguns + antimatter to be at least somewhat competetive with Scorch and Barrage. (To CCP's credit, I think the proposed Ishtar changes have already achieved this balance with drones, which just leaves the Deimos.) I prefer the latter solution since I think ultra-fast shield-tanked blaster ships would be a great direction to take the Serpentis ship line, but that's just me.
I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos. Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:36:00 -
[371] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos... more shield tank aswell would help Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
Yeah, as I said I'd be happy with either. Doing it this way means Gallente get to keep their most iconic weapon system, plus it has a nice symmetry to it -- Amarr are all armor, Caldari are all shields, Minmatar and Gallente are hybrids.
Mind you, I think the Megathron changes are one of the best decisions the tiericide devs have made -- but that might just be because they made it good enough to be a nullsec fleet doctrine ship again, after all these years.
EDIT: To clarify, though -- the Deimos needs either mobility or projection. NOT both. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
309
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:38:00 -
[372] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos... more shield tank aswell would help Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
You're everything wrong with this game. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:40:00 -
[373] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Harvey James wrote: I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos... more shield tank aswell would help Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
You're everything wrong with this game.
no you are :P .... you and you're well detailed statements 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1211
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:42:00 -
[374] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Harvey James wrote: I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos... more shield tank aswell would help Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
You're everything wrong with this game. no you are :P .... you and your well detailed statements
Fixed. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:42:00 -
[375] - Quote
What's with all the people saying Deimos isn't meant as a blaster platform?
I'll quote the in-game description...
Quote:Name: Deimos Hull: Thorax Class Role: Heavy Assault Cruiser
Sharing more tactical elements with smaller vessels than with its size-class counterparts, the Deimos represents the final word in up-close-and-personal cruiser combat. Venture too close to this one, and swift death is your only guarantee.
Developer: Duvolle Labs
Rumor has it Duvolle was contracted by parties unknown to create the ultimate close-range blaster cruiser. In this their engineers and designers haven't failed; but the identity of the company's client remains to be discovered.
Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff and 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level
My favorite part is this one...
[quote In this their engineers and designers haven't failed][/quote]
What? They didn't? Well, I guess to fair to those fictional engineers, they didn't have this post to read when they were designing this ship. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:47:00 -
[376] - Quote
While I still think that a falloff + tracking combination wouldn't be as unreasonable as CCP Rise claims, I wouldn't mind trading the falloff for tracking either. "Close range blaster platform" and all that. But you should still replace the MWD capacitor bonus with something, because it's awful. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:47:00 -
[377] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:What's with all the people saying Deimos isn't meant as a blaster platform? I'll quote the in-game description... Quote:Name: Deimos Hull: Thorax Class Role: Heavy Assault Cruiser
Sharing more tactical elements with smaller vessels than with its size-class counterparts, the Deimos represents the final word in up-close-and-personal cruiser combat. Venture too close to this one, and swift death is your only guarantee.
Developer: Duvolle Labs
Rumor has it Duvolle was contracted by parties unknown to create the ultimate close-range blaster cruiser. In this their engineers and designers haven't failed; but the identity of the company's client remains to be discovered.
Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff and 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level My favorite part is this one... Quote: In this their engineers and designers haven't failed What? They didn't? Well, I guess to be fair to those fictional engineers, they didn't have this post to read when they were designing this ship.
I suspect the Thorax or exqueror navy issue or the brutix navy issue even is better up close and personal than the deimos the falloff bonus and no tracking combined with unimpressive dps and lack of tank suggests a blaster kiter makes more sense but RISE doesn't seem to care much 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
246
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:52:00 -
[378] - Quote
I'd perfer the diemost get either A, more dps by trading a damage bonus for a Rof one or B, an armor tanking one over the microwarpdrive bonus, whether it's a resist, armor amount, or armor repair bonus, it'll still be useful. Both would be preferred for me, but probably Op. "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:53:00 -
[379] - Quote
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. 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. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:58:00 -
[380] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95 Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue. Not really, they (AFs) are borderline OP against other T1 frigates - but their slowness gives T1 frigates an area to be competitive. AFs (and HACs) should shine in logi situations - especially against ship hulls that are larger than they are. AFs do that really well, and their slowness makes sure they do not completely crush the engagement envelope of other frigates.
I think when we see people actually using hacs we can then decide that they need their speed nerfed. But the fact that they cost a 150 mill more than t1 should provide them with some additional benefit. Otherwise they will remain in the hangar. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Lorch
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:03:00 -
[381] - Quote
I must be one of the few people who like the Sac as it is. Its great for exploration combat sites - utility high for a probe launcher and enough cap to run a dual rep tank while leaving a rig slot open for a gravity capacitor. Oh and not to mention it can still fit a web and painter.
Yeah its admittedly a niche use but I'll miss the cap bonus and would definitely miss the utility high if it went. |
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis Dragonaors
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:05:00 -
[382] - Quote
Since the sacrilege is basically a cruiser sized vengeance, why not make the Cerberus a cruiser sized hawk. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:07:00 -
[383] - Quote
Lorch wrote:I must be one of the few people who like the Sac as it is. Its great for exploration combat sites - utility high for a probe launcher and enough cap to run a dual rep tank while leaving a rig slot open for a gravity capacitor. Oh and not to mention it can still fit a web and painter.
Yeah its admittedly a niche use but I'll miss the cap bonus and would definitely miss the utility high if it went.
well they actually built most of that cap and more into the ship now ... although it makes no sense as sac's don't need cap ... not like the zealot who needs the most but again skewed approach towards lasers but nothing new there then. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
765
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:07:00 -
[384] - Quote
Take the Cerb's drone bay and make it go away, in return have the 10% kin damage turn into All missile types damage.
Or make it 25m3 please.
15m3 dronebays shouldn't exist. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:07:00 -
[385] - Quote
Shahai Shintaro wrote:Since the sacrilege is basically a cruiser sized vengeance, why not make the Cerberus a cruiser sized hawk.
couldn't be any worse than the flight time bonus 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:08:00 -
[386] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Some positive changes there.
I still don't understand why you maintain the 4/5/5 setup on the Ishtar, though and not go 4/4/6 to get away from the predominant shieldtank - which is what the Gila is there for.
The heavy drone bonus might be useful one day - if you ever get to fix heavy/med drones in general, so they don't die while warping to their targets (or back into the drone bay in PvE).
They have that there for two reasons, first being that it allows for a generous fitting of drone upgrade mods on the mids, and the second being that if they gave it an extra lowslot over the sacrilege, which gets an armor resist bonus, EVERYBODY would call bullshit, and the sac would have to be changed too. That way that can keep both ships from getting potentially too overpowered. |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:09:00 -
[387] - Quote
If you want people to keep using the Vagabond as a skirmisher, why don't you give it another falloff bonus to help it in that role? We actually can't keep flying the old vaga, because the old vaga used the old TEs. With your new vaga we'll still have to use barrage for everything, ignoring projectile weapons advantage of picking damage types. We'll still be doing **** poor damage at point range because we don't have the pg to fit 425s(or arties, like that one crazy guy here wants). We'll still be flying the knife edge against cruisers that do 2ks or better and faction cruisers going 3ks. I'd much rather be doing that with more damage from a falloff bonus while they haven't caught me than with more tank when they do. Embrace specialization for the Vagabond. Give it another role bonus designed to make it a better skirmisher. Don't give it a bonus that takes advantage of one module , two fits, and which can be heavily abused by links. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:09:00 -
[388] - Quote
I'd actually be fine with the Deimos keeping its current powergrid if it got something useful in return, like the 4% resistance/level. You'd still not have the power to fit 1600+neutrons, but you'd then have heck of a gang ship with logi support. As it is, the Sacrilege already gets that resist bonus and fits a 60k ehp tank with AWU 5 to allow for the tech 2 1600mm plate. It can meta 4 the plate for 56k ehp and 81% omni tank with a thermic hardener and em rig. And, it's not considered vastly overpowered with that kind of tank. I can't think of any reason a Deimos would be considered overpowered with a similar resist bonus as you'd be eating through its tank long before it even got within range. I'm really failing to see why there is resistance to bringing the Deimos up to par. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1306
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:09:00 -
[389] - Quote
I like the direction with the increases sensor strength and lock range.
To be honest I also like the IDEA of the mwd sig reduction bonus but it's not strong enough. I've seen the graph, it's not compelling. The post-bonus sig bloom should be lower than BS gun resolution, perhaps somewhere between BC/CS and BS sigs.
Rise, what are your thoughts on a 75% MWD Sig Radius penalty instead of 50%?
Some questions/impressions:
Sacrilege Overall, positive. I think she still hurts from the % resistance nerf a while back but the reduced sig is welcome.
Question: Why not bring the entire capacitor bonus into the base stats? It was a very useful feature of the Sac despite not using cap for weapons (perma MWD, Neut, some level of resilience against cap warfare)
Cerberus
More speed and fitting is welcome but I'm still a bit unsure of its place among the other Caldari cruiser missile platforms.
Question: Has a double missile velocity bonus been considered and if so, thoughts?
Eagle
Great changes, should be what it needs.
Deimos
Speed is welcome, however I still strongly strongly feel the tank reduction is both unnecessary and counter productive. A flat 2000 armor would be just right.
Question: Why is the balance team reducing the tank on an already frail close range ship?
Ishtar
Replacing the drone bay bonus wasn't a bad idea. I dont even have a problem with what it was replaced with. HOWEVER reducing the proposed range/tracking bonus from 10% to 7.5% puts the Ishtar in a weird spot. At 10% it could synergize well with its Dominix big brother in sentry drone concept fleets.
Question: Why deciding to split out the Ishtar drone bonus, what was the intent behind weakening it? Is the balance team not concerned with its fleet role?
Vaga
The Cynabal isnt *just* the problem with the Vaga, it's that the Cynabal is doing what the Vaga used to be able to do and what everyone wants them to be able to do again. Nerfs to speed, nerfs to tracking enhancers, and buffs to the speed of other ships have edged the Vaga out of it's kiting damage role.
Question: Rather than a shield boost bonus, have you considered a second falloff bonus?
Muninn
It's...ok I guess? "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:11:00 -
[390] - Quote
Fewell wrote:If you want people to keep using the Vagabond as a skirmisher, why don't you give it another falloff bonus to help it in that role? We actually can't keep flying the old vaga, because the old vaga used the old TEs. With your new vaga we'll still have to use barrage for everything, ignoring projectile weapons advantage of picking damage types. We'll still be doing **** poor damage at point range because we don't have the pg to fit 425s(or arties, like that one crazy guy here wants). We'll still be flying the knife edge against cruisers that do 2ks or better and faction cruisers going 3ks. I'd much rather be doing that with more damage from a falloff bonus while they haven't caught me than with more tank when they do. Embrace specialization for the Vagabond. Give it another role bonus designed to make it a better skirmisher. Don't give it a bonus that takes advantage of one module , two fits, and which can be heavily abused by links.
well the 40k range is pretty strong they just need to buff the damage bonuses on all HAC's really its the deimos who needs that extra/stronger falloff bonus 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:13:00 -
[391] - Quote
I still am disappointed that the zealot doesn't carry over the Omen's drone bay. While I am pleased that the sacrilege gets one, the zealot remains incredibly vulnerable to frigates; it has no tracking bonuses, and anybody with a fast frig fit with a TD and a decent amount of testicular fortitude can solo it. But I suppose you COULD make the argument that since the zealot is designed to be in large fleets with plenty of logistics to back it up, it doesn't fall into the 'lone star' category that some of these vessels like the deimos or cerb tend to find themselves in with solo or small gang pirates. GJ on the cerb btw; going to see if I can't turn that baby into a replacement for the lvl 5 mission running tengu. 8D |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1213
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:14:00 -
[392] - Quote
Ohh since the ishtar is an issue
Could we have non ******** Drone rigs?
You know, maybe a straight up drone damage rig?
Or just in general removing the apeshit crazy CPU reduction penalty from them? Because that has the be the dumbest penalty you ever put on rigs. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
310
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:14:00 -
[393] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I still am disappointed that the zealot doesn't carry over the Omen's drone bay. While I am pleased that the sacrilege gets one, the zealot remains incredibly vulnerable to frigates; it has no tracking bonuses, and anybody with a fast frig fit with a TD and a decent amount of testicular fortitude can solo it. But I suppose you COULD make the argument that since the zealot is designed to be in large fleets with plenty of logistics to back it up, it doesn't fall into the 'lone star' category that some of these vessels like the deimos or cerb tend to find themselves in with solo or small gang pirates. GJ on the cerb btw; going to see if I can't turn that baby into a replacement for the lvl 5 mission running tengu. 8D
Zealot should be nerfed if anything. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1709
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:17:00 -
[394] - Quote
No change in price then, so they stay exactly where they are (the junk drawer) |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:26:00 -
[395] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:I still am disappointed that the zealot doesn't carry over the Omen's drone bay. While I am pleased that the sacrilege gets one, the zealot remains incredibly vulnerable to frigates; it has no tracking bonuses, and anybody with a fast frig fit with a TD and a decent amount of testicular fortitude can solo it. But I suppose you COULD make the argument that since the zealot is designed to be in large fleets with plenty of logistics to back it up, it doesn't fall into the 'lone star' category that some of these vessels like the deimos or cerb tend to find themselves in with solo or small gang pirates. GJ on the cerb btw; going to see if I can't turn that baby into a replacement for the lvl 5 mission running tengu. 8D Zealot should be nerfed if anything.
Zealot should not be nerfed, it should be used as the baseline for what the DPS projection HAC lineup should look like. The reason that the Zealot is currently used in fleet and small gang, and the others aren't is that the Zealot hits all the right points for a small, "fast" DPS ship that holds up well under reps. The fact that the only widely used HAC doctrine right now *IS NOT* MWD fit should speak volumes with respect to what people want these ships to do.
Two roles: Tank: Sac, Eagle, Deimos, Munin (though with the shield boost bonus, maybe Vagabond) - give a bonus to resistances, HP or TSB Projection: Zealot, Cerberus, Ishtar, Vagabond (or Munin, see above) - give a bonus to weapon range, tracking or mobility |
Kane Fenris
NWP
54
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:30:00 -
[396] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Vaga
The Cynabal isnt *just* the problem with the Vaga, it's that the Cynabal is doing what the Vaga used to be able to do and what everyone wants them to be able to do again. Nerfs to speed, nerfs to tracking enhancers, and buffs to the speed of other ships have edged the Vaga out of it's kiting damage role.
Question: Rather than a shield boost bonus, have you considered a second falloff bonus?
+1 this and mybe a little pg would fix the ship not in the best way (imho) but certainly would make it powerfull (id even take a tracking bonus as second choice over shield boost if pg is enough to fit 425 wo major problems) |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:31:00 -
[397] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I think when we see people actually using hacs we can then decide that they need their speed nerfed. But the fact that they cost a 150 mill more than t1 should provide them with some additional benefit. Otherwise they will remain in the hangar.
1. If we're supposed to wait until the ships are flown before giving our opinion, then why is anybody posting in this thread?
2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.
3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4419
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:32:00 -
[398] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm. Seriously, you view 25% more range (with the same flight time) for your high damage short range weapons system as a useless bonus?
Now, I'll agree I'd prefer perhaps a bonus that allowed them to apply that damage better... especially since a range bonus would be of more benefit to a faster hull.... but I don't find that bonus to be useless. Sometimes getting in range with a Sac can be problematic. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp Infinity Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:34:00 -
[399] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Take the Cerb's drone bay and make it go away, in return have the 10% kin damage turn into All missile types damage.
Or make it 25m3 please.
15m3 dronebays shouldn't exist.
agreed |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:34:00 -
[400] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm. Seriously, you view 25% more range (with the same flight time) for your high damage short range weapons system as a useless bonus? Now, I'll agree I'd prefer perhaps a bonus that allowed them to apply that damage better... especially since a range bonus would be of more benefit to a faster hull.... but I don't find that bonus to be useless. Sometimes getting in range with a Sac can be problematic.
Also bear in mind it's a 50% bonus. The 25% was a typo. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:35:00 -
[401] - Quote
come on RISE we need some answers here :
- like Alekseyev Karrde said have you considered a 75% MWD bonus or at the very least decrease sig radius of all ships to Attack cruiser level? - Eagle do you really think 370dps with Null is acceptable when the Deimos can do double that and about 500m/s more ? -Which leads on to the Deimos you really haven't thought of a better bonus than the mwd bonus? you mustn't have thought very hard a falloff bonus or at least a improved falloff bonus makes much more sense here. Also think a mini tough Talos and the ship suddenly makes sense and with shield buff and more range it might be worth using. - even with these changes do you expect people to pay up-to 200mil all in for these underwhelming ships?
-Cerberus does it need 200km HM's? explosion velocity or even shield boost bonus is better here -Vaga could it at least fit 425's like the cyna please? - Also do you agree that all HACS need more dps? - Also ishtar split bonus is odd either drop the sentry drone bonus to 5% or do something else that doesn't waste a bonus - Also more HP please 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1712
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:38:00 -
[402] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:
2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.
Not hardly, simply saying something is true without posting any actual facts doesn't actually make it real, and in this case you're wrong.
X Gallentius wrote:3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support.
Survivability in a game dominated by group alpha is laughable.
Speed when they are matched or outpaced by t1 cruisers that cost 1/15th of their hull price is laughable
Better EWAR stats when the EWAR game for jamming is a joke of a game of chance meaning that even if your SS was 10 million theres still a chance that a single light EC-300 jams you
I wont even touch the cap comment since its just silly, cap isn't a problem until it is and then you fit an injector and its not again
They already perform well in a gang, that gang is called armor HACs, and thats largely the only role they're used in simply because you dont skirmish in a 150 million isk hull when you can get the same or better results in either a 10 million isk t1 cruiser hull or a 60 million isk ABC hull.
|
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:39:00 -
[403] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying The last tunes to the Sacrilege are perfect. No touching it anymore pls.
Are you serious? The work isn't done yet. The Sacs damage output and tanking ability is still meh compared to other HACs, hell even T1 Cruisers. I'm pretty much ok with it not being a damage dealer but 6 lows would make it useful instead of simply overrated. The Sacs tank NEEDS some serious loving. Atleast that role should be defined instead of turning it into a half assed Jack of all trades. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4419
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:44:00 -
[404] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm. Seriously, you view 25% more range (with the same flight time) for your high damage short range weapons system as a useless bonus? Now, I'll agree I'd prefer perhaps a bonus that allowed them to apply that damage better... especially since a range bonus would be of more benefit to a faster hull.... but I don't find that bonus to be useless. Sometimes getting in range with a Sac can be problematic. Also bear in mind it's a 50% bonus. The 25% was a typo. Thanks for the catch, I missed that.
So yeah, even more so.
It also makes me wonder if there will be a Sac HML doctrine arise to rival the old drake doctrines. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
312
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:44:00 -
[405] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:come on RISE we need some answers here :
Generally they prefer to answer the easy questions like 'hey rise what's a hac :DD'. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:47:00 -
[406] - Quote
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.
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:48:00 -
[407] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:I think when we see people actually using hacs we can then decide that they need their speed nerfed. But the fact that they cost a 150 mill more than t1 should provide them with some additional benefit. Otherwise they will remain in the hangar. 1. If we're supposed to wait until the ships are flown before giving our opinion, then why is anybody posting in this thread? 2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve. 3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support.
1) fair enough
2) The cost of these ships is only a bit less than faction bcs. E.g., Navy harb going for about 180mil. Its unclear that these ships will even compete with plain vanilla BCs that cost 1/4 what these ships cost.
3) I don't think they survive better than plain bcs which cost 1/3 the price, or faction bcs for a bit more.
Again I think these changes are pretty good. But for 155-170 million I'm not still not sure they are going to be competitive.
Only comparing them with t1 hulls that are 150 mill cheaper is not really helpful. If you want to compare them to a cheaper hull at least compare them to the navy cruisers that cost about half as much.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1214
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:48:00 -
[408] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Harvey James wrote:come on RISE we need some answers here :
Generally they prefer to answer the easy questions like 'hey rise what's a hac :DD'.
You're a genius at making friends
I lolled.
Also everyone suggesting to remove guns from ships.
There are very few ships where this would be acceptable.. Why? Think how much less cool your ship will look with fewer guns on it. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:48:00 -
[409] - Quote
Cerberus looks really ridiculous to me, it has enough PG now to fit 6 launchers, MWD, and an XLASB with just two ACR I rigs. You can then get 750 DPS with 3 BCU and a damage control in the lows, and then you can decide if you want web and ECCM in your mids or more tank. XLASB and two invulns is an 1800 DPS Kin/Therm tank, great for laughing in the face of any Talos-heavy gang. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
380
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:52:00 -
[410] - Quote
Have to agree on the points with the Sacrilege. It should have -1 high slot to low slot, -1 launcher (4 total) and 10%/level of missile damage. That'd make it a superb tanking platform, keep its damage competitive and provide a utility high.
For everyone else crying out for drones in the Zealot: really the proliferation of drone bays is troubling. I'm not sure why we went from a "drone specialized" race, added a "drone interested" race and now, it seems, every race needs to have some sort of drone bay....which, btw, we all know is just going to be stuffed with EC-300s. Please stop the proliferation of drones for every ship. Not every ship needs a drone bay. I mean, I honestly wonder why ships like the Vigil got a drone at all. Some of these choices for drone bays don't make any sense, tbh. So no, please don't add a drone bay to the Zealot (and perhaps remove them from others). Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
darius mclever
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:53:00 -
[411] - Quote
so far so happy. needs testing of course ... but could we really drop that drone bay on the cerb for something else? |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp Infinity Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:55:00 -
[412] - Quote
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.
CCP RISE , CCP FOZZIE hope you had your note pads out for that amazing idea! he just did your job for you. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:55:00 -
[413] - Quote
I was going to rant about the proposed changes, but decided instead to politely point out that as proposed, I'm unlikely to fly any of the HACs for any of my Eve activities.
Why? Because quite simply, they offer insufficient incentive to offset the cost of the hull. There are simply too many other cheaper or more effective (or both) alternatives to accomplish the same thing. Give them a specific role and make them excel in that role OR make them general enough for me to effectively be able to perform multiple different functions on the same hull.
(Preferably the specialization. That IS what T2 is supposedly all about, isn't it?) |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:56:00 -
[414] - Quote
Boss McNab wrote: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. CCP RISE , CCP FOZZIE hope you had your note pads out for that amazing idea! he just did your job for you.
+1 |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:57:00 -
[415] - Quote
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.
I wish i could like more than once |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:59:00 -
[416] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Have to agree on the points with the Sacrilege. It should have -1 high slot to low slot, -1 launcher (4 total) and 10%/level of missile damage. That'd make it a superb tanking platform, keep its damage competitive and provide a utility high.
For everyone else crying out for drones in the Zealot: really the proliferation of drone bays is troubling. I'm not sure why we went from a "drone specialized" race, added a "drone interested" race and now, it seems, every race needs to have some sort of drone bay....which, btw, we all know is just going to be stuffed with EC-300s. Please stop the proliferation of drones for every ship. Not every ship needs a drone bay. I mean, I honestly wonder why ships like the Vigil got a drone at all. Some of these choices for drone bays don't make any sense, tbh. So no, please don't add a drone bay to the Zealot (and perhaps remove them from others).
Because the Dev's don't have a clue how to balance without using drones and the CSM are a bunch of fanboy blow hards who refuse to stand up to the Devs. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:59:00 -
[417] - Quote
RISE
Any intention on T2 resist profiles changing to a more omni T2 resist profile? 90% on some and 10% on others is just plain mad
Also any changes on the manufacturing side? a Kaalakiota cerb would be awesome 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:00:00 -
[418] - Quote
SOO CCP please tell me
What makes the ``SPECIALIZED`` ships that your telling us you made soo ``SPECIALIZED`` we already told you in the first thread to make specialized roles. Why have you not done that.
PLEASE CCP TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW YOU MADE T2 CRUISERS SOOO SPECIALIZED IN THIS BALANCE |
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:01:00 -
[419] - Quote
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. Good idea if they're not going to give all of them an extra slot. Recharge rate bonus should be wholly absorbed into the capacitor. Its not as if doing that will make it overpowered or something.
Pull a hyperion ccp. do it. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1370
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:02:00 -
[420] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: Because the Dev's don't have a clue how to balance without using drones and the CSM are a bunch of fanboy blow hards who refuse to stand up to the Devs.
Funny you should say that, because they came seem to balance drones at all. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:09:00 -
[421] - Quote
Love how Rise has ignored the rage after the first three pages where players start to come to terms with the utter lack of actual fixes. I'm sure this itteration will be ignored for 4 weeks and then addressed as, "we're out of time, we'll launch with this and monitor."
You were given specialized roles by multiple players that actually made these ships intersting. If you don't like my proposal in the last thread, fine... but for god sake, how about you take one of the other proposals and actually run with something good rather than continue down this line of crap.
Simple fact, the EWAR resistance boost you gave these ships means absolutely **** all in the current game climate. The sensor damps, jammers, and TD will be hardly phased by this pathetic attempt.
The ships should be highly defensive either through range or tank... right now they are neither.
For the cost, most people would rather use T1 options, or Tech 3 because of the insanely skewed stats in favor of their cost. Nobody wants some **** middle ground.
Define HAC's with an actual role. Fix the ones that need to be fixed, and stop making retardedly OP drone boats. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:11:00 -
[422] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Love how Rise has ignored the rage after the first three pages where players start to come to terms with the utter lack of actual fixes. I'm sure this itteration will be ignored for 4 weeks and then addressed as, "we're out of time, we'll launch with this and monitor."
I knew a 3rd round would be needed i hope RISE doesn't do what he did with ABC's and BS and just sweep the issues under the carpet with a we'll see ... at a later date nonsense 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Ender Wiggan
The Scope Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:13:00 -
[423] - Quote
Don't be assholes guys. They're clearly trying to iterate towards a solution that works for as many people as possible. No balance pass is going to make everyone happy.
That being said, there are a lot of improvements that could be made to this current iteration. The Sac changes proposed by Sarkelias come to mind. The weird bonuses on the Ishtar as well. The sig explosions from T1 to T2, specifically on the Deimos but on other HACs as well just don't make sense. The Eagle is still a red-headed step child. It's not fast enough to kite (and its damage is aneimic), it's sig + shield tanking reduce the effectiveness as an up close brawler.
Good steps, but at least another iteration to go still. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
767
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:13:00 -
[424] - Quote
15m3 cerb bay makes me cry harder and harder with each page. |
Sol Mortis
An Heroes
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:13:00 -
[425] - Quote
Deimos MWD bonus is broken in many ways:
1. The MWD bonus is more useless now than any point in EVE history. First came the long ago nano nerf, and all MWD have the same speed, and now the difference between them is cap penalty. To mitigate cap penalty just use different meta levels.
2. Cap Recharge increase to Deimos makes MWD cap penalty even less relevant.
3. Cap usage of hybrids was reduced, making MWD cap penalty less important.
4. Role bonus of sig bloom. This bonus makes the Deimos the ONLY HAC that will be ignoring TWO bonuses by fitting an afterburner. If you fit an AB on the Deimos, not only are you losing out on the sig bloom bonus, but you actually have a SMALLER capacitor amount than if you had an MWD. This is coercive to players, and takes away the ability for us to choose different fittings.
Please give the Deimos the tracking bonus that was given to the thorax for all of these reasons. I have the skills to use any HAC near perfectly. I haven't touched the Deimos in years and the ship is a joke, and after all the other HACs are made even stronger it will be even funnier.
It just isn't fair to practically FORCE Deimos pilots to fit a MWD with not just the role bonus, but the MWD cap bonus too. The role bonus is less frustrating because you don't train for it unlike a cruiser or HAC skill. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:14:00 -
[426] - Quote
Ender Wiggan wrote:Don't be assholes guys. They're clearly trying to iterate towards a solution that works for as many people as possible. No balance pass is going to make everyone happy.
That being said, there are a lot of improvements that could be made to this current iteration. The Sac changes proposed by Sarkelias come to mind. The weird bonuses on the Ishtar as well. The sig explosions from T1 to T2, specifically on the Deimos but on other HACs as well just don't make sense. The Eagle is still a red-headed step child. It's not fast enough to kite (and its damage is aneimic), its sig + shield tanking reduce the effectiveness as an up close brawler.
Good steps, but at least another iteration to go still.
That is utter bull. they didn't do hardly anything on the 2nd take even when players offered up good suggestions. They refuse to budge from their point of view even when most seasoned players are calling them out on it. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1173
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:17:00 -
[427] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:No change in price then, so they stay exactly where they are (the junk drawer)
Was wondering when you would show up There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1714
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:19:00 -
[428] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:No change in price then, so they stay exactly where they are (the junk drawer) Was wondering when you would show up
Sorry im late was sleeping off a hangover from drinking for the first time really in a long time
|
Aliventi
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
317
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:22:00 -
[429] - Quote
CCP Rise: There was a lot of talk about rebalancing the cost fo HAC so maybe they aren't 10-15+ times the cost of their T2 variant.
In Jita: Caracal: 10.3 mil Drake: 44.4 mil Naga: 62.3 mil Cerb: 187.8 mil (usually around 160 mil though) Raven: 164.9 mil
Even at 160 mil for a Cerb it appears to be an outlier in price. Any thoughts on the matter?
And while we are talking about cost of T2 ships any thoughts on making T2/T3/Pirate insurance not terrible? "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:24:00 -
[430] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad...
I wish we had a dislike button for the post you quoted there... Fozzie! Make it so! Dislike button here we come! How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
175
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:25:00 -
[431] - Quote
I think the only way you are going to solve this problem is to define these ships similarly to Heavy Interdictors. Add a module that removes Remote repairing ability in place of more defensible statistics such as AB speed and active tanking modules for a reasonable duration (~1-2 minutes). It lets players define what they want... more speed and self reliant tank, or lower speed, and more reliance on group warfare. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:27:00 -
[432] - Quote
A tracking bonus only helps a rail Deimos and not the blaster variation. The bonus itself does t save it (or even assist it) in surviving under fire.
Tracking, no it doesn't need it. It needs a tank, or a way of surviving. It doesn't have it yet |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:29:00 -
[433] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:But looking at all this..
What is the point of the HAC's?
What role do they serve? Because they seem to be expensive mini bc's with high res.. and that just isn't very interesting. Lets not forget that they only have 1/2 the EHP of a BC though. Smaller sigs, higher speeds, and much better resistances compared to bcs means they will have much much much stronger fleet level tanks (with logi of course) than a BC. The game is a bit more involved than just comparing ehp values, just an fyi :P
Yea, damage is also a role. And HACs have worse damage AND worse EHP than BCs. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Alizebeth Phoenix
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:30:00 -
[434] - Quote
Why does the Cerberus have the pain to keep that silly kinetic bonus? c'mon ccp, just make it gone and give her some useful damage bonus! |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1174
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:30:00 -
[435] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:A tracking bonus only helps a rail Deimos and not the blaster variation. The bonus itself does t save it (or even assist it) in surviving under fire.
Tracking, no it doesn't need it. It needs a tank, or a way of surviving. It doesn't have it yet
Wtf? You have played eve before yes? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:31:00 -
[436] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:18 pages of griping... guess that means they should be left as is.
Don't forget the 88 pages from the first thread! HACs need more slots, more EHP, and a bit more damage, THEN they will be flown. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:35:00 -
[437] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:A tracking bonus only helps a rail Deimos and not the blaster variation. The bonus itself does t save it (or even assist it) in surviving under fire.
Tracking, no it doesn't need it. It needs a tank, or a way of surviving. It doesn't have it yet Wtf? You have played eve before yes?
Yes and even with a tracking bonus the ship still derps and is melted into Ashe at point blank range.
The ship doesn't need to be navyfied (tracking bonus). It needs to survive (a tank of some way, shape or form). |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
162
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:36:00 -
[438] - Quote
Ok I have now fiddled with the latest EFT file.
I do like the electronics buff and the cap makes a big difference.
Ishtar will be my first choice HAC (always was) and has basically sat in the hanger from the point where I no longer needed itGÇÖs T2 resists for the old DPS heavy FW complexes.
Not completely convinced by the bonus to heavy drone speed, will need a further Navi comp and to not use ogres I think for heavies to be used in that fashion and be viable.
Fitting buff is huge so I will not complain about the odd bonuses.
Like the cap bonus on the Deimos gives it a great run time.
Sac may have lost some of its uniqueness and strength without the cap bonus, honestly it was a very strong ship when used correctly already.
Eagle could still do with 20% optimal and gaining a tracking bonus.
I do like the Vaga. 425mm Autos plus pulsing a LASB for tank at skirmish range with reduced sig.
I think these are generally improved combat wise and sitting at the correct level, more and they will out shadow other ships by far.
It is however a missed opportunity.
They are just another combat vessel nothing really unique, I will have a couple lying round but there is nothing really to justify the cost.
Some of the previous thread ideas such as scram immunity, microjump drives may have been overpowered but there was still a spot here for a unique bonus to shake up the meta and I think that is still missing. I would have gone for immune to non-targeted interdiction and I am not even a nullsec/wormhole player.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:40:00 -
[439] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Diemos is still a flying coffin with the words (I brought it on the field and I have blasters, kill me please) written on it.
Well considering medium Railguns are about to do near blaster level dps (******* fail ccp), I'd just fit those and kite at 30km...
Blaster Deimos will be just about as bad after the patch as it is now.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
469
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:40:00 -
[440] - Quote
Rise, perhaps it would help if we had some idea of the goal or outcome of each ship; what it is supposed to be specialized for
Specialization means it does one thing very well and it sucks at everything else. The best example of a specialized T2 ship is the Logistics ship line. It throws reps out there and tanks. It doesnt tackle, it doesnt DPS, it throws out RR and it survives.
So what does the sacrilege do? Its armor resist and MWD bonuses lead me to believe it is a close range brawler, meant to get in there, latch onto something and never let go, but then it gets this strange missile range bonus and gets HMLs. Sure these bonuses make it more versatile but it isnt supposed to be versatile it's supposed to be good at one (1) thing, so what is it that this ship is supposed to be specialized in?
TBH we shouldnt even have to ask this question for T2 ships. If theyre super specialized, then it should be so blatantly obvious what theyre good at that even a fool could figure it out (see logistics ships)
TL;DR we need to know what you want these ships to be specialized to do in order to give good feedback. |
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:41:00 -
[441] - Quote
Alticus C Bear wrote:Ok I have now fiddled with the latest EFT file.
I do like the electronics buff and the cap makes a big difference.
Ishtar will be my first choice HAC (always was) and has basically sat in the hanger from the point where I no longer needed itGÇÖs T2 resists for the old DPS heavy FW complexes.
Not completely convinced by the bonus to heavy drone speed, will need a further Navi comp and to not use ogres I think for heavies to be used in that fashion and be viable.
Fitting buff is huge so I will not complain about the odd bonuses.
Like the cap bonus on the Deimos gives it a great run time.
Sac may have lost some of its uniqueness and strength without the cap bonus, honestly it was a very strong ship when used correctly already.
Eagle could still do with 20% optimal and gaining a tracking bonus.
I do like the Vaga. 425mm Autos plus pulsing a LASB for tank at skirmish range with reduced sig.
I think these are generally improved combat wise and sitting at the correct level, more and they will out shadow other ships by far.
It is however a missed opportunity.
They are just another combat vessel nothing really unique, I will have a couple lying round but there is nothing really to justify the cost.
Some of the previous thread ideas such as scram immunity, microjump drives may have been overpowered but there was still a spot here for a unique bonus to shake up the meta and I think that is still missing. I would have gone for immune to non-targeted interdiction and I am not even a nullsec/wormhole player.
I agree with you that they are missing a uniqueness, but it is not the immunity. I don't quite get why people want combat ships to be immune to bubbles, scrams, etc.
They could add something unique to these ships though, as these are the only ones CCP can really just go nuts with regarding unique, distinctive bonuses. |
Lua Mioukl
CCS9
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:42:00 -
[442] - Quote
Ah! now these are good changes!
Muninn still look somewhat inflexible but overall all ships probably will be flown extensively. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:45:00 -
[443] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Diemos is still a flying coffin with the words (I brought it on the field and I have blasters, kill me please) written on it. Well considering medium Railguns are about to do near blaster level dps (******* fail ccp), I'd just fit those and kite at 30km... Blaster Deimos will be just about as bad after the patch as it is now.
I addressed this before. If ccp's intention is to remove the Deimos as a blaster platform (I know its possible but not everybody is that crazy to dive a Deimos headfirst into a fleet), then CCP did good.
As I listed before: Thorax, rail and blaster platform Deimos,Rail platform Proteus, Blaster platform
If that was ccp's intention, they got it right. If not lord that ship will never see the light of day. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:48:00 -
[444] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Rise, perhaps it would help if we had some idea of the goal or outcome of each ship; what it is supposed to be specialized for
Specialization means it does one thing very well and it sucks at everything else. The best example of a specialized T2 ship is the Logistics ship line. It throws reps out there and tanks. It doesnt tackle, it doesnt DPS, it throws out RR and it survives.
So what does the sacrilege do? Its armor resist and MWD bonuses lead me to believe it is a close range brawler, meant to get in there, latch onto something and never let go, but then it gets this strange missile range bonus and gets HMLs. Sure these bonuses make it more versatile but it isnt supposed to be versatile it's supposed to be good at one (1) thing, so what is it that this ship is supposed to be specialized in?
TBH we shouldnt even have to ask this question for T2 ships. If theyre super specialized, then it should be so blatantly obvious what theyre good at that even a fool could figure it out (see logistics ships)
TL;DR we need to know what you want these ships to be specialized to do in order to give good feedback. This. What are the HACs supposed to DO?
EDIT: 89 pages in the original thread and 23 pages and counting here clearly state that the balancing passes thus far are uninspired and insufficient. Please listen to the excellent feedback that can be found in both threads and give these ships a solid role to perform. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1175
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:48:00 -
[445] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:A tracking bonus only helps a rail Deimos and not the blaster variation. The bonus itself does t save it (or even assist it) in surviving under fire.
Tracking, no it doesn't need it. It needs a tank, or a way of surviving. It doesn't have it yet Wtf? You have played eve before yes? Yes and even with a tracking bonus the ship still derps and is melted into Ashe at point blank range. The ship doesn't need to be navyfied (tracking bonus). It needs to survive (a tank of some way, shape or form).
i did not mean tank vrs tracking... you said that tracking does not affect blasters and only rails... that was the wtf moment.
personally i would switch falloff for tracking and give it some sort of armor per level bonus for the mwd bonus. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
750
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:51:00 -
[446] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:I hear the armour rep bonus is immensely popular on the small scale at least after the AAR introduction (tongue in cheek .. or is it! ) Would certainly make it into the quintessential brawler. I realize you're probably joking but good god, no. CCP should retire the armor repair bonus and never put it on another ship ever again until such time as it's possible to fit upsized armor reps on a ship the way it is with shields. Or never at all, I'm honestly fine with either. Tongue was firmly in cheek, I don't hate Gallente that much If only they had managed to sort the off-grid issue before getting to the meat-n-potatoes HACs I'd have advocated a point range bonus, but with Loki's still in every system of note the interregnum would be devastating.
But if you don't want it, can I have it for my dual-rep Sacrilege instead of the redundant (stuff that stays far enough away to warrant it is also fast/small enough to ignore HAMs and never be caught) range bonus
The thought of the sheer power of a bonused MAAR/MAR tank on the Sacrilege, knowing what it can could tank with some selective heating makes me salivate .. will still hit like a girl, but one doing lots of cardio so keeps going all day long! |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:51:00 -
[447] - Quote
I think the changes are good on the whole, and will help HACs (especially long range HACs) become more competitive relative to their cost again.
The really glaring exception is the Deimos. My list of issues are:
1. Losing the utility high - with upcoming NOS changes its frustrating that the closest range brawler now can't fit that NOS to at least keep its guns going while getting neuted to hell. No other HAC has such a glaring vulnerability as having to fight the majority of fights within even small neut range.
2. The MWD cap bonus is still a crap bonus - It is something that should get rolled into the base stats and replaced with something useful.
3. Despite it having a crap tank you made it even weaker by removing 10% of its base armour (WTF?!) and 20% of its hull (Coz gallente hull tanking was always overpowered right?). It is awesome it now has a lower sig and is much more mobile and survivable in its long trek across a battlefield to get into brawl range - except then it dies even quicker in a brawl (which is its primary role).
These changes reduce this ship to some horribly role changing rail-kite obsenity, much worse than a vigilant, only arguably better than a Thorax. You nerfed it and it is probably one of the worst (but most loved) HACs in game already.
Please look again or further explain these horrible Deimos changes - Thanks. |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:56:00 -
[448] - Quote
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.
Another +1 for this. or add a 16th slot to all HACS, that would be great too. I do appreciate the CPU and PG buff on the sac, and the extra range for HAMs is also nice. Maybe extend it's bonus to RLMLs?
As for the other HACS;
Zealot: As things stand, the 2 I own will remain hangar queens. I don't fly with blobs, and the Zealot is lacking outside logi heavy gangs. It needs a bit more speed. The fact it's now slower than the Cerb is just wrong. A small drone bay wouldn't make it OP either.
Cerberus: get rid of the weird little drone bay or make it 25m3. I'd prefer to remove it. RLMLs already make this a ship frigates should fear. Other than that. It looks good. I'm looking forward to trying it out, especially with RLMLs.
Eagle: Still lacking. With the tanking bonus, it needs to be more of a brawler, which currently it isn't.
Deimos: Please stop trying to nerf it's sad little tank. Also, replace the mwd cap use bonus. It's an anachronism.
Ishtar: Drone bonuses seem a bit odd, but I'm willing to give it a try.
Vagabond: Don't know enough to comment
Muninn: Needs work. I predict almost no one will bother to fly it. While I think all the HACs need a 16th slot, the muninn would probably benefit the most.
I'm also very unimpressed with the blanket 50% MWD penalty reduction as a role bonus. For half these ships, fitting a mwd makes little sense, so why would they have a role bonus for it? And it is a weak and highly situational bonus indeed, as the graphs clearly show.
Each ship should have a unique role bonus. Otherwise if we're stuck with the MWD bonus should be more on the order of 75%. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:56:00 -
[449] - Quote
Tracking is incredibly valuable for soloing in a blaster ship, because it determines whether or not your ship is ****** if you're caught by a lone frigate. (Or if you have to shed tackle quickly before his friends catch up.) This is more important than ever if the Deimos is losing the utility high slot.
I realize this may not have occurred to some of you as soloing in Gallente cruisers, t1 or t2, is essentially suicide. But it shouldn't be! |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
36
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:59:00 -
[450] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship.... I don't know why we'd want a Gallente ship to reflect the Gallente play style of in-your-face with blasters.... totally right? silly gal for actually wanting a in your face blaster setup. The problem is the Gallente design model is fundamentally broken; big slow armor tanks and blasters with no range. It's a combination of bad and bad with no counterbalance, especially for cruiser-sized ships; battleships are always slow regardless of how they're fit (and have MJDs, which are a wonderful way around this problem), while frigates can get away with just fitting a damage control and perhaps some other resist mods. Making armor faster isn't a good choice since it's the defining weakness of an armor tank, and when you start adding range to blasters you start looking suspiciously like Minmatar. The Talos is as good as it is, perhaps even overpowered, because it's un-Gallente: it has both range and speed. The way I see it, there are two options: either redesign the Gallente HACs to have shield tanks with a decisive speed advantage and enough EHP to brawl at point blank range -- and I mean actually enough, not like the Thorax where shields + blasters means you'll explode instantly -- or leave them armor-tanked, but let them track well enough for railguns + antimatter to be at least somewhat competetive with Scorch and Barrage. (To CCP's credit, I think the proposed Ishtar changes have already achieved this balance with drones, which just leaves the Deimos.) I prefer the latter solution since I think ultra-fast shield-tanked blaster ships would be a great direction to take the Serpentis ship line, but that's just me.
You know for a Goon you make good points that i agree with. I have always said that the Gallente boats needed to be shield and fast, or they needed to have range, falloff or tracking bonus on hulls to apply DPS. Right now outside frigates used inside Faction Warfare plexes, and the Talos it is too hard to apply damage to any other ship. I think that with the rail buff that is coming it, you'll see more people using medium rails on Gallente boats, and medium blasters will fall behind in pvp. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
|
Sigras
Conglomo
471
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:59:00 -
[451] - Quote
Along the lines of my last post, my proposed change for the deimos would be to change the MWD cap use bonus to either:
5% increase in MWD overload speed per level 5% reduction in armor plate mass penalty per level
This and maybe swapping a mid for a low; if you want to get really crazy put in both bonuses one instead of MWD cap bonus and one in place of the falloff bonus.
This would assist with the deimos goal of "get in close to tank and gank" Losing a mid and the falloff bonus would keep it a brawler contributing to the idea of "good at one and only one thing"
This would make for the super specialized ships that HACs are supposed to be. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1370
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:01:00 -
[452] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:A tracking bonus only helps a rail Deimos and not the blaster variation. The bonus itself does t save it (or even assist it) in surviving under fire.
Tracking, no it doesn't need it. It needs a tank, or a way of surviving. It doesn't have it yet Wtf? You have played eve before yes? Yes and even with a tracking bonus the ship still derps and is melted into Ashe at point blank range. The ship doesn't need to be navyfied (tracking bonus). It needs to survive (a tank of some way, shape or form). i did not mean tank vrs tracking... you said that tracking does not affect blasters and only rails... that was the wtf moment. personally i would switch falloff for tracking and give it some sort of armor per level bonus for the mwd bonus. The falloff bonus doesn't belong on a gallente ship, of we want range we will use Railguns or drones. A tracking bonus would be better for the Gallente doctrine than a falloff bonus.
This is what I would like to see, from the last thread.
Gallente Cruiser +5% Armor HP per Level +5% Medium Hybrid Damage per level. Heavy Assault Ships +7.5% medium hybrid tracking per level +5% medium hybrid damage per level. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1175
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:07:00 -
[453] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
This is what I would like to see, from the last thread.
Gallente Cruiser +5% Armor HP per Level +5% Medium Hybrid Damage per level. Heavy Assault Ships +7.5% medium hybrid tracking per level +7.5% medium hybrid rate of fire per level.
i would then reduce to 4 turrets but keep 5 high slots so its gets a high slot back... think of it as a mini mega. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:08:00 -
[454] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Seriously, you view 25% more range (with the same flight time) for your high damage short range weapons system as a useless bonus?
Now, I'll agree I'd prefer perhaps a bonus that allowed them to apply that damage better... especially since a range bonus would be of more benefit to a faster hull.... but I don't find that bonus to be useless. Sometimes getting in range with a Sac can be problematic.
Well, it depends. Do your opponents have OGB with skirmish links? If yes, then yes the range bonus is useless, because anything BC size and down not webbed and/or scrammed will take next to no damage from your HAMs anyway.
HAMs are crippled by OGB more than any other weapon system due to the 4.8 damage reduction factor that results in an almost 1:1 ratio between decrease in sig and a decrease in damage, as well as an almost 1:1 ratio between an increase in speed and a decrease in damage.
Basically, against anything BC size and down, if its MWD is running and it's not webbed, skirmish links reduce HAM DPS by 50%. Yes, it's that bad. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
346
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:12:00 -
[455] - Quote
Wow ! I'm realizing people are complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high slot for a mid slot...
Then, I understand why CCP is rather conservative in these changes. The ships are mostly only better than before in a lot of ways, and yet people cry, and often for no real reason, like the Sacrilege capacitor or the Vagabond shield boost bonus.
I'm losing hope for humanity. |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:20:00 -
[456] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Wow ! I'm realizing people are complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high slot for a mid slot...
Then, I understand why CCP is rather conservative in these changes. The ships are mostly only better than before in a lot of ways, and yet people cry, and often for no real reason, like the Sacrilege capacitor or the Vagabond shield boost bonus.
I'm losing hope for humanity. We're not complaining about the ishtar, which is being buffed in reasonable and powerful ways. The deimos isn't getting that kind of love however. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
178
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:24:00 -
[457] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Wow ! I'm realizing people are complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high slot for a mid slot...
Then, I understand why CCP is rather conservative in these changes. The ships are mostly only better than before in a lot of ways, and yet people cry, and often for no real reason, like the Sacrilege capacitor or the Vagabond shield boost bonus.
I'm losing hope for humanity.
Nobody is saying they aren't more powerful than before... What we're saying is that they are dull as **** and outclassed by other options in terms of price and/or ability and therefore have no reason to be used other than "just because." That is horrible design implementation. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1175
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:24:00 -
[458] - Quote
honestly i think a heat reduction as a role bonus would be perfect for hacs.
Role bonus: 37.5% reduction in overheating damage to modules There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Madbuster73
RED SQUAD
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:24:00 -
[459] - Quote
I love the new changes, giving the HACS the treatment they deserve |
Sabriz Adoudel
Paragon Blitz
576
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:26:00 -
[460] - Quote
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.
An enemy is just a friend that you stab in the front. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
220
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:27:00 -
[461] - Quote
Ender Wiggan wrote:Don't be assholes guys. They're clearly trying to iterate towards a solution that works for as many people as possible. No balance pass is going to make everyone happy.
That being said, there are a lot of improvements that could be made to this current iteration. The Sac changes proposed by Sarkelias come to mind. The weird bonuses on the Ishtar as well. The sig explosions from T1 to T2, specifically on the Deimos but on other HACs as well just don't make sense. The Eagle is still a red-headed step child. It's not fast enough to kite (and its damage is aneimic), its sig + shield tanking reduce the effectiveness as an up close brawler.
Good steps, but at least another iteration to go still.
There were tons of suggestions in the first iteration thread that would fix HACs and not make them OP.
CCP, tell us what their role is! We can't be helpful in our suggestions until we know what the role is supposed to be. If that role is better versions of T1 Cruisers then give them more DPS, more EHP, and another slot. Only then will they be able to compete with ABCs, T1 cruisers (the massive jump in cost warrants a massive bump in effectiveness), and battlecruisers.
As they are, HACs are underpowered and overpriced. Except the Ishtar, because seriously wtf are you doing with all these OP drone boats (I'm looking at you Dominix).
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:27:00 -
[462] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:X Gallentius wrote:
2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.
Not hardly, simply saying something is true without posting any actual facts doesn't actually make it real, and in this case you're wrong. X Gallentius wrote:3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support. Survivability in a game dominated by group alpha is laughable. Speed when they are matched or outpaced by t1 cruisers that cost 1/15th of their hull price is laughable Better EWAR stats when the EWAR game for jamming is a joke of a game of chance meaning that even if your SS was 10 million theres still a chance that a single light EC-300 jams you I wont even touch the cap comment since its just silly, cap isn't a problem until it is and then you fit an injector and its not again They already perform well in a gang, that gang is called armor HACs, and thats largely the only role they're used in simply because you dont skirmish in a 150 million isk hull when you can get the same or better results in either a 10 million isk t1 cruiser hull or a 60 million isk ABC hull.
Diminishing Returns: T1 Cruiser Hull - 10 Mil. Faction Navy Cruiser Hull - 50-100 mil, T2 HAC - 150 mil. Check.
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
346
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:33:00 -
[463] - Quote
Kais Fiddler wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Wow ! I'm realizing people are complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high slot for a mid slot...
Then, I understand why CCP is rather conservative in these changes. The ships are mostly only better than before in a lot of ways, and yet people cry, and often for no real reason, like the Sacrilege capacitor or the Vagabond shield boost bonus.
I'm losing hope for humanity. We're not complaining about the ishtar, which is being buffed in reasonable and powerful ways. The deimos isn't getting that kind of love however. Yup, and the Ishtar was already reasonably powerful, and yet it receive the Dominix treatment. It's rather scary in fact.
The new mid slot for the Deimos can account for almost whatever it could need. Asking for a tracking bonus on top of it is understandable as it would be insanely powerful, but 7 (seven !) low slots ?! Come on...
What is a bit comical in all these balancing thread is that gallente pilots are asking for more low slots and despise mid slots when amarr pilots are begging for more mid slots from all their heart. No wonder why people don't understand why gallente ship have blasters and armor tank : what they need is an "I win" button with shiny graphics and nothing else will satisfy them. |
Ender Wiggan
The Scope Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:33:00 -
[464] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:X Gallentius wrote:
2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.
Not hardly, simply saying something is true without posting any actual facts doesn't actually make it real, and in this case you're wrong. X Gallentius wrote:3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support. Survivability in a game dominated by group alpha is laughable. Speed when they are matched or outpaced by t1 cruisers that cost 1/15th of their hull price is laughable Better EWAR stats when the EWAR game for jamming is a joke of a game of chance meaning that even if your SS was 10 million theres still a chance that a single light EC-300 jams you I wont even touch the cap comment since its just silly, cap isn't a problem until it is and then you fit an injector and its not again They already perform well in a gang, that gang is called armor HACs, and thats largely the only role they're used in simply because you dont skirmish in a 150 million isk hull when you can get the same or better results in either a 10 million isk t1 cruiser hull or a 60 million isk ABC hull. Diminishing Returns: T1 Cruiser Hull - 10 Mil. Faction Navy Cruiser Hull - 50-100 mil, T2 HAC - 150 mil. Check.
Except that T2's are meant to perform on par with Navy Cruisers but be more "specialised" whatever that means. For the "specialisation" we have, I don't agree that we're getting a 50 mil performance increase over faction.
|
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:35:00 -
[465] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Wow ! I'm realizing people are complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high slot for a mid slot...
Then, I understand why CCP is rather conservative in these changes. The ships are mostly only better than before in a lot of ways, and yet people cry, and often for no real reason, like the Sacrilege capacitor or the Vagabond shield boost bonus.
I'm losing hope for humanity.
Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
32
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:37:00 -
[466] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:X Gallentius wrote:
2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.
Not hardly, simply saying something is true without posting any actual facts doesn't actually make it real, and in this case you're wrong. X Gallentius wrote:3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support. Survivability in a game dominated by group alpha is laughable. Speed when they are matched or outpaced by t1 cruisers that cost 1/15th of their hull price is laughable Better EWAR stats when the EWAR game for jamming is a joke of a game of chance meaning that even if your SS was 10 million theres still a chance that a single light EC-300 jams you I wont even touch the cap comment since its just silly, cap isn't a problem until it is and then you fit an injector and its not again They already perform well in a gang, that gang is called armor HACs, and thats largely the only role they're used in simply because you dont skirmish in a 150 million isk hull when you can get the same or better results in either a 10 million isk t1 cruiser hull or a 60 million isk ABC hull. Diminishing Returns: T1 Cruiser Hull - 10 Mil. Faction Navy Cruiser Hull - 50-100 mil, T2 HAC - 150 mil. Check.
T1 cruiser with Performance=X: 10Mil. Navy cruiser with performance=1.4 * X: 50-100Mil. T2 HAC with performance = 1.15 * X: 150-180Mil.
The diminishing returns argument does not hold for the HAC lineup. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1176
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:37:00 -
[467] - Quote
no seriously guys think about it.
what is missing from hacs? resilience.
so its role bonus should help it add that.
but a 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules. would do this!
need to have that mwd with heat on to win that fight now you can last longer
need that extra dps for fleets now you can hit harder
need that extra ehp from resist mods now you can be hit longer There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
220
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:39:00 -
[468] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:no seriously guys think about it.
what is missing from hacs? resilience.
so its role bonus should help it add that.
but a 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules. would do this!
need to have that mwd with heat on to win that fight now you can last longer
need that extra dps for fleets now you can hit harder
need that extra ehp from resist mods now you can be hit longer
They would still lack the EHP and DPS to be practical. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:43:00 -
[469] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Yup, and the Ishtar was already reasonably powerful, and yet it receive the Dominix treatment. It's rather scary in fact.
The new mid slot for the Deimos can account for almost whatever it could need. Asking for a tracking bonus on top of it is understandable as it would be insanely powerful, but 7 (seven !) low slots ?! Come on...
What is a bit comical in all these balancing thread is that gallente pilots are asking for more low slots and despise mid slots when amarr pilots are begging for more mid slots from all their heart. No wonder why people don't understand why gallente ship have blasters and armor tank : what they need is an "I win" button with shiny graphics and nothing else will satisfy them.
It's irritating (though not surprising) that when people see Gallente ships finally being brought up to par, they scream "overpowered" just because they're not used to them being competetive. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1176
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:45:00 -
[470] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:MeBiatch wrote:no seriously guys think about it.
what is missing from hacs? resilience.
so its role bonus should help it add that.
but a 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules. would do this!
need to have that mwd with heat on to win that fight now you can last longer
need that extra dps for fleets now you can hit harder
need that extra ehp from resist mods now you can be hit longer They would still lack the EHP and DPS to be practical.
150 sig radius is pretty small. so ahacs just got a boost. though i do agree i am sad that they did not 'round up' the base hp.
personally the only hac lacking imo is the deimos and in a previous post i think i might have fixed it.
5% to armor 5% to medium hybrid damage 7.5% to tracking 7.5% to rate of fire 4 turret slots 5 high slots.
it would turn the diemos into a mini megathron There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1370
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:48:00 -
[471] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:
This is what I would like to see, from the last thread.
Gallente Cruiser +5% Armor HP per Level +5% Medium Hybrid Damage per level. Heavy Assault Ships +7.5% medium hybrid tracking per level +5% medium hybrid damage.
+7.5% medium hybrid rate of fire per level i would then reduce to 4 turrets but keep 5 high slots so its gets a high slot back... think of it as a mini mega. I'm not too concerned with a utility high slot, I just don't like the falloff bonus and the MWD cap bonus, in my opinion, is not terrible it would be better served as a armor HP bonus. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
346
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:48:00 -
[472] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs. Yes people are complaining about the high to mid slot of the Deimos. Anyway, what would it need to have satisfying performances for you ? Yes, it's not exactly 50% better than a Talos, yet it's better than a Talos in a number of ways -- in fact, it only lack dps compared to it, but is better at everything else.
BTW, I've seen some good use of the Deimos, suggesting that it's far from so bad as people are saying it to be.
In fact, with these changes, I can see them have the same place AF have between cruisers and frigates, but keep their speed, and now earn a boosted electronic. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
346
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:52:00 -
[473] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:It's irritating (though not surprising) that when people see Gallente ships finally being brought up to par, they scream "overpowered" just because they're not used to them being competetive. Things often need to be overpowered for a lot of people to see them as "competitive". But then, they are not "competitive" but overpowered. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1177
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:52:00 -
[474] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:
This is what I would like to see, from the last thread.
Gallente Cruiser +5% Armor HP per Level +5% Medium Hybrid Damage per level. Heavy Assault Ships +7.5% medium hybrid tracking per level +5% medium hybrid damage.
+7.5% medium hybrid rate of fire per level i would then reduce to 4 turrets but keep 5 high slots so its gets a high slot back... think of it as a mini mega. I'm not too concerned with a utility high slot, I just don't like the falloff bonus and the MWD cap bonus, in my opinion, is not terrible it would be better served as a armor HP bonus.
i like the options that a utility gives. the updated nos would be key on this deimos setup or a nuet or a cyno or a cloak or a scan probe launcher or a salvager or tractor beam... especially if the role bonus was switched to 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules.
personally i am a big fan of the new mega. and i would make the diemos a mini mega.
5% to armor 5% to medium hybrid damage
7.5% to tracking 7.5% to rate of fire
4 turret slots 5 high slots There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:53:00 -
[475] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote: T1 cruiser with Performance=X: 10Mil. Navy cruiser with performance=1.4 * X: 50-100Mil. T2 HAC with performance = 1.15 * X: 150-180Mil. The diminishing returns argument does not hold for the HAC lineup.
Show us where your 1.15 number comes from.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1370
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 23:55:00 -
[476] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:
This is what I would like to see, from the last thread.
Gallente Cruiser +5% Armor HP per Level +5% Medium Hybrid Damage per level. Heavy Assault Ships +7.5% medium hybrid tracking per level +5% medium hybrid damage.
+7.5% medium hybrid rate of fire per level i would then reduce to 4 turrets but keep 5 high slots so its gets a high slot back... think of it as a mini mega. I'm not too concerned with a utility high slot, I just don't like the falloff bonus and the MWD cap bonus, in my opinion, is not terrible it would be better served as a armor HP bonus. i like the options that a utility gives. the updated nos would be key on this deimos setup or a nuet or a cyno or a cloak or a scan probe launcher or a salvager or tractor beam... especially if the role bonus was switched to 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules. personally i am a big fan of the new mega. and i would make the diemos a mini mega. But, this is a T2 ship, which are supposed to be specialized, the mega is a T1 ship where you are supposed to have lots of options. I would support the thorax to become a mini mega though. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1177
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:00:00 -
[477] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote: But, this is a T2 ship, which are supposed to be specialized, the mega is a T1 ship where you are supposed to have lots of options. I would support the thorax to become a mini mega though.
IMO Utility/versatility can be a specialty. like a swiss army knife There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:06:00 -
[478] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs. Yes people are complaining about the high to mid slot of the Deimos. Anyway, what would it need to have satisfying performances for you ? Yes, it's not exactly 50% better than a Talos, yet it's better than a Talos in a number of ways -- in fact, it only lack dps compared to it, but is better at everything else.
It's not better than a Talos. It has inferior range, inferior damage, inferior speed, and while it has a superior tank the range at which it has to engage renders that point moot.
Nobody would prefer a Deimos to a Zealot in a large-scale AHAC fleet because it has inferior damage and tracking; this may change with the railgun buff, but considering that in exchange for that buff rails are eating a 15% tracking nerf, I'm not so sure. (I know they are used somewhat, but mostly as a sop to people who haven't trained lasers.)
Nobody would prefer a Deimos to a tier 3 battlecruiser -- or even a Muninn! -- in a sniping fleet because it has neither especially good range nor especially good tracking, and on top of this it's slow to align.
Very few people would prefer a Deimos over a Vagabond for small gang PvP because the Deimos is slow, unable to catch up with opponents, and cannot project damage. With the proposed changes it would no longer be able to fit a neut or a cloak without cutting into its damage; soloing in a Deimos was already a bad idea and this would make it worse.
It's also an abysmal ratting ship, but I'll let that slide since the Ishtar makes up for it.
Anyways, I would be content if they reverted the decision to lower its ehp, kept the rest of the hull changes, swapped the falloff bonus for tracking, and replaced the MWD cap bonus with something small but useful -- decreased heat damage, decreased armor mass penalty, something along those lines.
I would be happy if they did that, but instead of a small sympathy bonus they just gave it tracking + falloff. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1312
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:09:00 -
[479] - Quote
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 don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
220
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:17:00 -
[480] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs. Yes people are complaining about the high to mid slot of the Deimos. Anyway, what would it need to have satisfying performances for you ? Yes, it's not exactly 50% better than a Talos, yet it's better than a Talos in a number of ways -- in fact, it only lack dps compared to it, but is better at everything else. It's not better than a Talos. It has inferior range, inferior damage, inferior speed, and while it has a superior tank the range at which it has to engage renders that point moot. Compared to a shield tanked blaster talos, a shield tanked 250mm rail deimos will be a lot quicker, much more agile, and slightly tankier with much better resists. It will also have more range, ~50% better tracking once you account for the difference in the signature resolutions of the turrets (comparing null L to CNAM M, i.e. the ammo types you'd use for point range kiting in each case), around 75% of the raw dps, a more flexible drone bay, and a stronger capacitor.
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
750
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:22:00 -
[481] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:But, this is a T2 ship, which are supposed to be specialized, the mega is a T1 ship where you are supposed to have lots of options. I would support the thorax to become a mini mega though. Isn't that exactly what it is now that it has tracking/damage bonuses and slew of drones? What more could one possibly want in a cruiser?
MeBiatch wrote:IMO Utility/versatility can be a specialty. like a swiss army knife The knives with less tools are superior as they are easier to lug around, have what you need and don't act as grime magnets .. the ones with a bazillion tools are clunky/unwieldy, contain stuff you'll never need and are a chore to maintain.
HACs are the former, T1 are the latter. Spin can go both ways
PS: I wish the Zealot had a superfluous utility highslot that could be/was converted into a slot on the God-rack with no significant sacrifices asked for .. the mere thought of a straight swap of a utility for a mid makes me want to accuse CCP of being dirty filthy Gallente lovers. PPS: Give batteries an oomph! |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:23:00 -
[482] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs. Yes people are complaining about the high to mid slot of the Deimos. Anyway, what would it need to have satisfying performances for you ? Yes, it's not exactly 50% better than a Talos, yet it's better than a Talos in a number of ways -- in fact, it only lack dps compared to it, but is better at everything else. BTW, I've seen some good use of the Deimos, suggesting that it's far from so bad as people are saying it to be. In fact, with these changes, I can see them have the same place AF have between cruisers and frigates, but keep their speed, and now earn a boosted electronic.
I'm complaining about the change of a utility high to a mid slot and its quite funny you don't even have a grasp why:
The utility high is an OFFENSIVE slot, allowing you primarily to either fit a Neut (so an AB rifter can't kill you solo) or a NOS, so you can keep your guns going a bit better when being neuted (which happens in most brawl situations). Heck some people even fit a smartbomb to try podding people after exploding their ship or even an offline salvager or cloak for other ancillary roles to improve its looting or make it easier to fly solo through nullsec - probably roles you've never even considered.
If CCP are so adamant about keeping the same total number of slots then it'd make more sense to remove another turret, up the damage bonus to compensate and have the 5th slot remain a utility high. I know I won't complain about having to pay 2m less on blasters and ammo.
The 4th mid slot is great, no complaints about that here as it makes it finally able to fit web, scram, cap booster and MWD and opens up a bit of utility for other creative uses of mids like a shield tank, MWD + AB fit or tracking comps / sensor boosters for rail fits so it can actually partake in sniper HAC fleets without FCs telling you to ***K OFF as if you're having a laugh.
4th mid is great, but the point is that removing the utility high "in trade for the 4th mid" pigeon-holes this relatively poor HAC into an even smaller hole, and with the additional changes arguably makes it an even worse brawling blaster ship (especially comparing it to the relative cost of say the updated Thorax).
Do you comprehend now why many people are unhappy with the utility slot change or will you stick to your narrow minded view and blame humanity again in some adolescent whine because we can't all be like you? Cheers. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:24:00 -
[483] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote: Compared to a shield tanked blaster talos, a shield tanked 250mm rail deimos will be a lot quicker, much more agile, and slightly tankier with much better resists. It will also have more range, ~50% better tracking once you account for the difference in the signature resolutions of the turrets (comparing null L to CNAM M, i.e. the ammo types you'd use for point range kiting in each case), around 75% of the raw dps, a more flexible drone bay, and a stronger capacitor.
25% less damage is huge. I don't like the idea of a shield + railguns Deimos very much for conceptual reasons -- it's too much like a Caldari ship -- but I don't think it would be overpowered. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1721
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:30:00 -
[484] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:
Diminishing Returns: T1 Cruiser Hull - 10 Mil. Faction Navy Cruiser Hull - 50-100 mil, T2 HAC - 150 mil. Check.
Makes up random assertions about numbers...
X Gallentius wrote:nikar galvren wrote: T1 cruiser with Performance=X: 10Mil. Navy cruiser with performance=1.4 * X: 50-100Mil. T2 HAC with performance = 1.15 * X: 150-180Mil. The diminishing returns argument does not hold for the HAC lineup.
Show us where your 1.15 number comes from.
Demands to see somebody else's proof of numbers.
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.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1721
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:32:00 -
[485] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Nobody's complaining about the Deimos losing a utility high by itself. The ship needed an extra mid and the slot had to come from somewhere -- unless CCP is willing to budge and give the entire class +1 slots overall, which might be a good idea but seems unlikely. The problem is that the ship was underpowered to begin with, so a series of 1:1 trade-offs (one slot for one slot, more speed for less ehp, etc.) are not the balance change it needs. Yes people are complaining about the high to mid slot of the Deimos. Anyway, what would it need to have satisfying performances for you ? Yes, it's not exactly 50% better than a Talos, yet it's better than a Talos in a number of ways -- in fact, it only lack dps compared to it, but is better at everything else. It's not better than a Talos. It has inferior range, inferior damage, inferior speed, and while it has a superior tank the range at which it has to engage renders that point moot. Compared to a shield tanked blaster talos, a shield tanked 250mm rail deimos will be a lot quicker, much more agile, and slightly tankier with much better resists. It will also have more range, ~50% better tracking once you account for the difference in the signature resolutions of the turrets (comparing null L to CNAM M, i.e. the ammo types you'd use for point range kiting in each case), around 75% of the raw dps, a more flexible drone bay, and a stronger capacitor. Just FYI a shield tanked Deimos and a shield tanked Talos have the same resist profile. And both are crap, meaning at the end of the day the thing that matters most is that the Talos gets an extra rig slot to plug those holes with and more base shield s than a Deimos.
In other words the Talos is better. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1177
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:43:00 -
[486] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:But, this is a T2 ship, which are supposed to be specialized, the mega is a T1 ship where you are supposed to have lots of options. I would support the thorax to become a mini mega though. Isn't that exactly what it is now that it has tracking/damage bonuses and slew of drones? What more could one possibly want in a cruiser? MeBiatch wrote:IMO Utility/versatility can be a specialty. like a swiss army knife The knives with less tools are superior as they are easier to lug around, have what you need and don't act as grime magnets .. the ones with a bazillion tools are clunky/unwieldy, contain stuff you'll never need and are a chore to maintain. HACs are the former, T1 are the latter. Spin can go both ways PS: I wish the Zealot had a superfluous utility highslot that could be/was converted into a slot on the God-rack with no significant sacrifices asked for .. the mere thought of a straight swap of a utility for a mid makes me want to accuse CCP of being dirty filthy Gallente lovers. PPS: Give batteries an oomph!
i never complained about the 4th mid slot on the diemos.
what i would like to have is my cake and the ability to eat it too.
by replacing one of the damage bonus to a 7.5% bonus to rate of fire and reducing to 4 turrets and 5 high slots
you maintain you dps and gain that ability to if you wanted fit that 5th high slot.
moreover one less turret means you have leftover pg to fit nuetrons or 250s and tank
plus if you remove the mwd bonus and replace with a 5% to armor bonus you then get a nice armor tanky gal hybrid ship that has options and survivability
plus changing the role bonus to 37.5% reduction to heat damage to modules will give hacs the resilience they are looking for. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
768
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 00:46:00 -
[487] - Quote
For their price, HACs kinda suck. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 01:01:00 -
[488] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote: If CCP are so adamant about keeping the same total number of slots then.....
This is really the problem. They are not balancing the ships in diverse ways. First they make all the bonuses about the same (eg, nerf the 5% resist bonus) and then give the same number of slots.
Eve used to be interesting with some ship having some really great bonuses but maybe not as many slots, or combined with another not so great bonus. Now they are just trying to make every minutia equivalent. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 01:18:00 -
[489] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:For their price, HACs kinda suck.
So continue flying tec1 cruisers or faction ones. I will be flying Hacs again. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
772
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 01:21:00 -
[490] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Diesel47 wrote:For their price, HACs kinda suck. So continue flying tec1 cruisers or faction ones. I will be flying Hacs again.
No thanks.
I'd rather fly a solo battleship than a solo hac. So much more power and options, HACs aren't really "specialized" like CCP claims. Just a big waste of isk. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
224
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 01:25:00 -
[491] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Diesel47 wrote:For their price, HACs kinda suck. So continue flying tec1 cruisers or faction ones. I will be flying Hacs again.
Not sure if you're rich or stupid. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 02:05:00 -
[492] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:DeadDuck wrote:Diesel47 wrote:For their price, HACs kinda suck. So continue flying tec1 cruisers or faction ones. I will be flying Hacs again. No thanks. I'd rather fly a solo battleship than a solo hac. So much more power and options, HACs aren't really "specialized" like CCP claims. Just a big waste of isk.
solo battleship?
If you mean pvp I don't know about that.
I tend to agree with you and everyone saying hacs may still not be worth the cost. But battleships aren't really a decent comparison any more than t1 cruisers are on the other side of the coin.
I think hacs will make better solo ships than battleships unless you just want to fit smarties. Also although BSes insure better (assuming they are not the old tier1 ships with extra materials) their mods and rigs also cost more.
IMO hacs should be compared with navy and pirate cruisers as well as bcs and navy bcs.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
NinjaTurtle
CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 02:15:00 -
[493] - Quote
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. Co-host and editor of Declarations of War Podcast http://declarationsofwar.com Twitter- @schertt |
Morgan Madsen
Turalyon Plus
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 02:46:00 -
[494] - Quote
[quote=CCP Rise]Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1050 PWG(+60), 360 CPU(+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400(+25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.5/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7) Signature radius: 150(-10)/quote]
Can we please get rid of the micro cap bonus on this please?
|
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
199
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 02:55:00 -
[495] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
1. I liked the sac being able to run a Medium repper and staying cap stable.. I'm not sure if it still can.. If it can't i'm going to be sad.
2. I HATE HATE HATE that velocity bonus. Thats basically giving in to the people who want to be able to use the sac for the exact same thing as the damn zealot and thats silly aHac gangs. Should have given it a less blob friendly bonus like a application bonus to keep it different from the zealot.
Garv have a look at the recharge rate, he integrated the 5%/lvl into the hull on top of the extra cap recharge he gave all the Hacs, it now has insane cap. Another Damage or ROF bonus would have been better I agree.
Garviel Tarrant wrote: Cerberus
While my main complaint about the last version of the cerb was it being slow as balls. Which you seem to have addressed some.
The fact remains that flight time is a really **** bonus... Should give it an application bonus or just another velocity bonus instead.
HAMS.
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Deimos
"We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change."
Rep bonus? Its the only traditional tanking bonus that isn't represented in the Hac's... i really hate how i feel like this Demios was balanced around the idea of using a shield tank........
It will actually make a pretty good Talos, but I'd rather 7.5% tracking/lvl
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Vagabond
Why does the vagabond get five bonuses?
Thats basically what you have done with the speed thing.. The sac doesn't get all the awesome cap it used to have, why does the vagabond get to be 35% faster than any other HAC? Don't think its weak enough to warrant that....
Other then that i don't really care about it, i just think thats really stupid.
The vagabond is weak as **** currently and needs help.
Garviel Tarrant wrote: Munin
Pretty sure i will continue to not use the munin..
It is a god damn abortion. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
140
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 03:12:00 -
[496] - Quote
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? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1177
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 03:33:00 -
[497] - Quote
Sac armor resistance bonus Eagle shield resistance bonus Vega shield active bonus
Where is the gal tanking bonus? Remove the mwd bonus and replace with a 5% to armor bonus. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1309
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 03:40:00 -
[498] - Quote
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. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Kaz Mafaele
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 03:41:00 -
[499] - Quote
first off I want too say the generic boosts you have given across the board do a great job of ssolidifying the intended role of HACS as a extra resilient combat ship.
but it still seems like the vega is in a lot of trouble with its damage capability
the thing that amazes me is you have gone completely the wrong direction with the ishtar you rolled the drone bay into the hull and fixed the fitting and tthat's awesome. but then too take its place you basically just split a existing bonus in two and heavily nerfed it. Is it just me that thinks that I mean the only thing you gain is sentry optimal i feel like im taking crazy pills. If I am wrong will someone lay it out for me? |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
140
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 03:57:00 -
[500] - Quote
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. |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 04:08:00 -
[501] - Quote
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
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 04:11:00 -
[502] - Quote
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
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 04:26:00 -
[503] - Quote
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
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
83
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 04:29:00 -
[504] - Quote
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
Aperture Harmonics K162
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 04:52:00 -
[505] - Quote
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
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 04:56:00 -
[506] - Quote
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
The humbleless Crew
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 05:04:00 -
[507] - Quote
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
Justified Chaos
1498
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 05:20:00 -
[508] - Quote
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
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1728
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 06:00:00 -
[509] - Quote
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.
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
181
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 06:20:00 -
[510] - Quote
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
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 06:20:00 -
[511] - Quote
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 e verything 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
Notorious Legion
622
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 06:37:00 -
[512] - Quote
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? |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
369
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 06:50:00 -
[513] - Quote
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
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 07:09:00 -
[514] - Quote
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
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 07:18:00 -
[515] - Quote
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 Aeterna Anima
122
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 07:20:00 -
[516] - Quote
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
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3207
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 07:22:00 -
[517] - Quote
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.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
122
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 07:26:00 -
[518] - Quote
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
SkREW CREW Local Down
29
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 07:38:00 -
[519] - Quote
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 Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 07:49:00 -
[520] - Quote
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 |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
231
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 07:51:00 -
[521] - Quote
Does round 2 of HAC changes.
Still doesn't actually fix the Vagabond in any way shape or form.
Just to reiterate, the problem the Vaga has had has NEVER EVER EVER been tanking or dealing with incoming damage, its its ability to actually kill anything in a reasonable amount of time.
Its range got ****** even further by the TE nerf and its DPS has always been sub-par, PLEASE CCP GIVE IT MORE DPS AND RANGE or its just another sub-par T2 ship. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1310
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 07:54:00 -
[522] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote: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? very good question "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:00:00 -
[523] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Does round 2 of HAC changes.
Still doesn't actually fix the Vagabond in any way shape or form.
Just to reiterate, the problem the Vaga has had has NEVER EVER EVER been tanking or dealing with incoming damage, its its ability to actually kill anything in a reasonable amount of time.
Its range got ****** even further by the TE nerf and its DPS has always been sub-par, PLEASE CCP GIVE IT MORE DPS AND RANGE or its just another sub-par T2 ship.
I think that compared to the T1 most the T2 ships are sub-par. Outside the Ishtar and Zealot. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Lord Sheer
E-Carbon Industries
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:00:00 -
[524] - Quote
The Diemos is supposed to be a blaster gunboat. A predator. But even with the boost to speed, I think it's still going to be too slow. I would moot replacing the MWD cap bonus with a 7.5% bonus per lever to Webber range and effectiveness. This maintains the kite while allowing the ship to pin its target. |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:05:00 -
[525] - Quote
Hello again
Thank you CCP Rise, that you have reconsider your changes to the HAC class. 1-st post was looking so promising ... THEN FAIL!!!
Thank you for wasting my time. You can fly your new HAC your self... I personally will not Pay 150+ mil isk for ship:
Slower then or equal to T1 Less DMG then or equal to T1
Sure I am happy, that falcons will have hard time jamming it !
Example: Deimos: Nice you changed it to a shield ship, however it only takes one Nado to and one shot. Thank you :) Also the lack of tracking bonus mean that the TORAX t1 variant will project its dps much better!! And we all know Torax has the same dps as the T2 ship... nice!
So tell me why should i buy 1x 150 mil Deimos instead of taking 5x Torax (30mil with the t2 fit ) ?
Vagabond CCP RISE please make us another of your graphics, but this time instead of Sacrelige, put the Vagabond as a target! And then tell me how well i can control my time in the engagement whit that ship Except suddenly everyone start to fly solo taloses, in any other engagement you will hardly have time to aline and warp out... ACTIVE BONUS ON A SHIP WITHOUT BUFFER IS A WASTE OF TIME!
So disappointed again! If we compare those changes to the previews changes, nothing much has changed other then the sensor staring and cap bonuses.
A T2 ship with less or same dps as the T1 variant is a waste of Time MWD bonus on a cruser ship... Well if you lower the tracking on the large guns it might work.. other then that keep playing whit the graphs :)
P.S. Well I wish that Kil 2 was in change of changing ships ... Instead we are stuck whit this CCP Rise Dude, trying to convince us that EVE is played based on EFT graphs ...
|
Endeis
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:07:00 -
[526] - Quote
Vaga needs more damage, otherwise it's still crap, whether you fit it active or buffer. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
623
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:09:00 -
[527] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Does round 2 of HAC changes.
Still doesn't actually fix the Vagabond in any way shape or form.
Just to reiterate, the problem the Vaga has had has NEVER EVER EVER been tanking or dealing with incoming damage, its its ability to actually kill anything in a reasonable amount of time.
Its range got ****** even further by the TE nerf and its DPS has always been sub-par, PLEASE CCP GIVE IT MORE DPS AND RANGE or its just another sub-par T2 ship. I don't think you actually know the deal with Minmatar... They are supposed to have lower dps than other races because you can select types of damage, and you have superior speed to outrun everyone.
And for the love of god, have some imagination. Everyone and their grandmothers are comparing everything to the Talos. Try this for example?
[NEW Vagabond, test] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption Script Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150 Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer I
Hobgoblin II x5
350 dps out to point range, enough tank to hold off drones for a loooong time, and TD to screw the large guns even further with your superior speed and now signature. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
623
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:16:00 -
[528] - Quote
Also, T1 have more dps than T2? Get the **** out.
[NEW Deimos, max dps] Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5
1925 m/s 892 dps 35,488 EHP 4+6,6 km range
[Thorax, max dps] Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Hammerhead II x5
2028 m/s 745 dps 18,153 EHP 3,7+3,8 km range
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
231
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:19:00 -
[529] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Does round 2 of HAC changes.
Still doesn't actually fix the Vagabond in any way shape or form.
Just to reiterate, the problem the Vaga has had has NEVER EVER EVER been tanking or dealing with incoming damage, its its ability to actually kill anything in a reasonable amount of time.
Its range got ****** even further by the TE nerf and its DPS has always been sub-par, PLEASE CCP GIVE IT MORE DPS AND RANGE or its just another sub-par T2 ship. I don't think you actually know the deal with Minmatar... They are supposed to have lower dps than other races because you can select types of damage, and you have superior speed to outrun everyone. And for the love of god, have some imagination. Everyone and their grandmothers are comparing everything to the Talos. Try this for example?
[NEW Vagabond, test] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption Script Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150 Warp Disruptor II 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer I Hobgoblin II x5
350 dps out to point range, enough tank to hold off drones for a loooong time, and TD to screw the large guns even further with your superior speed and now signature.
Have fun fighting more than 1 thing mate?
|
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:20:00 -
[530] - Quote
Lord Sheer wrote:The Diemos is supposed to be a blaster gunboat. A predator. But even with the boost to speed, I think it's still going to be too slow. I would moot replacing the MWD cap bonus with a 7.5% bonus per lever to Webber range and effectiveness. This maintains the kite while allowing the ship to pin its target.
If you did that you take away the point of the Vigilant which does this already, which is why people fly them over the Deimos in AHAC fleets. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1733
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:30:00 -
[531] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Also, T1 have more dps than T2? Get the **** out.
[NEW Deimos, max dps] Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5
1925 m/s 892 dps 35,488 EHP 4+6,6 km range
[Thorax, max dps] Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Hammerhead II x5
2028 m/s 745 dps 18,153 EHP 3,7+3,8 km range
Sweet, your Deimos costs 15x as much as your Thorax and only does 150 dps more while having just under twice as much HP. (that hp is crap fyi) Oh, and the t1 Thorax is faster.
Sounds like a solid investment. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
623
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:34:00 -
[532] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: Sweet, your Deimos costs 15x as much as your Thorax and only does 150 dps more while having just under twice as much HP. (that hp is crap fyi) Oh, and the t1 Thorax is faster.
Sounds like a solid investment.
If they fight each other, the Deimos has 56k EHP in damage type tank vs 17k on the Thorax, goes (oh noes, so much) 100 m/s slower, has better projection, and is cap stable with everything at 50% cap vs 1m39s on the Thorax.
Wanna 1v1 my Deimos in your Thorax? |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:35:00 -
[533] - Quote
Endeis wrote:Vaga needs more damage, otherwise it's still crap, whether you fit it active or buffer.
No, vaga needs more damage at range or it would be even better as a brawler, there a couple of ways of doing this.
Give it a second falloff bonus
or
give it a chunk of extra pg and a tracking bonus, making it a capable arty kiter.
No matter what you do, the vaga needs a lot more speed. It simply is to slow, the "best" kiting cruiser shouldnt be slower then a shield thorax with a single nano.
It needs to break 2.8km/s or even more without heat. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
623
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:36:00 -
[534] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: Have fun fighting more than 1 thing mate?
Nothing is ever right for you people huh?
If I want 1v1, I'll go find 1v1. If I want 1vMany, I'll fit differently and/or use another ship better suited for it. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:42:00 -
[535] - Quote
Quote:If you did that you take away the point of the Vigilant which does this already, which is why people fly them over the Deimos in AHAC fleets.
Having two ships that fit the same role doesn't make one obsolete. The Navy Raven serves the same purpose as the Raven with some added benefit. Ditto the Navy Mega and Mega. How abouy the Comet? Or the Navy Slicer? All of these fill the same purpose as another ship. The benefit to the Vigilant is the web bonus and role bonus to damage. It's a ship that allows a pretty new player to put out Deimos-like numbers without the training time of a HAC. That benefit comes at a high isk cost.
The Deimos, from the beginning, was supposed to be the ultimate blaster cruiser. Read its description. The Vigilant can do it, too, just in a different way for a different kind of player. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
231
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:42:00 -
[536] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Endeis wrote:Vaga needs more damage, otherwise it's still crap, whether you fit it active or buffer. No, vaga needs more damage at range or it would be even better as a brawler, there a couple of ways of doing this. Give it a second falloff bonus or give it a chunk of extra pg and a tracking bonus, making it a capable arty kiter. No matter what you do, the vaga needs a lot more speed. It simply is to slow, the "best" kiting cruiser shouldnt be slower then a shield thorax with a single nano. It needs to break 2.8km/s or even more without heat.
I can see that tbh, I don't like the Idea of it being an Arty kiter, kind of pushes the Muninn out a bit, I'd rather just make that non-****.
I still think it needs a bit more DPS (50-60 DPS) but its range is the critical issue. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:47:00 -
[537] - Quote
EDIT, Double post Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:50:00 -
[538] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Also, T1 have more dps than T2? Get the **** out.
[NEW Deimos, max dps] Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5
1925 m/s 892 dps 35,488 EHP 4+6,6 km range
I don't think people were saying they didn't do more DPS than a T1, they were more looking at the chances of applying that damage and the price of the hull. Right now the Demois will struggle to apply DPS for 100mil ISK more, also why the web scam on the Thorax and not dual LSE like on the Deimos. If you are going to copy-cat fits then do it.
But still to go 100ms faster with only 125 DPS less I'll still still fly the Thorax for bigging 150mil isk cheaper. Since you like fit you can look at this one.
MAX DPS EVI Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
5x Hobgoblin II
2154M/s 882 DPS 23.4k EHP 4.04+4.4 Range ___________________- Is it T1 yes, Does it out DPS the Deimos (but without the Hammerhead IIs it would) :-) ) Price tag 127 mil, Deimos price tag 175mil. So why should I pay the extra 50mil where there is no really benefit. That is what people are talking about, the Navy Cruisers are better HACS than the HACS. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
231
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:52:00 -
[539] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Have fun fighting more than 1 thing mate?
Nothing is ever right for you people huh? If I want 1v1, I'll go find 1v1. If I want 1vMany, I'll fit differently and/or use another ship better suited for it.
Because that 1 ship is never going to have backup, that never happens in EVE like ever. |
Darrien
Red Army Recon SiNTaX err0r
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:54:00 -
[540] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Cyaron wars wrote: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? very good question
The Ishtars increased base resists somewhat mitigate the base armour differences. |
|
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:55:00 -
[541] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:If you did that you take away the point of the Vigilant which does this already, which is why people fly them over the Deimos in AHAC fleets. Having two ships that fit the same role doesn't make one obsolete. The Navy Raven serves the same purpose as the Raven with some added benefit. Ditto the Navy Mega and Mega. How abouy the Comet? Or the Navy Slicer? All of these fill the same purpose as another ship. The benefit to the Vigilant is the web bonus and role bonus to damage. It's a ship that allows a pretty new player to put out Deimos-like numbers without the training time of a HAC. That benefit comes at a high isk cost. The Deimos, from the beginning, was supposed to be the ultimate blaster cruiser. Read its description. The Vigilant can do it, too, just in a different way for a different kind of player.
But you can get near a 90k tank with the Vig, and its faster and it still does it better. It is just all round better than the Deimos. If the gave that bonus to Deimos then why would people buy the Vig. they wouldn't cause the Deimos would do the same thing, with a bit less tank, but at 1/2 the price.
Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:56:00 -
[542] - Quote
CCP does not want to change the HACs the proper way, because they will become direct substitute to the T1 BCs.
They might not reach to the level of the Tier3 once, but they should be equal to the Tier 2 once in dps and tank.
How ever this will mean.. noone will fly that shiny new NAVY BCs .... News flash! I wont pay 180 mil isk for t1/ Navy ship that is not at-least equal to the Tier 3 BCs.
I guess CCP does not think, that ISK value might be a balancing factor. By look of it the Skill Points value does not appear to be a balancing factor also.
Lets list what will HAC specific bonuses will give us:
Quote: All HACs will gain 7-8 sensor strength, putting their average Sensor Strength at 22 which is right around combat battleship range. All HACs gain 15k to 25k lock range All HACs have their cap recharge per second set to around 5.5 rather than the former 3.5 - 4.5 cap/sec
Quote:Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Sacrilege: 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile velocity (was capacitor recharge time) 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Zealot: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
CERBERUS:
10% bonus to Missile flight time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
EAGLE: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
DEIMOS 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
ISHTAR 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)[/quote]
VAGABOND 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
MUNINN 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
So in theory all hacs, should have more range and dmg + 50% mwd bonus + ECCM and Cap bonus. That sounds like: +25% more DMG +25% more range +harder to jamm + more tank + better cap All this for the just 150 mil isk (130 mil more then the T1 variant!)
Perfect I am sold ! .... Well hold just a bit! CCP have changed the T1 cruisers So lets look at some numbers:
Omen: Lazors + drones = 646 dps Zealot : Lazors (no drones) = 639 dps Where are my 25% more dmg ?
Thorax: 5x 250mm Rails T2 + 5x Hammer T2 = 515 dps (0.0492 tracking / 21,5km + 21.1km) Deimos: 5x 250mm Rails T2 + 5x Hammer t2 = 604 dps (0.0358 tracking / 21.5 + 31.7 km ) *Note i have not included medium rails nurf in those calculations ...
Thorax speed : 2000 m/s Deimos speed: 1500 m/s
The DMG diff is 17% not 25% The tracking diff is huge means dmg projection is much better on the T1 variant. Range: we gain 10 km falloff yuppy
So Where is my 25% dmg ?
I am sure you can go eft each one and compare it to the T1 variant. Or you can DELETE EFT Copy the T1 Crusers base and give us the fallowing:
Quote:+25% more DMG +25% more range +harder to jamm + more tank + better cap
|
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 08:57:00 -
[543] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Also, T1 have more dps than T2? Get the **** out.
[NEW Deimos, max dps] Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5
1925 m/s 892 dps 35,488 EHP 4+6,6 km range
[Thorax, max dps] Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Hammerhead II x5
2028 m/s 745 dps 18,153 EHP 3,7+3,8 km range
Sweet, your Deimos costs 15x as much as your Thorax and only does 150 dps more while having just under twice as much HP. (that hp is crap fyi) Oh, and the t1 Thorax is faster. Sounds like a solid investment.
I said the same thing :) But you know to each his own. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:01:00 -
[544] - Quote
I'm happy about Ishtar changes and replacing the cap recharge bonus on Sacrilege with more useful missile velocity bonus also seems good (although an explosion velocity bonus would work equally well), but I'm not happy with Eagle and Deimos.
Eagle still has duplicate optimal bonus meaning it will still do mediocre damage at extreme ranges and therefore it will still remain as the worst HAC. I would replace the second optimal range bonus with rate of fire bonus, or replace both bonuses from HAC skill with a single 10% bonus to damage.
Deimos still has two bonuses of questionable usefulness, falloff bonus is almost entirely useless on Rails and on Blasters it's useful only in combination with Null ammo. But hey, props to CCP for not putting falloff bonuses on Laser boats as that would be some serious trolling (as opposed to only mild trolling done by putting them on Gallente boats). Give us tracking bonus FFS! And I'm sure there are viable alternatives to capacitor bonus, like reduced MWD capacitor use or bonus to speed or agility (actually, armour hitpoints bonus on a ship nicknamed "Diemost" would probably be the most appropriate).
And I've seen ASB Vagabond before so I think having only 4 midslot will not be a hindrance (unless you want to go dual ASB), mainly due to balanced T2 Minmatar shield resists. |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:01:00 -
[545] - Quote
The changes overall seem reasonable.
However, I want to talk about the eagle and its intended role. Others have stated that the eagle seems confused. Is it a sniper or brawler?
I know this isn't exactly the Caldari way, but not every Caldari hybrid ship should specialize a +200km sniper. The Naga and Rokh already snipe better with large rail guns. I propose the Eagle become a medium or short range brick.
So then change from your proposed changes: - The HAC optimal range be changed to a 5% ROF bonus - Add 25m Bandwidth/Bay
This essentially makes the Eagle a faster more durable Ferox and more appropriate of the term Heavy Attack Cruiser. (Who attacks heavily with snipers?)
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
623
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:03:00 -
[546] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote: I don't think people were saying they didn't do more DPS than a T1, they were more looking at the chances of applying that damage and the price of the hull. Right now the Demois will struggle to apply DPS for 100mil ISK more, also why the web scam on the Thorax and not dual LSE like on the Deimos. If you are going to copy-cat fits then do it.
But still to go 100ms faster with only 125 DPS less I'll still still fly the Thorax for bigging 150mil isk cheaper. Since you like fit you can look at this one.
MAX DPS EVI Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
5x Hobgoblin II
2154M/s 882 DPS 23.4k EHP 4.04+4.4 Range ___________________- Is it T1 yes, Does it out DPS the Deimos (but without the Hammerhead IIs it would) :-) ) Price tag 127 mil, Deimos price tag 175mil. So why should I pay the extra 50mil where there is no really benefit. That is what people are talking about, the Navy Cruisers are better HACS than the HACS.
Dani Lizardov wrote:Hello again Thank you CCP Rise, that you have reconsider your changes to the HAC class. 1-st post was looking so promising ... THEN FAIL!!! Thank you for wasting my time. You can fly your new HAC your self... I personally will not Pay 150+ mil isk for ship: Slower then or equal to T1 Less DMG then or equal to T1
The 50 mill will give you: cap stability more tank vs racial dps in the form of resistances better projection much lower sig radius when mwd'ing more drone dps [*] 450 / 1315,5 vs 425 / 1037,5 CPU/PG |
Nannoid
V.L.A.S.T. V.L.A.S.T
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:06:00 -
[547] - Quote
Hannott Thanos learn to play the game first then you can talk about fits and ships. noob! |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
623
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:10:00 -
[548] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Have fun fighting more than 1 thing mate?
Nothing is ever right for you people huh? If I want 1v1, I'll go find 1v1. If I want 1vMany, I'll fit differently and/or use another ship better suited for it. Because that 1 ship is never going to have backup, that never happens in EVE like ever. PLease tell me more about how other players have an advantage over you because they might bring friends to a fight that you did not. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:10:00 -
[549] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:[quote=Phox Jorkarzul]
The 50 mill will give you:
cap stability more tank vs racial dps in the form of resistances better projection much lower sig radius when mwd'ing more drone dps 450 / 1315,5 vs 425 / 1037,5 CPU/PG
But is can not catch my target it is useless, only thing the Deimos will out run is an afterburner Maller, which will still kill it. You don't have better projection cause you won't catch anything. That still is not enough pay 50mil-120mil more for. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
623
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:13:00 -
[550] - Quote
Nannoid wrote:Hannott Thanos learn to play the game first then you can talk about fits and ships. noob! Why don't you add to the discussion instead of trying to go ad hominem? |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
623
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:22:00 -
[551] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote: But is can not catch my target it is useless, only thing the Deimos will out run is an afterburner Maller, which will still kill it. You don't have better projection cause you won't catch anything. That still is not enough pay 50mil-120mil more for.
Swap a TE for a nano, and you have 3002 m/s overloaded. 2744 m/s without nano. The AB Maller goes 489/627 m/s. That comparison is beyond any reason and have no grasp in reality.
If you can't catch anything with a ship that goes 3km/s (3230 with cheap implants) then you have my sympathies. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:34:00 -
[552] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Phox Jorkarzul wrote: But is can not catch my target it is useless, only thing the Deimos will out run is an afterburner Maller, which will still kill it. You don't have better projection cause you won't catch anything. That still is not enough pay 50mil-120mil more for.
Swap a TE for a nano, and you have 3002 m/s overloaded. 2744 m/s without nano. The AB Maller goes 489/627 m/s. That comparison is beyond any reason and have no grasp in reality. If you can't catch anything with a ship that goes 3km/s (3230 with cheap implants) then you have my sympathies.
and if i put a nano on the EVI it does 3320 overheated. so you still catch won't me. Also most Shield Cruisers are using Nanos so you still will have trouble catching them as they too will go over 3.2 k overheated. and without the Web on your ship you have no way of slowing them down and they web you and coast out of you range hold you at 10k turn their MWB back on and you still missed out on killing them or you lost 172mil isk Ship to a faction cruiser....SO WINNING :)
Also my comparison is a troll...but now that I have had to say it, it feels cheap. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3208
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:37:00 -
[553] - Quote
Dani Lizardov wrote:Hello again Thank you CCP Rise, that you have reconsider your changes to the HAC class. 1-st post was looking so promising ... THEN FAIL!!! Thank you for wasting my time. You can fly your new HAC your self... I personally will not Pay 150+ mil isk for ship: Slower then or equal to T1 Less DMG then or equal to T1 Sure I am happy, that falcons will have hard time jamming it ! Example: Deimos: Nice you changed it to a shield ship, however it only takes one Nado to and one shot. Thank you :) Also the lack of tracking bonus mean that the TORAX t1 variant will project its dps much better!! And we all know Torax has the same dps as the T2 ship... nice! So tell me why should i buy 1x 150 mil Deimos instead of taking 5x Torax (30mil with the t2 fit ) ?
Deimos has more tank, can fit 250mm rails = more dps and range, better cap and sensors in a fit that is as fast as a Thorax. Arty Nado needs two perfect shots to pop a Deimos, unfortunately it does about 0 dps against a moving Deimos inside point range.
The suggested shield rail Deimos is not a bad ship, it's like the ubiquitous Talos, just nastier in every aspect, tears will ensue.
For blasters there are better ships.
EDIT: will fly
[Deimos, Pocket Talos] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 10MN Microwarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Medium Auxiliary Thrusters I Medium Hybrid Metastasis Adjuster II
Warrior II x5 Warrior SW-300 x5
603 turret dps @ 22+32, 0.03514 tracking 2239/3191 m/s 20.3K EHP (37.4K heated against Null)
needs a Geno set, like all Gal ships
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
924
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:37:00 -
[554] - Quote
These new changes seem a bit more reasonable but i think the Ishtar needs a bit more work.
Maybe CCP want to force the ishtar into a shield role but i'd prefer it to be an armour tanker just like all the other Gallente ships. For that to happen, it need drone damage and hitpoint bonuses not tracking. The pilot can then use its low slots for tank and its med slots for drone tracking/range/speed.
Also has anyone calculated how OP the sacrilege will be now? Putting work in since 2010. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
232
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:39:00 -
[555] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Have fun fighting more than 1 thing mate?
Nothing is ever right for you people huh? If I want 1v1, I'll go find 1v1. If I want 1vMany, I'll fit differently and/or use another ship better suited for it. Because that 1 ship is never going to have backup, that never happens in EVE like ever. PLease tell me more about how other players have an advantage over you because they might bring friends to a fight that you did not.
Im not saying that, Im saying your fit is impractical for fighting more than one person, and is therefore not really practical for use at all. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:43:00 -
[556] - Quote
Roime wrote:Dani Lizardov wrote:Hello again Thank you CCP Rise, that you have reconsider your changes to the HAC class. 1-st post was looking so promising ... THEN FAIL!!! Thank you for wasting my time. You can fly your new HAC your self... I personally will not Pay 150+ mil isk for ship: Slower then or equal to T1 Less DMG then or equal to T1 Sure I am happy, that falcons will have hard time jamming it ! Example: Deimos: Nice you changed it to a shield ship, however it only takes one Nado to and one shot. Thank you :) Also the lack of tracking bonus mean that the TORAX t1 variant will project its dps much better!! And we all know Torax has the same dps as the T2 ship... nice! So tell me why should i buy 1x 150 mil Deimos instead of taking 5x Torax (30mil with the t2 fit ) ? Deimos has more tank, can fit 250mm rails = more dps and range, better cap and sensors in a fit that is as fast as a Thorax. Arty Nado needs two perfect shots to pop a Deimos, unfortunately it does about 0 dps against a moving Deimos inside point range. The suggested shield rail Deimos is not a bad ship, it's like the ubiquitous Talos, just nastier in every aspect, tears will ensue. For blasters there are better ships.
While the 250mm Deimos is better than a 250mm Rax, I still think that it going to have trouble applying DPS, that is the major issue for it. I think a tracking bonus or an Opt Range bonus would do more it and at least give it a place to compete with other HACs. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3208
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:48:00 -
[557] - Quote
Deimos seems to project better than Thorax and Talos against small targets, and equal to Talos against big targets at long point range. I'm not arguing EFT graphs until I get to test the new Deimos with new rails, on paper it does look good.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:55:00 -
[558] - Quote
Roime wrote:Deimos seems to project better than Thorax and Talos against small targets, and equal to Talos against big targets at long point range. I'm not arguing EFT graphs until I get to test the new Deimos with new rails, on paper it does look good.
But does it project better EVI. I don't that this does, which still stands that some of the Navy Ships are better HACs than the HACs.
But you do put up point, when are these ships going to be on SiSi. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 09:59:00 -
[559] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: Please tell me more about how other players have an advantage over you because they might bring friends to a fight that you did not.
Im not saying that, Im saying your fit is impractical for fighting more than one person, and is therefore not really practical for use at all. Well, then use another fit?
People complain in the first turn that a Talos can kill it too easily, then when countered by a fit that would kill a Talos they say that the fit is not viable because the Talos is not alone. What? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:01:00 -
[560] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote: But does it project better EVI. I don't that this does, which still stands that some of the Navy Ships are better HACs than the HACs.
But you do put up a good point, when are these ships going to be on SiSi.
I'm assuming you are talking about the NEX(Navy EXequror)? Or is EVI something else?
The NEX is better in some areas, the Deimos is better in a whole lot of other areas which I just pointed out. |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
232
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:07:00 -
[561] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: Please tell me more about how other players have an advantage over you because they might bring friends to a fight that you did not.
Im not saying that, Im saying your fit is impractical for fighting more than one person, and is therefore not really practical for use at all. Well, then use another fit? People complain in the first turn that a Talos can kill it too easily, then when countered by a fit that would kill a Talos they say that the fit is not viable because the Talos is not alone. What?
I didn't mention the Talos at any point.
What are you talking about? |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:08:00 -
[562] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:These new changes seem a bit more reasonable but i think the Ishtar needs a bit more work.
Maybe CCP want to force the ishtar into a shield role but i'd prefer it to be an armour tanker just like all the other Gallente ships. For that to happen, it need drone damage and hitpoint bonuses not tracking. The pilot can then use its low slots for tank and its med slots for drone tracking/range/speed.
Also has anyone calculated how OP the sacrilege will be now?
Would you be so kind as to elaborate how exactly the SAC is OP? It's tank is still the same(=meh...) the damage still subpar compared to the much cheaper BCs or even T1s with dedicated, but still much cheaper fittings. The drone increase doesn't do much tbh. Medium drones are going to die like flies in a serious fight, a Set of Light drones + EWARs won't turn it into the "Monster" it's supposed to be.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
463
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:15:00 -
[563] - Quote
One thing I think Really need to b done for sake of balance and coherence is. Give the HAcs the SAME HP pools of the t1 ships!
There is absolutely no excuse for not doing so. Otherwise the role of being a tough nut cruiser as you describe is impossible.
Just that. Same shields, Armor and hull. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:18:00 -
[564] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Phox Jorkarzul wrote: But does it project better EVI. I don't that this does, which still stands that some of the Navy Ships are better HACs than the HACs.
But you do put up a good point, when are these ships going to be on SiSi.
I'm assuming you are talking about the NEX(Navy EXequror)? Or is EVI something else? The NEX is better in some areas, the Deimos is better in a whole lot of other areas which I just pointed out.
You showed that it a little better, but not 50mil more better, and still does not have a defining role. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
464
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:19:00 -
[565] - Quote
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.
The only way it could work would be if vaga lost a low slot for a mid so that it can fit 2 Large ASB.
In fact that makes easier to adjkust its PG and CPU so that It can fit this tank with 220mm guns while still not being able to fit stupid XL ASB (the loss of a low slot makes fittings pg AND cpu less variable) |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:25:00 -
[566] - Quote
Kagura Nikon 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. The only way it could work would be if vaga lost a low slot for a mid so that it can fit 2 Large ASB. In fact that makes easier to adjkust its PG and CPU so that It can fit this tank with 220mm guns while still not being able to fit stupid XL ASB (the loss of a low slot makes fittings pg AND cpu less variable)
How does the Vaga compare to the S.F.I. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
464
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:25:00 -
[567] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Seriously, you view 25% more range (with the same flight time) for your high damage short range weapons system as a useless bonus?
Now, I'll agree I'd prefer perhaps a bonus that allowed them to apply that damage better... especially since a range bonus would be of more benefit to a faster hull.... but I don't find that bonus to be useless. Sometimes getting in range with a Sac can be problematic. Well, it depends. Do your opponents have OGB with skirmish links? If yes, then yes the range bonus is useless, because anything BC size and down not webbed and/or scrammed will take next to no damage from your HAMs anyway. HAMs are crippled by OGB more than any other weapon system due to the 4.8 damage reduction factor that results in an almost 1:1 ratio between decrease in sig and a decrease in damage, as well as an almost 1:1 ratio between an increase in speed and a decrease in damage. Basically, against anything BC size and down, if its MWD is running and it's not webbed, skirmish links reduce HAM DPS by 50%. Yes, it's that bad.
They reduce the damage of everything.
Missiles do need to loose more DPS than turrets. that is MANDATORY to avoid stupid things like the nanophoons of old age that would orbit at high speed delivering very high damage on targets. Turrets annot be abused liek that because the orbiting ship also looses DPS due to tracking. TO not make missiles plain superior, they need a huge drawback... and that drawbback is being inferior against smaller targets. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
464
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:26:00 -
[568] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote:
How does the Vaga compare to the S.F.I.
I will take that by SFI you mean stabber not Scythe :P They have completely different roles. SFI has tracking.. not falloff bonus. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:29:00 -
[569] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:One thing I think Really need to b done for sake of balance and coherence is. Give the HAcs the SAME HP pools of the t1 ships!
There is absolutely no excuse for not doing so. Otherwise the role of being a tough nut cruiser as you describe is impossible.
Just that. Same shields, Armor and hull.
Sounds fair and reasonable. But that should give people an indication on how much better the HACs need to be improved. If you have to struggle to make them atleast as good as their T1 Counterparts, then something is really f...ing wrong here. I would go as far as to say give them 50% MORE Sh/Ar/Hu and atleast 25% more damage or vice versa. That would clearly justify their price. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:29:00 -
[570] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: Well, then use another fit?
People complain in the first turn that a Talos can kill it too easily, then when countered by a fit that would kill a Talos they say that the fit is not viable because the Talos is not alone. What?
I didn't mention the Talos at any point. What are you talking about? You didn't, but it's a common trend in this thread. And guess what eve is all about? You can have the cake, but not eat it. Sooo many people cry "I want my cake and eat it as well! Give X a Y bonus". NO! You can't have it all. There is always a counter to the counter of your counter to another counter. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:38:00 -
[571] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote: You showed that it a little better, but not 50mil more better, and still does not have a defining role.
According to you that is. I'm fairly confident I could take your NEX with my Deimos(post patch), even if you are a tad bit faster than me. My racial resists give me enough time to manouver a slingshot to close distance, and you cant overload the whole fight.
Unless you dual nano and go rail fit. But I could do that as well and win that way. There will always be a way to win a fight if you have the right tools for the situation. |
Alan Bell
Dkiller Delta Force Corp. CORPVS DELICTI
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:41:00 -
[572] - Quote
Ishtar
Why seperate the bonuses? just have tracking apply to all drones and make additional stat affect drone speeds. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1895
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:44:00 -
[573] - Quote
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! |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:44:00 -
[574] - Quote
Kagura Nikon 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. The only way it could work would be if vaga lost a low slot for a mid so that it can fit 2 Large ASB. In fact that makes easier to adjkust its PG and CPU so that It can fit this tank with 220mm guns while still not being able to fit stupid XL ASB (the loss of a low slot makes fittings pg AND cpu less variable)
God no, the vaga needs more lowslots, not more mids, a extra mid is a nice to have, a extra lowslot is way better. It problems are damage projection,dps and speed (yes it the fastest hacs but it still is to slow) not tank or ewar or (if those cap changes stay) cap. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
650
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:45:00 -
[575] - Quote
CCP Rise, how long before those changes hit Singularity ? Feedback would be 10x better if we could actually test it out ingame rather than do EFT wars. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
232
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:47:00 -
[576] - Quote
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!
I'd like to know what your opinion on the Vagabond at the present moment, in terms of DPS and projection, do you think its where it should be? |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
133
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:54:00 -
[577] - Quote
Roime wrote:
[Deimos, Pocket Talos] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 10MN Microwarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Medium Auxiliary Thrusters I Medium Hybrid Metastasis Adjuster II
Warrior II x5 Warrior SW-300 x5
603 turret dps @ 22+32, 0.03514 tracking 2239/3191 m/s 20.3K EHP (37.4K heated against Null)
Best about it: runs stable all day long even with two hawks neuting you! I only correct my own spelling. |
James1122
Calamitous-Intent
80
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 10:56:00 -
[578] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
God no, the vaga needs more lowslots, not more mids, a extra mid is a nice to have, a extra lowslot is way better. It problems are damage projection,dpsand speed (yes it the fastest hacs but it still is to slow) not tank or ewar or (if those cap changes stay) cap.
What is wrong with you ?
Please explain to me what stats the vaga should have in your world?
600dps at 40km ? + 4kms ? + 60k ehp tank ?
People just seem to fixate on maximizing what the ships should be able to do for them in there own worlds without any thought on overall game balance. 3/4s of the posts i read on here just come across as clueless.
I think tier 3s still need a bit more of a nerf, but i am not going to use that as an excuse to further buff HACS, all you will get from that is horrific power creep. I still need to test these things on SISI before being able to give any feedback of worth but most these changes seem pretty decent.
The LACB on the vaga is a great addition with the bonus and will make it a very strong ship. Anyway if the ships aren't any good then the market will sort them out. Two Step for CSM |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
310
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:03:00 -
[579] - Quote
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!
Hi, as requested earlier, please can you elaborate and shed some more light on the Deimos changes please?
Specifically, what else did you condiser for the MWD bonus, and why no other bonus seemed more appropriate?
Any chance we can drop it to 4 guns, up the DPS to compensate and retain a utility high?
Why has it had its base stats tank nerfed - was it considered an overpowered tank? (yes I'm aware it has a lower sig etc)
Cheers. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:04:00 -
[580] - Quote
James1122 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
God no, the vaga needs more lowslots, not more mids, a extra mid is a nice to have, a extra lowslot is way better. It problems are damage projection,dpsand speed (yes it the fastest hacs but it still is to slow) not tank or ewar or (if those cap changes stay) cap.
What is wrong with you ? Please explain to me what stats the vaga should have in your world? 600dps at 40km ? + 4kms ? + 60k ehp tank ? People just seem to fixate on maximizing what the ships should be able to do for them in there own worlds without any thought on overall game balance. 3/4s of the posts i read on here just come across as clueless. I think tier 3s still need a bit more of a nerf, but i am not going to use that as an excuse to further buff HACS, all you will get from that is horrific power creep. I still need to test these things on SISI before being able to give any feedback of worth but most these changes seem pretty decent. The LACB on the vaga is a great addition with the bonus and will make it a very strong ship. Anyway if the ships aren't any good then the market will sort them out.
300gun dps (still well under what a zealot/cerb put out at that range) at 40km, maybe 480 or so at 20km, 2.8km/s preheat with just a mwd, same ehp as now.
Also lol at "market will sort it out", the market is utterly without power in sorting any hac related things out (or any t2 realted things), in fact the market for base stuff if utterly mineral/component dependent, if you could build another t2 ship from the same minerals (you can) you will never see a serious price drop. |
|
MystLynx
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:07:00 -
[581] - Quote
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! So you're really letting the muninn with 3 meds while nearly all T1 cruisers has 4 meds+ (except amarr obviously)? :/ |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
750
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:08:00 -
[582] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:The only way it could work would be if vaga lost a low slot for a mid so that it can fit 2 Large ASB.
In fact that makes easier to adjkust its PG and CPU so that It can fit this tank with 220mm guns while still not being able to fit stupid XL ASB (the loss of a low slot makes fittings pg AND cpu less variable) Seems like everyone wants the Vagabond to be able to brawl, skirmish, kite and be used to take the kids to school with one fit. Those days are over, thank Goddess.
AB speed is roughly 1k/s (unheated!). Signature has no bloom so remains at 115m. AC tracking is notoriously/hilariously godly and capless. ASB's are notoriously/hilariously broken godly and capless. Base DPS is ~500+ using 220's w. faction ammo (duh!) and twin Gyros. Each XLASB cycle will restore 60%+ of total shields on a ship from a race with the single best resist profile in game (not that it will ever be needed considering the speed/sig profile).* A single ACR and a 1-2% implant gives you a LSEII on top of the XLSAB, effectively doubling base EHP.
If you cannot make that work then you should be prohibited from flying anything 'brawler' forever more.
* The ability to burst tank in excess of 1k dps in a ship that is unlikely to take any damage at all once 'in range' is beyond words, nothing bar blobs or 90% webs will even scratch that thing.
PS: It will be nigh invincible for as long as links are available off-grid (above with +speed, -sig, +scram range .. /shudder), so hurry over to the relevant threads and troll them into lockage while you still have time! |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:09:00 -
[583] - Quote
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!
There isn't much power to be worried about right now. Make them sturdier or let them hit harder than their T1 Cousins, the problem isn't complicated, your solutions are.
|
Randy Wray
Pathfinders. The Marmite Collective
34
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:10:00 -
[584] - Quote
This prolly has been mentioned already but whats up with that huge EHP nerf on the deimos? With that much base HP removed we're talking about 10k+ EHP removed and I think that was a very unnecesary change, only thing that keeps it ahead of the thorax now is the resists. Deimos should be able to compete with battlecruisers as a brawler but with that hp nerf that's not gonna happen. Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @-áhttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:11:00 -
[585] - Quote
No one wants the vaga to brawl, also ac tracking sucks (blaster is better, rockets obviously are betterm drones are better, only lasers are worse). |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:11:00 -
[586] - Quote
James1122 wrote: What is wrong with you ?
He has been trolling this entire thread.
The changes are not bad at all I think. People simply had this insane vision of roflpwnmobiles since T1 got such a heavy buff more or less across the board since 90% of them were useless. Linear increase in performance, exponential increase in cost. ITT: People don't know what exponential means. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:13:00 -
[587] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:James1122 wrote: What is wrong with you ?
He has been trolling this entire thread. The changes are not bad at all I think. People simply had this insane vision of roflpwnmobiles since T1 got such a heavy buff more or less across the board since 90% of them were useless. Linear increase in performance, exponential increase in cost. ITT: People don't know what exponential means.
No i havnt, you on the other hand have flawlessly shown us that you suck at this game all thread long. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:15:00 -
[588] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: Well, then use another fit?
People complain in the first turn that a Talos can kill it too easily, then when countered by a fit that would kill a Talos they say that the fit is not viable because the Talos is not alone. What?
I didn't mention the Talos at any point. What are you talking about? You didn't, but it's a common trend in this thread. And guess what eve is all about? You can have the cake, but not eat it. Sooo many people cry "I want my cake and eat it as well! Give X a Y bonus". NO! You can't have it all. There is always a counter to the counter of your counter to another counter.
What is the point of having Cake if you can't eat it?
But I think you are wrong, the common trend is that people want HACs that have clear roles and that are worth 150mil extra over the normal T1 and 50mil extra for the Navy Ships. Right now outside the Ishtar and the Zealot they are not.
To be honest since the T1 cruiser rebalance the only T2 cruiser that has a clear role over a T1 has been the HIC hulls. I think more people would be satisfied if HACs had a similar clear defined role. What is the purpose of a HAC, and what advantage do you have flying it over, the T1 cruisers, Navy Cruiser, ABC, Navy BC, or CBCs? Right not too many. According to CCP's own plan those T1 ships are suppose more general and able to be a bit more adaptable. As a T2 ship a HAC should have clear area where it is maybe not king, but at least Duke or Crown Prince.
Zealots role, low sig heavy tank fleet ship...check, Ishtar low sig heavy drone (sentry) platform...check. Are the clearly better than their T1 counterparts...Yes. Are similar ships hulls or types of ships still useful and have role...yes. Harby cheaper, but at cost of higher sig. Vexor Navy Issue, cheaper more light - medium drone platform.
Does the Deimos have a clear role, no cause the DPS it has within reasonable range of the T1, and EVI, while being out DPSed by a gank Brutix. Okay Shield Rail Kite? While it beats the Thorax, it is still too close to the EVI DPS wise and the EVI is faster. And of course the Talos will still outdo it as Kiter. Does it have clear role? No it doesn't. The Eagle is in the same boat as two ships the Naga and Rohk both do what it supposed to at long range better. And as a brawler it has some promise, but the lack of a damage bonus means that it will be hard press to get enough DPS out to be truly effective.
Right now most Navy Ships, All Pirate ships, and tech 3 ships are better HACs than the HACs are. Why, simple HAC's have no clear goal. Everyone (including myself) have a different ideas on what that goal supposed to be, but with so many other ships that fill their "supposed role" as good (Navy Cruisers, CBC's) or better (Pirate Cruisers, Navy BC's, ABC's, and Tech 3's) people with either choose the cheaper ship because it more of throw away or more the expensive ship because it has better survivability.
That is what I read on this thread
Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Garphos Trectes
New Republic The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:16:00 -
[589] - Quote
Why the vaga got a smaller signature then all ahacs? Very strange.
Please compare the sacrileg with a caracal. Caracal got more speed and lows for similar DMG for 10% hullprice. Why should i take a sacrileg? Only benefit of the sacrileg is the armor- tank. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:18:00 -
[590] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: No i havnt, you on the other hand have flawlessly shown us that you suck at this game all thread long.
How? By showing you fits that prove that HAC's are better than their T1 versions? By providing fits and stats that show you that they are usable and better than ABC's in several instances?
Please point out exaclty, in context, what I have written that prove that I'm an idiot and suck at this game. |
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
133
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:22:00 -
[591] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
God no, the vaga needs more lowslots, not more mids, a extra mid is a nice to have, a extra lowslot is way better. It problems are damage projection,dpsand speed (yes it the fastest hacs but it still is to slow) not tank or ewar or (if those cap changes stay) cap.
Vaga has way more resilence against falcons and damps, got now a beasty capacitor, goes quick as **** with a miniscule signature for a mwd-shieldtank, has prolly the thickest tank out of all cruisersized shieldtankers due to speed/omniresists (apparently quoting from a time when cerbs/eagles were still a flying joke).
And now you see a huge border being built setting cyna and vaga apart: The Cyna still got small cap, way to small cargo to run cap boosters for a long time, while the new vaganow got a capacitor close to what appears to be old sac-level.
Maybe I do something wrong, but in most ktesituations where I'm panically trying to keep distance (those highspeed-chases around gates/wormholes with two ships flying close at 3km/s, aka something tries to get a warp-in for their gang) I usually start experiencing cap issues with both vaga and cyna, and even more so in NOmen/Omen.
Earlier on, there have been those situations of flying a vaga and running from an AF, which tackled eventually (Enyos still accelerate like crazy in comparison) being already on 40% cap and running the med eut to break free of tackle - mostly forced me to warp off as once that frigate was dropping tackle, there was not enough cap left anymore to make a good chase against the incoming gang, i.E. warp off. Now there will (almost) always be cap!
I am really not sure about the current prices for HACs though, won't stop me from flying a stabber with fins atleast. Else I'm hoping for new prices as wars are ceasing. I only correct my own spelling. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:23:00 -
[592] - Quote
Garphos Trectes wrote:Why the vaga got a smaller signature then all ahacs? Very strange.
Please compare the sacrileg with a caracal. Caracal got more speed and lows for similar DMG for 10% hullprice. Why should i take a sacrileg? Only benefit of the sacrileg is the armor- tank.
I'm sorry mate but last time i checked the Caracal had 4 lows.
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:24:00 -
[593] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: No i havnt, you on the other hand have flawlessly shown us that you suck at this game all thread long.
How? By showing you fits that prove that HAC's are better than their T1 versions? By providing fits and stats that show you that they are usable and better than ABC's in several instances? Please point out exaclty, in context, what I have written that prove that I'm an idiot and suck at this game.
The believe that the vaga is ok as it is right now and the though that the cynabal right now is a good ships clearly shows that you do not know very much of this game. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
232
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:25:00 -
[594] - Quote
I find this worrying to say.
But I agree with W0lf, Vaga is bad, its still going to be bad after the buff, its just going to have a useless bonus to boot, it needs better projection and a slight DPS bump, Im not asking for it to brawl or for it to have more EHP or for it to be faster, I just wan't it to actually be able to kill something in a reasonable amount of time. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:26:00 -
[595] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote: Right now most Navy Ships, All Pirate ships, and tech 3 ships are better HACs than the HACs are. Why, simple HAC's have no clear goal. Everyone (including myself) have a different ideas on what that goal supposed to be, but with so many other ships that fill their "supposed role" as good (Navy Cruisers, CBC's) or better (Pirate Cruisers, Navy BC's, ABC's, and Tech 3's) people with either choose the cheaper ship because it more of throw away or more the expensive ship because it has better survivability.
That is what I read on this thread
According to the roadmap, navy and T2 are supposed to be slightly similar in performance, and pirate are not yet rebalanced, so don't use them for measure.
And like I earlier pointed out. HAC's have: A LOT better cap Basically the same speed Better resists More DPS Better projection Better fitting over the navy ships.
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1901
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:27:00 -
[596] - Quote
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. |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:28:00 -
[597] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
God no, the vaga needs more lowslots, not more mids, a extra mid is a nice to have, a extra lowslot is way better. It problems are damage projection,dpsand speed (yes it the fastest hacs but it still is to slow) not tank or ewar or (if those cap changes stay) cap.
Vaga has way more resilence against falcons and damps, got now a beasty capacitor, goes quick as **** with a miniscule signature for a mwd-shieldtank, has prolly the thickest tank out of all cruisersized shieldtankers due to speed/omniresists (apparently quoting from a time when cerbs/eagles were still a flying joke). And now you see a huge border being built setting cyna and vaga apart: The Cyna still got small cap, way to small cargo to run cap boosters for a long time, while the new vaganow got a capacitor close to what appears to be old sac-level. Maybe I do something wrong, but in most ktesituations where I'm panically trying to keep distance (those highspeed-chases around gates/wormholes with two ships flying close at 3km/s, aka something tries to get a warp-in for their gang) I usually start experiencing cap issues with both vaga and cyna, and even more so in NOmen/Omen. Earlier on, there have been those situations of flying a vaga and running from an AF, which tackled eventually (Enyos still accelerate like crazy in comparison) being already on 40% cap and running the med eut to break free of tackle - mostly forced me to warp off as once that frigate was dropping tackle, there was not enough cap left anymore to make a good chase against the incoming gang, i.E. warp off. Now there will (almost) always be cap! I am really not sure about the current prices for HACs though, won't stop me from flying a stabber with fins atleast. Else I'm hoping for new prices as wars are ceasing.
I dont get your point, yes a seonsor buff is nice, but it makes them in no way falcon resiliant.
I already mentioned that the cap now is fine which is nice, but as long as at 40km a rlml caracal easily outdamages a vgagabond and as long as most t1 cruisers are nearly as fast (or faster depending on the fit) the vaga (and cyna) will stay crap (for kiting). |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:31:00 -
[598] - Quote
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.
These numbers are however completly irrelevant for balancing (because they have absolutly nothing to do with how a ship performs, its just shows how many people fly it), and if the vaga was the most used ship of the game it still would be crap. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:31:00 -
[599] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: The believe that the vaga is ok as it is right now and the though that the cynabal right now is a good ships clearly shows that you do not know very much of this game.
So you could not point it out, ok, like I thought.
And you can't just say that I'm wrong because I don't agree with you. I never talked about the Cynabal, and it's pointless to do so, because it will be rebalanced as well, so it's a useless measure.
Like I said, the Vagabond is BY FAR the faster HAC of the lot. If you can fly a ship half decently, you will never get caught by any other HAC. You can fit a LASB to tank drones, and a TD to mitigate dps from any turret ship.
What you want is a ship that can kite 4-5km/s, have 5-600 dps out to point range and 50k EHP. Says quite a lot about who has a better understanding of balance. And i'll point it out to you; you have no clue bro. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
464
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:34:00 -
[600] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:The only way it could work would be if vaga lost a low slot for a mid so that it can fit 2 Large ASB.
In fact that makes easier to adjkust its PG and CPU so that It can fit this tank with 220mm guns while still not being able to fit stupid XL ASB (the loss of a low slot makes fittings pg AND cpu less variable) Seems like everyone wants the Vagabond to be able to brawl, skirmish, kite and be used to take the kids to school with one fit. Those days are over, thank Goddess. AB speed is roughly 1k/s (unheated!). Signature has no bloom so remains at 115m. AC tracking is notoriously/hilariously godly and capless. ASB's are notoriously/hilariously broken godly and capless. Base DPS is ~500+ using 220's w. faction ammo (duh!) and twin Gyros. Each XLASB cycle will restore 60%+ of total shields on a ship from a race with the single best resist profile in game (not that it will ever be needed considering the speed/sig profile).* A single ACR and a 1-2% implant gives you a LSEII on top of the XLSAB, effectively doubling base EHP. If you cannot make that work then you should be prohibited from flying anything 'brawler' forever more. * The ability to burst tank in excess of 1k dps in a ship that is unlikely to take any damage at all once 'in range' is beyond words, nothing bar blobs or 90% webs will even scratch that thing. PS: It will be nigh invincible for as long as links are available off-grid (above with +speed, -sig, +scram range .. /shudder), so hurry over to the relevant threads and troll them into lockage while you still have time!
Youa re STUPID or what? rtead my post. I propose changes to make using XLASB HARDER, but instead make peopel use dual LASB.!!!
Aff the stupidity of so many matari haters amazes me
|
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
624
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:36:00 -
[601] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: I dont get your point, yes a seonsor buff is nice, but it makes them in no way falcon resiliant.
I already mentioned that the cap now is fine which is nice, but as long as at 40km a rlml caracal easily outdamages a vgagabond and as long as most t1 cruisers are nearly as fast (or faster depending on the fit) the vaga (and cyna) will stay crap (for kiting).
Double wrong again. All HACs get Sensor Strength buff, making them more resistant to ECM
Nano stabber goes 3797 overloaded. Nano vaga goes 3823 overloaded.
Does it hurt when you pull all those numbers out of your ass?
Vaga will stay crap for kiting.
You are not playing the same Eve Online as the rest of us, that much is clear. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
650
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:36:00 -
[602] - Quote
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.
The soonest, the better |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
233
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:39:00 -
[603] - Quote
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.
And the fact that it recieved a huge nerf when you nerfed TEs, the fact that it now does an amazing 170 DPS at 25k with Faction or a fantastic 250DPS at 25 if you use barrage and restrict yourself to explosive damage is fine? |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:40:00 -
[604] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: The believe that the vaga is ok as it is right now and the though that the cynabal right now is a good ships clearly shows that you do not know very much of this game.
So you could not point it out, ok, like I thought. And you can't just say that I'm wrong because I don't agree with you. I never talked about the Cynabal, and it's pointless to do so, because it will be rebalanced as well, so it's a useless measure. Like I said, the Vagabond is BY FAR the faster HAC of the lot. If you can fly a ship half decently, you will never get caught by any other HAC. You can fit a LASB to tank drones, and a TD to mitigate dps from any turret ship. What you want is a ship that can kite 4-5km/s, have 5-600 dps out to point range and 50k EHP. Says quite a lot about who has a better understanding of balance. And i'll point it out to you; you have no clue bro.
You mentioned it pretty much in your first or second post in this thread, it doesnt matter if its the best hac for 1v1s, you will almost never fight 1v1, what matter is that on tq the vaga is rubbish.
And again, you seem to be unable to read, i want nearly 500dps at 20km, and 300dps at the edge of point range (40km), and i never mentioned 4-5km/s, nor 50k ehp, are you simple? |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:44:00 -
[605] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: I dont get your point, yes a seonsor buff is nice, but it makes them in no way falcon resiliant.
I already mentioned that the cap now is fine which is nice, but as long as at 40km a rlml caracal easily outdamages a vgagabond and as long as most t1 cruisers are nearly as fast (or faster depending on the fit) the vaga (and cyna) will stay crap (for kiting).
Double wrong again. All HACs get Sensor Strength buff, making them more resistant to ECM Nano stabber goes 3797 overloaded. Nano vaga goes 3823 overloaded. Does it hurt when you pull all those numbers out of your ass? Vaga will stay crap for kiting.You are not playing the same Eve Online as the rest of us, that much is clear.
Your a ******, a bs sensor streghts isnt enough to counter a falcon, it does **** all (t3s have about 40 sensor strenght).
Also the vagabond goes 3.4km/s with heat unless you failfit it. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:48:00 -
[606] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: I think the Vaga is probably at the very bottom of the list of HACs that I would worry about.
How is the Munnin in that list? I don't think I ever saw one in space.
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
779
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:49:00 -
[607] - Quote
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.
How is the popularity of a ship indicative of its balance?
Alot of people still fly rifters and we all know those are probably one of the worst frigs right now.
And the post above is valid too, I've never seen a munnin in space either... Does that mean it needs a huge massive buff? |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
133
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:52:00 -
[608] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: I already mentioned that the cap now is fine which is nice, but as long as at 40km a rlml caracal easily outdamages a vgagabond and as long as most t1 cruisers are nearly as fast (or faster depending on the fit) the vaga (and cyna) will stay crap (for kiting).
You are totally disregarding the difference in tank, and no - RLM caracal is not a threat to a vaga. At least I don't hold point at 40km, I rarely hold point beyond 28km to be honest and most of the time I'm even within 23. The Caracal is without doubt wonderful, but its 200ish dps (270 with fury) is not a threat to a vaga's dps. Not at all. Add to it that your caracal runs dry before it chews through bigger tanks, whereas the vaga does not - assuming you need to pulse your mwd to maintain range and sparing some cap for the point.
Add to that that a normal Talos/800 Tornado/Oracle will blast you a new one within 4-5 volleys, whereas the vaga just isn't impressed at all. So even though they apply damage similiarly at 40km, they don't compare well on the defensive part.
Other ships might be better for kiting (scythe FI, osprey navy etc.) but they are real paperships aswell. And take a fleet scythe and put it on grid with a pulse-oracle. :| I only correct my own spelling. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
625
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:55:00 -
[609] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: You are a ******, a bc sensor streghts isnt enough to counter a falcon, it does **** all (t3s have about 40 sensor strenght).
Also the vagabond goes 3.4km/s with heat unless you failfit it.
Countering a Falcon. Just adding it to the insane list of things you want this ship to do.
1 x Nano 1 x 10MN Microwarpdrive, overloaded = 3823 m/s
I would not be opposed to the Vaga doing that damage at that range, but never in a million years with that speed. And we already have a ship that fits the role, the Eagle.
Sure, if you want the Vaga to go 1500 m/s, the we can talk that damage and projection |
Frank Bean
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:56:00 -
[610] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: ISHTAR
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed and tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Considering that 2 bonuses kinda overlap, I'd propose something modest as a change:
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Drone speed and hitpoints (was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Drone optimal range and tracking speed (was bonus to drone bay capacity)
This would ensure that the bonuses that were previously there are applied anyway but also gives the ishtar's drones something the other drone ships (save the algos) lack: faster and more resilient drones.
It's a small change, but would make the ishtar's primary damage apply better and last longer without going into gong territory. |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
234
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:56:00 -
[611] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: You are a ******, a bc sensor streghts isnt enough to counter a falcon, it does **** all (t3s have about 40 sensor strenght).
Also the vagabond goes 3.4km/s with heat unless you failfit it.
Countering a Falcon. Just adding it to the insane list of things you want this ship to do. 1 x Nano 1 x 10MN Microwarpdrive, overloaded = 3823 m/s I would not be opposed to the Vaga doing that damage at that range, but never in a million years with that speed. And we already have a ship that fits the role, the Eagle. Sure, if you want the Vaga to go 1500 m/s, the we can talk that damage and projection
You've never noticed how quickly T1 cruisers first then? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
625
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:58:00 -
[612] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: And the fact that it recieved a huge nerf when you nerfed TEs, the fact that it now does an amazing 170 DPS at 25k with Faction or a fantastic 250DPS at 25 if you use barrage and restrict yourself to explosive damage is fine?
Awww, poor poor Minmatar, wants to do high dps, all damage types at all ranges with shortest range guns using shortest range ammo but cant do it
Lasers, blasters and kinetic only bonuses would have a word with you. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 11:58:00 -
[613] - Quote
And ani competent scythe pilot would rip the oracle a new one, what remains is that in any fleet situation or in any 1v many sitautions a caracal easily outdamages a vagabond, at 40km a vaga sits at well under 200dps with drones, the caracal does over 300 (both non heat), a cerb would do over 400.
And while the vaga has better cap the cara has more ehp.
|
James1122
Calamitous-Intent
80
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:01:00 -
[614] - Quote
@Rise
Sorry if these have been answered already but i have a few questions around the changes
Why has the deimos received such a big nerf to its armor amount ? I never really felt that it was something that was especially too strong. Is there any concern that the HAM cerb is a bit too strong. I think there was a fit for it on FH that prom posted which is doing 900dps at 40km (admitably its rage missiles but its still ~ 700 with navys) Is the cerb not now too fast ? I thought caldari were meant to be one of the slowest races that used missile range to compensate for their lack of mobility.
<3 the new ishtar :)
Other than that looks good. Look forward to test more thoroughly on SISI. Can only go so far with eft really.... Two Step for CSM |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
625
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:01:00 -
[615] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: You've never noticed how quickly T1 cruisers first then?
Huh?
I said the stabber goes 3797 m/s with 1 nano and overloaded mwd, which is slower that the Vaga.
The Thorax is faster than the Deimos (150m/s) with the same, so the Vaga has an advantage that the other HACs do not. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
234
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:01:00 -
[616] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: And the fact that it recieved a huge nerf when you nerfed TEs, the fact that it now does an amazing 170 DPS at 25k with Faction or a fantastic 250DPS at 25 if you use barrage and restrict yourself to explosive damage is fine?
Awww, poor poor Minmatar, wants to do high dps, all damage types at all ranges with shortest range guns using shortest range ammo but cant do it Lasers, blasters and kinetic only bonuses would have a word with you.
God you are dim. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7409
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:03:00 -
[617] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:And ani competent scythe pilot would rip the oracle a new one, what remains is that in any fleet situation or in any 1v many sitautions a caracal easily outdamages a vagabond, at 40km a vaga sits at well under 200dps with drones, the caracal does over 300 (both non heat), a cerb would do over 400.
And while the vaga has better cap the cara has more ehp.
The vaga moves a lot faster... |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
226
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:04:00 -
[618] - Quote
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.
17k EHP, 60 seconds, you tell ME how you plan to maintain tackle and not die for that 60 seconds. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
226
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:06:00 -
[619] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: 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.
Muninn is an artillery platform. Tornado is used exclusively as an artillery platform.
Eagle is a railgun platform. Naga is used as a railgun platform.
Yes they have two totally different roles How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:06:00 -
[620] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: You are a ******, a bc sensor streghts isnt enough to counter a falcon, it does **** all (t3s have about 40 sensor strenght).
Also the vagabond goes 3.4km/s with heat unless you failfit it.
Countering a Falcon. Just adding it to the insane list of things you want this ship to do. 1 x Nano 1 x 10MN Microwarpdrive, overloaded = 3823 m/s I would not be opposed to the Vaga doing that damage at that range, but never in a million years with that speed. And we already have a ship that fits the role, the Eagle. Sure, if you want the Vaga to go 1500 m/s, the we can talk that damage and projection
i never said it should do that, i just said it couldnt.
Thats a nano on a vagabond=failfit.
Also a scythe fleet already gets these numbers. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
625
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:06:00 -
[621] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: And the fact that it recieved a huge nerf when you nerfed TEs, the fact that it now does an amazing 170 DPS at 25k with Faction or a fantastic 250DPS at 25 if you use barrage and restrict yourself to explosive damage is fine?
Awww, poor poor Minmatar, wants to do high dps, all damage types at all ranges with shortest range guns using shortest range ammo but cant do it Lasers, blasters and kinetic only bonuses would have a word with you. God you are dim. Yes, that might be your opinion. Why don't you prove it with some facts? I don't see any fits posted here other than mine the last pages, and none of you have done anything other than shitting on them without providing reason. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:08:00 -
[622] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: And the fact that it recieved a huge nerf when you nerfed TEs, the fact that it now does an amazing 170 DPS at 25k with Faction or a fantastic 250DPS at 25 if you use barrage and restrict yourself to explosive damage is fine?
Awww, poor poor Minmatar, wants to do high dps, all damage types at all ranges with shortest range guns using shortest range ammo but cant do it Lasers, blasters and kinetic only bonuses would have a word with you. God you are dim. Yes, that might be your opinion. Why don't you prove it with some facts? I don't see any fits posted here other than mine the last pages, and none of you have done anything other than shitting on them without providing reason.
he is right, you are to daft to understand what he is saying. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
625
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:12:00 -
[623] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: i never said it should do that, i just said it couldnt.
Thats a nano on a vagabond=failfit.
Also a scythe fleet already gets these numbers.
Ok.
Want's better than best HAC speed without fitting nanos. You know what the SNI also gets? Less DPS Less range Less resists/tank Less Fitting Less sensor strength Less capacitor Less target range |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
625
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:15:00 -
[624] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: And the fact that it recieved a huge nerf when you nerfed TEs, the fact that it now does an amazing 170 DPS at 25k with Faction or a fantastic 250DPS at 25 if you use barrage and restrict yourself to explosive damage is fine?
he is right, you are to daft to understand what he is saying.
He is saying that it's bad to have low dps at point range with short range guns using short range ammo and only one type of damage.
The Deimos for reference, does 37 DPS at the same range with the same configuration, locked to therm/kin. |
Atreides 47
Atreides of Arrakis
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:18:00 -
[625] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.
Hands off from Cynabal ! You both with Fozzie are Edward scissor-hands ! Go screw-up something else and don't touch Minmatar industry. Long Live the Fighters ! |
iLeXZA
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:19:00 -
[626] - Quote
God damn, people wanting to kite with new-vaga are terribad
Just do the full link shiny pod treatment and you can perma tank a vindicator at 0 while not moving. (beware of bleed through) On a ship that goes over 3.1k before heat.
Ultimate brawler against any group that can't pump out a vindi's dps. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:23:00 -
[627] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: i never said it should do that, i just said it couldnt.
Thats a nano on a vagabond=failfit.
Also a scythe fleet already gets these numbers.
Ok. Want's better than best HAC speed without fitting nanos. You know what the SNI also gets? Less DPS Less range Less resists/tank Less Fitting Less sensor strength Less capacitor Less target range
More dps, way more range, better ehp, better fitting (as you dont need to waste so much pg on medium artys), the rest is of no revelance (lol locking range). |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
626
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:27:00 -
[628] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: Ok.
Want's better than best HAC speed without fitting nanos. You know what the SNI also gets? Less DPS Less range Less resists/tank Less Fitting Less sensor strength Less capacitor Less target range More dps, way more range, better ehp, better fitting (as you dont need to waste so much pg on medium artys), the rest is of no revelance (lol locking range). TIL capacitor and sensor strength is of no relevance. Why don't we just give the vaga no cap recharge? You have 4 mids to put a booster. 100% chance to get jammed by 1 ECM drone is also fine. Mids: mwd, cap booster, ECCM, tackle.
I have so much to learn from you. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:28:00 -
[629] - Quote
iLeXZA wrote:God damn, people wanting to kite with new-vaga are terribad
Just do the full link shiny pod treatment and you can perma tank a vindicator at 0 while not moving. (beware of bleed through) On a ship that goes over 3.1k before heat.
Ultimate brawler against any group that can't pump out a vindi's dps.
yeah at this rate it should get a tracking bonus since its falloff bonus is wasted on a brawler
not that I like the idea of a brawler vaga I think its horrendous Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:34:00 -
[630] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: Ok.
Want's better than best HAC speed without fitting nanos. You know what the SNI also gets? Less DPS Less range Less resists/tank Less Fitting Less sensor strength Less capacitor Less target range More dps, way more range, better ehp, better fitting (as you dont need to waste so much pg on medium artys), the rest is of no revelance (lol locking range). TIL capacitor and sensor strength is of no relevance. Why don't we just give the vaga no cap recharge? You have 4 mids to put a booster. 100% chance to get jammed by 1 ECM drone is also fine. Mids: mwd, cap booster, ECCM, tackle. I have so much to learn from you.
The little bit of cap the vaga can have over the scythe is of no revelance. |
|
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:37:00 -
[631] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: Ok.
Want's better than best HAC speed without fitting nanos. You know what the SNI also gets? Less DPS Less range Less resists/tank Less Fitting Less sensor strength Less capacitor Less target range More dps, way more range, better ehp, better fitting (as you dont need to waste so much pg on medium artys), the rest is of no revelance (lol locking range). TIL capacitor and sensor strength is of no relevance. Why don't we just give the vaga no cap recharge? You have 4 mids to put a booster. 100% chance to get jammed by 1 ECM drone is also fine. Mids: mwd, cap booster, ECCM, tackle. I have so much to learn from you.
Whats a SNI? Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
626
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:38:00 -
[632] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: The little bit of cap the vaga can have over the scythe is of no revelance.
Yeah, 8 minutes vs 2 minutes, pff who would even notice? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
626
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:38:00 -
[633] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote: Whats a SNI?
Scythe Navy Issue
Edit: It's actually Fleet Issue, my bad. I think "Navy Issue" is a regular term to use regardless though. Except Scorpion Navy Issue already has that. Crap. My bad |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:49:00 -
[634] - Quote
Rise, can we expect any further changes on Sacriledge regarding slot layout, cap regeneration or change of missile velocity to explosion velocity? |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:51:00 -
[635] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: The little bit of cap the vaga can have over the scythe is of no revelance.
Yeah, 8 minutes vs 2 minutes, pff who would even notice? Also, target range, no relevance? Damps. Damps everywhere. And you are talking about me having no clue. Jeez man, get it together.
You really have no clue when it comes to this game, im done talking to you (6-10km more means nothing when bonused or multiple damps exist). |
To mare
Advanced Technology
225
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 12:53:00 -
[636] - Quote
il like some of the new changes like the extra sensor strenght and locking range but ship like like vagabond sacrilege deimos dont really need the extra locking range wouldnt be better to switch that for some extra HP. plus why you are so stingy with the vaga and dont wanna give it back its full speed, set it a 300 base speed and call the day, the deimos now its really close to the vagabond speed |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
627
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:03:00 -
[637] - Quote
raawe wrote:Rise, can we expect any further changes on Sacriledge regarding slot layout, cap regeneration or change of missile velocity to explosion velocity? You do know that you are cap stable at 67% cap with only one small booster and 2 medium reps running?
To mare wrote:il like some of the new changes like the extra sensor strenght and locking range but ship like like vagabond sacrilege deimos dont really need the extra locking range wouldnt be better to switch that for some extra HP. plus why you are so stingy with the vaga and dont wanna give it back its full speed, set it a 300 base speed and call the day, the deimos now its really close to the vagabond speed The Vaga is still 750 m/s faster than a shield Deimos. Not insignificant at all.
W0lf Crendraven wrote: You really have no clue when it comes to this game, im done talking to you (6-10km more means nothing when bonused or multiple damps exist).
Wrong YET AGAIN. It's 25km difference, and the new Deimos will under dual rigged bonused Maulus, double damp, have 16,6 km lockrange, enabling you to get overheated webs and scram, vs 13,7 km on the old Deimos. In practice, not a huge difference, I admit, but again; did those numbers hurt when you violently ripped them out of your ass? |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1041
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:09:00 -
[638] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: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. And the fact that it recieved a huge nerf when you nerfed TEs, the fact that it now does an amazing 170 DPS at 25k with Faction or a fantastic 250DPS at 25 if you use barrage and restrict yourself to explosive damage is fine?
A blaster Diemost will be doing about 0 or slightly above at 25km with T2 LR ammo, what are you complaining about? *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
226
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:13:00 -
[639] - Quote
Atreides 47 wrote:CCP Rise wrote:The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem. Hands off from Cynabal ! You both with Fozzie are Edward scissor-hands ! Go screw-up something else and don't touch Minmatar industry.
The Vagabond sucks because the Cynabal is kicking the crap out of it, so what exactly do YOU plan to do with the Cynabal so that the Vagabond actually gets flown in reasonable numbers?
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
237
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:13:00 -
[640] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: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. And the fact that it recieved a huge nerf when you nerfed TEs, the fact that it now does an amazing 170 DPS at 25k with Faction or a fantastic 250DPS at 25 if you use barrage and restrict yourself to explosive damage is fine? A blaster Diemost will be doing about 0 or slightly above at 25km with T2 LR ammo, what are you complaining about?
Because they are obviously ships designed for the exact same role aren't they.
Oh, no wait, they are completely different ships for completely different purposes using completely different weapon systems. |
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
780
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:16:00 -
[641] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Atreides 47 wrote:CCP Rise wrote:The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem. Hands off from Cynabal ! You both with Fozzie are Edward scissor-hands ! Go screw-up something else and don't touch Minmatar industry. The Vagabond sucks because the Cynabal is kicking the crap out of it, so what exactly do YOU plan to do with the Cynabal so that the Vagabond actually gets flown in reasonable numbers?
No the vagabond sucks because of its terrible DPS and active tanking bonus on a 4 mid kiting ship. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
627
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:18:00 -
[642] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: A blaster Diemost will be doing about 0 or slightly above at 25km with T2 LR ammo, what are you complaining about?
Because they are obviously ships designed for the exact same role aren't they. Oh, no wait, they are completely different ships for completely different purposes using completely different weapon systems. You are perfectly correct!
The vaga is supposed to do lower dps at a longer range, and the Deimos is supposed to do more dps at shorter range. The vaga should have more speed, and the Deimos more tank.
So what are you arguing about again? |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
237
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:19:00 -
[643] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: A blaster Diemost will be doing about 0 or slightly above at 25km with T2 LR ammo, what are you complaining about?
Because they are obviously ships designed for the exact same role aren't they. Oh, no wait, they are completely different ships for completely different purposes using completely different weapon systems. You are perfectly correct! The vaga is supposed to do lower dps at a longer range, and the Deimos is supposed to do more dps at shorter range. The vaga should have more speed, and the Deimos more tank. So what are you arguing about again?
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.
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1041
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:21:00 -
[644] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Atreides 47 wrote:CCP Rise wrote:The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem. Hands off from Cynabal ! You both with Fozzie are Edward scissor-hands ! Go screw-up something else and don't touch Minmatar industry. The Vagabond sucks because the Cynabal is kicking the crap out of it, so what exactly do YOU plan to do with the Cynabal so that the Vagabond actually gets flown in reasonable numbers?
With these changes to Vagabond chances are Cynabals are going to get their ass kick hard, maybe not 220's Cynas dual prop but 425's and arty ones will get close to extinction, plus a simple nano and mwd +OGB+combat booster and eventual hyperlink your vaga will not only catch zdat cynabal but will tank about double physical EHP dmg while having T2 resist profile.
If something Cynabal will need afterwards is certainly not speed nerf but agility one, just like Machariel. After their eventual agility nerf they'll be fine.
Vaga with that rep bonus will be a fantastic solo/small gang ship, if some people can't see the potential in it they're wrong. Ok arties on it will be more than a tricky stuff to do but I'm certain this ship soon enough will be called out by many for nerfs, time will prove who's right.
Deimos might become a good sniper hac but tracking on rails is being reduced for the same amount of buff it was given at first changes. Now we'll get same rails every one was complaining for years with more dps and still unable to track decently unless you fit 75mm *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
226
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:21:00 -
[645] - Quote
If your plan for making the Vagabond any good is "We'll nerf the Cynabal and give it a new role" I hope that happens soon not Soon(TM)
I'm still disappointed by the HACs but it sounds like CCP is going to refuse to buff them further. So, what about decreasing their build cost to about 100-110m? That way, despite their "meh" performance they would be more affordable? Except the Ishtar because seriously CCP, why do you make these drone boats like that. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
628
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:31:00 -
[646] - Quote
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. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
238
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:37:00 -
[647] - Quote
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 it has nearly half the EHP of a Hurricane and does less raw DPS at close range, and is range bonused. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1042
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:38:00 -
[648] - Quote
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 the guy is bad, not the ship. He wants a ship zip zapping all around at 10k speed doing 500dps at 30km and a new bonus to webs and points on it for 35km each.
You're wasting your time trying to explain the obvious. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
780
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:38:00 -
[649] - Quote
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.
Arty cane used to be amazing, and the cane did much more DPS the closer you got than a vaga ever could. Vaga has a range bonus, obviously it will tickle to 25kms. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
629
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:39:00 -
[650] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: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 it has nearly half the EHP of a Hurricane and does less raw DPS at close range, and is range bonused. It's also a cruiser..... |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
238
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:41:00 -
[651] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: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 it has nearly half the EHP of a Hurricane and does less raw DPS at close range, and is range bonused. It's also a cruiser.....
Its also 150 mil. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7410
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:42:00 -
[652] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Its also 150 mil.
Price is never a balancing factor.
See titan blobs. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
629
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:42:00 -
[653] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: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 it has nearly half the EHP of a Hurricane and does less raw DPS at close range, and is range bonused. It's also a cruiser..... Its also 150 mil. And it can kill a battlecruiser like the hurricane. We can do this all day |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1042
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:42:00 -
[654] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: A blaster Diemost will be doing about 0 or slightly above at 25km with T2 LR ammo, what are you complaining about?
Because they are obviously ships designed for the exact same role aren't they. Oh, no wait, they are completely different ships for completely different purposes using completely different weapon systems. You are perfectly correct! The vaga is supposed to do lower dps at a longer range, and the Deimos is supposed to do more dps at shorter range. The vaga should have more speed, and the Deimos more tank. So what are you arguing about again? 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.
RANGE CONTROL doesn't mean you're playing wow nightelfe hunter in Eve. Vagabond goes way faster than any other HAC in the game and can perfectly control/mitigate incoming dmg with this specific advantage that is probably the strongest attribute for solo/gang pvp, the reason why cynabals are so good is not really the amount od dps they can push but the ability to dictate range and mitigate incoming dps (dual prop, large ASB)
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
780
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:45:00 -
[655] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:
Its also 150 mil.
Price is never a balancing factor. See titan blobs.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
If a ship is going to be 150mil and also terrible, then it just a waste. Look at the eagle. It is "content" but if it removed from the game nothing would change. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
259
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:46:00 -
[656] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying In a fleet, the Sac right now can get over 60k EHP while sporting two BCUs, which is quite nice. While very thankful for the bonus change from cap to something useful, I was sort of hoping for a bit of a dps increase to avoid being completely out-stripped by the Cerberus; it already comes in second place to the Cerberus, which is getting a dps buff. However, increased range is also nice.
On the other hand, I'm very happy with the Cerberus changes :)
|
Desorem
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:48:00 -
[657] - Quote
Vagabond this, vagabond that. Actually, there are two minmatar HACs. I cant really remember name of second one, sine you only can find it in market. Or most likely you cant because there is no idiot who will sell such useless piece of HACness anywhere except Jita.
Ah, its called Muninn. +1 low you say. Oh, nice idea, like giving glasses to blind man. LRHACS generally sucks compared to T3BC, but Muninn not just sucks, it SUCKS. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
781
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:49:00 -
[658] - Quote
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. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
240
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:51:00 -
[659] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: A blaster Diemost will be doing about 0 or slightly above at 25km with T2 LR ammo, what are you complaining about?
Because they are obviously ships designed for the exact same role aren't they. Oh, no wait, they are completely different ships for completely different purposes using completely different weapon systems. You are perfectly correct! The vaga is supposed to do lower dps at a longer range, and the Deimos is supposed to do more dps at shorter range. The vaga should have more speed, and the Deimos more tank. So what are you arguing about again? 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. RANGE CONTROL doesn't mean you're playing wow nightelfe hunter in Eve. Vagabond goes way faster than any other HAC in the game and can perfectly control/mitigate incoming dmg with this specific advantage that is probably the strongest attribute for solo/gang pvp, the reason why cynabals are so good is not really the amount od dps they can push but the ability to dictate range and mitigate incoming dps (dual prop, large ASB)
I dont understand how any of that is relevant. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
227
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:57:00 -
[660] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:
Its also 150 mil.
Price is never a balancing factor. See titan blobs.
If something costs 150m and sucks, nobody will fly it. The idea behind the rebalancing is to get these ships to flyable condition. So either buff it more, or lower the build cost, or nobody will fly it. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
227
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 13:59:00 -
[661] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Vagabond goes way faster than any other HAC in the game and can perfectly control/mitigate incoming dmg
Vagabond, meet Talos.
Say good bye to Vagabond, say hello to capsule. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1043
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:00:00 -
[662] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:I dont understand how any of that is relevant.
And you will never will because you're unable to take your blinders off. Playing with words will not solve your real issue with new Vagabond nor will EFT, play with it a bit and ask guys knowing flying them to help you fit it and fly it properly.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
baltec1
Bat Country
7411
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:02:00 -
[663] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
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.
Diesel47 wrote: If a ship is going to be 150mil and also terrible, then it just a waste. Look at the eagle. It is "content" but if it removed from the game nothing would change.
The vaga will still be the bane of all frigates and one of the best solo small gang cruisers around. Its losing nothing and ganing a somewhat handy new tool and a slight buff to boot. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
630
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:03:00 -
[664] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Vagabond goes way faster than any other HAC in the game and can perfectly control/mitigate incoming dmg
Vagabond, meet Talos. Say good bye to Vagabond, say hello to capsule. I already posted a fit that will buttraep the Talos, but people then answer "The Talos has backup, hurr durr vaga sucks" |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
163
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:04:00 -
[665] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying In a fleet, the Sac right now can get over 60k EHP while sporting two BCUs, which is quite nice. While very thankful for the bonus change from cap to something useful, I was sort of hoping for a bit of a dps increase to avoid being completely out-stripped by the Cerberus; it already comes in second place to the Cerberus, which is getting a dps buff. However, increased range is also nice. On the other hand, I'm very happy with the Cerberus changes :) I bet you are. Because that Cerb will outrun and outmaneuver that Sac and have more HAM range. The Sac may be able to fit for more ehp but that only delays the inevitable. Basically - Cerb too agile, Sac too much a cow, Cerb can be nano'd for further speed and mobility advantage, Sac will be plated (or maar lol) and have worse mobility that the Cerb.
Oh the Sac has a 50/50 drone bay to the Cerb's 15/15. So maybe use 5 web valks? But then giving up dps or no ecm drones. Or could go light drones of different varieties, whatever. The drone bays are largely irrelevant. Of course the Cerb will be simply a better ship (than either Amarr HAC tbh). Mobility and range is everything in EVE combat now it seems. And if any of these ships deserve a 15/15 drone bay it is the Eagle and Zealot, not the Cerb. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
240
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:05:00 -
[666] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:I dont understand how any of that is relevant. And you will never will because you're unable to take your blinders off. Playing with words will not solve your real issue with new Vagabond nor will EFT, play with it a bit and ask guys knowing flying them to help you fit it and fly it properly.
Please go and look at how many kills I have with Med-AC ships including the Vaga.
Then go look at how many you do.
I think I might have played with them a little bit. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
644
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:08:00 -
[667] - Quote
vexor 13 slots navy vexor 14 slots Ishtar 14 slots
surely it should be 15 for the ishtar and all the other hacs 16 slots, would solve a lot of issues just bumping them all up 1 slot, rather than just nerfing the ishtar
omen 14 slots navy omen 15 slots zealot 15 slots OMG when can i get a pic here
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
110
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:09:00 -
[668] - Quote
Just to stop all of the deimos does 0 dps at 20km, vaga should do bad dps too.
A blaster deimos in a shield fit does over 450dps without heat at 20km, a railone over 700. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
782
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:10:00 -
[669] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Diesel47 wrote:
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
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. Diesel47 wrote: If a ship is going to be 150mil and also terrible, then it just a waste. Look at the eagle. It is "content" but if it removed from the game nothing would change.
The vaga will still be the bane of all frigates and one of the best solo small gang cruisers around. Its losing nothing and ganing a somewhat handy new tool and a slight buff to boot.
Resorting to insults when somebody disagrees with what you say. How childish. Stop raging.
You are so wrong its actually quite funny, do you even play this game called eve online? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
631
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:11:00 -
[670] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:I dont understand how any of that is relevant. And you will never will because you're unable to take your blinders off. Playing with words will not solve your real issue with new Vagabond nor will EFT, play with it a bit and ask guys knowing flying them to help you fit it and fly it properly. Please go and look at how many kills I have with Med-AC ships including the Vaga. Then go look at how many you do. I think I might have played with them a little bit. I'll just leave this here |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1043
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:12:00 -
[671] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Then go look at how many you do.
You have no idea what an Angle fleet is or what it does
So lets stay entitled to our positions, yours thinking new Vaga is crap and mine saying new Vaga is fine. Hint: run for you life at the sight of these. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
228
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:13:00 -
[672] - Quote
I think when the Cynabal is nerfed, the Vagabond will again be an OK ship.
However, the Muninn will remain utter crap, until CCP redesign it as a brawler instead of a sniper (a role that the Tornado outclasses the Muninn in every way.) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
631
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:15:00 -
[673] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:I think when the Cynabal is nerfed, the Vagabond will again be an OK ship.
However, the Muninn will remain utter crap, until CCP redesign it as a brawler instead of a sniper (a role that the Tornado outclasses the Muninn in every way.) Tracking and gun signature bro. HUGE difference between the two. |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:16:00 -
[674] - Quote
CCP RISE have you consider those changes to the sacrilige that had about 4 pages of people agreeing on?
did you see that.... |
Saint Hecate
Big Diggers Trifectas Syndicate
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:16:00 -
[675] - Quote
I personally wish the Ishtars bonuses were reversed. Have the Sentry tracking and optimal be the Gallente cruiser skill relation and have the heavy drone bonuses be the HAC skill relation. Its mostly self serving because i dont want to train HAC 5 at the moment and I love sentries :P
Overall the ships look really fun and this is a great patch for a Cruiser fanatic like myself. Its a good thing to have all 4 cruisers to 5!
Keep the reworks rollin!
Saint |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
242
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:19:00 -
[676] - Quote
I have no idea what's going on in this thread at this point.
Essentially, changes look pretty promising, I'm unconvinced the Muninn has much use and the Vaga changes improves none of the actual problems of the Hull (DPS/Projection) so that's about it really.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
228
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:22:00 -
[677] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:I think when the Cynabal is nerfed, the Vagabond will again be an OK ship.
However, the Muninn will remain utter crap, until CCP redesign it as a brawler instead of a sniper (a role that the Tornado outclasses the Muninn in every way.) Tracking and gun signature bro. HUGE difference between the two.
That explains why Muninns are everywhere and Tornados are hardly ever used--oh wait...
Guns sig plays a marginal role in damage application compared to missiles, and it hardly makes the Muninn better. Tracking? At 100km anything can be tracked by 1400s, and since the Tornado has about double the range the tracking arguement is irrelevant, the Tornado can fight from further back and therefore track better and avoid damage better.
Muninn still sucks and Tornado still outclasses it. Plus the Tornado costs less and has insurance payouts.
***There is a reason nullsec alliances used the Tornado over the Muninn.*** How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1180
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:24:00 -
[678] - Quote
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!
Please rise the diemos wants to be a mini mega.... Make it so. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1043
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:25:00 -
[679] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:However, the Muninn will remain utter crap, until CCP redesign it as a brawler instead of a sniper (a role that the Tornado outclasses the Muninn in every way.)
And the main issue here is Tornado class it self not Munnin after changes despite my own personal thought on this ship requiring a bit more of attention.
Munnin can already brawl fit and deliver stupid amounts of dps but it's slow, arty fit it will be like all other HACs:
Rails Deimos vs Rails Talos? no match, Talos wins
Beam Zealot vs Beam/Tack Oracle? no match Oracle wins unless the oracle pilot is really awful at fittings
Rails Eagle vs Rails Naga? no match Naga wins, hell I'm sure naga can hit the Eagle with blasters at ranges the Eagle has to use Rails
The main issue now is more about attack BC's performing with Battleship dps cruiser speed/agility and and small signature but have paper tanks, so it's not about pop at the gate and start shooting primaries hitting you from far distances you can hit but force them to fight you at ranges YOU can get the crap out of them. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
baltec1
Bat Country
7411
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:26:00 -
[680] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: Resorting to insults when somebody disagrees with what you say.
If you don't want insulting then don't insult people.
Diesel47 wrote: You are so wrong its actually quite funny, do you even play this game called eve online?
It seems I play more than you. It also seems you arnt grasping what is going on here.
CCP are not going to be producing an overpowered monstrosity. Its going to be balanced with t1, the cynable will getting a nerf and t3s are rather heavy one. When all is said an done its going to be a ship with uses. |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1043
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:26:00 -
[681] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Please rise the diemos wants to be a mini mega.... Make it so.
Ho yeah, me too !! *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
215
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:31:00 -
[682] - Quote
I miss LR HACs.
Is there any chance that something could be done to bring them back? |
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views Accidentally The Whole Thing
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:33:00 -
[683] - Quote
Just a suggestion, but how about swapping the sensor strength buff to a more general buff vs all types of EWar?
Like a 25% reduction to the effectiveness of incoming Electronic warfare, target painters, sensor damps and tracking disruption affects? |
Kane Fenris
NWP
55
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:34:00 -
[684] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: Base DPS is ~500+ using 220's w. faction ammo (duh!) and twin Gyros.
and nealy nothing of those dps applys at its fiting range (kiete) when useing that ammo.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
228
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:34:00 -
[685] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:However, the Muninn will remain utter crap, until CCP redesign it as a brawler instead of a sniper (a role that the Tornado outclasses the Muninn in every way.) And the main issue here is Tornado class it self not Munnin after changes despite my own personal thought on this ship requiring a bit more of attention. Munnin can already brawl fit and deliver stupid amounts of dps but it's slow, arty fit it will be like all other HACs: Rails Deimos vs Rails Talos? no match, Talos wins Beam Zealot vs Beam/Tack Oracle? no match Oracle wins unless the oracle pilot is really awful at fittings Rails Eagle vs Rails Naga? no match Naga wins, hell I'm sure naga can hit the Eagle with blasters at ranges the Eagle has to use Rails The main issue now is more about attack BC's performing with Battleship dps cruiser speed/agility and and small signature but have paper tanks, so it's not about pop at the gate and start shooting primaries hitting you from far distances you can hit but force them to fight you at ranges YOU can get the crap out of them.
Yea ABCs were one of the CCP whoopsies, like Supers and Titans, something they added that EVE would have been better off without.
However, HACs will never be a good alternative to sniper ABCs, unless CCP halves ABC tracking or halves ABC range or something ridiculously gimping. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Desorem
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:36:00 -
[686] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:I think when the Cynabal is nerfed, the Vagabond will again be an OK ship.
However, the Muninn will remain utter crap, until CCP redesign it as a brawler instead of a sniper (a role that the Tornado outclasses the Muninn in every way.) Tracking and gun signature bro. HUGE difference between the two. Two Huginns will make tracking and gun sig insignificant. And most(read as "all not insane") long range fleets will have at least two. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
228
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:37:00 -
[687] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Resorting to insults when somebody disagrees with what you say.
If you don't want insulting then don't insult people. Diesel47 wrote: You are so wrong its actually quite funny, do you even play this game called eve online?
It seems I play more than you. It also seems you arnt grasping what is going on here. CCP are not going to be producing an overpowered monstrosity. Its going to be balanced with t1, the cynable will getting a nerf and t3s are rather heavy one. When all is said an done its going to be a ship with uses.
T3s aren't the real problem with HACs, the problem with HACs is they are too expensive for their potential. HACs need more EHP. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1372
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:38:00 -
[688] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Please rise the diemos wants to be a mini mega.... Make it so. Ho yeah, me too !! I would just like the Deimos to follow the Gallente combat doctrine. We have the Thorax, a close range high damage brawler. The Exequror Navy Issue, a close range high damage brawler. Then there is the Deimos a mid range kitting ship? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
631
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:40:00 -
[689] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Rails Deimos vs Rails Talos? no match, Talos wins
Rails Eagle vs Rails Naga? no match Naga wins, hell I'm sure naga can hit the Eagle with blasters at ranges the Eagle has to use Rails
The main issue now is more about attack BC's performing with Battleship dps cruiser speed/agility and and small signature but have paper tanks, so it's not about pop at the gate and start shooting primaries hitting you from far distances you can hit but force them to fight you at ranges YOU can get the crap out of them.
I'll have you know that the Deimos with 200mm Rails and Hammerheads do the same dps at almost exactly the same range as the Talos with Neutrons loaded with Null, has twice the HP in the relevant damage type and moves at the same speed, so The Deimos will win, no match. It can also fit TD and has low sig to reduce the Talos DPS even further.
The Eagle can be fit to have the same range as the Naga, twice the tracking, twice the EHP, but 500 dps vs 750 dps. 100m/s faster though. |
jimmy alt
Creative Export
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:41:00 -
[690] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying
I have to agree on that the Sac or [this is my own opinion] any Hac should not have a utility high. The Sac's utility high should go to it's Low slot giving it 6. 5 is to low for this armor tanker. The Vega & Muninn utility high should go to there mid slots. Yes a Vega with 5/5/5 + the shield boots buff = better then Cynabal. No one armor tanks Muninn and a extra mid would be grateful. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
7411
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:47:00 -
[691] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
T3s aren't the real problem with HACs, the problem with HACs is they are too expensive for their potential. HACs need more EHP.
That would make the t1 ships redundant.
A HAC can be paid for in an hour of incursions and still have leftover change for a t2 frigate. They aren't that expensive and will hold a very real advantage over the t1 hulls although, not enough to make them invulnerable. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
259
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:48:00 -
[692] - Quote
HazeInADaze wrote:I think the cerb and Ishtar are now upgrades like the zealot is over the omen. And I think that us just fine - climbing into a HAC should feel like power. Agreed. People do like progression paths, so knowing that you get to work towards something better than what you have while performing the same (or similar) role is nice to have as well. The Basilisk is a direct upgrade over the Osprey, for example, so why shouldn't there exist others?
The T1 cruisers have nice stats, especially now. The T2 cruisers should have better stats, because of a higher skill requirement and higher cost. And that's fine.
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:50:00 -
[693] - Quote
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.
Self-quoting bump because folks seem to like this idea and dear CCP Rise should read it and comment on it, because it's a perfectly balanced solution to a questionable ship. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
347
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:53:00 -
[694] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote:But I think you are wrong, the common trend is that people want HACs that have clear roles and that are worth 150mil extra over the normal T1 and 50mil extra for the Navy Ships. Right now outside the Ishtar and the Zealot they are not.
To be honest since the T1 cruiser rebalance the only T2 cruiser that has a clear role over a T1 has been the HIC hulls. I think more people would be satisfied if HACs had a similar clear defined role. What is the purpose of a HAC, and what advantage do you have flying it over, the T1 cruisers, Navy Cruiser, ABC, Navy BC, or CBCs? Right not too many. According to CCP's own plan those T1 ships are suppose more general and able to be a bit more adaptable. As a T2 ship a HAC should have clear area where it is maybe not king, but at least Duke or Crown Prince.
Zealots role, low sig heavy tank fleet ship...check, Ishtar low sig heavy drone (sentry) platform...check. Are the clearly better than their T1 counterparts...Yes. Are similar ships hulls or types of ships still useful and have role...yes. Harby cheaper, but at cost of higher sig. Vexor Navy Issue, cheaper more light - medium drone platform.
Does the Deimos have a clear role, no cause the DPS it has within reasonable range of the T1, and EVI, while being out DPSed by a gank Brutix. Okay Shield Rail Kite? While it beats the Thorax, it is still too close to the EVI DPS wise and the EVI is faster. And of course the Talos will still outdo it as Kiter. Does it have clear role? No it doesn't. The Eagle is in the same boat as two ships the Naga and Rohk both do what it supposed to at long range better. And as a brawler it has some promise, but the lack of a damage bonus means that it will be hard press to get enough DPS out to be truly effective.
Right now most Navy Ships, All Pirate ships, and tech 3 ships are better HACs than the HACs are. Why, simple HAC's have no clear goal. Everyone (including myself) have a different ideas on what that goal supposed to be, but with so many other ships that fill their "supposed role" as good (Navy Cruisers, CBC's) or better (Pirate Cruisers, Navy BC's, ABC's, and Tech 3's) people with either choose the cheaper ship because it more of throw away or more the expensive ship because it has better survivability.
That is what I read on this thread
This post is more interesting than most : role of HAC is the corner point of the debate in fact (except for some insane people who want their HAC to be powerhouse in the fashion of T3 when these are due for a nerf).
CCP Rise said that they want HAC to have a similar place than AF but at their cruiser scale. So first, let's see what is the place of AF : AF have around destroyer firepower and tank (some have more, some have less, but the average should be close), but with T2 resist, a bit more speed yet a lot less than frigates, and this MWD bonus.
Most people will agree that AF are rather well balanced because they are more survivable than destroyers grace to their resist, sig and speed but don't obsolete frigate because of their so much lower speed. Faction frigate clearly are frigates whereas AF have more in common with destroyers in fact.
What to do with cruisers then ? The problem with cruisers is that they are much more diverse than frigates in some ways : their speed goes from frigate like (hello Stabber and ScFI) to BC like (hello Maller), and their dps do the same (from the Stabber to the Navy Exequror, more or less).
With all this in mind, let's look at these future HAC : their speed is between combat and attack cruisers, way above CBC, and around ABC. Their tank is between combat cruisers and combat BC, and now their electronic and capacitor is better than CBC. So what to expect ? On the survivability level, I think there's no reason not to suppose they will fare as well under medium to large weapon fire than AF fare under small to medium weapon fire. If any, a little more hp would bring them where they need to be, but we should remember that they are a lot faster than BC than AF are faster than destroyers. For firepower, their gun size and dps will allow them to shoot everything from their size and above.
And finaly, like AF are able to take on any T1 or faction frigate and destroyer, I don't see any of these HAC incapable of taking on any T1 or faction cruiser or battlecruiser.
To simplify, like AF are destroyers without the vulnerability to cruisers, HAC are BC without the vulnerability to BS.
To be clear, I think these HAC are heavy cruisers, and their MWD bonus will allow them to be particularly effective against targets with larger guns. Pretty much what AHAC already do, but they will now be able to do it with a MWD. Their resistances make them particularly good with logi support ; their signature make them resilient to large gun ; and their firepower and tank make them good for cruiser defense ; like AF make good fleet escort against frigates, these HAC will be good fleet escort against cruisers IMO. That only generalities of course, but can we do more ? And if people are unable to see a use for high resistances and reduced signature, there's nothing to do to help them... |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1126
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:59:00 -
[695] - Quote
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. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
228
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 14:59:00 -
[696] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:
T3s aren't the real problem with HACs, the problem with HACs is they are too expensive for their potential. HACs need more EHP.
That would make the t1 ships redundant. A HAC can be paid for in an hour of incursions and still have leftover change for a t2 frigate. They aren't that expensive and will hold a very real advantage over the t1 hulls although, not enough to make them invulnerable.
Except not all of us are still running incursions in 5b Nightmares
That just proves that the only people who would fly these "buffed" HACs are the stupid and the stupidly rich. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Deirdre Anethoel
Antimatter Delivery Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:01:00 -
[697] - Quote
Overall, I think the hac changes are half assed and don't tackle the real problems of the ship class. T2 ships are supposed to offer something new, different and specialized to compensate for their price. Hacs offer nothing different, and as such, are pretty bad and will either remain so or become overpowered and crush the other competitors on this niche. They need something new, and 50% reduction in sig penalty with mwd isn't enough (in a major fight, if you're targetted, it's pretty likely you're webbed and target painted anyway). Something fun to give them may be a way to resist webs and points (for example, their speed would be unable to drop under a % of their max speed, and reverse for their sig, unable to go up a certain % of their base sig), to reduce a little bit the effect of support on hitting on smaller targets (in large scale fleets, once you're primaried, your speed is going to drop and your sig explode under webs and paints). May make them more viable without stepping on the other combat options. Just an idea, I think they are other ways of giving them a solid role, but they need one.
Hacs need a role. And sniper shouldn't be the only one we're looking at. They are heavy cruisers. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
784
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:02:00 -
[698] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Resorting to insults when somebody disagrees with what you say.
If you don't want insulting then don't insult people.
Telling you that you are wrong isn't an insult.
Calm down, your rage is irritating. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:02:00 -
[699] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius 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. Self-quoting bump because folks seem to like this idea and dear CCP Rise should read it and comment on it, because it's a perfectly balanced solution to a questionable ship.
THIS needs to remain visible. Whoever wants the SAC to become USEFUL instead of irrelevant is going to back this up. Please CCP, be reasonable and give it a serious thought.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
7411
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:10:00 -
[700] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Except not all of us are still running incursions in 5b Nightmares 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.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
7412
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:13:00 -
[701] - Quote
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
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1027
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:14:00 -
[702] - Quote
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
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
380
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:17:00 -
[703] - Quote
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 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
228
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:17:00 -
[704] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Except not all of us are still running incursions in 5b Nightmares 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
7412
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:17:00 -
[705] - Quote
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
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
260
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:20:00 -
[706] - Quote
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
Bad Men Ltd.
786
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:21:00 -
[707] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:baltec1 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Except not all of us are still running incursions in 5b Nightmares 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
7412
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:22:00 -
[708] - Quote
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
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:24:00 -
[709] - Quote
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
Mentally Assured Destruction
465
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:25:00 -
[710] - Quote
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. |
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1028
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:27:00 -
[711] - Quote
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
1128
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:28:00 -
[712] - Quote
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. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
786
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:30:00 -
[713] - Quote
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. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
230
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:32:00 -
[714] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:baltec1 wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Except not all of us are still running incursions in 5b Nightmares 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 How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
786
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:34:00 -
[715] - Quote
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 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
wtf , 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 . |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
230
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:34:00 -
[716] - Quote
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
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
230
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:38:00 -
[717] - Quote
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 .
You didn't specify who you were talking about, seemed like you were calling me out on my PVP knowledge 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
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:39:00 -
[718] - Quote
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
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
380
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:45:00 -
[719] - Quote
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 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:47:00 -
[720] - Quote
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. |
|
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
266
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:48:00 -
[721] - Quote
150 sig radius on the Deimos is still too high. It needs to be around 135 or 140.
Can we please move one of the med slots on the Ishtar to a low slot? Also what is your worry about the Ishtar? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
382
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:54:00 -
[722] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: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.
Does anyone else fell like they are hitting their head against a brick wall? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
231
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:04:00 -
[723] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I'm Down wrote: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. Does anyone else fell like they are hitting their head against a brick wall?
Yea, its like the old CCP mentality of "we know best and to hell with everyone else". How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Gneeznow
L'Avant Garde
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:06:00 -
[724] - Quote
Another big issue with these HAC changes which a lot of people have brought up is their price. They're simply not worth the isk, They were just about worth it back in 2010 when they were 90 mil a pop. Now they're 150 mil for these 8 ships that have been left far behind because of power creep in the game (Attack BCs, Faction Cruisers, revamped tech 1)
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
786
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:09:00 -
[725] - Quote
Gneeznow wrote:Another big issue with these HAC changes which a lot of people have brought up is their price. They're simply not worth the isk, They were just about worth it back in 2010 when they were 90 mil a pop. Now they're 150 mil for these 8 ships that have been left far behind because of power creep in the game (Attack BCs, Faction Cruisers, revamped tech 1)
They cost 150mil because of their cost to make. The materials become more expensive.
|
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:10:00 -
[726] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:I'm Down wrote: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. Does anyone else fell like they are hitting their head against a brick wall? Yea, its like the old CCP mentality of "we know best and to hell with everyone else".
This is their chance to prove you wrong. I got the feeling you would love to be wrong. Hell i would love to be wrong too because i feel the same as you.
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:12:00 -
[727] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius 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. Self-quoting bump because folks seem to like this idea and dear CCP Rise should read it and comment on it, because it's a perfectly balanced solution to a questionable ship.
not empty quoting
IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
231
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:12:00 -
[728] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:I'm Down wrote: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. Does anyone else fell like they are hitting their head against a brick wall? Yea, its like the old CCP mentality of "we know best and to hell with everyone else". This is their chance to prove you wrong. I got the feeling you would love to be wrong. Hell i would love to be wrong too because i feel the same as you.
This is one case where I would love nothing more than to be wrong. They were doing great up until now, their changes made sense and made ships worth the cost.
Now they are ignoring suggestions (except for giving the Ishtar more CPU) to make HACs viable and it doesn't look like they'll do a third round. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:19:00 -
[729] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: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.
I will translate the following:
Quote: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.
I have read the forum and you guys are really wasting your time since I was planning on making the changes that I wanted to make anyways and not listen to you 100 pages of post. Please feel free to continue posting so I can ignore them yet again in a few days.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
7416
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:19:00 -
[730] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
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.
Navy mega are better than normal mega at most things but not by a lot.
Also you should look up our cruiser doctrines, the celestis is a very well like ship indeed. Easy to fly ships are very much wanted by the CFC. We aim out nerf requests towards things that need the bat for the wellbeing of the whole game. Why else would we demand tech nerfed? |
|
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard Bright Side of Death
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:22:00 -
[731] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: They cost 150mil because of their cost to make. The materials become more expensive.
They cost 2 hours today, and theyr cost in 2010 is 100 minutes. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
382
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:34:00 -
[732] - Quote
we are pretty much seeing the same things said as before .... All rise did was change things we didn't even ask for the most part and left the things that we do want to be changed as is...
Bottom line here is we are the customers and the vast majority of posters here are still unhappy on many small ship specifics like making the eagle a viable blaster ship with decent dps and on larger issues like price, role, viability, slots, dodgy bonuses, sig radius/mwd bonus...... and all he gave us was 5m/s on a few ships slightly more fittings on ships that you couldn't fit properly and lock range ... not sure why we need such high lock range... and granted some nice ecm resistance. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Gneeznow
L'Avant Garde
95
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:37:00 -
[733] - Quote
Vizvig wrote:Diesel47 wrote: They cost 150mil because of their cost to make. The materials become more expensive.
They cost 2 hours today, and theyr cost in 2010 is 100 minutes.
I like how you assume everyone in the game makes isk at the same rate you do |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:37:00 -
[734] - Quote
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! Translation:
"Thank you for all your constructive comments and suggestions, but we've decided that you don't really know what these ships are good at, or even what they should be used for. We do, and we're not going to tell you.
Suffice it to say that all of our previous assertions regarding Tech2 specializations were simply to give the playerbase some hope for the future, and after the massive boost given to the Tech1's and Navy cruisers, we are at a loss as to how to give the HAC hulls a distinct specialization, so we're going to conveniently ignore that part.
We already recognize that a few of these HACs will be popular, and the rest will remain on the shelf, so to speak, but as the number of popular HACs is anticipated to increase from the currently used two (Zealot and Vagabond) to FOUR (Zealot, Vaga, Ishtar and Cerb), we're pretty happy with that.
Again, thank you for all the time, effort and thought that you have put into two threads now. We know that you are passionate about having a gaming experience that is fun and rewarding, and understand that you saw a unique opportunity to enhance a game that we all love in an underused and much-needed area. Sorry it won't work out that way."
[/me is almost disgusted with herself for getting her hopes up]
Let's take a quick look at the 4 that will likely be popular in 1.1:
Zealot - The current baseline. Good sig (AB), great dmg projection, decent tank, holds up well under reps Vagabond - 1/2 speed, 1/2 shield thank. only lacking *a little* in projection, otherwise fine PROPOSED Ishtar - some nice changes here, only concern is that it's being forced into a shield tank role (ref. Gallente lore). :Drones: aside, great projection. PROPOSED Cerberus - Finally enough dps, great projection, nice speed
What I see all of these having in common? DPS, and the ability to apply that DPS. These feature a winning combination of Speed, Sig, DPS and dmg projection. A large portion of their survivability comes directly from the T2 resist profiles, but also have the capability of fitting a significant tank without unduly impacting the ability to land hits on target.
Now for the other 4. Perhaps not surprisingly, these four are the ones that don't have the combination of speed & projection...
Sacrilege - Slow as balls. Option to EITHER fit tank OR fit dps, and even if you fit dps it's still not going to be impressive. Bonus to HML is nice, but low dps makes that fit unlikely. Bonus to HAM range will mitigate speed disadvantage somewhat, but closing range will still be an issue. Used to be able to dual active tank like a boss... not so much soon(TM). RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Keep the dps where it is, change the missile velocity bonus to explosion radius or explosion velocity. 25m3 drones. +1 low or move the utility high to a low. (personal wish list: Please roll the whole cap bonus into the hull).
Eagle - Also slow as balls. Slower than even the Sac. How is this thing supposed to brawl? Is it supposed to brawl? Dual optimal range bonuses imply 'sniper,' but that's a role better filled by ABC's. The only HAC of these four that has only a single damage bonus, giving it weaker raw dps than pretty much anything with a cruiser-sized gun mount. RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: If you want it to be able to brawl, drop one optimal bonus for another damage bonus to give it some alpha. Increase speed to 200 so it can compete. If you're going for a dedicated sniper platform, then drop the shield resist bonus for extra tracking. Medium rails will thank you.
Deimos - It can bring the pain, it just has trouble bringing it close enough... Especially if you take 10-15% of its raw hit points away. The MWD capacitor bonus is rendered superfluous by the proposed cap recharge rates. Personal pet peeve: Why do the Gallente hulls have more structure hit points than shield or armor? Haven't they read the "Hull Tanking Elite" certificate writeup? RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Don't be daft - give this thing some armor hit points to work with. Also, drop the MWD bonus in favor of a bonus that either allows blaster dps to be applied at range or increases tracking. This thing already does beastly dps, so reduce the dronebay to 25m3. Web range bonus might also be an option.
Munin - Good arty platform, but completely overshadowed by Tornadoes. Optimal range bonus does ~nothing for autocannons. Only 3 mids severely limits the fitting options. RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Give Autocannons some love. Change the 10% optimal bonus to 5% optimal and 5% falloff. Smooth the T2 resist profile on this one to be slightly more uniform. Boost armor HP to 2200. Consider moving the utility high to a mid.
For these last four, can you PLEASE consider a different Role bonus than the MWD bloom? And PLEASE consider 16 fitting slots?
Still throwing in my 2 cents, even though I honestly doubt Rise is actually listening... |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:40:00 -
[735] - Quote
I want to reiterate that the Deimos being left with the outdated MWD cap bonus is wrong for the same reasons it was bad on the Thorax, just like you decided to change the speed bonus on the Stabber and Vagabond, you should change that old bonus on the Deimos.
Give the Deimos an armor rep bonus that is also inline with the Gallente line of ships and integrate that MWD cap bonus into the hull.
CCP Rise wrote:We wanted to replace the outdated base speed bonus with something that would be fun and interesting but wouldn't have a huge effect on the power of the ship, as it was already the second most used HAC. CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales. I find it really annoying how you can follow one line of logic for one racial line of ships and not another; this exact same logic applies for the Deimos being left with the MWD cap bonus, yet you're fine leaving it in there? |
baltec1
Bat Country
7416
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:42:00 -
[736] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:we are pretty much seeing the same things said as before .... All rise did was change things we didn't even ask for the most part and left the things that we do want to be changed as is...
Bottom line here is we are the customers and the vast majority of posters here are still unhappy on many small ship specifics like making the eagle a viable blaster ship with decent dps and on larger issues like price, role, viability, slots, dodgy bonuses, sig radius/mwd bonus...... and all he gave us was 5m/s on a few ships slightly more fittings on ships that you couldn't fit properly and lock range ... not sure why we need such high lock range... and granted some nice ecm resistance.
We also welcomed with open arms things like the titans, t3 cruisers and ABC.
|
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
266
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:43:00 -
[737] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:I want to reiterate that the Deimos being left with the outdated MWD cap bonus is wrong for the same reasons it was bad on the Thorax, just like you decided to change the speed bonus on the Stabber and Vagabond, you should change that old bonus on the Deimos. Give the Deimos an armor rep bonus that is also inline with the Gallente line of ships and integrate that MWD cap bonus into the hull. CCP Rise wrote:We wanted to replace the outdated base speed bonus with something that would be fun and interesting but wouldn't have a huge effect on the power of the ship, as it was already the second most used HAC. CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales. I find it really annoying how you can follow one line of logic for one racial line of ships and not another; this exact same logic applies for the Deimos being left with the MWD cap bonus, yet you're fine leaving it in there?
I hate to agree, but give the Deimos the armor rep bonus. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7416
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:44:00 -
[738] - Quote
Gneeznow wrote:Vizvig wrote:Diesel47 wrote: They cost 150mil because of their cost to make. The materials become more expensive.
They cost 2 hours today, and theyr cost in 2010 is 100 minutes. I like how you assume everyone in the game makes isk at the same rate you do
Its only level 4 mission income we are talking about, hardly something special. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
231
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:46:00 -
[739] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:we are pretty much seeing the same things said as before .... All rise did was change things we didn't even ask for the most part and left the things that we do want to be changed as is...
Bottom line here is we are the customers and the vast majority of posters here are still unhappy on many small ship specifics like making the eagle a viable blaster ship with decent dps and on larger issues like price, role, viability, slots, dodgy bonuses, sig radius/mwd bonus...... and all he gave us was 5m/s on a few ships slightly more fittings on ships that you couldn't fit properly and lock range ... not sure why we need such high lock range... and granted some nice ecm resistance. We also welcomed with open arms things like the titans, t3 cruisers and ABC.
You weren't kidding about the titans...
T3s really aren't OP, they're well balanced. After all, you scrapped your 250k EHP Tengu fleet for Megas and Caracals for a reason. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
167
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:54:00 -
[740] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:150 sig radius on the Deimos is still too high. It needs to be around 135 or 140.
Can we please move one of the med slots on the Ishtar to a low slot? Also what is your worry about the Ishtar?
Please leave the mid slots on the Ishtar alone. That ship is in a good place. |
|
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:55:00 -
[741] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:I want to reiterate that the Deimos being left with the outdated MWD cap bonus is wrong for the same reasons it was bad on the Thorax, just like you decided to change the speed bonus on the Stabber and Vagabond, you should change that old bonus on the Deimos. Give the Deimos an armor rep bonus that is also inline with the Gallente line of ships and integrate that MWD cap bonus into the hull. CCP Rise wrote:We wanted to replace the outdated base speed bonus with something that would be fun and interesting but wouldn't have a huge effect on the power of the ship, as it was already the second most used HAC. CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales. I find it really annoying how you can follow one line of logic for one racial line of ships and not another; this exact same logic applies for the Deimos being left with the MWD cap bonus, yet you're fine leaving it in there? I hate to agree, but give the Deimos the armor rep bonus.
An armor rep bonus would be better than the MWD bonus, but still bad unless CCP intends to fix the deficiencies of active armor tanking in Odyssey 1.1 as well.
Give it a tracking bonus and higher base armor hp. Or hell, give it tracking + armor repair instead of falloff + MWD cap -- I don't think that combination exists on any current ship, so it would still be unique and interesting. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
215
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 16:57:00 -
[742] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:I miss LR HACs.
Is there any chance that something could be done to bring them back? What would be the technical cost of introducing a role bonus to the HAC line that reduces the effective range of warp disruptors used against them?
Assuming you do not want to increase the base sensor strength of HACs any more than you already have and you do not want to reduce their signature radius any further, would it be possible to give them a role bonus that in some other way reduces the effectiveness of combat probes used against them?
Those two measures could go a long way to bringing some strength (and a unique role) back to HACs as skirmishers while still justifying their high cost versus the alternatives. |
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard Bright Side of Death
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:14:00 -
[743] - Quote
Gneeznow wrote: I like how you assume everyone in the game makes isk at the same rate you do
For average single character (not player), if you has better than average give interviev on TV how you do it, if they want listen it .
If shorter lesser than average... |
Natalia Drops
Daddy gonna PLEX you up
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:22:00 -
[744] - Quote
Officially chomping at the bit to get all this goodness up on SiSi for some testing
Looking good so far guys. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:23:00 -
[745] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote: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! Translation: "Thank you for all your constructive comments and suggestions, but we've decided that you don't really know what these ships are good at, or even what they should be used for. We do, and we're not going to tell you. Suffice it to say that all of our previous assertions regarding Tech2 specializations were simply to give the playerbase some hope for the future, and after the massive boost given to the Tech1's and Navy cruisers, we are at a loss as to how to give the HAC hulls a distinct specialization, so we're going to conveniently ignore that part. We already recognize that a few of these HACs will be popular, and the rest will remain on the shelf, so to speak, but as the number of popular HACs is anticipated to increase from the currently used two (Zealot and Vagabond) to FOUR (Zealot, Vaga, Ishtar and Cerb), we're pretty happy with that. Again, thank you for all the time, effort and thought that you have put into two threads now. We know that you are passionate about having a gaming experience that is fun and rewarding, and understand that you saw a unique opportunity to enhance a game that we all love in an underused and much-needed area. Sorry it won't work out that way." [/me is almost disgusted with herself for getting her hopes up] Let's take a quick look at the 4 that will likely be popular in 1.1: Zealot - The current baseline. Good sig (AB), great dmg projection, decent tank, holds up well under reps Vagabond - 1/2 speed, 1/2 shield thank. only lacking *a little* in projection, otherwise fine PROPOSED Ishtar - some nice changes here, only concern is that it's being forced into a shield tank role (ref. Gallente lore). :Drones: aside, great projection. PROPOSED Cerberus - Finally enough dps, great projection, nice speed What I see all of these having in common? DPS, and the ability to apply that DPS. These feature a winning combination of Speed, Sig, DPS and dmg projection. A large portion of their survivability comes directly from the T2 resist profiles, but also have the capability of fitting a significant tank without unduly impacting the ability to land hits on target. Now for the other 4. Perhaps not surprisingly, these four are the ones that don't have the combination of speed & projection... Sacrilege - Slow as balls. Option to EITHER fit tank OR fit dps, and even if you fit dps it's still not going to be impressive. Bonus to HML is nice, but low dps makes that fit unlikely. Bonus to HAM range will mitigate speed disadvantage somewhat, but closing range will still be an issue. Used to be able to dual active tank like a boss... not so much soon(TM). RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Keep the dps where it is, change the missile velocity bonus to explosion radius or explosion velocity. 25m3 drones. +1 low or move the utility high to a low. (personal wish list: Please roll the whole cap bonus into the hull). Eagle - Also slow as balls. Slower than even the Sac. How is this thing supposed to brawl? Is it supposed to brawl? Dual optimal range bonuses imply 'sniper,' but that's a role better filled by ABC's. The only HAC of these four that has only a single damage bonus, giving it weaker raw dps than pretty much anything with a cruiser-sized gun mount. RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: If you want it to be able to brawl, drop one optimal bonus for another damage bonus to give it some alpha. Increase speed to 200 so it can compete. If you're going for a dedicated sniper platform, then drop the shield resist bonus for extra tracking. Medium rails will thank you. Deimos - It can bring the pain, it just has trouble bringing it close enough... Especially if you take 10-15% of its raw hit points away. The MWD capacitor bonus is rendered superfluous by the proposed cap recharge rates. Personal pet peeve: Why do the Gallente hulls have more structure hit points than shield or armor? Haven't they read the "Hull Tanking Elite" certificate writeup? RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Don't be daft - give this thing some armor hit points to work with. Also, drop the MWD bonus in favor of a bonus that either allows blaster dps to be applied at range or increases tracking. This thing already does beastly dps, so reduce the dronebay to 25m3. Web range bonus might also be an option. Munin - Good arty platform, but completely overshadowed by Tornadoes. Optimal range bonus does ~nothing for autocannons. Only 3 mids severely limits the fitting options. RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Give Autocannons some love. Change the 10% optimal bonus to 5% optimal and 5% falloff. Smooth the T2 resist profile on this one to be slightly more uniform. Boost armor HP to 2200. Consider moving the utility high to a mid. For these last four, can you PLEASE consider a different Role bonus than the MWD bloom? And PLEASE consider 16 fitting slots? Still throwing in my 2 cents, even though I honestly doubt Rise is actually listening...
Your logic is so sound that I'm starting to fall in love with you darling. In all seriousness, you nailed the whole problem accurately. Take notes CCP!
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1183
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:23:00 -
[746] - Quote
Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
382
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:23:00 -
[747] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:I miss LR HACs.
Is there any chance that something could be done to bring them back? What would be the technical cost of introducing a role bonus to the HAC line that reduces the effective range of warp disruptors used against them? Assuming you do not want to increase the base sensor strength of HACs any more than you already have and you do not want to reduce their signature radius any further, would it be possible to give them a role bonus that in some other way reduces the effectiveness of combat probes used against them? Those two measures could go a long way to bringing some strength (and a unique role) back to HACs as skirmishers while still justifying their high cost versus the alternatives.
some web resistance would be a nice bonus 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
382
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:25:00 -
[748] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due...
no point in a tracking bonus as the thorax already has it ... a stronger falloff bonus or a second one makes more sense 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1373
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:32:00 -
[749] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due... no point in a tracking bonus as the thorax already has it ... a stronger falloff bonus or a second one makes more sense A fall off bonus is worthless compared to a tracking bonus, you should be within web and scram range with blasters anyway. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:34:00 -
[750] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:nikar galvren wrote: [wall of despair] snip! [/wall of despair]
Your logic is so sound that I'm starting to fall in love with you darling. In all seriousness, you nailed the whole problem accurately. Take notes CCP! BTW: Liked
Thank you. I seriously hope that CCP is taking notes. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
382
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:35:00 -
[751] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due... no point in a tracking bonus as the thorax already has it ... a stronger falloff bonus or a second one makes more sense A fall off bonus is worthless compared to a tracking bonus, you should be within web and scram range with blasters anyway.
you don't have too if you have the range much like the Talos who kites 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4419
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:38:00 -
[752] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due... no point in a tracking bonus as the thorax already has it ... a stronger falloff bonus or a second one makes more sense I think I'd still look more closely at a bonus to reduce sig radius. The Deimos does plenty of damage and should now be fast enough to deliver it, but a lot of it's focus should be on survivability (done in a way that doesn't harm it's ability to get damage on target). While it will be a very viable rail platform now, with blasters it's going to be in extremely close and a sig bonus helps not only get them in there alive, but stay alive once they get there. And if you do go rails, a low sig certainly doesn't hurt... especially combined with it's role bonus. I'd love to see it go from one of the least survivable ships in the game to one of the most survivable ships in the game (at least in a small gang setting). To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1224
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:41:00 -
[753] - Quote
I'm kind of OK with most of these. Boring as **** but ok.
Only thing is that i think the Sac should get an application bonus instead of a blobbing bonus.
Cerb should get something more useful then a flight time bonus.
Deimos should get a rep bonus instead of the MWD cap bonus.
I know you really want to fit a deimos with rails for some bizare reason but i see no compelling reason to use it over a navy exeq for that. I would much rather you make it a proper blaster brawler.
Eagle should have a bonus that makes all aBC's on grid spontanioiusly explode, then it might get used. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:41:00 -
[754] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
RANGE CONTROL doesn't mean you're playing wow nightelfe hunter in Eve. Vagabond goes way faster than any other HAC in the game and can perfectly control/mitigate incoming dmg with this specific advantage that is probably the strongest attribute for solo/gang pvp, the reason why cynabals are so good is not really the amount od dps they can push but the ability to dictate range and mitigate incoming dps (dual prop, large ASB)
I dont understand how any of that is relevant.
You, Danny John-Peter, are literally too stupid to insult |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1373
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:41:00 -
[755] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Hmm not sure what's more useful for the diemos tracking or falloff... If the ship is meant to be an ahac with rails and antimatter I guess falloff is useful as it can double effective range with a tc plus script. But tracking increases cth inside of optimal which is something falloff does not due... no point in a tracking bonus as the thorax already has it ... a stronger falloff bonus or a second one makes more sense A fall off bonus is worthless compared to a tracking bonus, you should be within web and scram range with blasters anyway. you don't have too if you have the range much like the Talos who kites But it is not a Talos, they use two completely different size weapon, are two completely different classes of ships. Trying to force the Deimos into that role with a falloff bonus is a mistake. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Snape Dieboldmotor
Perkone Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:43:00 -
[756] - Quote
Does anybody think the ishtar is overpowered? I'll be curious to see how it compares on the test server.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
215
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:44:00 -
[757] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:I miss LR HACs.
Is there any chance that something could be done to bring them back? What would be the technical cost of introducing a role bonus to the HAC line that reduces the effective range of warp disruptors used against them? Assuming you do not want to increase the base sensor strength of HACs any more than you already have and you do not want to reduce their signature radius any further, would it be possible to give them a role bonus that in some other way reduces the effectiveness of combat probes used against them? Those two measures could go a long way to bringing some strength (and a unique role) back to HACs as skirmishers while still justifying their high cost versus the alternatives. some web resistance would be a nice bonus I think that web or scram resistance would be seriously overpowered, particularly given the potency of current ABHACs.
What you need in a skirmisher is a ship that finds it a little easier to disengage than other vessels. Frigates and destroyers can manage this to a good degree due to speed and agility. For a class of cruisers to be able to do it to a limited degree would be a wonderous thing.
If you go brawling or you get brawled, you will void that ability to disengage as you get tackled down, but that's the kind of dynamic you want. |
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:44:00 -
[758] - Quote
EPILOGUE
Summary of two threads: out of eight hacs 2 was actually boosted and the rest was left to either stay crap or as they are now with minor cosmetic changes. Some fluff was later added to make them look good on paper but in the long run it really means nothing. Giving tham that much needed mobility to make them distinct from other ship classes was that one thing CCP didn't want to do. Therfor most HAC's will remain as of today, mostly unused and laughed at, because there are better ships for the jobb.
THE END |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4419
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:45:00 -
[759] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:I'm kind of OK with most of these. Boring as **** but ok.
Only thing is that i think the Sac should get an application bonus instead of a blobbing bonus.
Cerb should get something more useful then a flight time bonus.
Deimos should get a rep bonus instead of the MWD cap bonus.
I know you really want to fit a deimos with rails for some bizare reason but i see no compelling reason to use it over a navy exeq for that. I would much rather you make it a proper blaster brawler.
Eagle should have a bonus that makes all aBC's on grid spontanioiusly explode, then it might get used. I'd like to see the Eagle get a significant tracking bonus personally. Making it absolutely lethal against support, and would certainly also help it out in the mythical duel between it and a Naga or Talos (better damage application and better tank). To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
85
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:50:00 -
[760] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with.
...
The Vaga, as you have it now, is ****. It's not a kiter and it's a poor brawler. Used to be an awesome solo ship and now..... :(
Since you insist on having an XLASB on there we will be alpha'd off the field if we come across a gang with a Tornado and any other ship. Yes we don't have to fit one to not fit one would force us into anemic DPS with smaller guns.
It's not that the Cynabal is too good relative to the Vaga. It's better performance for the cost. Vagas are just too expensive for what you are proposing. It's original role was as a kiting solo ship.
Cynabal, SFI and even the stabber is better performance for the ISK. It really saddens me but, like I said before, I'll put my Vaga away for another day. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
185
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 17:55:00 -
[761] - Quote
Thorvik wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with.
...
The Vaga, as you have it now, is ****. It's not a kiter and it's a poor brawler. Used to be an awesome solo ship and now..... :( Since you insist on having an XLASB on there we will be alpha'd off the field if we come across a gang with a Tornado and any other ship. Yes we don't have to fit one to not fit one would force us into anemic DPS with smaller guns. It's not that the Cynabal is too good relative to the Vaga. It's better performance for the cost. Vagas are just too expensive for what you are proposing. It's original role was as a kiting solo ship. Cynabal, SFI and even the stabber is better performance for the ISK. It really saddens me but, like I said before, I'll put my Vaga away for another day.
Even the AB 425 auto shield fleet setup is going to take a big hit because of the further nerf to Tracking enhancers. Vaga fleet was one of the few fun things left for hacs ahead of this patch, and it was in no way OP. Who knew a hac that could go 1200 m/s with AB on, but relatvely smal tank (75k ehp) and strong resist would actually be fun.... nope guys, turn your eyes away, no role idea there. Lets nuke it's range thereby eliminating it from contention. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:02:00 -
[762] - Quote
there are still tracking computers instead of TEs you know IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
790
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:02:00 -
[763] - Quote
Change the vaga so arties are good on them.
I feel like there are not enough ships that use medium arties to an extent worth using..
The Cane got nerfed, Never even see munnins, rupture and stabber don't do it too well. Only the cynabal is worth using medium arties on ATM.
IMO the vaga should be the arty boat and the cynabal should be autocannons. We know the change is coming so might aswell steer them in the right direction. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
215
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:05:00 -
[764] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Change the vaga so arties are good on them.
I feel like there are not enough ships that use medium arties to an extent worth using..
The Cane got nerfed, Never even see munnins, rupture and stabber don't do it too well. Only the cynabal is worth using medium arties on ATM.
The vaga can't even fit 425mms properly, why do you hate arties so much CCP?
The vaga should be the arty boat and the cynabal should be autocannons. We know the change is coming so might aswell steer them in the right direction. If you are going to push one of the minmatar HACs further towards arties surely it makes sense for it to be the Munnin rather than the Vaga? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1226
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:06:00 -
[765] - Quote
Thorvik wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with.
...
The Vaga, as you have it now, is ****. It's not a kiter and it's a poor brawler. Used to be an awesome solo ship and now..... :( Since you insist on having an XLASB on there we will be alpha'd off the field if we come across a gang with a Tornado and any other ship. Yes we don't have to fit one but to not fit one would force us into anemic DPS with smaller guns. Put a point on and become an expensive wet paper bag in space. Get rid of point and you lose your prey. It's not that the Cynabal is too good relative to the Vaga. It's better performance for the cost. Vagas are just too expensive for what you are proposing. It's original role was as a kiting solo ship. Cynabal, SFI and even the stabber is better performance for the ISK. It really saddens me but, like I said before, I'll put my Vaga away for another day.
[Vagabond, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 150 Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Medium Projectile Burst Aerator II
Warrior II x5
Because this is clearly underpowered right? BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
790
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:08:00 -
[766] - Quote
Vaga Idea:
Role Bonus: 65% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty (either make it useful or take it off and put something better, what are you trying to dodge? Dreadnoughts? )
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 5 turrets
Everything else is good, add more Power Grid so it can fit the damn things without mods. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
232
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:09:00 -
[767] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Thorvik wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
For those of you concerned with Vaga I have to say your expectations are a bit over the top, except the complaint that the Cynabal is too good relative to Vaga, which I already said I agree with.
...
The Vaga, as you have it now, is ****. It's not a kiter and it's a poor brawler. Used to be an awesome solo ship and now..... :( Since you insist on having an XLASB on there we will be alpha'd off the field if we come across a gang with a Tornado and any other ship. Yes we don't have to fit one but to not fit one would force us into anemic DPS with smaller guns. Put a point on and become an expensive wet paper bag in space. Get rid of point and you lose your prey. It's not that the Cynabal is too good relative to the Vaga. It's better performance for the cost. Vagas are just too expensive for what you are proposing. It's original role was as a kiting solo ship. Cynabal, SFI and even the stabber is better performance for the ISK. It really saddens me but, like I said before, I'll put my Vaga away for another day. [Vagabond, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 150 Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Small Energy Neutralizer II Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Medium Projectile Burst Aerator II Warrior II x5 Because this is clearly underpowered right?
Obviously... LASBs are bad m'kay? What're the stats on that.
More imporantly, how about CCP makes the MUNINN viable. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:10:00 -
[768] - Quote
omg i cant reach 40k with my short range gun with only 2 low slot range mods??? what is this blasphemy???
also for those that say the vaga dont have enough pg , there is a magic rig that boosts powergrid that almost every amarrian ships has to use to fit its biggest guns , so now its maybe time for the minnies to try it out for a change? IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
790
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:11:00 -
[769] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Change the vaga so arties are good on them.
I feel like there are not enough ships that use medium arties to an extent worth using..
The Cane got nerfed, Never even see munnins, rupture and stabber don't do it too well. Only the cynabal is worth using medium arties on ATM.
The vaga can't even fit 425mms properly, why do you hate arties so much CCP?
The vaga should be the arty boat and the cynabal should be autocannons. We know the change is coming so might aswell steer them in the right direction. If you are going to push one of the minmatar HACs further towards arties surely it makes sense for it to be the Munnin rather than the Vaga?
Trying to mix things up, the ships are suppose to be new and refreshing... I don't really consider any of the changes either. The munnin in its current state should be changed to something else aswell.
Maybe a missile boat or more autocannon focused.
The main idea was to have a clear difference between the cynabal and the vagabond. So they don't just make one **** and the other good then call it "balance" . |
Mei Khlolov
Constantine. Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:12:00 -
[770] - Quote
Happy with almost everything, save for maybe the Muninn, would be nice to have that 4th mid.
Rise, please don't change the Deimos any more, its perfect! (For those saying the ENI does the same thing cheaper, compare the capacitor of both ships.) |
|
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
85
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:14:00 -
[771] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
[Vagabond, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 150 Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Medium Projectile Burst Aerator II
Warrior II x5
Because this is clearly underpowered right?
Not bad....
Now what happens when the other ships just warps off? All the DPS in the world won't do much for you then
Let's sick an armor cruiser on this ship and have a Tornado near by. Cruiser tackles and you engage. Tornado warps to buddy who now has you down about half shields. Head shot from Tornado and you are toast.
Small energy neut on a medium ship? It's useless against anything but a few Frigates. May as well put on a salvager...
Nice try though. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
790
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:14:00 -
[772] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:omg i cant reach 40k with my short range gun with only 2 low slot range mods??? what is this blasphemy???
also for those that say the vaga dont have enough pg , there is a magic rig that boosts powergrid that almost every amarrian ships has to use to fit its biggest guns , so now its maybe time for the minnies to try it out for a change?
No.
If CCP is boasting about how "specialized" these ships are, it shouldn't have to fit mods just so it can do regular fits.
Unless the pilot is trying to do something ridiculous, T2 ships shouldn't be operate that way. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
216
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:14:00 -
[773] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:[Vagabond, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 150 Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Medium Projectile Burst Aerator II
Warrior II x5
Because this is clearly underpowered right? I see a ship like that and I think "lets roam!" rather than "too the forums!", so I think she's ready for action.
There are however some red-headed stepchildren left in the HAC lineup even after the various buffs proposed. I think all our energies are best used in arguing the case of the poorest HACs, or even better advocating an actual unique roll for ALL the HACs as a class, than banging on for more buffs to what is already a class leading vessel.
|
Blue Absinthe
Fur Industries
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:15:00 -
[774] - Quote
I'd like to thank Rise for listening to the feedback and coming up with a new iteration that addressed many of the concerns people raised. I made some points on the Ishtar in the first round and I really feel like this pass addressed the issues I had.
Thanks very much!! |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
791
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:16:00 -
[775] - Quote
Thorvik wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
[Vagabond, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 150 Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Medium Projectile Burst Aerator II
Warrior II x5
Because this is clearly underpowered right?
Not bad.... Now what happens when the other ships just warps off? All the DPS in the world won't do much for you then Let's sick an armor cruiser on this ship and have a Tornado near by. Cruiser tackles and you engage. Tornado warps to buddy who now has you down about half shields. Head shot from Tornado and you are toast. Small energy neut on a medium ship? It's useless against anything but a few Frigates. May as well put on a salvager... Nice try though.
Small neut because of such bad fitting specs it can barely fit 220mms.
How does that even make sense for a ship that costs so much and is suppose to be good.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1226
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:21:00 -
[776] - Quote
Thorvik wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
[Vagabond, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 150 Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Medium Projectile Burst Aerator II
Warrior II x5
Because this is clearly underpowered right?
Not bad.... Now what happens when the other ships just warps off? All the DPS in the world won't do much for you then Let's sick an armor cruiser on this ship and have a Tornado near by. Cruiser tackles and you engage. Tornado warps to buddy who now has you down about half shields. Head shot from Tornado and you are toast. Small energy neut on a medium ship? It's useless against anything but a few Frigates. May as well put on a salvager... Nice try though.
So its bad because people who you don't have point on can warp away?
Or because if you are fighting another cruiser in it and a nado shows up at range you're ******? Are you addled in the head? Not to mention the fact that even a perfect shot from a Nado at half shields wouldn't alpha this (And a arty nado will have serious issues tracking this in general..)
As to the small neut comment, clearly you have never been tackled by an AF...
Stop being so bad...
As to whoever asked for stats.
23k ehp + 558 dps tanked (40k ehp once the lasb runs out) 469 dps with barrage, 568 with emp.
Whoever thinks the proposed vagabond is bad is a moron. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
266
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:22:00 -
[777] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Marcel Devereux wrote:150 sig radius on the Deimos is still too high. It needs to be around 135 or 140.
Can we please move one of the med slots on the Ishtar to a low slot? Also what is your worry about the Ishtar? Please leave the mid slots on the Ishtar alone. That ship is in a good place.
For a shield tanking sentry sniper, yes. For a armor brawler to make use of the bonus to Heavies, no. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
791
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:23:00 -
[778] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Thorvik wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
[Vagabond, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 150 Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Medium Projectile Burst Aerator II
Warrior II x5
Because this is clearly underpowered right?
Not bad.... Now what happens when the other ships just warps off? All the DPS in the world won't do much for you then Let's sick an armor cruiser on this ship and have a Tornado near by. Cruiser tackles and you engage. Tornado warps to buddy who now has you down about half shields. Head shot from Tornado and you are toast. Small energy neut on a medium ship? It's useless against anything but a few Frigates. May as well put on a salvager... Nice try though. So its bad because people who you don't have point on can warp away? Or because if you are fighting another cruiser in it and a nado shows up at range you're ******? Are you addled in the head? Not to mention the fact that even a perfect shot from a Nado at half shields wouldn't alpha this (And a arty nado will have serious issues tracking this in general..) As to the small neut comment, clearly you have never been tackled by an AF... Stop being so bad... As to whoever asked for stats. 23k ehp + 558 dps tanked (40k ehp once the lasb runs out) 469 dps with barrage, 568 with emp. Whoever thinks the proposed vagabond is bad is a moron. Edit: And a medium neut fits with genos if you ditch the dps rig for another shield rig. I just like deeps
I still think it needs a fitting buff so it can fit arties. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1226
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:25:00 -
[779] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Thorvik wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
[Vagabond, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 150 Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Medium Projectile Burst Aerator II
Warrior II x5
Because this is clearly underpowered right?
Not bad.... Now what happens when the other ships just warps off? All the DPS in the world won't do much for you then Let's sick an armor cruiser on this ship and have a Tornado near by. Cruiser tackles and you engage. Tornado warps to buddy who now has you down about half shields. Head shot from Tornado and you are toast. Small energy neut on a medium ship? It's useless against anything but a few Frigates. May as well put on a salvager... Nice try though. So its bad because people who you don't have point on can warp away? Or because if you are fighting another cruiser in it and a nado shows up at range you're ******? Are you addled in the head? Not to mention the fact that even a perfect shot from a Nado at half shields wouldn't alpha this (And a arty nado will have serious issues tracking this in general..) As to the small neut comment, clearly you have never been tackled by an AF... Stop being so bad... As to whoever asked for stats. 23k ehp + 558 dps tanked (40k ehp once the lasb runs out) 469 dps with barrage, 568 with emp. Whoever thinks the proposed vagabond is bad is a moron. Edit: And a medium neut fits with genos if you ditch the dps rig for another shield rig. I just like deeps I still think it needs a fitting buff so it can fit arties.
Then it could fit the entire world when you put AC's on it.
More like arties themselves need a fitting buff. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
791
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:27:00 -
[780] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Thorvik wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
[Vagabond, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 150 Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Medium Projectile Burst Aerator II
Warrior II x5
Because this is clearly underpowered right?
Not bad.... Now what happens when the other ships just warps off? All the DPS in the world won't do much for you then Let's sick an armor cruiser on this ship and have a Tornado near by. Cruiser tackles and you engage. Tornado warps to buddy who now has you down about half shields. Head shot from Tornado and you are toast. Small energy neut on a medium ship? It's useless against anything but a few Frigates. May as well put on a salvager... Nice try though. So its bad because people who you don't have point on can warp away? Or because if you are fighting another cruiser in it and a nado shows up at range you're ******? Are you addled in the head? Not to mention the fact that even a perfect shot from a Nado at half shields wouldn't alpha this (And a arty nado will have serious issues tracking this in general..) As to the small neut comment, clearly you have never been tackled by an AF... Stop being so bad... As to whoever asked for stats. 23k ehp + 558 dps tanked (40k ehp once the lasb runs out) 469 dps with barrage, 568 with emp. Whoever thinks the proposed vagabond is bad is a moron. Edit: And a medium neut fits with genos if you ditch the dps rig for another shield rig. I just like deeps I still think it needs a fitting buff so it can fit arties. Then it could fit the entire world when you put AC's on it. More like arties themselves need a fitting buff.
Yeah, but whatever the solution, I'm tired of having medium arties trained and not being able to use them. |
|
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:28:00 -
[781] - Quote
The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:29:00 -
[782] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius 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. Self-quoting bump because folks seem to like this idea and dear CCP Rise should read it and comment on it, because it's a perfectly balanced solution to a questionable ship.
QFT. The poor sac is outclassed by the cerb in almost every way.
And the muninn. Maybe make it an AC version of the Zealot? IDK, right now, it's just terrible. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
791
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:31:00 -
[783] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused.
It is a legendary ship, but ATM its mostly just what it used to be.
People think that the ship is good, but in reality it isn't.
Then the aBCs came and all the vaga pilots who knew this started flying talos. |
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
929
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:37:00 -
[784] - Quote
- Sacrilege - honestly, I like it, but I'm not convinced that the stats can't be tweaked a bit more. I'd personally like to see the final turret slot on the Sac taken off and the stats then adjusted for more armor HP/greater EHP.
- Zealot - God that's sexy.
- Cerberus - looks like its going in the right direction, but the sig radius might need a little tweaking since its a shield ship. I also don't think the Cerb really needs the kinetic bonus, it'd be nice to see something else there so that people will have an incentive to switch ammos around with going "BUT...BUT...MY BONUS!"
- Eagle - the stacked optimal bonuses is still kind of :psypop:, but its going in the right direction. I'd honestly like to see the HAC bonus on the Eagle be a 5%-7.5% bonus to tracking instead. And come on, we don't need the missile slots on the thing with its specialization.
- Deimos - I really think you guys are going in the wrong direction if you're taking armor HP off the Deimos and giving it an extra mid/shield HP. Specialize it into one thing: a DPS blaster cruiser with some decent mobility and a stiff armor tank. Either leave the utility high or keep the new mid, but don't transfer HP over to the shields at expense to armor. Or, at least, don't turn the Deimos into a poor-mans Vigilant.
- Ishtar - meh...I'll live with that.
- Vagabond - Okay, I'm seriously not getting the purpose here. Its all fine and dandy to say "ignore the new shiny bonus," but we're talking about making a ship class fit into the intended niche. If we're going to say the vagabond is a skirmishing, high-speed ship, give it a suitable bonus there. If we're going to throw an active tank bonus, even if its an ASB, then re-purpose it into a slightly better brawler. Don't give me cake, tell me its pie or cake depending on my mood, and then expect me to eat it. I'd like to see something here like even more speed or something to really encourage the skirmish role...and active shield booster bonus doesn't excite me at all compared to what the poor Vagabond is now.
- Munnin - Honestly, I think the Munnin looks a little too good now. But vOv.
Toshiro Ozuwara > GOon cowards come fight Toshiro Ozuwara > Oh wait, you only camp when you got numberssss
I would fully support account bans by ccp for meta type stuff like this. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
792
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:42:00 -
[785] - Quote
Lykouleon wrote:
- Sacrilege - honestly, I like it, but I'm not convinced that the stats can't be tweaked a bit more. I'd personally like to see the final turret slot on the Sac taken off and the stats then adjusted for more armor HP/greater EHP.
- Zealot - God that's sexy.
- Cerberus - looks like its going in the right direction, but the sig radius might need a little tweaking since its a shield ship. I also don't think the Cerb really needs the kinetic bonus, it'd be nice to see something else there so that people will have an incentive to switch ammos around with going "BUT...BUT...MY BONUS!"
- Eagle - the stacked optimal bonuses is still kind of :psypop:, but its going in the right direction. I'd honestly like to see the HAC bonus on the Eagle be a 5%-7.5% bonus to tracking instead. And come on, we don't need the missile slots on the thing with its specialization.
- Deimos - I really think you guys are going in the wrong direction if you're taking armor HP off the Deimos and giving it an extra mid/shield HP. Specialize it into one thing: a DPS blaster cruiser with some decent mobility and a stiff armor tank. Either leave the utility high or keep the new mid, but don't transfer HP over to the shields at expense to armor. Or, at least, don't turn the Deimos into a poor-mans Vigilant.
- Ishtar - meh...I'll live with that.
- Vagabond - Okay, I'm seriously not getting the purpose here. Its all fine and dandy to say "ignore the new shiny bonus," but we're talking about making a ship class fit into the intended niche. If we're going to say the vagabond is a skirmishing, high-speed ship, give it a suitable bonus there. If we're going to throw an active tank bonus, even if its an ASB, then re-purpose it into a slightly better brawler. Don't give me cake, tell me its pie or cake depending on my mood, and then expect me to eat it. I'd like to see something here like even more speed or something to really encourage the skirmish role...and active shield booster bonus doesn't excite me at all compared to what the poor Vagabond is now.
- Munnin - Honestly, I think the Munnin looks a little too good now. But vOv.
Agree with everything but the Munnin. Ishtar is strong. :P |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
232
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:43:00 -
[786] - Quote
Lykouleon wrote:
- Munnin - Honestly, I think the Munnin looks a little too good now. But vOv.
Two words: Tornado Fleet.
Don't say sig resolution and tracking because I have one word for that: Huginns (webs & paints, problem solved) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Zurin Arctus
CRANK INC. Brigands of New Eden
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:44:00 -
[787] - Quote
I think the new Ishtar changes look pretty great.
They do two things that I really like: the sentry range and tracking bonus allows Ishtar pilots to use sentries as a platform without incurring crippling fitting needs, and the CPU bump gives Ishtar pilots much more room to craft a functional fit with those CPU-hungry drone modules/rigs. |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:59:00 -
[788] - Quote
Michael J Caboose wrote:Sarkelias Anophius 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. Self-quoting bump because folks seem to like this idea and dear CCP Rise should read it and comment on it, because it's a perfectly balanced solution to a questionable ship. QFT. The poor sac is outclassed by the cerb in almost every way. And the muninn. Maybe make it an AC version of the Zealot? IDK, right now, it's just terrible.
so guys do we just keep reposting this idea until they do it? who wants to take first shift on making sure its getting reposted?
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
467
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 18:59:00 -
[789] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused.
nearly everything what?
He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
467
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:00:00 -
[790] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Lykouleon wrote:
- Munnin - Honestly, I think the Munnin looks a little too good now. But vOv.
Two words: Tornado Fleet. Don't say sig resolution and tracking because I have one word for that: Huginns (webs & paints, problem solved)
That is more a matter of.. Attack BC ****** up the balance in the game completely. They hurt BAttlehip and HACs roles too much. |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1226
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:01:00 -
[791] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever...
Pretty sure the standard Vaga has had an ASB on it since they were introduced mate... BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
mama guru
Thundercats The Initiative.
140
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:03:00 -
[792] - Quote
Sacrilege and Ishtar changes are great. 50% missile velocity, resist bonus and a 50m3 dronebay means that the Zealot will see a potential challenger as the best AHAC in the Sacrilege. The Ishtar fittings and dual drone bonuses was nice, drone bay bonus had to go. If you stick to small guns fitting the Ishtar should not be hard, DCU's are also less of a pain to fit.
Fitting + Ewar resillience and Cap was pretty much everything hacs needed.
______
EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's too hard you are too weak. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
793
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:04:00 -
[793] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... Pretty sure the standard Vaga has had an ASB on it since they were introduced mate...
Everything has.
I'd rather see less ASBs, I loved the old shield tanking method. But CCP is encouraging it. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1226
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:06:00 -
[794] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... Pretty sure the standard Vaga has had an ASB on it since they were introduced mate... Everything has. I'd rather see less ASBs, I loved the old shield tanking method. But CCP is encouraging it.
Asb's are ********. (Really CCP, thats a censored word? wtf? Fine ASB's are Idiotic..)
Would like to see them changed to have the same mechanics as AAR's. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
244
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:07:00 -
[795] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... Pretty sure the standard Vaga has had an ASB on it since they were introduced mate...
Pretty sure that's not in any way true.
Vaga is still going to be a mediocre ship if the current set of changes go through. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
216
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:07:00 -
[796] - Quote
I think if you are trying to make these ships really worthwhile in straight combat while they have competition from BCs, ABCs, T3 cruisers, T1 cruisers, Navy cruisers, Pirate Cruisers, BSs and CSs then you are fighting a really hard battle just to jam yet another class of vessels into a massively overcrowded marketplace.
T2 is supposed to be about specialisation. Most, if not all, other T2 ships have a clear and undeniable field of specialisation. When a massive list of ship classes already serve in the field of simple "tank and gank" it seems bizzarre that you would not pull the only T2 class competing in that field and move it out of the crowd a little.
Give them an actual role. EHP/DPS is already oversubscribed. Given they have to remain in the crowded EHP/DPS bracket to some degree, you have to give them a role bonus that differentiates them properly and not just something that looks like it was stolen from a T3 subsystem.
Make them skirmishers and give them a significantly improved ability to disengage. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
794
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:10:00 -
[797] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... Pretty sure the standard Vaga has had an ASB on it since they were introduced mate... Everything has. I'd rather see less ASBs, I loved the old shield tanking method. But CCP is encouraging it. Asb's are ********. (Really CCP, thats a censored word? wtf? Fine ASB's are Idiotic..) Would like to see them changed to have the same mechanics as AAR's.
I'd love to see them just removed forever, and then have normal shield boosters become good. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:10:00 -
[798] - Quote
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.
Except we find that ships aren't used as evidenced by your own alliance decline to use tempest fis due to cost and as indicated below using regular megas instead of the better navy megas that cost more.
Dumb is when people say cost is not a balancing factor.
baltec1 wrote:Cearain wrote:
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.
Navy mega are better than normal mega at most things but not by a lot. Also you should look up our cruiser doctrines, the celestis is a very well like ship indeed. Easy to fly ships are very much wanted by the CFC. We aim out nerf requests towards things that need the bat for the wellbeing of the whole game. Why else would we demand tech nerfed?
CFC are always trying to nerf high sp and high cost ships. Just like when some cfc noob flew his rifter directly at a titan, got blapped, and cried that titans be nerfed.
Goons can't keep saying they are out to ruin the game for everyone but goons, and then hope to have credibility when they say the changes they want are not just good for goons but for the game as a whole. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Baali Tekitsu
Hard Knocks Inc. Kill It With Fire
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:11:00 -
[799] - Quote
Stupid Idea: EvE is lacking a dedicated Cyno boat. Have them a second role bonus "500% to HP while cynosural field generator is active". This would make them pretty unique and give them a special role. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
794
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:11:00 -
[800] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:I think if you are trying to make these ships really worthwhile in straight combat while they have competition from BCs, ABCs, T3 cruisers, T1 cruisers, Navy cruisers, Pirate Cruisers, BSs and CSs then you are fighting a really hard battle just to jam yet another class of vessels into a massively overcrowded marketplace.
T2 is supposed to be about specialisation. Most, if not all, other T2 ships have a clear and undeniable field of specialisation. When a massive list of ship classes already serve in the field of simple "tank and gank" it seems bizzarre that you would not pull the only T2 class competing in that field and move it out of the crowd a little.
Give them an actual role. EHP/DPS is already oversubscribed. Given they have to remain in the crowded EHP/DPS bracket to some degree, you have to give them a role bonus that differentiates them properly and not just something that looks like it was stolen from a T3 subsystem.
Make them skirmishers and give them a significantly improved ability to disengage.
I think they should all be made into small gang PvP powerhouses, somehow balanced so they don't really scale well into blobs (sorry AHACS).
Let the blobs fly their T1 stuff, T2 should be geared towards the professionals.
But this will never happen. |
|
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:14:00 -
[801] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... It's getting a bigger tank, better fitting, more cap, longer range targeting, harder to jam, higher max targets, a 50% MWD reduction, and all it lost was 9m/s and a launcher that no one uses.
But yes, one thing entirely. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:23:00 -
[802] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... It's getting a bigger tank, better fitting, more cap, longer range targeting, harder to jam, higher max targets, a 50% MWD reduction, and all it lost was 9m/s and a launcher that no one uses. But yes, one thing entirely. Latest pass puts the Vaga 3.75 m/s below the old maximum. Haven't calculated the final speed loss, but not that much slower... |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
794
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:24:00 -
[803] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... It's getting a bigger tank, better fitting, more cap, longer range targeting, harder to jam, higher max targets, a 50% MWD reduction, and all it lost was 9m/s and a launcher that no one uses. But yes, one thing entirely.
Better fitting you mean +5 CPU. Longer range isn't that big of a deal because it cannot fit any long range guns. 50% MWD reduction everybody thinks is a general waste. I mean it sounds good but it isn't that amazing.
The only things that are decent is the cap and being harder to jam. Thats it.
I wish the re-balance spiced things up instead of just buffing things across the board for every ship without ANY thought into what it will even effect.
These ships are basically what they used to be last year with a few extra tricks, not really digging that. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1687
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:28:00 -
[804] - Quote
Why... why is the Ishtar packing over 200 less PG than the Vexor navy issue...? Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
794
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:32:00 -
[805] - Quote
If you all vote for CCP to hire me. I will listen to literally everything you say and do it.
Whos with me? |
Kane Fenris
NWP
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:33:00 -
[806] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:Stupid Idea: EvE is lacking a dedicated Cyno boat. Have them a second role bonus "500% to HP while cynosural field generator is active". This would make them pretty unique and give them a special role.
last time i checked covert recon ships were pretty much dedicated cyno ships |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:37:00 -
[807] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Why... why is the Ishtar packing over 200 less PG than the Vexor navy issue...?
There are decent trade offs for that. Ishtar has more turrets, and better bonuses and resists. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:38:00 -
[808] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Baali Tekitsu wrote:Stupid Idea: EvE is lacking a dedicated Cyno boat. Have them a second role bonus "500% to HP while cynosural field generator is active". This would make them pretty unique and give them a special role. last time i checked covert recon ships were pretty much dedicated cyno ships
and HIC`s are pretty much perfect, they lock the target down, have huge amount of tank, and light a cyno |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:39:00 -
[809] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Why... why is the Ishtar packing over 200 less PG than the Vexor navy issue...?
Because CCP RISE and CCP FOZZIE thats why |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1373
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:41:00 -
[810] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Why... why is the Ishtar packing over 200 less PG than the Vexor navy issue...? Because, wait... What!? Try 20 less power grid. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
217
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:47:00 -
[811] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:I think if you are trying to make these ships really worthwhile in straight combat while they have competition from BCs, ABCs, T3 cruisers, T1 cruisers, Navy cruisers, Pirate Cruisers, BSs and CSs then you are fighting a really hard battle just to jam yet another class of vessels into a massively overcrowded marketplace.
T2 is supposed to be about specialisation. Most, if not all, other T2 ships have a clear and undeniable field of specialisation. When a massive list of ship classes already serve in the field of simple "tank and gank" it seems bizzarre that you would not pull the only T2 class competing in that field and move it out of the crowd a little.
Give them an actual role. EHP/DPS is already oversubscribed. Given they have to remain in the crowded EHP/DPS bracket to some degree, you have to give them a role bonus that differentiates them properly and not just something that looks like it was stolen from a T3 subsystem.
Make them skirmishers and give them a significantly improved ability to disengage. I think they should all be made into small gang PvP powerhouses, somehow balanced so they don't really scale well into blobs (sorry AHACS). Let the blobs fly their T1 stuff, T2 should be geared towards the professionals. But this will never happen. The best bonus you can provide to solo/small gang PvP ships is the ability to engage larger gangs without getting so easily swamped. This generally means maintaining some range and using whatever methods you have at your disposal to counter enemy tackle. This has been the recipe for all sorts of successful solo and small gang docterines.
I personally do not agree that any ship should be purely solo/small gang focused, because I think it is both unnecessary and wasteful. I do however think that ships like the HAC are an ideal choice for bonuses that cater for solo/small gang work as well as opening up new options in larger gangs.
I also do not believe that a cloaking device or a jump drive should be a requirement for a ship to be used for skirmishing. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
794
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:49:00 -
[812] - Quote
HAC special bonus.
Ability to fit Micro Jump Drives and fitting requirement decreases.
Imagine that.. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
680
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:49:00 -
[813] - Quote
Boss McNab wrote:ElQuirko wrote:Why... why is the Ishtar packing over 200 less PG than the Vexor navy issue...? Because CCP RISE and CCP FOZZIE thats why This would be witty if it wasn't based on a statement that was off by a factor of 10. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
235
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:50:00 -
[814] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... Pretty sure the standard Vaga has had an ASB on it since they were introduced mate...
An XL takes too much compromise to fit, and a Large is too terrible to fit.
TLDR ASB Vaga? No way, buffer ftw. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:53:00 -
[815] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:HAC special bonus.
Ability to fit Micro Jump Drives and fitting requirement decreases.
Imagine that..
horrible idea as i stated in round one it would kill the purpose of mjd's on bs.
it must stay a bs excluseive |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
235
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:54:00 -
[816] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:Stupid Idea: EvE is lacking a dedicated Cyno boat. Have them a second role bonus "500% to HP while cynosural field generator is active". This would make them pretty unique and give them a special role.
Force Recons
Kagura Nikon wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Lykouleon wrote:
- Munnin - Honestly, I think the Munnin looks a little too good now. But vOv.
Two words: Tornado Fleet. Don't say sig resolution and tracking because I have one word for that: Huginns (webs & paints, problem solved) That is more a matter of.. Attack BC ****** up the balance in the game completely. They hurt BAttlehip and HACs roles too much.
I agree, they were a bad idea, we all know that, but how do we fix them? Nobody has brought up any good suggestions. (Remove them from EVE foreva!!!)
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1688
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:55:00 -
[817] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Boss McNab wrote:ElQuirko wrote:Why... why is the Ishtar packing over 200 less PG than the Vexor navy issue...? Because CCP RISE and CCP FOZZIE thats why This would be witty if it wasn't based on a statement that was off by a factor of 10.
Yeah, my bad, I looked at Pyfa and not the real numbers. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:58:00 -
[818] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:These hacs are boring.
So boring that I found my self playing with an ishtar Fit with 47K EHP tank, cap stable, doing 2074m/s and capable of doing 900 DPS. All of these without a single gang bonuses. Yeah they sound boring has hell |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
235
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:00:00 -
[819] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Diesel47 wrote:These hacs are boring. So boring that I found my self playing with an ishtar Fit with 47K EHP tank, cap stable, doing 2074m/s and capable of doing 900 DPS. All of these without a single gang bonuses. Yeah they sound boring has hell
Ishtar is the only one that I'm impressed by. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
795
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:02:00 -
[820] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Diesel47 wrote:These hacs are boring. So boring that I found my self playing with an ishtar Fit with 47K EHP tank, cap stable, doing 2074m/s and capable of doing 900 DPS. All of these without a single gang bonuses. Yeah they sound boring has hell
Pft, the only good one is the Ishtar. Which is why they are like 225mil in Jita right now. |
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:03:00 -
[821] - Quote
And to the people crying about the new changes did you even tried already the new changes in EFT ? The Munin, Ishtar, Deimos, Cerberus and Sacrilege are damn good. Still didn't have the time to check them all but from what I've seen they are now very (well) balanced. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
385
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:05:00 -
[822] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:HAC special bonus.
Ability to fit Micro Jump Drives and fitting requirement decreases.
Imagine that.. Honestly, this is the best idea. It gives advantages to both sniping and brawling gameplay, sets HACs apart from all the other similarly-performing ships (T1 ACs, ABCs, BCs, T3s, Pirate ships, CSs, etc.). *Only* a HAC could MJD from that list. That in and of itself would be reason to spend the ~100m more over a similarly-situated Navy Cruiser.
Plus, it'd allow new metas to develop and be tested. Dual prop fits on HACs would have an entirely new meaning. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
217
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:05:00 -
[823] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:HAC special bonus.
Ability to fit Micro Jump Drives and fitting requirement decreases.
Imagine that.. I would prefer something like reducing the range of warp disruptors used against HACs by 50%. It's a buff to the preferred engagement envelope without breaking the ship. I just want to know if such a bonus is technically viable, because if they can't viably code it for relase then there is no point asking for it.
It hasn't been made clear why no move has been made towards giving HACs a real specialisation. I'm assuming that rather than lack of imagination it's lack of resources that has lead us here, because I'm sure that those involved could easily manage something better than "let's make them more resiliant". |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
235
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:09:00 -
[824] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:And to the people crying about the new changes did you even tried already the new changes in EFT ? The Munin, Ishtar, Deimos, Cerberus and Sacrilege are damn good. Still didn't have the time to check them all but from what I've seen they are now very (well) balanced.
Muninn is still utter crap next to a Tornado, so I don't think its well balanced. It would be well balanced if CCP had the balls to say "Oops, we're removing the Tornado and Talos" takes the rage, and comes out with a better, more balanced EVE.
Vaga is still meh, Diemost still is meh, and the Eagle is still outclassed by the Naga.
Disappointing changes to say the least. They did get some things right. (That Ishtar will be SO OP after this...) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1227
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:11:00 -
[825] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... Pretty sure the standard Vaga has had an ASB on it since they were introduced mate... An XL takes too much compromise to fit, and a Large is too terrible to fit. TLDR ASB Vaga? No way, buffer ftw.
Large asb's are too bad? What? An unloaded LASB gives you twice the raw shield HP as a LSE with that bonus.....
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:12:00 -
[826] - Quote
I actually like changes. I've never tried deimos tho so i cant comment on him but every other ship received a buff and will only be better. I see a lot of people complaining about deimos hp but i was never able to win 1 on 1 versus him in another hac (sac most of the times) so i don't really understand why people call him diemost (well maybe after patch he'll be diemost but untill now i wouldn't call him that) Anyway i'd like to see some marauders changes now altho T3 and pirate ships are probably next, great job balancing them Rise but please take a look here and there for stats some of them might be op now |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:12:00 -
[827] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Diesel47 wrote:HAC special bonus.
Ability to fit Micro Jump Drives and fitting requirement decreases.
Imagine that.. Honestly, this is the best idea. It gives advantages to both sniping and brawling gameplay, sets HACs apart from all the other similarly-performing ships (T1 ACs, ABCs, BCs, T3s, Pirate ships, CSs, etc.). *Only* a HAC could MJD from that list. That in and of itself would be reason to spend the ~100m more over a similarly-situated Navy Cruiser. Plus, it'd allow new metas to develop and be tested. Dual prop fits on HACs would have an entirely new meaning. This. I've been a fan of this idea since it was first raised in the last thread. Resilient damage dealers with exceptional strike capability. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
235
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:12:00 -
[828] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. nearly everything what? He is being buffed on a signle thing.. on a scenario that no vaga pilot stick its vaga ever... Pretty sure the standard Vaga has had an ASB on it since they were introduced mate... An XL takes too much compromise to fit, and a Large is too terrible to fit. TLDR ASB Vaga? No way, buffer ftw. Large asb's are too bad? What? An unloaded LASB gives you twice the raw shield HP as a LSE with that bonus.....
Better home you don't get alpha'd through its reps. The key is to not DIE because of the comparatively anemic repping power of the LASB when instead you could fit an XLASB and tank the world for 45 seconds. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Blade dance
Active Fusion Cold Fusion.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:13:00 -
[829] - Quote
This will be only my second post on a forum concerning EVE online in my 5 consecutive, and faithful years of playing. With that said please allow this post to be interpreted in two ways.
1. I Generally enjoy playing your game an I am happy to continue to pay to do so.
2. The importance of making yet another voice heard to the upcoming T2 changes has driven me to add my voice to the masses
I have to say that over all I am happy with and even look forward to the new and upcoming changes. Although, I wasnt happy to see the vagabond change, i do understand the changes and as long as the cap recharge is sufficient I'm sure with a little micro management I can see myself flying one with a shield booster equiped. It is one of my favorite ships second only to the Talos as I am partial to speed tanked ships.
The biggest bone I have to pick is with the Deimos.....
I'd have to agree with other previous posts the signature radius my be perhaps too large and not in line with other galente ships.
The removal of the utility slot to be placed in a mid slot leaves much to be desired. It does open up the possibility to shield tank or speed tank the ship but I think both those options arent viable as other T2 HACs do the job better with more EHP. I wouldnt suggest giving it a low slot as it could give an ungair advantage in most cases. But leaving the high slot but allowing an extra gun placement coupled with the lowering of dmg bonuses might fix the issue. I say this because although this ship has no issue with damage projection; it does do some of the most easily defended damage in the game (kenetic/thermal)
Why nerf the armor and hull hp only to add a paltry 139 shield hp to a ship that most would agree is going to be normally armor fit?
Lastly, I really would like to reiterate that I like most the upcoming changes to the HACs. However, I do think the Deimos needs to be looked at again or if you could be so kind as to explain why these changes took place that would better help to understand them also.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
235
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:14:00 -
[830] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Diesel47 wrote:HAC special bonus.
Ability to fit Micro Jump Drives and fitting requirement decreases.
Imagine that.. Honestly, this is the best idea. It gives advantages to both sniping and brawling gameplay, sets HACs apart from all the other similarly-performing ships (T1 ACs, ABCs, BCs, T3s, Pirate ships, CSs, etc.). *Only* a HAC could MJD from that list. That in and of itself would be reason to spend the ~100m more over a similarly-situated Navy Cruiser. Plus, it'd allow new metas to develop and be tested. Dual prop fits on HACs would have an entirely new meaning. This. I've been a fan of this idea since it was first raised in the last thread. Resilient damage dealers with exceptional strike capability.
It would give HACs an actual role, which would be a nice improvement, highly mobile DPS ships. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
185
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:15:00 -
[831] - Quote
Am I going to pay 200 milion for a cruiser sized ship with 70- 90k ehp
OR
Am I going to pay 500 million for a cruiser sized ship with at least double the tank, more damage, more Ewar strength, more options, more slots, more speed, more capacitor, lower sig, and a much higher likelyhood to survive and/or kill targets faster.
Investment always pays off in the end. Every competent pvp'er knows' this is true.
So given two stupidly overlapping roles, why are people going to choose HACS? What role or benefit do they offer?
How are they not just cheaper, weaker, duller, less adaptable versions of Tech 3 that nobody will fly other than space poor people?
Let me let you in secret that helps when planning:
RICE
Relevant Challenging Innovative Exploratory
It's what teachers are supposed to do to make content interesting and useful to kids.... maybe you guys should try it at CCP.
How are these HACs any of those?
Almost 0 flexibility on most of their gear builds. Almost 0 utility that doesn't get outclassed by at least 5-6 other ship class options. Not new, not thought provoking at all. Not challenging, just the same bonuses on another set of ships.... not like we don't already have 5 sentry drone platforms in game. Not exploratory at all... no new ideas allowing players to explore new content or philosophies.
|
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:15:00 -
[832] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Alright so for HACs (Heavy Assault Cruisers) we had a few goals:
GÇó Increase viability for the worst ships (Eagle, Cerberus, Sacrilege especially) Quote:EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot. Quote:EAGLE
For the Eagle there aren't huge changes. Along with the electronics and cap changes we are going to speed it up slightly, lower the signature radius by 10 and make some small adjustments to the fitting so that fitting rails is a little easier.
The above is everything CCP Rise has said about the Eagle. CCP Rise is lost for words when it comes to the Eagle - it is apparently is the worst ship but does not need any major overhaul. Apparently rails are going to save it...
The Eagle has been trading in Jita below its build cost since the EHP increase back in the last decade. I'm not surprised there is less debate about it - few people have bothered to fly it.
As a game designer you appear to be unable to express why the game needs the Eagle. To paraphrase someone else in this thread who I'd like to quote but cannot find again:
If you removed the Eagle from the game nobody would notice.
Here is a recommendation - delete the Eagle - I really think the old bird is cooked. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:17:00 -
[833] - Quote
Blade dance wrote:This will be only my second post on a forum concerning EVE online in my 5 consecutive, and faithful years of playing. With that said please allow this post to be interpreted in two ways.
1. I Generally enjoy playing your game an I am happy to continue to pay to do so.
2. The importance of making yet another voice heard to the upcoming T2 changes has driven me to add my voice to the masses
[Excellent observations and suggestions]
Welcome to the forums! |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
185
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:18:00 -
[834] - Quote
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Alright so for HACs (Heavy Assault Cruisers) we had a few goals:
GÇó Increase viability for the worst ships (Eagle, Cerberus, Sacrilege especially) Quote:EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot. Quote:EAGLE
For the Eagle there aren't huge changes. Along with the electronics and cap changes we are going to speed it up slightly, lower the signature radius by 10 and make some small adjustments to the fitting so that fitting rails is a little easier. The above is everything CCP Rise has said about the Eagle. CCP Rise is lost for words when it comes to the Eagle - it is apparently is the worst ship but does not need any major overhaul. Apparently rails are going to save it... The Eagle has been trading in Jita below its build cost since the EHP increase back in the last decade. I'm not surprised there is less debate about it - few people have bothered to fly it. As a game designer you appear to be unable to express why the game needs the Eagle. To paraphrase someone else in this thread who I'd like to quote but cannot find again: If you removed the Eagle from the game nobody would notice.
Here is a recommendation - delete the Eagle - I really think the old bird is cooked.
Funny how fixing the tracking fomula and making rails relevant could make the eagle really interesting... but nope, lets ignore that issue too. |
Deathwing Reborn
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:30:00 -
[835] - Quote
I havnt read though the entire thread. But the Ishtar split drone bonus sucks IMO. I would suggest something along the lines of combining the bonuses into Drone Optimal, tracking, and speed all in one and adding mabe something like increased drone control range for the 4th bonus. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
236
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:33:00 -
[836] - Quote
Deathwing Reborn wrote:I havnt read though the entire thread. But the Ishtar split drone bonus sucks IMO. I would suggest something along the lines of combining the bonuses into Drone Optimal, tracking, and speed all in one and adding mabe something like increased drone control range for the 4th bonus.
Ishtar is by far the best HAC in the lineup, proven by the fact that it is selling for 225m in Jita right now, 50m more than any other HAC. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:37:00 -
[837] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: Funny how fixing the tracking fomula and making rails relevant could make the eagle really interesting... but nope, lets ignore that issue too.
That's more information than CCP Rise has seen fit to disseminate - I did say I was quoting everything that CCP Rise has had to say about the Eagle.
So we are left with "because of the rails" that, unless you've got access to their internal test servers you've not seen yet.
So I still think you'd not notice is they forgot to put them into the game with the 1.1 patch. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:37:00 -
[838] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: ISHTAR
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed and tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Ishtar already gets a drone range bonus, and Rise already correctly pointed out that the apparent 3 bonuses for a given type of drones are actually 5: drone hit points drone damage heavy drone speed heavy drone tracking drone operation range sentry optimal sentry tracking
IMO, it's pretty good now... could just use some armor HP |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
680
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:38:00 -
[839] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Am I going to pay 200 milion for a cruiser sized ship with 70- 90k ehp
OR
Am I going to pay 500 million for a cruiser sized ship with at least double the tank, more damage, more Ewar resistance, more options, more slots, more speed, more capacitor, lower sig, and a much higher likelyhood to survive and/or kill targets faster.
Investment always pays off in the end. Every competent pvp'er knows' this is true.
So given two stupidly overlapping roles, why are people going to choose HACS? What role or benefit do they offer?
How are they not just cheaper, weaker, duller, less adaptable versions of Tech 3 that nobody will fly other than space poor people?
Let me let you in secret that helps when planning:
RICE
Relevant Challenging Innovative Exploratory
It's what teachers are supposed to do to make content interesting and useful to kids.... maybe you guys should try it at CCP.
How are these HACs any of those?
Almost 0 flexibility on most of their gear builds. Almost 0 utility that doesn't get outclassed by at least 5-6 other ship class options. Not new, not thought provoking at all. Not challenging, just the same bonuses on another set of ships.... not like we don't already have 5 sentry drone platforms in game. Not exploratory at all... no new ideas allowing players to explore new content or philosophies. You do realize that those same T3's are in CCP's sights for the nerf bat right? |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
236
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:42:00 -
[840] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: You do realize that those same T3's are in CCP's sights for the nerf bat right?
Yea they better tread carefully or else they'll have the Wormhole community up in arms. (If they rolled back Incursion nerfs because Incursionbears bitched and moaned they better not overnerf T3s or else they'll have an even larger WH community to deal with) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
797
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:44:00 -
[841] - Quote
I think the biggest concern is that the HACs right now aren't anything special at all.
Even if they end up being beefed up version of a T1 crusier... Who cares?
Make them something unique so it changes the gameplay a little. They are really stale right now.
Experiment and try some new things CCP. We like refreshing changes. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
236
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:47:00 -
[842] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:I think the biggest concern is that the HACs right now aren't anything special at all.
Even if they end up being beefed up version of a T1 crusier... Who cares?
Make them something unique so it changes the gameplay a little. They are really stale right now.
Experiment and try some new things CCP. We like refreshing changes.
Exactly. Some sort of special role would be good. That or something to make the rest of them competitive compared to other ships.
I don't see what people have against being able to fit an MJD, that way they could be highly mobile DPS platforms. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
217
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:50:00 -
[843] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:I think the biggest concern is that the HACs right now aren't anything special at all.
Even if they end up being beefed up version of a T1 crusier... Who cares?
Make them something unique so it changes the gameplay a little. They are really stale right now.
Experiment and try some new things CCP. We like refreshing changes. That is the core issue as far as I can see.
If they do not get an actual role now, we will only have to come back again to correct that later.
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
797
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:52:00 -
[844] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Diesel47 wrote:I think the biggest concern is that the HACs right now aren't anything special at all.
Even if they end up being beefed up version of a T1 crusier... Who cares?
Make them something unique so it changes the gameplay a little. They are really stale right now.
Experiment and try some new things CCP. We like refreshing changes. Exactly. Some sort of special role would be good. That or something to make the rest of them competitive compared to other ships. I don't see what people have against being able to fit an MJD, that way they could be highly mobile DPS platforms.
Something even crazier would be if they had a built in MJD of sorts. Maybe even one that jumps shorter ranges... You know since they don't have battleship reach.
The main reason for this is I'm worried that the shield ships will always have to give up a mid slot for a MJD and ships like the zealot will be really lacking mids. Or just give every ship an extra mid and it would fix the lack of modules problem? |
Nitrah
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 20:59:00 -
[845] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello! DAMAGE GRAPHSOn the left is the damage that three different ships (Null Blaster Talos, HML Drake and AHAC Zealot) do to a Sacrilege with its MWD on without the role bonus. On the right is after the role bonus. You can see that the Zealot, which tracks extremely well, isn't heavily affected, but the Talos and the Drake lose about 25% of their DPS. Now we can have a new discussion about how important that 25% is, but its important to understand that we are usually talking about an extremely significant amount of damage mitigation when MWD is active. And again, we know that not all HACs will be running MWDs, but we feel that those configurations are plenty powerful and prefer to support a larger variety of applications by adding the MWD bonus.
I see the point you are making here, but I have to ask this: given those damage graphs, why would I want to fly the legion over the blaster talos? The Talos does more damage at the engagement ranges where the sacrilege will try to be sitting, and if it tried to get in close, it couldn't keep its MWD on and maintain any sort of an orbit. I can make similar arguments to a sniper fit which you seem to be leaning towards with the increased targeting range on the HAC. Why should I fly these ships over a BC? More damage? Not really. Better signature? Yes, but is it really buying you much at sniper ranges?
The only thing I can see these ships doing better is damage mitigation against heavier ships with the tradeoff being worse dps. All for the low, low price of two to three times what the T3 BC will set you back. |
Deirdre Anethoel
Antimatter Delivery Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:04:00 -
[846] - Quote
I really like this concept of logarithmic power increase (the more you put money on something, the less impressive the return on investment is, while always being positive). CCP learned you can't just scale power with price, because people will pay for the best if it's the case, and put the players unable to afford/fly the costlier ships into other roles (cf t1 cruisers ewar fleets as an example). The idea is to balance the attractiveness of the slight improve with the fact that it costs a ton more. So you can fight outnumbered if you're ready to throw tons of cash to get the upgraded version.
The problem is, right now, having money is not linked to skill or dedication or game time. It's just dependant on sitting on moons. Especially in 0.0. So you'll see people having both numbers and the costly ships. And the low cost ships will just be ignored, like they were a year ago.
The problem with hacs right now is that they're an improvement on a ship interesting only because it's cheap (T1 cruisers). T1 cruisers are worse than most BC/BSes, but they are extra cheap. But giving a slight bonus on those while removing completely the price quality makes hacs useless. They still can't compare with ships in other categories. Ships T1 cruisers don't have to compare to because they're cheap.
There is too many ships doing the same exact things (both in the brawler niche and in the sniper niche). The only way to balance hacs would be to give something really new.
Take example on T3s! T3s are basically hacs with some new possibilities strapped on them, for an extra 500m+. It's a lot of money to pay for a little bonus of web or tackle range, but it makes all the difference: they do something new compared to other ships with the same core role. Add to that some more fitting space to allow more crazyness (like 100MN AB tengus, full tank proteus and lokis for fleet tackle, etc), and you get a viable ship class (except the legion, because it's only particularity is neut and you need to sacrifice it's core role as laser/ham boat to use the sub efficiently. The legion really need a tracking disruptor sub, that would be extra cool and give them something the zealot/sacrilege don't have).
Hacs are Tech3s without the interesting bits. They're bad by design. You can buff them more and more until they're broken, or you can start talking role and reason to exist, and make them something exciting. |
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:10:00 -
[847] - Quote
Better than the first pass - one thing of note though:
The MWD sig bonus - I plainly don't like it - not on AFs and not on HACs - it's good for some of the ships, but applying it to all of them just doesn't do some of the ships justice. E.g. the Zealot - not only would I still fit it with an AB solely for sig tanking, but it also lacks the cap to make that option attractive, even with the improved cap. The higher fitting demands of the MWD are another problem here - and good luck trying to fit a passive armor tanked MWD Zealot with beams...
Yes - I don't have to use the bonus - just as wll as I could also use an Aston Martin DB9 to plow the field - it just doesn't build upon its strengths.
Moreover, I see a problem your very own DPS graphs show quite nicely (as a matter of fact I understand the tracking formula and actually spend more time doing DPS graphs than playing the actual game): The sig bloom reduction helps them vs BS sized guns - mostly if mounted on BS, as decently piloted Tier 3 BCs can mitigate the problem somewhat thanks to their mobility.
Another thing your DPS graphs show (which made me really chuckle) is that they show how even after application of said bonus, a Tier 3 BC will do more damage against a HAC than a HAC itself - for less money and shorter training time (not sure about the latter after skill changes).
Needless to say that it isn't of much use against most medium sized turrets.
So what does that bonus help them against the most? Mostly BS, which apparently are the punching ball of this rebalancing.
HAC vs. BS performance never was their problem - the problem has always been their performance against T1 Battlecruisers - The introduction of Tech 3 cruisers and later Tier 3's aggravated the problem, the fact that T1 cruisers now outmaneuver HACs has aggravated it even more - and you give us a bonus that helps them against BS whilst posting DPS graphs that show how it wont help medium turret damage mitigation at all whilst corroborating that a Tier 3 BC will still out-DPS a Zealot between ~16-38 km against a HAC at max speed with the bonus applied and an angle of 60-¦.
Are you kidding?
An AB Speed bonus would deal with current issues far better. |
Deirdre Anethoel
Antimatter Delivery Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:13:00 -
[848] - Quote
On sniper hacs:
If you wanted to make a sniper hac, you could do it by giving them a large agility bonus, to make them playable as warp in/warp out snipers, instead of kitting ships. Or you could scrap the sniper thing, let the attack BCs have the role, and make the "snipe" hacs into viable kitting ships (more speed, 4 mids on the munnin, only one range bonus on the eagle, etc). And nerf attack BCs speed. They have roughly the same speed some of the hacs have with a microwarpdrive. They're battlecruisers. Why is that possible? >_< (before mods).
Or you could make them into, hmm, HEAVY cruisers. The eagle has a resist bonus, but it's completely useless coupled with two range bonuses. You'll either need one or the two others. Could become a fun ship with falloff bonuses? Could become a cool ship with one range and one tracking bonus (to allow railguns at shorter ranges)? You have tons of ways to do good things with them. But none of them imply buffing them without thinking about their real role and reworking them.
Hacs aren't imbalanced. They're badly designed. I know it can be hard to accept errors, but they need more than tweaks and a bit of extra stats. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
382
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:14:00 -
[849] - Quote
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Alright so for HACs (Heavy Assault Cruisers) we had a few goals:
GÇó Increase viability for the worst ships (Eagle, Cerberus, Sacrilege especially) Quote:EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot. Quote:EAGLE
For the Eagle there aren't huge changes. Along with the electronics and cap changes we are going to speed it up slightly, lower the signature radius by 10 and make some small adjustments to the fitting so that fitting rails is a little easier. The above is everything CCP Rise has said about the Eagle. CCP Rise is lost for words when it comes to the Eagle - it is apparently is the worst ship but does not need any major overhaul. Apparently rails are going to save it... The Eagle has been trading in Jita below its build cost since the EHP increase back in the last decade. I'm not surprised there is less debate about it - few people have bothered to fly it. As a game designer you appear to be unable to express why the game needs the Eagle. To paraphrase someone else in this thread who I'd like to quote but cannot find again: If you removed the Eagle from the game nobody would notice.
Here is a recommendation - delete the Eagle - I really think the old bird is cooked.
Poor eagle the neglected one... its got so much potential it just needs some love.... its anemic dps and speed makes it sad..
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
217
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:15:00 -
[850] - Quote
Nitrah wrote:The only thing I can see these ships doing better is damage mitigation against heavier ships with the tradeoff being worse dps. Which is what several of the HACs already do very well without any new buffs and what T3 cruisers and a number of T1 and faction cruisers do very well too.
But when coming to the task of rebalancing HACs one assumes that you acknowledge that the current situation isn't good enough.
You can make various changes to give HACs a unique and specialist role and they would still be perfectly good in the ABHAC / mitigation tank role, they just wouldn't be so dependent on that to justify themselves. |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:15:00 -
[851] - Quote
I still haven't heard a justification for the massive decrease in armor and hull on the Deimos. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:25:00 -
[852] - Quote
Baron vonDoom wrote: HAC vs. BS performance never was their problem - the problem has always been their performance against T1 Battlecruisers - The introduction of Tech 3 cruisers and later Tier 3's aggravated the problem, the fact that T1 cruisers now outmaneuver HACs has aggravated it even more - and you give us a bonus that helps them against BS whilst posting DPS graphs that show how it wont help medium turret damage mitigation at all whilst corroborating that a Tier 3 BC will still out-DPS a Zealot between ~16-38 km against a HAC at max speed with the bonus applied and an angle of 60-¦.
Are you kidding?
An AB Speed bonus would deal with current issues far better.
i tend to agree but i think then you woud have to dual prop fit the ships most of the time which isnt easy on every hull. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1690
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:28:00 -
[853] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Diesel47 wrote:HAC special bonus.
Ability to fit Micro Jump Drives and fitting requirement decreases.
Imagine that.. Honestly, this is the best idea. It gives advantages to both sniping and brawling gameplay, sets HACs apart from all the other similarly-performing ships (T1 ACs, ABCs, BCs, T3s, Pirate ships, CSs, etc.). *Only* a HAC could MJD from that list. That in and of itself would be reason to spend the ~100m more over a similarly-situated Navy Cruiser. Plus, it'd allow new metas to develop and be tested. Dual prop fits on HACs would have an entirely new meaning.
Bad Bobby wrote: I would prefer something like reducing the range of warp disruptors used against HACs by 50%. It's a buff to the preferred engagement envelope without breaking the ship. I just want to know if such a bonus is technically viable, because if they can't viably code it for relase then there is no point asking for it.
It hasn't been made clear why no move has been made towards giving HACs a real specialisation. I'm assuming that rather than lack of imagination it's lack of resources that has lead us here, because I'm sure that those involved could easily manage something better than "let's make them more resiliant".
Both these ideas are incredible. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1184
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:35:00 -
[854] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:I still haven't heard a justification for the massive decrease in armor and hull on the Deimos.
Rise is under the impression the diemos would be op. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
797
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:35:00 -
[855] - Quote
I think the problem is CCP is unwilling to take any risks when it comes to EvE.
Alot of game studios suffer from this, which is why all the games now a days are all the same nothingness.
Do something new CCP, we won't riot in jita over it. We all would welcome a fresh change to the stale ship line ups. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
633
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:37:00 -
[856] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Diesel47 wrote:HAC special bonus.
Ability to fit Micro Jump Drives and fitting requirement decreases.
Imagine that.. Honestly, this is the best idea. It gives advantages to both sniping and brawling gameplay, sets HACs apart from all the other similarly-performing ships (T1 ACs, ABCs, BCs, T3s, Pirate ships, CSs, etc.). *Only* a HAC could MJD from that list. That in and of itself would be reason to spend the ~100m more over a similarly-situated Navy Cruiser. Plus, it'd allow new metas to develop and be tested. Dual prop fits on HACs would have an entirely new meaning. Bad Bobby wrote: I would prefer something like reducing the range of warp disruptors used against HACs by 50%. It's a buff to the preferred engagement envelope without breaking the ship. I just want to know if such a bonus is technically viable, because if they can't viably code it for relase then there is no point asking for it.
It hasn't been made clear why no move has been made towards giving HACs a real specialisation. I'm assuming that rather than lack of imagination it's lack of resources that has lead us here, because I'm sure that those involved could easily manage something better than "let's make them more resiliant".
Both these ideas are incredible. I'm sorry but they are not. A ship that can close 100km in a little over 30 seconds are not supposed to be able to do it instantly as well. Broken as hell.
Reduction of range on point used on them? What? I wont even begin to explain how broken that is. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
383
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:40:00 -
[857] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:I still haven't heard a justification for the massive decrease in armor and hull on the Deimos. Rise is under the impression the diemos would be op.
wow to make the deimos OP would take an awful lot more than Rise would be willing to do.
The problem with the deimos is the thorax kind of stomps all over its old brawler role for a fraction of the cost and time.. The only role left for it is the durable mini Talos .. but it requires more tank, range, speed and much lower sig to achieve. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
633
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:40:00 -
[858] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:I think the problem is CCP is unwilling to take any risks when it comes to EvE.
Alot of game studios suffer from this, which is why all the games now a days are all the same nothingness.
Do something new CCP, we won't riot in jita over it. We all would welcome a fresh change to the stale ship line ups. You mean like how WoW have had so much powercreep that having a fully tinkered vanilla character vs a decent [last expansion] character is like fighting a Vindicator with an unfit Velator? CCP is the only company I know of in the history of gaming that have done balancing right. Everyone else do powercreep and/or massively fuuuck up the economy. CCP has done neither. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1690
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:41:00 -
[859] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Both these ideas are incredible. I'm sorry but they are not. A ship that can close 100km in a little over 30 seconds are not supposed to be able to do it instantly as well. Broken as hell.
Reduction of range on point used on them? What? I wont even begin to explain how broken that is.[/quote]
If you can't begin to explain then evidently you have no argument. Reducing the range of shortpoints on ships designed for kiting spaces them out from the standard cruisers we have now; why do we need to spend 10x the ship cost just to gild the hulls that serve perfectly already? As for the MJD issue, that was more for the gimmick than anything, but I can see useful applications which can be countered by, for example, a warp scrambler. That oh-so-rarely fitted module. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
633
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:42:00 -
[860] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: The problem with the deimos is the thorax kind of stomps all over its old brawler role for a fraction of the cost and time..
You need to fit up the Thorax and the new Deimos in EFT bro. The only place Thorax is better is in speed, and not by much. Speed is the only thing it's supposed to be better at as well. |
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:43:00 -
[861] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:I think the problem is CCP is unwilling to take any risks when it comes to EvE.
Alot of game studios suffer from this, which is why all the games now a days are all the same nothingness.
Do something new CCP, we won't riot in jita over it. We all would welcome a fresh change to the stale ship line ups. You mean like how WoW have had so much powercreep that having a fully tinkered vanilla character vs a decent [last expansion] character is like fighting a Vindicator with an unfit Velator? CCP is the only company I know of in the history of gaming that have done balancing right. Everyone else do powercreep and/or massively fuuuck up the economy. CCP has done neither.
allthough i dont agree with all they do i must say youre right. |
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:44:00 -
[862] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:
i tend to agree but i think then you woud have to dual prop fit the ships most of the time which isnt easy on every hull.
First of all, base speeds would have to be adjusted to at least match their T1 counterparts.
Then I'd actually suggest a dual role bouns: +50% AB speed and removal of capacitor capacity malus for MWDs.
I've lost my last Sac 4 years ago - never flew one since then.
Why? Not because I had issues vs BS, but because I could do everything I could do in a Sac better with a HAM-Drake for a fraction of the price. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
133
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:44:00 -
[863] - Quote
Toyed around with the new EFT-files by the rote kapelle member whose name I don't dare to spell (namamai I believe)...
mostly love ishtar/muninn till now: http://i.imgur.com/olf97WN.png and http://i.imgur.com/UROHMqP.png look like tons of fun to fly. There are so many more great fittings that are now possible. Only strange that the Deimos has such a high basesig. Especially now with four mids, I don't see the point armortanking it anymore. The cap easily allows to mwd with an invuln running without even dropping a sweat, just everything about the Deimos cries for a shieldtank (given that for really large fleets you'll want a zealot anyways if aiming at armortank as rails and plate does not fit) So why the high basesignature, you're currently getting blown up to 700+ meters, which even though less compared to earlier, is still a huge christmascandle. Adjustments downwards in anticipation of a shieldtank would be well favorable. I only correct my own spelling. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1690
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:44:00 -
[864] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:I still haven't heard a justification for the massive decrease in armor and hull on the Deimos.
My feeling is it's something to do with the new railguns. The train of thought must be: more damaging railguns = more appeal for fitting them, whilst the extra med on the deimos means that will be filled with a tracking computer. Thus, every deimos is now forced to be a kiter deimos. As we all well know, kiters don't tank. Therefore, T2 specialization for CCP now means "THIS IS HOW YOU WILL FIT YOUR SHIP". Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
797
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:45:00 -
[865] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:I think the problem is CCP is unwilling to take any risks when it comes to EvE.
Alot of game studios suffer from this, which is why all the games now a days are all the same nothingness.
Do something new CCP, we won't riot in jita over it. We all would welcome a fresh change to the stale ship line ups. You mean like how WoW have had so much powercreep that having a fully tinkered vanilla character vs a decent [last expansion] character is like fighting a Vindicator with an unfit Velator? CCP is the only company I know of in the history of gaming that have done balancing right. Everyone else do powercreep and/or massively fuuuck up the economy. CCP has done neither.
Balancing right?
Excuse me? How many years was winmatar the best at everything? How many years was winmatar the worst at everything?
How many years have the armor cap ships been supreme... Oh yeah, every year.
Until recently the entire hybrid weapon system was a complete joke.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:46:00 -
[866] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Reduction of range on point used on them? What? I wont even begin to explain how broken that is. No please do, this is the forum for discussing features and ideas after all.
I just put an idea down because a good idea is what is missing in this rebalance. I can't claim that mine is the best idea and I'd certainly like feedback on it's flaws so that we can work towards something better. Because if none of the ideas in this thread are good enough then we're all still stuck here without the idea we so desperately need to make this rebalance a success. We are all the worse off in that case. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
383
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:47:00 -
[867] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Harvey James wrote: The problem with the deimos is the thorax kind of stomps all over its old brawler role for a fraction of the cost and time..
You need to fit up the Thorax and the new Deimos in EFT bro. The only place Thorax is better is in speed, and not by much. Speed is the only thing it's supposed to be better at as well.
well its a too expensive ship to throw into a brawl with 200mil vs 20 ish mil and the thorax tracks better and is harder to hit or you have the exqueror navy issue for this role too .. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:47:00 -
[868] - Quote
They say t2 is for specialized ships. Perhaps Hacs specialize at sucking |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1128
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:47:00 -
[869] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: You do realize that those same T3's are in CCP's sights for the nerf bat right?
Yea they better tread carefully or else they'll have the Wormhole community up in arms. (If they rolled back Incursion nerfs because Incursionbears bitched and moaned they better not overnerf T3s or else they'll have an even larger WH community to deal with)
Sorry, go watch the devs at Fansfest again, and read the forum comments of malcanis and mynnna. They plan on destroying the T3 class.
They don't are one iota about anything the wh community says or cares about, since it does not support the goals of the null sec cartels. Hence the T3's will be nerfed into the ground. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
633
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:48:00 -
[870] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:If you can't begin to explain then evidently you have no argument. Reducing the range of shortpoints on ships designed for kiting spaces them out from the standard cruisers we have now; why do we need to spend 10x the ship cost just to gild the hulls that serve perfectly already? As for the MJD issue, that was more for the gimmick than anything, but I can see useful applications which can be countered by, for example, a warp scrambler. That oh-so-rarely fitted module. Ugh.. First, nothing in the game does this, it's super confusing for everyone and has absolutely no consistency. It adds absolutely total safety for kiters. You will never see another Vagabond lossmail. Ever. Why? What does it add to the game? Why is it needed? |
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
798
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:53:00 -
[871] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:ElQuirko wrote:If you can't begin to explain then evidently you have no argument. Reducing the range of shortpoints on ships designed for kiting spaces them out from the standard cruisers we have now; why do we need to spend 10x the ship cost just to gild the hulls that serve perfectly already? As for the MJD issue, that was more for the gimmick than anything, but I can see useful applications which can be countered by, for example, a warp scrambler. That oh-so-rarely fitted module. Ugh.. First, nothing in the game does this, it's super confusing for everyone and has absolutely no consistency. It adds absolutely total safety for kiters. You will never see another Vagabond lossmail. Ever. Why? What does it add to the game? Why is it needed?
Because people want HACs to have a role instead of just "overpriced faction cruiser."
It takes 12 seconds for a MJD to fire up, that is plenty of time for a fast tackle to scramble it.
I have no idea what the 50% scrambler/disrupter thing is all about though. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:02:00 -
[872] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:They say t2 is for specialized ships. Perhaps Hacs specialize at sucking
blah blah blah blah... blah
|
paritybit
Repo.
246
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:09:00 -
[873] - Quote
Somebody else has probably already pointed this out, but I thought it would be useful to at least say it in case nobody has.
The reason that Assault Frigates don't completely outclass Tech 1 Frigates is because they have a ~15% -¦ 3% slower base speed. This pretty much ensures that they can't keep up with a Tech 1 Frigate unless they fit a microwarpdrive or fit specifically for speed and pick on slower targets. This is, of course, with the exception of the relationship between the Rifter and it's higher tech brother the Jaguar.
In this pass the Heavy Assault Cruisers are only 5% to 10% slower than the Tech 1 Cruisers. And already Tech 1 Cruisers are slow enough that most people feel the need to put a microwarpdrive on them. We're at a good place now with Tech 1 Cruisers being used a lot, but I feel that we're going to lose that if Heavy Assault Cruisers are buffed to this level without a downside (in addition to cost).
We already know that cost is not a significant enough deterrent. We know this through the proliferation of supercapitals. We know this through the proliferation of Strategic Cruisers. If the only deterrent to flying a Heavy Assault Cruiser is cost, pilots won't have a reason to choose Tech 1 Cruisers and we'll be back to the old days where elite PVP alliances will shun anyone who lowers themselves far enough to fly a Tech 1 Cruiser.
There may be some amount of hyperbole here, but my point is accurate. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
383
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:14:00 -
[874] - Quote
Quote:Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.
The problem here is again the resilience i.e. EHP is still too weak ... you just nerfed the deimos tank and the Vaga and zealot have less than 1000 structure where is this resilience???
Mobile... eagle ..zealot, sacrilege, ishtar are all slow and unagile... so where is the mobility here???
And for the role bonus well it just doesn't go far enough as far as we are concerned .. lower the sig radius and increase the mwd to at least 60%... as mitigating damage is all well and fine so long as you can tank the other 75% of damage.
And with the miniscule dps most of these have aswell as the stunted projection on some of them what is the tanking good for .... absolutely nothing!! :) 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:15:00 -
[875] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:ElQuirko wrote:If you can't begin to explain then evidently you have no argument. Reducing the range of shortpoints on ships designed for kiting spaces them out from the standard cruisers we have now; why do we need to spend 10x the ship cost just to gild the hulls that serve perfectly already? As for the MJD issue, that was more for the gimmick than anything, but I can see useful applications which can be countered by, for example, a warp scrambler. That oh-so-rarely fitted module. Ugh.. First, nothing in the game does this, it's super confusing for everyone and has absolutely no consistency. It adds absolutely total safety for kiters. You will never see another Vagabond lossmail. Ever. Why? What does it add to the game? Why is it needed? New features are often confusing for people at first, I don't think that idea is more confusing than many of the successful new features that we have seen.
It certainly doesn't give kiters total safety. It just means that they can tackle and apply DPS to some targets while being outside of point range. It achieves that without increasing the actual damage projection or point range of the HACs themselves. They can still be tackled, they can still be killed. They gain the ability to operate in a range envelope that would otherwise be deadly to most ships, but outside that envelope they are still either in great danger or impotent.
Diesel47 wrote:I have no idea what the 50% scrambler/disrupter thing is all about though. Not scrambler, not web either. Just the disruptors, because the vast point ranges of today have a lot to do with how difficult skirmishing has become.
That and the lightning fast speed of on-grid probing has made hit-and-run far harder that it should be.
This is gameplay that needs to be encouraged, not stifled. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
799
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:27:00 -
[876] - Quote
paritybit wrote:Somebody else has probably already pointed this out, but I thought it would be useful to at least say it in case nobody has.
The reason that Assault Frigates don't completely outclass Tech 1 Frigates is because they have a ~15% -¦ 3% slower base speed. This pretty much ensures that they can't keep up with a Tech 1 Frigate unless they fit a microwarpdrive or fit specifically for speed and pick on slower targets. This is, of course, with the exception of the relationship between the Rifter and it's higher tech brother the Jaguar.
In this pass the Heavy Assault Cruisers are only 5% to 10% slower than the Tech 1 Cruisers. And already Tech 1 Cruisers are slow enough that most people feel the need to put a microwarpdrive on them. We're at a good place now with Tech 1 Cruisers being used a lot, but I feel that we're going to lose that if Heavy Assault Cruisers are buffed to this level without a downside (in addition to cost).
We already know that cost is not a significant enough deterrent. We know this through the proliferation of supercapitals. We know this through the proliferation of Strategic Cruisers. If the only deterrent to flying a Heavy Assault Cruiser is cost, pilots won't have a reason to choose Tech 1 Cruisers and we'll be back to the old days where elite PVP alliances will shun anyone who lowers themselves far enough to fly a Tech 1 Cruiser.
There may be some amount of hyperbole here, but my point is accurate.
Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
134
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:28:00 -
[877] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Quote:Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor. The problem here is again the resilience i.e. EHP is still too weak ... you just nerfed the deimos tank and the Vaga and zealot have less than 1000 structure where is this resilience??? Mobile... eagle ..zealot, sacrilege, ishtar are all slow and unagile... so where is the mobility here??? And for the role bonus well it just doesn't go far enough as far as we are concerned .. lower the sig radius and increase the mwd to at least 60%... as mitigating damage is all well and fine so long as you can tank the other 75% of damage. And with the miniscule dps most of these have aswell as the stunted projection on some of them what is the tanking good for .... absolutely nothing!! :)
miniscule dps? All those HACs are running 400 to 600 dps upwards depending on the range/speed/tank you fit. It runs up to extreme examples as a nanoishtar aligning in less than 4 seconds and most of all permarunning mwds for around 1.5km/s in average for armor, far far higher for shieldtanks. Given their resilence and the overall stats, I really would personally dislike them going on a much further buff. Tweaks are great, but they are - as of now - quite closing the gap between HACs and combat fitted T3s. Cerb, Muninn, Deimos and Zealot atm all compare pretty well to their respective combatfits, with the exception of the more extreme configurations some T3s allow in the 100mn segment. Combat fitted roughly tranlates to their respective correct offensive/propulsion sub with buffertanks and the eccm-sub. Surely HACs can't run those buffertanks, but on the side of damage projection and effective hardpoints, effectiveness of projected RR and general mobility, they are on par, slightly behind, about even and about even.
It costs me around 50mil to fit out a vexor, and it will probably cost me 200mil to fit out an ishtar. I think paying 4times is worth it here.
I only correct my own spelling. |
paritybit
Repo.
247
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:31:00 -
[878] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. They have a different engagement profile and you fly them differently. I still think the relationship between Tech 1 Cruisers and Heavy Assault Cruisers will be dysfunctional (because most people fit Tech 1 Cruisers with microwarpdrives already, so there's no real fitting difference), but it will be a little better than what's being proposed now. |
Retmas
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:34:00 -
[879] - Quote
i guess my only point of confusion is why the ishtar is given two essentially conflicting bonuses. sentry ishtars arent likely to also be carrying heavies, and as some folks pointed out, ogres still are slower than any cruiser hull with a MWD, making them pretty much dead weight solo. for fleets, they're not even considerable.
i dunno, i just feel like the ishtar, while good now, is getting mutually exclusive bonuses. if you want specialisation, CCP, why give it bonuses that tread in the territory of split weapons? make it a sentry boat, or a heavy boat if you must, but your stated goal of a specialist boat is simply not realised here.
alternately, put a pause on the ship and turret balancing passes, and give drones the attention they have greatly lacked. i mean really, turrets have undergone multiple balancing passes over the last two years, drones got damage amps. while appreciated, more attention is needed, especially with the prevalence of drone fleet concepts out here in null. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
801
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:37:00 -
[880] - Quote
paritybit wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. They have a different engagement profile and you fly them differently. I still think the relationship between Tech 1 Cruisers and Heavy Assault Cruisers will be dysfunctional (because most people fit Tech 1 Cruisers with microwarpdrives already, so there's no real fitting difference), but it will be a little better than what's being proposed now.
Not if we all whine hard enough.
|
|
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:41:00 -
[881] - Quote
Enough about probably over buffed ships that were good before the changes.
Lets talk about the Eagle? |
Endeis
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:43:00 -
[882] - Quote
I said earlier that Vaga needs more dps, I agree with a lot of what I've read after that saying it needs more dps at range specifically to avoid this brawler vaga idea. It does like 150dps at 30k, it really can't kill much atm. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
221
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:46:00 -
[883] - Quote
paritybit wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option I think you are giving up on the best option too readily.
paritybit wrote:which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. Too many ships already fill that role, otherwise I would probably be arguing the same.
With the number of medium gun hulls being so vast, we at the very least need to have the T2 ones in specialist roles. You have plenty of room for beefier but *whatever* alternatives to the t1 cruisers in the vast selection of cruiser and battlecruiser variants available. Keeping HACs in that general combat role is bad both for HACs and for everything else that shares that bracket. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:47:00 -
[884] - Quote
Now seems like a good time to re-post part of my comments from a few pages ago. On discussing the hulls that will likely 'make the cut' or 'not':
Let's take a quick look at the 4 that will likely be popular in 1.1:
Zealot - The current baseline. Good sig (AB), great dmg projection, decent tank, holds up well under reps Vagabond - 1/2 speed, 1/2 shield thank. only lacking *a little* in projection, otherwise fine PROPOSED Ishtar - some nice changes here, only concern is that it's being forced into a shield tank role (ref. Gallente lore). :Drones: aside, great projection. PROPOSED Cerberus - Finally enough dps, great projection, nice speed
What I see all of these having in common? DPS, and the ability to apply that DPS. These feature a winning combination of Speed, Sig, DPS and dmg projection. A large portion of their survivability comes directly from the T2 resist profiles, but also have the capability of fitting a significant tank without unduly impacting the ability to land hits on target.
Now for the other 4. Perhaps not surprisingly, these four are the ones that don't have the combination of speed & projection...
Sacrilege - Slow as balls. Option to EITHER fit tank OR fit dps, and even if you fit dps it's still not going to be impressive. Bonus to HML is nice, but low dps makes that fit unlikely. Bonus to HAM range will mitigate speed disadvantage somewhat, but closing range will still be an issue. Used to be able to dual active tank like a boss... not so much soon(TM). RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Keep the dps where it is, change the missile velocity bonus to explosion radius or explosion velocity. 25m3 drones. +1 low or move the utility high to a low. (personal wish list: Please roll the whole cap bonus into the hull).
Eagle - Also slow as balls. Slower than even the Sac. How is this thing supposed to brawl? Is it supposed to brawl? Dual optimal range bonuses imply 'sniper,' but that's a role better filled by ABC's. The only HAC of these four that has only a single damage bonus, giving it weaker raw dps than pretty much anything with a cruiser-sized gun mount. RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: If you want it to be able to brawl, drop one optimal bonus for another damage bonus to give it some alpha. Increase speed to 200 so it can compete. If you're going for a dedicated sniper platform, then drop the shield resist bonus for extra tracking. Medium rails will thank you.
Deimos - It can bring the pain, it just has trouble bringing it close enough... Especially if you take 10-15% of its raw hit points away. The MWD capacitor bonus is rendered superfluous by the proposed cap recharge rates. Personal pet peeve: Why do the Gallente hulls have more structure hit points than shield or armor? Haven't they read the "Hull Tanking Elite" certificate writeup? RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Don't be daft - give this thing some armor hit points to work with. Also, drop the MWD bonus in favor of a bonus that either allows blaster dps to be applied at range or increases tracking. This thing already does beastly dps, so reduce the dronebay to 25m3. Web range bonus might also be an option.
Munin - Good arty platform, but completely overshadowed by Tornadoes. Optimal range bonus does ~nothing for autocannons. Only 3 mids severely limits the fitting options. RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Give Autocannons some love. Change the 10% optimal bonus to 5% optimal and 5% falloff. Smooth the T2 resist profile on this one to be slightly more uniform. Boost armor HP to 2200. Consider moving the utility high to a mid.
For these last four, can you PLEASE consider a different Role bonus than the MWD bloom? And PLEASE consider 16 fitting slots?
Addendum: Also please consider splitting the HAC lineup into two; you already have 4 that look like they'll be perfectly viable on this pass. The other 4 could use a different role bonus and some re-thinking. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:47:00 -
[885] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:paritybit wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. They have a different engagement profile and you fly them differently. I still think the relationship between Tech 1 Cruisers and Heavy Assault Cruisers will be dysfunctional (because most people fit Tech 1 Cruisers with microwarpdrives already, so there's no real fitting difference), but it will be a little better than what's being proposed now. Not if we all whine hard enough.
i reduced my expectations....
...realisticly all i wat now is to get more pg on the vaga. |
Knoxx Golem Asator
God's Equation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:52:00 -
[886] - Quote
Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.
So here goes my million dollar question:
ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.
o7 |
paritybit
Repo.
247
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:53:00 -
[887] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:paritybit wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option I think you are giving up on the best option too readily. paritybit wrote:which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. Too many ships already fill that role, otherwise I would probably be arguing the same. With the number of medium gun hulls being so vast, we at the very least need to have the T2 ones in specialist roles. You have plenty of room for beefier but *whatever* alternatives to the t1 cruisers in the vast selection of cruiser and battlecruiser variants available. Keeping HACs in that general combat role is bad both for HACs and for everything else that shares that bracket.
Well, it's hard to see the light past all the cries that the buff isn't going far enough to make HACs the ultimate combat cruisers. Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:55:00 -
[888] - Quote
Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.
So here goes my million dollar question:
ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.
o7 Ishtar was boosted to 340 CPU (see OP) |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1311
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:59:00 -
[889] - Quote
Considering how long they've been in the dog house, possible temporary HAC OPness is not really something i as a PVP player would be terribly upset with. Be bold with your solutions Rise/Fozzie, if your fears come true it'd be easier to tone down one or two use cases than leave HACs as a class still in a bad place until the next time they come up for balance.
10%/level drone bonuses for the Ishtar, return the Deimos armor, take that lovely man's suggestion for adjusting the Sacri slot layout, drop Eagle shield resist bonus for a damage or tracking bonus, drop the Vaga shield boost bonus for a falloff bonus,
AND MAKE THE MWD BONUS WORTH (it's not a bad idea, but it needs to be 75% to have any traction) "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
221
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:03:00 -
[890] - Quote
paritybit wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:paritybit wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option I think you are giving up on the best option too readily. paritybit wrote:which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. Too many ships already fill that role, otherwise I would probably be arguing the same. With the number of medium gun hulls being so vast, we at the very least need to have the T2 ones in specialist roles. You have plenty of room for beefier but *whatever* alternatives to the t1 cruisers in the vast selection of cruiser and battlecruiser variants available. Keeping HACs in that general combat role is bad both for HACs and for everything else that shares that bracket. Well, it's hard to see the light past all the cries that the buff isn't going far enough to make HACs the ultimate combat cruisers. Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Yes, but there is a reason why we pay CCP to make this game for us: We are all terrible at game design. |
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:17:00 -
[891] - Quote
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.
Shameless re-bump. Many agree this is a worthy idea. I hope you're reading this, CCP Rise. We can revive one of the most underpowered and underappreciated HACs in the game, without making it OP in any way, by implementing this redesign alone.
Hear the prayer of every Amarr Victor and fix this darn ship. |
Knoxx Golem Asator
God's Equation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:17:00 -
[892] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.
So here goes my million dollar question:
ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.
o7 Ishtar was boosted to 340 CPU (see OP)
Sorry can you give me a link so i can read?
|
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:20:00 -
[893] - Quote
Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:nikar galvren wrote:Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.
So here goes my million dollar question:
ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.
o7 Ishtar was boosted to 340 CPU (see OP) Sorry can you give me a link so i can read?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3409697#post3409697
scroll to the Ishtar details |
Knoxx Golem Asator
God's Equation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:26:00 -
[894] - Quote
ty |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
752
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:29:00 -
[895] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Considering how long they've been in the dog house, possible temporary HAC OPness is not really something i as a PVP player would be terribly upset with.... This is Eve, 'temporary OP'ness' has so far meant 2-3 years or forever .. and even if .. what would end their reign when the time comes, we are pretty much done with the "normal pew hull" tiericide. Best not
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1311
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:47:00 -
[896] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Considering how long they've been in the dog house, possible temporary HAC OPness is not really something i as a PVP player would be terribly upset with.... This is Eve, 'temporary OP'ness' has so far meant 2-3 years or forever .. and even if .. what would end their reign when the time comes, we are pretty much done with the "normal pew hull" tiericide. Best not This is 2013, CCP's dedicated balance team would like to say hello and welcome you "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:02:00 -
[897] - Quote
I like these much better. At least gallente have ONE working HAC. Now as for the other one:
I'm not sure why you're nerfing the diemos so hard on hitpoints? why the mad dash for this? its already a fragile ship, and giving it a 4th mid won't make it a shield tanker through magic and pixy dust.
Its only hope is to be like the taranis: omni tanked, relying on high damage and high hitpoints to do anything significant. At least give me my honor structure tank back rise... |
Kick Rocks
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:09:00 -
[898] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:Lucien Cain wrote:nikar galvren wrote: [wall of despair] snip! [/wall of despair]
Your logic is so sound that I'm starting to fall in love with you darling. In all seriousness, you nailed the whole problem accurately. Take notes CCP! BTW: Liked Thank you. I seriously hope that CCP is taking notes.
They might be if your post was slightly less...rude.
I certainly don't like it when people shove words in my mouth. Rise and CCP might be different but I wouldn't bet on it. I personally do not feel that being correct entitles me to be an ass, but that is just me.
That being said I get what you are saying and understand your frustration. I don't care that much because I fly Muninns because I like the way they look, which is why I fly most of my ships. It is just internet spaceships to me but I don't hate on you or anyone else for caring. This thread had been very entertaining. |
Shadow McGregor
Trident Tactical Group The Unthinkables
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:37:00 -
[899] - Quote
Overall there is some promise to be had here. I like that you have increased the CPU for the Ishtar and remove the drone bay bonus, thank you. Although changing the Sentry Tracking/Range bonus 10% to 7.5% and making it the Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonus instead of Gallente Cruiser Bonus is very disappointing. I also agree with a previous poster in saying that the speed bonus should not be centered around just Heavy Drones which received a strong nerf when the AI was upgraded to the rats, maybe consider doing a 5% Drone MWD speed bonus. This would have good results in PVP allowing light drones to catch the faster frigs aswell.
ISHTAR
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed (was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 5% bonus to Drone MWD speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 780 PWG(+80), 340 CPU(+55) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400 (-6) / 1600 (-18) / 2300 (+191) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400 (+275) / 265s (-70s) / 5.28/s (+1.9) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+4) / .52 / 11100000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+250) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+20km) / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+7) Signature radius: 145
This Ishtar could be used for both PVE and PVP options. |
Koshie Naranek
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:42:00 -
[900] - Quote
A few thoughts, but I am probably way off.
Recently every time a Minmatar ship has been redesigned it has been cursed.
The Tempest looks so good. And now is the worst tech 1 BS in the game (7/6/6 slot layout please, who the hell armor tanks this thing with only 6 low slots and still have room for gyro's). Two neuts are nice, if you are trying to kill supers. You will still have one high utility slot left. Geddon is your new neut boat anyways.
The Stabber (especially the vaga variant) looks a lot better, but its a shield tanker with 4 mid slots.
The Muninn (no the Rupture hull hasn't been redesigned, but it should be, but after the Moa...WTF) should get that extra high slot transferred to a mid, not a low slot. Everyone shield tanks Muninns for a reason.
I know you are trying to add variety but Minmatar are shield tankers by nature. Not armor tankers. Look at the t2 resist profile for shields vs armor on mini ships. We have Gallente and Amarr for armor tanking.
I should have posted anonymously, as I am just rambling. But these are some thoughts I've had for a while.
But overall thanks Rise for the changes. All the changes. You must have some really thick skin. Or a lot of tear collection buckets.
|
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
801
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:45:00 -
[901] - Quote
Koshie Naranek wrote:A few thoughts, but I am probably way off.
Recently every time a Minmatar ship has been redesigned it has been cursed.
The Tempest looks so good. And now is the worst tech 1 BS in the game (7/6/6 slot layout please, who the hell armor tanks this thing with only 6 low slots and still have room for gyro's). Two neuts are nice, if you are trying to kill supers. You will still have one high utility slot left. Geddon is your new neut boat anyways.
The Stabber (especially the vaga variant) looks a lot better, but its a shield tanker with 4 mid slots.
The Muninn (no the Rupture hull hasn't been redesigned, but it should be, but after the Moa...WTF) should get that extra high slot transferred to a mid, not a low slot. Everyone shield tanks Muninns for a reason.
I know you are trying to add variety but Minmatar are shield tankers by nature. Not armor tankers. Look at the t2 resist profile for shields vs armor on mini ships. We have Gallente and Amarr for armor tanking.
I should have posted anonymously, as I am just rambling. But these are some thoughts I've had for a while.
But overall thanks Rise for the changes. All the changes. You must have some really thick skin. Or a lot of tear collection buckets.
+1, I believe minn need to have more shield tanking ships. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:52:00 -
[902] - Quote
Blastil wrote:I like these much better. At least gallente have ONE working HAC. Now as for the other one:
I'm not sure why you're nerfing the diemos so hard on hitpoints? why the mad dash for this? its already a fragile ship, and giving it a 4th mid won't make it a shield tanker through magic and pixy dust.
Its only hope is to be like the taranis: omni tanked, relying on high damage and high hitpoints to do anything significant. At least give me my honor structure tank back rise...
Been running some numbers on the Deimos.
55K EHP fragile ship ? 1700 m/s (2385 m/s overheated) to a armor ship ? 727 DPS (812 DPS overheated) ? Cap stable ? All this without a single gang bonus applied ?
What are you complaining about?
|
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 01:07:00 -
[903] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:[quote=Blastil]55K EHP fragile ship ? 1700 m/s (2385 m/s overheated) to a armor ship ? 727 DPS (812 DPS overheated) ? Cap stable ? All this without a single gang bonus applied ?
What are you complaining about?
I wonder if a talos can beat every single one of those stats at once. My guess is yes. 2/3 is easy, but someone should do the 3/3 for me. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1373
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 01:07:00 -
[904] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Blastil wrote:I like these much better. At least gallente have ONE working HAC. Now as for the other one:
I'm not sure why you're nerfing the diemos so hard on hitpoints? why the mad dash for this? its already a fragile ship, and giving it a 4th mid won't make it a shield tanker through magic and pixy dust.
Its only hope is to be like the taranis: omni tanked, relying on high damage and high hitpoints to do anything significant. At least give me my honor structure tank back rise... Been running some numbers on the Deimos. 55K EHP fragile ship ? 1700 m/s (2385 m/s overheated) to a armor ship ? 727 DPS (812 DPS overheated) ? Cap stable ? All this without a single gang bonus applied ? What are you complaining about? Show the fit, remember no deadspace, faction, or officer mods. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Stridsflygplan
Tigers in the Snow Nyratic
63
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 01:13:00 -
[905] - Quote
Iam satisfied. Even if there are people screaming for moar I think you should wait until pirate and T3 ship are done and then go back and take a look if there is something that need a nerf or buff. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
348
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 01:18:00 -
[906] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Blastil wrote:I like these much better. At least gallente have ONE working HAC. Now as for the other one:
I'm not sure why you're nerfing the diemos so hard on hitpoints? why the mad dash for this? its already a fragile ship, and giving it a 4th mid won't make it a shield tanker through magic and pixy dust.
Its only hope is to be like the taranis: omni tanked, relying on high damage and high hitpoints to do anything significant. At least give me my honor structure tank back rise... Been running some numbers on the Deimos. 55K EHP fragile ship ? 1700 m/s (2385 m/s overheated) to a armor ship ? 727 DPS (812 DPS overheated) ? Cap stable ? All this without a single gang bonus applied ? What are you complaining about? I think people want their HAC to have current combat T3 performances, but cheaper ; but they actually care about balance you know...
Besides, real numbers are boring. You can't whine with real numbers : they are not bad enough so it's better to invent a ship which combine everything from any ship you can think about and bringing it on the table with the good number to counter any one number of the HAC. That way, you have an allmighty Talos-Tornado-Thorax-Tengu-Megathron to kill anything with turrets not OP enough to kill a titan with one gun.
More seriously, as said, the railgun Deimos will be a better Talos, and all the problems related to blaster Deimos are pure invention or blaster specific problems (or inherent drawback, like the range). With the Muninn, the problem is that people believe the Tornado is able to one shot any cruiser within 100km, which is completely crazy. And for some reason, people want the Sacrilege to have the same dps of a turret ship with missiles, and still have a BS tank. And finaly the Eagle : the buff is to expect from the railguns themselves. Expect 400dps@50km. Of course the Naga, but the tracking... Large Railgun won't hit anything below 50km... |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 01:18:00 -
[907] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:DeadDuck wrote:[quote=Blastil]55K EHP fragile ship ? 1700 m/s (2385 m/s overheated) to a armor ship ? 727 DPS (812 DPS overheated) ? Cap stable ? All this without a single gang bonus applied ?
What are you complaining about?
I wonder if a talos can beat every single one of those stats at once. My guess is yes. 2/3 is easy, but someone should do the 3/3 for me.
Nailed it- Pretty baller, lol. Good luck killing anyone, but I'm sure what you have is equally hapless.
[Talos, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Overdrive Injector System II 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Overdrive Injector System II
10MN Microwarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II
Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 01:18:00 -
[908] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Show the fit, remember no deadspace, faction, or officer mods.
[Deimos, New Setup 1] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Armor Explosive Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I Medium Hybrid Collision Accelerator I
Hammerhead II x5
Enjoy |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 01:21:00 -
[909] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote: Nailed it- Pretty baller, lol. Good luck killing anyone, but I'm sure what you have is equally hapless.
[Talos, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Overdrive Injector System II 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Overdrive Injector System II
10MN Microwarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II
Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Electron Blaster Cannon II, Void L
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
I have my suspicious that you are not the guy making the PL fits for the Alliance Tournement. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1373
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 01:37:00 -
[910] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Show the fit, remember no deadspace, faction, or officer mods. [Deimos, New Setup 1] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Armor Explosive Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I Medium Hybrid Collision Accelerator I Hammerhead II x5 Enjoy Ok I will enjoy.
Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
119
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 02:05:00 -
[911] - Quote
Blastil wrote:I like these much better. At least gallente have ONE working HAC. Now as for the other one:
I'm not sure why you're nerfing the diemos so hard on hitpoints? why the mad dash for this? its already a fragile ship, and giving it a 4th mid won't make it a shield tanker through magic and pixy dust.
Its only hope is to be like the taranis: omni tanked, relying on high damage and high hitpoints to do anything significant. At least give me my honor structure tank back rise...
.... I have no clue....
Put the hit points in its tank. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
1265
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 02:17:00 -
[912] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:And finaly the Eagle : the buff is to expect from the railguns themselves. Expect 400dps@50km. Of course the Naga, but the tracking... Large Railgun won't hit anything below 50km...
Future Eagle Duality Test Subject:
High: 250 II x 5 Mid: MWD LSE II x 2 Adaptive II TC II x 2 Low: MFS II x 3 RCU II Rigs: EM Shield Ionic Field Projector
480 DPS at 53km with faction AM before overheating is my thoughts - 45k EHP before boost links. With damage implants it will break 500 DPS. You can get a 5% medium hybrid damage implant for less then 9 million isk. Tracking computers give you some help with range vs. tracking. |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 02:18:00 -
[913] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:I have my suspicious that you are not the guy making the PL fits for the Alliance Tournement. You said a ship was good. I made a ship that was better in every possible regard than what you claimed, for what, 1/4 the price?
Sounds to me like you got walked on son. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 02:31:00 -
[914] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:DeadDuck wrote:I have my suspicious that you are not the guy making the PL fits for the Alliance Tournement. You said a ship was good. I made a ship that was better in every possible regard than what you claimed, for what, 1/4 the price? Sounds to me like you got walked on son.
Her'e is my advice: wait for papa Shadoo to think for a good Deimos setup based on the good base features the ship now has and then buy it from alliance contracts in order you don'y have to actually fit it. Then just follow orders and be a l33t. |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 02:43:00 -
[915] - Quote
not gonna bother with a big post again since it clearly got ignored last time but the deimos is clearly going to continue being a useless ship I see. Thanks?
it's gonna be fun pretending to be a Talos with the deimos now! but without the range and the dmg? is it even faster than a talos? well if we go rails on it maybe it'll TRUELY SHINE! WHAT A BEAST! /sarcasm off. |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 02:47:00 -
[916] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:DeadDuck wrote:I have my suspicious that you are not the guy making the PL fits for the Alliance Tournement. You said a ship was good. I made a ship that was better in every possible regard than what you claimed, for what, 1/4 the price? Sounds to me like you got walked on son. Her'e is my advice: wait for papa Shadoo to think for a good Deimos setup based on the good base features the ship now has and then buy it from alliance contracts in order you don'y have to actually fit it. Then just follow orders and be a l33t. NO DONT MAKE FUN OF MY FITTING SKILLS PLS NO.
Guess this is where I get all etough and break out my street cred. Get as far as me in the alliance tourney as a team captain and we can speak buddy. |
Behnid Arcani
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 03:10:00 -
[917] - Quote
As a Khanid, thank you for the new Sacrilege. I've been waiting for that bonus to be applied to long range weapons forever. I see it becoming a very popular screen ship in the future... that low sig and resist profile might be overpowered though. We'll see.
I'm kind of hoping the Vengeance gets the same treatment. When I think of a LML kiter with a tiny sig, a great resist profile AND a bonus to MWD bloom... Need to train missile skills now :) |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1185
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 03:10:00 -
[918] - Quote
DEIMOS
For the Deimos we are getting rid of the mwd bonus as its outdated and odd. We are replacing it with a 5% to armor per level to give the deimos great armor ehp. Furthermore we are going to remove the 5th high slot and move it to a low making the ship have 7 low slots. to make up for lost dps we are going to switch one of the damage bonus to a 7.5.% to rate of fire which will result in a net loss of 5% of overall turret dps but we feel the loss is worth the extra low slot. Moreover we are also going to switch the falloff bonus for a tracking bonus as this will make the deimos a great blaster ship or a great rail ship.
Side note we are replacing the role bonus on all hacs to a reduction in heat damage to modules. Role Bonus: 37.5% reduction in Heat damage to modules
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% to Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% increase to Armor 7.5% to Medium Hybrid Turret Rate of Fire
Slot layout: 4H(-2), 4M(+1), 7L(+1); 4 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1050 PWG(+60), 360 CPU(+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1600(+225) / 255s (-80s) / 5.5/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 300(+30) / 6 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7) Signature radius: 150(-10) There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Sal Awat
Emphatically Unaffiliated Industries
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 03:12:00 -
[919] - Quote
I'm not quite sure I'm totally onboard with the continued Kinetic restriction for the Cerberus. RLML's or no. It does really downplay one of the biggest strong points of missiles.
It just doesn't feel right. This seems to be the same line of thinking that has the Phoenix where it is usewise. Not that I'm anywhere near experienced enough to comment on capitals.
Hell, I'd rather just see one of the distance bonuses vanish and become an explosion radius bonus maybe? If RLML's are too much of a problem with that, have it only apply to the heavy missiles\HAMS.
I'm as much for becoming a frigates worst nightmare as the next guy; but I REALLY dislike the taste of the flavored missile damage hull bonuses.
My .02isk on the matter.
Would love to see 5 drones and a bit more speed on the eagle though. And maybe drop one of the optimal bonuses for tracking? Rails are going to be hurting for it as it is. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
204
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 03:49:00 -
[920] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:DEIMOS
For the Deimos we are getting rid of the mwd bonus as its outdated and odd. We are replacing it with a 5% to armor per level to give the deimos great armor ehp. Furthermore we are going to remove the 5th high slot and move it to a low making the ship have 7 low slots. to make up for lost dps we are going to switch one of the damage bonus to a 7.5.% to rate of fire which will result in a net loss of 5% of overall turret dps but we feel the loss is worth the extra low slot. Moreover we are also going to switch the falloff bonus for a tracking bonus as this will make the deimos a great blaster ship or a great rail ship.
Side note we are replacing the role bonus on all hacs to a reduction in heat damage to modules. Role Bonus: 37.5% reduction in Heat damage to modules
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% to Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% increase to Armor 7.5% to Medium Hybrid Turret Rate of Fire
Slot layout: 4H(-2), 4M(+1), 7L(+1); 4 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1050 PWG(+60), 360 CPU(+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1600(+225) / 255s (-80s) / 5.5/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 300(+30) / 6 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7) Signature radius: 150(-10)
I too would rather a tracking bonus than the falloff. Falloff does nothing for blasters in optimal and nothing for rails, tracking helps both hugely.
Changing role bonus to overheating bonus on all the HACS would be really cool. I think changing another high to a low will give it too many lows, especially when the Sac only has 5!!. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
|
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
204
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 03:54:00 -
[921] - Quote
It's been said adnorsium, but change the utility high on the Sac to a low slot, it has less damn lows than a diemos. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 03:57:00 -
[922] - Quote
the sac needs the utility high , but it also needs a low so just take away a launcher , tweak the bonuses so the dmg stays the same , and move one high to low slots.
voila , the sacrilege is fixed!
also the zealot needs drones IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Justin Cody
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 04:08:00 -
[923] - Quote
Akturous wrote:It's been said adnorsium, but change the utility high on the Sac to a low slot, it has less damn lows than a diemos.
^pretty much that^
Otherwise all looks good to me. Should be interesting to see all the vaga gangs out. The current meta is all about kite/nano/control so should be popular no matter what.
With the Deimos's 4th mid slot that might give brawlers a bit of an edge in catching or negating some effects of vagas and friends. (TD them to death as an example), or range damp to force in closer. There does need to be some way to force minmatar pilots to commit to a fight. I think most people hate that feeling of being tackled and dying from 1K paper cuts cause your ship is just too slow for no good reason other than...minmatar are fast yo!
Least advanced race in EVE has most advanced ships as far as I can tell. The eagle isn't a counter to the vaga in any way...nor is the zealot thanks to the ridiculous EM resists on t2 minnie stuff. The cerb? maybe. I'll be giving them all a try and with HAC V I'll make a decent report. |
Yahyan
Shayol Ghul Forge
60
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 04:22:00 -
[924] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:the sac needs the utility high , but it also needs a low so just take away a launcher , tweak the bonuses so the dmg stays the same , and move one high to low slots.
voila , the sacrilege is fixed!
also the zealot needs drones
Exactly @CCP You did not fix lasers, at least give amarr some love which you are granting other races generously. |
Zetak
State War Academy Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 05:02:00 -
[925] - Quote
Great job on the cerb. Every change I like. One thing I do not like though, and that is the missile flight time bonus. Dump it, burn it, exile into another dimension, and increase missile velocity bonus to 2x50%. The problem with missiles at longer ranges -as every player knows - is the infamous missile speed, which makes long range missile combat a pain in the...you know :) I barely dare to say that if you fight at shorter ranges the bonus is wasted (with heavy missiles) Having 100% speed, the projected missiles would get as close to turret insta hit as possible, while the ship keeps the long range dedication. What would change in terms of missile range? Nothing. What would change in terms of efficiency? Everything. I like the idea of a very fast missile much more, than of a longer flight time one. It is a better fit to the med long range missile and assault platform role you want to give the ship. After 5 years of missile pew pew, I can honestly say a fast missile is waaay better than a slower but longer flying one.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 05:12:00 -
[926] - Quote
Akturous wrote:It's been said adnorsium, but change the utility high on the Sac to a low slot, it has less damn lows than a diemos. It's "ad nauseum" fyi, and the slot layout on the Sac is fine. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1311
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 05:26:00 -
[927] - Quote
Zetak wrote:One thing I do not like though, and that is the missile flight time bonus. Dump it, burn it, exile into another dimension, and increase missile velocity bonus to 2x50%. The problem with missiles at longer ranges -as every player knows - is the infamous missile speed, which makes long range missile combat a pain in the...you know :) I barely dare to say that if you fight at shorter ranges the bonus is wasted (with heavy missiles) Having 100% speed, the projected missiles would get as close to turret insta hit as possible, while the ship keeps the long range dedication. What would change in terms of missile range? Nothing. What would change in terms of efficiency? Everything. I like the idea of a very fast missile much more, than of a longer flight time one. It is a better fit to the med long range missile and assault platform role you want to give the ship. After 5 years of missile pew pew, I can honestly say a fast missile is waaay better than a slower but longer flying one. +1000 "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 05:29:00 -
[928] - Quote
Quote:Been running some numbers on the Deimos.
55K EHP fragile ship ? 1700 m/s (2385 m/s overheated) to a armor ship ? 727 DPS (812 DPS overheated) ? Cap stable ? All this without a single gang bonus applied ?
What are you complaining about?
You sure that EHP isn't the current numbers? I plug in your setup and get the same DPS and speed. But, with the reduction in base armor HP and base hull HP, I don't calculate anywhere near 55k. The rest of the setup seems close enough. But, the CURRENT Deimos does 55k EHP before the base HP nerf. I don't think the new is getting that number at all.
Also, it looks like this "barely" fits with AWU 5. Fine by me, but it's a rather unrealistic fit for the vast majority of pilots. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 05:46:00 -
[929] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:
You sure that EHP isn't the current numbers? I plug in your setup and get the same DPS and speed. But, with the reduction in base armor HP and base hull HP, I don't calculate anywhere near 55k. The rest of the setup seems close enough. But, the CURRENT Deimos does 55k EHP before the base HP nerf. I don't think the new is getting that number at all.
Also, it looks like this "barely" fits with AWU 5. Fine by me, but it's a rather unrealistic fit for the vast majority of pilots.
[NEW Deimos, test tank] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Armor Explosive Hardener II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Stasis Webifier II Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption Script
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Hybrid Collision Accelerator I Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Hammerhead II x5
55,263 EHP 1686 m/s 727 dps
Not the fit I would use, but he is right with his numbers |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 05:47:00 -
[930] - Quote
Quote:Not the fit I would use, but he is right with his numbers
How are you getting 55k ehp with hundreds of points less in base armor and hull?
Quote:Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1050 PWG(+60), 360 CPU(+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400(+25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.5/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7) Signature radius: 150(-10)
The bolded portions are showing me a lot less than 55k. 55k is what it gets NOW with that setup. I don't see how it gets that in the future after losing these numbers. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 06:03:00 -
[931] - Quote
Here:
http://i.imgur.com/awemKOf.png
That one does not include drone damage mind you. Dps from drones: 158,4, 727 total Dps |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 06:10:00 -
[932] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:the sac needs the utility high , but it also needs a low so just take away a launcher , tweak the bonuses so the dmg stays the same , and move one high to low slots.
voila , the sacrilege is fixed!
also the zealot needs drones
THIS! There is clearly a common consensus about how the SAC needs to be changed in order to become a viable ship worth of it's cost and training time. Most people tend to ignore how time consuming it is to actually fly a HAC properly. There is clearly enough evidence for CCP that many people would love to see the SAC get it's reasonable share of changes and upgrades. None of the suggestions and advices would make it OP, so the Balance would be served without compromise.
Alright CCP...we are roasting in the fires of our own devotion to the game. Could you give us an answer please?
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3209
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 06:15:00 -
[933] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Show the fit, remember no deadspace, faction, or officer mods. [Deimos, New Setup 1] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Armor Explosive Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I Medium Hybrid Collision Accelerator I Hammerhead II x5 Enjoy
Nice one! You can get away with a small cap booster, swap rigs to T2 Burst and ACR and upgrade guns to Ions. T2 plate will fit, and if you opt for a RAH instead of second EANM, you can drop the explo hardener for a second magstab. Not much less EHP against Barrage, and more against other damage types.
That's surprisingly viable, I've based my fits on 800mm plates which is quite a bit thinner in tank, but the 1600 looks rock solid for logi gangs and is a faster alternative to a Proteus.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
114
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 06:17:00 -
[934] - Quote
Thats a solo fit, for any logi supported fleets that would be a total shitfit (due to how it would stack with legion links). |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3209
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 06:26:00 -
[935] - Quote
Yeah, I'd drop the second EANM for a mag like said. Not sure if RAH stacks with links, does it?
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 06:32:00 -
[936] - Quote
Decided to investigate the deimos further now that I'm back. Compared it to pretty much every ship.
If I limited myself to t2 and worse, I couldn't make a ship that was completely better in every possible regard, but i was able to make ships that were mostly better for much cheaper. In every case, the deimos would end up out shining them in one stat (typically speed), but be inferior in all others while still being able to tackle effectively. I decided after that to compare it to the proteus out of interest. I came up with the following fit after about 3 minutes of trying. There's a lot of holes, but it exemplifies the problem I have with the current design approach to hacs:
[Proteus, New Setup 1] Overdrive Injector System II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating Proteus Offensive - Hybrid Propulsion Armature Proteus Electronics - Friction Extension Processor Proteus Engineering - Supplemental Coolant Injector Proteus Propulsion - Localized Injectors
Hammerhead II x5
Its superior to the example deimos in all possible regards. Its faster, it does more damage, it has more tank, and it even has 3 rig slots to play around with on top of already accomplishing all these things. There's plenty of grid to fit a cap booster plus some ewar mods, and it has special bonuses that make it far superior to the deimos, especially extended warp scram/disruptor range. I did this mostly so I could evaluate just how desirable the new hacs would be, since this setup could currently be flown by anyone.
So ask yourself. Are there lots of people flying proteus's like this? Is this ship actually going to be desirable to fly if this is all it is? Its essentially a poor mans bad version of this proteus, and if thats all hacs are going to be after their buff- no thanks.
I want hacs to be specialized, is it too much to ask for them to get a role and be designed around accomplishing that role. ATM they're just another ship- and sadly one that is kinda in the middle. These changes do nothing to alter that problem. |
Gorgoth24
Sickology
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 06:37:00 -
[937] - Quote
+1
THAT GRAPH HELPED A LOT. I never realized how unintuitive tracking was before, or how much sig resolution affected damage when talking about anything but a dual-prop brawler.
Overall the changes make a lot more sense. Increased fitting on Ishtar, Check. Damage projection on the new Sac, Check. Cerberus looking mean as a skirmisher, Check. Still skeptical about the Eagle, but I'm sure the medium railgun changes will make the Eagle very powerful.
Much improved on this pass, thanks Rise!
P.S. Thanks for not giving the Sac another low |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 06:52:00 -
[938] - Quote
Gorgoth24 wrote:
P.S. Thanks for not giving the Sac another low
Please be so kind and explain to every single SAC pilot why a weaker tank is such a good idea?
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:00:00 -
[939] - Quote
You're still showing more armor hp than I am calculating.
With a base armor of 1750 I get a total armor hp of 6988 in this fit. Can you demonstrate how you get to 8188? I'm not saying I don't believe you. It's that one of us has to be mistaken. I'm open to the idea that it's me, but if it is, I just haven't figured out how. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
225
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:00:00 -
[940] - Quote
i still dont understand the new vaga bonuses, if you fit a L-ASB you get overall 1800 more raw hp than a LSE, this mean you from the average 29K EHP of a dual LSE vaga to maybe 35K with overload with a LSE+LASB combo, plus you are more at risk of being alpha-ed or being outganked before you use all your charges, plus you need more micro managing, since its so easy to kite especially now that all the other races are getting faster and the vaga its getting slower, right? not really worthy me think. if you try to fit an XL-ASB you have to do so many compromises that the thing start to be ridiculous, like no mwd, no medium neut, you cant even think about fitting something more than 180mm AC, lots of fitting mods, this bring you a ship that surely can tank but have the same (or less) dps of T1 cruiser.
also the "brawling vaga" seems such a good idea but wasnt brawling considered unworthy with HACs (see diemost)?
can we get some extra fittings on the ship or another bonus? maybe a good one? |
|
Landaz
Raven's Flight Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:04:00 -
[941] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:Gorgoth24 wrote:
P.S. Thanks for not giving the Sac another low
Please be so kind and explain to every single SAC pilot why a weaker tank is such a good idea?
I agree. Give us our sac low slot! |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:14:00 -
[942] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Thats a solo fit, for any logi supported fleets that would be a total shitfit (due to how it would stack with legion links).
Interesting. How would you fit it for logi supported fleets? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:15:00 -
[943] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote: You're still showing more armor hp than I am calculating.
With a base armor of 1750 I get a total armor hp of 6988 in this fit. Can you demonstrate how you get to 8188? I'm not saying I don't believe you. It's that one of us has to be mistaken. I'm open to the idea that it's me, but if it is, I just haven't figured out how.
Strange. Maybe EFT applies skills to plates? Are you using the latest modified files? When I do the math I get the same result as you, but EFT does not agree apparently. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
21
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:16:00 -
[944] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Devon Weeks wrote: You're still showing more armor hp than I am calculating.
With a base armor of 1750 I get a total armor hp of 6988 in this fit. Can you demonstrate how you get to 8188? I'm not saying I don't believe you. It's that one of us has to be mistaken. I'm open to the idea that it's me, but if it is, I just haven't figured out how.
Strange. Maybe EFT applies skills to plates? Are you using the latest modified files? When I do the math I get the same result as you, but EFT does not agree apparently.
Yeah. I figured it out. EFT does (Base Armor HP*1.25)+Plate.
I had figured it was (Base Armor HP*1.25)+Plate.
Still, though, it's a three thousand EHP loss, and the Diemos was already the Diemost. It seems rather unnecessary. |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:19:00 -
[945] - Quote
Still disappointed to see no Minmatar Missile HAC. They're the ONLY race to not have a HAC for each racial weapon system. Doesn't seem like there's much point in even bothering with medium missiles for Minmatar unless you want to fly a cyclone. I still don't really see what the point of the Muninn is either. |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:36:00 -
[946] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Still disappointed to see no Minmatar Missile HAC. They're the ONLY race to not have a HAC for each racial weapon system. Doesn't seem like there's much point in even bothering with medium missiles for Minmatar unless you want to fly a cyclone. I still don't really see what the point of the Muninn is either.
I do support this. Please make the vaga a missile boat. |
Aliventi
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
329
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:37:00 -
[947] - Quote
Dani Lizardov wrote:XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Still disappointed to see no Minmatar Missile HAC. They're the ONLY race to not have a HAC for each racial weapon system. Doesn't seem like there's much point in even bothering with medium missiles for Minmatar unless you want to fly a cyclone. I still don't really see what the point of the Muninn is either. I do support this. Please make the vaga a missile boat. I support this if only for the tears. They might even rival when the Sliephnir gets changed to a Hurricane hull. "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
752
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:42:00 -
[948] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Considering how long they've been in the dog house, possible temporary HAC OPness is not really something i as a PVP player would be terribly upset with.... This is Eve, 'temporary OP'ness' has so far meant 2-3 years or forever .. and even if .. what would end their reign when the time comes, we are pretty much done with the "normal pew hull" tiericide. Best not This is 2013, CCP's dedicated balance team would like to say hello and welcome you That's the claim/idea and I may believe it when I see it
sten mattson wrote:the sac needs the utility high , but it also needs a low so just take away a launcher , tweak the bonuses so the dmg stays the same , and move one high to low slots.
voila , the sacrilege is fixed!
also the zealot needs drones Damnit, had to sleep .. that is what I was going to say, except for the last part as drones will and cannot fix what amounts to an application/control issue. Sacrilege: Increasing RoF and Damage to 7.5%/level and moving a launcher to a low slot yields a whopping dps increase equalling half a launcher, insignificant but quite frankly warranted now that guns are no longer even an option .. can even leave the pointless* range bonus for all I care if done that way. Besides, if Gallente can have a high moved to the far more powerful middle rack (guilt tripping Devs, hahahahaha).
Zealot: It is Godly on the larger scale (>5) where overlapping fields of fire makes sure nothing comes away unharmed, but less leaves very little options if winning is the aim. Drones would help of course but doesn't fix the problem which is cap and damage application (the two are related). Neuts have been a constant in pew since the Nos nerf all those years ago and with tiericide's added mids to everything not sporting the snazzy Amarr emblem you now get TD spammed in PvP so it feels like running that horrible Sansha Blockade. Tracking bonus solves the small but breaks the large so that is out. Drones (25m3) doesn't do anything apart from adding to the micro and distracting the enemy on the small and with current meta in mind would just result in even more sentries under Da Blob FC's control or blot out the sun with ec300 on the large. So what could solve it? .. as I see it there are two options: 1. Remove the laser cap bonus and introduce a brand new one to the balancing toolbox to be used (ad libitum on Amarr gun boats of course!): +10%/level effect of cap modules. Includes relays, flux coils, injectors, rechargers and batteries. 2. Add the 3rd pulse to the Medium and Large categories. Extreme tracking with reduced range and negligible falloff. Adds an option to counter some of the TD spam on the small scale without breaking the large scale where range/oomph is all you want to make the sphere of death as potent as possible. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
222
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 07:43:00 -
[949] - Quote
Dani Lizardov wrote:XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Still disappointed to see no Minmatar Missile HAC. They're the ONLY race to not have a HAC for each racial weapon system. Doesn't seem like there's much point in even bothering with medium missiles for Minmatar unless you want to fly a cyclone. I still don't really see what the point of the Muninn is either. I do support this. Please make the vaga a missile boat. Surely Munnin?
Another candidate for redeeming the split weapon system maybe? Just give the Munnin a full set of launcher and turret hardpoints and a full strength bonus for each and let the players and the metagame do what they want with it. |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 08:08:00 -
[950] - Quote
Quote:EAGLE
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 990 PWG(+115), 440 CPU(+2) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1350(-25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.29/s (+1.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 180(+16) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km(+20km) / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 25 Gravimetric(+7) Signature radius: 140(-10)
Why do we have dual 10% Optimal Bonus ? Optimal bonus on a Hybrid Weapon system ?
Why the Eagle is the only HAC one dmg bonus?
Please change one of the optimal bonuses to RoF, DMG or Tracking .
A RoF bonus will make same as Sacrilege but with shields. Sacre bonuses: + 5% DMG + 4% resists + 10% Range + 5% RoF
On the same note, about putting some sense into the interracial balance. Amar has a HAC with a resist bonus Caldary has a HAC with a resist bonus Minmatar will have a HAC with active tank bonus (a waste of TIME!!!)
Gallente: Does not have nor Resist bonus nor Active tank bonus Since the Deimost is already broken. . . shield gallente ship by the new design, please give the Ishtar an Active Armour Bonus
ISHTAR
Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 7.5% increase to armor repair amount per level 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage per skill level.
Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Drone optimal range and tracking speed (all drones not just sentry)
Quote:Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 780 PWG(+80), 340 CPU(+55) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400 (-6) / 1600 (-18) / 2300 (+191) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400 (+275) / 265s (-70s) / 5.28/s (+1.9) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+4) / .52 / 11100000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+250) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+20km) / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+7) Signature radius: 145
|
|
KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 08:59:00 -
[951] - Quote
This balance pass looks nice, I can't wait to start testing and give feedback |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:01:00 -
[952] - Quote
Dani Lizardov wrote: ISHTAR
Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 7.5% increase to armor repair amount per level 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage per skill level.
Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Drone optimal range and tracking speed (all drones not just sentry)
Please no, we already have 2 repping BC's.
If I were to give my take on it, I would give it the following:
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Drone and Sentry Drone tracking (was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and Heavy Drone speed (was bonus to drone bay capacity)
But I think the tracking of 10% is a bit much stepping on the Dominix' toes. Whatevs really, the Ishtar is fine now with the new CPU. |
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
80
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:10:00 -
[953] - Quote
This pass got to be overall much better than previous. On this good job.
The ship changes that bother me is sacrilege. With pretty low speed it's natural role was to brawl. And cap bonus with resist bonus supported that behavior.
Now it can shoot HMLs and lol-kite with HAMs. HMLs are really weak while HAMs still need decent tackle to make it do the damage. So as a fact real damage for the main role, brawling, haven't changed (well drones aside).
So basically what you did with changes to sac: - nerfed sac active tanking ability that allowed it to ourlast the opponent - made the sac a crappy, crappy kiter - didn't change damage projection for it's main role, brawling, which was a big reason why noone was flying sac - it couldn't kill the target in time until his buddies arrived.
Why do you hate that ship so much? It is a very nice looking ship, but people will still won't fly it :(
So my suggestion would be: Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: - 7.5 (was 5)% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (if you so want HMLs lol) - 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: - 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time - 7.5 (was 5)% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
North |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:15:00 -
[954] - Quote
NorthCrossroad wrote:This pass got to be overall much better than previous. On this good job.
The ship changes that bother me is sacrilege. With pretty low speed it's natural role was to brawl. And cap bonus with resist bonus supported that behavior.
Now it can shoot HMLs and lol-kite with HAMs. HMLs are really weak while HAMs still need decent tackle to make it do the damage. So as a fact real damage for the main role, brawling, haven't changed (well drones aside).
So basically what you did with changes to sac: - nerfed sac active tanking ability that allowed it to ourlast the opponent - made the sac a crappy, crappy kiter - didn't change damage projection for it's main role, brawling, which was a big reason why noone was flying sac - it couldn't kill the target in time until his buddies arrived.
Why do you hate that ship so much? It is a very nice looking ship, but people will still won't fly it :(
So my suggestion would be: Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: - 7.5 (was 5)% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (if you so want HMLs lol) - 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: - 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time - 7.5 (was 5)% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
North Feels good being ignorant right?
Old Sacrilege cap with 2 medium armor repairers: 2m 21s
New Sacrilege cap with 2 medium armor repairers: 2m 37s |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
804
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:15:00 -
[955] - Quote
Make the vaga the arty / autocannon boat and the munnin the missile ship. |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:17:00 -
[956] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Dani Lizardov wrote: ISHTAR ....
Please no, we already have 2 repping BC's. If I were to give my take on it, I would give it the following: Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Drone and Sentry Drone tracking (was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and Heavy Drone speed (was bonus to drone bay capacity) But I think the tracking of 10% is a bit much stepping on the Dominix' toes. Whatevs really, the Ishtar is fine now with the new CPU.
Why do you even compare ishtar to dominix ?
And I like your proposal on 7.5% speed to the Sentry Drones.... I guess Nannoid was right |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:31:00 -
[957] - Quote
Dani Lizardov wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Dani Lizardov wrote: ISHTAR ....
Please no, we already have 2 repping BC's. If I were to give my take on it, I would give it the following: Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Drone and Sentry Drone tracking (was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and Heavy Drone speed (was bonus to drone bay capacity) But I think the tracking of 10% is a bit much stepping on the Dominix' toes. Whatevs really, the Ishtar is fine now with the new CPU. Why do you even compare ishtar to dominix ? And I like your proposal on 7.5% speed to the Sentry Drones.... I guess Nannoid was right That is not what I mean by the last bonus.
Since reading is hard, I'll spell it out more clearly by separating them for you. Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Drone and Sentry Drone tracking (was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range 7.5% bonus to Heavy drone speed
I combined the last two because they get the same value bonus, and like this it looks like 3 bonuses |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:37:00 -
[958] - Quote
And yeah, why would I ever compare the Ishtar to the Dominix? I mean, thats insane, there is literally nothing similar between them.
Ishtar is slow, Domi is slow... Ok, one thing. Ishtar is droneboat, Domi is.. Droneboat.. Well two things. Ishtar can field 5 Heavies and Domi. same. Damn... Ishtar has room for lots of spare drones, Domi as well. Ishtar has drone damage, range and tracking bonus. WTF, Domi too?? |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:37:00 -
[959] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:[quote=Dani Lizardov][quote=Hannott Thanos][quote=Dani Lizardov] ISHTAR ....
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range 7.5% bonus to Heavy drone speed
I combined the last two because they get the same value bonus, and like this it looks like 3 bonuses
Now you are giving 3 bonuses on the Ishtar, wile all other HACs have 2...
Quote:And yeah, why would I ever compare the Ishtar to the Dominix? I mean, thats insane, there is literally nothing similar between them.
Ishtar is slow, Domi is slow... Ok, one thing. Ishtar is droneboat, Domi is.. Droneboat.. Well two things. Ishtar can field 5 Heavies and Domi. same. Damn... Ishtar has room for lots of spare drones, Domi as well. Ishtar has drone damage, range and tracking bonus. WTF, Domi too??
Ishtar: 1600 m/s with mwd is slow
And Do not forget that the Ishtar is cruiser class the domi is a Battle Ship class.
P.S. This is why we can not get nice things any-more. EFT Warriors and "experts" all the way since page one.... |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:51:00 -
[960] - Quote
Dani Lizardov wrote:Now you are giving 3 bonuses on the Ishtar, wile all other HACs have 2... Hannott Thanos wrote:And yeah, why would I ever compare the Ishtar to the Dominix? I mean, thats insane, there is literally nothing similar between them.
Ishtar is slow, Domi is slow... Ok, one thing. Ishtar is droneboat, Domi is.. Droneboat.. Well two things. Ishtar can field 5 Heavies and Domi. same. Damn... Ishtar has room for lots of spare drones, Domi as well. Ishtar has drone damage, range and tracking bonus. WTF, Domi too?? Ishtar: 1600 m/s with mwd is slow And Do not forget that the Ishtar is cruiser class the domi is a Battle Ship class. P.S. This is why we can not get nice things any-more. EFT Warriors and "experts" all the way since page one....
Jesus H. Christ man. Look at current Ishtar bonuses split up:
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints 10% bonus to Drone damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range(was bonus to drone bay capacity) 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Don't try and lecture me on bonuses when you have no clue yourself. Just because you have a problem with understanding what I'm saying does not make me wrong.
People who want the Deimos to be "a mini Megathron" must be completely bonkers then according to you?
This is why we cant have nice discussions. Stupid people who can't read or understand fits. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
470
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:58:00 -
[961] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Still disappointed to see no Minmatar Missile HAC. They're the ONLY race to not have a HAC for each racial weapon system. Doesn't seem like there's much point in even bothering with medium missiles for Minmatar unless you want to fly a cyclone. I still don't really see what the point of the Muninn is either.
No NO NO. This will be huginn role most likely. Since bellicose was made into missile boat, very likely the huginn will bcome focused in missiles as well. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
470
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 09:59:00 -
[962] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Make the vaga the arty / autocannon boat and the munnin the missile ship.
Taht is simply DUMB. the Missile hull for minmatar cruisers is the bellicose. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1046
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 10:04:00 -
[963] - Quote
CCP Rise doesn't seem to give any credit for this concern but the uterly stupid MWD cap bonus on Deimos changed for a tracking one would simply make it worth fitting with rails, why?
Try to fit your Diemost with new modified 250's and spike, pick a simple Thorax and fit it the same.
Well one on EFT will have a massive dps boost but thing is with no tracking bonus on the hull a 15% nerf on Rails tracking that were already horrible at tracking despite those +15% given previously, will simply make Thorax the only viable option for Gallente cruiser sniping.
Why the hell would you fit a 240M ship for sniping when it can't put a hole on a moving elephant in front of it?
Thorax for 50M all fitted after a huge market space jewing scam will be far more effective and for more dps a blaster Talos full of TE's will put at least double dps holes at same optimal distance if med rails, a rails Talos will be 50% cheaper than that Diemost and still at least 200% more effective.
Think about it when you get some time for, I'm not talking about fap EFT/Pyfa numbers and awesome graphs, I'm talking about in game results even a noob with T1 med guns and a small experience can check. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
470
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 10:24:00 -
[964] - Quote
If you have problems hitting targets with rails then you should not be posting in this thread. Use your own movement to cancel transversal. Hacs are not destroyers.. they should not be able to track frigates easily without any brains of the operator. THe deimos is much faster than a mega, therefore can easily cancel the trasnversal of most of its adversaries.. taht while sportign a nice 50% reduction on its signature radius while MWD on.
Hitting other cruisers is piece of cake with Rails. IT is easy with arties.. and arties have a far Worse tracking.
For deimos to have a tracking bonus it would need to loose some of its base damage.
So stop posting .. you clearly shown that you have not enough knowledge of the basics...
This is almost as senseless as the oens asking for a cerberus beign almsot as fast as vagabond. |
Robin Toman
Everyone vs Everything
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 10:49:00 -
[965] - Quote
ok let me see a new vaga bonus
Ammars have Sacrilege with armor resist bonus Caldary have Eagle with shield resist bonus
now the vaga for minmattars have a new shield boost bonus why gallente dont have ANY tanking bonus on one of their Hacs ? why deimos (mostly called a diemost) have most useless mwd cap bonus? that ship really asking for tanking bonus like a armor rep bonus perhaps ? she dont want to be called "diemost" anymore so give her some love please |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1046
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 10:59:00 -
[966] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:If you have problems hitting targets with rails then you should not be posting in this thread. Use your own movement to cancel transversal. Hacs are not destroyers.. they should not be able to track frigates easily without any brains of the operator. THe deimos is much faster than a mega, therefore can easily cancel the trasnversal of most of its adversaries.. taht while sportign a nice 50% reduction on its signature radius while MWD on.
Hitting other cruisers is piece of cake with Rails. IT is easy with arties.. and arties have a far Worse tracking.
For deimos to have a tracking bonus it would need to loose some of its base damage.
So stop posting .. you clearly shown that you have not enough knowledge of the basics...
This is almost as senseless as the oens asking for a cerberus beign almsot as fast as vagabond.
Your obvious "opness" attitude is way smaller than your arrogance but whatever. Keep your blinders and thinking this is absolutely fantastic changes, stop posting if you have no constructive comments to post or just to be impolite/aggressive with other players, and finally try to get a life and a lady RL, that might help some of that bitterness leave you but I strongly doubt.
On topic: Deimost improvement is about dyeing faster with less base HP, fitting shield mods with rails and play with traversal to hit something because it's perfectly obvious Deimos is going to be OP after these changes.
Awesome improvement indeed.... *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:03:00 -
[967] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Your obvious "opness" attitude is way smaller than your arrogance but whatever. Keep your blinders and thinking this is absolutely fantastic changes, stop posting if you have no constructive comments to post or just to be impolite/aggressive with other players, and finally try to get a life and a lady RL, that might help some of that bitterness leave you but I strongly doubt.
On topic: Deimost improvement is about dyeing faster with less base HP, fitting shield mods with rails and play with traversal to hit something because it's perfectly obvious Deimos is going to be OP after these changes.
Awesome improvement indeed....
Wow, that is the lowest I've seen someone sink on this forum. Sad. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
652
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:04:00 -
[968] - Quote
I support the Missile Muninn as long as the Vagabond gets a good PWG boost. |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:06:00 -
[969] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Jesus H. Christ man. Look at current Ishtar bonuses split up:
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints 10% bonus to Drone damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range(was bonus to drone bay capacity) 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Don't try and lecture me on bonuses when you have no clue yourself. Just because you have a problem with understanding what I'm saying does not make me wrong.
People who want the Deimos to be "a mini Megathron" must be completely bonkers then according to you?
This is why we cant have nice discussions. Stupid people who can't read or understand fits.
Please explain to me again how to read Man you cannot post two consecutive posts about the same ship...
1-st you suggested 7.5% Sentry drone Speed bonus
Quote:Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and Heavy Drone speed (was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Then you translated that in to:
Quote:Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range 7.5% bonus to Heavy drone speed
That's 3 bonuses unless I can't count also...
Then you again translated that in to:
Quote: Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints 10% bonus to Drone damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range(was bonus to drone bay capacity) 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Please make up your mind, what you want to suggest.
I will again post: This is why we can not get nice things. Since Page 1 we are full of EFT Warriors and "experts" I can not wait till those get to Test server so we can see how bad or good they are.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
634
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:12:00 -
[970] - Quote
Dani Lizardov wrote:Please explain to me again how to read Man you cannot post two consecutive posts about the same ship... 1-st you suggested 7.5% Sentry drone Speed bonus Quote:Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level (7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range) and (Heavy Drone speed) This is not the same as "7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone and Heavy drone optimal range and speed". Need some reading comprehension maybe?
Then you translated that in to: Quote:Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range 7.5% bonus to Heavy drone speed Underlined is the same as: (7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range) and (Heavy Drone speed) Being able to read is a good thing here as well.
That's 3 bonuses unless I can't count also... Then you again translated that in to: No, I did not translate it into that, I said that *split up* these are the current proposed bonuses to the IshtarQuote: Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints 10% bonus to Drone damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range(was bonus to drone bay capacity) 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Please make up your mind, what you want to suggest. I will again post: This is why we can not get nice things. Since Page 1 we are full of EFT Warriors and "experts" I can not wait till those get to Test server so we can see how bad or good they are.
Ok, I'll explain it yet again for all you dull blades in the drawer. Explanation put in the quote. |
|
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
207
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:13:00 -
[971] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Akturous wrote:It's been said adnorsium, but change the utility high on the Sac to a low slot, it has less damn lows than a diemos. It's "ad nauseum" fyi, and the slot layout on the Sac is fine.
Thankyou for the correction, there's not much spelling in engineering and so I'm pretty terribrue at it.
However...the slot layout isn't fine. It doesn't need a utility high, but it does need an extra low, it's dps is so pathetic with 1bcu and the tank is too low with 2. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1046
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:13:00 -
[972] - Quote
Robin Toman wrote:ok let me see a new vaga bonus Ammars have Sacrilege with armor resist bonus Caldary have Eagle with shield resist bonus now the vaga for minmattars have a new shield boost bonus why gallente dont have ANY tanking bonus on one of their Hacs ? why deimos (mostly called a diemost) have most useless mwd cap bonus? that ship really asking for tanking bonus like a armor rep bonus perhaps ? she dont want to be called "diemost" anymore so give her some love please
For gangs Diemost is almost fine now and with a good FC you can spank many stuff ass because blaster fit owns quite well, for fleets it's another story, Pulse Zealots are better at everything you can imagine doing with Diemost and with LR weapons changes Zealot will still be the king of the hill folowed by Cerb and probably Munnin, Eagle will probably not be able to compete but we'll see that after hits on TQ, at least should be able to survive longer than Diemost
-Lasers +25% tracking will make them best choice because decent alpha and dps supported by the new tracking helping apply their dmg
-Rails will probably work at undocks gate camps and crap alike, for fleets it's just terribad and a Thorax will apply more dmg than Deimost by far, no matter how much bitters can say or fap over graphs, it will be terrible and they will only die pretty feeling special.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
635
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:17:00 -
[973] - Quote
My point was that I wanted 10% bonus to tracking on Heavies and Sentries, but not change the 7.5% optimal bonus or speed, which was why I had to split it up a little. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
635
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:24:00 -
[974] - Quote
Akturous wrote: Thankyou for the correction, there's not much spelling in engineering and so I'm pretty terribrue at it.
However...the slot layout isn't fine. It doesn't need a utility high, but it does need an extra low, it's dps is so pathetic with 1bcu and the tank is too low with 2.
NP. Grammar naziing always comes off as rude, but it was in all niceness
[NEW Sacrilege, test] 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
5 x Hammerhead II
674 dps / 766 overloaded @ 25km (600/676 dps @ 30,4km with navy) 1316 m/s / 1860 ol 60,226 EHP
I simply can't agree with this being bad, sorry. Adding another low to pump EHP up to 74,623 EHP is simply too much.
It's also cap stable at 40% with everything running. |
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:27:00 -
[975] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote: Can we please move one of the med slots on the Ishtar to a low slot? Also what is your worry about the Ishtar?
please NO ! Shield Ishtars are a thing. Maybe a faction mid slot drone damage mod for the traditionalist Gallente armour tankers? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
637
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:34:00 -
[976] - Quote
Lei Merdeau wrote:Marcel Devereux wrote: Can we please move one of the med slots on the Ishtar to a low slot? Also what is your worry about the Ishtar?
please NO ! Shield Ishtars are a thing. Maybe a faction mid slot drone damage mod for the traditionalist Gallente armour tankers? +1 to NO. Also we have midslot drone damage mods. Omnidirectionals. Not an increase in dps numbers on paper, but application gets better = better dps |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:44:00 -
[977] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. The shield boosting bonus isn't a bad bonus, but it doesn't fit with the way most Vagas get flown. Another falloff bonus would allow a Vaga pilot to take advantage of selectable damage ammo at point range. Right now you have to load barrage. |
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
Anomalous Existence
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 11:45:00 -
[978] - Quote
Rise:
While you've done a good job overall addressing the intra-class balance issues with HACs (from the Sacrilege's wimpy dronebay and lack of utility being locked to HAMs, to the Muninn's low slot woes and the Ishtar's chronic fitting trouble, and even made a start on the Eagle), and the MWD bonus is a good start on making them more powerful as a whole, I feel it's not enough to distinguish them from their competition (T1 combat cruisers, DPS T3s, combat BCs, and especially ABCs). To that end, I propose cutting the base signature radii of the entire HAC class from its existing 130-140m down to 90-110m (or perhaps 100-120m if 90m sig on a cruiser is just too small). This across-the-board change would make the class 'stand out' in terms of resilience and give them a niche (nimble, sig tanking DPS cruiser) that is both filled by no other ship at this point in time and fits well with the way these ships are often used on TQ (in particular, AHAC and ABHAC doctrines would benefit heavily from this change, and so would the Vaga). |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
637
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 12:08:00 -
[979] - Quote
Fewell wrote: The shield boosting bonus isn't a bad bonus, but it doesn't fit with the way most Vagas get flown. Another falloff bonus would allow a Vaga pilot to take advantage of selectable damage ammo at point range. Right now you have to load barrage.
Sooo... Loading long range ammo to be able to do damage at the longest unbonused point range is a bad thing? I want my Thorax to do 300 dps at 25km with Antimatter then. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 12:29:00 -
[980] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Fewell wrote: The shield boosting bonus isn't a bad bonus, but it doesn't fit with the way most Vagas get flown. Another falloff bonus would allow a Vaga pilot to take advantage of selectable damage ammo at point range. Right now you have to load barrage.
Sooo... Loading long range ammo to be able to do damage at the longest unbonused point range is a bad thing? I want my Thorax to do 300 dps at 25km with Antimatter then.
realisticly youll end up with about 200 in most cases still under 200. and this with a fixed dmg pattern with not so great dmg composition.
considering youl have to outdps ships at that range cause your not that durable yes its dps is sucky there are quite some ships that can even tank the dmg no problem. and quite a another few who easyly can scare you off by their fire power.. and even if you find someone youl want to engage things can go south easy with a small piloting error when you get to close. and as i stated earlier i want to kill more than frigates when i undock a vaga.... |
|
Randy Wray
Pathfinders. The Marmite Collective
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 12:31:00 -
[981] - Quote
I gotta say I'd rather have a missile muninn than a scythe fleet issue with 40km webs (huginn) :P Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @-áhttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec |
Kane Fenris
NWP
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 12:31:00 -
[982] - Quote
[edit] failquote sry |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
220
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 12:32:00 -
[983] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Akturous wrote:It's been said adnorsium, but change the utility high on the Sac to a low slot, it has less damn lows than a diemos. It's "ad nauseum" fyi, and the slot layout on the Sac is fine. Thankyou for the correction, there's not much spelling in engineering and so I'm pretty terribrue at it. However...the slot layout isn't fine. It doesn't need a utility high, but it does need an extra low, it's dps is so pathetic with 1bcu and the tank is too low with 2. Use 1 BCS plus a T2 damage rig to solve this problem - losing a rig slot doesn't hurt your tank anything like as much as giving up a low for a second BCS. BCS II plus T2 bay loading accelerator gives you just shy of 600 dps with faction HAMs and a flight of hammerheads, which is plenty given that you have selectable damage types, can hit at good range, and have plenty of mids for tackle and painters to ensure good damage application. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
249
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 12:38:00 -
[984] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Fewell wrote: The shield boosting bonus isn't a bad bonus, but it doesn't fit with the way most Vagas get flown. Another falloff bonus would allow a Vaga pilot to take advantage of selectable damage ammo at point range. Right now you have to load barrage.
Sooo... Loading long range ammo to be able to do damage at the longest unbonused point range is a bad thing? I want my Thorax to do 300 dps at 25km with Antimatter then.
Its worthing pointing out that at 25k a new Deimos loading null out DPSes a Vaga with Barrage or PP/EMP/Fusion loaded while having more EHP being completely cap stable having an extra flight of drones or the option of Valks instead of Warriors, while loosing only 300 M/s.
Good job CCP, really good job.
Edit; It also has the option of course of Loading CNAM having really good tracking and ~700 DPS before drones for those moments when you need to brawl.
It really does beg the question of what role the Vaga is going to fill post patch. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1374
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 12:58:00 -
[985] - Quote
I still believe the Deimos would be better suited with the falloff bonus being changed to a tracking bonus. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
249
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 13:01:00 -
[986] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:I still believe the Deimos would be better suited with the falloff bonus being changed to a tracking bonus.
I'm unsure, on paper a range bonus is pretty nice as it allows you to sit out at some 6-7K and still apply pretty much full damage with CNAM and heavy neutrons, I think the falloff bonus is pretty effective you just have to fly it right, don't brawl in like you would with a Thorax, hold a bit of range and you will apply full damage. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
637
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 13:03:00 -
[987] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: Its worthing pointing out that at 25k a new Deimos loading null out DPSes a Vaga with Barrage or PP/EMP/Fusion loaded while having more EHP being completely cap stable having an extra flight of drones or the option of Valks instead of Warriors, while loosing only 300 M/s.
Good job CCP, really good job.
Edit; It also has the option of course of Loading CNAM having really good tracking and ~700 DPS before drones for those moments when you need to brawl.
It really does beg the question of what role the Vaga is going to fill post patch.
I raises the question actually. Begging the question is something else.
Actually, the shield Vaga and the Shield Deimos are so similar I'm surprised that nobody has pulled the "homogenization" card yet.
Vaga vs Deimos: 34,000 / 35,200 EHP 457 / 466 DPS max (280 / 301 @20km) ( Fleet vs null) (307 / 301 @20km) ( Barrage vs null) 2453 / 2106 m/s 0,1564 / 0,1333 tracking 7m49s / 56% cap 590 / 751 signature
Deimos wins when we add drones, Vaga wins on sig and speed and different types of damage. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
249
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 13:12:00 -
[988] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Its worthing pointing out that at 25k a new Deimos loading null out DPSes a Vaga with Barrage or PP/EMP/Fusion loaded while having more EHP being completely cap stable having an extra flight of drones or the option of Valks instead of Warriors, while loosing only 300 M/s.
Good job CCP, really good job.
Edit; It also has the option of course of Loading CNAM having really good tracking and ~700 DPS before drones for those moments when you need to brawl.
It really does beg the question of what role the Vaga is going to fill post patch.
I raises the question actually. Begging the question is something else. Actually, the shield Vaga and the Shield Deimos are so similar I'm surprised that nobody has pulled the "homogenization" card yet. Vaga vs Deimos: 34,000 / 35,200 EHP 457 / 466 DPS max (280 / 301 @20km) ( Fleet vs null) (307 / 301 @20km) ( Barrage vs null) 2453 / 2106 m/s 0,1564 / 0,1333 tracking 7m49s / 56% cap 590 / 751 signature Deimos wins when we add drones, Vaga wins on sig and speed and different types of damage.
Your forgetting the Deimos has the Option of loading CNAM and brawling and will win a lot of fights like that through sheer DPS (~850 with Heat Valks and CNAM, more with Void if you were brawing a BC or something) that's a pretty handy advantage and to be honest if the current raft of changes go through I will probably switch to a shield Deimos rather than the Vaga.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1374
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 13:13:00 -
[989] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:I still believe the Deimos would be better suited with the falloff bonus being changed to a tracking bonus. I'm unsure, on paper a range bonus is pretty nice as it allows you to sit out at some 6-7K and still apply pretty much full damage with CNAM and heavy neutrons, I think the falloff bonus is pretty effective you just have to fly it right, don't brawl in like you would with a Thorax, hold a bit of range and you will apply full damage. With a Thorax you can brawl well using Void M, you can change up styles and use Null M and a Tracking Computer II with a range script in it and kite well now too. With the Deimos you can kite. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 13:16:00 -
[990] - Quote
Looks nice, but... Men, don't bring cap/s of ships with energy weapons (laser/rail) in line with ones without (missiles/projectiles/drones). Please. It makes sense, but looks unfair |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
637
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 13:22:00 -
[991] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: Your forgetting the Deimos has the Option of loading CNAM and brawling and will win a lot of fights like that through sheer DPS (~850 with Heat Valks and CNAM, more with Void if you were brawing a BC or something) that's a pretty handy advantage and to be honest if the current raft of changes go through I will probably switch to a shield Deimos rather than the Vaga.
No, I'm not forgetting that. Welcome to the world of blasters. You can use them too you know.
There will be differences, deal with it. Like my last post regarding the Sacrilege, that ship gets twice the EHP of Vaga or Deimos and same dps. Yes, it's slower, but everyone seems to ignore speed as a factor when arguing for why the Vaga needs a bigger boost. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
249
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 13:27:00 -
[992] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Your forgetting the Deimos has the Option of loading CNAM and brawling and will win a lot of fights like that through sheer DPS (~850 with Heat Valks and CNAM, more with Void if you were brawing a BC or something) that's a pretty handy advantage and to be honest if the current raft of changes go through I will probably switch to a shield Deimos rather than the Vaga.
No, I'm not forgetting that. Welcome to the world of blasters. You can use them too you know. There will be differences, deal with it. Like my last post regarding the Sacrilege, that ship gets twice the EHP of Vaga or Deimos and same dps. Yes, it's slower, but everyone seems to ignore speed as a factor when arguing for why the Vaga needs a bigger boost.
The amount of speed difference between the Deimos and the Vaga is pretty minimal, additionally the speed at which a ship goes only can get to a certain point before it just becomes a "fast ship", just being fast is fairly useless unless you want it to heavy tackle or just run away from things, it needs to actually be able to kill something in a reasonable amount of time to take advantage of that high speed while having limited EHP. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
122
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 13:36:00 -
[993] - Quote
The Tank of the Sac looks fairly good to me. Think someone said 60k ehp, plus that's with epic resists. I'd like to see a bigger damage mod here or a change for the missile speed bonus to damage application (missile explosion size or sped - not sure which it'd benefit from most)
The missile dps is lower than the Cerb, but it gets choice in damage type and more drones. Works for me...
|
baltec1
Bat Country
7437
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 14:10:00 -
[994] - Quote
So why are people trying to shoehorn a vaga into the same area as a diemost? |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
341
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 14:32:00 -
[995] - Quote
Sac:
Move high slot to low slot. Or give it another launcher.
Otherwise it looks fine.
Thanks.
Drones are stupid but whatever. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
637
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 14:34:00 -
[996] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:Sac:
Move high slot to low slot. Or give it another launcher.
Otherwise it looks fine.
Thanks.
Drones are stupid but whatever. I just posted a fit showing why that would be overpowered. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 14:41:00 -
[997] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Akturous wrote: Thankyou for the correction, there's not much spelling in engineering and so I'm pretty terribrue at it.
However...the slot layout isn't fine. It doesn't need a utility high, but it does need an extra low, it's dps is so pathetic with 1bcu and the tank is too low with 2.
NP. Grammar naziing always comes off as rude, but it was in all niceness [NEW Sacrilege, test] 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I 5 x Hammerhead II
674 dps / 766 overloaded @ 25km (600/676 dps @ 30,4km with navy) 1316 m/s / 1860 ol 60,226 EHP I simply can't agree with this being bad, sorry. Adding another low to pump EHP up to 74,623 EHP is simply too much. It's also cap stable at 40% with everything running.
The problem is that this is a very poor use of its attributes in most cases. It can't support any damage output while dual repping - that's always been its niche. A Hurricane can do pretty much what you just posted for 1/3 the price.
Also, for the love of god, use a rig to plug the therm hole.
All in all, I would prefer even a slight nerf in base damage for the flexibility of another low. Otherwise it will remain underpowered as a solo ship and unused as a fleet ship - since even a Caracal is comparable to the fit you describe. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
250
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 14:48:00 -
[998] - Quote
Please post your caracal fit with comparable stats. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
637
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 14:54:00 -
[999] - Quote
66,8% Thermal resist is not much of a hole. you gain 6k EHP in thermal if you swap a trimark for anti-thermic but lose 15k EHP in explosive for dropping the trimark for example. Personal choise really.
I think it's a perfect use of it's bonuses really. The 4% armor resistance pr level is not any longer as good as the active rep bonus of 7.5%, so I think buffer is the way to go, at least for me.
A caracal gets 500m/s more, but a third of the tank, cap only lasts 1m 50sec, does 170 less dps, and has more than twice the sig radius. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
91
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 14:55:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Enough with HACs already... wasn't there supposed to be an announcement? |
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 14:58:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Please post your caracal fit with comparable stats.
In regards to a solo or heavy tackle ship (@1300m/s lol)? There are none.
As a line ship? I'm on my phone so no eft, but a normal AB caracal projects the same or better damage at 50k ehp and around 900m/s. Identical? No. 25% of the price and guaranteed to outclass a Sacri in any kind of fleet warfare? Yes.
I love the Sacri. It was the first HAC I bought three years ago. This fit is "fine", but no better or more usable than it currently is, since you'll either be outrun because you're a plated pig, or inside hard tackle range where you could have hit it anyway.
I understand I'm taking a negative stance on it, but I'd really love for this ship to be able to shine in some way, and in my opinion, it still can't.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1187
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 14:58:00 -
[1002] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with HACs already... wasn't there supposed to be an announcement?
yes combat recons can use thier racial e-war on ships that are immune to e-war. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
griezell
Zervas Aeronautics Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:09:00 -
[1003] - Quote
about the role bonus. i feel like it sould be connected to the skill for af and hac. so per lvl or af or hac you get 5% reduction in sig
then ppl gen realy sumting that is worth training for to lvl 5. just to train those ' long' skills just to get 5% extra '' '' and 5% extra '' '' is not so much an encouragement. it would be more atractive if is add the role bonus to it as well |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
91
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:26:00 -
[1004] - Quote
Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
251
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:32:00 -
[1005] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks.
HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
91
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:36:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.
Ummmm, no. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1376
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:38:00 -
[1007] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them. Ummmm, no. Time to move on... Patience is a virtue.
I would rather HACs be done right before moving on. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:41:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.
I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
251
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:43:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them. I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine.
Not until the Vaga changes fix the Vaga...
Not to repeat myself or anything. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:51:00 -
[1010] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Cearain wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them. I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine. Not until the Vaga changes fix the Vaga... Not to repeat myself or anything.
I think the main problem with the vaga is not the vaga but the te nerf.
Vaga recieved another bonus out of thin air. It is definitely improved. Will it beat out a cynabal for the kiting role when it fits a shield extender, asb, point and mwd in the mids? I am not sure but I think it probably will. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
815
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:53:00 -
[1011] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them. I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine.
Another pass won't happen.
Has to be done right the first time. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
388
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:01:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Cearain wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them. I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine. Not until the Vaga changes fix the Vaga... Not to repeat myself or anything. I think the main problem with the vaga is not the vaga but the te nerf. Vaga recieved another bonus out of thin air. It is definitely improved. Will it beat out a cynabal for the kiting role when it fits a shield extender, asb, point and mwd in the mids? I am not sure but I think it probably will.
What the Vaga needs is to be able to fit 425's that would add 9km range to its current range.
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:02:00 -
[1013] - Quote
I say leave the old HAC changes in-place and move onto a ship class where people might show some gratitude. CCP can re-visit the HAC in Odyssey 1.2, 1.3, etc. All of a sudden 130+ pages of b*tching and griping cease, and suddenly the proposed changes become acceptable... |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:10:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Cearain wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them. I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine. Another pass won't happen. Has to be done right the first time.
I just think they did a decent job here. No not everyone will be satisfied but, but there is no consensus on what more needs to be done. These ships are clearly better than the t1 version. Are they worth the extra cost over vanilla bcs? Probably not, but maybe. The recent ewar resistance bonuses are really nice subtle but I think powerful changes that will give both the fleet and the small gangs using these ships. Plus most ships are getting extra fitting space to mess around with. I think they are ready for tq.
In the meantime there are still some ships really need a buff like the succubus and worm and some of the pirate cruisers, eg even the cynabal will likely be useless after the vaga change let alone the Phantasm. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
386
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:18:00 -
[1015] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with HACs already... wasn't there supposed to be an announcement? yes combat recons can use thier racial e-war on ships that are immune to e-war. What?
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
389
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:19:00 -
[1016] - Quote
RISE
Whilst you're looking at HAC's.. perhaps you could change the skill requirements for HAC's .. Energy grid upgrades lv5 is a pointless skill for HAC's and most ships in the game the only reason to train it is to use the T2 reactor control ..
Energy grid upgrades lv5 - the relevant sensor comp skill to lv4 long Range targeting lv4 energy systems operation lv4 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
341
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:26:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I say leave the old HAC changes in-place and move onto a ship class where people might show some gratitude. CCP can re-visit the HAC in Odyssey 1.2, 1.3, etc. All of a sudden 130+ pages of b*tching and griping cease, and suddenly the proposed changes become acceptable...
You're really dumb, aren't you? |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
341
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:26:00 -
[1018] - Quote
CCP JUST THROW SOME RANDOM SHIT ON THESE THINGS AND CALL IT A DAY
TIME TO MOVE ON
NO ONE REALLY CARES ABOUT THESE THINGS |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
341
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:28:00 -
[1019] - Quote
btw ccp the mwd role bonus is still crap
WTB 25% reduction in sig radius across the board on all hacs
TIA |
Kane Fenris
NWP
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:31:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Cearain wrote:
I think the main problem with the vaga is not the vaga but the te nerf.
Vaga recieved another bonus out of thin air. It is definitely improved. Will it beat out a cynabal for the kiting role when it fits a shield extender, asb, point and mwd in the mids? I am not sure but I think it probably will.
What the Vaga needs is to be able to fit 425's that would add 9km to its current range and reduce the gap between the cynabal being better.
THIS ^
give us pg so the xlasb can fit 220 and the other versions can fit 425 wo major issues meaning wo not fitting something useful in the utility high haveing to use implants etc.... |
|
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:35:00 -
[1021] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:CCP JUST THROW SOME RANDOM SHIT ON THESE THINGS AND CALL IT A DAY
TIME TO MOVE ON
NO ONE REALLY CARES ABOUT THESE THINGS They apparently have moved on.
Numbers: 3 initial posts
4th post: #50 Posted: 2013.07.29 13:07 | Report
5th Post: #61 Posted: 2013.07.29 13:17 | Report
6th Post: #64 Posted: 2013.07.29 13:20 | Report
Interjection by CCP Fozzie: #71 Posted: 2013.07.29 13:33 | Report
7th Post: #183 Posted: 2013.07.29 15:44 | Report
8th Post: #191 Posted: 2013.07.29 15:51 | Report
9th Post: #223 Posted: 2013.07.29 16:23 | Report | Edited by: CCP Rise
MOAR Fozzie! #265 Posted: 2013.07.29 17:15 | Report
10th Post: #573 Posted: 2013.07.30 10:44 | Report
11th Post: #596 Posted: 2013.07.30 11:27 | Report
We're now on #1020 with no dev, CSM or even ISD presence in over 400 posts |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
341
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:37:00 -
[1022] - Quote
No, they're in the back room jerking off about the troll role bonus they are going to give hacs. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:38:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Yeah, I'd be pretty pleased if my Ashimmu was good for something.
Literally anything. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
638
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:42:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Always wanting to have the largest guns and full tank without using fitting mods. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1187
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:43:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with HACs already... wasn't there supposed to be an announcement? yes combat recons can use thier racial e-war on ships that are immune to e-war. What?
i was thinking of a role for combat recons.
and tbh with the tech I boost why would you use a lech over a celestis for damps...
well you would not... only time i see a lech used is for long point.
So how about for combat recons they can use thier racial e-war (ecm/damps/td's/tp) on e-war immune ships. i.e super caps and carrier/dreads in siege/triage
that would give them a unique bonus and make them worth the cost.
but force recons would remain unchanged. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1187
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:46:00 -
[1026] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Yeah, I'd be pretty pleased if my Ashimmu was good for something.
Literally anything.
i started a thread a while ago suggesting that the bloodraiders lineup be changed from lasors/nuets to drones/nuets.
so for the ashimmu it would get a bonus to nuet/drone hp and damage/ web strength.
think curse without e-war bonus but better drone dps. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
391
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:47:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Yeah, I'd be pretty pleased if my Ashimmu was good for something.
Literally anything.
I'm sure its useful at being an expensive dying machine :P 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
253
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:52:00 -
[1028] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with HACs already... wasn't there supposed to be an announcement? yes combat recons can use thier racial e-war on ships that are immune to e-war. What? i was thinking of a role for combat recons. and tbh with the tech I boost why would you use a lech over a celestis for damps... well you would not... only time i see a lech used is for long point. So how about for combat recons they can use thier racial e-war (ecm/damps/td's/tp) on e-war immune ships. i.e super caps and carrier/dreads in siege/triage that would give them a unique bonus and make them worth the cost. but force recons would remain unchanged.
All of my wats?
With the exception of the Rook, all the Combat recons are amazing and are completely worth the cost. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:54:00 -
[1029] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Yeah, I'd be pretty pleased if my Ashimmu was good for something.
Literally anything. i started a thread a while ago suggesting that the bloodraiders lineup be changed from lasors/nuets to drones/nuets. so for the ashimmu it would get a bonus to nuet/drone hp and damage/ web strength. think curse without e-war bonus but better drone dps.
I think that might overlap too much. In all honesty I'd prefer to see it with a moderate bonus to neut and web range instead of amount and velocity - would make for a nice, unique scorch boat that could pin things down at 15-20km, neuting and webbing from that range.
This is going way off topic now, but whatever. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Tribal Band
327
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:56:00 -
[1030] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The Cerberus kinetic bonus is not a relic in the same way that the Sacrilege recharge bonus or the Ishtar drone bay bonus were. We talked a lot about the role of damage specific bonuses with the CSM, as they raised the same concerns. Its obvious that the bonus is a bit of a handicap from the perspective of the Cerberus pilot, but we like the gameplay it adds and so we would only want to remove it if the Cerb was really needing more power, which isn't the case.
Knowing what kind of damage your opponent is likely to do is just as interesting as knowing which kind of damage your opponent is likely to be weak to. It lets creates interesting decisions for both the Cerb pilot and the Cerb's opponents and we like that.
The only decision a Cerberus pilot needs to make is for how much of a loss he is willing to accept when he sells it.
I bought one, once. Damage took so long to get to target that tackle would die 10-15 seconds before the first volley ever arrived. It was so **** that the only use I could find for it was running exploration sites because I could outrange the rats then MWD in to hack the containers. But now there are no rats.
Looking at the changes, it looks like it will have nice dps with HAMs. But the tank is still pretty bad, even without any tackle. I suppose one could nano-fit it. But then the dps takes a dive.
At this point, all I can do is patiently wait... yeah no.
Put this shiznit up on sisi so we can break it! Free Ripley Weaver! |
|
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:59:00 -
[1031] - Quote
We need to stop posting here. Arthur says the thread is done so I guess we need to just move on. >.>
---
Vaga: When did people forget that a ship with a built in 'get out of jail free card' that also has above average damage projection is broken? The TE nerf was done for a reason and I highly doubt CCP is going to exempt the Vaga from the consequences of it with an extra falloff bonus or anything. The currently proposed iteration looks very reasonable on this hull and while I get the reason the risk adverse GÇÿleetGÇÖ pvp crowd is a little disenchanted, most of the suggested changes for the hull I have seen in this thread are ridiculous. Good job to Rise for sticking to his guns on this one (also nerf ABCs please).
Isthar: CanGÇÖt wait to fly this GÇô I really hope it doesnGÇÖt turn out to be OP and knocked back down a peg because I think it will be a lot of fun as proposed. Thank you for the extra fitting.
Sac: I think this will be the premier mwd armour gang HAC I think after this change. For a specific example of in game application, this will be a great addition for those seeking to bring more bling to the NAug/Maller blob in FW med plex brawls, and I actually think the velocity bonus fits into that role very nicely without being GÇÿtoo muchGÇÖ as a bonus. There are a lot of versatile options but the ability to move off and double web/scram a secondary while still applying full damage to a primary canGÇÖt be understated, since the other main ships are more or less limited to scram range ideally. I will certainly be playing with the other options available for this hull as well.
Deimos: So after 3 more or less positive points, this is the one I donGÇÖt get. Echoing a lot of other sentiments in this thread, the nerf to armour just doesnGÇÖt make any sense to me. I have spent quite a bit of time pondering it and I just donGÇÖt see ANY negative aspect to the old level of armour/structure. Giving it less armour than the Muninn as an example just makes me scratch my head, and I canGÇÖt figure out the thought process. Rise, would you consider elaborating on the concern you have that is leading to the change in tank? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1187
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:02:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Rynnik wrote: Rise, would you consider elaborating on the concern you have that is leading to the change in tank?
kil2 used to die often to the diemos. so he is intent on killing the ship forever! There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
85
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:16:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Fewell wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. The shield boosting bonus isn't a bad bonus, but it doesn't fit with the way most Vagas get flown. Another falloff bonus would allow a Vaga pilot to take advantage of selectable damage ammo at point range. Right now you have to load barrage.
This right here.
People are complaining that Vagas have too many bonuses. Drop the Shield boosting bonus. It doesn't fit the way the ship is supposed to be flown anyway and give us a midslot.
And, as stated above, allow enough PG for 425's to be fit. We already have a penalty needing to use Barrage to be able to fly this ship properly. You should only have to use implants, etc... if you want to push the ship beyond its capabilities. Make it a requirement to get all lvl 5 to fit the ship to it's maximum. Nobody really wants it to be better than the rest of the HACs (or even the Cynabal) but give it fighting chance to win in a fight based on piloting would be good....
(do any ships fit 425s anymore? The old Hurricane used to but they ruined that ship too) |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:30:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.
^ This. HACs suck harder than any other ship class right now, and they need more than they are getting. If you have time to do it again you have time to do it right the first time. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
94
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:31:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:We need to stop posting here. Arthur says the thread is done so I guess we need to just move on.
Don't let me get in the way of a good flogging. Dead horse, that is... |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:34:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I say leave the old HAC changes in-place and move onto a ship class where people might show some gratitude. CCP can re-visit the HAC in Odyssey 1.2, 1.3, etc. All of a sudden 130+ pages of b*tching and griping cease, and suddenly the proposed changes become acceptable...
Seriously? That is a terrible idea. Just because the changes are made doesn't mean that we'll like them. If you want HACs to be fixed, do it right the FIRST time so that CCP doesn't have to waste time doing it a SECOND time. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:37:00 -
[1037] - Quote
Thorvik wrote:Fewell wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. The shield boosting bonus isn't a bad bonus, but it doesn't fit with the way most Vagas get flown. Another falloff bonus would allow a Vaga pilot to take advantage of selectable damage ammo at point range. Right now you have to load barrage. This right here. People are complaining that Vagas have too many bonuses. Drop the Shield boosting bonus. It doesn't fit the way the ship is supposed to be flown anyway and give us a midslot. And, as stated above, allow enough PG for 425's to be fit. We already have a penalty needing to use Barrage to be able to fly this ship properly. You should only have to use implants, etc... if you want to push the ship beyond its capabilities. Make it a requirement to get all lvl 5 to fit the ship to it's maximum. Nobody really wants it to be better than the rest of the HACs (or even the Cynabal) but give it fighting chance to win in a fight based on piloting would be good.... (do any ships fit 425s anymore? The old Hurricane used to but they ruined that ship too)
FYI with these buffs a Vaga can fit 425mm AC's and mwd all over the place while firing. One of the most annoying things on the vaga, the lack of cap and cap regen is now gone.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:38:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Vagabond I'm not happy with the Shield Boost Bonus, BUT, there is a way to make it workable. Give it more powergrid. With more powergrid (5-10% more)
It will be able to fit 425s (making it a better kiter with added range so that way it can compete with the Cynabal, but not make it outright better and therefore continuing the arms race) OR fit 220s and an ASB without an ancillary rig (because honestly, nobody fits 180s for a reason)
More PG, then ill be happy How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
239
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:42:00 -
[1039] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Always wanting to have the largest guns and full tank without using fitting mods.
So many other ships can, so why shouldn't the ship that costs 10x more not be able to? Being forced to fit 180s is ********, at least give us the grid for 220s. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:47:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Always wanting to have the largest guns and full tank without using fitting mods.
The problem here lies with the guns that aren't the largest not being useful at all. Wanting full tank is something you generally want on a variety of different sorts of ships to maximize survivability, especially when you're in a Caldari ship, which is not fast at all (ie. Eagle).
And then there's also the issue when you have but one size of 'gun' for long and short range combat, and you're unable to fit that size of gun, a prop mod, and tank simultaneously (Caracal Navy Issue, the first iteration of the Cerberus, the second 'tweaked' iteration in the first HAC tweak thread...)
If there was a gun related rebalancing that made all the different sizes useful (ie. having actual choices in regards to which of the three types you want to fit based on grid, damage, tracking and etc.) then honestly I think people wouldn't automatically gravitate to the largest guns. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1188
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:00:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: With the exception of the Rook, all the Combat recons are amazing and are completely worth the cost.
i do admit they are used. but as heavy tackle not as e-war platforms.
might aswell just get rid of the e-war aspect and make them heavy interceptors then. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1188
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:02:00 -
[1042] - Quote
Akturous wrote:MeBiatch wrote:DEIMOS
For the Deimos we are getting rid of the mwd bonus as its outdated and odd. We are replacing it with a 5% to armor per level to give the deimos great armor ehp. Furthermore we are going to remove the 5th high slot and move it to a low making the ship have 7 low slots. to make up for lost dps we are going to switch one of the damage bonus to a 7.5.% to rate of fire which will result in a net loss of 5% of overall turret dps but we feel the loss is worth the extra low slot. Moreover we are also going to switch the falloff bonus for a tracking bonus as this will make the deimos a great blaster ship or a great rail ship.
Side note we are replacing the role bonus on all hacs to a reduction in heat damage to modules. Role Bonus: 37.5% reduction in Heat damage to modules
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% to Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% increase to Armor 7.5% to Medium Hybrid Turret Rate of Fire
Slot layout: 4H(-2), 4M(+1), 7L(+1); 4 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1050 PWG(+60), 360 CPU(+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1600(+225) / 255s (-80s) / 5.5/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 300(+30) / 6 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7) Signature radius: 150(-10) I too would rather a tracking bonus than the falloff. Falloff does nothing for blasters in optimal and nothing for rails, tracking helps both hugely. Changing role bonus to overheating bonus on all the HACS would be really cool. I think changing another high to a low will give it too many lows, especially when the Sac only has 5!!.
conversely if the extra low slot would make the ship op you can keep it as a utility high slot. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1189
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:09:00 -
[1043] - Quote
SACRILEGE
We wanted to get rid of the cap recharge bonus, as it is both kind of dated and strange, and also doesn't do much for a ship that doesn't even use cap for its main weapon system. We played with a lot of options but ultimately settled on a Missile Velocity bonus which should be very helpful in projecting some of that HAM damage. Other changes include tweaks to fitting, slightly lowered Signature radius, and of course the electronics changes. While we did not role the entire benefit of the former cap recharge bonus into the base stats, the Sacrilege does retain the highest cap/second of any Heavy Assault Cruisers. Also we are removing the missile rate of fire bonus and adding a 6th turret slot and replacing the bonus with a reduction in explosion velocity for missiles.
Note: we are replacing the mwd bonus to a heat reduction bonus Role Bonus: 37.5% reduction in Heat Damage to Modules
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (added heavy missiles) 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile velocity (was capacitor recharge time) 7.5% reduction in Heavy Missile and Heavy Assaul Missile Explosion Velocity.
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 6 launchers Fittings: 1200 PWG(+170), 500 CPU(+100) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1200(-193) / 2100(+12) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1700(+75) / 255s (-80s) / 6.66s (+1.8) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 200(+2) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+20km) / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 22 Radar(+7) Signature radius: 135(-5)
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
255
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:17:00 -
[1044] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Thorvik wrote:Fewell wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. The shield boosting bonus isn't a bad bonus, but it doesn't fit with the way most Vagas get flown. Another falloff bonus would allow a Vaga pilot to take advantage of selectable damage ammo at point range. Right now you have to load barrage. This right here. People are complaining that Vagas have too many bonuses. Drop the Shield boosting bonus. It doesn't fit the way the ship is supposed to be flown anyway and give us a midslot. And, as stated above, allow enough PG for 425's to be fit. We already have a penalty needing to use Barrage to be able to fly this ship properly. You should only have to use implants, etc... if you want to push the ship beyond its capabilities. Make it a requirement to get all lvl 5 to fit the ship to it's maximum. Nobody really wants it to be better than the rest of the HACs (or even the Cynabal) but give it fighting chance to win in a fight based on piloting would be good.... (do any ships fit 425s anymore? The old Hurricane used to but they ruined that ship too) FYI with these buffs a Vaga can fit 425mm AC's and mwd all over the place while firing. One of the most annoying things on the vaga, the lack of cap and cap regen is now gone.
So its terrible DPS will be replaced with Mediocre DPS and it will lose tracking and a Medium neut as a result.
Oh that makes me so happy. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
639
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:23:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: So its terrible DPS will be replaced with Mediocre DPS and it will lose tracking and a Medium neut as a result.
Oh that makes me so happy.
I'm sure the Vaga is the second most used HAC in the game atm because of it's terrible dps. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
240
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:23:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:DeadDuck wrote:Thorvik wrote:Fewell wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:The Vaga is getting buffed at nearly everything and people are complaining about how worthless it is now; I remain confused. The shield boosting bonus isn't a bad bonus, but it doesn't fit with the way most Vagas get flown. Another falloff bonus would allow a Vaga pilot to take advantage of selectable damage ammo at point range. Right now you have to load barrage. This right here. People are complaining that Vagas have too many bonuses. Drop the Shield boosting bonus. It doesn't fit the way the ship is supposed to be flown anyway and give us a midslot. And, as stated above, allow enough PG for 425's to be fit. We already have a penalty needing to use Barrage to be able to fly this ship properly. You should only have to use implants, etc... if you want to push the ship beyond its capabilities. Make it a requirement to get all lvl 5 to fit the ship to it's maximum. Nobody really wants it to be better than the rest of the HACs (or even the Cynabal) but give it fighting chance to win in a fight based on piloting would be good.... (do any ships fit 425s anymore? The old Hurricane used to but they ruined that ship too) FYI with these buffs a Vaga can fit 425mm AC's and mwd all over the place while firing. One of the most annoying things on the vaga, the lack of cap and cap regen is now gone. So its terrible DPS will be replaced with Mediocre DPS and it will lose tracking and a Medium neut as a result. Oh that makes me so happy.
And If you feel that strongly you can still fit 220s and a med neut and not forsake any bonus. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:41:00 -
[1047] - Quote
It's too bad that CCP probably won't deign to fix the Deimos. The vagabond gets the velocity bonus baked in but the deimos won't get the cap bonus? Ridiculous. I was hoping to actually fly one after it got buffed. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1052
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:47:00 -
[1048] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Always wanting to have the largest guns and full tank without using fitting mods.
Makes no sense for anyone to buy a car and once you get it you just figure out you can't do more than15 miles with, so you buy and extra tank and fix it at the baggage place, that's it but now you can't go anywhere your fuel tank aloud you because you can't take any baggage.
That's pretty much the CCP balance god mode here. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
394
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:47:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Kais Fiddler wrote:It's too bad that CCP probably won't deign to fix the Deimos. The vagabond gets the velocity bonus baked in but the deimos won't get the cap bonus? Ridiculous. I was hoping to actually fly one after it got buffed.
I was hoping to fly an blaster eagle but alas .... 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1052
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:55:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Kais Fiddler wrote:It's too bad that CCP probably won't deign to fix the Deimos. The vagabond gets the velocity bonus baked in but the deimos won't get the cap bonus? Ridiculous. I was hoping to actually fly one after it got buffed. I was hoping to fly an blaster eagle but alas ....
Will probably survive longer than Diemost to catch reps and can also spew blaster ammo at almost double Deimos range.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
394
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 18:58:00 -
[1051] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Harvey James wrote:Kais Fiddler wrote:It's too bad that CCP probably won't deign to fix the Deimos. The vagabond gets the velocity bonus baked in but the deimos won't get the cap bonus? Ridiculous. I was hoping to actually fly one after it got buffed. I was hoping to fly an blaster eagle but alas .... Will probably survive longer than Diemost to catch reps and can also spew blaster ammo at almost double optimal Deimos range.
well maybe ... but being slower and doing diddly squat damage won't be worth the bother either way. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:00:00 -
[1052] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vagabond I'm not happy with the Shield Boost Bonus, BUT, there is a way to make it workable. Give it more powergrid. With more powergrid (5-10% more) It will be able to fit 425s (making it a better kiter with added range so that way it can compete with the Cynabal, but not make it outright better and therefore continuing the arms race) OR fit 220s and an ASB without an ancillary rig (because honestly, nobody fits 180s for a reason) More PG, then ill be happy
Drop a low for a mid would help too. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:04:00 -
[1053] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: So its terrible DPS will be replaced with Mediocre DPS and it will lose tracking and a Medium neut as a result.
Oh that makes me so happy.
I'm sure the Vaga is the second most used HAC in the game atm because of it's terrible dps.
It might be more of a comment about the other hacs than it is about the vagabond.
BTW: where do you get that statistic? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:10:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Cearain wrote:BTW: where do you get that statistic? It's from CCP Rise in this exact thread
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3414487#post3414487 |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
93
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:15:00 -
[1055] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: So its terrible DPS will be replaced with Mediocre DPS and it will lose tracking and a Medium neut as a result.
Oh that makes me so happy.
I'm sure the Vaga is the second most used HAC in the game atm because of it's terrible dps. It might be more of a comment about the other hacs than it is about the vagabond. BTW: where do you get that statistic?
Rise just quoted it somewhere in here. Use dev post finder.
the vaga is fine with these changes. minmatar ships have the best damage projection of any ship in the game. The reality is that teh vaga applies its dps almost perfectly, compared to a missile or blaster boat, which might do MORE damage on paper, but less actual damage. |
Sigras
Conglomo
472
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:16:00 -
[1056] - Quote
What HACs need is a differentiation from battlecruisers; thats the problem. They overlap in several areas: they do similar DPS, they have similar EHP, (in the case of the new ABCs) they have similar speed
What HACs do have over battlecruisers: smaller sig radius slightly faster slightly tougher (even though they have similar EHP they tend to have better resists because theyre T2)
all for a 4X cost increase.
If it were up to me, I would have HACs focus on survivability, and have faction cruisers focus on speed or damage mitigation.
This would set them apart from the battlecruisers in a meaningful way.
Historically battle cruisers have been up-gunned cruisers doing more damage from a lighter hull, so why dont we keep with that and have HACs focus on the "heavy" part making them tanky damage platforms. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:28:00 -
[1057] - Quote
Thanks. That posts suggests that the vaga is used about as much as the omen in pvp. I knew the vaga wasn't used often but I didn't think it was that bad. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:31:00 -
[1058] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Fewell wrote: The shield boosting bonus isn't a bad bonus, but it doesn't fit with the way most Vagas get flown. Another falloff bonus would allow a Vaga pilot to take advantage of selectable damage ammo at point range. Right now you have to load barrage.
Sooo... Loading long range ammo to be able to do damage at the longest unbonused point range is a bad thing? I want my Thorax to do 300 dps at 25km with Antimatter then. The Thorax isn't a HAC getting a new bonus now. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
349
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:40:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Sigras wrote:What HACs need is a differentiation from battlecruisers; thats the problem. They overlap in several areas: they do similar DPS, they have similar EHP, (in the case of the new ABCs) they have similar speed
What HACs do have over battlecruisers: smaller sig radius slightly faster slightly tougher (even though they have similar EHP they tend to have better resists because theyre T2)
all for a 4X cost increase.
If it were up to me, I would have HACs focus on survivability, and have faction cruisers focus on speed or damage mitigation.
This would set them apart from the battlecruisers in a meaningful way.
Historically battle cruisers have been up-gunned cruisers doing more damage from a lighter hull, so why dont we keep with that and have HACs focus on the "heavy" part making them tanky damage platforms. Your problem is that you consider ABC and CBC as one single ship. HAC have double the ehp of ABC, or a lot more speed than CBC, but CBC are still a lot slower than HAC, and ABC are still a lot less resilient than HAC (and a lot more vulnerable to frigates in general).
That being said, now compare AF to destroyers : they have similar firepower and tank, and more speed, on top of more resistances and less signature, and of course this MWD sig bonus.
You see : it's the same. HAC relate to BC in the same way AF relate to destroyers. The difference might only lie in the meta : BS are a lot less common than cruisers, hence destroyers are a lot more endangered by their natural predators (cruisers) than BC are endangered (only common predator of BC is blob). The second thing is the price barrier : price of an AF is fairly cheap for most standard whereas price of HAC is rather high for most. Yet, if you look at the graph CCP Rise showed, the MWD bonus will make them a lot more resistant to ABC, potentialy allowing HAC to counter ABC.
I don't see many predators to these HAC in fact, exactly like AF.
And the problem I forgot : T3 cruisers which actually render them redundant despite the price difference. Good news though : they are tackled by the nerfbat. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
640
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:42:00 -
[1060] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Thanks. That posts suggests that the vaga is used about as much as the omen in pvp. I knew the vaga wasn't used often but I didn't think it was that bad. You underestimate the usage of those ships. The Omen is incredible |
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
349
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:47:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Always wanting to have the largest guns and full tank without using fitting mods. Makes no sense for anyone to buy a car and once you get it you just figure out you can't do more than15 miles with, so you buy and extra tank and fix it at the baggage place, that's it but now you can't go anywhere your fuel tank aloud you because you can't take any baggage. That's pretty much the CCP balance god mode here. That's not the good comparison : your are asking your car to be able to sustain tank fire, to fire back and to still be as fast and cheap as she already is. When it's possible, it's illegal. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:49:00 -
[1062] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Cearain wrote:Thanks. That posts suggests that the vaga is used about as much as the omen in pvp. I knew the vaga wasn't used often but I didn't think it was that bad. You underestimate the usage of those ships. The Omen is incredible
I haven't seen an omen in a pvp setting since the changes so I couldn't really over or underestimate it.
Where is everyone flying omens in pvp these days? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1381
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:54:00 -
[1063] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Harvey James wrote:Kais Fiddler wrote:It's too bad that CCP probably won't deign to fix the Deimos. The vagabond gets the velocity bonus baked in but the deimos won't get the cap bonus? Ridiculous. I was hoping to actually fly one after it got buffed. I was hoping to fly an blaster eagle but alas .... Will probably survive longer than Diemost to catch reps and can also spew blaster ammo at almost double optimal Deimos range. well maybe ... but being slower and doing diddly squat damage won't be worth the bother either way. The damage is inline with the range, but the Deimos fall off bonus kinda makes the range on bonus on the Eagle kinda underwhelming. If the falloff bonus on the Deimos was changed to a tracking bonus they would both be very useful as both blaster or rail platforms. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
396
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 20:03:00 -
[1064] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Harvey James wrote:Kais Fiddler wrote:It's too bad that CCP probably won't deign to fix the Deimos. The vagabond gets the velocity bonus baked in but the deimos won't get the cap bonus? Ridiculous. I was hoping to actually fly one after it got buffed. I was hoping to fly an blaster eagle but alas .... Will probably survive longer than Diemost to catch reps and can also spew blaster ammo at almost double optimal Deimos range. well maybe ... but being slower and doing diddly squat damage won't be worth the bother either way. The damage is inline with the range, but the Deimos fall off bonus kinda makes the range on bonus on the Eagle kinda underwhelming. If the falloff bonus on the Deimos was changed to a tracking bonus they would both be very useful as both blaster or rail platforms.
The lack of low slots also hurt the eagle...3/4 is mags just too get 370 dps at 20km with null at lv5 HAC i might add doing about 1600m/s with a massive sig and only 1 slot left for a choice of either nano/TE or damage control... for 200mil i mean come on its taking the **** when a Talos can do 900dps at 15km and what 1700m/s for a overall shorter training time and and half the price..
Again with the tracking bonus on Deimos is pointless as the thorax or brutix navy issue can do the exact same thing at least as a mini durable talos that can armour tank or shield tank well and is much more mobile than the talos it has a useful role and some uniqueness rather than a T2 thorax 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Angeli Mortis
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 20:24:00 -
[1065] - Quote
Diemost needs PWG buff.
It's silly that it can't fit its guns with a 1600 plate and its *bonused* MWD. Let alone trying to fit rails on that thing. Not that you would, since rails already track like a drunk chick looking for the toilet, and they're about to be made worse, in that respect. |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
92
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 20:26:00 -
[1066] - Quote
The Deimos, which I love so much, needs to have the MWD bonus baked into it's cap and replaced with a tracking bonus if you're going to pidgeonhole it into a rail boat like you are atm. Removing the HPs on the HAC with the biggest sig really makes it a tough sell as a close range brawler.
So three options, one of which would imo would bring it on par:
1. Remove gun slot, increase damage to compensate granting a utility high. 2. Replace cap bonus with tracking bonus (needed for both blasters at close range and rails) and increase innate cap. 3. Give it back it's freaking HP, dude. It needs it since it can't sigtank like the Zealot.
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
826
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 20:28:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. |
Sigras
Conglomo
473
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 20:30:00 -
[1068] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: With the exception of the Rook, all the Combat recons are amazing and are completely worth the cost.
i do admit they are used. but as heavy tackle not as e-war platforms. might aswell just get rid of the e-war aspect and make them heavy interceptors then. WTB non useless Lachesis fit . . . |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
641
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 20:33:00 -
[1069] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. The Deimos needs 13.000 pwg and 800 CPU. I want to use Large guns and double XL ASB. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1189
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 20:41:00 -
[1070] - Quote
Sigras wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: With the exception of the Rook, all the Combat recons are amazing and are completely worth the cost.
i do admit they are used. but as heavy tackle not as e-war platforms. might aswell just get rid of the e-war aspect and make them heavy interceptors then. WTB non useless Lachesis fit . . .
For roaming its not bad You slap on a mwd a long point a scram and shield tank.
Then nano the lows and add a dcu ii
Shield extender rigs and fit some missiles/nuets There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
827
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 20:48:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. The Deimos needs 13.000 pwg and 800 CPU. I want to use Large guns and double XL ASB.
Talos already exists. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
642
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 20:56:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. The Deimos needs 13.000 pwg and 800 CPU. I want to use Large guns and double XL ASB. Talos already exists. So does Tornado |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
827
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 21:02:00 -
[1073] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. The Deimos needs 13.000 pwg and 800 CPU. I want to use Large guns and double XL ASB. Talos already exists. So does Tornado
Nobody fits 425mm and medium arties to tornado. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
450
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 21:13:00 -
[1074] - Quote
hmm
these ships should be good for roaming and smaller gatecamps right?
so make them able to keep pace with cynabal the current fotm roaming ship --> better align time pls , and maybe if i could go to sniper range and back to gate with my eagle quickly that would help a lot too
|
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 21:33:00 -
[1075] - Quote
Still underwhelmed with the Sacrelige and especially Eagle. Sac still needs that 6th low slot, and so does the ishtar. They're both armor ships, right? right? (well, passive ishtar too).
Eagle is probably going to still be useless.
Why take away soooo much hp from the deimos? Did it kill you too many times to let it have some hp left? |
AstraPardus
THE INSURGENCY The Unthinkables
274
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 21:36:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Amarr: That's nice, capacitor recharge is nice for most Amarr ships, but IMO is too much on a missile boat.
Caldari: That's nice. Blaster Eagle should be more interesting...
Gallente: Semi-buff on the Deimos, me likey. I might fly this again. Ishtar, however...yes...yes!! One of the things that I like most about drone boats is the versatility of the arment. By giving different bonuses to Heavy and Sentry drones, makes this a very compelling new and improved Ishtar!
Minmatar: The Vaga is now that much harder to kill...thanks. -__- Muninn, that's nice.
Overall: Handshakes and stiff drinks are in order. Every time I post is Pardy time! :3 |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
450
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 21:51:00 -
[1077] - Quote
btw ishtar gets lame double bonuses why other ships cant get those? like 7.5% optimal and tracking for med hybrids instead of 10% optimal /lvl for the eagle?
oh any other bonuses gets implemented into the ship hull then why cant the 4%/lvl resist bonus put directly into the eagle hull and give it another bonus? |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:08:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:btw ishtar gets lame double bonuses why other ships cant get those? like 7.5% optimal and tracking for med hybrids instead of 10% optimal /lvl for the eagle?
oh any other bonuses gets implemented into the ship hull then why cant the 4%/lvl resist bonus put directly into the eagle hull and give it another bonus? The resist bonus is far more powerful than the speed or cap recharge bonus. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
450
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:26:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Kais Fiddler wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:btw ishtar gets lame double bonuses why other ships cant get those? like 7.5% optimal and tracking for med hybrids instead of 10% optimal /lvl for the eagle?
oh any other bonuses gets implemented into the ship hull then why cant the 4%/lvl resist bonus put directly into the eagle hull and give it another bonus? The resist bonus is far more powerful than the speed or cap recharge bonus. not at all , i would take that speed bonus over resist anytime for a roaming sniper ship
btw speed bonus if better ,if you sig tank anyway , not only it lowers the chance you being hit/missile dmg, it allows you to control range which is probably the most important part of pvp in eve |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
241
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:32:00 -
[1080] - Quote
Blastil wrote: the vaga is fine with these changes. minmatar ships have the best damage projection of any ship in the game. The reality is that teh vaga applies its dps almost perfectly, compared to a missile or blaster boat, which might do MORE damage on paper, but less actual damage.
You forget that Projectiles lose DPS over range, unlike missiles. At 20-30k half of the Vaga's DPS is lost to range, before tracking comes into play. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
62
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:32:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Kais Fiddler wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:btw ishtar gets lame double bonuses why other ships cant get those? like 7.5% optimal and tracking for med hybrids instead of 10% optimal /lvl for the eagle?
oh any other bonuses gets implemented into the ship hull then why cant the 4%/lvl resist bonus put directly into the eagle hull and give it another bonus? The resist bonus is far more powerful than the speed or cap recharge bonus.
somebody here hasnt learned yet that naomi is a dedicated troll |
Menehune Ho'okele
Kiith Paktu Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:34:00 -
[1082] - Quote
It seems like there are fitting problems for obvious goto weapons on a couple of ships (deimos, vaga come to mind) a fitting reduction for ranged weapons struck me as a possible solution for the deimos, but I'm not sure how keen peple are for arty vagas. Still, something that makes the preferred ( not trying to insist on rail deimos, just trying to be brief) weapons easier to fit without adding an open ended fittings buff might be worth a thought.
Generally this 2nd pass looks like some woryhwhile improvements. Thanks. |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:34:00 -
[1083] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote: btw speed bonus if better ,if you sig tank anyway , not only it lowers the chance you being hit/missile dmg, it allows you to control range which is probably the most important part of pvp in eve
Perhaps. CCP doesn't seem to see eye to eye with you on that considering their recent nerf to resistance bonuses.
As an aside I suspect the mwd role bonus is far more powerful than most people are thinking. |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:35:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Kais Fiddler wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:btw ishtar gets lame double bonuses why other ships cant get those? like 7.5% optimal and tracking for med hybrids instead of 10% optimal /lvl for the eagle?
oh any other bonuses gets implemented into the ship hull then why cant the 4%/lvl resist bonus put directly into the eagle hull and give it another bonus? The resist bonus is far more powerful than the speed or cap recharge bonus. somebody here hasnt learned yet that naomi is a dedicated troll I generally don't post on these forums, but this is something I apparently care a lot about, which is somewhat surprising to be honest. |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:36:00 -
[1085] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Make the vaga the arty / autocannon boat and the munnin the missile ship. Taht is simply DUMB. the Missile hull for minmatar cruisers is the bellicose.
You mean the "t1 missile hull" is the bellicose. The point I'm making here is that Minmatar missile pilots are still getting the shaft because their options are so limited. The Bellicose is not even close to filling a t2 HAC role.
I also don't think it's productive to call someone's idea "dumb", especially with only the most minimal argument as to why. Try to stay constructive guys. |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:51:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Minmatar Missile Boat Progression: Breacher > Talwar > (Hound) > Bellicose > 1/2 Huginn > Cyclone > Typhoon. Minmatar Projectile Boat Progression: Everything else.
At least we also have the Fleet Scythe now I guess, but the point remains that EVERY other race has more options for each weapon system (except perhaps Amarr, which sort of has three systems: lasers, drones, missiles). |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
241
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 22:54:00 -
[1087] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. The Deimos needs 13.000 pwg and 800 CPU. I want to use Large guns and double XL ASB.
Post constructively or don't post, we're trying to make the Vaga a useful ship that can actually use its shield booster bonus without having to fit an ACR. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
349
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 23:42:00 -
[1088] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. The Deimos needs 13.000 pwg and 800 CPU. I want to use Large guns and double XL ASB. Post constructively or don't post, we're trying to make the Vaga a useful ship that can actually use its shield booster bonus without having to fit an ACR. He was underlining a bit sarcasticaly that asking for your ship to be able to fit everything you can possibly need is unreasonable. You are asking too much sir, and it's not christmas yet.
Because if you think about it, the Vagabond can fit guns and ASB to profit from all of its bonus. You're only asking more without real reasons. |
Joelleaveek
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
247
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 00:06:00 -
[1089] - Quote
I really dislike that the Deimos is keeping the MWD bonus instead of tracking. It also seems like the Ishtar is getting one bonus split into to slots to waste one of them. Still don't get the shield boost bonus on the Vagabond. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
186
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 00:07:00 -
[1090] - Quote
I love how people's understanding of the Vaga is:
If it can't fit an XL ASB, then **** it.
Player level competence trying to fit a BS sized mod on every cruiser class ship.... You know what, why not let it fit a 100mn AB too, and for that matter, get an agility boost when using it. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1384
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 00:35:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The damage is inline with the range, but the Deimos fall off bonus kinda makes the range on bonus on the Eagle kinda underwhelming. If the falloff bonus on the Deimos was changed to a tracking bonus they would both be very useful as both blaster or rail platforms. The lack of low slots also hurt the eagle...2/4 is mags just too get 370 dps at 15km with null at lv5 HAC i might add doing about 1600m/s with a massive sig and only 2 slots left for a choice of either nano/TE or damage control... for 200mil i mean come on its taking the **** when a Talos can do 900dps at 15km and what 1700m/s for a overall shorter training time and and half the price.. [Eagle 1.1, Egale]
5x Heavy Neutron Blaster II (Void M)
10MN Microwarpdrive II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Ancillary Shield Booster (Navy Cap Booster 150) Large Shield Extender II Faint Warp Disruptor I
2x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Medium Hybrid Collision Accelerator I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
[Statistics - All Skills 5] Effective HP: 44,059 (Eve: 24,571) Tank Ability: 632.64 DPS
Damage Profile - (EM: 25.00%, Ex: 25.00%, Ki: 25.00%, Th: 25.00%) Shield Resists - EM: 63.78%, Ex: 81.89%, Ki: 89.13%, Th: 92.76% Armor Resists - EM: 57.50%, Ex: 23.50%, Ki: 68.13%, Th: 88.31%
Capacitor (Lasts 1m)
Volley Damage: 1,696.51 DPS: 551.82 @8.3km + 3.7km Falloff 2 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 1 Tracking Enhancer II DPS: 474.40 @ 9km + 4.4km Falloff 1 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 2 Tracking Enhancer II
Harvey James wrote: Again with the tracking bonus on Deimos is pointless as the thorax or brutix navy issue can do the exact same thing at least as a mini durable talos that can armour tank or shield tank well and is much more mobile than the talos it has a useful role and some uniqueness rather than a T2 thorax The falloff bonus is just a bad tracking bonus that only is usable with null or antimatter charges. Less most forget there are more than just those types of charges. I always viewed the role of the Deimos as a close range high damage specialist ship, which is almost does. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
653
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 00:37:00 -
[1092] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:I love how people's understanding of the Vaga is:
If it can't fit an XL ASB, then **** it.
Player level competence trying to fit a BS sized mod on every cruiser class ship.... You know what, why not let it fit a 100mn AB too, and for that matter, get an agility boost when using it.
I would use the LASB. If it wasn't super-bad. So instead, I prefer to seriously gimp my ship and shoehorn an XLASB.
Let's try something alright, get a cruiser-class ship, doesn't matter which one. Then use a medium shield booster. Any medium shield booster except deadspace ones. And then see if it's of any use in PVP.
It's not. |
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 00:40:00 -
[1093] - Quote
Just one thing I've just noticed, the laser-ship (Zealot) has less capacitor than the missile ship (sacrilege)... Are you sure the capacitor values aren't backwards? |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Tribal Band
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 00:57:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Vaga: Well, can call it tweaking. I still find it not a good idea to be making it all fancy for ASB fits. But apparently, people don't fancy other bonuses instead, either. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Sol Mortis
An Heroes
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 02:40:00 -
[1095] - Quote
HACs should get a third rig slot if they are really being balanced to be competitive with tech 1 and faction ships. It would be a solid but balanced buff to all of them, with the normal trade-offs between speed, tank, and fitting we're all used to with rigs.
|
Mire Stoude
Antelope with Night Vision Goggles
191
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 03:25:00 -
[1096] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:For the Deimos ... We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.\
Literally anything at all would be better than the MWD cap bonus; A hull bonus, tank bonus, a range bonus, a drone hit points bonus, an agility bonus... ANYTHING.
On second thought, a missile bonus would be even less useful. But I think that's about it.
|
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 03:58:00 -
[1097] - Quote
In the offchance that you are still reading this thread, CCP RISE, move those light drones you gave the cerberus to the eagle. It won't need drone defence when six HAM's will skewer tackiling frigates and drones with ease. I'm positive the cerberus will become the BEST kiter ingame even without em.
And 25 mbit drone bandwith, not 15 thats for frigates.
Kthxbye |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 04:14:00 -
[1098] - Quote
well I guess these changes are final regardless any input we post since some of the ship changes where fairly well recived. |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 04:27:00 -
[1099] - Quote
AstraPardus wrote:Amarr: That's nice, capacitor recharge is nice for most Amarr ships, but IMO is too much on a missile boat.
It was great when you were active tanked+mwd+neut in the utility high. didn't need a cap booster. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 04:42:00 -
[1100] - Quote
Quote:Literally anything at all would be better than the MWD cap bonus; A hull bonus, tank bonus, a range bonus, a drone hit points bonus, an agility bonus... ANYTHING.
On second thought, a missile bonus would be even less useful. But I think that's about it.
Agreed. Although, now you've got me thinking about a HAM Deimos... could be fun, or funny. But, seriously, I find it hard to believe that there is no compelling change besides a MWD bonus to make.
For those saying that Deimos pilots are asking too much, let me point something out. I don't care if the Deimos gets a single point more of DPS. I don't care if it gets the ability to fit neutrons with a 1600mm plate (been flying it with electrons for quite a while on two characters and think it works well enough). I don't care if it loses the utility high as long as the math works out to fit a comparable cap booster to make up for it, which it looks like it has. I don't care if it gets an active rep bonus (I buffer tank the thing most of the time or run a nos/repper setup). I don't care if it gets more speed (I catch most targets just fine, at least the ones the Deimos is intended to fight). I don't care if it or any other HAC gets an additional slot.
My point is simply this. Where CCP found no compelling bonus to give the Deimos, I find no compelling reason whatsoever to reduce its tank. I find no compelling reason, at all.
CCP_Rise, please be so kind as to explain why the Deimos needed a hit to its tank. I think by this point in the thread it's pretty obvious that no one has been able to grasp the reasoning behind it. Even those "defending" it are only saying its new tank is merely adequate, but no one has provided a reason it needs to be softer (cue the trolls). Is a blaster Deimos really supposed to be something we go Captain Ahab on targets with? If so, why is it as costly as it is?
**DEATH OF A DEIMOS**
Inspired by Moby ****
"And, he piled upon the great, white hump, a sum of all the rage and hate. If his chest had been a cannon, he'd have shot his heart upon it."
Into the great, blue depths they fell locked in a battle of wills, neither caring to survive, both hell bent to kill. The outcome was certain, as most seemed to know. One's skin was so thin his bones often showed. The sea drank life as it oozed from their hides from the wounds they had dealt on the turbulent tides. Looking back to those depths, the children would say, "There sank Captain Deimos. The whale got away." |
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 06:30:00 -
[1101] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. The Deimos needs 13.000 pwg and 800 CPU. I want to use Large guns and double XL ASB. Post constructively or don't post, we're trying to make the Vaga a useful ship that can actually use its shield booster bonus without having to fit an ACR. He was underlining a bit sarcasticaly that asking for your ship to be able to fit everything you can possibly need is unreasonable. You are asking too much sir, and it's not christmas yet. Because if you think about it, the Vagabond can fit guns and ASB to profit from all of its bonus. You're only asking more without real reasons.
oh really? ever tried to fit a vaga ? 425mm +med neut +mwd and your at 98.99% pg (tech2)
and i'm only asking for the 425's cause its the only way i see that ccp could/would fix its dmg projection prolem a little.
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
187
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 06:37:00 -
[1102] - Quote
I think my favorite line ever is a dev saying he doesn't believe cruisers should fit all cruiser sized modules as a design element.
My jaw literally dropped.
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 06:44:00 -
[1103] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:I think my favorite line ever is a dev saying he doesn't believe cruisers should fit all cruiser sized modules as a design element.
My jaw literally dropped.
even if you drop the med neut to a small your still tight on grid.... if thats your meaning.... |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
372
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 06:53:00 -
[1104] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:I think my favorite line ever is a dev saying he doesn't believe cruisers should fit all cruiser sized modules as a design element.
My jaw literally dropped.
Try fitting a full rack of Tachyon Beams on an Apocalypse. Just because something is ment to be fitted on a certain type of hulls it doesn't mean that all hulls will support it. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 06:57:00 -
[1105] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:I think my favorite line ever is a dev saying he doesn't believe cruisers should fit all cruiser sized modules as a design element.
My jaw literally dropped.
My god...i hope he's not employed any longer. That's utterly ridiculous.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
642
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 07:06:00 -
[1106] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote: oh really? ever tried to fit a vaga ? 425mm +med neut +mwd and your at 98.99% pg (tech2)
and i'm only asking for the 425's cause its the only way i see that ccp could/would fix its dmg projection prolem a little.
Tell me all about all the other ships that can put largest guns, mwd and neut and not have pg issues..
Oh right, none of them can that. So why should the vaga?
Edit: not counting pirate cruisers. They are not yet rebalanced. |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
170
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 07:23:00 -
[1107] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:CERBERUS
...
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+15) / 15(+15)
While it's nice to finally see a Caldari HAC get drones why did you choose the cerberus over the eagle? It's not a complaint that they're getting a damage/utility augment, but with missiles already being a "travel time" weapon system it seems an odd choice compared to the eagle.
CCP Rise wrote:DEIMOS
We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
Again, thank you very much. Having a cap penalty reduction bonus is, to me at least, one of the more iconic aspects of the ship, and while having it removed might make fitting afterburners on them more appealing it would also lose something that helps separate it from the other HACs.
That and it's nice to fit a deadspace MWD with HAC5 and get a nice (up to) 22% bonus to your capacitor amount.
CCP Rise wrote:ISHTAR
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Fittings: 780 PWG(+80), 340 CPU(+55)
Thank you for the fitting capacity boost, especially the CPU, and making HAC a skill worth prioritizing over other skills for an ishtar pilot. The control range bonus was nice, but as I pointed out in the old topic neither it nor the bay bonus really screamed out "train me."
I sincerely hope that whoever takes over the rebalancing for the ishkur and eos take a page from the ishtar and have their drone bay bonuses replaced with something more useful that would actually force players like myself to prioritize the respective ship handling skill instead of leaving it for last. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
256
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 07:40:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Kane Fenris wrote: oh really? ever tried to fit a vaga ? 425mm +med neut +mwd and your at 98.99% pg (tech2)
and i'm only asking for the 425's cause its the only way i see that ccp could/would fix its dmg projection prolem a little.
Tell me all about all the other ships that can put largest guns, mwd and neut and not have pg issues.. Oh right, none of them can that. So why should the vaga? Edit: not counting pirate cruisers. They are not yet rebalanced.
That would be a fair point if the other Cruisers didnt have other Redeeming qualities like better tank/DPS/projection, buts its OK guys because the Vaga goes fast, you wont be able to kill anything, but you can go fast. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
9418
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 08:09:00 -
[1109] - Quote
yes. Yes. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES.
Thanks for explaining the Vagabond changes, Rise. you rock.
The capacitor, sensor and targeting range buffs will make it and the other HACs more powerful in a way that might just fit them, so that is a welcomed buff no doubt.
Now, you just need to rebalance Assault Frigates to fit the new HACs (i.e. Shield Boost bonus for Jaguar) and you're good to go. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 08:28:00 -
[1110] - Quote
Last Try, after that I give up... I personally do not see how the current changes will make me want to use hac ships again.
@ CCP
1. Why EAGLE does not have second dmg bonus like all other HACs? If changing bonus does not fall into the category "minor twiks", then maybe add another low slot !?
2. Why Gellente does not have Tank bonus? All other races have one
3. Why Zealot and EAGLE are the only HACs vulnerable to frigate size ships? Both Zealot nad EAGLE have no Drones, both have no utility high slots also. The Munin has drones and 6H / 5 Turrets The Deimost has drones / The Ishtar has all the drones in eve and only utility Highs...
4. Why Gallente does not fallow the logic of all other races? 1x Heavy tanker / brawler + 1x Long Range bonus to optimal or fall-off or flight time and speed Ishtar or Deimost witch one is the brawler for Gallente? Deimost has falloff bonus, looks to be the long range one... but then Ishtar with the Sentries can hit over 100 km...
5. Why don't you put a restriction on the Ishtar: no Sentries? Like you did on the Mother-ships they have all the drone space and bandwidth on the world and they can only use fighter bombers ... That might help us define Brawler / LR in the Gallente race...
Quote:Lets start with role. We've had several presentations and posts and dev blogs now which explain that tech 1 is general and tech 2 is specialized...
Please give us some more information, how T2 is specialized and it what exactly? I personally have hard time finding clear roles, they overlap so much. What is a true for 3 of the races is not for the 4th etc... |
|
gawrshmapooo
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 08:33:00 -
[1111] - Quote
Ronny Hugo wrote:Just one thing I've just noticed, the laser-ship (Zealot) has less capacitor than the missile ship (sacrilege)... Are you sure the capacitor values aren't backwards?
The Sacrilege needs all the cap it can get for its dual rep tank. Cap isn't just for lasers. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 08:36:00 -
[1112] - Quote
Quote:4. Why Gallente does not fallow the logic of all other races? 1x Heavy tanker / brawler + 1x Long Range bonus to optimal or fall-off or flight time and speed Ishtar or Deimost witch one is the brawler for Gallente? Deimost has falloff bonus, looks to be the long range one... but then Ishtar with the Sentries can hit over 100 km...
I think you nailed it, here. It almost feels as though brawler role is being elminated entirely from all tech 2 Gallente and assigned solely to the Proteus. Reducing the tank certainly gives the impression they don't intend for you to stay in brawling range very long, and the falloff bonus certainly benefits a rail fit more than blaster. |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 08:51:00 -
[1113] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:[quote=Kane Fenris] oh really? ever tried to fit a vaga ? 425mm +med neut +mwd and your at 98.99% pg (tech2)
and i'm only asking for the 425's cause its the only way i see that ccp could/would fix its dmg projection prolem a little.
..... 85K EHP before heat with a lowest resist of 77.3% Explosive, just over 2K/S with a Zors and 414DPS out to 79+25 with Uranium or 497DPS at 53+25 with CNAM. Paired with some Basis, Huginns and Lachesis I can see this being a pretty effective LR Tier 3 counter.
Your fit and idea are OK. Don't get me wrong, but are just not gonna work and here is why:
1. Speed Naga: 1380 m/s Tornado: 1700 m/s Talos: 1600 m/s Oracle: 1500 m/s
Eagle: 1300 m/s
2. Alfa Volley: Tornado: 5k - 10 k Oracle ~ 5k Naga ~ 4k Talos ~ 4k
Eagle ~ 1500
So unless you plan to outnumber your enemy 2:1 odds does not favour you. And then there is the minor issue with the price... :D |
Xoduse
Pwn 'N Play Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 08:55:00 -
[1114] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:DEIMOS
For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
I can think of a bonus much more useful than the MWD one. How about letting the deimos retain the 7.5% tracking bonus the thorax has so it can better apply all that wonderful dps. Then give total cap a little buff but not quite as much as the old MWD bonus did.
The total cap loss won't be as noticeable with the help of ancillary armor reps, and the cap buff you are implementing already. With the current proposed deimos tweaks I feel it will have a hard time competing with other HACs (Hello Cerberus) 4th mid slot or not. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
642
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 08:55:00 -
[1115] - Quote
[NEW Deimos, Deimos cant brawl??] Damage Control II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Medium Armor Repairer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Armor Explosive Hardener II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Hammerhead II x5
531 dps
714 dps tank omni. 2039 peak tank, 663 worst case.
1925 m/s |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 08:59:00 -
[1116] - Quote
You haven't taken into account the Eagles lower sig far better EHP and far better Resists.
The predominant Tier 3 snipers at the moment are the Nado or the Naga, the Nado will be fairly effective vs the Eagle although it will have worse tracking and tank than the Naga, however the Eagle has almost 130K EHP vs Kinetic/Thermal damage, 3x the EHP of a Naga.
The key would be in clearing Huginns from the field or getting a good warpin and starting the fight at close range, if you forced the fight to start on 0 you could catch enough Huginns and kill them to make the remainder of the fight easy mode. |
Dani Lizardov
Otbor Chereshka GaNg BaNg TeAm
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 09:05:00 -
[1117] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote: [NEW Deimos, Deimos cant brawl??] ...... 531 dps
714 dps tank omni. 2039 peak tank, 663 worst case.
1925 m/s
There is nothing new in the fit you posted... But check out what is new :
Quote:Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531)
No one will tell you that you can not brawl with the current deimos... How ever armor and active tanking after so much reduction of the base HP, will make it WORST then NOW.
So yeah! Mr. "I like the new changes so much" maybe you lack experience with what you already have |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 09:07:00 -
[1118] - Quote
Quote:[NEW Deimos, Deimos cant brawl??] Damage Control II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Medium Armor Repairer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Armor Explosive Hardener II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Hammerhead II x5
I don't think that's going to perform like you may think. I'll get on the test server later today, though, with an augoror to feed me cap and simulate the cap booster. I'll use it against some corp mates in a few different ships. Something tells me that this fit is going to melt, though. We'll see. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 09:17:00 -
[1119] - Quote
HACs as they are now lose to T1 cruisers and BCs due to lack of TANK. After previous buffs to T1 cruisers and introduction of T3 BCs game shifted from tank to gank. All ships that were booster before got a damage increase thus everything in eve now does more damage then it did before. I do realize that a sig reduction on HACs will affect their survivability in future against ships that use large guns but that still doesn't change anything or benefits HACs in general against other ships. If you will take a look at Vexor as it is now, that ship can put out around 800-900 DPS having pretty solid tank. I doubt any T2 cruiser will be able to come on top of that w/o choosing between tank or dps. But let's forget solo/small gang and take a look at larger fleets. In large fleets when 100 ships shoot 1 target they eventually will hit it w/o any issues. No matter how small it is and no matter what transversal it has there still will be 20 out of 100 which will hit it and that hit will be enough to instapop it. While HACs will have slightly higher rezists they won't have enough buffer to tank incoming damage while reps will land. As I already mentioned I loved flying dualrep Ishtar back in the days, I came up against different targets, brawled with 10 man drake gang and was able to down 2 before I went down myself, engaged cynabals and killed some etc. Same goes for Sacri. Both ships were amazing solo armor tanked ships. They were not overpowered, they had that nice difference from other ships that was giving pilot a pleasure of flying it. If you will use those ships now there's no chance of doing same things just because any high dps platform will just break through your rep cycles and your buffer won't be enough. So basically I want to ask if it is possible to increase main tank HP on T2 ships making them better then T1 hulls.
As for armor tanking, I think it should also be buffed slightly. Active shield tank these days is amazing, you are able to fit X-large booster on a huge variety of ships while armor reps are limited to hull size. shield tanked boat can rep same amount of HP using single rep as armor tanked boat does with 2. There are shield boost amplifiers while there's none for armor. Number of ASBs per ship are only limited by PG/CPU capabilities of said ship while you can fit only 1 AAR (limited size) on armor ship. I understand that this is completely different story, I just decided to include this in my post. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 09:23:00 -
[1120] - Quote
Quote:In large fleets when 100 ships shoot 1 target they eventually will hit it w/o any issues. No matter how small it is and no matter what transversal it has there still will be 20 out of 100 which will hit it and that hit will be enough to instapop it.
That's my concern, exactly. I don't like large fleets, but I do like small gang. With the Deimos sitting at 1750 base armor hp, that rep/AAR fit above, I think, will be volleyed pretty handily on approach by just a couple of ships. Against non-alpha ships, it seems like it would do well. But, most small gangs these days (at least in my region of space) have at least a couple of alpha-damage-oriented ships in their ranks with good tracking. |
|
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
9419
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 09:27:00 -
[1121] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:ever tried to fit a vaga? 425mm +med neut +mwd and you're at 98.99% pg you're an idiot. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 09:39:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Dani Lizardov wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:[quote=Kane Fenris] oh really? ever tried to fit a vaga ? 425mm +med neut +mwd and your at 98.99% pg (tech2)
and i'm only asking for the 425's cause its the only way i see that ccp could/would fix its dmg projection prolem a little.
..... 85K EHP before heat with a lowest resist of 77.3% Explosive, just over 2K/S with a Zors and 414DPS out to 79+25 with Uranium or 497DPS at 53+25 with CNAM. Paired with some Basis, Huginns and Lachesis I can see this being a pretty effective LR Tier 3 counter. Your fit and idea are OK. Don't get me wrong, but are just not gonna work and here is why: 1. Speed Naga: 1380 m/s Tornado: 1700 m/s Talos: 1600 m/s Oracle: 1500 m/s Eagle: 1300 m/s 2. Alfa Volley: Tornado: 5k - 10 k Oracle ~ 5k Naga ~ 4k Talos ~ 4k Eagle ~ 1500 So unless you plan to outnumber your enemy 2:1 odds does not favour you. And then there is the minor issue with the price... :D
please compare the comparable , you are comparing 5 medium guns vs 8 large guns. Of course are the large guns get more alpha!
compare the overall dps instead! IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 09:41:00 -
[1123] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:ever tried to fit a vaga? 425mm +med neut +mwd and you're at 98.99% pg You're an idiot.
You're an idiot. Capitals, my friend. Capitals. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 09:54:00 -
[1124] - Quote
I will continue my post and put some math here. While people here post ship fittings etc. I will just stick to base stats of every ship since fitting can vary. In my understanding and knowledge ships were different based on following formula: T2 =< Pirate faction but > Navy faction > T1
Let's go ship by ship vs it's T1 and Navy faction brothers excluding pirate factions since it's a different storry(Shield/Armor/Hull):
Gallente:
Vexor = 1100/2000/2000 Navy Vexor = 1650/3000/3000 Ishtar = 1400/1600/2300
Thorax = 1200/1600/1600 Deimos = 1350/1750/2000 (it has slightly more then thorax \o/)
Minmatar: Stabber= 1600/1300/1300 Stabber Fleet Issue = 2400/1950/1950 Vagabond = 1750/1400/980
Rupture = 1500/1800/1500 Muninn = 1580/2000/1400
Amarr: Omen = 1200/1700/1500 Omen Navy Issue = 1800/2550/2250 Zealot = 980/2250/1670
Maller = 1600/3100/2800 Sacrilege = 1200/2100/1690
Caldari: Caracal = 1700/1200/1400 Caracal Navy Issue = 3000/1950/2250 Cerberus = 2000/1200/1400
Moa = 2300/1000/1600 Eagle = 2500/1250/1550
Now if we will put more or less standard fits for every ship class and add ISK vs Ship capabilities we will see that even after buff HACs are way too expensive and require long time to train for basically not so significant difference. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:01:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote: Now if we will put more or less standard fits for every ship class and add ISK vs Ship capabilities we will see that even after buff HACs are way too expensive and require long time to train for basically not so significant difference.
so basically HAC'S are the apple equivalent for #spaceshiphipters |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:07:00 -
[1126] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Cyaron wars wrote: Now if we will put more or less standard fits for every ship class and add ISK vs Ship capabilities we will see that even after buff HACs are way too expensive and require long time to train for basically not so significant difference.
so basically HAC'S are the apple equivalent for #spaceshiphipters
Some will be worth the Isk post buff, some will not at this rate. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:49:00 -
[1127] - Quote
I'm not entirely convinced on the Deimos losing its utility highslot, but the other changes look great, +1 "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:49:00 -
[1128] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. The Deimos needs 13.000 pwg and 800 CPU. I want to use Large guns and double XL ASB. Post constructively or don't post, we're trying to make the Vaga a useful ship that can actually use its shield booster bonus without having to fit an ACR. He was underlining a bit sarcasticaly that asking for your ship to be able to fit everything you can possibly need is unreasonable. You are asking too much sir, and it's not christmas yet. Because if you think about it, the Vagabond can fit guns and ASB to profit from all of its bonus. You're only asking more without real reasons.
How is asking to fit medium arties on a 150mil tech 2 cruiser unreasonable? Are you daft?
Right now, on a vagabond.. You cannot fit a full rack of 720mms without running out of PWG. That is with nothing else on the ship.
Why can an oracle fit 8 tech2 Tachyons with no problem, or a Talos a full rack of 425mm railguns while a vaga... a supposed "specialized" ship, a supposed "heavy attack cruiser" can't even fit 425mm autocannons with a standard buffer tank? Yet alone arties, at all? |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:55:00 -
[1129] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. The Deimos needs 13.000 pwg and 800 CPU. I want to use Large guns and double XL ASB. Post constructively or don't post, we're trying to make the Vaga a useful ship that can actually use its shield booster bonus without having to fit an ACR. He was underlining a bit sarcasticaly that asking for your ship to be able to fit everything you can possibly need is unreasonable. You are asking too much sir, and it's not christmas yet. Because if you think about it, the Vagabond can fit guns and ASB to profit from all of its bonus. You're only asking more without real reasons. How is asking to fit medium arties on a 150mil tech 2 cruiser unreasonable? Are you daft? Right now, on a vagabond.. You cannot fit a full rack of 720mms without running out of PWG. That is with nothing else on the ship. The cynabal has no such problem. Is the cynabal OP for being able to use it's own weapon system? No, the vagabond is weak.
While fitting issue here is obvious there's a role for that ship as well. Vagabond is going to be more or less close range brawler while Muninn will remain as a sniping platform. Cynabal is combination of those two since there are no other Angel ships of that class. I think it is fair enough. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:57:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote: While fitting issue here is obvious there's a role for that ship as well. Vagabond is going to be more or less close range brawler while Muninn will remain as a sniping platform. Cynabal is combination of those two since there are no other Angel ships of that class. I think it is fair enough.
Personally, I haven't really been seeing these "roles" that CCP and everybody keeps going on about.
|
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:57:00 -
[1131] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Vagabad needs PWG buff.
I want to use arties/425mm on it. The Deimos needs 13.000 pwg and 800 CPU. I want to use Large guns and double XL ASB. Post constructively or don't post, we're trying to make the Vaga a useful ship that can actually use its shield booster bonus without having to fit an ACR. He was underlining a bit sarcasticaly that asking for your ship to be able to fit everything you can possibly need is unreasonable. You are asking too much sir, and it's not christmas yet. Because if you think about it, the Vagabond can fit guns and ASB to profit from all of its bonus. You're only asking more without real reasons. How is asking to fit medium arties on a 150mil tech 2 cruiser unreasonable? Are you daft? Right now, on a vagabond.. You cannot fit a full rack of 720mms without running out of PWG. That is with nothing else on the ship. The cynabal has no such problem. Is the cynabal OP for being able to use it's own weapon system? No, the vagabond is weak.
you're not supposed to be able to LR medium weapons without any fitting mods, let alone the biggest LR guns!
look at the lazor line for jamyl's sake! most of the time you cant even fit the top tier SR guns without at least one or 2 PG rigs!
The only weapons systems where LR weaponry is easier to fit are the HMLs compared to HAMs
would it really kill you to have to fit one ACR to fit arties? IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:59:00 -
[1132] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:Now if we will put more or less standard fits for every ship class and add ISK vs Ship capabilities we will see that even after buff HACs are way too expensive and require long time to train for basically not so significant difference.
Ships are supposed to be exponentially expensive for a linear increase in power / utility. This allows basic T1 to remain competitive options for those that can't or won't spend the ISK for a slight increase in usefulness |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 10:59:00 -
[1133] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Cyaron wars wrote: While fitting issue here is obvious there's a role for that ship as well. Vagabond is going to be more or less close range brawler while Muninn will remain as a sniping platform. Cynabal is combination of those two since there are no other Angel ships of that class. I think it is fair enough.
Personally, I haven't really been seeing these "roles" that CCP and everybody keeps going on about.
Active shield tank bonus already defines ship as a brawler and not a sniper. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:00:00 -
[1134] - Quote
sten mattson wrote: you're not supposed to be able to LR medium weapons without any fitting mods, let alone the biggest LR guns!
look at the lazor line for jamyl's sake! most of the time you cant even fit the top tier SR guns without at least one or 2 PG rigs!
The only weapons systems where LR weaponry is easier to fit are the HMLs compared to HAMs
So we fit ACs, and do 200 DPS at point range if you are lucky.
Again, remind what the **** the point of the Vaga is again.
|
Oh My Boobs
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:05:00 -
[1135] - Quote
meh, im even less convinced than with the first review. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:07:00 -
[1136] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:
you're not supposed to be able to LR medium weapons without any fitting mods, let alone the biggest LR guns!
look at the lazor line for jamyl's sake! most of the time you cant even fit the top tier SR guns without at least one or 2 PG rigs!
The only weapons systems where LR weaponry is easier to fit are the HMLs compared to HAMs
would it really kill you to have to fit one ACR to fit arties?
Oh yeah?
On the vaga a measly full rack of 720mms and one ACR gives you 60 extra PWG to work with. That is 110 short of a microwarp drive.
My stabber fleet issue can fit 720mms no problem. So can my rupture.
A thorax can fit 250mm railguns without a fitting mod. A Harbinger can fit a full rack of heavy beam laser IIs aswell. The list keeps going on.
The facts don't support your statements, sorry.
|
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:07:00 -
[1137] - Quote
sten mattson wrote: you're not supposed to be able to LR medium weapons without any fitting mods, let alone the biggest LR guns!
look at the lazor line for jamyl's sake! most of the time you cant even fit the top tier SR guns without at least one or 2 PG rigs!
The only weapons systems where LR weaponry is easier to fit are the HMLs compared to HAMs
would it really kill you to have to fit one ACR to fit arties?
Assuming a max-skilled pilot, a zealot with a full rack of HBL IIs and an MWD has 209 PG to spare. An eagle with a full rack of 250mm rails and an MWD has 151.5 PG to spare. A deimos with a full rack of 250mm rails and an MWD has 226.5 PG to spare. A vaga with a full rack of 720s is over on grid even before you fit an MWD. With 650s and an MWD, it has 27.75 PG to spare.
I'm not saying I want to fly an artillery vaga, but it clearly is pretty short on PG compared to all of the other HACs. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:08:00 -
[1138] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Cyaron wars wrote: While fitting issue here is obvious there's a role for that ship as well. Vagabond is going to be more or less close range brawler while Muninn will remain as a sniping platform. Cynabal is combination of those two since there are no other Angel ships of that class. I think it is fair enough.
Personally, I haven't really been seeing these "roles" that CCP and everybody keeps going on about. Active shield tank bonus already defines ship as a brawler and not a sniper.
Then what does the falloff bonus define? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
642
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:09:00 -
[1139] - Quote
How about the role just being a good combat ship? Fact: They are better than their Tech 1 variants in virtually every aspect except speed.
Or is combat not a role to you? |
Oh My Boobs
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:11:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Muninn -> Was not very used, why would it be more now. less meds than T1 counter part, tyty Vagabond -> shield boost bonus with 4 meds, uh? Ishtar -> 3 perma bonus only? tyty |
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:11:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:How about the role just being a good combat ship? Fact: They are better than their Tech 1 variants in virtually every aspect except speed.
Or is combat not a role to you?
My tech 1s can fit their weapon systems without having to a single fitting mod. How is that better? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
642
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:13:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: So we fit ACs, and do 200 DPS at point range if you are lucky.
Again, remind what the **** the point of the Vaga is again.
Kiting for example. Mine does 280 dps as point edge, doing 3500 m/s. Maybe you should just stop being bad? |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:13:00 -
[1143] - Quote
Oh My Boobs wrote:Muninn -> Was not very used, why would it be more now. less meds than T1 counter part, tyty Vagabond -> shield boost bonus with 4 meds, uh? Ishtar -> 3 perma bonus only? tyty
One of the minni hacs needs to become a missile boat. If they go ahead and ruin my cyclone (and claymore, and typhoon) then they need to ruin the HACs aswell because I'm not training missiles right now for no reason. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
642
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:15:00 -
[1144] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: My tech 1s can fit their weapon systems without having to a single fitting mod. How is that better?
Really? Which ship, and how much more dps do you get out of it compared to the T2 variant? |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
258
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:16:00 -
[1145] - Quote
Pretty much what the above said, my real and honest concern is that the Vaga is just going to be another case of the Rifter, everybody at CCP said we arent worried about the rifter, its the best T1 frigate it doesn need buffing.
It now is universally accepted as the worst T1 frigate, now I dont really care about the Rifter, I do however care about the Vaga.
Its going to have the following;
Worst fitting in class. Worst DPS and projection in class. Lowest EHP in class. Lower end cap in class.
Best speed and lowest sig in class.
All your building is a hull that can run away from things, it can't kill anything, but it can run away. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2099
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:17:00 -
[1146] - Quote
I don't see much in terms of the 'specialisation' that T2 was supposed to represent in these changes, we seem to have a fairly wide spread of flat improvements over T1.
As others have mentioned, HACs have always had the issue of simply being T1 Cruisers, only superior, whilst other T2 hulls did a better job from the outset of fitting into well-defined roles. I honestly think it may be better to go back to first principles, decide on what role HACs are meant to specialise in, and redesign the ships from the ground up to fit those roles. If need be, push the HACs back to the winter expansion and jump on some low hanging fruit T2 class such as covops or interdictors where the issues and required improvements are much less contentious. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:23:00 -
[1147] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote: My tech 1s can fit their weapon systems without having to a single fitting mod. How is that better?
Really? Which ship, and how much more dps do you get out of it compared to the T2 variant?
It is irreverent because a vaga with 720mms, microwarp drive and TWO ACRs has only 10 powergrid left to fit anything.
With that kind of EHP a single tornado could one shot it if it wanted. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
642
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:27:00 -
[1148] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote: My tech 1s can fit their weapon systems without having to a single fitting mod. How is that better?
Really? Which ship, and how much more dps do you get out of it compared to the T2 variant? It is irreverent because a vaga with 720mms, microwarp drive and TWO ACRs has only 10 powergrid left to fit anything. With that kind of EHP a single tornado could one shot it if it wanted. This ship is not viable to even fly in this state so any comparison would be meaningless. You provide an empty argument to back up your case and then say that the argument is irrelevant because of some other reason you came up with on the fly? Really? |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:31:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote: My tech 1s can fit their weapon systems without having to a single fitting mod. How is that better?
Really? Which ship, and how much more dps do you get out of it compared to the T2 variant? It is irreverent because a vaga with 720mms, microwarp drive and TWO ACRs has only 10 powergrid left to fit anything. With that kind of EHP a single tornado could one shot it if it wanted. This ship is not viable to even fly in this state so any comparison would be meaningless. You provide an empty argument to back up your case and then say that the argument is irrelevant because of some other reason you came up with on the fly? Really?
Yeah it is irrelevant. Why would we compare the DPS of a ship fit that simply doesn't work with another? What do you hope to achieve?
I just found a fit I made: A navy Omen that can tank better than an arty vaga, project more DPS to 40kms than a vaga can to 18, and go FASTER... without a single fitting mod.
Yeah the vaga is a real good kiter folks. |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:36:00 -
[1150] - Quote
jimmy alt wrote: Any Hac should not have a utility high. The Sac's utility high should go to it's Low slot giving it 6. 5 is to low for this armor tanker. The Vega & Muninn utility high should go to there mid slots.
I realy support this. The HACs shouln-¦t have any utitlity highs and only focus on their attack power. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
642
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:47:00 -
[1151] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Yeah it is irrelevant. Why would we compare the DPS of a ship fit that simply doesn't work with another? What do you hope to achieve? T1 ships can fit 720mms NP, the vaga CAN'T. What is so hard to understand? I just found a fit I made: A navy Omen that can tank better than an arty vaga, project the same DPS to 40kms than a vaga can to 18, and go FASTER... And the best part is... it can actually be fit.. Unlike the vaga. Yeah the vaga is a real good kiter folks. You know what the actual best part is?
The Vagas resists are so high that the NOmen will do about 50 dps to it. So what if it *can* go faster. I can fit 4 nanos on the vaga and it's faster. Show some fits and compare stats. Dont pull random numbers from fits you have made to specifically counter the ship you want to talk down on. |
Garak n00biachi
The Scope Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:48:00 -
[1152] - Quote
Ah the Deimos doesnt get fixed......Deimos a 140m isk piece of shi t Thorax; if you dont fix it now it will never get fixed and remain a turd for the next 10 years....why would you ignore it, fix the darn ship! |
Bigg Gun
Flying Bags Inc. Bulgarian Space Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:49:00 -
[1153] - Quote
I think I preferred the first version of ishtar, this one is ****. A t2 ship with lower bonusi than the t1 BS version... not cool. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:50:00 -
[1154] - Quote
Just to further illustrate the vaga's PG issues, this doesn't fit:
[NEW Vagabond, LSE LASB PG hardwiring] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150 Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I
Warrior II x5
Mid-tier guns, class-appropriate tank, no oversized modules, and you're still over on grid without a PG implant. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
642
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:55:00 -
[1155] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Just to further illustrate the vaga's PG issues, this doesn't fit:
*FITTING*
Mid-tier guns, class-appropriate tank, no oversized modules, and you're still over on grid without a PG implant. By "class appropriate", you mean 40k buffer with a 770 dps burst tank and a medium neut to spare?
Show me which other hacs can do that please. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:58:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Yeah it is irrelevant. Why would we compare the DPS of a ship fit that simply doesn't work with another? What do you hope to achieve? T1 ships can fit 720mms NP, the vaga CAN'T. What is so hard to understand? I just found a fit I made: A navy Omen that can tank better than an arty vaga, project the same DPS to 40kms than a vaga can to 18, and go FASTER... And the best part is... it can actually be fit.. Unlike the vaga. Yeah the vaga is a real good kiter folks. You know what the actual best part is? The Vagas resists are so high that the NOmen will do about 50 dps to it. So what if it *can* go faster. I can fit 4 nanos on the vaga and it's faster. Show some fits and compare stats. Dont pull random numbers from fits you have made to specifically counter the ship you want to talk down on.
Lol you are joking right?
Resists without buffer to back them up are worthless. Tell me how you are going to fit any buffer to your vaga with that precious 10 powergrid remaining?
Why don't you post a fit of this vagabond you are referring to because frankly I don't think it exists. :P |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 11:58:00 -
[1157] - Quote
I don't really fly Vagas, but the above fit seems like it's trying to be too much. If it's kiting, why neut? Why booster? Go straight buffer. You're supposed to be range/speed tanking a lot anyway, right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I've never trained this ship. I'm just going off my understanding of other ships. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:00:00 -
[1158] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment.
This is what is missing.
HACs have a role. They are the pitbulls of Eve. They get into the fight and they stay there. Thier defining charateristic is tenacity.They are hard to kill. They have (now) strong caps. DPS can be mediocre, lower than T1 even; Speed is needed to get into a fight but not out, so MWD sig reduction is a decent bonus for this approach; but the tenacity is absent compared to T1. They have superior resists, but apply it to a hp base that far from outshines their new rebalanced T1 variants (and with some of the resist profile holes leaves them worse off on occasions). Buffing sensor strength is simply an indirect nerf to ecm (which is all fine and dandy but doesn't make these ships any tougher).
So far the cap boost has been great as part of the role, the mwd sig reduction has been good as part of the role, the sensor strength change adds to this aspect but in a very specific way (however these ships are just as vulnerable to all other ewar so this is hardly a defining strength). They are missing hp, either through base hp or better resist profiles, but that's what is absent from this picture for me. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:00:00 -
[1159] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:
Mid-tier guns, class-appropriate tank, no oversized modules, and you're still over on grid without a PG implant.
Unless I've gone mad, I could have sworn cruisers were medium size modules, so you are actually over-sizing two modules there. Simply because it has become 'standard' doesn't make them not oversized. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
223
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:00:00 -
[1160] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Tsubutai wrote:Just to further illustrate the vaga's PG issues, this doesn't fit:
*FITTING*
Mid-tier guns, class-appropriate tank, no oversized modules, and you're still over on grid without a PG implant. By "class appropriate", you mean 40k buffer with a 770 dps burst tank and a medium neut to spare? Show me which other hacs can do that please. That vaga has 25k EHP with a 605 dps heated burst tank. The only way you're getting 40k EHP out of a vaga with a prop mod and a point is if you're running dual LSEs and dual T2 CDFEs, in which case you don't have any burst tank so I'm not at all sure where you're coming from here unless you're factoring in gang bonuses. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
643
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:04:00 -
[1161] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: Lol you are joking right?
Resists without buffer to back them up are worthless. Tell me how you are going to fit any buffer to your vaga with that precious 10 powergrid remaining?
Why don't you post a fit of this vagabond you are referring to because frankly I don't think it exists. :P
Tell me why you are trying to shoehorn the biggest guns onto the Vaga when it clearly is not meant to be fit with 720mm's. With the insane speed you get on this ship I don't feel it would be appropriate to give it even more PG. It does just fine with 425mm's with Barrage. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:04:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Tsubutai wrote:
Mid-tier guns, class-appropriate tank, no oversized modules, and you're still over on grid without a PG implant.
Unless I've gone mad, I could have sworn cruisers were medium size modules, so you are actually over-sizing two modules there. Simply because it has become 'standard' doesn't make them not oversized.
Not really. Medium armor repppers and Large shield boosters have generally the same fitting requirements. So they are the same to fit, the name doesn't matter its the stats. |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:06:00 -
[1163] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Cyaron wars wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Cyaron wars wrote: While fitting issue here is obvious there's a role for that ship as well. Vagabond is going to be more or less close range brawler while Muninn will remain as a sniping platform. Cynabal is combination of those two since there are no other Angel ships of that class. I think it is fair enough.
Personally, I haven't really been seeing these "roles" that CCP and everybody keeps going on about. Active shield tank bonus already defines ship as a brawler and not a sniper. Then what does the falloff bonus define? It defines one of two falloff bonuses you'd want if you wanted this ship to be a skirmisher. You have to load barrage to do any damage at point range in a Vaga, and then you're only doing about 200 dps while giving up the selectable damage which is the main plus of projectile weapons. Considering most other cruisers have been buffed in speed, as well as damage projection which can exceed that of the Vaga, your engagement profile isn't very large. It's frigates. Vagabonds kill frigates. Rise talks about how often they're used and how much damage they put out in pvp daily, can he tell us on what hull size this damage lands? It's frigates. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:10:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Tsubutai wrote:Just to further illustrate the vaga's PG issues, this doesn't fit:
*FITTING*
Mid-tier guns, class-appropriate tank, no oversized modules, and you're still over on grid without a PG implant. By "class appropriate", you mean 40k buffer with a 770 dps burst tank and a medium neut to spare? Show me which other hacs can do that please.
Uh, try the new Cerberus:
3x BCS II Reactor Control Unit II
Experimental 10MN MWD XLASB Invuln II Domination EM Ward Amplifier Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
6x HAML II
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Ok, it doesn't have a neut, but it does over double the DPS at a greater range with a much better tank. It does require maxed fitting skills, including launcher rigging V and AWU V (1265/1265 PG exactly) but no blinging other than the 25m faction ward amplifier. If you want to use Genolution augs and a 4% CPU implant you can drop the overclocking unit for an explosion radius rig to help your DPS even more. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
643
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:11:00 -
[1165] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote: That vaga has 25k EHP with a 605 dps heated burst tank. The only way you're getting 40k EHP out of a vaga with a prop mod and a point is if you're running dual LSEs and dual T2 CDFEs, in which case you don't have any burst tank so I'm not at all sure where you're coming from here unless you're factoring in gang bonuses.
Yup, I missread my eft, sorry. Dont know how that happened :s
I still think the Vaga is very much fine with these changes.
[NEW Vagabond, test] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption Script Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150 Warp Disruptor II
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M Salvager II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer I
Hobgoblin II x5
This is what I'll be running most likely.
Horrible EHP (14k), but can mitigate a ton of dps by ways of speed and TD. Can tank most missile cruisers for long enough to win or get out of the fight |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:12:00 -
[1166] - Quote
The vagabond is just a mess of a ship.
All it did before was kill the weakest of targets (frigs) and then run away. Now it will do the same, but instead it has a worthless active tanking bonus aswell. |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:14:00 -
[1167] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:I don't really fly Vagas, but the above fit seems like it's trying to be too much. If it's kiting, why neut? Why booster? Go straight buffer. You're supposed to be range/speed tanking a lot anyway, right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I've never trained this ship. I'm just going off my understanding of other ships. You fit a medium neut because frigs can catch you, and if you're caught for long you're dead. If the utility high were switched to a mid you wouldn't have much more choice in mids than you do now because you'd be sticking a web in there, though that would at least free up a good chunk of pg. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
353
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:19:00 -
[1168] - Quote
I can't understand those Vagabond pilots despising on speed...
If you don't care about speed, why don't use another ship than the Vagabond ? You know, the Muninn can fit artilleries fine.
I guess CCP should sell skins to apply on ship so someone could fly a Muninn with the skin of a Vagabond, or a Talos with the skin of a Deimos. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:22:00 -
[1169] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:I can't understand those Vagabond pilots despising on speed...
If you don't care about speed, why don't use another ship than the Vagabond ? You know, the Muninn can fit artilleries fine.
I guess CCP should sell skins to apply on ship so someone could fly a Muninn with the skin of a Vagabond, or a Talos with the skin of a Deimos.
Why would I? I can fly a navy omen or a cynabal and get better speed than a vagabond and better DPS.
And the munnin needs to become a missile boat already. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
353
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:24:00 -
[1170] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I can't understand those Vagabond pilots despising on speed...
If you don't care about speed, why don't use another ship than the Vagabond ? You know, the Muninn can fit artilleries fine.
I guess CCP should sell skins to apply on ship so someone could fly a Muninn with the skin of a Vagabond, or a Talos with the skin of a Deimos. Why would I? I can fly a navy omen or a cynabal and get better speed than a vagabond and better DPS. And the munnin needs to become a missile boat already. The navy Omen is far slower than the Vagabond (like very far) ; and the Cynabal is in sight of a hugh nerfbat.
Rejoice. :-) |
|
Oh My Boobs
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:26:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I can't understand those Vagabond pilots despising on speed...
If you don't care about speed, why don't use another ship than the Vagabond ? You know, the Muninn can fit artilleries fine.
I guess CCP should sell skins to apply on ship so someone could fly a Muninn with the skin of a Vagabond, or a Talos with the skin of a Deimos. Why would I? I can fly a navy omen or a cynabal and get better speed than a vagabond and better DPS. And the munnin needs to become a missile boat already. The navy Omen is far slower than the Vagabond (like very far) ; and the Cynabal is in sight of a hugh nerfbat. Rejoice. :-) In b4 huge nerf making the cynabal as useless as the dramiel is.
They're ruining everything, except T1 wtf. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:26:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I can't understand those Vagabond pilots despising on speed...
If you don't care about speed, why don't use another ship than the Vagabond ? You know, the Muninn can fit artilleries fine.
I guess CCP should sell skins to apply on ship so someone could fly a Muninn with the skin of a Vagabond, or a Talos with the skin of a Deimos. Why would I? I can fly a navy omen or a cynabal and get better speed than a vagabond and better DPS. And the munnin needs to become a missile boat already. The navy Omen is far slower than the Vagabond (like very far) ; and the Cynabal is in sight of a hugh nerfbat. Rejoice. :-)
Nope, the navy omen with one nanofiber is faster than a vaga with none.
Only a moron would fit a nanofiber to a vagabond. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
205
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:29:00 -
[1173] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
I use sacrilege with 2 medium armor repairers because of 25% cap recharge bonus. This makes sacrilege active tank very good, if you're removing this bonus i'll not be able to run 2 medium armor reps anymore and it will be useless.
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:30:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Spc One wrote:CCP Rise wrote: Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
I use sacrilege with 2 medium armor repairers because of 25% cap recharge bonus. This makes sacrilege active tank very good, if you're removing this bonus i'll not be able to run 2 medium armor reps anymore and it will be useless.
You are wrong. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
224
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:31:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:I can't understand those Vagabond pilots despising on speed...
If you don't care about speed, why don't use another ship than the Vagabond ? You know, the Muninn can fit artilleries fine. No one's "despising on speed" or discounting its value, but speed alone isn't enough to make a ship good any more than tank alone was enough to make the old prophecy or maller worth flying. In particular, speed can't make up for glaring deficiencies in other respects, as demonstrated by the initial Odyssey stabber - it was certainly fast, but going fast was the only thing it could do at all well and so it saw very little use. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
353
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:32:00 -
[1176] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Nope, the navy omen with one nanofiber is faster than a vaga with none.
Only a moron would fit a nanofiber to a vagabond. I guess you're not a moron enough to fly minmatar ships then. :D |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:33:00 -
[1177] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I guess you're not a moron enough to fly minmatar ships then. :D
Are you suggesting that you or anybody else fits nanofibers to their vagabonds?
Tsubutai wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I can't understand those Vagabond pilots despising on speed...
If you don't care about speed, why don't use another ship than the Vagabond ? You know, the Muninn can fit artilleries fine. No one's "despising on speed" or discounting its value, but speed alone isn't enough to make a ship good any more than tank alone was enough to make the old prophecy or maller worth flying. In particular, speed can't make up for glaring deficiencies in other respects, as demonstrated by the initial Odyssey stabber - it was certainly fast, but going fast was the only thing it could do at all well and so it saw very little use.
So true.
If speed mattered so much the dramiel would be the king of all frigates. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
261
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:34:00 -
[1178] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:I can't understand those Vagabond pilots despising on speed...
If you don't care about speed, why don't use another ship than the Vagabond ? You know, the Muninn can fit artilleries fine.
I guess CCP should sell skins to apply on ship so someone could fly a Muninn with the skin of a Vagabond, or a Talos with the skin of a Deimos.
We dont despise speed, but Ventures go fast that doesnt make them good PVP ships.
Being fast isnt enough, the fast skirmishing play style which a low EHP HAC like the Vaga has requires to kill the target relatively quickly so it can escape before its limited buffer has run down.
Just being fast is a useless attribute if it doesn't have the ability to kill something quickly then make use of that speed. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
643
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:34:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: Nope, the navy omen with one nanofiber is faster than a vaga with none.
Only a moron would fit a nanofiber to a vagabond.
Well if you say so it MUST be true. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
353
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:35:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I can't understand those Vagabond pilots despising on speed...
If you don't care about speed, why don't use another ship than the Vagabond ? You know, the Muninn can fit artilleries fine. No one's "despising on speed" or discounting its value, but speed alone isn't enough to make a ship good any more than tank alone was enough to make the old prophecy or maller worth flying. In particular, speed can't make up for glaring deficiencies in other respects, as demonstrated by the initial Odyssey stabber - it was certainly fast, but going fast was the only thing it could do at all well and so it saw very little use. Now that become interesting. The core problem here is that speed supremacy give so much of an advantage to a ship that it can become absurdly OP very fast if you add only a little too much of something. See angel ship for an exemple. |
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:35:00 -
[1181] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Nope, the navy omen with one nanofiber is faster than a vaga with none.
Only a moron would fit a nanofiber to a vagabond.
Well if you say so it MUST be true.
Which part? The NOmen or the nanofiber on vaga? |
Oh My Boobs
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:35:00 -
[1182] - Quote
-1 low +1 med for the vagabond -1 low +1 med for the muninn
DONE |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
261
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:37:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Oh My Boobs wrote:-1 low +1 med for the vagabond -1 low +1 med for the muninn
DONE
That will again, make the Vaga worse, as it relies on those lows for DPS and projection.
|
Outcch
Autistic Delights
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:39:00 -
[1184] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:[quote=Tsubutai] I still think the Vaga is very much fine with these changes.
[NEW Vagabond, test] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption Script Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150 Warp Disruptor II
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M Salvager II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer I
Hobgoblin II x5
This is what I'll be running most likely.
Horrible EHP (14k), but can mitigate a ton of dps by ways of speed and TD. Can tank most missile cruisers for long enough to win or get out of the fight
>Vaga >Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I HEAVY ASSAULT SHIP SPECIAL ROLE
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:41:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Tsubutai wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I can't understand those Vagabond pilots despising on speed...
If you don't care about speed, why don't use another ship than the Vagabond ? You know, the Muninn can fit artilleries fine. No one's "despising on speed" or discounting its value, but speed alone isn't enough to make a ship good any more than tank alone was enough to make the old prophecy or maller worth flying. In particular, speed can't make up for glaring deficiencies in other respects, as demonstrated by the initial Odyssey stabber - it was certainly fast, but going fast was the only thing it could do at all well and so it saw very little use. Now that become interesting. The core problem here is that speed supremacy give so much of an advantage to a ship that it can become absurdly OP very fast if you add only a little too much of something. See angel ship for an exemple.
Speed isn't OP, bad players just don't know how to counter it.
A Rapier or Arazu will ruin any fast kite ships day. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
205
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:43:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Spc One wrote:CCP Rise wrote: Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
I use sacrilege with 2 medium armor repairers because of 25% cap recharge bonus. This makes sacrilege active tank very good, if you're removing this bonus i'll not be able to run 2 medium armor reps anymore and it will be useless. You are wrong. This is for pve, pve fit, for pvp i would fit it completely different.
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
837
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:44:00 -
[1187] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Spc One wrote:CCP Rise wrote: Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
I use sacrilege with 2 medium armor repairers because of 25% cap recharge bonus. This makes sacrilege active tank very good, if you're removing this bonus i'll not be able to run 2 medium armor reps anymore and it will be useless. You are wrong. This is for pve, pve fit, for pvp i would fit it completely different.
So? What difference does it make? The cap is the same. |
Corporal Cina
Offworld Miners and Fabricators Guild
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:45:00 -
[1188] - Quote
So that's it then?
A handful of dev responses and then nothing? |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
838
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:47:00 -
[1189] - Quote
Corporal Cina wrote:So that's it then?
A handful of dev responses and then nothing?
Yep, a bunch of bad changes and 60 pages of arguments that these changes are good by uninformed players. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
261
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:47:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Spc One wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Spc One wrote:CCP Rise wrote: Sacrilege folks seem a bit divided depending on how they imagine using it and I promise to keep an eye on the active capabilities following the cap adjustment once people get to start using it, but I think it will be fine.
I use sacrilege with 2 medium armor repairers because of 25% cap recharge bonus. This makes sacrilege active tank very good, if you're removing this bonus i'll not be able to run 2 medium armor reps anymore and it will be useless. You are wrong. This is for pve, pve fit, for pvp i would fit it completely different. So? What difference does it make? The cap is the same.
As the man says they rolled the Cap bonus into the hull, please read patch notes before commenting on them. |
|
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
209
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:48:00 -
[1191] - Quote
I was looking back over the Vaga and I've decided it will be actually pretty cool with an Invul and an ancil booster, the capacitor changes have really tipped it over from being rubbish to being pretty good on paper.
I have however discovered a bit of a problem...
Let's say you went with 10mn ab web scram XL ASB dual 180 config and you have low grade crystals, take your blue pill and overload your booster (it's an ASB, you should always heat it, even when pulsing), currently you will boost around 2300 shield hp/cycle. The problem is that your total shield hp pool on the Vagabond is currently 1847 and after the changes will only be 1978, this is assuming you get the -25% shield penalty, it's a bit better if you have the nanite control (I think that's the one) at V, but even still, you're wasting huge amounts of shield.
It won't make it broken op'd if you take 500 armour from the Vaga and put it in shield. I know minmatar have usually got fairly even shield/armour values, but this is 100% a shield tanking ship, It'd be nice to at least have enough shield to cover 25% penalty from booster+HG crystals and heat and not have to waste shield boost even if you let your shield go to 0%. So you need about 2500 base unskilled shield hp to be safe. I know that's the same as the Eagle which isn't strictly role play, but it's necessary for the ship to function in it's new role.
Pretty please with a kitteh on top. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
261
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 12:50:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Corporal Cina wrote:So that's it then?
A handful of dev responses and then nothing? Yep, a bunch of bad changes and 60 pages of arguments that these changes are good by uninformed players.
To be honest, most of the Changes only need tweaking, the Deimos EHP drop is a bit crap but thats easily fixed.
They are just doing the same thing to the Vaga they did to the Rifter, because they obviously didn't learn the first time that the best of a runt bunch still isn't good, its just the best of a runt bunch. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:03:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Any bets for a round three? |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:24:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: "We think its fine because its the second most popular turd in a contest of turds"
This is and has been the largest issue with ccp's "balancing" of ships. They seem to think that usage is the primary indicator of something being good or bad... While obviously people will flock to a more powerful ship (as has been done), it's still not a good excuse for balancing decisions... There are plenty of ships that have seen usage now and in the past that are woefully ****, and they see use simply because they are in fact ****... CCP metrics do not take this or any other variable into account.
Let me reiterate, balancing via usage metrics is the sign of a mongoloid dev team.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
264
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:29:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: "We think its fine because its the second most popular turd in a contest of turds" This is and has been the largest issue with ccp's "balancing" of ships. They seem to think that usage is the primary indicator of something being good or bad... While obviously people will flock to a more powerful ship (as has been done), it's still not a good excuse for balancing decisions... There are plenty of ships that have seen usage now and in the past that are woefully ****, and they see use simply because they are in fact ****... CCP metrics do not take this or any other variable into account. Let me reiterate, balancing via usage metrics is the sign of a mongoloid dev team.
Its certainly true, I don't fly it because its particularly good I fly it because it looks pretty and because most of the other HACs are ****, once all the other HACs are good there's no real reason to fly it other than its pretty, and that isn't really balancing.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:31:00 -
[1196] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:I love how people's understanding of the Vaga is:
If it can't fit an XL ASB, then **** it.
Player level competence trying to fit a BS sized mod on every cruiser class ship.... You know what, why not let it fit a 100mn AB too, and for that matter, get an agility boost when using it.
But larges are MEH! XLASB or nothing
The main issue I have is that the standard buffer fit, with two LSEs, can hardly fit 425s, compared to the CYNABAL which can fit 425s, full tank, a medium neut, and still have PG left over. So yea. I understand it would be more arms race between the two but honestly I think its just leveling the playing field rather than making the Vaga better and the Cynabal again useless.
I just want to have a reason to fly the Vaga
Oh My Boobs wrote:-1 low +1 med for the vagabond -1 low +1 med for the muninn
DONE
I do agree the Muninn needs another mid, but the Vaga needs another mid while keeping the low. Without that low the Vaga will be further gimped on the DPS that it is already weak on. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:32:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Any bets for a round three?
I wish, but Rise said it is unlikely.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:39:00 -
[1198] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:I'm Down wrote:I love how people's understanding of the Vaga is:
If it can't fit an XL ASB, then **** it.
Player level competence trying to fit a BS sized mod on every cruiser class ship.... You know what, why not let it fit a 100mn AB too, and for that matter, get an agility boost when using it. But larges are MEH! XLASB or nothing The main issue I have is that the standard buffer fit, with two LSEs, can hardly fit 425s, compared to the CYNABAL which can fit 425s, full tank, a medium neut, and still have PG left over. So yea. I understand it would be more arms race between the two but honestly I think its just leveling the playing field rather than making the Vaga better and the Cynabal again useless. I just want to have a reason to fly the Vaga Oh My Boobs wrote:-1 low +1 med for the vagabond -1 low +1 med for the muninn
DONE I do agree the Muninn needs another mid, but the Vaga needs another mid while keeping the low. Without that low the Vaga will be further gimped on the DPS that it is already weak on. larges are pretty good with tengu links, implants and blue pills. This is what we'll be seeing a lot of. I'd be so much happier with a less easily abused bonus like another falloff bonus. |
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
80
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:42:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Feels good being ignorant right?
Old Sacrilege cap with 2 medium armor repairers: 2m 21s
New Sacrilege cap with 2 medium armor repairers: 2m 37s The point is - cap wasn't an issue before, so it's not what should be changed.
North |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
264
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:45:00 -
[1200] - Quote
Fewell wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:I'm Down wrote:I love how people's understanding of the Vaga is:
If it can't fit an XL ASB, then **** it.
Player level competence trying to fit a BS sized mod on every cruiser class ship.... You know what, why not let it fit a 100mn AB too, and for that matter, get an agility boost when using it. But larges are MEH! XLASB or nothing The main issue I have is that the standard buffer fit, with two LSEs, can hardly fit 425s, compared to the CYNABAL which can fit 425s, full tank, a medium neut, and still have PG left over. So yea. I understand it would be more arms race between the two but honestly I think its just leveling the playing field rather than making the Vaga better and the Cynabal again useless. I just want to have a reason to fly the Vaga Oh My Boobs wrote:-1 low +1 med for the vagabond -1 low +1 med for the muninn
DONE I do agree the Muninn needs another mid, but the Vaga needs another mid while keeping the low. Without that low the Vaga will be further gimped on the DPS that it is already weak on. larges are pretty good with tengu links, implants and blue pills. This is what we'll be seeing a lot of. I'd be so much happier with a less easily abused bonus like another falloff bonus.
Double falloff bonus is actually what I suggested initially along with a raw DPS buff of around 50 DPS, I would even be happy to lose 1-2K EHP after LSEs applied to keep things well balanced. |
|
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:56:00 -
[1201] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:[
Double falloff bonus is actually what I suggested initially along with a raw DPS buff of around 50 DPS, I would even be happy to lose 1-2K EHP after LSEs applied to keep things well balanced. I think the falloff doesn't need more dps, because it will allow for faction ammo instead of just barrage. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
353
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:58:00 -
[1202] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Speed isn't OP, bad players just don't know how to counter it.
A Rapier or Arazu will ruin any fast kite ships day.
A single Keres will make a cynabal essentially worthless.
So would a tracking disrupter, optimal range scripts. So you mean that unless a fleet can't kill a ship it's not OP ? Wow we have quite some margin for power then.
The thing is that when something have speed supremacy, it can choose its fights : take only those it can win and flee the others, but I hope I teach you nothing with that. But what happen if your almost unkillable ship become able to kill any other ship able to approach it ? Yes it become an OP thing exactly like a blaster would be in a rock/paper/cissor game.
EVE pvp require you to select your targets. If only a fleet can be a threat to your ship, don't expect it to have the firepower and resilience to kill everything on top of it. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
264
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:19:00 -
[1203] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Speed isn't OP, bad players just don't know how to counter it.
A Rapier or Arazu will ruin any fast kite ships day.
A single Keres will make a cynabal essentially worthless.
So would a tracking disrupter, optimal range scripts. So you mean that unless a fleet can't kill a ship it's not OP ? Wow we have quite some margin for power then. The thing is that when something have speed supremacy, it can choose its fights : take only those it can win and flee the others, but I hope I teach you nothing with that. But what happen if your almost unkillable ship become able to kill any other ship able to approach it ? Yes it become an OP thing exactly like a blaster would be in a rock/paper/cissor game. EVE pvp require you to select your targets. If only a fleet can be a threat to your ship, don't expect it to have the firepower and resilience to kill everything on top of it.
Yay, the Vaga can make sure it only fights frigates, because lets be honest, you aren't going to kill much else in a reasonable amount of time with 200 DPS. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
645
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:24:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: Yay, the Vaga can make sure it only fights frigates, because lets be honest, you aren't going to kill much else in a reasonable amount of time with 200 DPS.
Well here is your problem. So winning the fight is not good enough for you, you want to win it faster.
We can want the sun and the moon, but we can't just have everything "just because" |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:25:00 -
[1205] - Quote
CCP is there any update yet |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:26:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Fewell wrote: larges are pretty good with tengu links, implants and blue pills. This is what we'll be seeing a lot of. I'd be so much happier with a less easily abused bonus like another falloff bonus.
Too bad we can't all afford to have a booster alt and a full crystal set. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:29:00 -
[1207] - Quote
unrelated note: could you boost the zealot's cargo hold a bit?
t1 omen's cargo: 400m3 t2 zealot's cargo: 240m3
t1 maller's cargo: 480m3 t2 sacrilege's cargo: 615m3 IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:34:00 -
[1208] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Yay, the Vaga can make sure it only fights frigates, because lets be honest, you aren't going to kill much else in a reasonable amount of time with 200 DPS.
Well here is your problem. So winning the fight is not good enough for you, you want to win it faster. We can want the sun and the moon, but we can't just have everything "just because"
Thats a ridiculous argument. By that logic we should give every ship 1 DPS because they will all win the fight eventually.
The Vaga can't rely on its EHP to save it, or its active rep, it has to have DPS to end the fight relatively quickly a result. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:37:00 -
[1209] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Thats a ridiculous argument. By that logic we should give every ship 1 DPS because they will all win the fight eventually.
The Vaga can't rely on its EHP to save it, or its active rep, it has to have DPS to end the fight relatively quickly a result. There's fit on this thread showing Vaga able to sustain fair amount of punishment. In fact, I don't expect any T1 cruiser to be able to kill a Vaga reliably. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:43:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Baren wrote:CCP is there any update yet
Looks like we're stuck with these, they started 3 new threads, one of which is for command ships. Seems that HACs are finished. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:45:00 -
[1211] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Thats a ridiculous argument. By that logic we should give every ship 1 DPS because they will all win the fight eventually.
The Vaga can't rely on its EHP to save it, or its active rep, it has to have DPS to end the fight relatively quickly a result. There's fit on this thread showing Vaga able to sustain fair amount of punishment. In fact, I don't expect any T1 cruiser to be able to kill a Vaga reliably.
Well, I should think not being it a HAC.
Every other HAC will kill it though as well as most BCs and up.
Were not asking for much, just for the Vaga to be brought up to spec for the Role it was designed, were not asking for it to do OVER 9000 DPS AT 250 KM WITH A 90% WEB AND GOES 80000000000KM/S, all we are asking is it to be able to apply around ~400 DPS at 25k. Its not like the Cerb, Zealot, Sac, Ishtar, Eagle etc are lacking in the DPS and projection areas any more after all. |
Guru Gaspar
The Patriots
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:58:00 -
[1212] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:SACRILEGE
We wanted to get rid of the cap recharge bonus, as it is both kind of dated and strange, and also doesn't do much for a ship that doesn't even use cap for its main weapon system. We played with a lot of options but ultimately settled on a Missile Velocity bonus which should be very helpful in projecting some of that HAM damage.
How about a HAM explosion radius bonus instead :)
Velocity bonus is strong but we already have the Cerberus if we want to be lame kiters. |
Oh My Boobs
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:58:00 -
[1213] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Oh My Boobs wrote:-1 low +1 med for the vagabond -1 low +1 med for the muninn
DONE That will again, make the Vaga worse, as it relies on those lows for DPS and projection. Well, yeah but atm for fitting freedom it is way more in needs of meds than lows.
I have the solutions guys, save your isk and fly a stabber. Cynabal is gonna be nerfed to the ground anyway. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:04:00 -
[1214] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Well, I should think not being it a HAC.
Every other HAC will kill it though as well as most BCs and up.
Were not asking for much, just for the Vaga to be brought up to spec for the Role it was designed, were not asking for it to do OVER 9000 DPS AT 250 KM WITH A 90% WEB AND GOES 80000000000KM/S, all we are asking is it to be able to apply around ~400 DPS at 25k. Its not like the Cerb, Zealot, Sac, Ishtar, Eagle etc are lacking in the DPS and projection areas any more after all. No HAC can catch it, and the Vaga can still kite. And considering signature and speed, no LR turret will hit a Vaga below 25km. Remember the Vaga is faster than an AF, and with the sig of a destroyer. This ship, like the Stabber, is more of a destroyer with oversized guns than anything else ; yet its damage and tank are better than any T1 cruisers.
So yes, you're not gonna brawl BC and HAC with this ship, because that would make it OP.
BTW, you forget two things with your 400dps at 25km : with AC, that mean 700dps at 2km ; and the others all have HUGE damage application problems.
Yes you are asking too much. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:08:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, you forget two things with your 400dps at 25km : with AC, that mean 700dps at 2km ; and the others all have HUGE damage application problems.
Yes you are asking too much.
That would be true if you buffed the raw DPS, I'm talking about buffing the range specifically so we don't get the issue of the Vaga out brawling some of the other HACs.
But you seem to have some issue with there actually the Vagabond actually being viable so I'm not sure why I keep bothering to respond to you. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:14:00 -
[1216] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, you forget two things with your 400dps at 25km : with AC, that mean 700dps at 2km ; and the others all have HUGE damage application problems.
Yes you are asking too much.
That would be true if you buffed the raw DPS, I'm talking about buffing the range specifically so we don't get the issue of the Vaga out brawling some of the other HACs. But you seem to have some issue with there actually the Vagabond actually being viable so I'm not sure why I keep bothering to respond to you. I have nothing against a second falloff bonus for example, eventhough I think that would pigeonhole the Vaga in a kiting role only. But some requests for it clearly were completely unreasonable, and asking for it to be able to fit top gun + top tank is one of them. EVE is a game of trade offs. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:24:00 -
[1217] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, you forget two things with your 400dps at 25km : with AC, that mean 700dps at 2km ; and the others all have HUGE damage application problems.
Yes you are asking too much.
That would be true if you buffed the raw DPS, I'm talking about buffing the range specifically so we don't get the issue of the Vaga out brawling some of the other HACs. But you seem to have some issue with there actually the Vagabond actually being viable so I'm not sure why I keep bothering to respond to you. I have nothing against a second falloff bonus for example, eventhough I think that would pigeonhole the Vaga in a kiting role only. But some requests for it clearly were completely unreasonable, and asking for it to be able to fit top gun + top tank is one of them. EVE is a game of trade offs.
Im really unfussed by having to fit 220s, all I would literally want is 350-400 DPS at 20-25, which if you had a double falloff bonus would translate to around 480-500 DPS raw with faction, I would even happily lose a bit of EHP to get that.
I don't think thats particularly unreasonable. |
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:32:00 -
[1218] - Quote
Why not put in the Deimos, Enyo's bonus? |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
107
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:46:00 -
[1219] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, you forget two things with your 400dps at 25km : with AC, that mean 700dps at 2km ; and the others all have HUGE damage application problems.
Yes you are asking too much.
That would be true if you buffed the raw DPS, I'm talking about buffing the range specifically so we don't get the issue of the Vaga out brawling some of the other HACs. But you seem to have some issue with there actually the Vagabond actually being viable so I'm not sure why I keep bothering to respond to you. I have nothing against a second falloff bonus for example, eventhough I think that would pigeonhole the Vaga in a kiting role only. But some requests for it clearly were completely unreasonable, and asking for it to be able to fit top gun + top tank is one of them. EVE is a game of trade offs. Im really unfussed by having to fit 220s, all I would literally want is 350-400 DPS at 20-25, which if you had a double falloff bonus would translate to around 480-500 DPS raw with faction, I would even happily lose a bit of EHP to get that. I don't think thats particularly unreasonable.
It is unreasonable because of the extreme speed. 350-400 DPS at 20-25 would not be a good combination with the rest of the hull. The trade off for being untouchable if flown correctly against unprepared opponents is low DPS at the 'safe' ranges. You want more DPS you have to go closer - that is the entire design philosophy of falloff weapon systems in EVE. You want to stay safe and at range you get lower DPS and a locked in damage type with Barrage.
:balance: yo |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
267
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:53:00 -
[1220] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, you forget two things with your 400dps at 25km : with AC, that mean 700dps at 2km ; and the others all have HUGE damage application problems.
Yes you are asking too much.
That would be true if you buffed the raw DPS, I'm talking about buffing the range specifically so we don't get the issue of the Vaga out brawling some of the other HACs. But you seem to have some issue with there actually the Vagabond actually being viable so I'm not sure why I keep bothering to respond to you. I have nothing against a second falloff bonus for example, eventhough I think that would pigeonhole the Vaga in a kiting role only. But some requests for it clearly were completely unreasonable, and asking for it to be able to fit top gun + top tank is one of them. EVE is a game of trade offs. Im really unfussed by having to fit 220s, all I would literally want is 350-400 DPS at 20-25, which if you had a double falloff bonus would translate to around 480-500 DPS raw with faction, I would even happily lose a bit of EHP to get that. I don't think thats particularly unreasonable. It is unreasonable because of the extreme speed. 350-400 DPS at 20-25 would not be a good combination with the rest of the hull. The trade off for being untouchable if flown correctly against unprepared opponents is low DPS at the 'safe' ranges. You want more DPS you have to go closer - that is the entire design philosophy of falloff weapon systems in EVE. You want to stay safe and at range you get lower DPS and a locked in damage type with Barrage. :balance: yo
How many times does it have to be said, BEING FAST ISNT BALANCE, a Badger Mk II could go 2.7K/s and it still wouldnt be a good PVP ship.
The Vaga needs DPS to capitalise on that speed, otherwise its fast, and thats all it has. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:58:00 -
[1221] - Quote
Stick - meet dead horse... |
Red Woodson
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:03:00 -
[1222] - Quote
Rise, have you taken into account the effect of the nerfs to skirmish and armored warfare links on the survivability.. err, sorry, resiliency... of these ships when used in the ahac role? While i haven't flown in an ahac gang in years, from all I understand they were already on the edge of being worthwhile, and your rather minor boosts to the hulls didn't do much for them.
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1034
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:04:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Oh My Boobs wrote:-1 low +1 med for the vagabond -1 low +1 med for the muninn
DONE That will again, make the Vaga worse, as it relies on those lows for DPS and projection.
No it will make it much better and more veratile. Worst case: use a tracking computer in a mid instead of a te in lows. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:13:00 -
[1224] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, you forget two things with your 400dps at 25km : with AC, that mean 700dps at 2km ; and the others all have HUGE damage application problems.
Yes you are asking too much.
That would be true if you buffed the raw DPS, I'm talking about buffing the range specifically so we don't get the issue of the Vaga out brawling some of the other HACs. But you seem to have some issue with there actually the Vagabond actually being viable so I'm not sure why I keep bothering to respond to you. I have nothing against a second falloff bonus for example, eventhough I think that would pigeonhole the Vaga in a kiting role only. But some requests for it clearly were completely unreasonable, and asking for it to be able to fit top gun + top tank is one of them. EVE is a game of trade offs.
I wish it was but the vaga has a lot of utility and goes totally against the idea of hacs being truly specialized, focusing on only few traits and one type of weaponry but being the best at it
vaga with 6 425s dual 10% falloff but no drones or utility high slot Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
267
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:21:00 -
[1225] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, you forget two things with your 400dps at 25km : with AC, that mean 700dps at 2km ; and the others all have HUGE damage application problems.
Yes you are asking too much.
That would be true if you buffed the raw DPS, I'm talking about buffing the range specifically so we don't get the issue of the Vaga out brawling some of the other HACs. But you seem to have some issue with there actually the Vagabond actually being viable so I'm not sure why I keep bothering to respond to you. I have nothing against a second falloff bonus for example, eventhough I think that would pigeonhole the Vaga in a kiting role only. But some requests for it clearly were completely unreasonable, and asking for it to be able to fit top gun + top tank is one of them. EVE is a game of trade offs. I wish it was but the vaga has a lot of utility and goes totally against the idea of hacs being truly specialized, focusing on only few traits and one type of weaponry but being the best at it vaga with 6 425s dual 10% falloff but no drones or utility high slot
Oh good, another kiting ship that can't solo because a single T1 frig can kill it.
Just give it a dual falloff bonus, bump its DPS up by 50 or so and it will at least be somewhat competitive. |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:25:00 -
[1226] - Quote
It's over guys. Put the defibrillators away and let the HACs rest in peace. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1238
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:30:00 -
[1227] - Quote
2 rep bonused command ships (Where its a useless bonus)
But no rep bonused HAC (Where its a useful bonus)
Why CCP, Why? BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:54:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Are you going to let us wait any longer CCP? We are seriously pounding our heads against each other in order to solve the whole f...ing HAC Issue, but where is your response?! This is really stretching our nerves and i'm confident that you got enough productive imput to finally reach a conclusion. So please, with all due respect, give us an honest answer or tell us right away that we are waisting our time!
And btw, reading all those comments here from people all over the world, who are desperately trying to fix something they love( and which they have not broken!)...makes me seriously proud to be an EVE player. Perhaps you give a S..t about that CCP. But i want to thank all those people who investet their precious time into this matter. THANK YOU. |
Karak Bol
Crepuscular
93
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:23:00 -
[1229] - Quote
I like these changes, a clear role for HACs. *puts in HAC V skill* |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:50:00 -
[1230] - Quote
I like how after almost every minmatar said that these vagas is worth *** rise has left the thread. |
|
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:52:00 -
[1231] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:Are you going to let us wait any longer CCP? We are seriously pounding our heads against each other in order to solve the whole f...ing HAC Issue, but where is your response?! This is really stretching our nerves and i'm confident that you got enough productive imput to finally reach a conclusion. So please, with all due respect, give us an honest answer or tell us right away that we are waisting our time!
And btw, reading all those comments here from people all over the world, who are desperately trying to fix something they love( and which they have not broken!)...makes me seriously proud to be an EVE player. Perhaps you give a S..t about that CCP. But i want to thank all those people who investet their precious time into this matter. THANK YOU. The new threads on Command Ships, Gang links & local reps confirm that CCP has abandoned this thread.
Also, CCP Rise's final postt: #596 Posted: 2013.07.30 11:27 | Report
634+ posts and no CCP presence. |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
108
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:57:00 -
[1232] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:How many times does it have to be said, BEING FAST ISNT BALANCE, a Badger Mk II could go 2.7K/s and it still wouldnt be a good PVP ship.
The Vaga needs DPS to capitalise on that speed, otherwise its fast, and thats all it has.
Saying it doesn't make it true. Remember the Dramiel? Speed + DPS is the fastest path to being distinctly overpowered in this game. Are you honestly suggesting that ship speed should be discounted when considering balance? I do however agree that if you gave a Vaga the equivalent stats of a Badger you would free up some balance room for a bit more DPS projection.
I get what you want - I really do, and I also know there is a huge segment of the risk adverse pvp crowd that also want the same thing. But I haven't heard ANY arguments as to why it would actually be good for the game. You can't have a 'pick and choose your fight, run if pressured, OMGWTFBBQPWN machine'. (okay you can but remember Cynabal, Rise is coming for you and hopefully he bitchslaps ABCs on the way by)
The proposed Vaga has insane speed together with:- enough tank (plus some treasured flexibility on how it chooses to implement that tank)
- enough damage (with some gameplay decisions on how to apply that damage with reasonable consequences for those choices)
- is probably in one of if not the best places to really shine with the new role bonus, beefed up cap, and even extra resilience to dishonour drones
It will be a good ship to fly rather than a mandatory train for any up-and-coming leet pvpers. Barring SiSi testing it looks to be in a good place right now. |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp Evil Things Inc.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:03:00 -
[1233] - Quote
Soo is CCP RISE MIA, it`s been over 500post from plays, alot good feed back and ideas and it seems he has had nothing to say? |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:04:00 -
[1234] - Quote
Round 3 when ? :D |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
108
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:15:00 -
[1235] - Quote
It may be 500 posts but half of them are whines about him not posting enough. Pretty sure he has additional work to do besides forum updates and I think there might be other stuff on his plate besides just this thread (isn't there some sort of tourney on the go?) Personally I hope he is crunching numbers on Deimos tank and scratching his head right now! I am willing to bet reasoned discussion on the pros and cons of the proposed changes will bring him back sooner than random calls of 'please post, I want a pat on the back'. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:17:00 -
[1236] - Quote
Boss McNab wrote:Soo is CCP RISE MIA, it`s been over 500post from plays, alot good feed back and ideas and it seems he has had nothing to say?
Just saw the Command Ship changes.
Welp I won't even bother with HAC's. Just jumping the shark and going with the Command Ships.
Though a army of hacs and command ships would be..
I would not want to fight that....\
|
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:23:00 -
[1237] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:How many times does it have to be said, BEING FAST ISNT BALANCE, a Badger Mk II could go 2.7K/s and it still wouldnt be a good PVP ship.
The Vaga needs DPS to capitalise on that speed, otherwise its fast, and thats all it has. Saying it doesn't make it true. Remember the Dramiel? Speed + DPS is the fastest path to being distinctly overpowered in this game. Are you honestly suggesting that ship speed should be discounted when considering balance? I do however agree that if you gave a Vaga the equivalent stats of a Badger you would free up some balance room for a bit more DPS projection. I get what you want - I really do, and I also know there is a huge segment of the risk adverse pvp crowd that also want the same thing. But I haven't heard ANY arguments as to why it would actually be good for the game. You can't have a 'pick and choose your fight, run if pressured, OMGWTFBBQPWN machine'. (okay you can but remember Cynabal, Rise is coming for you and hopefully he bitchslaps ABCs on the way by) The proposed Vaga has insane speed together with: - enough tank (plus some treasured flexibility on how it chooses to implement that tank)
- enough damage (with some gameplay decisions on how to apply that damage with reasonable consequences for those choices)
- is probably in one of if not the best places to really shine with the new role bonus, beefed up cap, and even extra resilience to dishonour drones
It will be a good ship to fly rather than a mandatory train for any up-and-coming leet pvpers. Barring SiSi testing it looks to be in a good place right now.
Well i guess all of us saying that the vaga bonus is ******** without a change in the slots are all wrong then , lets close the thread boys mister Rynnik has spoken. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:23:00 -
[1238] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote: Just saw the Command Ship changes.
Welp I won't even bother with HAC's. Just jumping the shark and going with the Command Ships.
Thus summing up the main issue that the HAC re-balancing was supposed to address... |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
109
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:58:00 -
[1239] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Rynnik wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:How many times does it have to be said, BEING FAST ISNT BALANCE, a Badger Mk II could go 2.7K/s and it still wouldnt be a good PVP ship.
The Vaga needs DPS to capitalise on that speed, otherwise its fast, and thats all it has. Saying it doesn't make it true. Remember the Dramiel? Speed + DPS is the fastest path to being distinctly overpowered in this game. Are you honestly suggesting that ship speed should be discounted when considering balance? I do however agree that if you gave a Vaga the equivalent stats of a Badger you would free up some balance room for a bit more DPS projection. I get what you want - I really do, and I also know there is a huge segment of the risk adverse pvp crowd that also want the same thing. But I haven't heard ANY arguments as to why it would actually be good for the game. You can't have a 'pick and choose your fight, run if pressured, OMGWTFBBQPWN machine'. (okay you can but remember Cynabal, Rise is coming for you and hopefully he bitchslaps ABCs on the way by) The proposed Vaga has insane speed together with: - enough tank (plus some treasured flexibility on how it chooses to implement that tank)
- enough damage (with some gameplay decisions on how to apply that damage with reasonable consequences for those choices)
- is probably in one of if not the best places to really shine with the new role bonus, beefed up cap, and even extra resilience to dishonour drones
It will be a good ship to fly rather than a mandatory train for any up-and-coming leet pvpers. Barring SiSi testing it looks to be in a good place right now. Well i guess all of us saying that the vaga bonus is ******** without a change in the slots are all wrong then , lets close the thread boys mister Rynnik has spoken.
Arthur is the thread closing advocate, not me. I actually am very flattered though that you find my opinions reasonable enough to accept them as stated. Logic FTW! I am actually really interested in any well thought out counter arguments, but looking at it I suspect there isn't anything that would keep me from agreeing with CCP Rise's stated belief that this Vaga will be just fine as proposed. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:27:00 -
[1240] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:It may be 500 posts but half of them are whines about him not posting enough. Pretty sure he has additional work to do besides forum updates and I think there might be other stuff on his plate besides just this thread (isn't there some sort of tourney on the go?) Personally I hope he is crunching numbers on Deimos tank and scratching his head right now! I am willing to bet reasoned discussion on the pros and cons of the proposed changes will bring him back sooner than random calls of 'please post, I want a pat on the back'.
pretty much this.
I mean in a perfect world
the mwd sig radius bonus would be changed to a reduction in heat damage to modules
the deimos would be more akin to a mini mega (see rate of fire bonus and tracking)
and the sac would have a explosion velocity bonus.
the vega would have 5 mid slots
the munin would have 4
the eagle would loose one if its optimal range bonus for tracking
the zelot would get 25 m3 drones...
honestly the only ones i am happy are the cerb and the ishtar. which are the only ones rise said he was concerned about in the first thread. so i guess it makes sence that he has no intention to do anything about he remaining ships. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
Randy Wray
Pathfinders. The Marmite Collective
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:58:00 -
[1241] - Quote
Vagabond is the last ship that needs help in these announcements. With the new announcement that they'll buff shield boosters you'll be able to get 5-600 dps tank on a dread guristas large shield booster vagabond with blue pill. You can easily fit 220mm's, medium neut, large shield booster, medium cap booster and all the other stuff with a medium ACR. So basically it's like the current cap injected cynabal with a friggin 500 dps active tank that lasts for ages which is ridiculous on a kiting HAC.
One thing that has been mentioned earlier in the thread that rise really needs to look at though is the fact that AFs have 12 slots since the AF rebalance in 2011 while t1 frigates have 10. You'd expect with this rebalance for HACs to get a 2 slot advantage over the t1 cruisers which IMO would fix alot of the problems with them. Alot of them are in need of utility highs, people keep crying for a 5th mid on the vaga which IMHO would make it overpowered with the new changes. The muninn could use a 4th mid, the zealot could use a utility high for a neut to help it with its awfull anti-frig capabilities, same with the eagle and deimos after these changes. Ishtar should get a 6th low cause post 1.1 there's still not much incentive to fly it over the current awesome vexor navy issue. Sac should get a 6th low and Cerb should get a 6th med. Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @-áhttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
267
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:11:00 -
[1242] - Quote
Randy Wray wrote:Vagabond is the last ship that needs help in these announcements. With the new announcement that they'll buff shield boosters you'll be able to get 5-600 dps tank on a dread guristas large shield booster vagabond with blue pill. You can easily fit 220mm's, medium neut, large shield booster, medium cap booster and all the other stuff with a medium ACR. So basically it's like the current cap injected cynabal with a friggin 500 dps active tank that lasts for ages which is ridiculous on a kiting HAC.
One thing that has been mentioned earlier in the thread that rise really needs to look at though is the fact that AFs have 12 slots since the AF rebalance in 2011 while t1 frigates have 10. You'd expect with this rebalance for HACs to get a 2 slot advantage over the t1 cruisers which IMO would fix alot of the problems with them. Alot of them are in need of utility highs, people keep crying for a 5th mid on the vaga which IMHO would make it overpowered with the new changes. The muninn could use a 4th mid, the zealot could use a utility high for a neut to help it with its awfull anti-frig capabilities, same with the eagle and deimos after these changes. Ishtar should get a 6th low cause post 1.1 there's still not much incentive to fly it over the current awesome vexor navy issue. Sac should get a 6th low and Cerb should get a 6th med.
Thats great, the Vaga will be able to tank.
Oh wait, that completely wasn't the issue with the hull and its DPS will still be appalling.
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1059
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:26:00 -
[1243] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Round 3 when ? :D
One can hope but not sure this will ever happen.Diemost will keep the die faster crown and rails on it will be wasted isk compared to Thorax far cheaper and able to actually apply serious dmg while Deimost will keep a nice paper dmg impossible to achieve in game or in very little situations. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:29:00 -
[1244] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Round 3 when ? :D One can hope but not sure this will ever happen.Diemost will keep the die faster crown and rails on it will be wasted isk compared to Thorax far cheaper and able to actually apply serious dmg while Deimost will keep a nice paper dmg impossible to achieve in game or in very little situations. I was looking forward to flying the Deimos after the balance pass, I will just spend my isk on a Exequror Navy Issue instead. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:40:00 -
[1245] - Quote
Randy Wray wrote:
One thing that has been mentioned earlier in the thread that rise really needs to look at though is the fact that AFs have 12 slots since the AF rebalance in 2011 while t1 frigates have 10. You'd expect with this rebalance for HACs to get a 2 slot advantage over the t1 cruisers [...]
This has been mentioned so many times in both HAC threads... Can we get an official comment on why this fitting precedent is not being followed? |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:47:00 -
[1246] - Quote
Vagabond can use the new fitting with ASB well and without any skill boosting.
It still needs some more love to compete with Cynabal in buffer and also compete with low DPS and low range at least now after all these TE's nerfing. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:59:00 -
[1247] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Randy Wray wrote:Vagabond is the last ship that needs help in these announcements. With the new announcement that they'll buff shield boosters you'll be able to get 5-600 dps tank on a dread guristas large shield booster vagabond with blue pill. You can easily fit 220mm's, medium neut, large shield booster, medium cap booster and all the other stuff with a medium ACR. So basically it's like the current cap injected cynabal with a friggin 500 dps active tank that lasts for ages which is ridiculous on a kiting HAC.
One thing that has been mentioned earlier in the thread that rise really needs to look at though is the fact that AFs have 12 slots since the AF rebalance in 2011 while t1 frigates have 10. You'd expect with this rebalance for HACs to get a 2 slot advantage over the t1 cruisers which IMO would fix alot of the problems with them. Alot of them are in need of utility highs, people keep crying for a 5th mid on the vaga which IMHO would make it overpowered with the new changes. The muninn could use a 4th mid, the zealot could use a utility high for a neut to help it with its awfull anti-frig capabilities, same with the eagle and deimos after these changes. Ishtar should get a 6th low cause post 1.1 there's still not much incentive to fly it over the current awesome vexor navy issue. Sac should get a 6th low and Cerb should get a 6th med. Thats great, the Vaga will be able to tank. Oh wait, that completely wasn't the issue with the hull and its DPS will still be appalling. if (and thats a big if) the vaga gets a 5th mid , consider putting in a TC , they still give 30% moar falloff you know IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1059
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:00:00 -
[1248] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Round 3 when ? :D One can hope but not sure this will ever happen.Diemost will keep the die faster crown and rails on it will be wasted isk compared to Thorax far cheaper and able to actually apply serious dmg while Deimost will keep a nice paper dmg impossible to achieve in game or in very little situations. I was looking forward to flying the Deimos after the balance pass, I will just spend my isk on a Exequror Navy Issue instead.
I'm sure in numbers they might as well succeed putting some big holes, but thing is doesn't matter having 1 bazillion dps on paper but apply only 10% of it because you don't have the tools helping you achieve this.
Now I'm pretty sure for high sec while shooting high sec targets, haulers and what not solo stuff yadaya this isn't much of a problem, you can perfectly align, 1mm meft 1mm right yadaya but in dynamic situations like fleets, forget it.
Just for the sake of numbers without any factual number let's say Dieimost dishes 700dps with rails on paper and Rax 450. If I put 10 over 12 shots with rax on my target but only 4 or 5 over same 12 with Deimost, I'll be making exponential dmg with rax, efficiency/cost is no where comparable in between both, Rax wins hands down.
Then to add insult to injury, fit rails getting 15 tracking nerf on a ship without tracking bonus but instead a MWD one. Of course we're all idiots and everyone knows how much better you hit targets while running your MWD, that actually increases your tracking....or not.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
267
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:03:00 -
[1249] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Randy Wray wrote:Vagabond is the last ship that needs help in these announcements. With the new announcement that they'll buff shield boosters you'll be able to get 5-600 dps tank on a dread guristas large shield booster vagabond with blue pill. You can easily fit 220mm's, medium neut, large shield booster, medium cap booster and all the other stuff with a medium ACR. So basically it's like the current cap injected cynabal with a friggin 500 dps active tank that lasts for ages which is ridiculous on a kiting HAC.
One thing that has been mentioned earlier in the thread that rise really needs to look at though is the fact that AFs have 12 slots since the AF rebalance in 2011 while t1 frigates have 10. You'd expect with this rebalance for HACs to get a 2 slot advantage over the t1 cruisers which IMO would fix alot of the problems with them. Alot of them are in need of utility highs, people keep crying for a 5th mid on the vaga which IMHO would make it overpowered with the new changes. The muninn could use a 4th mid, the zealot could use a utility high for a neut to help it with its awfull anti-frig capabilities, same with the eagle and deimos after these changes. Ishtar should get a 6th low cause post 1.1 there's still not much incentive to fly it over the current awesome vexor navy issue. Sac should get a 6th low and Cerb should get a 6th med. Thats great, the Vaga will be able to tank. Oh wait, that completely wasn't the issue with the hull and its DPS will still be appalling. if (and thats a big if) the vaga gets a 5th mid , consider putting in a TC , they still give 30% moar falloff you know
Stacked against 2 TEs the range gain is something like 5km, still not a very good solution. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:08:00 -
[1250] - Quote
yup a tc on top of tes will not solve poroblem plz no 5th mid |
|
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:22:00 -
[1251] - Quote
Randy Wray wrote:Vagabond is the last ship that needs help in these announcements. With the new announcement that they'll buff shield boosters you'll be able to get 5-600 dps tank on a dread guristas large shield booster vagabond with blue pill. You can easily fit 220mm's, medium neut, large shield booster, medium cap booster and all the other stuff with a medium ACR. So basically it's like the current cap injected cynabal with a friggin 500 dps active tank that lasts for ages which is ridiculous on a kiting HAC.
CCP Fozzie:
"You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you."
I wouldn't count on the dread gurista booster getting that buff. Regardless, I'm not that worried about the vaga being able to rep enough to stay alive, it's way more likely to just get straight up alphaed with it's mediocre EHP. Maybe it's speed and the MWD bonus will mitigate that enough, maybe it won't. I don't think I'll be taking the chance myself though. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:26:00 -
[1252] - Quote
I like it a lot when people say T1 ships are much more cost effective and then cries about T2 HAC being so flimsy they will be vaporised by alpha and won't be able to rep whereas they have 2 times the ehp of a T1 cruiser.
Some people really lives in a fantasy world, but darker. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:41:00 -
[1253] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Randy Wray wrote:Vagabond is the last ship that needs help in these announcements. With the new announcement that they'll buff shield boosters you'll be able to get 5-600 dps tank on a dread guristas large shield booster vagabond with blue pill. You can easily fit 220mm's, medium neut, large shield booster, medium cap booster and all the other stuff with a medium ACR. So basically it's like the current cap injected cynabal with a friggin 500 dps active tank that lasts for ages which is ridiculous on a kiting HAC. CCP Fozzie: "You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you." I wouldn't count on the dread gurista booster getting that buff. Regardless, I'm not that worried about the vaga being able to rep enough to stay alive, it's way more likely to just get straight up alphaed with it's mediocre EHP. Maybe it's speed and the MWD bonus will mitigate that enough, maybe it won't. I don't think I'll be taking the chance myself though. If the DG shield booster doesn't get that buff it will rep less per cycle than a plain Large Shield Booster II. He needs to look at the large/XL boosters individually because they don't follow the same pattern that small and medium do. |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
85
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 03:22:00 -
[1254] - Quote
Meh.
The Vaga, as it's intended to fly, is dead. Now it's an expensive brawler that does crap DPS with a (woohoo) shield boost bonus.
Ah well. Not like we didn't try.
I'll be interested to see how many actually just get alpha'd off the field and/or how many people even will fly the thing any more. |
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule Test Alliance Please Ignore
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:00:00 -
[1255] - Quote
Another threadnought!
This balance pass certainly cleans up many, many issues -Good Job!
I am going to simply re-state what still remains:
Cerberus: The Kinetic missile bonus is outdated. Just give it a standard damage bonus. The Sac has it, and so should the Cerb.
Deimos: As stated many times, MWD bonus is all but useless. You could consider boosting its cap, much like the Sac, and give it a tracking bonus instead.
Ishtar: What? Why? Splitting up the bonus forces us to pay twice for what other ships get in one package -utter silliness. If you don't know what bonus to give it then just state WE DON'T KNOW YET (and do the same for the Deimos). |
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:06:00 -
[1256] - Quote
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:CCP Rise wrote: The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.
I think you're doing great work overall. IMHO all the proposed changes are good so my only comment is: please don't ruin the Cynabal I trust you will manage to keep it a powerful ship, inline with its cost, that can be flow in a variety of ways -- armor, shield buffer, shield active, ac, arty, etc, and pretty please with a cherry on top don't nerf its speed. Thank you.
You KNOW pirate ships will be bad after they touch them, right? They'll just ignore the fact you need to crosstrain, the fact you need to gather LP in NPC nullsec while being gankfood for everyone and the fact that pirate faction ships have always been set apart entirely from the rest of the ships.
I *hope* it won't become a flying turd, but I see a big likelihood it will, judging by all the rebalancing they did and how it makes everything taste.... the same. The current direction of development is not adding anything new to the congtent, and doing a general overhaul using the same base condiment for every dish, making everything taste roughly the same, with different shapes and colors. |
Naomi Anthar
102
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:17:00 -
[1257] - Quote
awesome changes , tiercide or not - those ships must be somehow strong to justify price tag. +1 |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
212
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:18:00 -
[1258] - Quote
Cargo hold on all the HACS to bring them up to the Sacs level please. You need the space for cap charges and there's no reason at all why the sac should have such an advantage over the others.
Vaga and Deimos particularly need attension. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
372
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:23:00 -
[1259] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:You KNOW pirate ships will be bad after they touch them, right? They'll just ignore the fact you need to crosstrain, the fact you need to gather LP in NPC nullsec while being gankfood for everyone and the fact that pirate faction ships have always been set apart entirely from the rest of the ships.
Well, I wouldn't want to comment on most of them, as I for one hope that my lovely Vindi doesn't get touched at all, but as far as angel ships go, there were mentions of possibly changing falloff to tracking. They would retain their speed and agility, they just wouldn't have the range anymore. That definitely makes them weaker, but not bad. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:04:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:NaK'Lin wrote:You KNOW pirate ships will be bad after they touch them, right? They'll just ignore the fact you need to crosstrain, the fact you need to gather LP in NPC nullsec while being gankfood for everyone and the fact that pirate faction ships have always been set apart entirely from the rest of the ships. Well, I wouldn't want to comment on most of them, as I for one hope that my lovely Vindi doesn't get touched at all, but as far as angel ships go, there were mentions of possibly changing falloff to tracking. They would retain their speed and agility, they just wouldn't have the range anymore. That definitely makes them weaker, but not bad.
tracking + webbing strengh bonus will make it so that you will never be able to engage one alone evar without heavy support
IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
|
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:42:00 -
[1261] - Quote
Why are people saying the Vaga only does 200dps? It does 250 (235 with barrage) with 220mm even without gyros and it has room to do 100 drone dps. It does 350 with just 425mm in.
And before I get the whole 'applied dps vs dps fired' talk I understand that. |
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:03:00 -
[1262] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Why are people saying the Vaga only does 200dps? It does 250 (235 with barrage) with 220mm even without gyros and it has room to do 100 drone dps. It does 350 with just 425mm in.
And before I get the whole 'applied dps vs dps fired' talk I understand that.
Then why did you post? |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:15:00 -
[1263] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Why are people saying the Vaga only does 200dps? It does 250 (235 with barrage) with 220mm even without gyros and it has room to do 100 drone dps. It does 350 with just 425mm in.
And before I get the whole 'applied dps vs dps fired' talk I understand that.
It does 200 at 25 with barrage or 150 at 25 with Fusion/PP/EMP.
Thats where the problem is.
Its raw DPS is fine for a kiting ship, that fact it applies less that half of it in an ideal situation is not. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:15:00 -
[1264] - Quote
Give Muninn -1 hi and +1 mid Eagle doesn't have drones nor a utility high. and Muninn is faster. it's a "sniper"
Deimos still sucks |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:16:00 -
[1265] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:Why are people saying the Vaga only does 200dps? It does 250 (235 with barrage) with 220mm even without gyros and it has room to do 100 drone dps. It does 350 with just 425mm in.
And before I get the whole 'applied dps vs dps fired' talk I understand that. Then why did you post? You claim having knowledge of the answer to your question. My question is: why people are using the stats of an essentially unfitted ship when seriously arguing that the ship is worthless? Fitted and at combat range it does 250-500 dps. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
648
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:19:00 -
[1266] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote: The new threads on Command Ships, Gang links & local reps confirm that CCP has abandoned this thread.
Basically EVERY time you people say this, a day or two later, a dev comes in and announces that he has read every post since his last response. Your "CCP has abandoned the thread" is getting old. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:34:00 -
[1267] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:NaK'Lin wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:Why are people saying the Vaga only does 200dps? It does 250 (235 with barrage) with 220mm even without gyros and it has room to do 100 drone dps. It does 350 with just 425mm in.
And before I get the whole 'applied dps vs dps fired' talk I understand that. Then why did you post? You claim having knowledge of the answer to your question. My question is: why people are using the stats of an essentially unfitted ship when seriously arguing that the ship is worthless? Fitted and at combat range it does 250-500 dps.
Please read my previous response, it does 150-200DPS at 25 depending on ammo loaded.
Thats awful, even more so when you consider it has the worst EHP of any of the HACs.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
648
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:38:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: Please read my previous response, it does 150-200DPS at 25 depending on ammo loaded.
Thats awful, even more so when you consider it has the worst EHP of any of the HACs.
You know, lying isn't helping your case. It does 270 dps with barrage at 25km with 425mm's 240 dps at 25km with 220mm's and Barrage.
Respectively 370 and 340 dps when you factor in drones |
Randy Wray
Pathfinders. The Marmite Collective
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:39:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:NaK'Lin wrote:You KNOW pirate ships will be bad after they touch them, right? They'll just ignore the fact you need to crosstrain, the fact you need to gather LP in NPC nullsec while being gankfood for everyone and the fact that pirate faction ships have always been set apart entirely from the rest of the ships. Well, I wouldn't want to comment on most of them, as I for one hope that my lovely Vindi doesn't get touched at all, but as far as angel ships go, there were mentions of possibly changing falloff to tracking. They would retain their speed and agility, they just wouldn't have the range anymore. That definitely makes them weaker, but not bad. Tracking bonus on machariel, that would be something would'nt it. If this is true I think they're making angel ships even less interesting than they already are. Why would you use a mach if it had a dam tracking bonus? Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @-áhttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:44:00 -
[1270] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Please read my previous response, it does 150-200DPS at 25 depending on ammo loaded.
Thats awful, even more so when you consider it has the worst EHP of any of the HACs.
You know, lying isn't helping your case. It does 270 dps with barrage at 25km with 425mm's 240 dps at 25km with 220mm's and Barrage. Respectively 370 and 340 dps when you factor in drones
Apologies, I was phonepoasting on my way to work, doing the numbers by memory.
Quite right, it applies 240 DPS at 25, in ideal circumstances mind you, but yes, quite right.
So by locking yourself into Explosive/Kin damage and having relatively poor tracking you get a whole 240 DPS at point range.
This is still awful. |
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:49:00 -
[1271] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Please read my previous response, it does 150-200DPS at 25 depending on ammo loaded.
Thats awful, even more so when you consider it has the worst EHP of any of the HACs.
You know, lying isn't helping your case. It does 270 dps with barrage at 25km with 425mm's 240 dps at 25km with 220mm's and Barrage. Respectively 370 and 340 dps when you factor in drones Apologies, I was phonepoasting on my way to work, doing the numbers by memory. Quite right, it applies 240 DPS at 25, in ideal circumstances mind you, but yes, quite right. So by locking yourself into Explosive/Kin damage and having relatively poor tracking you get a whole 240 DPS at point range. This is still awful. stop qqing about the best hac atm |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
648
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:54:00 -
[1272] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: Apologies, I was phonepoasting on my way to work, doing the numbers by memory.
Quite right, it applies 240 DPS at 25, in ideal circumstances mind you, but yes, quite right.
So by locking yourself into Explosive/Kin damage and having relatively poor tracking you get a whole 240 DPS at point range.
This is still awful.
No problem then.
You need to grasp the idea of consequences of choice. Gallente is locked to thermal/kinetic, Ammar to EM/thermal, Caldari partially to kinetic through bonuses and Minmatar has a free choice of every type, but some of it will go in kinetic.
You can get higher dps at longer range with Barrage, at a cost, of course. And its 340 dps with drones, you can't leave out different elements just to further your case.
340 dps at point range with enough speed to gtfo if you have to or never get touched by anything slower is extremely powerful. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:55:00 -
[1273] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Please read my previous response, it does 150-200DPS at 25 depending on ammo loaded.
Thats awful, even more so when you consider it has the worst EHP of any of the HACs.
You know, lying isn't helping your case. It does 270 dps with barrage at 25km with 425mm's 240 dps at 25km with 220mm's and Barrage. Respectively 370 and 340 dps when you factor in drones Apologies, I was phonepoasting on my way to work, doing the numbers by memory. Quite right, it applies 240 DPS at 25, in ideal circumstances mind you, but yes, quite right. So by locking yourself into Explosive/Kin damage and having relatively poor tracking you get a whole 240 DPS at point range. This is still awful. stop qqing about the best hac atm
Theres the key phrase though.
"At the moment"
The best T1 frigate was the Rifter, they said "its fine, we'll buff everything else up to its level".
It is now the worst T1 frigate by a fair margin, the exact same is about to happen to the Vaga.
And no I'm not QQing I'm making case, something you are obviously incapable of. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:58:00 -
[1274] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Please read my previous response, it does 150-200DPS at 25 depending on ammo loaded.
Thats awful, even more so when you consider it has the worst EHP of any of the HACs. If it has no gyros or TE, sure, but no one honestly fights with that. If you go quad gun lows you can do 270 at that range without drones(370 with), and that's with the second biggest gun size. The Vaga also has the highest active tanking and can recover the deference in buffer in about 30 seconds, while simply avoiding most of the incoming damage. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:04:00 -
[1275] - Quote
I actually give up on the people in this thread.
Heres the bottom line.
Every other HAC will dumpster the Vaga post patch, every ABC will dumpster the Vaga post patch, it will still be nothing more than a Mediocre anti-frig ship and there will be no other reason to fly it post patch.
Its a poorly thought out change in its current incarnation and will serve no real role. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
649
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:08:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Just because you say that does not make it true. The Vaga will massively stomp a lot of the other HAC's and most ABC if flown correctly. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
649
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:13:00 -
[1277] - Quote
A Vaga kiting a Talos at 15km will do more than twice the dps of the Talos. You will be hit with about 150 dps when orbiting and will deal about 370 dps.
If we compare that to the old Vagabond that has no mwd sig reduction... hold on.. The old Vaga would have to tank about 400 dps at that range.
New Vaga takes 150 dps Old Vaga takes 400 dps.
So please. Tell me ALL about how bad the role bonus is. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:38:00 -
[1278] - Quote
The only HACs that can do what the Vaga does are the Deimos(t), that people won't fly for a list of reasons, and the zealot, which is mostly too slow for it and is more for brute fleet dps anyway. ABCs are a whole other issue but the vaga is just about perfect for killing them. And remember, if the vaga closes the gap the ABC can't even hit it. |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:45:00 -
[1279] - Quote
The bad thing CCP and people thinK of how to improve the Vaga (and all other ships) based on the specific fitting that they use. This is of course wrong.
There are people that fly the Vaga without 2nd shield extender and people who fly it without any at all. The extra high slots can be used in various ways apart from neuts which is interesting...... we dont want pre-fitted ships.
The bonus now boosts a specific fitting (which fitting works fine even without any skill boosting) and doesnt have any impact for the most people or any larger than 'solo/very small scale'
So for most of the cases there is no actual boosting.... which is the case here.
A little more damage or range would help boosting it while keeping the low EHP and thus relying on its speed to survive. For example a slightly +30DPS with an additional 2km of falloff would make things better without having any huge effect on the general balance of the HACS or make it op in any way.
Slots are quite fine as is in order not to give a huge boost.
PS. I think it needs a further +5 speed to be exactly in line with old speed bonus.
|
Goody Twoshoes Virpio
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:33:00 -
[1280] - Quote
There seems to be an error. The ishtar has lost a fitting slot whereas no other ship has. This is disappointing for me since I use it as a brawler and use the current 2 utilty highs for small NOS.
This is necessary because it's unable to maintain a 2-MAR tank with just 1 medium cap booster (none of the gallente ships are).
Every other race of ships have utility slots and invariably carry neuts. As a result, an active armour tank is now unviable in the ishtar.
May we have our high slow back please? or perhaps better still, replace it with a mid slot?
|
|
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:39:00 -
[1281] - Quote
Goody Twoshoes Virpio wrote:There seems to be an error. The ishtar has lost a fitting slot whereas no other ship has. This is disappointing for me since I use it as a brawler and use the current 2 utilty highs for small NOS.
This is necessary because it's unable to maintain a 2-MAR tank with just 1 medium cap booster (none of the gallente ships are).
Every other race of ships have utility slots and invariably carry neuts. As a result, an active armour tank is now unviable in the ishtar.
May we have our high slow back please? or perhaps better still, replace it with a mid slot?
There are no other drone ships, all drone ships get -1 fitting slot, this has been said in EVERY rebalance thread related to ships so far. Are you blind? |
Goody Twoshoes Virpio
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:51:00 -
[1282] - Quote
Doed wrote:Goody Twoshoes Virpio wrote:There seems to be an error. The ishtar has lost a fitting slot whereas no other ship has. This is disappointing for me since I use it as a brawler and use the current 2 utilty highs for small NOS.
This is necessary because it's unable to maintain a 2-MAR tank with just 1 medium cap booster (none of the gallente ships are).
Every other race of ships have utility slots and invariably carry neuts. As a result, an active armour tank is now unviable in the ishtar.
May we have our high slow back please? or perhaps better still, replace it with a mid slot?
There are no other drone ships, all drone ships get -1 fitting slot, this has been said in EVERY rebalance thread related to ships so far. Are you blind?
Forgive me no, I am not blind. I am aware of the archaic and outdated view that a drone bay compensates for a slot. There's probably not much point in going into the rights or wrongs of that here.
I prefer to deal in facts.
The fact of the matter is that pre-change all HACs had 15 slots. The fact of the matter is that the proposed Ishtar has 14 slots. The fact of the matter is that there is no history of players complaining that the current ishtar is overpowered. In fact the vast majority of complaints about it are that it lacks enough CPU to fit a meaningful number of drone mods so it has been unable to play to its strengths.
Here we have an opportunity to rectify that, but it seems to me that the ship is being, in relation to others, nerfed.
Let's keep it polite, sir.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
652
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:54:00 -
[1283] - Quote
To quote myself,
Because having 500 drone dps without spending a single CPU or PG is SO not worth having one less slot, right guise? |
Goody Twoshoes Virpio
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:07:00 -
[1284] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:To quote myself,
Because having 500 drone dps without spending a single CPU or PG is SO not worth having one less slot, right guise?
I don't think this is a valid argument. If a drone ship puts out combat drones it cannot also field neutraliser, ecm, web or any other kind of drone.
However, a ship that uses its guns/missiles for dps, has a utility slot AND has a (albeit smaller) drone bay is able to field DPS, EWAR and whatever the utility slot can provide.
If the ishtar was able to field 5 large drones AND 5 small ones at the same time, I think you'd have a point. But it does not.
The idea that a drone bay is worthy of a reduced number of slots comes from the very beginnings of Eve time, when there was not a limit on the number of drones you could field - you could just dump your drone bay on the field.
This worked to the advantage of ships with large drone bays so the -1 slot was justified.
Since the introduction of the limit on the number of drones fielded by a ship, small drone bays have doubled in power (the drone interfacing skill was introduced) and the comparative advantage of a large drone bay vanished. It simply became a store of spare drones rather than a soure of combined DPS and EWAR.
The -1 slot is no longer justified when current eve mechanics are considered. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:10:00 -
[1285] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:To quote myself,
Because having 500 drone dps without spending a single CPU or PG is SO not worth having one less slot, right guise? 500? You, Sir, are doing it wrong.
I love the Ishtar but I'm not going to argue that it needs more than what it has at this point. One less high if it's going to get anymore mids or lows. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
271
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:12:00 -
[1286] - Quote
I think the fact that the Ishtar can do 475 DPS before any mods are fitted to the ship probably explains why it has 1 less slot.
Considering thats more than some HACs get after 2 Damage mods and high damage ammo I don't think its unreasonable. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
653
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:12:00 -
[1287] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:To quote myself,
Because having 500 drone dps without spending a single CPU or PG is SO not worth having one less slot, right guise? 500? You, Sir, are doing it wrong. I love the Ishtar but I'm not going to argue that it needs more than what it has at this point. One less high if it's going to get anymore mids or lows. Sorry, 475.2 dps, was an approximate.
Notice the "without spending a single CPU or PG".
With mods, of course, a LOT more dps. |
Goody Twoshoes Virpio
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:15:00 -
[1288] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:To quote myself,
Because having 500 drone dps without spending a single CPU or PG is SO not worth having one less slot, right guise? 500? You, Sir, are doing it wrong. I love the Ishtar but I'm not going to argue that it needs more than what it has at this point. One less high if it's going to get anymore mids or lows.
It's not getting any more mids or lows - it's just losing a high. It's gaining a turret, but at the expense of the blaster dps bonus so that cancels out. But the extra turret (to recover the dps) consumes the last remaining high slot.
So in effect, the ishtar loses 2 utility slots.
In return it gets the dominix-style garde bonus and the navy vexor-style ogre speed/tracking bonus.
Viewed in isolation this might be seen as fair, but in relation to all other hac changes it's still a nerf.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
653
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:17:00 -
[1289] - Quote
Goody Twoshoes Virpio wrote: Viewed in isolation this might be seen as fair, but in relation to all other hac changes it's still a nerf.
Yeah. That must be why Ishtar went up 30 mill in jita right after announcing round 2 of rebalance. Because it got nerfed |
Goody Twoshoes Virpio
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:20:00 -
[1290] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:I think the fact that the Ishtar can do 475 DPS before any mods are fitted to the ship probably explains why it has 1 less slot.
Considering thats more than some HACs get after 2 Damage mods and high damage ammo I don't think its unreasonable.
This high damage comes at a very real cost, as all drone-ship pilots understand:
1. high dps drones are either very slow or stationary - so you MUST have your target webbed and scrammed (2 mid slots + cap + tank) otherwise you will do zero dps.
2. you rarely have 5 drones on the field once a fight starts - the other guy shoots them so you have to continually withdraw and relaunch them. This halves the effective dps. So that 475 is really in the region of 250.
This is why the killboards are not littered with solo-ishtar kills. It's not an easy ship to score a kill with. The changes will make it harder, when compared to other hacs to score such kills.
|
|
Goody Twoshoes Virpio
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:25:00 -
[1291] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Goody Twoshoes Virpio wrote: Viewed in isolation this might be seen as fair, but in relation to all other hac changes it's still a nerf.
Yeah. That must be why Ishtar went up 30 mill in jita right after announcing round 2 of rebalance. Because it got nerfed
What happened to the price of other HACs?
We are comparing HAC vs HAC here, not the overall utility of a HAC. I fully understand (as does every other drone-ship jockey) the value of the inherent tracking and range bonuses that have been proposed.
Ishtars will be in demand for mission running as they always have been, because of the bonus to sentries. My post is about relative solo pvp utility, and I am keen to see that the ishtar's utility for that purpose is not downgraded.
The current changes, in my view, threaten that. Because the ability to field/counter a neut is far more important than a few dps from your drones.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
653
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:26:00 -
[1292] - Quote
http://notorious.killmail.org/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18897640
http://notorious.killmail.org/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18897804
They are littered with dual Vexor kills though.
Edit, looks like linking does not work. Copy/paste the text to the browser. |
Goody Twoshoes Virpio
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:30:00 -
[1293] - Quote
It's always nice to see a drake go down in flames - nice kill |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:32:00 -
[1294] - Quote
Drop bouncers at 100k and turn the MWD on and orbit at 7k. You are now hitting with 700 dps from a freaking cruiser 100k out. The Ishtar is getting bonuses to how most people used them. |
Goody Twoshoes Virpio
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:42:00 -
[1295] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Drop bouncers at 100k and turn the MWD on and orbit at 7k. You are now hitting with 700 dps from a freaking cruiser 100k out. The Ishtar is getting bonuses to how most people used them.
I agree that the ishtar is getting a boost, as are all HACs.
The strategy you offer as an example only works in a fixed emplacement like a gate when you are in a gang and other people have tackle. If you try this solo, your target will be gone before you're anywhere near enough to tackle him.
My post is specifically about the fact that the solo pvp capability of the ishtar has been compromised by this proposal as it is now overly vulnerable to neutralisers (as is the vexor, thorax, deimos etc).
This leaves a gallente pilot with no cruiser hull capable of withstanding anyone with a neutraliser (everyone else) unless he takes a vexor navy issue or sacrifices 25% of his blaster dps.
On a side note, there are literally zero gallente cruisers that do turret DPS and have a utility slot. For that you need to trade up to the brutix. This is a shame, and in my view an oversight.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
653
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:50:00 -
[1296] - Quote
Learn to fit Autocannons on your unbonused Hybrid hulls.
[NEW Ishtar, solo brawl] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Scrambler II Stasis Webifier II Stasis Webifier II Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption Script
Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Ogre II x5
835 dps
They are dead before you run out of cap.
I have killed Falcons solo with Vexor while permajammed. Just bump them out of alignment and let the drones do their thing |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:52:00 -
[1297] - Quote
None of the ranged HACs work very well solo, that wouldn't matter but the Deimos(t) sucks. Using a neut on a Ishtar isn't a good idea most of the time because it doesn't need to use as much cap as what is neuting it in most cases. Just because it's a Gallente ship doesn't mean you need to run active tank. |
Goody Twoshoes Virpio
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:58:00 -
[1298] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Learn to fit Autocannons on your unbonused Hybrid hulls.
[NEW Ishtar, solo brawl]
I have killed Falcons solo with Vexor while permajammed. Just bump them out of alignment and let the drones do their thing
It's a sweet fit, I'll give you that. But without an armour repairer I fear it's dead to a vagabond.
I don't know whether there's another way, but the way I counter vagas when in a slower ship is just to burn for them continuously.
Eventually they either warp out or run out of cap, at which point they're dead.
Having said that, I guess a set of gardes will keep a vaga frightened, since they now have a tracking and range bonus - are these ships on sisi yet?
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
654
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:03:00 -
[1299] - Quote
Goody Twoshoes Virpio wrote: It's a sweet fit, I'll give you that. But without an armour repairer I fear it's dead to a vagabond.
I don't know whether there's another way, but the way I counter vagas when in a slower ship is just to burn for them continuously.
Eventually they either warp out or run out of cap, at which point they're dead.
Having said that, I guess a set of gardes will keep a vaga frightened, since they now have a tracking and range bonus - are these ships on sisi yet?
Danny John-Peter would have a word with you. The new Vaga apparently cant kill anything, so I'm good I guess.
Not on Sisi afaik.
Dropping Gardes and then flying off is a great tactic. Either he will be too far from you and the drones to do or take any damage, or he will be close to you and take full Garde damage and/or get tackled. |
Enthes goldhart
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:31:00 -
[1300] - Quote
I love most of these changes, especially the sensor strength increase. I feel the deimos still needs its utility high for nos so it can brawl without its guns getting turned off.
|
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1934
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:19:00 -
[1301] - Quote
Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours. |
|
Corporal Cina
Offworld Miners and Fabricators Guild
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:23:00 -
[1302] - Quote
Hope you feel better.
now get to work! |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:24:00 -
[1303] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours.
And there we were, thinking that you completely forgot about us. Take your time to read, you spare yourself a lot of Trouble afterwards.
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:24:00 -
[1304] - Quote
You have any method if addressing the isk spike of these ships. They've jumped from 140 million to 200 million and they haven't been released yet. The same with the command ships. Yes people are speculating on both the value and the increased mineral and moongoop these ships will cost |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:33:00 -
[1305] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:You have any method if addressing the isk spike of these ships. They've jumped from 140 million to 200 million and they haven't been released yet. The same with the command ships. Yes people are speculating on both the value and the increased mineral and moongoop these ships will cost
People always are. And often enough prices will drop right back to where they were or maybe slightly above that. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
654
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:33:00 -
[1306] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours.
Hannott Thanos wrote:nikar galvren wrote: The new threads on Command Ships, Gang links & local reps confirm that CCP has abandoned this thread.
Basically EVERY time you people say this, a day or two later, a dev comes in and announces that he has read every post since his last response. Your "CCP has abandoned the thread" is getting old.
Status: [ ] Not told [X] Told [X] TOLDASAURUS REX [X] Cash4told.com [X] No country for told men [X] Knights of the told Republic [X] ToldSpice [x] The Elder Tolds IV: Oblivious [x] Command & Conquer: Toldberian Sun [x] GuiTold Hero: World Told [X] Told King of Boletaria [x] Countold Strike [x] Unreal Toldament [x] Stone-told Steve Austin [X] Half Life 2: Episode Told [x] World of Warcraft: Catoldclysm [X] Roller Coaster Toldcoon [x] AssassinGÇÖs Creed: Tolderhood [x] Battletolds [x] S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shatold of Chernobyl [X] Toldasauraus Rex 2: Electric Toldaloo [x] Told of Duty 4: Modern Toldfare [X] Pokemon Told and Silver [x] The Legend of Eldorado : The Lost City of Told [X] Rampage: Toldal Destruction [x] Told Fortress Classic [x] Toldman: Arkham Told [X] The Good, The Bad, and The Told [x] Super Mario SunTold [x] Legend of Zelda: Toldacarnia of Time [X] Toldstone creamery [x] Mario Golf: Toldstool Tour [X] Super Told Boy [X] Left 4 Told [X] Battoldfield: Bad Company 2 [x] Toldman Sachs [X] ConkerGÇÖs Bad Fur Day: Live and Retolded [x] Lead and Told: Gangs of the Wild West [x] Portold 2 [x] Avatold: The Last Airbender [X] Dragon Ball Z Toldkaichi Budokai [x] Toldcraft II: Tolds of Toldberty [x] Leo Toldstoy [x] Metal Gear Toldid 3: Snake Eater [X] 3D Dot Told Heroes [x] J.R.R ToldkienGÇÖs Lord of the Told [x] Told you that ps3 has no games [X] LitTOLD Big Planet [x] Rome: Toldal War [x] Gran Toldrismo 5 [x] Told Calibur 4 [x] Told Fortress 2 [x] Castlevania: RonTold of Blood [x] Guilty Gear XX Accent Told [x] Cyndaquil, Chicorita, and Toldodile [x] was foretold [x] demonGÇÖs told [x] http//:www.youtold.com [x] Tolden Sun: Dark Dawn [x] Tic-Tac-Told [X] Biotold 2 [X] Toldbound [x] icetold [x] Told of the Rings |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
379
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:33:00 -
[1307] - Quote
Dear CCP Rise.
Please address this point:
COST!
Many thanks
Lall |
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:09:00 -
[1308] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours.
Weakling! |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet Cerberus Unleashed
87
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:12:00 -
[1309] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Dear CCP Rise.
Please address this point:
COST!
Many thanks
Lall
Go mining. Things will get cheaper, but you will earn less than the miners did before you started. |
Makoto Priano
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services
3332
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:19:00 -
[1310] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Dear CCP Rise.
Please address this point:
COST!
Many thanks
Lall
Do you mean-- how the speculators are speculating, and this is causing a price spike? As it always does?
Prices will settle back to equilibrium soon enough. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:22:00 -
[1311] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours.
i too got sick at the second version of hacs....
j/k hope you are feeling better and are able to address the shortfalls of certain ships
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:34:00 -
[1312] - Quote
Makoto Priano wrote:Lallante wrote:Dear CCP Rise.
Please address this point:
COST!
Many thanks
Lall Do you mean-- how the speculators are speculating, and this is causing a price spike? As it always does? Prices will settle back to equilibrium soon enough.
And that equilibrium is??
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
654
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:39:00 -
[1313] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Makoto Priano wrote:Lallante wrote:Dear CCP Rise.
Please address this point:
COST!
Many thanks
Lall Do you mean-- how the speculators are speculating, and this is causing a price spike? As it always does? Prices will settle back to equilibrium soon enough. And that equilibrium is??
This much |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:45:00 -
[1314] - Quote
can you please do us a favour?
make the 7.5% armor bonus also include a cap activation reduction too! that would make the bonus actually usefull
thanks There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
277
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:48:00 -
[1315] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours.
New suggestion for the Deimos.
Change the slot layout to 4-4-7 and increase the damage bonuses to 7.5% and change the cap bonus to a armor rep bonus. This would reduce the effective turrets to 7 from 7.5 and let us active tank this ship very nicely. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
164
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:50:00 -
[1316] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours. Did you eat the wrong thing or was it a flu? Hope it fully clears up soon.
Anyway, back to the complaints , just some general complaint, because I've already listed my specific ones.
On Gallente ships thanks for the increasing shift to structure hp. It will come in very useful with my reinforced bulkheads and overheated DC fits. Also, how about giving sentry drones a mwd for returning to the ship. Fine if they only move 1 m/sec if shooting. And some more hp for drones in general. Really sucks to throw isk out the drone undock every time I fight, even if I win, which is rare. Oh, also love the ability to overheat my drones against all the hookbills and condors (soon to be Cerbs)
edit - Dev hax because you sniped the page 2nd edit - even after being sick |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:51:00 -
[1317] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours. New suggestion for the Deimos. Change the slot layout to 4-4-7 and increase the damage bonuses to 7.5% and change the cap bonus to a armor rep bonus. This would reduce the effective turrets to 7 from 7.5 and let us active tank this ship very nicely.
it would have to be rate of fire. damage bonus would not replace the lost dps.
but yeah i would love to see that happen. also to make the armor bonus also reduce cap activation cost.
it only makes sense that when you get better at the ship skill you can get more out of the mod and active it more efficiantly There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Broxus Maximas
Shadow State Fatal Ascension
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:22:00 -
[1318] - Quote
Really like the new Gallente changes well done! Now if you would only also give the Heavy Drone Speed bonus to the Domi things would be great in my world. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:41:00 -
[1319] - Quote
Just my 2 cents.
Hope your feeling better.
I think cost is a big problem with the balance of the ships. Overall the stats are good, just limited by other options for cost.
I would prefer RLML instead of HML on the Sacrilege or all three of course.
Thanks |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:50:00 -
[1320] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours.
|
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:50:00 -
[1321] - Quote
The cost is due to the new metamaterial requirements, and the current low supply thereof.
See: Scientist's Life: Metamaterials Scientist's Life: Jita Connundrum |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:53:00 -
[1322] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours. I stand corrected. Hope you feel better. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
937
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:06:00 -
[1323] - Quote
Meh, most of these changes don't go far enough and i'd consider some of these changes to result in a worse ship that the round 1 proposals. Not interested in reading your crappy "fixes" anyone ccp but good luck o/ Putting work in since 2010. |
columbo miner
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:13:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Hi,
Ishtar:
I am still hoping for a 6th low slot even if we lose something for balance and to appease the non drone boat pilots.
With regards to the Ishtar HAC skill bonuses, they become useless when using the std 5x OGRE fit for med/close range. So is it excepted that you only need HAC lvl 1 to fly the Ishtar if you don't intend to snipe? Could the bonuses be tweaked even further please, i feel we are nearly there .
I think the drone bonuses are correct but why separate? Other HAC's have bonuses that stack with there choice of weaponry i.e. Dmg, rate of fire, fall off and optimal all applied to the weapon they have mounted. What is been currently given to the Isthar is the same as giving separate bonuses to auto-cannons and Artillery on a Minmatar HAC or separate rail and blasters bonuses. This will then allow you to add a separate small but useful bonus as currently the Ishtar is not quite there yet.
I think the majority realize that it's going to take a few rounds to get it right /GL pleasing everyone.
Thanks, Boz.
aka Bozzith, Columbo Miner.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
271
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:31:00 -
[1325] - Quote
columbo miner wrote:Hi,
I think the drone bonuses are correct but why separate? Other HAC's have bonuses that stack with there choice of weaponry i.e. Dmg, rate of fire, fall off and optimal all applied to the weapon they have mounted. What is been currently given to the Isthar is the same as giving separate bonuses to auto-cannons and Artillery on a Minmatar HAC or separate rail and blasters bonuses.
That is how it currently works.
Thats why the Muninn has a tracking bonus and the Vaga has a falloff bonus. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1264
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:33:00 -
[1326] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours.
Is this where you give the deimos a rep bonus ? =D BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
346
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:42:00 -
[1327] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours.
WTB +1 low on sac
TIA |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
346
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:42:00 -
[1328] - Quote
You can take the drones and/or the utility high as payment. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:54:00 -
[1329] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:You can take the drones and/or the utility high as payment.
Taking the drones for a low is absolutely not worth it. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
379
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:58:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Makoto Priano wrote:Lallante wrote:Dear CCP Rise.
Please address this point:
COST!
Many thanks
Lall Do you mean-- how the speculators are speculating, and this is causing a price spike? As it always does? Prices will settle back to equilibrium soon enough.
The equilibrium is still too high for how these ships compare to t1 |
|
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:12:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Lallante wrote:The equilibrium is still too high for how these ships compare to t1 How so? Before the market spike they were 135-160mil each, so they're about five or six times the cost fitted for double the tank and a nice dps boost. The markets always dive back in a few weeks. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1937
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:22:00 -
[1332] - Quote
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.
Following the Deimos there's a few ships which seem to be drawing more attention than any others, but for most of these I don't expect to make big changes before 1.1 goes out. This list would include Vagabond, Muninn, and Sacrilege.
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.
Muninn: I understand wanting the 4th mid, but I don't think we will do that. I think by adding a low the Muninn will get better at everything it already does (mostly arty/shield fleets), by using the low for more speed or more damage, while also picking up the possibility to run armor variations. This might not be insanely popular but I think it's important for Minmatar to have the option to do both, and the Vaga is pointed towards shield even more now than it already was.
Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for its layout and bonuses but because of the power of the resist buff it's very easy for it to become too strong. We also really like that it tends to fit in to fleets as a ship with enormous utility rather than being all tank and gank like a lot of the other HACs. For that reason we really wanted to leave the utility high and the 4th mid. It would often make a better straight up brawler with another low, but by going the route we went of adding more drone dps and more fitting room, we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things.
Ishtar: A little side note here. If you are confused about the slot count being one lower, thats very standard for our primary drone weapon ships. In general I think the Ishtar is certainly among the most powerful ships coming out of this rebalance so we definitely aren't looking to make it any more so.
On 1 slot vs tech 1 counterpart rather than 2: Honestly we never talked about adding a slot to every ship, but I don't think it makes much difference. If we did do that, we would have to pull power away from other metrics to make up for it. Whether the whole class has 12 or 15 or 18 it should hopefully still be balanced to function in the role we have in mind, and so it's not as if adding a lot to all of them would suddenly make them all much more powerful.
Thanks for the well wishes, I'm doing pretty okay now. Please comment on the Deimos changes and I'll check back tonight or early next week after the alliance tournament is over. 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. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:28:00 -
[1333] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
.
Please think about making the repair bonus a dule bonus like the drone damage/HP
So the bonus would read as: 7.5% to effectiveness of Armor repair and reduction in Capacitor activation cost Per level
This would help the ship out greatly as its extreamly cap hungy and lack of high slot means it cant fit a nos.
also. pretty please change one of the damage bonus for a 7.5% to rate of fire and remove the 5th high slot for a 7th low.
this will allow players to get damage mods on plus an active tank if they wanted too... and free up room on the power grid to fit larger guns like nuetrons or 250 rails. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
406
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:37:00 -
[1334] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Rise wrote: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.
. Please think about making the repair bonus a dule bonus like the drone damage/HP So the bonus would read as: 7.5% to effectiveness of Armor repair and reduction in Capacitor activation cost Per level This would help the ship out greatly as its extreamly cap hungy and lack of high slot means it cant fit a nos. also. pretty please change one of the damage bonus for a 7.5% to rate of fire and remove the 5th high slot for a 7th low. this will allow players to get damage mods on plus an active tank if they wanted too... and free up room on the power grid to fit larger guns like nuetrons or 250 rails.
Yes adding a cao hungry dps bonus to a active tanked ship makes a lot of sense
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
406
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:39:00 -
[1335] - Quote
RISE
Please for the love of god talk to me about the eagle ... its slow as **** and does nothing particularly well the fact that it needs 2 optimal range bonuses tells you something does it not?
Please look at making it a viable blaster kiter... speed and proper dps please drones and a stronger damage bonus /lower sig comes to mind.. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:39:00 -
[1336] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
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.
But by giving it a bonus that wont help at all in most of the cases isnt really a bonus... For the time it is treated like the zealot that doesnt get any significant change.
After TE changes it still needs something more to compensate. DPS bonus instead of range is somehow better in the way that you risk alot if you get in stasis range with this ship and it stills does around 75% if it's damage in the range that it usually stands.
PS. All HACs have a different role. They shouldnt be all so fast... |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:44:00 -
[1337] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:RISE
Please for the love of god talk to me about the eagle ... its slow as **** and does nothing particularly well the fact that it needs 2 optimal range bonuses tells you something does it not?
Please look at making it a viable blaster kiter... speed and proper dps please drones and a stronger damage bonus /lower sig comes to mind..
this is just me but i would remove one of the optimal range bonus replace with a tracking bonus and replace the damage bonus with a rate of fire bonus.
this would give that ship great range. good tracking and really good applied damage. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Nabuch Sattva
The Green Cross Spaceship Samurai
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:02:00 -
[1338] - Quote
On the Deimos:
In my mind the preferred change would be to give the TRACKING BONUS instead of the MWD cap bonus. Would suit more play styles. Would be very nice with the new hybrid changes... So I say: Do eeeeeet!!!
The active armor bonus, with the 4th mid could work. But will see more resistence from the player base I imagine. Useless in big fleets etc etc..
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
271
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:03:00 -
[1339] - Quote
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. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:08:00 -
[1340] - Quote
The Deimos... Ok let's see. It's massively cap hungry, and everybody hates armor rep bonuses, but the most recent changes to reppers maybe enough to use it....
Maaaaybe... |
|
Aglais
Liberation Army
318
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:10:00 -
[1341] - Quote
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.) |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:12:00 -
[1342] - Quote
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! |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
407
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:13:00 -
[1343] - Quote
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. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
341
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:22:00 -
[1344] - Quote
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. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:25:00 -
[1345] - Quote
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 able 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1414
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:26:00 -
[1346] - Quote
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. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:29:00 -
[1347] - Quote
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
NeoNexus
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:29:00 -
[1348] - Quote
The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.
How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:32:00 -
[1349] - Quote
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. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:33:00 -
[1350] - Quote
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:35:00 -
[1351] - Quote
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1414
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:41:00 -
[1352] - Quote
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.
Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
NeoNexus
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:44:00 -
[1353] - Quote
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? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:48:00 -
[1354] - Quote
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). |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1939
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:52:00 -
[1355] - Quote
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). |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1415
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:53:00 -
[1356] - Quote
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. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1192
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:55:00 -
[1357] - Quote
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... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:56:00 -
[1358] - Quote
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. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
655
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:57:00 -
[1359] - Quote
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. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:00:00 -
[1360] - Quote
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:01:00 -
[1361] - Quote
What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:04:00 -
[1362] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense.
it must an AB Railgun thing... like it has the sig or speed to pull it off
The eagle will still be the poor caldari HAC that everyone laughs at and would't waste 200mil + and the training time to use over a much cheaper and more effective Naga. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
320
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:06:00 -
[1363] - Quote
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).
Wait: So the Cerberus' anti-frigate capabilities (unless RLMLs now actually pose a threat to things your own size) threaten to make it too strong, while ignoring HML and Assault missile performance? I'm not sure I'm getting this part here.
As for the Eagle: The rail 'buff' also includes making it's medium guns (put on a reasonably fast cruiser) track only somewhat better than battleship blasters. Bad tracking, on a fast ship, meant to fight faster targets... Is a buff? I guess that's a solid way to give railgun ships absolutely tiny engagement envelopes or something.
I am not convinced at all that either HAC is in a good position- placing the current set of changes (for both HACs and command ships) on Singularity to allow for large scale testing and additional feedback would be a very good idea, IMO. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1267
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:06:00 -
[1364] - Quote
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.
I GOT THROUGH!
\o/ (Yes i'm taking full credit >=[)
Then i don't really have anything else to complain about with the HAC's.
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:09:00 -
[1365] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant 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:
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. I GOT THROUGH! \o/ (Yes i'm taking full credit >=[) Then i don't really have anything else to complain about with the HAC's.
Ishtar is still stuck with sentry blobbing or lol heavy drones. Complain about that. Maybe the sacrilege's lowslots as well, if you want. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1267
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:14:00 -
[1366] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Garviel Tarrant 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:
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. I GOT THROUGH! \o/ (Yes i'm taking full credit >=[) Then i don't really have anything else to complain about with the HAC's. Ishtar is still stuck with sentry blobbing or lol heavy drones. Complain about that. Maybe the sacrilege's lowslots as well, if you want.
Ehh i have enough things to complain about with the link "nerf"
I'm not quite bitter enough to get something i like and just go straight to whining about other things :P BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:17:00 -
[1367] - Quote
ON the ishtar the drone split is weird and sentries are a little OP atm so dropping it to 5% sorts out the whole issue
The cerberus again why do we need so many range bonuses on caldari HACS? it usually suggests they are trying to make up for something .. also sniping with missiles is a waste of time besides cruise missiles maybe seems silly to waste 2 bonuses when one range bonus should be enough and the second bonus could be something more useful like explosion velocity.
On RML please just delete these things they make no sense having frig weapons on cruiser hulls. Navy caracal with the explosion radius surely can do a good job against frigs using javelins .. just buff javelins or add a anti frig T2 option to HAMs/HM's or invent new missiles like say an light assault missile with a launcher that improves it tracking for less dps and easier fitting... something that makes more sense anyway as you don't see medium guns with frig ammo .. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Red Woodson
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:17:00 -
[1368] - Quote
I realize it may be a bit late in the game to be suggesting this, but have you considered reducing the mass on these ships to at least a good bit below T1? This would allow them to fit through wormholes easier to help soften the blow to T3 wormhole fleets we all know is coming. From a k-space perspective, it would make them slightly cheaper to move via jump and titan bridges, for anyone that actually cared about isotope and loz consumption. The reason i figure it is a bit too late in the game is that you would of course also have to adjust the agility stat, as well as possibly other stuff, to keep their performance similar under ab, mwd, and in the alignment time department.
The good news is the link changes combined with the mwd sig bonus and the Medium LR gun buff make open up some MWD doctrines that operate just outside loki web range. The bad news is, at a guess, the link nerfs appear to me to have done nasty things to ahac doctrines. Oh well, win some loose some i guess.
And it seems all of the hacs have been boosted for solo/small gang stuff, though some maybe not enough. Time will tell. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2104
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:18:00 -
[1369] - Quote
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 kinetic-only bonus is still a problem - it was easier to justify on the Cerb previously whilst the Sacrilege was HAM-only (there was a nice symmetry there of kinetic ammo only, any launcher, versus HAM only, any ammo) but with the Sac getting HML bonuses too I really don't see why this should continue.
Quote: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.
:psyduck:
Quote: 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. The Eagle has a fundamental problem in that extreme-range sniping is both barely required in the modern game, and when it is, the role is aptly covered by the Naga already. especially with the 1.1 turret tweaking pushing medium guns closer towards their large counterparts (more damage, less tracking) rather than diversifying the two categories. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:20:00 -
[1370] - Quote
Active rep bonuses need to go the way of the Dodo. Not sure how giving an active rep bonus to the Deimos makes it any better in real PVP situations. |
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:22:00 -
[1371] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: 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 problem isn't RLMLs. The problem is the Cerb's bonuses, how the Cerb's bonuses combine with RLMLs, and how terrible HMLs are nowadays.
The Cerb has two range bonuses, which means that it can throw missiles farther than any other medium missile platform. For RLMLs, this pushes them out to unbonused HML ranges, which is a very good range to be. It's within the hull's lock range and well outside of point range. For PvE, it more than covers all reasonable ranges in level 2 & 3 missions, which is where the RLML Cerb would excel.
HMLs on the Cerb, on the other hand, are totally wasted. A significant portion of their range is outside your lock range, so you need to gimp your fit a bit for some lock-range sensor boosters in order to actually use that range. At those huge ranges, PvP opponents will just warp off before your first couple volleys even get to them, and you'll never see PvE enemies that far away. Plus, HMLs have terrible damage application, especially since the Cerb can lob them past target painter range.
So the choice between RLMLs and HMLs on the Cerb is basically "do you want to hit everything well at reasonable ranges" or "do you want to only hit big things at absurd ranges"--an easy enough choice.
The fix is simple. First, fix HMLs so they don't suck anymore. Second, drop one of the Cerb's range bonuses for either a damage/ROF bonus or a tanking bonus. Caldari don't need two sniping HACs, and sniping with missiles is silly anyway. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1194
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:26:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense. it must an AB Railgun thing... like it has the sig or speed to pull it off The eagle will still be the poor caldari HAC that everyone laughs at and would't waste 200mil + and the training time to use over a much cheaper and more effective Naga.
how far does it shoot with null?
could you do something like full rack of nuetron balsters
10mn ab tracking comp em hardner two invul large extender
lows: dcu II TE 2 mag stabs
rigs: bust accelerator shield expander
though i do agree it really needs 25m3 and mb to be usefull There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1313
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:27:00 -
[1373] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: 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.
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.
Deimos armor: YES! Adding shields and taking away armor was a needless nerf to an already thinly tanked ship. Deimos bonus: I actually *like* the MWD bonus but understand im in the minority heh
Vagabond: I'd venture that you're confused about the resistance because you're confused about the ship. The Vagabond is not the Hurricane. It's not a close range shield AC brawler that moonlights as an artillery platform. It's a kiting AC ship, fighting at the edge of point range. It's competition is not the Deimos (close range) or the Cerberus (any range). You're focusing too much on improving the Vaga's performance in a role it's not really suited to do with it's HP, fittings, and weapons layout (dual prop XL ASB fits are more of a novelty than a standard). Going from your proposed shield boost bonus to another fall off bonus will not impact the Vaga's close range brawling capabilities nor give it enough range to remotely compete against the Cerberus.
But it WOULD return the Vaga's ability to fight competitively in the 20-25km, which is what soloers and small gangers (the people that use the vaga) are craving. The Vaga shouldnt be the best in all cases, but it should be the best in THAT case. Anything else and the breadth of the "value variance" is from little to nothing.
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
938
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:29:00 -
[1374] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: 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.
Maybe you should give us some numbers instead of leaving if for us to deconstruct. People need to see a typical fit so they can see things like the dps, range, speed and tank before they can give you any meaningful feedback... so show us a typical fit
I think the problem is that you may be suffering from eft warrior syndrome with a lot of the HACs. A vaga is not a braying ship so it stands to reason that it needs to be able to project it's damage at kiting range. Given that fact, who cares about a utility high (used for neuts in most cases) when you are in a kiting ship? Putting work in since 2010. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1194
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:34:00 -
[1375] - Quote
if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.
so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Sigras
Conglomo
479
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:35:00 -
[1376] - Quote
Im not sure I understand the line of thinking here . . . Earlier in this thread, you said
CCP Rise wrote: most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. Then later you made this comment about the Sacrilege . . .
CCP Rise wrote:Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for its layout and bonuses but because of the power of the resist buff it's very easy for it to become too strong. We also really like that it tends to fit in to fleets as a ship with enormous utility rather than being all tank and gank like a lot of the other HACs. For that reason we really wanted to leave the utility high and the 4th mid. It would often make a better straight up brawler with another low, but by going the route we went of adding more drone dps and more fitting room, we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things. These two things seem to be in conflict with each other.
I feel like these HACs should be super specialized, and im not sure being a "utility ship" is a specialization . . . |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:36:00 -
[1377] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for its layout and bonuses but because of the power of the resist buff it's very easy for it to become too strong. We also really like that it tends to fit in to fleets as a ship with enormous utility rather than being all tank and gank like a lot of the other HACs. For that reason we really wanted to leave the utility high and the 4th mid. It would often make a better straight up brawler with another low, but by going the route we went of adding more drone dps and more fitting room, we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things.
.
I'm sorry but that is absolute nonsens. By no means does the utility high slot give this ship a stronger position in comparison to the old HAC or other HACs in particular. The drones are pretty much useless since their dmg output without certain boni is negligible. A stronger tank, ergo a 6th low would have been a considerably more useful change, allowing the ship to take a position as a truly heavy brawler. Now all it ends up to be is a slightly above average jack of all trades with NO PARTICULAR STRENGTHS. The ship deserves atleast one advantage over ships of similiar size and class to stand its own in the heat of Combat. Please reconsider your decision again. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
394
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:37:00 -
[1378] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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. You don't think that the Eagle is still doing an underwhelming amount of damage with only having 5 turrets and a single damage bonus? I get that optimal range is a Caldari thing, but that doesn't help the damage that the Eagle is going to put out. It should be given a 6th turret (with single damage bonus) or boost the damage bonus to 7.5% or even 10% per level.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:40:00 -
[1379] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Im not sure I understand the line of thinking here . . . Earlier in this thread, you said CCP Rise wrote: most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. Then later you made this comment about the Sacrilege . . . CCP Rise wrote:Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for its layout and bonuses but because of the power of the resist buff it's very easy for it to become too strong. We also really like that it tends to fit in to fleets as a ship with enormous utility rather than being all tank and gank like a lot of the other HACs. For that reason we really wanted to leave the utility high and the 4th mid. It would often make a better straight up brawler with another low, but by going the route we went of adding more drone dps and more fitting room, we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things. These two things seem to be in conflict with each other. I feel like these HACs should be super specialized, and im not sure being a "utility ship" is a specialization . . .
Common sense is still alive in the community. God bless you.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:44:00 -
[1380] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense. it must an AB Railgun thing... like it has the sig or speed to pull it off The eagle will still be the poor caldari HAC that everyone laughs at and would't waste 200mil + and the training time to use over a much cheaper and more effective Naga. how far does it shoot with null? could you do something like full rack of nuetron balsters 10mn ab tracking comp em hardner two invul large extender lows: dcu II TE 2 mag stabs rigs: bust accelerator shield expander though i do agree it really needs 25m3 and mb to be usefull
So it's like zealots but worse in every way. |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
752
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:45:00 -
[1381] - Quote
Not immediately HAC stuff but related.
Seems to a continuing issue when we foul players break the balancing work by sheild buffering armer hulls and vice versa and in an effort to make active tanking more viable you have now created several ships with tanks surpassing the dps available in the various classes.
So ..... I suggest a double whammy approach (while catering to my hatred for buffering in general and overbuffering in particular) by scrapping the repper boost from other thread and introducing a rule that says that a ships cannot gain more Hp from a buffer module than what it had prior to fitting it (essentially the same sort of calc that is done for resists) |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1194
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:49:00 -
[1382] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for its layout and bonuses but because of the power of the resist buff it's very easy for it to become too strong. We also really like that it tends to fit in to fleets as a ship with enormous utility rather than being all tank and gank like a lot of the other HACs. For that reason we really wanted to leave the utility high and the 4th mid. It would often make a better straight up brawler with another low, but by going the route we went of adding more drone dps and more fitting room, we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things.
.
I'm sorry but that is absolute nonsens. By no means does the utility high slot give this ship a stronger position in comparison to the old HAC or other HACs in particular. The drones are pretty much useless since their dmg output without certain boni is negligible. A stronger tank, ergo a 6th low would have been a considerably more useful change, allowing the ship to take a position as a truly heavy brawler. Now all it ends up to be is a slightly above average jack of all trades with NO PARTICULAR STRENGTHS. The ship deserves atleast one advantage over ships of similiar size and class to stand its own in the heat of Combat. Please reconsider your decision again.
i will play devils advocate for a min
a utlity high does mean it can fit a neut which goes with its close range hamm idea. also the drones can also be usefull as you can fit ecm drones or warriors to kill frigs.
now i do agree a 6th low would be great. but i feel that a utility is also usefull. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1194
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:52:00 -
[1383] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense. it must an AB Railgun thing... like it has the sig or speed to pull it off The eagle will still be the poor caldari HAC that everyone laughs at and would't waste 200mil + and the training time to use over a much cheaper and more effective Naga. how far does it shoot with null? could you do something like full rack of nuetron balsters 10mn ab tracking comp em hardner two invul large extender lows: dcu II TE 2 mag stabs rigs: bust accelerator shield expander though i do agree it really needs 25m3 and mb to be usefull So it's like zealots but worse in every way.
i still think a rof bounus instead of the damage bonus would be great and make it really good dps.
but i am at work can you please do a side by side comparison of the two.
advantages could be better tracking and kinetic damage. plus its shield not armor so insta RR on the ship plus should befaster then a ahac version of the zealot because it does not have plates... but then again it has big sig radius which makes it easy to hit. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:56:00 -
[1384] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
The more you remove non-standard bonuses that give some ships a unique flavor compared to their counterparts the harder it will be to convince "you guys" to add them in the future, and I don't necessarily see that as a good thing. Yes, combat ships should be about combat, but changing them so that they have no bonuses other than tank and spank would make EVE a bit duller.
CCP Rise wrote:It also fits really well racially compared to the cap use bonus which is sort of unusual.
The bonus functions as a capacitor amount bonus when HAC level x 5% > MWD capacitor amount penalty. This means that MWDs provide up to a 22% bonus to the deimos' capacitor amount which in addition to making it easier to fit and run said MWDs also allows the ship to run more active modules while making it less vulnerable to capacitor warfare tactics at the same time. If you're considering changing it based solely on thinking of it as a "cap use bonus" I would strongly suggest you reconsider doing so in light of both how it's not a "cap use bonus" per se and that it has wider applications.
I think that it would be nice to see the ship lose its "Diemost" appellation, but I'd rather it didn't lose the MWD bonus in doing so. However if that's the price that's required why not give it a 10% armor HP bonus instead of an overused repair bonus? It just dulls down the game and makes it less shiny when ship bonuses seem to devolve down to having a dozen different bonuses that are picked out by throwing darts at a board.
Tracking Optimal.......Capacitor Use Falloff......Damage.....Rate of Fire Rep.........Resistance.Drone
Aglais wrote:Wait: So the Cerberus' anti-frigate capabilities (unless RLMLs now actually pose a threat to things your own size) threaten to make it too strong, while ignoring HML and Assault missile performance? I'm not sure I'm getting this part here.
Compare rapid launchers with rage ammo to heavy launchers with T1 ammo. You do more damage with better damage application for the cost of missiles going about 12.8% slower. Given that light rage missiles still push 8.4km/s that's not as bad as the percentage might sound.
I believe that that's the concern right there, the part where RLML fits can use standard or precision ammo to take out the primary tackling frigates before swapping to rage to take out everything else and have solid to great damage application on smaller targets even if it doesn't have the maximum damage potential of HML or HAM fits.
Of course I haven't used RLMLs since the third or fourth month I've been playing, and I'm not much for PvP so I could be mistaken there. That's just the most logical reasoning for his statements that I can think of.
FT Diomedes wrote:Active rep bonuses need to go the way of the Dodo. Not sure how giving an active rep bonus to the Deimos makes it any better in real PVP situations.
To a large degree it doesn't, but it does benefit PvP in some "real" situations, and it does benefit PvE as well. IIRC it was in this topic or another that the developer posting stated that they have to balance the ships around PvE as well as PvP. Frankly though I see that as a reason to keep the MWD bonus and not replace it with something like a tanking bonus or a buffer bonus. The MWD bonus favors PvP and PvE fairly equally while tanking bonuses favor PvE and buffer bonuses favor PvP. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1194
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:57:00 -
[1385] - Quote
how about this for the eagle
EAGLE
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turrettracking 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire
Slot layout: 4H(-2), 6M(+1), 5L(+1); 4 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 990 PWG(+115), 440 CPU(+2) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1350(-25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.29/s (+1.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 200(+36) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km(+20km) / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 25 Gravimetric(+7) Signature radius: 120(-30)
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:00:00 -
[1386] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius 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. Shameless re-bump. Many agree this is a worthy idea. I hope you're reading this, CCP Rise. We can revive one of the most underpowered and underappreciated HACs in the game, without making it OP in any way, by implementing this redesign alone. Hear the prayer of every Amarr Victor and fix this darn ship.
THIS is still considered to be the best Solution for the Sacrilege and i'm going to push this further up if needs be. This ship deserves a well defined Role. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:03:00 -
[1387] - Quote
Give the Muninn and Eagle both a hefty trackign bonus and they might set them apart from the Tornado and Naga |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
939
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:16:00 -
[1388] - Quote
Give all HACs an AB speed bonus and the majority of people will be happy and the ships will be specialized/unique. Putting work in since 2010. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:20:00 -
[1389] - Quote
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.
Sales of HAC's in The Forge (March - May)
Zealot 6,013 Vagabond 4,465 Ishtar 4,315 Muninn 2,353 Deimos 1,801 Sacrilege 1,546 Cerberus 1,502 . . Eagle 610
As you can see from popularity of HACs, as shown by their relative sales, the Eagle isn't just the worst HAC it is the worst HAC by a considerable margin. You'd think it was going to get major updates with perhaps a changed or refined purpose:
- Is it a blaster platform based on its resist bonuses with added tracking and falloff bonuses..No apparently not.
- Is it a sniper platform to rival tornados based on its optimal range bonuses with added damage bonuses to improve its alpha..No apparently not.
...No its going to have a mixture; neither glass cannon nor brawler and, of course, RAILS.
Fixing rails will not specifically fix Eagles, may help; but most likely other ships, like Naga's, will be used instead like they are now.
I've posted this here so that I can come back an reference it in December when I can compare these results with the three months to November.
Let's see CCP games design team are up to scratch or if the Eagle post 1.1 is still languishing at the bottom of heap. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:21:00 -
[1390] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.
so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference.
The main issue with the vaga is that you can't even fit 425's which costs it 9km range and some dps 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Joker Dronemaster
Frontier Explorer's League Sadistica Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:32:00 -
[1391] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile As always with Fozzie and I there is only Soon no Soon tm If you feel cheated because of the Ishtar "only having three bonuses" you may want to consider that actually it has 7 Sentry drone optimal Sentry drone tracking Heavy drone mwd speed Heavy drone tracking Drone damage Drone hitpoints Drone control range Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvements for HACs makes the Ishtar look very scary.
Im of the opinion you should drop the sentry bonus completely and go with a 10% bonus to drone speed over the 7.5% Id rather have drones that keep up with my ship thats supposed to be about mobility; than have drones I'm going to have to leave behind. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1194
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:39:00 -
[1392] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.
so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference. The main issue with the vaga is that you can't even fit 425's which costs it 9km range and some dps
ok so how much pg is it short on? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:45:00 -
[1393] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.
so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference. The main issue with the vaga is that you can't even fit 425's which costs it 9km range and some dps ok so how much pg is it short on?
you have EFT/EVE HQ don't you ? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
246
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:50:00 -
[1394] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
I actually think that all of the advantages you cite for the vagabond are relatively weak, and you're strongly understating the strength of the RLM cerberus as a kiter when you make that comparison, Rise. Point-by-point:
1: The difference in speed and maneuverability between the vaga and the cerberus once you've actually fit them is smaller than it appears based on hull stats alone, since the cerberus can easily fit one or two nanos after fitting BCS, while the vaga needs its remaining lows for TEs and a damage control, so it can't readily fit additional speed mods. When you compare realistic kiting fits for the two ships, the cerberus is around 400 m/s slower while MWDing but has much better agility, which largely offsets the loss of raw speed. In addition, the cerb's superior projection further offsets its lower speed because it can start hurting things from much further away than the vaga can.
2: The utility high really isn't an advantage for the vaga at all, and the fact that it is required on the vaga but not the RLM cerb illustrates one of the latter's great strengths. The vaga needs a medium neut because if it gets scrammed by a frigate, it has no other options for getting away. The cerb can just smash the frigate to pieces with its main weapons, since they use frigate-sized ammo; it has a far more effective built-in frigate defence. The neut isn't a strength of the vaga; rather, the fact that it needs a neut reflects one of its biggest weaknesses.
3: Describing the vaga's damage projection as "slightly" lower than the cerb's is a rather strong understatement: with two damage mods on each (and the vaga having two TEs to boot, assuming it's fitting 220s and has barrage loaded), the cerberus starts outdamaging the vaga at 15 km. At 40 km (the edge of heated, skirmish-linked T2 point range after the 1.1 patch goes live), the cerberus is outdamaging the vaga by a factor of two. Phrases like "crushingly superior" seem more appropriate than "slight" under the circumstances.
4: You can fit an RLM cerberus with a full rack of launchers, a dual LSE/LASB tank, an MWD, two BCs, and two nanos with around 160 PG and 110 CPU to spare. On the vagabond, you don't even get enough grid to fit 220s, an LSE/LASB combo with an MWD, and a medium neut without needing a fitting implant.
Realistically, there's a lot of room for the vaga to be improved as a kiter before it comes close to the general capabilities of the RLM cerb. Something very similar happened with the RLM caracal and stabber in the first T1 cruiser buff: sure, the stabber was quicker than the RLM caracal and had more damage at point blank, but the speed difference became small once you started fitting nanos on the caracal, and the caracal's superior projection, greater array of midslot options, better tackle-killing ability, and much easier fitting made it into a far stronger kiting ship overall. As a result, no one flew the stabber. What you're doing with the vaga here is pretty much exactly what was done to the stabber - you're increasing its strength marginally while simultaneously introducing a massively superior alternative. Giving the vaga enough grid to fit a reasonable tank and 425s wouldn't make it overpowered, it'd just move it to a point where it'd be somewhat competitive with the new kid on the block.
:words: |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 20:58:00 -
[1395] - Quote
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.
This, what i think rise doesn't understand is that the vaga isn't in a competion against cerb(better range/mid damage) or the deimos(better damage/close range) ,what we need is the vaga we always wanted a ship that is fast and works in the medium range with so-so damage , what you are giving us is a 4 medium tanker close range ship with so-so damage
Why should we use that when we can use the SFI, hurricane or if you fit it like the old vaga why should we use it in favour of a cynabal?
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1417
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:01:00 -
[1396] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.
so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference. The main issue with the vaga is that you can't even fit 425's which costs it 9km range and some dps ok so how much pg is it short on? you have EFT/EVE HQ don't you ? Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75 425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6 Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693. I see plenty of grid left. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:01:00 -
[1397] - Quote
Heya Rise,
Would love to hear your thoughts on why there's no Minmatar Missile HAC. It's not an unpopular idea by any means. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
939
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:04:00 -
[1398] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.
so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference. The main issue with the vaga is that you can't even fit 425's which costs it 9km range and some dps ok so how much pg is it short on? you have EFT/EVE HQ don't you ? Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75 425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6 Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693. I see plenty of grid left.
yeah, plenty of grid to fit one MWD and nothing else...
Putting work in since 2010. |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:05:00 -
[1399] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:CCP Rise wrote: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. I actually think that all of the advantages you cite for the vagabond are relatively weak, and you're strongly understating the strength of the RLM cerberus as a kiter when you make that comparison, Rise. Point-by-point: 1: The difference in speed and maneuverability between the vaga and the cerberus once you've actually fit them is smaller than it appears based on hull stats alone, since the cerberus can easily fit one or two nanos after fitting BCS, while the vaga needs its remaining lows for TEs and a damage control, so it can't readily fit additional speed mods. When you compare realistic kiting fits for the two ships, the cerberus is around 400 m/s slower while MWDing but has much better agility, which largely offsets the loss of raw speed. In addition, the cerb's superior projection further offsets its lower speed because it can start hurting things from much further away than the vaga can. 2: The utility high really isn't an advantage for the vaga at all, and the fact that it is required on the vaga but not the RLM cerb illustrates one of the latter's great strengths. The vaga needs a medium neut because if it gets scrammed by a frigate, it has no other options for getting away. The cerb can just smash the frigate to pieces with its main weapons, since they use frigate-sized ammo; it has a far more effective built-in frigate defence. The neut isn't a strength of the vaga; rather, the fact that it needs a neut reflects one of its biggest weaknesses. 3: Describing the vaga's damage projection as "slightly" lower than the cerb's is a rather strong understatement: with two damage mods on each (and the vaga having two TEs to boot, assuming it's fitting 220s and has barrage loaded), the cerberus starts outdamaging the vaga at 15 km. At 40 km (the edge of heated, skirmish-linked T2 point range after the 1.1 patch goes live), the cerberus is outdamaging the vaga by a factor of two. Phrases like "crushingly superior" seem more appropriate than "slight" under the circumstances. 4: You can fit an RLM cerberus with a full rack of launchers, a dual LSE/LASB tank, an MWD, two BCS, and two nanos with around 160 PG and 110 CPU to spare. On the vagabond, you don't even get enough grid to fit 220s, an LSE/LASB combo with an MWD, and a medium neut without needing a fitting implant. Realistically, there's a lot of room for the vaga to be improved as a kiter before it comes close to the general capabilities of the RLM cerb. Something very similar happened with the RLM caracal and stabber in the first T1 cruiser buff: sure, the stabber was quicker than the RLM caracal and had more damage at point blank, but the speed difference became small once you started fitting nanos on the caracal, and the caracal's superior projection, greater array of midslot options, better tackle-killing ability, and much easier fitting made it into a far stronger kiting ship overall. As a result, no one flew the stabber. What you're doing with the vaga here is pretty much exactly what was done to the stabber - you're increasing its strength marginally while simultaneously introducing a massively superior alternative. Giving the vaga enough grid to fit a reasonable tank and 425s wouldn't make it overpowered, it'd just move it to a point where it'd be somewhat competitive with the new kid on the block. :words:
Also, This ^^ |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1195
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:08:00 -
[1400] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.
so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference. The main issue with the vaga is that you can't even fit 425's which costs it 9km range and some dps ok so how much pg is it short on? you have EFT/EVE HQ don't you ?
not at work. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:15:00 -
[1401] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.
so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference. The main issue with the vaga is that you can't even fit 425's which costs it 9km range and some dps ok so how much pg is it short on? you have EFT/EVE HQ don't you ? Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75 425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6 Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693. I see plenty of grid left.
Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
311
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:20:00 -
[1402] - Quote
I still think that the Zealot's cap reduction role should be factored into it's cap replenishment, seems hellaciously anti-amarr that every other weapon system is essentially recieving 2 bonuses from it's cruiser bonus set to their effectiveness in dishing out/apply DPS while the Zealot must continue to limp along like a bastard red-headed stepchild. maybe if it was a reduction to all cap using modules, it might make abit more sense, but deliberately having to give up what every other ship has as a weapon platform bonus for it definately doesn't seem to make much sense. Hell, it's Amarr made, shouldn't they have better insight into cap useage then this? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1417
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:20:00 -
[1403] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75 425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6 Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693. I see plenty of grid left.
Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD Wow so you can't fit full tank and full gank on you ships, such a tragedy. Looks like you will need to use fitting mods or just use resist mods rather than extenders. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:22:00 -
[1404] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75 425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6 Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693. I see plenty of grid left.
Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD Wow so you can't fit full tank and full gank on you ships, such a tragedy. Looks like you will need to use fitting mods or just use resist mods rather than extenders.
The point here being is the cynabal can do both.... 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1417
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:27:00 -
[1405] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75 425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6 Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693. I see plenty of grid left.
Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD Wow so you can't fit full tank and full gank on you ships, such a tragedy. Looks like you will need to use fitting mods or just use resist mods rather than extenders. The point here being is the cynabal can do both.... Wait so a pirate faction ship out classes a T2 ship much the way a navy ship outclasses a T1 ship, who would have thought. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
85
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:29:00 -
[1406] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CCP Rise wrote: 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.
Deimos armor: YES! Adding shields and taking away armor was a needless nerf to an already thinly tanked ship. Deimos bonus: I actually *like* the MWD bonus but understand im in the minority heh Vagabond: I'd venture that you're confused about the resistance because you're confused about the ship. The Vagabond is not the Hurricane. It's not a close range shield AC brawler that moonlights as an artillery platform. It's a kiting AC ship, fighting at the edge of point range. It's competition is not the Deimos (close range) or the Cerberus (any range). You're focusing too much on improving the Vaga's performance in a role it's not really suited to do with it's HP, fittings, and weapons layout (dual prop XL ASB fits are more of a novelty than a standard). Going from your proposed shield boost bonus to another fall off bonus will not impact the Vaga's close range brawling capabilities nor give it enough range to remotely compete against the Cerberus. But it WOULD return the Vaga's ability to fight competitively in the 20-25km, which is what soloers and small gangers (the people that use the vaga) are craving. The Vaga shouldnt be the best in all cases, but it should be the best in THAT case. Anything else and the breadth of the "value variance" is from little to nothing.
Well said! (emphasis mine) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:36:00 -
[1407] - Quote
Bottom line here Rise is that all your Threads are too conservative in the first round and only slightly less conservative in the second .... but too conservative nonetheless even the CSM/former CSM guys are telling you this .. yet all you say is where afraid.....
Too little gets changed in EVE because of the continuous conservative approach that is prevalent ... shakes head get a sense of adventure plow in there like you did with the geddon.. granted slightly too much on the neut range and let us gauge if you have gone too far. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
85
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 21:43:00 -
[1408] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Tsubutai wrote:CCP Rise wrote: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. I actually think that all of the advantages you cite for the vagabond are relatively weak, and you're strongly understating the strength of the RLM cerberus as a kiter when you make that comparison, Rise. Point-by-point: 1: The difference in speed and maneuverability between the vaga and the cerberus once you've actually fit them is smaller than it appears based on hull stats alone, since the cerberus can easily fit one or two nanos after fitting BCS, while the vaga needs its remaining lows for TEs and a damage control, so it can't readily fit additional speed mods. When you compare realistic kiting fits for the two ships, the cerberus is around 400 m/s slower while MWDing but has much better agility, which largely offsets the loss of raw speed. In addition, the cerb's superior projection further offsets its lower speed because it can start hurting things from much further away than the vaga can. 2: The utility high really isn't an advantage for the vaga at all, and the fact that it is required on the vaga but not the RLM cerb illustrates one of the latter's great strengths. The vaga needs a medium neut because if it gets scrammed by a frigate, it has no other options for getting away. The cerb can just smash the frigate to pieces with its main weapons, since they use frigate-sized ammo; it has a far more effective built-in frigate defence. The neut isn't a strength of the vaga; rather, the fact that it needs a neut reflects one of its biggest weaknesses. 3: Describing the vaga's damage projection as "slightly" lower than the cerb's is a rather strong understatement: with two damage mods on each (and the vaga having two TEs to boot, assuming it's fitting 220s and has barrage loaded), the cerberus starts outdamaging the vaga at 15 km. At 40 km (the edge of heated, skirmish-linked T2 point range after the 1.1 patch goes live), the cerberus is outdamaging the vaga by a factor of two. Phrases like "crushingly superior" seem more appropriate than "slight" under the circumstances. 4: You can fit an RLM cerberus with a full rack of launchers, a dual LSE/LASB tank, an MWD, two BCS, and two nanos with around 160 PG and 110 CPU to spare. On the vagabond, you don't even get enough grid to fit 220s, an LSE/LASB combo with an MWD, and a medium neut without needing a fitting implant. Realistically, there's a lot of room for the vaga to be improved as a kiter before it comes close to the general capabilities of the RLM cerb. Something very similar happened with the RLM caracal and stabber in the first T1 cruiser buff: sure, the stabber was quicker than the RLM caracal and had more damage at point blank, but the speed difference became small once you started fitting nanos on the caracal, and the caracal's superior projection, greater array of midslot options, better tackle-killing ability, and much easier fitting made it into a far stronger kiting ship overall. As a result, no one flew the stabber. What you're doing with the vaga here is pretty much exactly what was done to the stabber - you're increasing its strength marginally while simultaneously introducing a massively superior alternative. Giving the vaga enough grid to fit a reasonable tank and 425s wouldn't make it overpowered, it'd just move it to a point where it'd be somewhat competitive with the new kid on the block. :words: Also, This ^^
I second this! |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:07:00 -
[1409] - Quote
I agree, bonuses on vaga are fine! just give us more grid! |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
113
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:33:00 -
[1410] - Quote
Thorvik wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CCP Rise wrote: 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.
Deimos armor: YES! Adding shields and taking away armor was a needless nerf to an already thinly tanked ship. Deimos bonus: I actually *like* the MWD bonus but understand im in the minority heh Vagabond: I'd venture that you're confused about the resistance because you're confused about the ship. The Vagabond is not the Hurricane. It's not a close range shield AC brawler that moonlights as an artillery platform. It's a kiting AC ship, fighting at the edge of point range. It's competition is not the Deimos (close range) or the Cerberus (any range). You're focusing too much on improving the Vaga's performance in a role it's not really suited to do with it's HP, fittings, and weapons layout (dual prop XL ASB fits are more of a novelty than a standard). Going from your proposed shield boost bonus to another fall off bonus will not impact the Vaga's close range brawling capabilities nor give it enough range to remotely compete against the Cerberus. But it WOULD return the Vaga's ability to fight competitively in the 20-25km, which is what soloers and small gangers (the people that use the vaga) are craving. The Vaga shouldnt be the best in all cases, but it should be the best in THAT case. Anything else and the breadth of the "value variance" is from little to nothing. Well said! (emphasis mine) Quoting all but mostly responding to what Alek says.
The Vaga can't be the 'best' in mid range at damage projection and killing stuff. Why do people keep forgetting or ignoring that that hull is undisputedly the best at disengaging from mid-range fights and thus having a major strength in non-tank survivability and the picking and choosing of engagements. That is huge. If the Vaga keeps that AND also has the best mid-range damage/projection then no one will ever fly another hull in that category ever - people naturally don't like losing ships.
So you get your risk adverse, frigate speed, destroyer sized fun-mobile. You just have to balance that with reasonable DPS and projection trade-offs.
The Cynabal is going to be sorted. CCP Rise already stated that. It isn't a reason for the Vaga to be buffed beyond this proposal and if that means everyone only flies Cynabals instead of Vagas because of that, I don't see the problem. It would probably hasten the balance priority on that hull. |
|
Glippo
The Gaping Maw Heretic Initiative
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:53:00 -
[1411] - Quote
CCP Rise... The EAGLE!!!. It is the worst HAC (by far) for a reason. And you have changed approximately nothing. It will remain the worst HAC. There are no viable roles for it. The only thing it was ever used for was as a Beagle, why not emphasize that? You want it to be a sniper? Have you heard of the Naga?
Rise, i implore you, fix the Eagle. You cannot take the worst HAC in game change nothing and expect it to be better ( yes i know about the medium rail changes). To start you off i suggest removing that Ridiculous double optimal range bonus. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 22:59:00 -
[1412] - Quote
Glippo wrote:CCP Rise... The EAGLE!!!. It is the worst HAC (by far) for a reason. And you have changed approximately nothing. It will remain the worst HAC. There are no viable roles for it. The only thing it was ever used for was as a Beagle, why not emphasize that? You want it to be a sniper? Have you heard of the Naga?
Rise, i implore you, fix the Eagle. You cannot take the worst HAC in game change nothing and expect it to be better ( yes i know about the medium rail changes). To start you off i suggest removing that Ridiculous double optimal range bonus.
Well actually i think the 2nd op bonus is useful as a beagle lacks much falloff a double damage bonus or even a 10% ROF is what it needs along with the speed/agility and an extra low for TE's and nano's. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
164
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:04:00 -
[1413] - Quote
Hashi Lebwohl wrote: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.
Sales of HAC's in The Forge (March - May) Zealot 6,013 Vagabond 4,465 Ishtar 4,315 Muninn 2,353 Deimos 1,801 Sacrilege 1,546 Cerberus 1,502 . . Eagle 610 As you can see from popularity of HACs, as shown by their relative sales, the Eagle isn't just the worst HAC it is the worst HAC by a considerable margin. You'd think it was going to get major updates with perhaps a changed or refined purpose:
- Is it a blaster platform based on its resist bonuses with added tracking and falloff bonuses..No apparently not.
- Is it a sniper platform to rival tornados based on its optimal range bonuses with added damage bonuses to improve its alpha..No apparently not.
...No its going to have a mixture; neither glass cannon nor brawler and, of course, RAILS. Fixing rails will not specifically fix Eagles, may help; but most likely other ships, like Naga's, will be used instead like they are now. I've posted this here so that I can come back an reference it in December when I can compare these results with the three months to November. Let's see CCP games design team are up to scratch or if the Eagle post 1.1 is still languishing at the bottom of heap. You seem a little bit lost. When Rise says "I think they are probably both in really good shape" he's referring to the alterations made in this thread, and the alterations to medium long range guns in another thread, not to current stats on the ships and sales of them on Tranquility.
As for your ABC v sniper HAC argument it applies to almost all of them, not just the Naga v Eagle.
At least the stats on the proposed Cerb are likely to get revised downward in some way. And that is a good thing. Start by removing the proposed drone bay. Give the 15m3 drone bays to the Eagle and Zealot. Then reexamine the difference in agility between the Sac and the Cerb. As for RLM launcher Cerbs, I don't know what you can do other than modifying the launchers directly. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1195
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:06:00 -
[1414] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Glippo wrote:CCP Rise... The EAGLE!!!. It is the worst HAC (by far) for a reason. And you have changed approximately nothing. It will remain the worst HAC. There are no viable roles for it. The only thing it was ever used for was as a Beagle, why not emphasize that? You want it to be a sniper? Have you heard of the Naga?
Rise, i implore you, fix the Eagle. You cannot take the worst HAC in game change nothing and expect it to be better ( yes i know about the medium rail changes). To start you off i suggest removing that Ridiculous double optimal range bonus. Well actually i think the 2nd op bonus is useful as a beagle lacks much falloff a double damage bonus or even a 10% ROF is what it needs along with the speed/agility and an extra low for TE's and nano's.
ok how about this
EAGLE
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5 4H(-2), 6M(+1), 5L(+1); 4 turrets (-1), 2 launchers Fittings: 990 PWG(+115), 440 CPU(+2) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1350(-25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.29/s (+1.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 180(+16) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km(+20km) / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 25 Gravimetric(+7) Signature radius: 130(-20) There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
DJ FunkyBacon
Eve Radio Corporation
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:11:00 -
[1415] - Quote
CCP Rise will be joining me on Eve Radio (http://eve-radio.com) at midnight tonight (less than an hour from this posting) and we will be discussing these HAC changes among other things. |
masternerdguy
Inner Shadow C.L.O.N.E.
1252
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:14:00 -
[1416] - Quote
Cerbs are the new Talwars.
The dawning of Cerbfleet is at hand, the apocalypse is neigh. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:14:00 -
[1417] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:Glippo wrote:CCP Rise... The EAGLE!!!. It is the worst HAC (by far) for a reason. And you have changed approximately nothing. It will remain the worst HAC. There are no viable roles for it. The only thing it was ever used for was as a Beagle, why not emphasize that? You want it to be a sniper? Have you heard of the Naga?
Rise, i implore you, fix the Eagle. You cannot take the worst HAC in game change nothing and expect it to be better ( yes i know about the medium rail changes). To start you off i suggest removing that Ridiculous double optimal range bonus. Well actually i think the 2nd op bonus is useful as a beagle lacks much falloff a double damage bonus or even a 10% ROF is what it needs along with the speed/agility and an extra low for TE's and nano's. ok how about this EAGLE Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage Slot layout: 5 4H(-2), 6M(+1), 5L(+1); 4 turrets (-1), 2 launchers Fittings: 990 PWG(+115), 440 CPU(+2) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1350(-25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.29/s (+1.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 180(+16) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km(+20km) / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 25 Gravimetric(+7) Signature radius: 130(-20)
No cos you're removing dps with that -1 turret... either remove a mid to a low or CCP needs to add an 16th slot to the low.. not likely mind. tracking bonus combined with blasters would be OP i suspect and without the second op bonus its range would be a little low.. just look at a ferox with null. and it needs at least 200m/s and more agility/less mass either or.
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sigras
Conglomo
483
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:18:00 -
[1418] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75 425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6 Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693. I see plenty of grid left.
Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD Wow so you can't fit full tank and full gank on you ships, such a tragedy. Looks like you will need to use fitting mods or just use resist mods rather than extenders. The point here being is the cynabal can do both.... Thats a case for the cynabal needing a nerf not the vaga needing a buff.
1068.75 PG base - 693 PG for guns leaves 375.75 for other stuff MWD is 150 PG leaving 225.75 left for other stuff a large F-s9 is 112.5 PG leaving 113.25
This means that you can fit 2 LSEs if one of your lows is a PDS or an RCU, or you can make your other mid slot an invulnerability field.
I mean I would like a deimos with 5 neutron blasters an MWD and a 1600mm RRTP but we cant have everything that we want.
Games are all about making tradeoffs, so start making them |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1195
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:26:00 -
[1419] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
No cos you're removing dps with that -1 turret... either remove a mid to a low or CCP needs to add an 16th slot to the low.. not likely mind. tracking bonus combined with blasters would be OP i suspect and without the second op bonus its range would be a little low.. just look at a ferox with null. and it needs at least 200m/s and more agility/less mass either or.
true it does go down to 6 turrets from 6.25 but tracking and 5 light drones should take care of this.
you could go 4 neutron II Null
10 mn ab II Tracking comp Em harner II Invul II Large shield expander II medium cap booster II 800
dcu II te II 3 mag stab II
bust accelorator shield expending rig
5 warrior II 5 ecm 300
that would be a pretty solid ship. good damage great projection now all it needs is a little more speed. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
113
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:28:00 -
[1420] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:I actually think that all of the advantages you cite for the vagabond are relatively weak, and you're strongly understating the strength of the RLM cerberus as a kiter when you make that comparison, Rise. Point-by-point:
1: The difference in speed and maneuverability between the vaga and the cerberus once you've actually fit them is smaller than it appears based on hull stats alone, since the cerberus can easily fit one or two nanos after fitting BCS, while the vaga needs its remaining lows for TEs and a damage control, so it can't readily fit additional speed mods. When you compare realistic kiting fits for the two ships, the cerberus is around 400 m/s slower while MWDing but has much better agility, which largely offsets the loss of raw speed. In addition, the cerb's superior projection further offsets its lower speed because it can start hurting things from much further away than the vaga can.
2: The utility high really isn't an advantage for the vaga at all, and the fact that it is required on the vaga but not the RLM cerb illustrates one of the latter's great strengths. The vaga needs a medium neut because if it gets scrammed by a frigate, it has no other options for getting away. The cerb can just smash the frigate to pieces with its main weapons, since they use frigate-sized ammo; it has a far more effective built-in frigate defence. The neut isn't a strength of the vaga; rather, the fact that it needs a neut reflects one of its biggest weaknesses.
3: Describing the vaga's damage projection as "slightly" lower than the cerb's is a rather strong understatement: with two damage mods on each (and the vaga having two TEs to boot, assuming it's fitting 220s and has barrage loaded), the cerberus starts outdamaging the vaga at 15 km. At 40 km (the edge of heated, skirmish-linked T2 point range after the 1.1 patch goes live), the cerberus is outdamaging the vaga by a factor of two. Phrases like "crushingly superior" seem more appropriate than "slight" under the circumstances.
4: You can fit an RLM cerberus with a full rack of launchers, a dual LSE/LASB tank, an MWD, two BCS, and two nanos with around 160 PG and 110 CPU to spare. On the vagabond, you don't even get enough grid to fit 220s, an LSE/LASB combo with an MWD, and a medium neut without needing a fitting implant.
I actually think you are choosing really narrow perspectives to reflect on the situation in order to support your arguments in a blind attempt to get the Vaga buffed.
1: 400 m/s is a MASSIVE margin and without knowing the exact fits you are cherry picking I would just like to highlight you are talking about the difference between an un-speed modified hull against one with two speed mods. A double nano'd ship has great agility? No doubt. Your example clearly illustrates just how massive the Vaga speed superiority is.
2: You are vastly understating the utility of a med neut. The fact that the Vaga seems to get to include it in every fit by default illustrates a huge strength of the hull. If the shield Zealot could have that med neut utility it would be a mid-range powerhouse and we would be having a different conversation. The lack of that and drones is what keeps the excellent damage projection of med lasers with scorch in check. So you really don't have much cause to write off the impact of that med neut as some kind of default setting - and we haven't talked about the Vaga's drone bay at all... Should we bring that up for anti-frig utility?
3: This is of course the trade off for projectiles. With more range your damage is reduced. You want to out damage a cerb then close range to increase it. There is a give and take to missile vs turret and you are asking for a hull to essentially cancel this out? 0-whatever range flat damage application is a missile characteristic, and the crossover point with Vaga ACs is fine. And that is without thinking about projectile damage selection vs cerb kinetic. Or the ability to pilot in a way that increases damage application. etc. etc.
4: RLML would be the smallest med missile weapon system. You can't draw a straight equivalence - but how does the fit comparison go with 180s? Or go invul with an extender or LASB. Or use that fitting implant. Or drop the med neut. Your fitting baseline for the two ships is completely scewed. I haven't checked it myself but what does HAM cerb fitting look like against 425 Vaga out of curiosity?
The Vaga is one of the fastest, most capable, get out of jail free cards in the entire cruiser lineup. I am glad the cerb is getting buffed and maybe it will end up needed to be drawn back again if RLM make it out of line, but it is NOT a compelling argument to shoehorn in more Vaga buffs. Sig, cap, sensors, all of that is more than enough for this hull to make it interesting, flown (post cynabal nerf), and balanced. And you even get bonus flexibility to make it into a tanking/brawling ASB beast if you want without impacting that mid range utility at all. |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
271
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:30:00 -
[1421] - Quote
I'm glad so many people are posting there thoughts on the Vaga, it gives me hope that an application bonus or something to similarly help damage at point range is on the cards to help deal with the massive DPS issue the hull has.
On the subject of the Eagle, I posted a fit a while back which I will grab;
[Eagle, Rail] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Large Shield Extender II
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
It looks like a not unpromising ship, the resist bonus means that under Vulture links you only need 1 Hardener and a DCU to get good overall resists, this lets you use the mids for buffer and range, it has some 85k EHP omni and a fairly amazing 130K EHP Vs Nagas and it does 414DPS out to 79+25 with Uranium.
The key with the Eagle is clearing hostile support quickly, in an even fight with ABCS things would be roughly equal, the ABCs having more DPS and the Eagles having way lower sigs and massive EHP/Resists, over time the ABCs would probably win out due to sheer alpha potential. The key is when support (webbing/painting specifically) begins to be killed off or forced from the field, as Huginn webs/painters begin to tail off the Eagles gain a massive advantage due to their low sigs.
I honestly think its not a bad hull as it currently is. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2427
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 23:34:00 -
[1422] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
An Armor Rep bonused Deimos with some of it's Armor HP returned sounds like an excellent change, especially with the new slot layout. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
656
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 00:34:00 -
[1423] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75 425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6 Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693. I see plenty of grid left.
Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD Wow so you can't fit full tank and full gank on you ships, such a tragedy. Looks like you will need to use fitting mods or just use resist mods rather than extenders.
The Deimos can fit MWD, 2x LSE, Disrupt, and a full rack of Heavy Neutrons T2.
That's full tank and full gank.
The same Deimos can fit MWD, 2x LSE, Disrupt and a full rack of long-range 250mm Railguns.
That's full tank and full gank. Not a single fitting mod used on both of those setups.
The Zealot can fit his top-guns + 2 LSEs + MWD without a care in the world aswell.
The Fleet Stabber can fit 425mms and 2 LSEs and a MWD too.
So yeah. You're wrong on this one. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
312
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 00:56:00 -
[1424] - Quote
more talk about the Zealot and that idiotic cap need modifier!
Also, fit armor to the zealot, like, really, shoot yourself in the foot for putting that shield tank on it :P |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 00:59:00 -
[1425] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: Vega starts with 855MW of power grid with skills it is 1068.75 425mm autocannon II uses 154MW of power grid with skills 138.6 Vega has 5 turret hard points meaning power grid usage for T2 425mm autocannons is 693. I see plenty of grid left.
Yes you're missing the other main pg users being a medium neut , 2 LSE 2's and MWD Wow so you can't fit full tank and full gank on you ships, such a tragedy. Looks like you will need to use fitting mods or just use resist mods rather than extenders. The Deimos can fit MWD, 2x LSE, Disrupt, and a full rack of Heavy Neutrons T2. That's full tank and full gank. The same Deimos can fit MWD, 2x LSE, Disrupt and a full rack of long-range 250mm Railguns. That's full tank and full gank. Not a single fitting mod used on both of those setups. The Zealot can fit his top-guns + 2 LSEs + MWD without a care in the world aswell. The Fleet Stabber can fit 425mms and 2 LSEs and a MWD too. So yeah. You're wrong on this one.
Except the Zealot is not a shield tanker, it's an armor tanker. And it CANNOT fit a full rack of HPLIIs, an MWD and a 1600mm plate without a fitting mod.
The new Deimos with all V skills actually CANNOT fit a MWD, 2xLSE and 250mm rails unless you downgrade to meta 4 LSEs. And with only 3 mids the Deimos is more of an armor tanker, and it likewise cannot fit top tier blasters or rails, a MWD and a 1600mm plate without fitting mods. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
312
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 01:08:00 -
[1426] - Quote
Then again, I'm the smart ass that would go and only fit a DC II to it for tank, then set it up to take full advantage of it's kite-ability :P |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 01:42:00 -
[1427] - Quote
While I'm not normally and active armor tanker, I think Rise's idea for the Deimos is good one. If the Deimos gets back its base armor with an active rep bonus, I'd look forward to experimenting with tha. And, it wouldn't hamper the buffer I normally fit anyway when I have logi, so I think it sounds like a good idea. Electrons, cap booster, AAR, 800mm? I'm not where I can do the math. But, if that fits, it could make for a solid brawling option. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
851
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 01:45:00 -
[1428] - Quote
Rofl, the Cerb is not OP. The other HACs just blow in comparison (see vaga). Ok so the cerb becomes a frig murdering monster... So what :roll:
And I like how Rise just ignores the fact that minmatar is now supposed to have a clear missile ship progression, and this applies to every ship class but not HACs? |
Daide Vondrichnov
Aggressive Behaviours Nap or War
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 02:11:00 -
[1429] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:While I'm not normally an active armor tanker, I think Rise's idea for the Deimos is good one. If the Deimos gets back its base armor with an active rep bonus, I'd look forward to experimenting with that. And, it wouldn't hamper the buffer I normally fit anyway when I have logi, so I think it sounds like a good idea. Electrons, cap booster, AAR, 800mm? I'm not where I can do the math. But, if that fits, it could make for a solid brawling option.
No.
This mwd cap bonus is good dont touch it, the fact is you have more capa with a mwd fitted on this ship and it can be perma runned something that a vagabond can't do.
I think if ccp remove it, it will decrease a lot his power as a shield kiter, i've do some test and it can be better than the actual vagabond with a little less speed but more dps and tank and a nice cap. |
DJ FunkyBacon
Eve Radio Corporation
159
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 02:24:00 -
[1430] - Quote
Thanks for joining us tonight. I'm serious, 5-3-7 Deimos. It'd be a winner :P Loving the active rep bonus, Gallente really need a speedy skirmisher, and the Deimos is setting up to be the one with so many other ships focused on medium blaster brawling.
For those interested, you can catch the whole show at: http://www.eve-radio.com/radio/rewind
FunkyBacon Saturday 00:00 3rd of August 2013
We get to HACs at about the 1 hour mark. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1196
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 02:43:00 -
[1431] - Quote
So from what i heard the Deimos will loose some shield and gain a bunch of armor.
more then likely the slot laywout will stay the same and the mwd bonus will be built in the this and we will gain a 7.5% to armor rep amount
rise said he wanted the diemos to fullfill some new role as a kiting active armor repairing mwd cap boosting 250 II javelin beast..
to do this the armor repair bonus needs to include a reduction in cap activation cost as well or else the ship will drain way to much cap to actually be "operational".
i still think the best thing for the diemos would be 4 4 7 but it seems nostalgia will cause the ship to keep 5 4 6
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 02:43:00 -
[1432] - Quote
Quote:No.This mwd cap bonus is good dont touch it, the fact is you have more capa with a mwd fitted on this ship and it can be perma runned something that a vagabond can't do.I think if ccp remove it, it will decrease a lot his power as a shield kiter, i've do some test and it can be better than the actual vagabond with less speed but more dps and tank and a nice cap.
As Rise stated, it's being moved back towards brawling, something I, for one, am very happy about. Gallente already have solid skirmishers in the Talos and very diverse hulls like the Ishtar. As a brawler, the MWD is somewhat of a waste. If you don't manage your field position to only need one or two cycles before landing in scram range, you are probably in a fight you can't win anyway. And, once you do start to brawl, the MWD bonus is unused anyway. If it's a brawling ship, all bonuses being applicable while brawling is a good thing. That's my opinion, though. Yours may differ. |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 02:50:00 -
[1433] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:And I like how Rise just ignores the fact that minmatar is now supposed to have a clear missile ship progression, and this applies to every ship class but not HACs?
It also doesn't apply to marauders, black ops, heavy interdictors, logistics (for obvious reasons though), interdictors (even though all other interdictors have at least one missile bonus), covert ops (not stealth bomber), assault ship, electronic attack ships, or interceptors. In point of fact the only T2 classes that have a ship with missile bonuses are recon ships with the huginn and command ships with the claymore, and that's a proposed change for 1.1, not something actually in the game just yet.
I'm not against the idea of the Minmatar ships having one T2 missile ship in each size class, but right now they've already got one missile-bonused T2 cruiser and there's one on the plates for command ships. You might be better off trying to push for the huginn getting turned into a completely missile-bonused ship, and even that has the problem of being a Boundless Creation ship, not like the soon-to-be-a-missile-platform Claymore which is a Core Complexion ship. The scimitar, broadsword, and rapier are the CC cruiser hulls, and the scimitar's out of the running for being a missile platform for obvious reasons while turning the rapier into one would be problematic as well.
I'd also be interesting in learning where someone from CCP said, or even indicated, that they intended that there be "a clear missile ship progression" in T2 hulls as well as T1. I'm not saying you're wrong about that, mind you, I'd just like to read it myself to see what sort of context it might have been in. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
313
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 03:21:00 -
[1434] - Quote
side note, but the proposed Amarr Command Ship with the resist bonuses will also have missile bonuses. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
324
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 04:03:00 -
[1435] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Rofl, the Cerb is not OP. The other HACs just blow in comparison (see vaga). Ok so the cerb becomes a frig murdering monster... So what One could say that it is the ships "role"
Yeah, I find the 'Oh no we're not tweaking it more because it'll murder with RLMLs' to be absolutely hilarious.
Take that bonus to RLMLs off. This is a HAC, not a Destroyer. Make it best against it's own size class or larger. If I want a dedicated frig killer, I'll buy a destroyer, or even other frigates.
To be honest? I think the Cerberus still needs a few tweaks. It's not as completely worthless as it is currently (what with being outperformed or on par with the Caracal in almost every field but range).
The Eagle on the other hand is still an unmitigated catastrophe. |
Oreb Wing
Arm of Coryphaeus
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 04:44:00 -
[1436] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Some positive changes there.
I still don't understand why you maintain the 4/5/5 setup on the Ishtar, though and not go 4/4/6 to get away from the predominant shieldtank - which is what the Gila is there for.
The heavy drone bonus might be useful one day - if you ever get to fix heavy/med drones in general, so they don't die while warping to their targets (or back into the drone bay in PvE).
For Omni mods. Keep the 5 mids, as an Ishtar would carry them better than a shield Gila. Awesome changes. The Domi made me a believer! Baby Domi ftw! I wonder what Javelin falloff on 250mm Deimos would be with a TC (tracking script) and TE... |
Natalia Sidorovich
Blinding Lucidity
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 05:17:00 -
[1437] - Quote
CCP Rise, I am in love with the current Deimos changes. Gallente has enough brawlers in my opinion, so if you do go ahead and add the rep bonus/armor hp, please make sure the shield rail fit stays as awesome as it looks now. By this I mean roll the mwd cap bonus into the hull somehow, and don't lower the shield hp too much (or at all, don't see how making both options good hurts)
That said, I'm in the camp that favors a tracking bonus over a rep bonus. Improves brawling and kiting.
Either way, the gallente hacs seem very flexible and have me excited! |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
249
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 06:34:00 -
[1438] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:1: 400 m/s is a MASSIVE margin...
2: You are vastly understating the utility of a med neut.... you really don't have much cause to write off the impact of that med neut as some kind of default setting - and we haven't talked about the Vaga's drone bay at all...
3: ...the crossover point with Vaga ACs is fine. And that is without thinking about projectile damage selection vs cerb kinetic....
4: RLML would be the smallest med missile weapon system. You can't draw a straight equivalence - but how does the fit comparison go with 180s?
The vaga and cerberus fits I'm comparing are these:
[NEW Cerberus, RLML - LSE LASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150 Large Shield Extender II Warp Disruptor II
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Warrior II x3
[NEW Vagabond, LSE LASB PG hardwiring] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150 Warp Disruptor II
220mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II
Warrior II x5
without heat on anything but the LASBs, they have the following stats: Vaga - 2.45 km/s, 7.8s align (MWD on), 25k EHP + 605 dps burst tank (43k EHP before ASB reload), 428 dps at 3.2+35 km, 7m49s cap running mwd and point Cerb - 2.05 km/s, 5.6s align (MWD on), 29k EHP + 414 dps burst tank (42k EHP before ASB reload), 403 dps at <71.2 km, 59m cap running mwd and point
As you can see, fitting the nanos costs the cerb essentially nothing relative to the vaga in terms of tank and damage, whereas replacing any of the vaga's low slot mods with a nano would dramatically reduce its tank or its damage output/projection. As for saying that 400 m/s is a "massive margin", it's not nothing, but you're overstating its value. The important thing for a kiting ship isn't that you have to outrun everything, it's that you have to outrun everything you can't quickly kill or force off. The cerb is more than fast enough and has more than enough applied damage at range to drive off or kill the things that can catch it - RLMs are of course very good at killing off frigates, and any cruiser fast enough to outrun the cerb will (a) only be a few hundred m/s faster at best, so it'll take a long time to run down a cerb that's burning away, and (b) won't have much tank, so it'll be in deep trouble by the time it has caught up since the cerberus will have been putting its full damage on the incoming tackler for the entire duration of its approach.
I'm not sure why you think I'm understating the utility of the med neut - I specifically said it's vital for the vagabond because it needs a way to defend itself against frigates that get close. What I said was that it doesn't constitute an advantage over the cerberus because the cerberus has a better built-in frigate defence: it can kill frigates at any range with its primary weapon system. If a vaga (or a kitey zealot, for that matter) could reliably use its guns to kill scramming frigates in a tight orbit, it wouldn't need the neut either. As for the vaga's drone bay, it has a grand total of 10m3/mbit more than the cerb, and if you really think that two extra warrior IIs/EC-300s are as useful or better than six heavily bonused light missile launchers for killing frigates, then I really don't know what to say to you.
Also, I'm not asking for the vaga to match the cerb's projection - letting it fit 425s would push the point at which the RLM cerb overtakes the vaga's damage from around 15 km to around 18 km, not bring it up to par. On top of that, it's hugely misleading to hold up the vagabond's ability to swap damage types as an advantage over the cerb. The vaga absolutely needs to use barrage to get acceptable dps at kiting ranges: at 25 km, barrage + warriors on the 220mm fit gets you 319 dps; RF EMP gives only 249. For comparative purposes, the cerb's dps when using non-kinetic missiles at the same range goes from 403 to 332 - it outdamages the barrage vaga at kiting ranges even when not using its kinetic bonus.
Finally, yes RLMs are the smallest cruiser-class launchers and the easiest to fit. However, whereas the different medium turrets are basically down- or up-scaled versions of one-another and have basically similar properties, the three cruiser-class launcher systems differ wildly in terms of range as well as raw and applied damage; RLMs are not scaled down HAMs or HMLs, they're a completely different weapon system. I don't fit them on missile cruisers as a way of addressing fitting issues, I fit them because I consider them to be the optimal cruiser launchers for kiting, in the same way that HAMs are optimal for brawling. Conversely, the only reason for fitting anything less than 425s on a kiting AC ship is to deal with fitting problems. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3223
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 08:40:00 -
[1439] - Quote
Was it really a must to drop the utility highs from the Ishtar?
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:40:00 -
[1440] - Quote
Please, tracking bonus on the Deimos. I really don't know what more to say that isn't repeating myself. Active armor tanking is better than the MWD bonus (and I'm glad you've backed down from that) but only because the MWD bonus is literally useless; active tanking bonuses are useful only in one extremely limited situation and force you to either pigeonhole a ship or leave it at a disadvantage against ships that aren't saddled with dead weight bonuses. (I don't care for the one on the Vaga either, but it at least has the absurdity that is ASBs in its favor.)
Again, the Muninn combined tracking and falloff when artillery was by far the best long-range medium weapon system, and it wasn't exactly OP.
Besides, anyone who doesn't want "just a better Thorax" with t2 resists, 20km Null and a sweet color scheme is a crazy person. |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
120
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:43:00 -
[1441] - Quote
This thread has com donw to people who have flown the vagabond saying it is bad, arguing with people who have never flown a vagabond saying it is good. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
851
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:49:00 -
[1442] - Quote
Lol.
Just because some kid gets murdered in his T1 frig by a vaga doesn't mean it is a good ship. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:51:00 -
[1443] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:This thread has com donw to people who have flown the vagabond saying it is bad, arguing with people who have never flown a vagabond saying it is good. or kiddoes want an overpowered ship which is the best in every situation
vaga seems more than fine for its role |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
851
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:53:00 -
[1444] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:This thread has com donw to people who have flown the vagabond saying it is bad, arguing with people who have never flown a vagabond saying it is good. or kiddoes want an overpowered ship which is the best in every situation vaga seems more than fine for its role
WTF is its role?
Brawler / Kiter ? |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:58:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Quote:WTF is its role?
Brawler / Kiter ?
I make no case for or against the current vagabond since I don't fly it. But, I've always (perhaps naively) trusted that the in-game descriptions of ships at least halfway accurately described its role. It's why I make the case for the Deimos as a blaster boat. It's billed as the ultimate blaster boat in it's own description. So, I read the Vaga's description and see it fitting the role of a kiting ship.
Does it not fill that role effectively now? If not, what would make it do so? |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
851
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:00:00 -
[1446] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:WTF is its role?
Brawler / Kiter ? I make no case for or against the current vagabond since I don't fly it. But, I've always (perhaps naively) trusted that the in-game descriptions of ships at least halfway accurately described its role. It's why I make the case for the Deimos as a blaster boat. It's billed as the ultimate blaster boat in it's own description. So, I read the Vaga's description and see it fitting the role of a kiting ship. Does it not fill that role effectively now? If not, what would make it do so?
It has really terrible damage projection, and fitting. Now we are getting an active tanking bonus. Something that belongs on brawler ships. Couple that active tanking bonus with terrible fitting and 4 mid slots and you get players saying WTF. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:06:00 -
[1447] - Quote
Quote:It has really terrible damage projection, and fitting. Now we are getting an active tanking bonus. Something that belongs on brawler ships.
Isn't it normally the case that shield bonused ships have less PG due to shields requiring less PG than armor? |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
852
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:22:00 -
[1448] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:It has really terrible damage projection, and fitting. Now we are getting an active tanking bonus. Something that belongs on brawler ships. Isn't it normally the case that shield bonused ships have less PG due to shields requiring less PG than armor?
Yeah, well the vaga can barely fit anything with its current PG. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
120
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:22:00 -
[1449] - Quote
For example, a cerb puts out 400+dps at 40+km, a zealot does the same, a omen does over 400dps at 30km, a caracal does 350 to 40 or so, a raildeimos/vigliant easly tops that while beeing able to fit and and use their lows for something usefull.
The vaga was good in a age where missiles where crap, where blaster where only good inside 10km and where abcs didnt exist, at that time its 300+ dps at 20km paired with its high speed meant it was a good ship.
But then came the power creep, everything nowadays does more dps at more range, and then came the speed creep, (and the frig buff) everything now is a lot faster then it used to be, nearly all t1 cruiser now break 1.9km/s, navy ones have no problem reaching 2.4km/s the vaga now simply is to slow to be the ulitmate speed mobile, this is due to having to use turrets which means it can use any lows (or rigs) for speed modules.
And lets not forget that acs are guns, they have tracking, missile hit everywhere. And now comes the deaths entence for the vaga, most better kiting gangs have access to a link alt (this is a fact), meaning that where the kiting ships usually are is at 30-40km, a place where the vagabond simply has no dps.
What the vaga needs is more range so it can perform at 30-40km, and more speed do it can actually stay at that range. Ypu can get the more range thing via slot additions, i.e a extra mid (tracking computer replaces one low, = one more lowslot) or lowslot for nanofibers/ods or via a falt speed increase.
This leaves the range as a problem, there are 3 solutions, 1. give it a second faloff bonus, + increasing its dps by 50or so (+ a bit more fitting for 425s). 2. Give it a massive grid bonus and a tracking bonus, this would enable it as a arty kiting ship. 3. Change its weapons to missiles.
I think 1 is the best option. to finalize the vaga, remove the shield bonus, add a second falloff bonus (or double the falloff bonus and give it the shield one, if you want to keep that), give the vaga 1 more lowslot (can remove the utility high if you want, a medium neut isnt worth as much as people think) or increase its speed.
This means it wont break brawling ships, a good brawler will still beat it, it also wont annoy on lazor ships as they still would do more dps at high ranges and missile still have their no tracking bonus so they still would be a valid option. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
855
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:08:00 -
[1450] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: This leaves the range as a problem, there are 3 solutions, 1. give it a second faloff bonus, + increasing its dps by 50or so (+ a bit more fitting for 425s). 2. Give it a massive grid bonus and a tracking bonus, this would enable it as a arty kiting ship. 3. Change its weapons to missiles.
2 is the best option. |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1067
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:16:00 -
[1451] - Quote
If you guys want to shoot with vaga at 40km with auto canons you're being delusional, either fit it with arties go kite and stop complaining or auto canons fit it with asb's and use it for hit&run tactics which this ship is about.
You guys might not like Vaga as it stands but I think and quite sure the ship is fine now for its role: hit&run or kite.
Stop being bad. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:27:00 -
[1452] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:If you guys want to shoot with vaga at 40km with auto canons you're being delusional, either fit it with arties go kite and stop complaining or auto canons fit it with asb's and use it for hit&run tactics which this ship is about.
You guys might not like Vaga as it stands but I think and quite sure the ship is fine now for its role: hit&run or kite.
Stop being bad.
Hit and run means a high dps ship with fast speed, certyinly not the vagabond, a exe/deimos might fit that role, not the vaga.
And as i said, i wouldnt have nay problem fitting artys, however you simply cant, due to the pg issues.
Also, missiles hit at 40km, laser hit at 40km, all abcs hit at 40km, all railships actually can fit rails and thus hit at 40km, the vaga shoud be able to easly hit with acs at 40km.
Stop beeing bad. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1068
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:33:00 -
[1453] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:If you guys want to shoot with vaga at 40km with auto canons you're being delusional, either fit it with arties go kite and stop complaining or auto canons fit it with asb's and use it for hit&run tactics which this ship is about.
You guys might not like Vaga as it stands but I think and quite sure the ship is fine now for its role: hit&run or kite.
Stop being bad. Hit and run means a high dps ship with fast speed, certyinly not the vagabond, a exe/deimos might fit that role, not the vaga. And as i said, i wouldnt have nay problem fitting artys, however you simply cant, due to the pg issues. Also, missiles hit at 40km, laser hit at 40km, all abcs hit at 40km, all railships actually can fit rails and thus hit at 40km, the vaga shoud be able to easly hit with acs at 40km. Stop beeing bad.
Fit PG rigs and modules in those 5 lows and you can perfectly fit 650s, stop being bad once again.
Come back after changes you are using Rails+spike on Deimos with your MWD on and you're making huge amount of kills with, dude you will barely be able to hit in straight line, take an Eagle and it will be just worst, fit those with blasters and the only one having a chance vs Vaga is Eagle because it will be able to actually shoot past web range, Diemost will be kitted and killed by any smart vaga pilot shooting "from there", 150dps is always better than 0 *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:42:00 -
[1454] - Quote
You dont have much of a clue do you, 650s are terrible, the end. And even for them you would need to sacrifice huge amounts of tank to fit, lets not even mention 720s, you need dual acr and a rcu to fit that. Simply not worth fitting, especially once you realize that a raildeimos has more dps with way better tracking and more tank.
If you really think a deimos will be in danger of a kiting vaga you are beeing delusional. Also, lol spike?
A blaster shield deimos puts out over 500dps at 20km.
Lastly, post with your main not with an alt. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:46:00 -
[1455] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:If you guys want to shoot with vaga at 40km with auto canons you're being delusional, either fit it with arties go kite and stop complaining or auto canons fit it with asb's and use it for hit&run tactics which this ship is about.
You guys might not like Vaga as it stands but I think and quite sure the ship is fine now for its role: hit&run or kite.
Stop being bad. Hit and run means a high dps ship with fast speed, certyinly not the vagabond, a exe/deimos might fit that role, not the vaga. And as i said, i wouldnt have nay problem fitting artys, however you simply cant, due to the pg issues. Also, missiles hit at 40km, laser hit at 40km, all abcs hit at 40km, all railships actually can fit rails and thus hit at 40km, the vaga shoud be able to easly hit with acs at 40km. Stop beeing bad.
why the vaga should hit at 40km especially with ac? it is an in face / orbit at 20km ship and it does it very well lasers have many disadvantages cant track close , and use lot of cap , and lame fixed dmg types , then you have to add that the laser ship is slow as hell i love how you take into account falloff mechanism then completly ignore missile dmg loss due to speed tanking railships cant track at all , so any tackler can safely lock you down , also those ships are way slower than the vaga
you are just spoiled little brats who dont know how to pvp ,and want a ship which is superior to everything else in every sitation so you can have a chance to win |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:56:00 -
[1456] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:If you guys want to shoot with vaga at 40km with auto canons you're being delusional, either fit it with arties go kite and stop complaining or auto canons fit it with asb's and use it for hit&run tactics which this ship is about.
You guys might not like Vaga as it stands but I think and quite sure the ship is fine now for its role: hit&run or kite.
Stop being bad. Hit and run means a high dps ship with fast speed, certyinly not the vagabond, a exe/deimos might fit that role, not the vaga. And as i said, i wouldnt have nay problem fitting artys, however you simply cant, due to the pg issues. Also, missiles hit at 40km, laser hit at 40km, all abcs hit at 40km, all railships actually can fit rails and thus hit at 40km, the vaga shoud be able to easly hit with acs at 40km. Stop beeing bad. why the vaga should hit at 40km especially with ac? it is an in face / orbit at 20km ship and it does it very well lasers have many disadvantages cant track close , and use lot of cap , and lame fixed dmg types , then you have to add that the laser ship is slow as hell i love how you take into account falloff mechanism then completly ignore missile dmg loss due to speed tanking railships cant track at all , so any tackler can safely lock you down , also those ships are way slower than the vaga you are just spoiled little brats who dont know how to pvp ,and want a ship which is superior to everything else in every sitation so you can have a chance to win
I quoted cerb and caracal rlml numbers if you havnt noticed (any serious pvper would have) they hit frigs nearly perfectly. Also have you seen the omen navy issue or the navy scythe? Come again about beeing slow.
Railships dont track a frig orbiting at 500, neither due acs btw. And no the vaga is not a in your face ship.
But i forgot to addres you primary concern,
"You are just spoiled little brats who dont know how to pvp ,and want a ship which is superior to everything else in every sitation so you can have a chance to win"
Tell me how a vaga with 1 more low and a double falloff bonus would be op? It wouldnt outdps a proper laser ship, do less dps then a hamcerb vs bigger ships, do less dps then a rlml cerb vs pretty much anything, wont outbrawl a proper brawler and any competent pilot could still slingshot one and murder it up close. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 14:21:00 -
[1457] - Quote
Deimos
Bonus change - I prefer the cap bonus to a tracking bonus but with the rep changes a rep bonus may be viable with a slight cap buff and it would certainly give a reason to go away from the inevitable shield tanks.
I would like 75m3 drone bay so I can carry a flight of lights and mediums and actually make use of the bandwidth.
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 14:48:00 -
[1458] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: This leaves the range as a problem, there are 3 solutions, 1. give it a second faloff bonus, + increasing its dps by 50or so (+ a bit more fitting for 425s). 2. Give it a massive grid bonus and a tracking bonus, this would enable it as a arty kiting ship. 3. Change its weapons to missiles.
2 is the best option.
i proposed this at the start of the first thread but oly got laughed at..... and eve got called dumb/stupid (tracking has to be huge enough you can hit from 15-18km +)
it would be not quite like the old vaga but distinct from the cyna and would get rid of the overlap of those ships. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1745
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 15:46:00 -
[1459] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
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).
Reserving the right to Tweet "I told you so" daily at you for 3 months after release when their usage doesn't rise because everything cheaper does the job as good or better and you simply for some reason can't see that as one of the current HAC problems.
Let me be very specific: Many HACs do things just fine now, why do you think their usage numbers are so low compared to other things? I'll give you a hint, it has literally nothing to do with untweaked stat numbers and low sensor strength.
Its just so bad that you're literally outright refusing to see the obvious here. |
Deathwing Reborn
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:03:00 -
[1460] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:WTF is its role?
Brawler / Kiter ? I make no case for or against the current vagabond since I don't fly it. But, I've always (perhaps naively) trusted that the in-game descriptions of ships at least halfway accurately described its role. It's why I make the case for the Deimos as a blaster boat. It's billed as the ultimate blaster boat in it's own description. So, I read the Vaga's description and see it fitting the role of a kiting ship. Does it not fill that role effectively now? If not, what would make it do so?
If we go by that then the Moros would have a much different role.
Of all the dreadnoughts currently in existence, the imposing Moros possesses a tremendous capacity to fend off garguantuan hostiles while still posing a valid threat to any and all larger-scale threats on the battlefield. By virtue of its protean array of point defense capabilities, and its terrifying ability to unleash rapid and thoroughly devastating amounts of destruction on the battlefield, the Moros is single-handedly capable of turning the tide in a fleet battle.
I always get a good laugh out of that one.
|
|
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:31:00 -
[1461] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:This thread has com donw to people who have flown the vagabond saying it is bad, arguing with people who have never flown a vagabond saying it is good. or kiddoes want an overpowered ship which is the best in every situation vaga seems more than fine for its role
Or he is rigth and you font understand what a vagabond is all about , what people are asking is just to give the vaga a defined role not this i,am a close range brawler but a sfi/hurricane can do the job better.
Else gives us a bonus to make it a sjhip that can work betwen 20 to 25k effectively or give her a med and take out a low . |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 17:57:00 -
[1462] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:side note, but the proposed Amarr Command Ship with the resist bonuses will also have missile bonuses.
Yeah, two. The nighthawk and claymore get three, and when you factor the damage ones in it leaves the damnation with 7.5 effective launchers, 10 for the nighthawk if you use kinetic missiles (6.6~ elsewise), and 10 for the claymore. Only real problem I see there from a damage perspective is that while the damnation's getting its bandwidth buffed to 50mb so's the claymore. The claymore should really have 25mb at best to compensate for (apparently) having a pair of 5% RoF buffs effectively doubling its launchers.
On my own side note CCP is finally doing what I wanted done with the eos. Actually the eos is getting buffed more than I wanted. I would have settled for 5 guns without a damage bonus and 125mb on it, but it's getting 125mb and a 10% damage/hp bonus for drones, and, for all intents and purposes, the damage bonus is getting turned into a tracking bonus, and it's all for the cost of one turret hardpoint.
Roime wrote:Was it really a must to drop the utility highs from the Ishtar?
Um, the ishtar gained 2 utility high slots. High slot + no applicable weapon bonus for any hardpoints = utility slot, and the ishtar has no turret bonuses in this latest suggestion. Even if you didn't look at it that way the ishtar is only losing one high slot which means only one utility slot lost; you're not being forced to fit a fourth gun into the new fourth turret hardpoint.
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Active armor tanking is better than the MWD bonus (and I'm glad you've backed down from that) but only because the MWD bonus is literally useless;
Completely eliminating any capacitor penalty for an MWD is "literally useless?" Getting a boost to your capacitor value from fitting a meta-1+ MWD is "literally useless?" Having more capacitor and more capacitor recharge to play with is "literally useless?"
Sir, I think you are either quite literally exaggerating or quite literally unimaginative.
Kane Fenris wrote:i proposed this at the start of the first thread but oly got laughed at..... and eve got called dumb/stupid (tracking has to be huge enough you can hit from 15-18km +)
it would be not quite like the old vaga but distinct from the cyna and would get rid of the overlap of those ships.
I'd like to play devil's advocate and ask the question, "So if the vagabond gets a tracking bonus and a heavy boost in power grid in order to function as an 'arty kiter' just how would that affect its performance in close-range combat roles? I mean from my perspective more grid means more plates/extenders and more buffer, and more tracking means better damage application against faster targets in close making it a potential frigate murder machine rather than an 'arty kiter.' |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 18:04:00 -
[1463] - Quote
You overstimate tracking bonused medium guns, they still track like **** vs frigates, a stabber fleet only is good at killing frigs as ab + scram = low transversal speed = good hits, try orbiting a tracking bonused ship at 500, especially a webless one, you will see that it still hits nothing (this is due to sig beeing a direct factor).
Yes it would make it a better kiter, and yes it maybe could encroach on the stabbers terretory (not that that matters much), but to get a good tank out of it you have to either armour tank it, making it a lowdps cruiser because if you go with a shield brawling setup you have only 1 slot for tanking if you want to be able to fight frigates.
But because it would make it a better brawler i prefer option 1 (more speed, twice the falloff bonus) as that changes nothing in its brawling abilitys. |
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 19:09:00 -
[1464] - Quote
What about an overall ship design change like the Nemesis has had done to it which will set the HAC apart from its cruiser base hull design? |
Kane Fenris
NWP
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 19:43:00 -
[1465] - Quote
Shereza wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:i proposed this at the start of the first thread but oly got laughed at..... and eve got called dumb/stupid (tracking has to be huge enough you can hit from 15-18km +)
it would be not quite like the old vaga but distinct from the cyna and would get rid of the overlap of those ships. I'd like to play devil's advocate and ask the question, "So if the vagabond gets a tracking bonus and a heavy boost in power grid in order to function as an 'arty kiter' just how would that affect its performance in close-range combat roles? I mean from my perspective more grid means more plates/extenders and more buffer, and more tracking means better damage application against faster targets in close making it a potential frigate murder machine rather than an 'arty kiter.'
ahead of you!
i stated the tracking bonus should be to arti only to prevent abuse if you dont belive me check my posts dunno if in this part or in the first . (cause its rather obvious) the pg ? if people get creative with the higher pg and dont want to use the tracking cause they dont want to mount the artys they are free to do so cause i think to have 1 bonus less would be just a fair trade of. |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Stay Frosty.
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:00:00 -
[1466] - Quote
Glippo wrote:CCP Rise... The EAGLE!!!. It is the worst HAC (by far) for a reason. And you have changed approximately nothing. It will remain the worst HAC. There are no viable roles for it. The only thing it was ever used for was as a Beagle, why not emphasize that? You want it to be a sniper? Have you heard of the Naga?
Rise, i implore you, fix the Eagle. You cannot take the worst HAC in game change nothing and expect it to be better ( yes i know about the medium rail changes). To start you off i suggest removing that Ridiculous double optimal range bonus.
This is how CCP rise seems to approach balancing ships: -Can I fly it like a shield tanked talos with a bunch of tracking enhancers? If no, make it so, if yes, it is fine. When he says " The Eagle is definitely more of a fleet ship than a small scale skirmisher," I don't know what fleets he is talking about. lul fleets? |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:03:00 -
[1467] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Shereza wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:i proposed this at the start of the first thread but oly got laughed at..... and eve got called dumb/stupid (tracking has to be huge enough you can hit from 15-18km +)
it would be not quite like the old vaga but distinct from the cyna and would get rid of the overlap of those ships. I'd like to play devil's advocate and ask the question, "So if the vagabond gets a tracking bonus and a heavy boost in power grid in order to function as an 'arty kiter' just how would that affect its performance in close-range combat roles? I mean from my perspective more grid means more plates/extenders and more buffer, and more tracking means better damage application against faster targets in close making it a potential frigate murder machine rather than an 'arty kiter.' ahead of you! i stated the tracking bonus should be to arti only to prevent abuse if you dont belive me check my posts dunno if in this part or in the first . (cause its rather obvious) the pg ? if people get creative with the higher pg and dont want to use the tracking cause they dont want to mount the artys they are free to do so cause i think to have 1 bonus less would be just a fair trade of.
Thats not a good idea tho, a weapon only setup forces it into one specific role, not a good idea. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:25:00 -
[1468] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Shereza wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:i proposed this at the start of the first thread but oly got laughed at..... and eve got called dumb/stupid (tracking has to be huge enough you can hit from 15-18km +)
it would be not quite like the old vaga but distinct from the cyna and would get rid of the overlap of those ships. I'd like to play devil's advocate and ask the question, "So if the vagabond gets a tracking bonus and a heavy boost in power grid in order to function as an 'arty kiter' just how would that affect its performance in close-range combat roles? I mean from my perspective more grid means more plates/extenders and more buffer, and more tracking means better damage application against faster targets in close making it a potential frigate murder machine rather than an 'arty kiter.' ahead of you! i stated the tracking bonus should be to arti only to prevent abuse if you dont belive me check my posts dunno if in this part or in the first . (cause its rather obvious) the pg ? if people get creative with the higher pg and dont want to use the tracking cause they dont want to mount the artys they are free to do so cause i think to have 1 bonus less would be just a fair trade of. Thats not a good idea tho, a weapon only bonus forces it into one specific role, something you dont ever want to happen. This btw is why all active tank boni are bad.
uhm yeah ..... cause the vagabond is a allround ship (and on top of that t2 are supposed to be specialized) i on my part have rather a ship thats specialized and worth flying than a ship i dont care about cause its not worth flying |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
272
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:48:00 -
[1469] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:Glippo wrote:CCP Rise... The EAGLE!!!. It is the worst HAC (by far) for a reason. And you have changed approximately nothing. It will remain the worst HAC. There are no viable roles for it. The only thing it was ever used for was as a Beagle, why not emphasize that? You want it to be a sniper? Have you heard of the Naga?
Rise, i implore you, fix the Eagle. You cannot take the worst HAC in game change nothing and expect it to be better ( yes i know about the medium rail changes). To start you off i suggest removing that Ridiculous double optimal range bonus. This is how CCP rise seems to approach balancing ships: -Can I fly it like a shield tanked talos with a bunch of tracking enhancers? If no, make it so, if yes, it is fine. When he says " The Eagle is definitely more of a fleet ship than a small scale skirmisher," I don't know what fleets he is talking about. lul fleets?
Its going to have the EHP as a Zealot the same DPS as the Zealot but it deals it at 80K, seems pretty good to me. |
CaldariCitizen 3924833
Throw More Dots Verge of Carebearing
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:54:00 -
[1470] - Quote
remove the highslot on the sacrilege
add one slot to the lows on the sacrilege
you have to choose between not poop tank or not poop dps.
this has been said over and over by many people |
|
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 21:21:00 -
[1471] - Quote
T2 are specialized right? By the time you should be flying HAC's you should be able to choose from the 4 races. I don't need the same thing from each race like in T1. That said, the Diemost should be a specialized brawler and very scary at zero. Sadly its not. It is squishy and while orbiting close in it struggles to hit. This whole rail thing is fine I guess but really? If I want to do that I'll choose another platform for it, and rightly so because that fall off bonus to my rail guns is just awesome right? This is such a confused ship. Its a specialist, make it so. Leave the kity stuff to other ships.
The Diemost is expensive and the only way people will risk a "win or die" ship is if it can perform. Kiting ships have so many advantages in this game its overwhelming. It needs all its EHP back and for pete's sake not another niche active armor rep boat. There goes yet another fleet ship out of the Gal inventory. Do something different with it and give it a bonus to AB velocity. Make it the one and only truly dual prop specialized boat. I'd gladly trade some raw DPS bonus for a tracking bonus to add to the mix. Then it will be vicious in the right hands.
But for all that is good and right please don't kill me with yet another active armor rep Gal boat.
|
ReZoon
The Arcanum
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 21:24:00 -
[1472] - Quote
meh.....
For the prices, I'd still rather fly a T3, BS, or faction.
|
Sol Mortis
An Heroes
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 21:31:00 -
[1473] - Quote
Just about anything is better than the MWD capacitor penalty bonus.
One thing people keep saying over and over is that we want a tracking bonus on the Deimos. The MWD bonus was the obvious candidate to replace that, but I understand not wanting too many weapon bonuses on the ship.
A great Idea I've seen many times is replacing the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus. falloff doesn't really help hybrids very much on either rails or blasters. Blaster falloff is mostly inside web range anyway, and rail optimal is easy to push out to 24km; added range is hardly ever an issue for either weapon system on these ships. Anybody needing to shoot farther than that will use large weapons on a BS or ABC.
Tracking instead of falloff is a huge boon in blaster/web range. It really fits the identity of gallente as being the best at close range. It also helps more with medium rails at the ranges I expect to use them in. The falloff bonus is pushing deimos damage projection out beyond where I would even be if I was kiting with rails in point range, and is a fairly unattractive bonus on rails which don't have too much falloff to begin with. I'd much rather be more mobile in point range, able to keep my speed up fairly high and still be hitting.
My ideal set of bonuses would be: Deimos Gallente Cruiser: 5% hybrid damage per level / 7.5% hybrid tracking per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser: 5% hybrid damage per level / 7.5% armor repair amount per level
I think tracking makes most sense as cruiser bonus since the thorax has it. If you really want more variety between blasters and rails, tracking benefits both equally. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2170
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 22:07:00 -
[1474] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Role[...] [HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.
So why did you give them a role bonus that doesn't help them in that role and still leaves them ouclassed by T1 BCs and even some T1 cruisers, given you didn't bother upgrading their base speeds etc.. to competetive levels?
Jesus - I better start selling off my stack of Curses before you start balancing those... You know... morons. |
Tibus Bravour
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 22:45:00 -
[1475] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: 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.
This makes me think CCP Rise hasn't read a single post in this thread. 90% of them include feedback about how the Eagle is garbage and not a single one agrees with him. Nearly all include some criticism of the laughable speed it has and "added sensor stats"....yikes. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
856
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 23:07:00 -
[1476] - Quote
^ yep.
I think either he didn't read anything, or he did and just ignored it all. |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 01:32:00 -
[1477] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:if you upped the falloff on the vega to 12.5% per level that would fix the "range" issues people are having with the ship.
so that would end up being an extra 62.5% increase to falloff crs 50% that we see now. its not much but it should make the difference. The main issue with the vaga is that you can't even fit 425's which costs it 9km range and some dps ok so how much pg is it short on? It's got no PG. It'd be fairly dangerous to give it the pg to fit 425's with the shield boost bonus. If you want the ship to kill things that aren't frigates, but not kill all the things, replace the shield boosting bonus with another falloff bonus. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
227
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 02:59:00 -
[1478] - Quote
vaga its lacking PG but more than that it lack CPU especially if they want us to fit it for active tank, as i said before a LASB really offer little to no improvement over a dual LSE setup and X-LASB its impossible to fit w/o fitting mods. give it more fitting to make a decent fit or change the bonus to something that fit the idea of the vagabond better than a tank bonus |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1198
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 03:37:00 -
[1479] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:T2 are specialized right? By the time you should be flying HAC's you should be able to choose from the 4 races. I don't need the same thing from each race like in T1. That said, the Diemost should be a specialized brawler and very scary at zero. Sadly its not. It is squishy and while orbiting close in it struggles to hit. This whole rail thing is fine I guess but really? If I want to do that I'll choose another platform for it, and rightly so because that fall off bonus to my rail guns is just awesome right? This is such a confused ship. Its a specialist, make it so. Leave the kity stuff to other ships.
The Diemost is expensive and the only way people will risk a "win or die" ship is if it can perform. Kiting ships have so many advantages in this game its overwhelming. It needs all its EHP back and for pete's sake not another niche active armor rep boat. There goes yet another fleet ship out of the Gal inventory. Do something different with it and give it a bonus to AB velocity. Make it the one and only truly dual prop specialized boat. I'd gladly trade some raw DPS bonus for a tracking bonus to add to the mix. Then it will be vicious in the right hands.
But for all that is good and right please don't kill me with yet another active armor rep Gal boat.
that would be pretty awesome like a 5% to afterburner max velocity
i would like that more then the repair bonus. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
DaeHan Minhyok
Multiplex Gaming Li3 Federation
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 04:03:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Changes look interesting.
so why do the Amarr get a better missile bonus than the caldari? If I'm not mistaken missiles are kind of a cladari thing, but the cerb only gets a 5%bonus to kinetic while the sac gets 5% to ALL missile damage types, something seems wrong with this picture....
but then caldari always gets dumped on. |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 04:06:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Quote:but then caldari always gets dumped on.
Ok... is there any race that DOESN'T feel dumped on? |
To mare
Advanced Technology
227
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 04:07:00 -
[1482] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:Changes look interesting.
so why do the Amarr get a better missile bonus than the caldari? If I'm not mistaken missiles are kind of a cladari thing, but the cerb only gets a 5%bonus to kinetic while the sac gets 5% to ALL missile damage types, something seems wrong with this picture....
but then caldari always gets dumped on. maybe you missed that the cerberus have 6 launchers and the sacrilege only 5? |
baltec1
Bat Country
7481
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 05:22:00 -
[1483] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:^ yep.
I think either he didn't read anything, or he did and just ignored it all.
He is ignoring people who want an overpowered mess. This is a good thing. |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 05:22:00 -
[1484] - Quote
OK, so ships with larger drone bays get one less slot than those with lesser drone bays. I get that, it makes sense. So then shouldn't ships with absolutely no drone bay get an extra slot? Maybe give Zealot, Cerberus(remove drones) and Eagle a utility high slot. |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 05:54:00 -
[1485] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:OK, so ships with larger drone bays get one less slot than those with lesser drone bays. I get that, it makes sense. So then shouldn't ships with absolutely no drone bay get an extra slot? Maybe give Zealot, Cerberus(remove drones) and Eagle a utility high slot.
The slot reduction is based on drone bonuses, not the size of the drone bay. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1425
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 05:58:00 -
[1486] - Quote
Shereza wrote:Battlingbean wrote:OK, so ships with larger drone bays get one less slot than those with lesser drone bays. I get that, it makes sense. So then shouldn't ships with absolutely no drone bay get an extra slot? Maybe give Zealot, Cerberus(remove drones) and Eagle a utility high slot. The slot reduction is based on drone bonuses, not the size of the drone bay. That makes no sense either. If that were true the vexor would not be -1 slot, only be vexor navy issue would be.
It supposedly has something to do with a fabled "utility" that drone ships have. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 06:04:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Well I figured It was bandwidth related. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 07:57:00 -
[1488] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:Well I figured It was bandwidth related.
No, it's a bit outdated tbh, from a time before mods to effect drones. But since that one-slot-less became part of dogma for ships they've brought out drone rigs, drone modules for high, medium and low slots, a 5 drone limit to non-capital ships, the bandwidth feature and a whole slew of additional drone bonuses for ships so I'm not certain the missing slot still stacks up in all cases and would prefer a ship-by-ship approach to assessing it rather than the blanket coverage we currently get. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
126
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 11:09:00 -
[1489] - Quote
Any slot related design is bad, would make sense if all weapons were similar and all boni would work together in a similar way. You have to lok at performance before you judge, is the ishtar able to have competetive ehp/dps/speed, or a good active tank? If yes, well then its fine. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
859
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 12:04:00 -
[1490] - Quote
To mare wrote:DaeHan Minhyok wrote:Changes look interesting.
so why do the Amarr get a better missile bonus than the caldari? If I'm not mistaken missiles are kind of a cladari thing, but the cerb only gets a 5%bonus to kinetic while the sac gets 5% to ALL missile damage types, something seems wrong with this picture....
but then caldari always gets dumped on. maybe you missed that the cerberus have 6 launchers and the sacrilege only 5? just to clarify with max skill the sac have 8.3 effective launchers all damage type the cerb have 8 effective launchers all damage type and 10 effective launchers kinetic
Sac can actually use drones. |
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
122
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 15:15:00 -
[1491] - Quote
Yes drones, but what does that have to do with missile damage? The Cerberus has the extra missile and can quite easily fit 3 BCUs. If you fit 3 BCUs on a Sac you'll have no tank and a very slow boat. The Cerb has a decent amount of extra range too.
I'm really liking both on paper at the moment, I'd not suggest for a second that the Sac is by far a better ship due to it's bonuses. They've just got different roles. Cerb is going to be a pretty awesome mid range dps ship if you are in a gang with tackle, combined with some Recon ships it'll be deadly. |
Perihelion Olenard
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 15:15:00 -
[1492] - Quote
The nice thing about the active shield booster and armor repairer improvement is that combined with these resists, these HACs will be decent defensively. That is, until they encounter neuts. Neuts are everywhere, unfortunately. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Tepalica
ACME-INC
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:27:00 -
[1493] - Quote
Oh boy, 75 pages of the second HAC discussion....I feel like I need to make a few propositions for the HAC re-balance on the remote chance that any dev is still following this thread...
Sorry for the long read in advance, I had a lot on my mind
My two main concerns here are Sacrilege and Deimos.
Sacrilege, much like the Damnation is getting bonuses for heavy missiles which shows that you are expanding the Khanid ship doctrine, but it's obvious this is a recent idea because the Vengeance assault frigate has no bonuses to light missiles and missile range and regardless of the heavy missile bonus additions to the Sacrilege, I am convinced it will remain primarily a HAM platform which means close range combat. Close range combat requires a bit more speed - let's not forget that it's an armor boat and with your changes to armor rigs that affect self repairing, Sacrilege could retain its role as a close range small gang brawler with very good self-repair capabilities even if you removed its awsome cap bonus, but the fact remains it has only 5 low slots.
I believe you should give the sacrilege a 6th low slot without butchering the highs and mids, and also, buff it's speed by at least another 20m/s because compared to Cerberus (which already has 220m/s speed with the ability to fit nanofibers without nerfing it's tank), the Sacrilege seems a bit underpowered. Considering Sacrilege is an armor boat, I would say a base speed of even 230 or 240m/s would not be overpowered...
The main thought behind these 2 simple changes I proposed is to make the Sacrilege a ship that people would WANT to train for because let's not forget that out of all HACs, Sacrilege is the biggest pain in the ass to train for, and right now, even with your suggested changes, it just remains little more than an eye candy.
As for the Deimos....oh god, where do I even start?
Deimos is supposed to be a specialized high dps blaster platform which, with the proposed medium long range turret buff might actually become a decent small - mid range kiting platform....
Deimos has many problems with the biggest one being that what ever task you set it to do, there is already some ship out there that does it better except perhaps close range (melee range) damage output which a Deimos pilot has literally no way of applying unless the target was already pointed and webbed by someone else (and let's not forget that the Vigilant is better than Deimos in almost every possible way, particularly with it's awsome dps what was supposed to be the main strength of the Deimos) Compared to the Deimos, Cynabal and Vagabond are faster and can apply their damage quite easily with barrage ammo if the pilot judges that going into melee range would be too perilous - Deimos will never be sniping anything with it's falloff bonus and one look at the Eagle is enough to see that it is a sniping ship that is actually much much tougher than the Deimos which is supposed to be an ALL IN blaster brawler - Deimos shield/armor amount is horrible as well...
The 4th medium slot you gave to Deimos opens up an interesting possibility of fitting it like a Vagabond (MWD, long point and 2 shield extenders) but that is a setup which would suck because of the T2 Gallente shield resist setup - this setup works with the vagabond which has very uniform shield resists by default and it's very small kinetic hole can easily be fixed with a single rig and trying something similar with the Deimos would be horrible! The Deimos needs a lot of work to become something that should be feared or at least something an EvE pilot would want to fly...
The biggest problem here are the ship bonuses - being a brawler I believe the Deimos should get a local rep bonus AND a tracking speed bonus because getting into blaster + void/antimatter range seriously screws with tracking and a some extra tracking will help a lot with any Deimos rail fits.
Something like this:
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to armor repairer effectiveness 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 10% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
The community wants the MWD cap bonus to go away, and the devs are determined to keep it, so I propose a solution here! Make the Deimos MWD cap bonus be it's special ability - a flat 25% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus and everyone will be happy....right?
Your proposed Deimos speed change is a step in the right direction. Since Serpentis Vigilant is better at dps than Deimos, I propose you just give Deimos it's utility high slot back with an increase to the ship powergrid so we can fit something useful there (and if at all possible do this without removing the 4th medium slot) Lastly, Deimos shield/armor amounts are criminally low, I propose you shave off 800 points of Deimos hull amount and re-distribute those points equally into shields and armor (400 points to each).
I am aware these changes are radical, and may seem too much to many people, but I am convinced Deimos needs these radical changes if you are determined to make it into a USEFUL ship! Otherwise, it is obvious Deimos will remain a ship no one wants to fly, not even as a bait ship. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:41:00 -
[1494] - Quote
RISE something being picked up on in the CS thread is the resist quantity imbalance between minmatar ships and the rest.. care to take a look? and perhaps sort out the crazy gaps in resists like 0% on EM and then 90% EM 10% EXP etc.... 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Mei Khlolov
Constantine. Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:49:00 -
[1495] - Quote
The current proposed Deimos changes are as close to perfect as they're gonna get. I get frustrated with my fellow gallente pilots as they want every goddamn ship to brawl. How many brawlers does a race need?
If you've just gotta change the deimos more, please don't hurt its kiting ability. It looks awesome as it is now (including MWD bonus!) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:58:00 -
[1496] - Quote
Well Rise has already said that the deimos will now get a rep bonus along with more armour hp 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Mei Khlolov
Constantine. Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 18:33:00 -
[1497] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Well Rise has already said that the deimos will now get a rep bonus along with more armour hp
Which is cool if they've decided on it, I just hope he doesn't nerf the shield hp, nor the cap too hard. |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 18:42:00 -
[1498] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:I like it, but why is the Diemos(t) loosing tank?
to make sure it keeps in trend with its unofficial real name XD
besides its still really powerful, and the noobs havent figured out that all you need to do to survive and attack from one, is put your hand over you eyes and press the "return fire button" XD. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
416
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:15:00 -
[1499] - Quote
The vaga should get a shield HP buff and a little armour/structure to help it shield boost. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1072
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:30:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Shereza wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:i proposed this at the start of the first thread but oly got laughed at..... and eve got called dumb/stupid (tracking has to be huge enough you can hit from 15-18km +)
it would be not quite like the old vaga but distinct from the cyna and would get rid of the overlap of those ships. I'd like to play devil's advocate and ask the question, "So if the vagabond gets a tracking bonus and a heavy boost in power grid in order to function as an 'arty kiter' just how would that affect its performance in close-range combat roles? I mean from my perspective more grid means more plates/extenders and more buffer, and more tracking means better damage application against faster targets in close making it a potential frigate murder machine rather than an 'arty kiter.'
1st, Blasters wouldn't track so much better than now despite numbers saying differently, at some point when tracking numbers are enough you don't apply any more dmg than your guns can do and blasters already track pretty well with +25% tracking ammo
2nd Ever tried to fit blasters for fleets and zip zap all around while shooting with blasters?-then for fleets forget the mwd, so this makes not one but two wasted bonus. At least an ishtar can sit there drop sentries and assign to command ship, Deimost with blasters will just wait for something to land on top of it, if it ever tries to do anything else it will die. Phobos is the perfect example of how bad Deimos can be for fleets, while the role is different and despita having a much higher resist profile and thus tank, from my experience at every single time I've seen some on grid they die so easily it's almost ridiculous, they're fat with mwd you can't miss them unless you don't shoot, they're so slow to get the job done those pretty much die as fast as any other T2 ship but without being able to do something significant for their fleet. Of course I'm talking of large fleets and dynamic situations, not a small gang at the gate roaming gang or supers tackle.
You can't do your fleet job very well, or at least the ship will not be successful unless idiots jumping on top of your fleet, once you've fitted your MWD you're using an ACR rig for a 1600plate your DCU you don't have that much free slots so how would the eventual increase in PG/Cap base stats make it any better for anything else than just fit properly rails and have a tracking bonus to make them work?
You mean fit double 1600 a DCU 1 hardener 1 ENP and 1 MFS? -hell if you do that in your Diemost you better be at gates with rapiers/huggins/lokis double webbing your targets or you'll never get in range before the thing dies to every one else but your guns. Even a shield Domi moves faster.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1072
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 20:43:00 -
[1501] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:I like it, but why is the Diemos(t) loosing tank? to make sure it keeps in trend with its unofficial real name XD besides its still really powerful, and the noobs havent figured out that all you need to do to survive and attack from one, is put your hand over you eyes and press the "return fire button" XD. also the vagabond needs both its launcher slots. sticking rapid lights on it to kill frigs is fun. besides webbing kills the shield tank.. in fact.. give some of its low slots to the mediums. like 2. after all its suppose to be a shield tank right? how can it tackle or solo and tank like that? it cant.
The real problem of Deimost is not his firepower everyone agrees with this, the real Deimost and major problem is the lack of tools to achieve his job and his job being at shooting right in the face it needs to be able to get there already.
Armor/structure is being taken, slight more speed, good but once is web and scram (Prot/Lachesis/Arazu/Huggin/Rapier/Loki) how fast it goes and how interesting it is the mwd cap bonus to make it achieve his job? -nothing, and to add insult to injury with less EHP it will die even more faster so instead of Deimost from now on it will be called Diefaster *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 22:55:00 -
[1502] - Quote
Maybe repeating myself helps ... .
Imo what a vagabond should end up with is 2.8km/s, 7 sec agility, 486dps with barrage (current number but with a burst rig) maybe 20-50more dps, a 38km faloff range with emp/fusion/plasma, and a 55km range with barrage and about 6% more grid.
This changes nothing of it as a brawler, its dps stays more or less the same, i wouldnt expect any armour fits and if they come up, great. Just to emphasize this, this wouldnt change a thing once you caught the vaga.
For kiting, well, this proposed vaga now would have about 250 turret dps at 40km with barrage, 160ish with emp/fusion, so it wouldnt intrude on zealot terretory, (strong armour tank + 406 turret dps at 40km with dual heat sinks + scorch), nor on eagle (500dps at 50+ and an enourmous tank) nor on cerb (again, big tank and 450dps with rlmls at 70km, or 650dps with hams to 45km) so in pure dps at range it wouldnt intrude on any other hac terretory. And at 20km a blaster shield deimos would still rip it a new one.
It also will not make it op in 1v1s, a bad pilot can easily be sligshotted by a better pilot (espcially a 7.8 agility pilot) and up close it still is a t1 cruiser with higher dps, easy prey for any comeptent hac (ishtar reps 1k dps with a rep + maar setup with heat, and still over 500 without paste, combined with 600dps and a heated speed of 2.3km/s, tahts before any implants or links).
Now how to achieve this, either tweak the faloff bonus and keep the shield repping bonus, or remove the shield repping one for a second falloff bonus.
Now how to get the higher speed? Quite a few ways to do that atm, that basicely is just a od II in the lows, so utility high -> lowslot would do it, or give it more base speed. You also just could give it the fitting for 425s + dual LSE + mwd (a deimos has the fitting to do that with its long range version, as does the cerb/eagle and so on) without having to use rig slots, so that they can be used for speed mods you also achieve that.
So if you want to make the vagabond a viable kiter, give it a second falloff bonus, increase itspower grid by a few % and you are done. Now you could test if for fine tuning a little bit more dps would be good.
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3227
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 23:22:00 -
[1503] - Quote
Shereza wrote:Roime wrote:Was it really a must to drop the utility highs from the Ishtar?
Um, the ishtar gained 2 utility high slots. High slot + no applicable weapon bonus for any hardpoints = utility slot, and the ishtar has no turret bonuses in this latest suggestion. Even if you didn't look at it that way the ishtar is only losing one high slot which means only one utility slot lost; you're not being forced to fit a fourth gun into the new fourth turret hardpoint.
Let me put it this way: In order to fit the same utility as in the current version, you have to give up about 100 dps compared to the old version.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
The Renner
Canadian Operations Yulai Federation
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 00:07:00 -
[1504] - Quote
Good changes.
Although I would like to see the Sacrilege lose the utility high and gain a low slot. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:08:00 -
[1505] - Quote
Should any specialised ship have a utility slot?
...I think all their slots should be dedicated to the HACs role. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1073
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:38:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Mei Khlolov wrote:The current proposed Deimos changes are as close to perfect as they're gonna get. I get frustrated with my fellow gallente pilots as they want every goddamn ship to brawl. How many brawlers does a race need?
When the main weapon system the race you fly is blasters with secondary rails and drones you can expect that race engineers to be smart enough to give their ships the tools and abilities to achieve their job, it turns out they're not that smart and actually not only don't seem able to detect the specific ships tools needs but on top rely on AI and other races tanking mods to be effective enough.
Gallente got a lot better for sure.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:40:00 -
[1507] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:Should any specialised ship have a utility slot?
...I think all their slots should be dedicated to the HACs role.
To an extent, I agree with this. But, certain ship simply aren't equipped to do their job without that utility high. The Deimos, for example, uses a nos to maintain its ability to gun in neut range or run a local rep. Now, with the slot going to the mids, you can switch the nos to a cap booster for the same effect. Not really an issue anymore. But, on a ship without the 4th mid or a dedicated drone boat like the Ishtar, I can see having a utility high. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:45:00 -
[1508] - Quote
Quote:The current proposed Deimos changes are as close to perfect as they're gonna get. I get frustrated with my fellow gallente pilots as they want every goddamn ship to brawl. How many brawlers does a race need?
Really? We kite with the Talos. We kite with the Myrmidon, although it is capable of both. We kite with the Ishkur. We snipe with the Domi, Mega, or Hype. I mean, if I go through all Gallente ships, very few are dedicated brawlers. Most are actually pretty diverse ships that can be fit to do either. The only "dedicated" brawlers I can think of are the Thorax, Deimos, and Brutix. If you haven't figured out how to do something other than brawl with the other Gallente ships, I think you should probably re-examine them. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3227
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 07:25:00 -
[1509] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:Should any specialised ship have a utility slot?
...I think all their slots should be dedicated to the HACs role.
HACs role = kill **** and survive, on TQ you need utility highs to achieve this, unless you fly in sov blobs- in which case nothing really matters, just bring more.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:34:00 -
[1510] - Quote
Mei Khlolov wrote:The current proposed Deimos changes are as close to perfect as they're gonna get. I get frustrated with my fellow gallente pilots as they want every goddamn ship to brawl. How many brawlers does a race need?
If you've just gotta change the deimos more, please don't hurt its kiting ability. It looks awesome as it is now (including MWD bonus!)
It's not a question of how many. It's a question of having a brawler that can actually *catch* things -- unlike the Brutix and its t2 variants. The only ship that really fits that description is the shield Thorax -- the Talos can catch things, but it's a kiter -- but it desperately lacks hit points, a problem going t2 usually solves. |
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3227
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 10:36:00 -
[1511] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Mei Khlolov wrote:The current proposed Deimos changes are as close to perfect as they're gonna get. I get frustrated with my fellow gallente pilots as they want every goddamn ship to brawl. How many brawlers does a race need?
If you've just gotta change the deimos more, please don't hurt its kiting ability. It looks awesome as it is now (including MWD bonus!) It's not a question of how many. It's a question of having a brawler that can actually *catch* things -- unlike the Brutix and its t2 variants. The only ship that really fits that description is the shield Thorax -- the Talos can catch things, but it's a kiter -- but it desperately lacks hit points, a problem going t2 usually solves.
How do all the ships slower than Brutix *catch* things?
You know it's barely slower than the Cane and Cyclone.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Commander BroudMoore
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 10:44:00 -
[1512] - Quote
Split bonus that Ishtar got isnt really inline with other ships. Long range drones bonus and short range drone bonus should count as one bonus (not two) just like turret bonus. I mean turret bonuses dont count as two bonuses even though they apply to both, long range and short range turrets.
Speaking of turrets, Istar has no reason to fit hybrid turrets since there is no bonus for them.
So for Ishtar: - the split drones bonus should count as one bonus. - some sort of hybrid bonus should be added to make this gallente hull remain "Gallente" (and not some gallente-minmatar hybrid) even hybrid turret cap use bonus works as it might make blasters more temping than Autocannons. Without a hybrit turret bonus there isnt really anything to think about. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3227
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:24:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Not sure if the choice between blasters and ACs is that straightforward. If you intend to fight in web range, blasters are better in tracking and dps, ACs pull ahead beyond 10km. Damage type vs ammo switching time is toss (highly situational), which leaves ACs with range and lolcap advantage. Comparing Ions and 425mms.
I do agree with you about other things, tho.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Sigras
Conglomo
491
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:28:00 -
[1514] - Quote
Roime wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:Should any specialised ship have a utility slot?
...I think all their slots should be dedicated to the HACs role. HACs role = kill **** and survive, on TQ you need utility highs to achieve this, unless you fly in sov blobs- in which case nothing really matters, just bring more. Please tell me more about how a vindicator cant tank and gank without a utility high . . .
or what about the following ships? The Rokh The Abaddon The ABCs The Zealot
Clearly utility high slots are not necessary. |
Sigras
Conglomo
491
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:35:00 -
[1515] - Quote
Roime wrote:Not sure if the choice between blasters and ACs is that straightforward. If you intend to fight in web range, blasters are better in tracking and dps, ACs pull ahead beyond 10km. Damage type vs ammo switching time is toss (highly situational), which leaves ACs with range and lolcap advantage. Comparing Ions and 425mms.
I do agree with you about other things, tho. How is the cap advantage in any way a joke? I think you misunderstand, the advantage is not that ACs save you SO much cap that you can now run a tank or something, the advantage is that ACs still fire when you're neuted to 0 and blasters turn off.
If ACs used .01 cap per activation, the advantage would be lolz because nobody cares about the small amount of cap the medium blasters use; its the fact that they need you to have cap to use, and ACs currently dont. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
130
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:38:00 -
[1516] - Quote
Commander BroudMoore wrote:Split bonus that Ishtar got isnt really inline with other ships. Long range drones bonus and short range drone bonus should count as one bonus (not two) just like turret bonus. I mean turret bonuses dont count as two bonuses even though they apply to both, long range and short range turrets.
Speaking of turrets, Istar has no reason to fit hybrid turrets since there is no bonus for them.
So for Ishtar: - the split drones bonus should count as one bonus. - some sort of hybrid bonus should be added to make this gallente hull remain "Gallente" (and not some gallente-minmatar hybrid) even hybrid turret cap use bonus works as it might make blasters more tempting than Autocannons. Without a hybrit turret bonus there isnt really anything to think about.
Imo you think of it in a wrong way, you shouldnt balance about boni, you should design around results and the use stats/boni accordingly so that you may reach those results.
As you said, the split bonus and no bonused guns may make the ishtar seem weak.
But if you look at results, the shield ishtar has 45k ehp, and puts out 1013dps preheat. (with heavy drones that track with 0.4)
http://i.imgur.com/qtKOoP5.png
A active armour ishtar tank over 800dps with heat (over 1k with a maar) while putting out 660 dps, preheat with full tackle.
http://i.imgur.com/s3mscC7.png (edit, is a oldish fit, still havnt changed to for the exra cpu)
Another damage or tanking bonus would make it absurdly op. So while the boni look weak the end result is very very strong. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:42:00 -
[1517] - Quote
Roime wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:Should any specialised ship have a utility slot?
...I think all their slots should be dedicated to the HACs role. on TQ you need utility highs to achieve this, unless you fly in sov blobs
Nope. Disagree on that point. I'd say a utility high is damn useful if you are flying solo and want to neut enemies or use nos to keep cap. But by no means are utility highs utterly vital to act as a Heavy Assault ship, it has to be decided ship by ship.
The T3s have always overshadowed the HACs at this heavy assault role, particularly Legion and Prot. Most setups you'll see will have a full set of weapons in the high slot. Doesn't stop them being brutally effective. Sure you can argue that's just due to how powerful they are in general but the point remains. Taking the Sacrilege as an example, the extra lowslot instead of a utility slot would make it more survivable in most cases. I'm liking the utility high on the Sac though, but looking at the Zealot, I'm very glad it doesn't have one as it'd be useless. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
130
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:45:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Utility highs are on most ships only usefull for soloing (medium neut on vaga for example) and play a very little role once you have 2 pilots, the sac however gets a whole lot from its high, a a type medium rep tanks 500dps on another sac making rr hacs viable, a energy transfer can be used to negate neuting and cap stable medium neuts on all fleet ships are a pita for enemy logis. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3227
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:49:00 -
[1519] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Roime wrote:Not sure if the choice between blasters and ACs is that straightforward. If you intend to fight in web range, blasters are better in tracking and dps, ACs pull ahead beyond 10km. Damage type vs ammo switching time is toss (highly situational), which leaves ACs with range and lolcap advantage. Comparing Ions and 425mms.
I do agree with you about other things, tho. How is the cap advantage in any way a joke? I think you misunderstand, the advantage is not that ACs save you SO much cap that you can now run a tank or something, the advantage is that ACs still fire when you're neuted to 0 and blasters turn off. If ACs used .01 cap per activation, the advantage would be lolz because nobody cares about the small amount of cap the medium blasters use; its the fact that they need you to have cap to use, and ACs currently dont.
I don't find that a crucial advantage on a ship that already does +475 cap immune dps. You capitalize on the AC cap advantage only in situations where you are neuted completely dry, while losing +50dps in other situations, including those where you can keep blastering with properly timed cap injections. I fly my Ishtars active tanked, so the cap booster is a given.
I find blasters better in most cases, but ymmv and every fight is different.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:58:00 -
[1520] - Quote
The Renner wrote:Good changes.
Although I would like to see the Sacrilege lose the utility high and gain a low slot.
I second this. Thank you very much.
|
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 13:09:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:The Renner wrote:Good changes.
Although I would like to see the Sacrilege lose the utility high and gain a low slot. I second this. Thank you very much.
Why? It already is good enough, 60k ehp, 600dps, 540 heated maar reps, free damage selection, capstable.
A additional low would just make it too good.
It already is by far the best fleet hac thanks to its cap and incredibly tank, giving it one more low would make it op as hell (way better tank then all other armour hacs, over 670dps before heat, would make armour deimos/ihtar/zealot and co useless).
Hell, with 1 more lowslot the sac would outdps and outrange, outtank and outcap and out midslot the zealot by quite a bit.
The sac does in no way need a additional mid, the utility high already is a very good asset on that ship. |
Kick Rocks
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 13:16:00 -
[1522] - Quote
So I am listening to Eve Radio and noticed that they talked about the Muninn being an armor tanking ship. However even with the changes I cannot fit 720s and even a medium armor repper without rigs. I imagine this is because you shouldn't take damage at all but it just seems silly to me. Perhaps I am missing something and am just not smart enough. I might be able to do it if I drop some gyros. What kind of DPS are we seeing from other arty/kite fits? Perhaps my DPS expectations are too high? Yes, I am an alt. -áNo, I do not care how you feel about that. -á |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 13:42:00 -
[1523] - Quote
Its **** as a brawler, 500 dps and 40k ehp, a moa beats that.
Leaves artys, with 650s it does as much alpha as a thrasher or araileagle and not a lot of dps, so you cant use those (especially not with a 40k tank).
As i said already it cant brawl, it cant kite with acs (no faloff bonus), it cant use 650s + armour tank.
This leaves the muninn with 1 usable weapon system, 720s, it can sue it both with armour and shield, sporting around 550 dps and 3.3k alpha for a shield fit and at top (no point fit) 30k ehp, to 40k ehp for a armour fit with 480dps and 3k alpha.
All with terrible tracking and bad range.
Terrble ship, terrible design. |
Kick Rocks
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 15:56:00 -
[1524] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Its **** as a brawler, 500 dps and 40k ehp, a moa beats that.
Leaves artys, with 650s it does as much alpha as a thrasher or araileagle and not a lot of dps, so you cant use those (especially not with a 40k tank).
As i said already it cant brawl, it cant kite with acs (no faloff bonus), it cant use 650s + armour tank.
This leaves the muninn with 1 usable weapon system, 720s, it can sue it both with armour and shield, sporting around 550 dps and 3.3k alpha for a shield fit and at top (no point fit) 30k ehp, to 40k ehp for a armour fit with 480dps and 3k alpha.
All with terrible tracking and bad range.
Terrble ship, terrible design.
Do these numbers include anything other than the items on the ship like implants or off grid boosts?
Edit: I get the terrible feeling that I am the only one who flys a Muninn. Yes, I am an alt. -áNo, I do not care how you feel about that. -á |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 16:21:00 -
[1525] - Quote
no implants/links |
Kick Rocks
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 17:16:00 -
[1526] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:no implants/links
I can reach the DPS you are quoting but I cannot get the EHP. Not even close. Can you link what you are fitting? I do PvE mostly (I know no one cares a lick about PvE) I think 40k ehp would be ok given the speed. I just cant reach it Yes, I am an alt. -áNo, I do not care how you feel about that. -á |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1199
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 17:17:00 -
[1527] - Quote
anyone know where i can get the eft mod folder for these changes... perhaps the command ship ones too? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
136
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 18:12:00 -
[1528] - Quote
Kick Rocks wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:no implants/links I can reach the DPS you are quoting but I cannot get the EHP. Not even close. Can you link what you are fitting? I do PvE mostly (I know no one cares a lick about PvE) I think 40k ehp would be ok given the speed. I just cant reach it
http://i.imgur.com/tayeYVf.png
For eft files, http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?11380-Odyssey-Changes-Rebalanced-Navy-Cruisers-T1-Cruisers-(and-EFT-files) this guy does a very good job (he has no idea of ship fitting or balance sadl)( |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1200
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 19:05:00 -
[1529] - Quote
so with the new ogb vulture the eagle looks kinda nice for a shield hac
[Eagle, rise shac] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
10MN Afterburner II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Limited 'Anointed' EM Ward Field Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 20:51:00 -
[1530] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Lucien Cain wrote:The Renner wrote:Good changes.
Although I would like to see the Sacrilege lose the utility high and gain a low slot. I second this. Thank you very much. Why? It already is good enough, 60k ehp, 600dps, 540 heated maar reps, free damage selection, capstable. A additional low would just make it too good. It already is by far the best fleet hac thanks to its cap and incredibly tank, giving it one more low would make it op as hell (way better tank then all other armour hacs, over 670dps before heat, would make armour deimos/ihtar/zealot and co useless). Hell, with 1 more lowslot the sac would outdps and outrange, outtank and outcap and out midslot the zealot by quite a bit. The sac does in no way need a additional mid, the utility high already is a very good asset on that ship. About 50 pages ago i thought it was given 5 lights, not 5 mediums like it has. with the 5 mediums, it's quite a capable ship, I so Agree with W0lf. It'l be getting 65+k ehp, just shy of 600dps using hammerheads, or a530 ish with hobgoblins, all at about 25km. if you meta MWD and 1600mm plate it, you only need a 3% PG implant for a medium neut, or you'll have to sacrifice a rig slot to put a smartbomb on it. I'm kind of expecting to see small fleets of these things going around in attrition fleets. I'm looking forward to seeing my favorite hull (graphically) flying around. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1200
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 21:40:00 -
[1531] - Quote
this is the deimos i am going to be using
if you have a snake set and boosting claymore the ship goes 4.5km/s with heat on.
which is kinda stupid fast and its turret dps ranges from 517 (34km) with jav to 296 (84km) with spike
43k ehp too.
[Deimos, kiting] Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
10MN Microwarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Hammerhead II x5
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1200
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 21:53:00 -
[1532] - Quote
or this as a ahac version
[Deimos, New Setup 1] 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
10MN Afterburner II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script
200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Hammerhead II x5 There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Julius Foederatus
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
204
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 23:28:00 -
[1533] - Quote
So I don't know if this has already been said, but isn't the Ishtar really stepping on the Navy Vexor here? What is there that really differentiates it at this point? Wasn't the whole point of all this for t2 to be specialized? |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 23:48:00 -
[1534] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:so with the new ogb vulture the eagle looks kinda nice for a shield hac
[Eagle, rise shac] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
10MN Afterburner II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Limited 'Anointed' EM Ward Field Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
and how dose this S-HAC eagle stack up to your A-HAC Diemos? EHP, DPS, range?
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
273
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 07:11:00 -
[1535] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:so with the new ogb vulture the eagle looks kinda nice for a shield hac
[Eagle, rise shac] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
10MN Afterburner II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Limited 'Anointed' EM Ward Field Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Guristas Antimatter Charge M
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
You would probably better running an MWD fit like the one I linked, slightly less EHP but much more skirmishing ability. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 11:34:00 -
[1536] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying
Exactly it badly needs 6th low slot. It doesnGÇÖt need 4th med slot. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
274
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 11:42:00 -
[1537] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying Exactly it badly needs 6th low slot. It doesnGÇÖt need 4th med slot.
How derp can you be.
You absolutely need 4 mids on the Sac.
Prop Mod Scram Web Injector
The Sac is fine as is, utility high is handy and the tank and gank balance is really fantastic. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 11:51:00 -
[1538] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying Exactly it badly needs 6th low slot. It doesnGÇÖt need 4th med slot. How derp can you be. You absolutely need 4 mids on the Sac. Prop Mod Scram Web Injector The Sac is fine as is, utility high is handy and the tank and gank balance is really fantastic.
It's is a missile ship why the hell it would need a cap injector? Let me tell u this: I fly in WH mostly in tech 3 ships and kill mostly tech 3 ships. In theory legion and proteus are comparable. Yet the proteus is much more successful in wh fights. Why? Because of the slot layout. It can have 6/3/7, while a legion can only have 6/4/6. It means more armour or/and more tank. Sacrilege is an armour, dps ship. It needs armour (low), dps (low). It doesnGÇÖt need utility hi (I have specialized ships for that) nor does it need the medium slot. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:08:00 -
[1539] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:It's is a missile ship why the hell it would need a cap injector? Let me tell u this: I fly in WH mostly in tech 3 ships and kill mostly tech 3 ships. In theory legion and proteus are comparable. Yet the proteus is much more successful in wh fights. Why? Because of the slot layout. It can have 6/3/7, while a legion can only have 6/4/6. It means more armour or/and more tank. Sacrilege is an armour, dps ship. It needs armour (low), dps (low). It doesnGÇÖt need utility hi (I have specialized ships for that) nor does it need the medium slot.
Actually, it's because WH fights have a tendency to be fought at very close ranges, namely within 5km of a WH so you can GTFO whenever you want, warping to zero on a ratter, etc. That makes blasters exceptional and means the long range of pulse lasers isn't worth much. Also, Proteus cloaky subsystem is actually good, unlike Legion. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
274
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:14:00 -
[1540] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying Exactly it badly needs 6th low slot. It doesnGÇÖt need 4th med slot. How derp can you be. You absolutely need 4 mids on the Sac. Prop Mod Scram Web Injector The Sac is fine as is, utility high is handy and the tank and gank balance is really fantastic. It's is a missile ship why the hell it would need a cap injector? Let me tell u this: I fly in WH mostly in tech 3 ships and kill mostly tech 3 ships. In theory legion and proteus are comparable. Yet the proteus is much more successful in wh fights. Why? Because of the slot layout. It can have 6/3/7, while a legion can only have 6/4/6. It means more armour or/and more tank. Sacrilege is an armour, dps ship. It needs armour (low), dps (low). It doesnGÇÖt need utility hi (I have specialized ships for that) nor does it need the medium slot.
ITT people not realising mid slots are god in PVP. |
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:20:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:
Actually, it's because WH fights have a tendency to be fought at very close ranges, namely within 5km of a WH so you can GTFO whenever you want, warping to zero on a ratter, etc. That makes blasters exceptional and means the long range of pulse lasers isn't worth much. Also, Proteus cloaky subsystem is actually good, unlike Legion.
Range does matter sometimes in WH, but generally you are right. But don't tell me the slot layout is not making Prot a better ship. Also most dps legions in WH are HAM ones.
And for CCP Rise: Im Amarr! I want my ships slow and tanky! I don't need hi or med slot as I don't want't to fly jack of all trades ship. I want a heavy brawler and Sac needs a 6th slot for that role. Not for tank but for dps (BCS). |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:23:00 -
[1542] - Quote
Cap booster for running the active tank and medium neut that it'll be packing ;) Yeh 5 slots sounds little low but it's still enough to pull a pretty solid tank and dps out.
Fitted with a 1600mm plate, 2 hardeners and 2 trimarks it's 56k EHP, which for a ship with a fairly small sig and high resists is going to be a tough nut to crack. Whilst like this the 2x BCUs, 6x HAM and 5x Medium drones can put out approaching 700dps without overheat. Whilst it hasn't got a Proteus-like tank, It's not exactly lacking. With 1x BCU you still have 600dps of any damage type you choice, without relying on Cap with just under 70k ehp. I think you are just expecting a little too much here :/
PS - Legion's are awesome in Wormholes if you aren't expecting them to match the dps of a Proteus at 1km... |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
274
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:26:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Xequecal wrote:
Actually, it's because WH fights have a tendency to be fought at very close ranges, namely within 5km of a WH so you can GTFO whenever you want, warping to zero on a ratter, etc. That makes blasters exceptional and means the long range of pulse lasers isn't worth much. Also, Proteus cloaky subsystem is actually good, unlike Legion.
Range does matter sometimes in WH, but generally you are right. But don't tell me the slot layout is not making Prot a better ship. Also most dps legions in WH are HAM ones. And for CCP Rise: Im Amarr! I want my ships slow and tanky! I don't need hi or med slot as I don't want't to fly jack of all trades ship. I want a heavy brawler and Sac needs a 6th slot for that role. Not for tank but for dps (BCS).
[Sacrilege, Solo] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Bay Loading Accelerator II
Valkyrie II x5
48K EHP, 393DPS heated AAR tank, 555/630 DPS with faction and medium drones, cap stable without injector and MWD.
Your problem is? |
Damar Auscent
Cause I Feel Like It
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:36:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Can only really reply for Ishtar as it's the only 1 I've used. Am a little underwhelmed with the lack of bonus for light/medium drones considering this is meant to be a drone boat. It would be like, for example, taking the vagas bonus for damage and saying that's only for autocannons, doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense to have all drone bonus to tracking and optimal range and for those that need/want to use heavies can fit a nav computer to boost the speed.
Sorry if this has already been covered but gave up reading after page 20 |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
274
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:40:00 -
[1545] - Quote
Damar Auscent wrote:Can only really reply for Ishtar as it's the only 1 I've used. Am a little underwhelmed with the lack of bonus for light/medium drones considering this is meant to be a drone boat. It would be like, for example, taking the vagas bonus for damage and saying that's only for autocannons, doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense to have all drone bonus to tracking and optimal range and for those that need/want to use heavies can fit a nav computer to boost the speed.
Sorry if this has already been covered but gave up reading after page 20
The Vagas bonus is catered to Autocannons, as the Muninns is catered to Arties.
So its entirely equivalent. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3234
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:46:00 -
[1546] - Quote
Sure, it would be cool to get speed and tracking to light and mediums, but then again they don't really need that. Heavies do benefit from both greatly, and limiting sentry bonuses to 7.5% was really necessary for maintaining balance.
Ishtar is one of the best ships in game for a multitude of tasks, and yes, even tho I mourn for the loss of some versatility due to slot count nerf and 4 turret HPs, it's going to be just a tad stronger even for my niche solo/micro gang use. And PVE, it evolves from a brilliant serp/guristas PLEXer into easily the best possible serp/guristas plexer.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Damar Auscent
Cause I Feel Like It
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:46:00 -
[1547] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Damar Auscent wrote:Can only really reply for Ishtar as it's the only 1 I've used. Am a little underwhelmed with the lack of bonus for light/medium drones considering this is meant to be a drone boat. It would be like, for example, taking the vagas bonus for damage and saying that's only for autocannons, doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense to have all drone bonus to tracking and optimal range and for those that need/want to use heavies can fit a nav computer to boost the speed.
Sorry if this has already been covered but gave up reading after page 20 The Vagas bonus is catered to Autocannons, as the Muninns is catered to Arties. So its entirely equivalent.
sorry bad example on my part. That being said if you wanted to use arties you could and still benefit from the bonus whereas that is lost when using smaller drones for the Ishtar. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:31:00 -
[1548] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:
[Sacrilege, Solo] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Bay Loading Accelerator II
Valkyrie II x5
48K EHP, 393DPS heated AAR tank, 555/630 DPS with faction and medium drones, cap stable without injector and MWD, all before links or implants.
Your problem is?
Mixed tank? Lol. That is my comment to this fitting. As for the rest: Why do I need a cap booster (except for ridiculous mixed tank repairer)? Why can I only fit one BCS while other ships can fit 2/3 (Zealot) AND have an additional turret. 555 dps with one BCS? More of a EFT bug... |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:32:00 -
[1549] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:
[Sacrilege, Solo] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Bay Loading Accelerator II
Valkyrie II x5
48K EHP, 393DPS heated AAR tank, 555/630 DPS with faction and medium drones, cap stable without injector and MWD, all before links or implants.
Your problem is?
Mixed tank? Lol. That is my comment to this fitting. As for the rest: Why do I need a cap booster (except for ridiculous mixed tank repairer)? Why can I only fit one BCS while other ships can fit 2/3 (Zealot) AND have an additional turret. 555 dps with one BCS? More of a EFT bug... |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
138
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:39:00 -
[1550] - Quote
Cause you dont balance around solo pvp, firstly it would be op with a extra low, secondly a extra mid allows remote sebos or remote eccm to counter damps/ecm, they can be used ofr dual webs or other usages that increase dps.
Also, that a valid setup, mixed tank isnt always the way to go but negating it because you think is bad isnt the way to go.
Lastly, cloaky legions dont count, if you take a look at serious pvp legions you will see that they mostly outperform the proteus by quite a bit, and again the biggest weakness of the cloaky proteus (bar of course its damage type) is that it only has 3 mids, making it eather extremly weak to neuts or reducing its tackle. |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
274
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 13:48:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:
[Sacrilege, Solo] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Bay Loading Accelerator II
Valkyrie II x5
48K EHP, 393DPS heated AAR tank, 555/630 DPS with faction and medium drones, cap stable without injector and MWD, all before links or implants.
Your problem is?
Mixed tank? Lol. That is my comment to this fitting. As for the rest: Why do I need a cap booster (except for ridiculous mixed tank repairer)? Why can I only fit one BCS while other ships can fit 2/3 (Zealot) AND have an additional turret. 555 dps with one BCS? More of a EFT bug...
You realise Plate/Rep fits with AARs are super common.
And it has 2 damage mods, a rig and a BCS, all the people bitching about the Sac seem unaware that TII damage rigs are cheap and very effective.
Also the Injector is to give neuting resistance but you could equally go for ECCM/dual web/TD or a myriad of other options, you could also with some jiggling wedge a med nos on in that handy utility high so you even have neuting resistance in some form without an injector.
Arent these things useful. |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors Insidious Empire
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:16:00 -
[1552] - Quote
Quote:We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
I wholeheartedly agree, it clearly benefits with more cap when fitting an MWD than having tracking or even some kind of trolling repair bonus or literally anything else in the game other than a cap MWD bonus. Deimos, now and forever, a piece of crap.
Enjoy EvE! |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:27:00 -
[1553] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:
[Sacrilege, Solo] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Bay Loading Accelerator II
Valkyrie II x5
48K EHP, 393DPS heated AAR tank, 555/630 DPS with faction and medium drones, cap stable without injector and MWD, all before links or implants.
Your problem is?
Mixed tank? Lol. That is my comment to this fitting. As for the rest: Why do I need a cap booster (except for ridiculous mixed tank repairer)? Why can I only fit one BCS while other ships can fit 2/3 (Zealot) AND have an additional turret. 555 dps with one BCS? More of a EFT bug...
you notice the bay loading accelerator II? probably you know mechanics not half as much as you think !
imho ist a fit thats not too shaby. and who says i may not fit a 1600plate i an active tank ? erver tried it? i wouldnt judge that fast. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:36:00 -
[1554] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Cassius Invictus wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying Exactly it badly needs 6th low slot. It doesnGÇÖt need 4th med slot. How derp can you be. You absolutely need 4 mids on the Sac. Prop Mod Scram Web Injector The Sac is fine as is, utility high is handy and the tank and gank balance is really fantastic.
I have been posting in here for awhile and you are absolutely correct that the utility high and mids make the ship awesome. I would like to see it lose a launcher/high, get bonused to compensate, and gain a low, but it's going to work as is. Active fits just can't do much damage.
Edit: or maybe they don't do much damage because I don't have hac v. *shrug* |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:40:00 -
[1555] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Xequecal wrote:
Actually, it's because WH fights have a tendency to be fought at very close ranges, namely within 5km of a WH so you can GTFO whenever you want, warping to zero on a ratter, etc. That makes blasters exceptional and means the long range of pulse lasers isn't worth much. Also, Proteus cloaky subsystem is actually good, unlike Legion.
Range does matter sometimes in WH, but generally you are right. But don't tell me the slot layout is not making Prot a better ship. Also most dps legions in WH are HAM ones. And for CCP Rise: Im Amarr! I want my ships slow and tanky! I don't need hi or med slot as I don't want't to fly jack of all trades ship. I want a heavy brawler and Sac needs a 6th slot for that role. Not for tank but for dps (BCS).
Ideally, yep, but people will just fit more tank to it.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
421
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:44:00 -
[1556] - Quote
RISE
I hope you are going to buff the speed of the eagle the Vaga goes about 60% quicker how can you justify this? along with it being the only one who gets 1 tiny damage bonus and no drones... it seems caldari aren't allowed any blaster-boats beyond frigate class. Besides the token Moa 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
950
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:10:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Damar Auscent wrote:Can only really reply for Ishtar as it's the only 1 I've used. Am a little underwhelmed with the lack of bonus for light/medium drones considering this is meant to be a drone boat. It would be like, for example, taking the vagas bonus for damage and saying that's only for autocannons, doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense to have all drone bonus to tracking and optimal range and for those that need/want to use heavies can fit a nav computer to boost the speed.
Sorry if this has already been covered but gave up reading after page 20
Agreed.
The turret/missile boats with be able to engage any target they want but with the restrictions being put on to the ishtar, it's like ccp doesn't want it to hit anything smaller than a BC.
I'm not sure how fast the heavy drones will go but i doubt they will be able to keep up with fast moving targets and apply their damage. Putting work in since 2010. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
422
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:19:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Damar Auscent wrote:Can only really reply for Ishtar as it's the only 1 I've used. Am a little underwhelmed with the lack of bonus for light/medium drones considering this is meant to be a drone boat. It would be like, for example, taking the vagas bonus for damage and saying that's only for autocannons, doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense to have all drone bonus to tracking and optimal range and for those that need/want to use heavies can fit a nav computer to boost the speed.
Sorry if this has already been covered but gave up reading after page 20 Agreed. The turret/missile boats with be able to engage any target they want but with the restrictions being put on to the ishtar, it's like ccp doesn't want it to hit anything smaller than a BC. I'm not sure how fast the heavy drones will go but i doubt they will be able to keep up with fast moving targets and apply their damage.
you musn't have seen how easy sentries have owned small ships at the ATXI .. most matches were sentry based 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
2069
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:36:00 -
[1559] - Quote
Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1! |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
275
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:38:00 -
[1560] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
And the Vagabond continues on the track towards uselessness. |
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
872
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:39:00 -
[1561] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
What about the Vaga? What about the Munnin? Why do minmatar not get a missile HAC? What about the Sac?
Can we get answers to these please? Why do you only cater to gallente? |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
403
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:40:00 -
[1562] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1! Thanks for these changes, Rise! It allows for both brawling and skirmish playstyles!
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
422
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:42:00 -
[1563] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
Well its mostly fixed it how about the sig radius? you still need to fix Eagle, Vaga, Sacrilege,
Vaga - needs to be able to fit 425's and buff it HP a little for ASB to work. Sacrilege maybe nerf its cap recharge or switch it with zealot who actually needs it and swap its high for low. Eagle- well read my many posts on making it worth using.
Also please fix the resists profiles .. minnies have more resists .. count it up and more omni resists please. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
403
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:45:00 -
[1564] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1! And the Vagabond continues on the track towards uselessness. How do the changes that the Vagabond is getting--arguably all benefits to the ship (and certainly improve its disposition compared to TQ)--make the ship any less useful than it is now? The ship is currently very strong as a kiter on TQ, and the shield boost bonus only further enhances ASB setups. What's more, the bonus is essentially free, since you would have received a speed bonus before that has now been baked into the hull. No changes will lessen a strong kiting buffer setup, and the MWD sig reduction role bonus is going to mitigate damage under MWD. If anything, the Vaga becomes more useful.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
276
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:51:00 -
[1565] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1! And the Vagabond continues on the track towards uselessness. How do the changes that the Vagabond is getting--arguably all benefits to the ship (and certainly improve its disposition compared to TQ)--make the ship any less useful than it is now? The ship is currently very strong as a kiter on TQ, and the shield boost bonus only further enhances ASB setups. What's more, the bonus is essentially free, since you would have received a speed bonus before that has now been baked into the hull. No changes will lessen a strong kiting buffer setup, and the MWD sig reduction role bonus is going to mitigate damage under MWD. If anything, the Vaga becomes more useful.
Because all the other HACs are getting better, and the Vaga is essentially getting a useless bonus that doesnt fix the issues with the hull and nothing else.
But this has all been explained in great detail already and I really can't be ****** going through it all again. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
872
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:52:00 -
[1566] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1! And the Vagabond continues on the track towards uselessness. How do the changes that the Vagabond is getting--arguably all benefits to the ship (and certainly improve its disposition compared to TQ)--make the ship any less useful than it is now? The ship is currently very strong as a kiter on TQ, and the shield boost bonus only further enhances ASB setups. What's more, the bonus is essentially free, since you would have received a speed bonus before that has now been baked into the hull. No changes will lessen a strong kiting buffer setup, and the MWD sig reduction role bonus is going to mitigate damage under MWD. If anything, the Vaga becomes more useful.
The only thing the vaga is useful for is killing frigs. What game are you playing? |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
157
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:56:00 -
[1567] - Quote
No more Winmatar? How about... Glorious Gallente Spaceship Master Race ;p |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1288
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:00:00 -
[1568] - Quote
What the **** is wrong with you people?
The Proposed vagabond is fantastic.. Stop being so damn awful.. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
422
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:03:00 -
[1569] - Quote
RISE
you may need to look at the fittings on the deimos now to allow for dual rep fits/ rep 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
504
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:03:00 -
[1570] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
my oh my, this could be a very fun ship to fly.
Any word on when these changes may hit duality?
|
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3241
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:04:00 -
[1571] - Quote
Rep Deimos <3
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
456
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:08:00 -
[1572] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:
And the Vagabond continues on the track towards uselessness.
omg noob Danny John-Pete , if you are clueless dont post thx |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
385
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:08:00 -
[1573] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
Ugh, armor rep bonus. Great, another useless bonus on gallente ships. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
422
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:16:00 -
[1574] - Quote
RISE perhaps you could increase the Deimos falloff bonus a little 10% on blasters aren't all that great? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
138
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:22:00 -
[1575] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:What the **** is wrong with you people?
The Proposed vagabond is fantastic.. Stop being so damn awful..
No, its a fantastic brawler, (nealry) no vaga pilot wants the vaga to be a good brawler, we want a good kiter, and as a kiter the vaga still is ****. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
422
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:25:00 -
[1576] - Quote
RISE
I still don't see why the Vaga should be soooooooooooooo much faster than everything else????? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Makoto Priano
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services
3662
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:25:00 -
[1577] - Quote
So. How 'bout that Eagle?
Has it -ever- been good? |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
403
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:30:00 -
[1578] - Quote
Makoto Priano wrote:So. How 'bout that Eagle?
Has it -ever- been good? I think this is a real concern. I don't understand why the Eagle doesn't get another turret to balance out its damage output with the rest, or at least a 7.5%/10% per level damage bonus. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
422
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:33:00 -
[1579] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Makoto Priano wrote:So. How 'bout that Eagle?
Has it -ever- been good? I think this is a real concern. I don't understand why the Eagle doesn't get another turret to balance out its damage output with the rest, or at least a 7.5%/10% per level damage bonus.
It needs so much more than just a double damage bonus 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
235
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:36:00 -
[1580] - Quote
Just what gallente needs, more active tanked T2 ships with 10% explosive and a lack of lowslots. |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
2076
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:36:00 -
[1581] - Quote
I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =) |
|
Drew Solaert
Wildcard Inc.
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:37:00 -
[1582] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
Oh good lord <3
I lied :o
|
Oh My Boobs
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:39:00 -
[1583] - Quote
Mr CCP Rise, please give a 4th med to the muninn.
Please please please please.
Why should it have a slot layout less good than T1 version? :/ |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
423
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:40:00 -
[1584] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
Nope no one said the eagle was good :) i think 2/10 people have said it is fine or ok at best in the whole of both threads 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
456
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:41:00 -
[1585] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:What the **** is wrong with you people?
The Proposed vagabond is fantastic.. Stop being so damn awful.. No, its a fantastic brawler, (nealry) no vaga pilot wants the vaga to be a good brawler, we want a good kiter, and as a kiter the vaga still is ****. do you know why? cause they used to the overpowered imba vagabond from winmatard era and now they are just spoiled kiddoes who cant pvp with balanced ships so they cry cry and cry so maybe ccp will pity them and give them their overpowerd toy hope this will never happen
the vaga is alreay very good, it doesnt need any boost at all |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1201
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:42:00 -
[1586] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
so its a 200 and ion boat only cuss there is not enough grid left over for 250's or neutrons. was this by design? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
403
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:44:00 -
[1587] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =) What? Are we reading the same page 79?
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
DeadNite
2 Girls - 1 Corp C.L.O.N.E.
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:47:00 -
[1588] - Quote
CCP Rise, Is there a chance that we can get some drones on the Eagle? While I think additional mid will be helpful in finally being able to field a web when dealing with small sig based ships, the option to not realistically be able to fit a neut makes me a bit sad (not that a NOS wasn't used on the ASB version, but when cap injected a neut was good at dealing with frig tackle).
Perhaps a partial light flight like the Moa gets or a a full flight of lights even (For both the Eagle and the Zealot really). The Eagle and the Zealot being the only HACs now without drones. The zealot can absolutely murder frigs, for example, with scorch if you manage to dictate the frigs transversal during approach while the Eagle has very little in a way to deal with frigs even if its just to break tackle to escape.
I know rails are getting a buff which will help the Eagle out a bit, but a the one glaring problem with the blaster variant in my opinion was always figuring out a way of dealing with smaller sig based ships like frigs.
To be clear, I am not saying that a brawling blaster Eagle should be able to come out on top in every frig engagement but it should at least have the possibility to manage that threat via drones or fitting choices. Sacrificing a Web for a tracking computer ,for example, I don't think is enough without a tracking bonus on the hull (which I don't think is the answer here).
Again, just an idea to see what you guys think and what you can come up with. I was just hoping for a viable brawling Caldari HAC as both seem to be better served in mid to long range rolls. Personally, I find being scrammed by a buzzard that you accidentally decloaked after panic warping to a celestial to be the best way to die in an Eagle :) |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:49:00 -
[1589] - Quote
The Eagle is amazing!!!
There 2nd person who said its awesome.
... why? No fking clue.
Its name is great.... I'll never fly it, touch it, undock in it....
But yea amazing. Balance achieved :-P. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:52:00 -
[1590] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:What the **** is wrong with you people?
The Proposed vagabond is fantastic.. Stop being so damn awful.. No, its a fantastic brawler, (nealry) no vaga pilot wants the vaga to be a good brawler, we want a good kiter, and as a kiter the vaga still is ****.
You go with that statement, I go with 'thx for capacitor' and 'thx for sig'. New Vaga awesome! I only correct my own spelling. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1201
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:56:00 -
[1591] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:RISE perhaps you could increase the Deimos falloff bonus a little 10% on blasters aren't all that great?
i am going to second this.
personally i would love to see tiericide done to rails. something like 150's have really good rate of fire low alpha and awesome tracking 200 have ok rate of fire ok alpha ok tracking but really good fall off then 250's have slow rate of fire bad fall off bad tracking great optimal range...
that way when gal are forced to fit 200's (liek the diemos is) it can take advantage of the bonus better.
but then that would also mean implimenting my sig and making ammo other then antimater good. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
425
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:58:00 -
[1592] - Quote
It would be nice if the Eagle could kite with blasters about 20km and do decent damage with a way of dealing with frigs and having the speed and agility to actually keep range.. unfortunately apparently this isn't allowed by RISE who thinks it has to remain a slightly ******** sniper ... even though the Naga and Talos can both out snipe it. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1201
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:03:00 -
[1593] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:It would be nice if the Eagle could kite with blasters about 20km and do decent damage with a way of dealing with frigs and having the speed and agility to actually keep range.. unfortunately apparently this isn't allowed by RISE who thinks it has to remain a slightly ******** sniper ... even though the Naga and Talos can both out snipe it.
IMO the eagle really really needs a 5th low slot this is radical but i would
remove the 5th high slot replace with a 5th low slot and change the bonus to 7.5% to rate of fire per level.
also add 25m3 of drones.
that imo would make up for lack of speed. its size. and lackluster dps.
so you are looking at 4 high 6 mid 5 low
though this is going to be a wait and see approach i guess. rise first wants to see where the meta lands with the rail boost before doing a Polish pass on hacs. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
406
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:03:00 -
[1594] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:RISE perhaps you could increase the Deimos falloff bonus a little 10% on blasters aren't all that great? i am going to second this. personally i would love to see tiericide done to rails. something like 150's have really good rate of fire low alpha and awesome tracking 200 have ok rate of fire ok alpha ok tracking but really good fall off then 250's have slow rate of fire bad fall off bad tracking great optimal range... that way when gal are forced to fit 200's (liek the diemos is) it can take advantage of the bonus better. but then that would also mean implimenting my sig and making ammo other then antimater good. When you almost exactly described the current state of rail guns as a proposed "tiericide," were you trolling or making a joke? Besides, weapon systems don't need a tiericide. The primary choice comes down to fitting, which is where it should be, with obvious benefits to smaller weapon tracking (relative to its other in-class choices), rate of fire, etc. and larger weapons generally having better optimal/falloff, and damage, which makes sense considering that they're larger/use more energy to propel the shot, etc.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
872
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:04:00 -
[1595] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
Ok, and the munnin? What about the lack of missile minmatar HAC?
Leme guess, "Munnin is good", and no mention of missile HAC for minmatar. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
456
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:06:00 -
[1596] - Quote
yeah the eagle should get something
if you compare it to the deimos it has no dronebay it has shittier cap regen it has higher cap use due to invu field it is slower it locks slower it has larger sig radius it has lower max dps by a lot
vs
slightly better resists better ehp better dps over 100km , not used at all thou locks farther, the deimos will have plenty of lock range for its weapon, so i wouldnt say this is a real advantage
i think the disadvantages outweight the advantages heavily
the deimos is clrearly the superiot blaster ship what we need is that the eagle should be the superior rail ship maybe give some rail only bonuses by larger magnitude , it isnt good with blaster setup anyway(yup tried it)
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:07:00 -
[1597] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:It would be nice if the Eagle could kite with blasters about 20km and do decent damage with a way of dealing with frigs and having the speed and agility to actually keep range.. unfortunately apparently this isn't allowed by RISE who thinks it has to remain a slightly ******** sniper ... even though the Naga and Talos can both out snipe it. IMO the eagle really really needs a 5th low slot this is radical but i would remove the 5th high slot replace with a 5th low slot and change the bonus to 7.5% to rate of fire per level. also add 25m3 of drones. that imo would make up for lack of speed. its size. and lackluster dps. so you are looking at 4 high 6 mid 5 low
though this is going to be a wait and see approach i guess. rise first wants to see where the meta lands with the rail boost before doing a Polish pass on hacs.
it would certainly be a step forward from crap to decent ... but that role still needs mobility otherwise it would get tackled easily enough 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
138
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:08:00 -
[1598] - Quote
That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:09:00 -
[1599] - Quote
CCP Rise:
With your comment that the eagle is supposed to be a fleet boat, I see where you're going with it. I had planned that sort of role for it previously. However, to be competitive with the zealot in that role, it needs a better speed to signature ratio than it currently has. While it won't have issues projecting damage to the edge of its targeting range, it will make very little impact on HAC fleets with a signature greater than 180m (currently, dual LSE II and one shield rig push it to 210 with maximum skills). I understand that the caldari ships are generally slower, but it will remain ineffective in its intended role.
I believe that the eagle would be viable in a long range HAC fleet with the base signature radius reduced to 125m (remember it will never ACTUALLY be that low due to a shield tank) and base speed increased to at least 200 m/s. This would keep the caldari boats slower still, but able to fight an ABC fleet at most ranges effectively. It would be at a disadvantage still against AHAC fleets when both in good engagement range, but have the option to engage from farther, which I think is the point of the proposed eagle.
Otherwise, I am very excited to see the HACs being updated! While there have been a lot of arguments against the proposed changes, most of them seem to be a good benefit to them. The other changes planned to the HACs will go a long way toward their intended roles. The simple addition of lock range frees up a mid slot when intended as long range fighters. I hope to see HACs used more than they have been, in large fleets, small, and solo.
Seriously, when was the last time anybody saw a HAC flying solo? It's been a long time since I've even seen the vagabond out there. |
glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
102
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:10:00 -
[1600] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =) Christ, forums ate my post.
Edit: It seems to me like the Deimos can do a bit of everything decently, but nothing really well.
It's got tank enough to brawl, sure, and it's fast, but the sig radius still hurts in relation to other AHACs. It can solo with the rep bonus, but lacks a utility high to neut off small stuff. It can kite with rails but lacks a tracking bonus to take advantage of the damage.
Oh well, i guess it's true that a compromise means everyone is equally unhappy. |
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
456
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:10:00 -
[1601] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =) Ok, and the munnin? What about the lack of missile minmatar HAC? Leme guess, "Munnin is good", and no mention of missile HAC for minmatar. i cant say much about muninn ( at least you should know how to spell its name if you care so much about that ship)
but if you want missile hac go train caldari or amarr, if i want a arties i have to train matar , or just fit them onto the amarr hulls :)
muninn seems fine it has tracking and alpha and good lock speed vs anti frig work |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:12:00 -
[1602] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants.
Heh, the new RLM Cerb tanks double that. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
872
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:12:00 -
[1603] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants.
Rise doesn't know how to balance.
He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger.
Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
872
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:13:00 -
[1604] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Heh, the new RLM Cerb tanks double that.
RLM cerb puts out like 300 dps. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:14:00 -
[1605] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:CCP Rise:
With your comment that the eagle is supposed to be a fleet boat, I see where you're going with it. I had planned that sort of role for it previously. However, to be competitive with the zealot in that role, it needs a better speed to signature ratio than it currently has. While it won't have issues projecting damage to the edge of its targeting range, it will make very little impact on HAC fleets with a signature greater than 180m (currently, dual LSE II and one shield rig push it to 210 with maximum skills). I understand that the caldari ships are generally slower, but it will remain ineffective in its intended role.
I believe that the eagle would be viable in a long range HAC fleet with the base signature radius reduced to 125m (remember it will never ACTUALLY be that low due to a shield tank) and base speed increased to at least 200 m/s. This would keep the caldari boats slower still, but able to fight an ABC fleet at most ranges effectively. It would be at a disadvantage still against AHAC fleets when both in good engagement range, but have the option to engage from farther, which I think is the point of the proposed eagle.
Otherwise, I am very excited to see the HACs being updated! While there have been a lot of arguments against the proposed changes, most of them seem to be a good benefit to them. The other changes planned to the HACs will go a long way toward their intended roles. The simple addition of lock range frees up a mid slot when intended as long range fighters. I hope to see HACs used more than they have been, in large fleets, small, and solo.
Seriously, when was the last time anybody saw a HAC flying solo? It's been a long time since I've even seen the vagabond out there.
The last time i saw one it was when i was salvaging and looting its wreck ... some nice fed gyro's...
But yes the Eagle just isn't competitive with anything at all ... Talos, Naga, Deimos can all be either good blaster or rail boats... The eagle is still poor at being a rail-boat never-mind ... entertaining blaster kiter or brawler 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Glippo
The Gaping Maw Heretic Initiative
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:15:00 -
[1606] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
Wow not only is that statement... completely wrong, but given that you have made no changes to the eagle since the start lets include the whole thread in your little ratio shall we. You seem to like to count posts so you go ahead and count all eagle related posts in the last 81 pages and lets see what the ratio of bad to fine is ( only fine btw, not good but fine; your words). I predict at least 20:1 of its bad:it's fine. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:15:00 -
[1607] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!!
They largely dominated because of sentries being OP 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
872
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:16:00 -
[1608] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote:CCP Rise:
With your comment that the eagle is supposed to be a fleet boat, I see where you're going with it. I had planned that sort of role for it previously. However, to be competitive with the zealot in that role, it needs a better speed to signature ratio than it currently has. While it won't have issues projecting damage to the edge of its targeting range, it will make very little impact on HAC fleets with a signature greater than 180m (currently, dual LSE II and one shield rig push it to 210 with maximum skills). I understand that the caldari ships are generally slower, but it will remain ineffective in its intended role.
I believe that the eagle would be viable in a long range HAC fleet with the base signature radius reduced to 125m (remember it will never ACTUALLY be that low due to a shield tank) and base speed increased to at least 200 m/s. This would keep the caldari boats slower still, but able to fight an ABC fleet at most ranges effectively. It would be at a disadvantage still against AHAC fleets when both in good engagement range, but have the option to engage from farther, which I think is the point of the proposed eagle.
Otherwise, I am very excited to see the HACs being updated! While there have been a lot of arguments against the proposed changes, most of them seem to be a good benefit to them. The other changes planned to the HACs will go a long way toward their intended roles. The simple addition of lock range frees up a mid slot when intended as long range fighters. I hope to see HACs used more than they have been, in large fleets, small, and solo.
Seriously, when was the last time anybody saw a HAC flying solo? It's been a long time since I've even seen the vagabond out there. The last time i saw one it was when i was salvaging and looting its wreck ... some nice fed gyro's... But yes the Eagle just isn't competitive with anything at all ... Talos, Naga, Deimos can all be either good blaster or rail boats... The eagle is still poor at being a rail-boat never-mind ... entertaining blaster kiter or brawler
Eagle is still terrible. But not enough people are whining to make it better. Thats why they won't look at it.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1290
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:16:00 -
[1609] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:What the **** is wrong with you people?
The Proposed vagabond is fantastic.. Stop being so damn awful.. No, its a fantastic brawler, (nealry) no vaga pilot wants the vaga to be a good brawler, we want a good kiter, and as a kiter the vaga still is ****.
How is being as fast as a scythe navy, having good dps and reasonable projection while having 25k ehp and over 500 dps tanked bad as a kiter?
Seriously, LSE LASB fits are really quite good on that thing.. I don't really get why people are obsessed with trying to make it a really gimpy XL asb brawler. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
319
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:20:00 -
[1610] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
I think the Deimos changes are better - not perfect as I'd still like the utility high, and it to do more DPS than an ENI, but at least its tank hasn't been nerfed anymore, and the bonus change is actually a useful defining bonus now - I still reckon a plate and AAR rather than medium reps will be the cookie-cut way but we'll see after testing.
I'm more concerned that it will be like another 5 years before you return to look at these ships again (after this round of balance changes) based on your current speed of balancing things. Hopefully once you're done with your 1st pass over everything you'l start doing a priority case rebalance ad-hoc?
It'd be nice to hear you'll be redressing any ship thats sub or over-par as you still go, but I guess thats just my wishful thinking. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:23:00 -
[1611] - Quote
RISE
So why is it the Vaga is allowed to be a super fast Attack ship along with tank bonuses and great projection with drones best resists as all minnie ships still have the 225 limit the rest have less.. but the rest of the ships can't get speed and drone buffs because they will become OP???????? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Makoto Priano
Priano Trans-Stellar State Services
3666
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:24:00 -
[1612] - Quote
So. Let's say we swapped one of the optimal bonuses with a ROF bonus or a damage bonus. It cuts the Eagle range bonus sharply, but it gives it comparable or higher raw DPS to the Deimos-- but the Deimos has superior speed, agility, and a rep bonus. My thought is that the Deimos remains a superior blaster boat and better in sustained, smaller engagements, while the Eagle can actually dice with damage, and buffers better due to the resist bonus.
This conflicts with the plan to make the Deimos a fleet AHAC, but-- right now, the Eagle isn't going to end up being in -anyone's- doctrine. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:27:00 -
[1613] - Quote
Muninn still needs its utility high swapped for a mid.
Sac actually has enough fittings to use the utility high and gets nice range on hams now(situational but still handy in a fleet and can save you while solo). 5 meds really helps.
Deimos looks better now and Eagle is still too slow.
Cerb should get its bonuses to HML and HAMs only much like Ishtar only gets bonuses to heavy drones, I think it will just be too good vs frigs with these bonuses affecting rlmls aswell |
Novah Soul
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:29:00 -
[1614] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! They largely dominated because of sentries being OP Sentries arent op.. the assist mechanics need some work but other then that (outside of the general work all drones need), they are fine. Sentry boats crapped over everything else because of the limited ranges of the tourny arena more then anything else. Plus I suppose smartbombs weren't allowed, as I do not recall seeing any during any matches I saw. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:29:00 -
[1615] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Xequecal wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Heh, the new RLM Cerb tanks double that. deimos does triple the dps.
I don't think the deimos does 1500 DPS. Certainly not from 100km like the Cerb. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:30:00 -
[1616] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
But I didn't see anyone on that page say that the Sacrilege was good... :-P
Zealot, Ishtar, Cerb, Vaga are going to be great.
Updated Deimos should be good for solo/small gang, and who cares if it never becomes the blob ship of choice. Munin... largely unchanged, imo. A little bit tougher, but not really that much more useful, save in the SS/anti-blackbird area, but that goes for all. Sacrilege is fine... if you don't mind it being the oddball that is more a utility ship than a Heavy Assault ship. The Eagle... still the lame duck of the lineup. How about a second damage bonus? or a tracking bonus? or some speed? or some drones? Can this become the Caldari equivalent to the Sac, so the poor Sac doesn't feel so much like an oddball?
Thanks! |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:31:00 -
[1617] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =) Maybe I missed it. Where did someone say the Eagle is fine? :p
Please don't change the Sac slot layout!
Re: Minmatar missile HAC? Completely impartial.... Don't like either of the Matari HACs at the moment through personal preference :p I'd rather see the Muninn made a bit more useful.
glepp wrote:Oh well, i guess it's true that a compromise means everyone is equally unhappy. No pleasing some people. Based on your comment (that I've trimmed) it sounds in a good place. You can't have a ship that does everything, the fact that it can potentially do multiple things pretty well is good. ie if you miss the small neut to deal with frigates, bring a friend? Not every ship can/should be a solopwnmobile. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:32:00 -
[1618] - Quote
Novah Soul wrote:Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! They largely dominated because of sentries being OP Sentries arent op.. the assist mechanics need some work but other then that (outside of the general work all drones need), they are fine. Sentry boats crapped over everything else because of the limited ranges of the tourny arena more then anything else. Plus I suppose smartbombs weren't allowed, as I do not recall seeing any during any matches I saw.
there were smartbombing and some teams resorted to killing the sentries as the only way of stopping the OP ness of sentries. bottom line on sentries is - LR BS gun range - tracking of bs guns improvable to medium SR tracking but at 80km rather than 4km that medium blasters do... need i go on?? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:36:00 -
[1619] - Quote
Doed wrote:Muninn still needs its utility high swapped for a mid.
Cerb should get its bonuses to HML and HAMs only much like Ishtar only gets bonuses to heavy drones, I think it will just be too good vs frigs with these bonuses affecting rlmls aswell
I agree RML's are OP against small ships they need a rethink on how to deal with small ships i like the caracal navy issue for an anti frig role that the corax does the role nicely .. but adding missiles to TC/TC/TD would help here. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Luc Chastot
Daktaklakpak.
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:36:00 -
[1620] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Rise doesn't know how to balance.
He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger.
Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! They largely dominated because of sentries being OP Sentries are fine, the tracking and optimal range bonus on the Dominix is probably a bit too high. I can tell because I fly Gallente. I think lowering it to 7.5% would be enough; make them fit 1 tracking link and they will need to sacrifice some tank or dps. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
872
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:36:00 -
[1621] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Novah Soul wrote:Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! They largely dominated because of sentries being OP Sentries arent op.. the assist mechanics need some work but other then that (outside of the general work all drones need), they are fine. Sentry boats crapped over everything else because of the limited ranges of the tourny arena more then anything else. Plus I suppose smartbombs weren't allowed, as I do not recall seeing any during any matches I saw. there were smartbombing and some teams resorted to killing the sentries as the only way of stopping the OP ness of sentries. bottom line on sentries is - LR BS gun range - tracking of bs guns improvable to medium SR tracking but at 80km rather than 4km that medium blasters do... need i go on??
Since Sentries are so good, and the best ships for the job are gallente ones.
This makes gallente ships OP. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:38:00 -
[1622] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Novah Soul wrote:Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! They largely dominated because of sentries being OP Sentries arent op.. the assist mechanics need some work but other then that (outside of the general work all drones need), they are fine. Sentry boats crapped over everything else because of the limited ranges of the tourny arena more then anything else. Plus I suppose smartbombs weren't allowed, as I do not recall seeing any during any matches I saw. there were smartbombing and some teams resorted to killing the sentries as the only way of stopping the OP ness of sentries. bottom line on sentries is - LR BS gun range - tracking of bs guns improvable to medium SR tracking but at 80km rather than 4km that medium blasters do... need i go on??
They track well but not medium blasters well. As said by someone else, assist mechanic is the bad thing here. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:45:00 -
[1623] - Quote
Luc Chastot wrote:Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Rise doesn't know how to balance.
He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger.
Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! They largely dominated because of sentries being OP Sentries are fine, the tracking and optimal range bonus on the Dominix is probably a bit too high. I can tell because I fly Gallente. I think lowering it to 7.5% would be enough; make them fit 1 tracking link and they will need to sacrifice some tank or dps. yeah the optimal bonus boosts the tracking aswell as you can shot from farther with the same drone type, so it become double tracking bonus + add that the drone modules are pretty good 25% both opt/falloff oh and no cap always online module :) results in they can hit too well from very far , with nearly battleships dps |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1429
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:51:00 -
[1624] - Quote
Did some checking, sentries on a Dominix will out track medium, artillery and Railguns and only heavy beam laser II Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:54:00 -
[1625] - Quote
everybody saying the vagabond is fine should make a list
one side ships safe to engage in a vagabond and killable in a vagabond
other side ships unsafe to engage or not killable in a vagabond
and then come here again and still telling its a ok ship to fly stop liveing in the past (pre blaster buff pre ABC prete nerf pre cruiser balance)....
its outdated and will suffer after this change in time everbody will see it but that will liek all things in eve bee a long time .... |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:56:00 -
[1626] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did some checking, sentries on a Dominix will out track medium, artillery and Railguns and only heavy beam laser II
3 omnis on lv5 domi gets 0.9 tracking pretty much the same as barrage on 425's using garde's II at 80km plus 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Esharan
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
105
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 17:58:00 -
[1627] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
No...Vagabond is not good with new changes. Everyone will soon be flying Deimos. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:04:00 -
[1628] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
Armour and rails doesn't fit on a giant chunk of gallente ships. Fix plx. |
Kallie Rae
NorCorp Security Tribal Band
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:08:00 -
[1629] - Quote
Hmm deimos with rep bonus that is interesting, might be cool trying to solo some with, looking forward to it! |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1429
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:11:00 -
[1630] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did some checking, sentries on a Dominix will out track medium, artillery and Railguns and only heavy beam laser II 3 omnis on lv5 domi gets 0.9 tracking pretty much the same as barrage on 425's using garde's II at 80km plus That is .09 which is still only greater than the same things. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:15:00 -
[1631] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did some checking, sentries on a Dominix will out track medium, artillery and Railguns and only heavy beam laser II 3 omnis on lv5 domi gets 0.9 tracking pretty much the same as barrage on 425's using garde's II at 80km plus That is .09 which is still only greater than the same things.
Well it tracks better than a Null blaster Talos which can do nasty things at 16km nevermind at 80km 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
406
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:20:00 -
[1632] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! They largely dominated because of sentries being OP Sentry drones are not OP. They performed very well in a very limited situation that the Alliance Tournament creates. The AT environment is completely unique and doesn't represent a "real" combat situation. That'd be like saying a boxing match accurately reflects a street fight.
In the "real" world, bombers utterly decimate a pile of sentries like the tournament ships dropped. Multiple logistic ships, and support ships can easily get under the range or out of the range of gardes, which is where a lot of the problem with the sentries came into play in the tournament, since the limited engagement envelope kept ships in garde optimals much of the time.
As soon as we start seeing blobby Domi fleets owning in "real" Eve, then we can start complaining that sentries are OP. But please, stop derailing this thread for a side argument about sentries that doesn't accurately reflect their current state in the game under real-world circumstances.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:21:00 -
[1633] - Quote
RISE
you still need to improve armour tanking for the Deimos to be competitive with a ASB Vagabond .. especially cap usage and the ridiculous nanite reload time 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Haradgrim
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:22:00 -
[1634] - Quote
I'll have to spend some time flying each ship to figure out if I like the changes in reality as much as I do on paper. I think that Deimos change finally puts it into a sweet spot where it has a unique role and is worth the cost over similar faction and t1 hulls.
The one ship that still feels like it needs another tweak is the Sac, it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be and I'm worried that its become a bit of a jack of all trades, master of none which should be the opposite of the goal for HACs. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:24:00 -
[1635] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! They largely dominated because of sentries being OP Sentry drones are not OP. They performed very well in a very limited situation that the Alliance Tournament creates. The AT environment is completely unique and doesn't represent a "real" combat situation. That'd be like saying a boxing match accurately reflects a street fight. In the "real" world, bombers utterly decimate a pile of sentries like the tournament ships dropped. Multiple logistic ships, and support ships can easily get under the range or out of the range of gardes, which is where a lot of the problem with the sentries came into play in the tournament, since the limited engagement envelope kept ships in garde optimals much of the time. As soon as we start seeing blobby Domi fleets owning in "real" Eve, then we can start complaining that sentries are OP. But please, stop derailing this thread for a side argument about sentries that doesn't accurately reflect their current state in the game under real-world circumstances.
Assigned sentry drones are OP, and omnis give you too much of a bonus, I think. They should probably drop omnis to 12.5% for each stat and add some scripts. Making drones a little smarter on their own would be nice if they did it at the same time as removing drone assignment. 3 omnis is lol, 80km optimal with more tracking than an electron blaster. Dead frigates and cruisers everywhere - you cannot get under them without a sig bonus or an oversized prop mod. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:29:00 -
[1636] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:RISE
you still need to improve armour tanking for the Deimos to be competitive with a ASB Vagabond .. especially cap usage and the ridiculous nanite reload time
i highly doubt that the deimos needs further buffs....
@Rise some people argued their asses off (inclueding me) that the new tempest needs further changes to be on one lvl with other bs. you didn't buff it according to peoples arguments. yet were still waiting to be proven wrong. the tempest remains sub pair with other bs (you can search battleclinic for a recent fit and wont find many if any fits and even those youll find are garbage @all if you dont belive me check it i'd gladly be proven wrong and that the tempest is a good ship cause i love it)
plz Rise dont let the same thing happen to the vagabond ! |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:34:00 -
[1637] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! They largely dominated because of sentries being OP Sentry drones are not OP. They performed very well in a very limited situation that the Alliance Tournament creates. The AT environment is completely unique and doesn't represent a "real" combat situation. That'd be like saying a boxing match accurately reflects a street fight. In the "real" world, bombers utterly decimate a pile of sentries like the tournament ships dropped. Multiple logistic ships, and support ships can easily get under the range or out of the range of gardes, which is where a lot of the problem with the sentries came into play in the tournament, since the limited engagement envelope kept ships in garde optimals much of the time. As soon as we start seeing blobby Domi fleets owning in "real" Eve, then we can start complaining that sentries are OP. But please, stop derailing this thread for a side argument about sentries that doesn't accurately reflect their current state in the game under real-world circumstances.
Considering Apocs can be modified to do the same thing as Gardes in terms of tracking, range and dps why do you think they still went with sentries? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1429
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:37:00 -
[1638] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did some checking, sentries on a Dominix will out track medium, artillery and Railguns and only heavy beam laser II 3 omnis on lv5 domi gets 0.9 tracking pretty much the same as barrage on 425's using garde's II at 80km plus That is .09 which is still only greater than the same things. Well it tracks better than a Null blaster Talos which can do nasty things at 16km nevermind at 80km Until you put 3 tracking computers on the Talos then they track about the same. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:46:00 -
[1639] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did some checking, sentries on a Dominix will out track medium, artillery and Railguns and only heavy beam laser II 3 omnis on lv5 domi gets 0.9 tracking pretty much the same as barrage on 425's using garde's II at 80km plus That is .09 which is still only greater than the same things. Well it tracks better than a Null blaster Talos which can do nasty things at 16km nevermind at 80km Until you put 3 tracking computers on the Talos then they track about the same.
Think of it another way at 80km they can do 750 dps ... only an scorch apoc can do the same most LR guns do sbout 450 dps maybe with many more drawbacks 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1294
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:48:00 -
[1640] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did some checking, sentries on a Dominix will out track medium, artillery and Railguns and only heavy beam laser II 3 omnis on lv5 domi gets 0.9 tracking pretty much the same as barrage on 425's using garde's II at 80km plus That is .09 which is still only greater than the same things. Well it tracks better than a Null blaster Talos which can do nasty things at 16km nevermind at 80km Until you put 3 tracking computers on the Talos then they track about the same.
a talos cannot get close to the range/tracking on gardes.
Stop bullshitting. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:51:00 -
[1641] - Quote
Rise, good job on the Deimos. I'm looking forward to it. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:54:00 -
[1642] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Considering Apocs can be modified to do the same thing as Gardes in terms of tracking, range and dps why do you think they still went with sentries?
Simple, you can damp Apocalypses so they can't target you. You can ECM them so they lose their lock on you. You can TD them to stop them applying any dps to you.
Meanwhile the Sentries carry on shooting providing the Domi (or whatever drone ship) just re-assigns them to someone who has you locked. All you can do is kill them, which isn't a fast process in most cases.
This is why Sentries rocked in the tourney, I'm looking forward to seeing how they get used on TQ now - I think it was a massive eye opener, even knowing that the lack of mobility will be an issue on TQ.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1429
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:08:00 -
[1643] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: a talos cannot get close to the range/tracking on gardes.
Stop bullshitting.
Range, no Tracking yes.
Gardes cant come close to the tank or speed of a talos though Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1201
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:14:00 -
[1644] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!!
Drones did not.blasters or rails There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:30:00 -
[1645] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Harvey James wrote:Considering Apocs can be modified to do the same thing as Gardes in terms of tracking, range and dps why do you think they still went with sentries? Simple, you can damp Apocalypses so they can't target you. You can ECM them so they lose their lock on you. You can TD them to stop them applying any dps to you. Meanwhile the Sentries carry on shooting providing the Domi (or whatever drone ship) just re-assigns them to someone who has you locked. All you can do is kill them, which isn't a fast process in most cases. This is why Sentries rocked in the tourney, I'm looking forward to seeing how they get used on TQ now - I think it was a massive eye opener, even knowing that the lack of mobility will be an issue on TQ.
It does bring up concerns that if you can't get close enough to kill them then what is the counter exactly? Surely the drones should work more like guns in that they can be affected by things like ecm , damps etc... The set of drones treated as 1 module i.e. as guns are and as they are connected to the parent ship should be affected by whatever affects the parent ship and at least sentries shouldn't be assignable to any other ship,
Perhaps only ships with similar bandwidth can handle them being assigned to them but then only that ships bonuses apply to the drones.. so - Domi assigns sentries to another ship with 125 mb say a Geddon, the sentries are then only bonused by the geddon not the domi. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4451
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:43:00 -
[1646] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! Drones did not.blasters or rails True.
Also, tournament arena with boundaries and no way to reposition played to the drones favor. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:51:00 -
[1647] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:It does bring up concerns that if you can't get close enough to kill them then what is the counter exactly? Surely the drones should work more like guns in that they can be affected by things like ecm , damps etc...
I've been pondering similar. I'd perhaps like to see TD/Damp/ECM against the drone-owner ship impact the drones that it is controlling. Not necessarily to the full values, but just to *some* extent. Would need a lot of balancing though, at the end of the day the game needs to be balanced around TQ, not Alliance Tournament.
Definitely a conversation for another thread though. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4451
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:53:00 -
[1648] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Harvey James wrote:Considering Apocs can be modified to do the same thing as Gardes in terms of tracking, range and dps why do you think they still went with sentries? Simple, you can damp Apocalypses so they can't target you. You can ECM them so they lose their lock on you. You can TD them to stop them applying any dps to you. Meanwhile the Sentries carry on shooting providing the Domi (or whatever drone ship) just re-assigns them to someone who has you locked. All you can do is kill them, which isn't a fast process in most cases. This is why Sentries rocked in the tourney, I'm looking forward to seeing how they get used on TQ now - I think it was a massive eye opener, even knowing that the lack of mobility will be an issue on TQ. It does bring up concerns that if you can't get close enough to kill them then what is the counter exactly? Surely the drones should work more like guns in that they can be affected by things like ecm , damps etc... The set of drones treated as 1 module i.e. as guns are and as they are connected to the parent ship should be affected by whatever affects the parent ship and at least sentries shouldn't be assignable to any other ship, Perhaps only ships with similar bandwidth can handle them being assigned to them but then only that ships bonuses apply to the drones.. so - Domi assigns sentries to another ship with 125 mb say a Geddon, the sentries are then only bonused by the geddon not the domi. I have to say that last point is extremely valid. If you assign your drones to another ship, that ship assumes command and control of them and its bonuses (or lack there of) should apply.
Regardless, a ship should never be able to control more drones than it has bandwidth for. I know its a clever meta currently, but we should never see a situation occur where several hundred sentry drones all respond to a single click. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:56:00 -
[1649] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Harvey James wrote:Considering Apocs can be modified to do the same thing as Gardes in terms of tracking, range and dps why do you think they still went with sentries? Simple, you can damp Apocalypses so they can't target you. You can ECM them so they lose their lock on you. You can TD them to stop them applying any dps to you. Meanwhile the Sentries carry on shooting providing the Domi (or whatever drone ship) just re-assigns them to someone who has you locked. All you can do is kill them, which isn't a fast process in most cases. This is why Sentries rocked in the tourney, I'm looking forward to seeing how they get used on TQ now - I think it was a massive eye opener, even knowing that the lack of mobility will be an issue on TQ. It does bring up concerns that if you can't get close enough to kill them then what is the counter exactly? Surely the drones should work more like guns in that they can be affected by things like ecm , damps etc... The set of drones treated as 1 module i.e. as guns are and as they are connected to the parent ship should be affected by whatever affects the parent ship and at least sentries shouldn't be assignable to any other ship, Perhaps only ships with similar bandwidth can handle them being assigned to them but then only that ships bonuses apply to the drones.. so - Domi assigns sentries to another ship with 125 mb say a Geddon, the sentries are then only bonused by the geddon not the domi. I have to say that last point is extremely valid. If you assign your drones to another ship, that ship assumes command and control of them and its bonuses (or lack there of) should apply. Regardless, a ship should never be able to control more drones than it has bandwidth for. I know its a clever meta currently, but we should never see a situation occur where several hundred sentry drones all respond to a single click.
mm.. true ... i was thinking that maybe a new module could be for this exact thing in a high slot maybe fittings like a gun perhaps with certain limits ... like range and can only handle an extra 125 mb 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Soleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:58:00 -
[1650] - Quote
much, much, much better on the diemios!
Thanks Rise. |
|
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:00:00 -
[1651] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:It would be nice if the Eagle could kite with blasters about 20km and do decent damage with a way of dealing with frigs and having the speed and agility to actually keep range.. unfortunately apparently this isn't allowed by RISE who thinks it has to remain a slightly ******** sniper ... even though the Naga and Talos can both out snipe it.
Kiting with blasters...
Yeah no. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
385
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:08:00 -
[1652] - Quote
Is it that hard to make a Gallente blaster boat that doesn't have that god damn stupid useless rep bonus on it? |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
872
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:36:00 -
[1653] - Quote
Gnoshia wrote:Harvey James wrote:It would be nice if the Eagle could kite with blasters about 20km and do decent damage with a way of dealing with frigs and having the speed and agility to actually keep range.. unfortunately apparently this isn't allowed by RISE who thinks it has to remain a slightly ******** sniper ... even though the Naga and Talos can both out snipe it. Kiting with blasters... Yeah no.
Can easily be done with blasters, TEs, and null loaded. What else is the point of two 10% range bonuses. Surely you won't try to brawl when you have that advantage?
But I still agree, the eagle is pretty terrible. |
BRIMTAK
Greedy Jerks
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:42:00 -
[1654] - Quote
Was really hoping you would have given the muninn the 4th mid slot to match the rupture |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
873
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:07:00 -
[1655] - Quote
BRIMTAK wrote:Was really hoping you would have given the muninn the 4th mid slot to match the rupture
Or make it a missile boat.
As it stands, the cynabal does the vaga's and the munnins job better. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
427
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:10:00 -
[1656] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:BRIMTAK wrote:Was really hoping you would have given the muninn the 4th mid slot to match the rupture Or make it a missile boat.
A HAM armour muninn would probably be used more than the arty muninn is now.. Tornado dominates here much like it Naga does over the eagle
Unfortunately RISE doesn't want to rock the boat here at all despite being happy too in the BS thread.. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
388
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:16:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:BRIMTAK wrote:Was really hoping you would have given the muninn the 4th mid slot to match the rupture Or make it a missile boat. Unfortunately RISE doesn't want to rock the boat here at all despite being happy too in the BS thread..
Thinking is hard yo.
A lot of these changes speak to lazyness. There is a lot that could have been done to shake up gameplay (bonus to MJD maybe?) instead its more just kinda "meh" |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:17:00 -
[1658] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
Man, did you ever noticed the real problem here? It's SPECIALIZATION!!!!
Maybe get the HAC's into a workable role - MWD bonus is **** as hell. That works with Assault Frigates but not with HAC's because Sig/Velocity relation. Afterburner fittings are still better (around 50%).
Get your **** together and make your job. HAC's and Command Ships suck right now and will do so with your proposed changes man! |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
165
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:25:00 -
[1659] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =) At least you are using the present participle which gives me hope that you will do something about the new Cerb (if unaltered soon to be the old Drake for usage stats ). And as for the Sac and Cerb, the agility differential is absurd. The Sac will get plated and become even less mobile while the Cerb could get a nano treatment and become even more mobile (and retaining more range). Is this what you want? |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
209
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:28:00 -
[1660] - Quote
First, to comment on your pro/con post about page 79...
it's about 5 to 1 ratio of negative post to positive on this thread, and actually worse now than in early pages.
Secondly, you can't post about player support post when none of them can even tell you why other than.... "oh hacs are slightly better than before"
Third, you have still not received any positive support for the sacrilege, and honestly, it has absolutely no role that the zealot could not fill better/easier if dedicated to that cause besides a different weapon system.
Forth, you have not addressed cost concerns one bit when players have openly pointed out that the price point of hacs in no way accounts for their non-unique role, reduced efficiency at task compared to other ships, and other glaring flaws.
You have yet to give hac's a role.... and there is no sense of balance within even the ship class itself. There are some obvious winners and losers in the bunch.... for a class that's alerady underperforming as a whole, what does that say about the losers within the class.
========================= Then there is the MWD role bonus for hacs has been bashed to **** and back, but you refuse to budge on it. Next to nobody has supported it, but you blindly continue to see it as a good thing... even when the predominant use of hacs doesn't even suggest using a MWD ever, if often.
========================= Last and most important:
Fun factor: Without a role, these ships have completely lost out on the most obvious point of a rebalance... FUN.
There is just nothing unique to these ships to make them worth flying. Player's have been screaming at you for creativity, but you refuse to offer up any. What kind of smug obnoxious ass do you have to be to completely ignore what your paycheck players have been asking you for.
Nobody has asked for you to make them OP, just different in some way. But no, you refuse to even try.
Thanks for nothing. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
428
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:36:00 -
[1661] - Quote
RISE
When will the missile rebalance happen? small missiles/HAMS / adding missiles to TE/TC/TD
atm the cerberus will be crazy OP with HAM's having such range on them we're talking 650 dps at 35km with HAM's
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
331
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:37:00 -
[1662] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
But the Eagle ISN'T good.
It's role still isn't clearly defined. The railgun changes (mostly their hit to tracking) are going to hurt the Eagle and force it into ranges that don't make it useful. It's not going to be a good close range ship either because it doesn't have any drones at all. I see absolutely no reason to use an Eagle over a Zealot still. |
Dev Tesla
Autumn Interval
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:38:00 -
[1663] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:First, to comment on your pro/con post about page 79... it's about 5 to 1 ratio of negative post to positive on this thread, and actually worse now than in early pages. Secondly, you can't post about player support post when none of them can even tell you why other than.... "oh hacs are slightly better than before" Third, you have still not received any positive support for the sacrilege, and honestly, it has absolutely no role that the zealot could not fill better/easier if dedicated to that cause besides a different weapon system. Forth, you have not addressed cost concerns one bit when players have openly pointed out that the price point of hacs in no way accounts for their non-unique role, reduced efficiency at task compared to other ships, and other glaring flaws. You have yet to give hac's a role.... and there is no sense of balance within even the ship class itself. There are some obvious winners and losers in the bunch.... for a class that's alerady underperforming as a whole, what does that say about the losers within the class. ========================= Then there is the MWD role bonus for hacs has been bashed to **** and back, but you refuse to budge on it. Next to nobody has supported it, but you blindly continue to see it as a good thing... even when the predominant use of hacs doesn't even suggest using a MWD ever, if often. ========================= Last and most important: Fun factor: Without a role, these ships have completely lost out on the most obvious point of a rebalance... FUN. There is just nothing unique to these ships to make them worth flying. Player's have been screaming at you for creativity, but you refuse to offer up any. What kind of smug obnoxious ass do you have to be to completely ignore what your paycheck players have been asking you for. Nobody has asked for you to make them OP, just different in some way. But no, you refuse to even try. Thanks for nothing.
+1 I'm Down with this post.
A bit harsh at the end.
|
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
114
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:40:00 -
[1664] - Quote
glepp wrote:It seems to me like the Deimos can do a bit of everything decently, but nothing really well.
It's got tank enough to brawl, sure, and it's fast, but the sig radius still hurts in relation to other AHACs. It can solo with the rep bonus, but lacks a utility high to neut off small stuff. It can kite with rails but lacks a tracking bonus to take advantage of the damage.
Oh well, i guess it's true that a compromise means everyone is equally unhappy.
I don't know dude. I think the OLD deimos was a pretty good ship in very limited niches and this just buffs it in every way - enough that I can see it's comfortable range expanding quite a lot. It is very well placed to take advantage of the buffs to the electronic suite, extra mid and substantially increased mobility. And the extra cap (without MWD) and fitting isn't hurting anything either.
I see what you are saying about the sig radius, but the MWD fits got a massive sig buff thanks to the role bonus, and the AB fits a slight one. The old sig levels weren't the thing holding this hull back and I don't think they will be a real problem now.
It may lack the utility high, but it does have the drones for a couple small flights in a solo config - not exactly the most frig susceptible hac (*cough* zealot and eagle *cough, cough*). And the extra mid is a huge asset as well since you can run a cap booster now with full tackle. An Ion or Electron Deimos isn't going to have too much to worry about in the frig category I don't think.
I feel like how rails work out depends more on the med long range turret rebalance. It will be something to watch but non-tracking bonused rails should work on this thing with a decent pilot - otherwise I am sure Rise won't give up until we reach some sort of reasonable status. Much like a ton of people having problems conceptualizing the proposed vaga in a world with the current Cynabal I have an issue imaging the rail deimos when the tracking bonused Talos exists. We shall see I guess.
Either way a world with a tankier, faster, extra mid deimos is a world I am looking forward to playing in. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
428
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:43:00 -
[1665] - Quote
Dev Tesla wrote:I'm Down wrote:First, to comment on your pro/con post about page 79... it's about 5 to 1 ratio of negative post to positive on this thread, and actually worse now than in early pages. Secondly, you can't post about player support post when none of them can even tell you why other than.... "oh hacs are slightly better than before" Third, you have still not received any positive support for the sacrilege, and honestly, it has absolutely no role that the zealot could not fill better/easier if dedicated to that cause besides a different weapon system. Forth, you have not addressed cost concerns one bit when players have openly pointed out that the price point of hacs in no way accounts for their non-unique role, reduced efficiency at task compared to other ships, and other glaring flaws. You have yet to give hac's a role.... and there is no sense of balance within even the ship class itself. There are some obvious winners and losers in the bunch.... for a class that's alerady underperforming as a whole, what does that say about the losers within the class. ========================= Then there is the MWD role bonus for hacs has been bashed to **** and back, but you refuse to budge on it. Next to nobody has supported it, but you blindly continue to see it as a good thing... even when the predominant use of hacs doesn't even suggest using a MWD ever, if often. ========================= Last and most important: Fun factor: Without a role, these ships have completely lost out on the most obvious point of a rebalance... FUN. There is just nothing unique to these ships to make them worth flying. Player's have been screaming at you for creativity, but you refuse to offer up any. What kind of smug obnoxious ass do you have to be to completely ignore what your paycheck players have been asking you for. Nobody has asked for you to make them OP, just different in some way. But no, you refuse to even try. Thanks for nothing. +1 I'm Down with this post. A bit harsh at the end.
just a bit harsh :) he has made some effort after the first round you have to give him some credit for that others just wouldn't even do that or interact as much as he does. But at the same time he does seem to have a bit of a blind spot for fine details and certain ships and his mind seems to get made up without much chance of changing it... sounds a bit like fozzie actually 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
428
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:48:00 -
[1666] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:glepp wrote:It seems to me like the Deimos can do a bit of everything decently, but nothing really well.
It's got tank enough to brawl, sure, and it's fast, but the sig radius still hurts in relation to other AHACs. It can solo with the rep bonus, but lacks a utility high to neut off small stuff. It can kite with rails but lacks a tracking bonus to take advantage of the damage.
Oh well, i guess it's true that a compromise means everyone is equally unhappy. I don't know dude. I think the OLD deimos was a pretty good ship in very limited niches and this just buffs it in every way - enough that I can see it's comfortable range expanding quite a lot. It is very well placed to take advantage of the buffs to the electronic suite, extra mid and substantially increased mobility. And the extra cap (without MWD) and fitting isn't hurting anything either. I see what you are saying about the sig radius, but the MWD fits got a massive sig buff thanks to the role bonus, and the AB fits a slight one. The old sig levels weren't the thing holding this hull back and I don't think they will be a real problem now. It may lack the utility high, but it does have the drones for a couple small flights in a solo config - not exactly the most frig susceptible hac (*cough* zealot and eagle *cough, cough*). And the extra mid is a huge asset as well since you can run a cap booster now with full tackle. An Ion or Electron Deimos isn't going to have too much to worry about in the frig category I don't think. I feel like how rails work out depends more on the med long range turret rebalance. It will be something to watch but non-tracking bonused rails should work on this thing with a decent pilot - otherwise I am sure Rise won't give up until we reach some sort of reasonable status. Much like a ton of people having problems conceptualizing the proposed vaga in a world with the current Cynabal I have an issue imaging the rail deimos when the tracking bonused Talos exists. We shall see I guess. Either way a world with a tankier, faster, extra mid deimos is a world I am looking forward to playing in.
I'm finding it hard to imagine even fitting rails never-mind using them on an Deimos ... the deimos i want to see is a blaster AAR deimos.... but i'm not convinced with its range a stronger falloff bonus is needed and ofc cap issues and AAR's being somewhat underwhelming atm 15% won't do much to fix it. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp Evil Things Inc.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:51:00 -
[1667] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:First, to comment on your pro/con post about page 79... it's about 5 to 1 ratio of negative post to positive on this thread, and actually worse now than in early pages. Secondly, you can't post about player support post when none of them can even tell you why other than.... "oh hacs are slightly better than before" Third, you have still not received any positive support for the sacrilege, and honestly, it has absolutely no role that the zealot could not fill better/easier if dedicated to that cause besides a different weapon system. Forth, you have not addressed cost concerns one bit when players have openly pointed out that the price point of hacs in no way accounts for their non-unique role, reduced efficiency at task compared to other ships, and other glaring flaws. You have yet to give hac's a role.... and there is no sense of balance within even the ship class itself. There are some obvious winners and losers in the bunch.... for a class that's alerady underperforming as a whole, what does that say about the losers within the class. ========================= Then there is the MWD role bonus for hacs has been bashed to **** and back, but you refuse to budge on it. Next to nobody has supported it, but you blindly continue to see it as a good thing... even when the predominant use of hacs doesn't even suggest using a MWD ever, if often. ========================= Last and most important: Fun factor: Without a role, these ships have completely lost out on the most obvious point of a rebalance... FUN. There is just nothing unique to these ships to make them worth flying. Player's have been screaming at you for creativity, but you refuse to offer up any. What kind of smug obnoxious ass do you have to be to completely ignore what your paycheck players have been asking you for. Nobody has asked for you to make them OP, just different in some way. But no, you refuse to even try. Thanks for nothing.
Agree`d. CCP Rise I know your working hard, but please. give it one more go, give us a round 3 to the balance and youll be loved... |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
126
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:57:00 -
[1668] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Third, you have still not received any positive support for the sacrilege, and honestly, it has absolutely no role that the zealot could not fill better/easier if dedicated to that cause besides a different weapon system.
Fun factor: Without a role, these ships have completely lost out on the most obvious point of a rebalance... FUN.
Agreed with the rest of the post but not so sure on some of this bit. The Sacrilege looks pretty fun to me, HAM Legion with less tank and a fraction of the cost. I'm liking it. *shrugs* Zealot is never going to be able to run around with a decent active tank and an ability to neut enemies. Currently half of the new HAC look a bit poor as people are no doubt mentally comparing them to T3s as they are now. I'd love them to get a bigger boost, but then they might just end up overdoing it.
I really want these changes dumped on Sisi so we can actually go and play with this, rather than bitching on the forum. I'm sure there is room to boost them a bit after some actual testing rather than theorycrafting. |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
114
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:23:00 -
[1669] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I'm finding it hard to imagine even fitting rails never-mind using them on an Deimos ...
Yah, I agree. As I alluded to before, I also personally see this as more of a 'rail' problem then a 'deimos' problem - like you I am not tempted to fit med rails on ANYTHING. Any hull that compensated enough to make them viable would probably stand in the way of achieving good balance for that turret in the long run rather then helping out.
I don't think I can theory craft my way into comfort with the proposed med long range turret changes either. For me that is something that really needs SiSi testing prior to judging.
Harvey James wrote:the deimos i want to see is a blaster AAR deimos.... but i'm not convinced with its range a stronger falloff bonus is needed and ofc cap issues and AAR's being somewhat underwhelming atm 15% won't do much to fix it.
More range on a deimos makes me start to get the homogenization twitch, 50% falloff bonus is a pretty sweet place imo and a nice tweak from the thorax base hull with the half again range plus second damage bonus for that 'heavy assault feel'. I think the extra mid nails the cap issue pretty nicely tbh. I am still up in the air about AAR's overall - when I do fly them I like them best in a hybrid tank. We shall see of course. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
391
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:26:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:Harvey James wrote:I'm finding it hard to imagine even fitting rails never-mind using them on an Deimos ... Yah, I agree. As I alluded to before, I also personally see this as more of a 'rail' problem then a 'deimos' problem - like you I am not tempted to fit med rails on ANYTHING. Any hull that compensated enough to make them viable would probably stand in the way of achieving good balance for that turret in the long run rather then helping out. I don't think I can theory craft my way into comfort with the proposed med long range turret changes either. For me that is something that really needs SiSi testing prior to judging. Harvey James wrote:the deimos i want to see is a blaster AAR deimos.... but i'm not convinced with its range a stronger falloff bonus is needed and ofc cap issues and AAR's being somewhat underwhelming atm 15% won't do much to fix it. More range on a deimos makes me start to get the homogenization twitch, 50% falloff bonus is a pretty sweet place imo and a nice tweak from the thorax base hull with the half again range plus second damage bonus for that 'heavy assault feel'. I think the extra mid nails the cap issue pretty nicely tbh. I am still up in the air about AAR's overall - when I do fly them I like them best in a hybrid tank. We shall see of course.
Giving an extra mid to fit a mandatory cap booster isn't choice, it's the illusion of choice. The moment a module becomes mandatory, you might as well just remove a slot from the ship and build the module into the base stats. At least then it removes this circle-jerk slot layout nonsense they have going on. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1430
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:30:00 -
[1671] - Quote
It makes me sad the one of the most desired things for the Deimos was ignored because of lol rail fits. The tracking bonus would be much better than the falloff bonus. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
114
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:36:00 -
[1672] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Giving an extra mid to fit a mandatory cap booster isn't choice, it's the illusion of choice. The moment a module becomes mandatory, you might as well just remove a slot from the ship and build the module into the base stats. At least then it removes this circle-jerk slot layout nonsense they have going on.
Meh, there are fits that I would easily double web instead of web/scram/cap booster. And dual prop full tackle. And 4 mid shield fits are a go. And tracking computers for after ABCs get nerfed to the ground and sniper hacs are king (lol). And...
If a cap booster in a fourth mid is mandatory for the way you fly it that is cool. But you really shouldn't imply that no one else could find a different way to employ that additional slot. |
Berial Inglebard
Frontier Explorer's League Sadistica Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:41:00 -
[1673] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1! And the Vagabond continues on the track towards uselessness.
The Vaga has received nothing but buffs and you still aren't happy. This is exactly how power creep happens. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3244
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:43:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:It makes me sad the one of the most desired things for the Deimos was ignored because of lol rail fits. The tracking bonus would be much better than the falloff bonus.
Tracking bonus is one of the most powerful bonuses in game, and Rise is quite right in saying that it would simply make Deimos op. Especially on Gallente ships that have the best tracking weapons to begin with, see what the Talos and Domi whines are all about.
I also find range bonus more useful for AHAC fleets, blasters have plenty of tracking, more range gives better results. It also has 4 mids.
This Deimos version rocks and I can finally undock in one and not feel completely suicidal.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
391
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:50:00 -
[1675] - Quote
Roime wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:It makes me sad the one of the most desired things for the Deimos was ignored because of lol rail fits. The tracking bonus would be much better than the falloff bonus. Tracking bonus is one of the most powerful bonuses in game, and Rise is quite right in saying that it would simply make Deimos op. Especially on Gallente ships that have the best tracking weapons to begin with, see what the Talos and Domi whines are all about.
Thats the thing, it doesn't have to be a gun bonus to be useful, the MWD bonus was at least unique, this current deimos is just a slightly better Brutix for triple the price. It doesn't do anything new or unique, or add any additional gameplay, its just one tiny little notch between battlecruiser and battleship, yawn. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
681
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:53:00 -
[1676] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Roime wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:It makes me sad the one of the most desired things for the Deimos was ignored because of lol rail fits. The tracking bonus would be much better than the falloff bonus. Tracking bonus is one of the most powerful bonuses in game, and Rise is quite right in saying that it would simply make Deimos op. Especially on Gallente ships that have the best tracking weapons to begin with, see what the Talos and Domi whines are all about. Thats the thing, it doesn't have to be a gun bonus to be useful, the MWD bonus was at least unique, this current deimos is just a slightly better Brutix for triple the price. It doesn't do anything new or unique, or add any additional gameplay, its just one tiny little notch between battlecruiser and battleship, yawn. All the MWD bonus would do is give more cap for the same though. Still the same gameplay. So how does it really differentiate from the same notch you mentioned? |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
392
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 23:11:00 -
[1677] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:PinkKnife wrote:Roime wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:It makes me sad the one of the most desired things for the Deimos was ignored because of lol rail fits. The tracking bonus would be much better than the falloff bonus. Tracking bonus is one of the most powerful bonuses in game, and Rise is quite right in saying that it would simply make Deimos op. Especially on Gallente ships that have the best tracking weapons to begin with, see what the Talos and Domi whines are all about. Thats the thing, it doesn't have to be a gun bonus to be useful, the MWD bonus was at least unique, this current deimos is just a slightly better Brutix for triple the price. It doesn't do anything new or unique, or add any additional gameplay, its just one tiny little notch between battlecruiser and battleship, yawn. All the MWD bonus would do is give more cap for the same though. Still the same gameplay. So how does it really differentiate from the same notch you mentioned?
It doesn't, but it at least separated the Deimos from the Brutix in terms of unique things. Point being now that they ARE being rebalanced, why stick with the same boring thing we have already? Now even MORE homogenized and boring? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1202
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 23:15:00 -
[1678] - Quote
Boss McNab wrote:
Agree`d. CCP Rise I know your working hard, but please. give it one more go, give us a round 3 to the balance and youll be loved...
http://imgur.com/QwTvNy6
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
141
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 23:20:00 -
[1679] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:What the **** is wrong with you people?
The Proposed vagabond is fantastic.. Stop being so damn awful.. If they weren't awful they wouldn't be dumb pubbies. |
LaserzPewPew
Origin. Black Legion.
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 23:28:00 -
[1680] - Quote
@ccp rise
Hacs need to have a ROLE. At the moment, t1 cruisers and pirate cruisers share the same role and are better pound for pound.
If you intend to make hacs role as a slippery skirmish ship without a huge buffer and an emphisis on active tanking via sig radius, you need a defining bonus. Remove the sig bloom entirely or a massive afterburner bonus and restrict them from 100mn.
Also, when was the last time a ship had two separate bonuses, one for rails and then one for blasters? Or autos and artys? Or hams and heavy launchers? Or beams and pulse? A heavy drone's version of an optimal bonus IS it's speed. It should be ONE bonus for tracking/optimal/speed without penalizing. I have the inclination that you simply don't know what to do with ather bonus so you split them up and reduced the potency of both.
Tldr: cre |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1202
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 23:31:00 -
[1681] - Quote
Voith wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:What the **** is wrong with you people?
The Proposed vagabond is fantastic.. Stop being so damn awful.. If they weren't awful they wouldn't be dumb pubbies. The changes are fine. The problem is everyone looked around and wanted their pet ship to be overpowered. Since none of the ships are looking to be that overpowered a lot of people are getting butt hurt.
please point to the post that was asking for the ships to be op...
no one wanted op they just were excited with a new direction for hacs.
but with the power of nostalgia ccp are sticking with the basic hacs and just enhancing it and that got people upset.
no one wants op they just would like unique.
i thought a great unique bonus would be a 37.5% reduction in heat damage to modules...
that would give hacs that certain "je ne ce quoi" you know something that is special just for that class.
tbh i am ok with the changes just a little disillusioned because i was really hoping for more changes akin to battleships... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
681
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 23:32:00 -
[1682] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:It doesn't, but it at least separated the Deimos from the Brutix in terms of unique things. Point being now that they ARE being rebalanced, why stick with the same boring thing we have already? Now even MORE homogenized and boring? This illusion of distinction is no different from the illusion of choice you mentioned earlier. Functionally they were the same. The attachment to that bonus is probably the worst thing for actual distinction. |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 23:48:00 -
[1683] - Quote
The fact that some HACs are boosted while some remain the same doesnt mean that HACs in general are boosted.
Vaga was good before the nano nerf. Now it is just fine and with the epic new bonus nothing will change. Tractor beam bonus would make more difference.
In the end... no boosting whatsoever. Thankfully, stabber is alot better now and with ridiculously small amount of isk. And Cynabal (that CCP wants to nerf next) is very nice as it serves the role.
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
873
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 00:18:00 -
[1684] - Quote
Romar Thel wrote:The fact that some HACs are boosted while some remain the same doesnt mean that HACs in general are boosted.
Vaga was good before the nano nerf. Now it is just fine and with the epic new bonus nothing will change. Tractor beam bonus would make more difference.
In the end... no boosting whatsoever. Thankfully, stabber is alot better now and with ridiculously small amount of isk. And Cynabal (that CCP wants to nerf next) is very nice as it serves the role.
They better keep their dirty mitts off the cynabal.
Just another perfect ship they want to ruin. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
392
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 00:34:00 -
[1685] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:PinkKnife wrote:It doesn't, but it at least separated the Deimos from the Brutix in terms of unique things. Point being now that they ARE being rebalanced, why stick with the same boring thing we have already? Now even MORE homogenized and boring? This illusion of distinction is no different from the illusion of choice you mentioned earlier. Functionally they were the same. The attachment to that bonus is probably the worst thing for actual distinction.
I'm not attached to it, It was just being used as an example. I'd much rather see some actual differences rather than the lazy revamps seen here. |
Akimo Heth
State War Academy Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 00:34:00 -
[1686] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
NOBODY is saying the Eagle is fine, please actually read the posts and weigh the feedback instead of doing little more than vote counting. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 01:16:00 -
[1687] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! Drones did not.blasters or rails
The tournment is not the same as pvp in open space. In Open space rails and blasters both struggle to apply damage. Also Sentry drones are boss, just plan boss. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 01:27:00 -
[1688] - Quote
Give the vaga the pwrgrid to fit 425s and i will be ok with it. as it stands, with just 220s it's projection is ******* garbage if you have anything other than barrage loaded which does **** dps anyways combined with the tracking enhancer nerf makes it even more ****.
either let us fit 425s or lose shield boost bonus for more falloff.
-carb |
LaserzPewPew
Origin. Black Legion.
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 02:26:00 -
[1689] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Harvey James wrote:It does bring up concerns that if you can't get close enough to kill them then what is the counter exactly? Surely the drones should work more like guns in that they can be affected by things like ecm , damps etc... I've been pondering similar. I'd perhaps like to see TD/Damp/ECM against the drone-owner ship impact the drones that it is controlling. Not necessarily to the full values, but just to *some* extent. Would need a lot of balancing though, at the end of the day the game needs to be balanced around TQ, not Alliance Tournament. Definitely a conversation for another thread though.
To nullify sentry drones: 1. scram the droneboat to stay under 10km from sentrys and add transversal. 2. Bookmark drone location, warp back at zero. They don't move. Droneboat bailed? Shoot one of his two sentry sets. 3. Burn out of their optimal, they don't move. |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 03:38:00 -
[1690] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
Can I trade the shield boost bonus on the vaga for powergrid so I can fit arties?
And seriously... Rise... why no missile Minmatar HAC? or AF for that matter? |
|
Leontyne Gaterau
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 05:47:00 -
[1691] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Added Armor Repair amount bonus
Can you just get rid of local rep bonuses they are idiotic tia |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4190
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 06:41:00 -
[1692] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1! Not to be picky but you still have...
CCP Rise wrote:We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change. ...as part of the proposed change. . |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 07:04:00 -
[1693] - Quote
Someone actually tried to say the new Deimos was going to have an OP tank? Well, while that would be a welcome change to the past, um, forever, it isn't the case at all. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
656
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 07:22:00 -
[1694] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: First, to comment on your pro/con post about page 79...
it's about 5 to 1 ratio of negative post to positive on this thread, and actually worse now than in early pages.
Secondly, you can't post about player support post when none of them can even tell you why other than.... "oh hacs are slightly better than before"
Third, you have still not received any positive support for the sacrilege, and honestly, it has absolutely no role that the zealot could not fill better/easier if dedicated to that cause besides a different weapon system.
Forth, you have not addressed cost concerns one bit when players have openly pointed out that the price point of hacs in no way accounts for their non-unique role, reduced efficiency at task compared to other ships, and other glaring flaws.
You have yet to give hac's a role.... and there is no sense of balance within even the ship class itself. There are some obvious winners and losers in the bunch.... for a class that's alerady underperforming as a whole, what does that say about the losers within the class.
========================= Then there is the MWD role bonus for hacs has been bashed to **** and back, but you refuse to budge on it. Next to nobody has supported it, but you blindly continue to see it as a good thing... even when the predominant use of hacs doesn't even suggest using a MWD ever, if often.
========================= Last and most important:
Fun factor: Without a role, these ships have completely lost out on the most obvious point of a rebalance... FUN.
There is just nothing unique to these ships to make them worth flying. Player's have been screaming at you for creativity, but you refuse to offer up any. What kind of smug obnoxious ass do you have to be to completely ignore what your paycheck players have been asking you for.
Nobody has asked for you to make them OP, just different in some way. But no, you refuse to even try.
Thanks for nothing.
So mad!
Common theme in this thread, using personal feeelings as a basis for "facts", as with the mwd bonus. Myself and others have shown how good the bonus is with dps graphs, but you like to ignore them. I don't remember the exact numbers right now, but a Vaga kiting a Talos at 16km will with the mwd bonus take like 150 dps instead of the 500 dps it will take now.
Stop being bad, the mwd bonus is utter win.
Role.. What's up with asking for a defined role all the time. This is a sandbox, no? We make the roles with the tools given to us. You ask for a role in the one post, then when we say that the Vaga's role is kiting with autos you cry your eyes out because you can't fit artillery? Give me a break. It was given a role, you cry about the role, then cry that it has no role?
And last, fun. Why is it not fun to fly a HAC? They will be great ships. They are combat focused, and if you don't like to play the "warrior class", maybe fly something else? |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 07:52:00 -
[1695] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
Well i guess the other perspective we can get is that they are pretty bad... |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
754
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 07:54:00 -
[1696] - Quote
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: .....
Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for ..... we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things..... Keep looking is all I can say.
- What the hell does a "brawler" need a 40km SR weapon system range for, that is kiting distance. Might be a good idea for you to sit down and hash out the (role) definitions before committing to anything as the schizophrenic Sacrilege indicates that you are harbouring some confusion as to what a brawler is. - How many ship through the history of Eve has had the moniker "high utility, lots of different things" and how much were they actually used .. It is all fine if they are on par when doing the things they can do but then you are in generalized territory (ie. no longer T2/HAC) as a T2 hull being able to do any one thing as well as a ship tilted towards a single mode would be OP as hell. Result is a Swiss Army knife made of plastic; Great utility, can do loads of stuff. Just be prepared to go elsewhere when it fails the second time it is used for something other than as a letter opener.
It can still be saved however, will still be a plasticky utility knife but with a few titanium reinforced utilities: Two options remain that will not break it, at least not more than the norm for rebalanced ships, take one or both as deemed necessary.
Sacrilege has anaemic dps comparatively, you are forced to carry ec300 (when are they getting the nerf bat by the way?) outside the blob so in reality you are only getting the equivalent of 2 light drones worth of damage from the drone bay changes which are the only real changes made to it with regards to brawling. HAM's do not have stellar application without explosion velocity/radius bonuses and generally require target to be largely stationary and/or painted or have an unsupported buffer tank that can be whittled down .. all four mids are spoken for (prop/cap/web/point) so if it meets an active tanked ship it is likely to lose.
- It needs another low to be able to tank through enemy damage while its own whittles down the opponent. With more (reliable) staying power the ec300 can and will be swapped for damage. The added low enhances its ability to kite brawl (hahahaha) at disruptor range and opens up for more than viable shield fits. - It doesn't need the missile range bonus, that goes double now that you included HML's in the primary bonus, what it needs is someway to either apply its damage or fuckup an enemies ability to tank. Replace the velocity bonus with either explosion velocity or radius to allow for application -or- replace velocity bonus with a neut/nos amount bonus a la Pilgrim (it is Khanid after all) to allow for a tank off-switch.
Now if you are clever you'll see what I just proposed and the nervous laughter it will probably bring .. by adding both (high to low, neut bonus) you are forcing a dps decrease if neuting is wanted by pilot (same as Zealot). Bonused neuting pretty much ensures the use of medium combat drones however as the fight can theoretically be ended before backup arrives and it expands its repertoire to include going all neut support in the fleet theatre.
As it stands choosing any of the other HACs is a better option regardless of what one wants to do. Diemos (note the absence of the 't' ), Muninn and Ishtar will all be far superior brawlers and Eagle, Ishtar, Cerberus, Zealot will be superior kiters .. even when doing their "off" thing (ex. Diemos as kiter) the others will be better than the Sacrilege.
PS: If you didn't catch it, great Diemos change. Will be an absolute horror on the small scale .. the proverbial wet rolled up newspaper only moistened with concrete instead of water. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1298
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 08:16:00 -
[1697] - Quote
Leontyne Gaterau wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Added Armor Repair amount bonus
Can you just get rid of local rep bonuses they are idiotic tia
**** off! Not every ship has to be blob friendly >=[ BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
145
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 08:48:00 -
[1698] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!!
That's probably the reason for that years tournament... It might be dominated by gallente cause they got sentries, which are mostly the premier weapon system to fight ina arena like that. Mind how the only other successful format has been the cockrush of thoraxhulls and cruisemissiles.
Aswell, the sentries this year were more of a sideproduct of both lots of ships being able at all to field proper sentries, and the recent appearance of DDAs which - to my knowledge - haven't even been Rise's implementation.
Gallente is just the smallgang-masterrace, deal with it.
tl;dr: This year's tourney was gallente cause 'assign sentries' is so much more efficient compared to 'primary X' I only correct my own spelling. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 08:52:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Quote:**** off! Not every ship has to be blob friendly >=[
Precisely. The currently proposed Deimos looks like a very competent small gang ship. If you don't like the active rep bonus, just drop the active rep for some extra buffer and trust your logi. It's not like an active rep bonus is forcing anything on you. You still have 3 gun bonuses to work with plus the MWD bonus. I'm quite satisfied with where the Deimos is at this moment.
The only other two HACs I have experience with are the Sacrilege and the Ishtar. Ishtar could have had not one single change other than a boost in CPU, and I would have been happy. I've always kind of looked at the Sacrilege as a niche ship. It makes a good anti-support ship if you use it right. I'm not really sure what role people want it to fill from these posts, though. |
General Nusense
Not Posting With My Main
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 09:08:00 -
[1700] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
Why not fix active tanking before you give ships rep bonuses?
|
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
432
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 09:25:00 -
[1701] - Quote
RISE
please consider removing a turret from the deimos and increase a damage bonus to 10% to allow for a utility high. - Nos for brawling to help with repping - Neut for kiting to peel away frigs
Increase its falloff bonus to 15% or at least 12.5% to improve blaster kiting. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
460
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 09:31:00 -
[1702] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:RISE
please consider removing a turret from the deimos and increase a damage bonus to 10% to allow for a utility high. - Nos for brawling to help with repping - Neut for kiting to peel away frigs
Increase its falloff bonus to 15% or at least 12.5% to improve blaster kiting. heh if you want to fly a vaga , why not just fly the vaga?:O |
Sigras
Conglomo
493
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 09:39:00 -
[1703] - Quote
General Nusense wrote:CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =) Why not fix active tanking before you give ships rep bonuses? Why not come up with some suggestions before posting? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
432
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 09:47:00 -
[1704] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Harvey James wrote:RISE
please consider removing a turret from the deimos and increase a damage bonus to 10% to allow for a utility high. - Nos for brawling to help with repping - Neut for kiting to peel away frigs
Increase its falloff bonus to 15% or at least 12.5% to improve blaster kiting. heh if you want to fly a vaga , why not just fly the vaga?:O
:) well its the exact opposite of the vaga .. active armour repping , higher dps but its engagement envelope needs to be larger and it is annoying that atm the vaga/cerberus is the only viable ship to kite with but really all HAC's should be primarily skirmishers like the vaga but with the longer range/brawling aspects as secondary.
I would just like more options than my cyna and null Talos is it too much too ask? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
127
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 10:03:00 -
[1705] - Quote
I'm baffled how we have posts asking for an extra damage bonus on a deimos to drop a turret for a utility high. Yet look at other hacs and they want rid of the utility :/
So many conflicting arguments! |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
657
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 10:36:00 -
[1706] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:I'm baffled how we have posts asking for an extra damage bonus on a deimos to drop a turret for a utility high. Yet look at other hacs and they want rid of the utility :/
So many conflicting arguments! Because change will always step on someones toes. Someone will have their personal fit that will be screwed up in one way or another and it's easy to cry on forums.
A medium neut on the Deimos would be cool but whatevs, I'll adapt. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 10:42:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote: Gallente is just the smallgang-masterrace, deal with it.
Things changed, finally Gallente have fleet ships and doctrines of their own, and they rock solo too, so now Gallente rocks in solo/small gangs/big fleets, there isn't much left...
Things are better, in the sense that all races have good ships, maybe not in all classes, but in the big scenario things appear to be better than in the past.
Of course that the trend continues, the "master race" cycle that usually lasts for a few years is still present, they really don't know how to do it better even after 10 years, maybe because the people that handles this *balance* usually don't last that much in the same position. Now it really looks like Gallente is pulling ahead for the next months / years.
Harvey James wrote: please consider removing a turret from the deimos and increase a damage bonus to 10% to allow for a utility high. - Nos for brawling to help with repping - Neut for kiting to peel away frigs Increase its falloff bonus to 15% or at least 12.5% to improve blaster kiting.
Damn, and you still are asking for more? I wouldn't be surprised if they give you that too.
|
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
9522
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 11:02:00 -
[1708] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Harvey James wrote:RISE
please consider removing a turret from the deimos and increase a damage bonus to 10% to allow for a utility high. - Nos for brawling to help with repping - Neut for kiting to peel away frigs
Increase its falloff bonus to 15% or at least 12.5% to improve blaster kiting. heh if you want to fly a vaga , why not just fly the vaga?:O This
Also, extra mid slot and more PG allows the use of a CAP BOOSTER You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 11:10:00 -
[1709] - Quote
I want to see how the artist formally known as diemost works before doing anything more. I would have preferred a tracking bonus over a rep bonus because I just want my target to die so I can run away from the backup. But if it ends up being a super charged incursus that's nice too.
Anyway, it isn't getting a pointless armor nerf, so I'm appeased. |
Hell Bitch
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 11:34:00 -
[1710] - Quote
I have to chime in here with my tuppence worth concerning the ishtar, can't comment on any other ships cos i've never flown them.
I primarily used the ishtar as an Exploration platform as was quite happy with its performance, it was also a good anom runner as it only required Gallante cruiser V to deploy drones at the same level as A Lvl 5 domi could, this was a good thing.
Now, even with HAC V, the Domi will still be putting out better drones than the Ishtar. The only benefit to using the ishtar is the HP gain on heavies, and the baked on control range augmentor, all other drones will perform better when deployed from a domi.
Im not gonna discuss the Domi and if its OP or not that is another topic But why is the highest tier, most advanced drone ship ever built overshadowed by a T1 BS.
And the MWD bonus, wtf, I don't care what prop mod bonus you give the ishtar, a Domi with MJD is always going to be more manouverable.
As others have said in this thread the Ishtar will now be the king of serpentis ratting, is that the state of HACs, mini marauders? |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
2105
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 11:50:00 -
[1711] - Quote
Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) |
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 11:52:00 -
[1712] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)
yay atleast smoething |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 11:55:00 -
[1713] - Quote
Deimos is now looking like avery potent brawling ship. Maybe even slightly OP. Lets have a look at comparison with brutix:
Brutix / Deimos Effective turrets: 9 / 7.8 med slots: 4 / 4 low slots: 6 / 6 rigs: 3 / 2 bandwidth: 50 / 50
So far the deimos has one less turret worth of damage and one less rig. It also has T2 tank giving it an edge (even with odd resist profile)
cap recharge: 3.8 / 6.2 powergrid: 1125 / 1050 CPU: 435 / 360 max speed: 155 / 230 lock range: 55 / 85 sensor strength: 18 / 22 sig radius: 305 / 150
Here deimos clearly wins. It has better every stat. (even PG and CPU considering that it does have 2 less high slot and one less turret to fit).
In short it is much faster, tankier, slightly lighter hitting brutix. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:06:00 -
[1714] - Quote
Added cpu to the zealot is nice but it still has no way to deal with frigs except to kill them before they get a tackle.
Please give the zalot a flight of drones or a utility high or a fourth mid :( IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:13:00 -
[1715] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)
Very nice, now just another faloff bonus on the vaga and you have a good brawler and a very viable kiter. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
460
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:17:00 -
[1716] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:Added cpu to the zealot is nice but it still has no way to deal with frigs except to kill them before they get a tackle.
Please give the zalot a flight of drones or a utility high or a fourth mid :( why?
maybe ask your mates to get rid of the enemy tackle frigs
zealot doesnt have to be solo ship |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
656
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:35:00 -
[1717] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)
See ? That's the kind of things I like to see.
That's the kind of things I would do if I had to do the ship balancing.
Spot annoying little things, fix them and make sure the issue REALLY is fixed before moving on |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1300
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:51:00 -
[1718] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)
I didn't know the Zealot needed more fittings.
To make beam fits more comfy i suppose? BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Minus Dronus
0ne Percent. Transmission Lost
229
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:54:00 -
[1719] - Quote
Hey Rise,
quick question, why is the muninn getting a extra low to repalce the lose of a high slot, instead of a extra mid slot to replace the missing high?
Considering the Muninn is mostly used as a shield arty boat why is it getting a extra low? i heard mention that this was to make it more viable as a armor hac??
i feel that u should focus more on improving its current role as a arty shield (sort of kiting??) boat instead of trying to wedge it into a ahac role
Could someone point me to a explaination as to why the extra low not a mid slot? i might have missed the reasoning
cheers, Minus |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
657
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:59:00 -
[1720] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) If this does not shut the "Vaga is crap" circlejerk up, then nothing will.
Will be more comfy fitting 425's with T2 extenders, though I don't think it was needed. Going to be a very stronk kiter I'm sure. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
506
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:59:00 -
[1721] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)
Hey Rise!!
Good work bud
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
657
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:00:00 -
[1722] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) Very nice, now just another faloff bonus on the vaga and you have a good brawler and a very viable kiter. There is simply no pleasing you, is there? |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
506
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:05:00 -
[1723] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) Very nice, now just another faloff bonus on the vaga and you have a good brawler and a very viable kiter. There is simply no pleasing you, is there?
I don't think he will be happy until the vaga has 12 effective turrets, 150k ehp, and moves as fast as a dram.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
277
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:26:00 -
[1724] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) Very nice, now just another faloff bonus on the vaga and you have a good brawler and a very viable kiter. There is simply no pleasing you, is there?
Well I think judging by the fact he said "now add another falloff bonus" its pretty obvious there is pleasing him.
This grid change means it can now comfortably fit 220s, still can't fit 425s, a falloff bonus would bring it up to scratch perfectly.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1431
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:31:00 -
[1725] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: SACRILEGE Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1100(-293) / 2250(+162) / 1690(+2)
ZEALOT Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 980(-4) / 2250 / 1670(-18)
CERBERUS Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2000(-4) / 1200(+4) / 1400(-6)
EAGLE Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3)
DEIMOS Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1200(+40) / 2100(+60) / 2550(+19)
ISHTAR Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400 (-6) / 1600 (-18) / 2300 (+191)
VAGABOND Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1750(+97) / 1400(+63) / 980(-4)
MUNINN Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6)
CCP Rise, what is up these HP values? They are all over the place.
SACRILEGE Raw HP 5040
ZEALOT Raw HP 4900
CERBERUS Raw HP 4600
EAGLE Raw HP 5300
DEIMOS Raw HP 5850
ISHTAR Raw HP 5300
VAGABOND Raw HP 4130
MUNINN Raw HP 4980 Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
461
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:31:00 -
[1726] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) Very nice, now just another faloff bonus on the vaga and you have a good brawler and a very viable kiter. There is simply no pleasing you, is there? Well I think judging by the fact he said "now add another falloff bonus" its pretty obvious there is pleasing him. This grid change means it can now comfortably fit 220s, still can't fit 425s, a falloff bonus would bring it up to scratch perfectly. bought too many vagas and you cant sell them or what? btw it seems the vaga can fit 425mm + mwd + shield tank pretty well , so where is the problem? |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
510
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:38:00 -
[1727] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote: bought too many vagas and you cant sell them or what? btw it seems the vaga can fit 425mm + mwd + shield tank pretty well , so where is the problem?
The problem is that people won't be happy until the ship can out brawl, out tank, and out kite all of it's competition.
|
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
237
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:39:00 -
[1728] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:Added cpu to the zealot is nice but it still has no way to deal with frigs except to kill them before they get a tackle.
Please give the zalot a flight of drones or a utility high or a fourth mid :(
Fly a navy omen if you want an omen hull that can deal with frigate crap. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
755
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:43:00 -
[1729] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =) Oh crap, the meaning of this just sunk in .. Dev in charge thinks it is good that the Sacrilege is bad .. it can work of course but even the word niche will be an exaggeration
Poor Sac.
Off topic: What do you have CCP Ytterbium doing, he get some stress related symptoms and opted for the non-confrontational skill reshuffle thingy to save what was left of his sanity? |
Hayman Wakefield
Trans-Stellar Salvage Shipping and Securities
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:48:00 -
[1730] - Quote
Other than speed, sig and lock speed the Vulture just seems to be a far better bet for the T2 rail sniper crown, I love the vulture hull so not that down hearted about it getting some winsauce added but sad for my crazy chicken still being out classed so quickly.
Would love to have seen the Eagles speed upped a little, tad more PG for the 250s then change the dual range bonuses to a single 15% per level and add in a mild 5% tracking bonus to turn it in to a high mobility sniper platform against light support ships.
Hey ho its got lots of surfaces to gather hanger dust on, that'll keep the exotic dancers busy |
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:52:00 -
[1731] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:sten mattson wrote:Added cpu to the zealot is nice but it still has no way to deal with frigs except to kill them before they get a tackle.
Please give the zalot a flight of drones or a utility high or a fourth mid :( why? maybe ask your mates to get rid of the enemy tackle frigs zealot doesnt have to be solo ship
The zealot doesnt have to be only a"fleet ship" either. Considering every other hac bar the eagle have at least a flight of light drones (the cerb has only 3 but who needs them when your main weapon always hits and you can hit to 200k and cant be TDd).
Also considering the zealot has the worst tracking guns in the game.... IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
277
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:02:00 -
[1732] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Naomi Knight wrote: bought too many vagas and you cant sell them or what? btw it seems the vaga can fit 425mm + mwd + shield tank pretty well , so where is the problem?
The problem is that people won't be happy until the ship can kite in a somewhat useful manner.
Fixed that for you. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:12:00 -
[1733] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:sten mattson wrote:Added cpu to the zealot is nice but it still has no way to deal with frigs except to kill them before they get a tackle.
Please give the zalot a flight of drones or a utility high or a fourth mid :( Fly a navy omen if you want an omen hull that can deal with frigate crap.
I'd love to if i could get the old nomen damage back IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:20:00 -
[1734] - Quote
Ok, lets look at what we have got so far
Sac: got better projection, fitting, use of heavy missles, and a nice drone bay.
Zeal: got some cpu, and benifits from coming beam changes, and was rather good to start.
Cerb: got damage, speed, fitting, now a great skirmisher.
Eagle: got fitting, benifits from rail changes, and a new mid for more tank.
Deimos: rep boost, rail changes, speed, extra mid, and extra cap.
Ish: more grid, and way more useful drone bonuses
Vaga: more grid, shield rep bonus
Muni: new low and maybe some grid.
All of that on top of capacitor, lock range, sensor, and sig buffs, and a mwd roll bonus. So over all allot of nice changes, im finaly happy with the vaga and deimos, tho the muni amd eagle feel like they both have the same problem of being pushed alittle to much tward sniping compaired to the rest. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
277
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:17:00 -
[1735] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:sten mattson wrote:Added cpu to the zealot is nice but it still has no way to deal with frigs except to kill them before they get a tackle.
Please give the zalot a flight of drones or a utility high or a fourth mid :( Fly a navy omen if you want an omen hull that can deal with frigate crap. I'd love to if i could get the old nomen damage back
Nano Zealots are actually one of the most effective anti-tackle ships I have every flown, reasonable tracking and immense projection means that most tackle doesn't get in close.
Its not a ship that can solo unfortunately. |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
85
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:19:00 -
[1736] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) If this does not shut the "Vaga is crap" circlejerk up, then nothing will. Will be more comfy fitting 425's with T2 extenders, though I don't think it was needed. Going to be a very stronk kiter I'm sure.
The added PG is awesome. With the TE nerf, it's still not a good kiter. It would need a fall off bonus instead of the silly Shield booster **** |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:20:00 -
[1737] - Quote
RISE
its a bit odd that the muninn is the only one with a tracking bonus.. is arties that bad?
perhaps free up some bonuses for a more split bonus ship think armour T2 scythe with better projection.
This way the muninn will get more use out of it and its very minmatar to do split bonuses anyway .. just look at the recons and fleet.
MUNINN
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Medium Projectile rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H(-1), 3M, 6L(+1); 6 turrets, 6 launchers Fittings: 1160 PWG, 355 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1300(+50) / 255s (-80s) / 5.1/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+25km) / 294 / 6(+1) Sensor strength: 21 Ladar(+8) Signature radius: 125(-5) 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
94
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:03:00 -
[1738] - Quote
I am now satisfied. I rest my case. |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:28:00 -
[1739] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:RISE
its a bit odd that the muninn is the only one with a tracking bonus.. is arties that bad?
perhaps free up some bonuses for a more split bonus ship think armour T2 scythe with better projection.
This way the muninn will get more use out of it and its very minmatar to do split bonuses anyway .. just look at the recons and fleet.
MUNINN
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Medium Projectile rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
I've been clamoring for the Muninn to be a missile boat for awhile, but I don't think the split weapons bonus is the way to go. HACs should be specialized, not generalists. I'd rather see something like this.
Muninn
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to explosive Missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
I'd otherwise leave the ship as they've planned to make it. What you'd wind up with is a Minmatar missile boat that armor tanks well enough for AHAC gangs, and is great for roasting support ships (compared to the cerb, which is more of a long range sniper). THAT is a ship people would fly. |
Sigras
Conglomo
493
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:30:00 -
[1740] - Quote
Thorvik wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) If this does not shut the "Vaga is crap" circlejerk up, then nothing will. Will be more comfy fitting 425's with T2 extenders, though I don't think it was needed. Going to be a very stronk kiter I'm sure. The added PG is awesome. With the TE nerf, it's still not a good kiter. It would need a fall off bonus instead of the silly Shield booster **** No, No, No
The fastest ship does not also get the most range. You're already at 3.3 + 32 with barrage which means 76.6% of your damage at 23.5 km or just farthest scram range. In fact, the fastest ship should have the shortest range forcing him to commit.
Compare that with a deimos . . . 22.1% slower, stuck with an armor tank and half the range . . . |
|
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:40:00 -
[1741] - Quote
The eagle remains noncompetitive at its intended task. Please reduce base signature radius to 125m, increase base speed to 200m/s. I understand that it does have a range advantage over the zealot, but that is all it has. It will never be an actual doctrine option with its current signature to speed ratio due to the dominance of attack battlecruisers, which have a damage and range advantage. Please bear in mind that due to the detrimental effects of shield extenders and rigs, the eagle will never actually be 125m signature as the zealot. I think the eagle will still lose out in equal optimals against zealot with 125m sig and 200m/s, but that's what the double optimal bonus is for. Please tune the eagle a bit more into its fleet role, and we will actually see medium rail doctrines in the near future.
I like the new vaga PG. With current proposed fitting changes, it can fit one LSE, one large ASB, and a full rack of 425s with two projectile rigs and a PDS. It's extremely tight, though, as not a lot of people have projectile rigging 5. You can swap the PDS for an RCU, but I like that the PDS increases its engagement time and EHP a bit.
I see no reason to ask for the muninn to be changed to missiles. It has its own role, and artillery is it. That said, it would benefit from a bit more power grid so you could fit 720mm IIs and a 1600mm plate without both rig slots using an ancillary current router. Otherwise, it will remain only a Black Legion toy, not having enough damage/tank to make even an anti-support fleet. If intended as small gang/solo play.... Well, the minmatar already have the vagabond, don't they? |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:52:00 -
[1742] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:sten mattson wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:sten mattson wrote:Added cpu to the zealot is nice but it still has no way to deal with frigs except to kill them before they get a tackle.
Please give the zalot a flight of drones or a utility high or a fourth mid :( Fly a navy omen if you want an omen hull that can deal with frigate crap. I'd love to if i could get the old nomen damage back Nano Zealots are actually one of the most effective anti-tackle ships I have every flown, reasonable tracking and immense projection means that most tackle doesn't get in close. Its not a ship that can solo unfortunately.
I dont care much for nano zealots. I want to be able to fly solo in an armor , possibly active tanked zealot. And to do that i would need some way to dealt with frigs that is not lock them and pray to empress jamyl that they die before they reach you.
Zealot and eagle are also the *only* hacs that can be completely shut down by a single frig with a scram and a TD. And even then the eagld has a choice to forgo tank to put in more webs. The zealot has none of that. IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:59:00 -
[1743] - Quote
Why not include an additional role bonus: 50% to Afterburner speed.
Give HACS much needed flexibility, and I like the bonus for MWD's, but wheres the active tanking love? |
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:01:00 -
[1744] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:I see no reason to ask for the muninn to be changed to missiles. It has its own role, and artillery is it. That said, it would benefit from a bit more power grid so you could fit 720mm IIs and a 1600mm plate without both rig slots using an ancillary current router. Otherwise, it will remain only a Black Legion toy, not having enough damage/tank to make even an anti-support fleet. If intended as small gang/solo play.... Well, the minmatar already have the vagabond, don't they?
Because there is no Minmatar missile hac and the Muninn as it stands probably won't get much use.
|
XvXTeacherVxV
Nightmare Machinery Illusion of Solitude
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:11:00 -
[1745] - Quote
They could just make the vaga the missile boat so it's more distinct from the cynabal and could use lows to even fit full DPS and MOAR SPEED! That would probably make all the existing vaga pilots very sad if they can't use missiles though so that's not really an option.. Besides, I think with that slight powergrid boost it's actually in a pretty good place now since it can fit 425s or even 650 artys with ACR rigs. |
Alsyth
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:14:00 -
[1746] - Quote
Deimos too good. There was not a single cruiser with active armor bonus, and why? Because it is much too powerful.
You get same raw tank as an Astarte/EOS with a third of the signature, and close to twice the speed. And you have better capacitor...
And no, Vagabond is another story entirely. -It has extremely low base buffer (a LSE Vaga has less EHP than a DC2 Deimos) -very bad fitting which won't allow oversized tank (or else the fit is totally gimped) -only 4 med slots which won't allow for more than 2-slot tank (+DC2 and 2 rigs) while Deimos has 4 slot tank (+DC2 and 2 rigs) |
Sigras
Conglomo
493
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:23:00 -
[1747] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:sten mattson wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:sten mattson wrote:Added cpu to the zealot is nice but it still has no way to deal with frigs except to kill them before they get a tackle.
Please give the zalot a flight of drones or a utility high or a fourth mid :( Fly a navy omen if you want an omen hull that can deal with frigate crap. I'd love to if i could get the old nomen damage back Nano Zealots are actually one of the most effective anti-tackle ships I have every flown, reasonable tracking and immense projection means that most tackle doesn't get in close. Its not a ship that can solo unfortunately. I dont care much for nano zealots. I want to be able to fly solo in an armor , possibly active tanked zealot. And to do that i would need some way to dealt with frigs that is not lock them and pray to empress jamyl that they die before they reach you. Zealot and eagle are also the *only* hacs that can be completely shut down by a single frig with a scram and a TD. And even then the eagld has a choice to forgo tank to put in more webs. The zealot has none of that. A solo active armor tanked ship that has a way to deal with frigates? the deimos, brutix, astarte are >>>>> That way
A fleet ship with a brick tank and great damage projection? now youre talking zealot.
The key is choosing the right tool for the job forcing a screwdriver to hammer in a nail |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:34:00 -
[1748] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:They could just make the vaga the missile boat so it's more distinct from the cynabal and could use lows to even fit full DPS and MOAR SPEED! That would probably make all the existing vaga pilots very sad if they can't use missiles though so that's not really an option.. Besides, I think with that slight powergrid boost it's actually in a pretty good place now since it can fit 425s or even 650 artys with ACR rigs.
That is whats called the scythe fleet issue, would mind the vaga becomming a missile kiter.
I made a simple eft graph to show you why the vaga is regarrded as a bad kiter.
Its vs a caracal moving away at some transversal.
The red line is the vaga, the green one a raildeimos, dark blue a zealot and light blue a rlml cerb.
The vagabond is dual te, dual gyro 220s, warriors and barrage.
http://i.imgur.com/5M0tYZL.png |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:41:00 -
[1749] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Thorvik wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) If this does not shut the "Vaga is crap" circlejerk up, then nothing will. Will be more comfy fitting 425's with T2 extenders, though I don't think it was needed. Going to be a very stronk kiter I'm sure. The added PG is awesome. With the TE nerf, it's still not a good kiter. It would need a fall off bonus instead of the silly Shield booster **** No, No, No The fastest ship does not also get the most range. You're already at 3.3 + 32 with barrage which means 76.6% of your damage at 23.5 km or just farthest scram range. In fact, the fastest ship should have the shortest range forcing him to commit. Compare that with a deimos . . . 22.1% slower, stuck with an armor tank and half the range . . .
And the Vaga has a smaller sig and better resists and doesn't need cap but still has the same reload time as AAR with ASB.... 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1203
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:44:00 -
[1750] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:Deimos too good. There was not a single cruiser with active armor bonus, and why? Because it is much too powerful.
You get same raw tank as an Astarte/EOS with a third of the signature, and close to twice the speed. And you have better capacitor...
And no, Vagabond is another story entirely. -It has extremely low base buffer (a LSE Vaga has less EHP than a DC2 Deimos) -very bad fitting which won't allow oversized tank (or else the fit is totally gimped) -only 4 med slots which won't allow for more than 2-slot tank (+DC2 and 2 rigs) while Deimos has 4 slot tank (+DC2 and 2 rigs)
you do know that resistance bonus is better as its affects local/RR/ehp right? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:14:00 -
[1751] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida 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: .....
Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for ..... we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things..... Keep looking is all I can say. - What the hell does a "brawler" need a 40km SR weapon system range for, that is kiting distance. Might be a good idea for you to sit down and hash out the (role) definitions before committing to anything as the schizophrenic Sacrilege indicates that you are harbouring some confusion as to what a brawler is. - How many ship through the history of Eve has had the moniker "high utility, lots of different things" and how much were they actually used .. It is all fine if they are on par when doing the things they can do but then you are in generalized territory (ie. no longer T2/HAC) as a T2 hull being able to do any one thing as well as a ship tilted towards a single mode would be OP as hell. Result is a Swiss Army knife made of plastic; Great utility, can do loads of stuff. Just be prepared to go elsewhere when it fails the second time it is used for something other than as a letter opener. It can still be saved however, will still be a plasticky utility knife but with a few titanium reinforced utilities: Two options remain that will not break it, at least not more than the norm for rebalanced ships, take one or both as deemed necessary. Sacrilege has anaemic dps comparatively, you are forced to carry ec300 ( when are they getting the nerf bat by the way?) outside the blob so in reality you are only getting the equivalent of 2 light drones worth of damage from the drone bay changes which are the only real changes made to it with regards to brawling. HAM's do not have stellar application without explosion velocity/radius bonuses and generally require target to be largely stationary and/or painted or have an unsupported buffer tank that can be whittled down .. all four mids are spoken for (prop/cap/web/point) so if it meets an active tanked ship it is likely to lose. - It needs another low to be able to tank through enemy damage while its own whittles down the opponent. With more (reliable) staying power the ec300 can and will be swapped for damage. The added low enhances its ability to kite brawl (hahahaha) at disruptor range and opens up for more than viable shield fits. - It doesn't need the missile range bonus, that goes double now that you included HML's in the primary bonus, what it needs is someway to either apply its damage or fuckup an enemies ability to tank. Replace the velocity bonus with either explosion velocity or radius to allow for application -or- replace velocity bonus with a neut/nos amount bonus a la Pilgrim (it is Khanid after all) to allow for a tank off-switch. Now if you are clever you'll see what I just proposed and the nervous laughter it will probably bring .. by adding both (high to low, neut bonus) you are forcing a dps decrease if neuting is wanted by pilot (same as Zealot). Bonused neuting pretty much ensures the use of medium combat drones however as the fight can theoretically be ended before backup arrives and it expands its repertoire to include going all neut support in the fleet theatre. As it stands choosing any of the other HACs is a better option regardless of what one wants to do. Diemos (note the absence of the 't' ), Muninn and Ishtar will all be far superior brawlers and Eagle, Ishtar, Cerberus, Zealot will be superior kiters .. even when doing their "off" thing (ex. Diemos as kiter) the others will be better than the Sacrilege. PS: If you didn't catch it, great Diemos change. Will be an absolute horror on the small scale .. the proverbial wet rolled up newspaper only moistened with concrete instead of water. Edit: Just remembered .. there is another hope-of-salvation for the Sacrilege .. some years ago CCP mentioned adding a high-slot TP. That might do the trick if followed through.
*Clap Clap* There isn't much to add. You described the current issue very well, thank you.
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.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1305
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:17:00 -
[1752] - Quote
Sacrilige should get an application bonus instead of the range bonus.
aHac's can **** off, they already have the zealot. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:18:00 -
[1753] - Quote
If you use dishonour drones with a sac you are beeing bad. |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:39:00 -
[1754] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I love that in the last page there has been complaint that Vaga isn't good, Vaga is too good, Eagle isn't good, Eagle is fine, Sacrilege isn't good, Rep bonus Deimos is awesome and Rep Bonuses are bad.
I think we are reaching a good place here =)
if thats your measuring stick i'm quite worried. |
|
ISD Cura Ursus
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:40:00 -
[1755] - Quote
Upon a request, A duplicate post removed. The thread was saved.
A Duplicate post was removed at user's request. ISD Cura Ursus Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
951
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:43:00 -
[1756] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Why not include an additional role bonus: 50% to Afterburner speed.
Give HACS much needed flexibility, and I like the bonus for MWD's, but wheres the active tanking love?
THIS Putting work in since 2010. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:56:00 -
[1757] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)
Cool, but what about deimos powergrid? I don't much like fitting electron blasters while everyone else has heavy pulses and 425s. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:14:00 -
[1758] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) Cool, but what about deimos powergrid? I don't much like fitting electron blasters while everyone else has heavy pulses and 425s.
To be fair, your not going to get 425s on an armor vaga, but you can get nutrons on a shield Deimos. |
Bigg Gun
Flying Bags Inc. Bulgarian Space Federation
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:22:00 -
[1759] - Quote
why not give t2 3 rig slots already? or at least reduce t3 to 1 slot
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
412
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:35:00 -
[1760] - Quote
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote:I see no reason to ask for the muninn to be changed to missiles. It has its own role, and artillery is it. That said, it would benefit from a bit more power grid so you could fit 720mm IIs and a 1600mm plate without both rig slots using an ancillary current router. Otherwise, it will remain only a Black Legion toy, not having enough damage/tank to make even an anti-support fleet. If intended as small gang/solo play.... Well, the minmatar already have the vagabond, don't they? Because there is no Minmatar missile hac and the Muninn as it stands probably won't get much use. There's no Minmatar T1 attack or combat cruiser, either. Their "missile cruiser" is a disruption one. There's nothing that would lead someone to believe that Minmatar would get a missile HAC, either. I fully expect the Huginn to become the Minmatar T2 missile boat, as much as the Bellicose serves as its T1 option. Couldn't you see the Stabber and Rupture and expect that their HAC variants would more-or-less perform their roles?
I'm sure many of us thought HACs were going to be stronger dps (application, damage amount, optimal, falloff, etc.) versions of their ships (in much the way a Zealot is flat-out better than an Omen), but Rise is content to make them "resilient" boats, but now seeing the Command ship overhauls, I'm honestly not sure where these HACs stand.
Those new Command Ships have sensor strength on-par, dps on-par, much more tank (with more slots, more stats and the same resistances), and 2x utility high slots. So why, then, would I fly a HAC over a more survivable-and-equally-efficient-and-somewhat-better CS? Over a Navy BC? Do they have a unique bonus that allows them to fit an MJD? Is their damage-per-isk output *so* much higher than a CS? Sadly, no. The Vulture, for example, has the same dual optimal bonuses, same resist bonus but it has a 10%! bonus damage to turrets per level than an Eagle's 5%, making the Vulture as effective or better at range with 7.5 effective turrets over the Eagle's 6.25. So where is the compelling reason? Oh wait, they have an MWD bonus that works well if they decide to kite yet is totally worthless for brawling play styles....right.....compelling.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:39:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:XvXTeacherVxV wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote:I see no reason to ask for the muninn to be changed to missiles. It has its own role, and artillery is it. That said, it would benefit from a bit more power grid so you could fit 720mm IIs and a 1600mm plate without both rig slots using an ancillary current router. Otherwise, it will remain only a Black Legion toy, not having enough damage/tank to make even an anti-support fleet. If intended as small gang/solo play.... Well, the minmatar already have the vagabond, don't they? Because there is no Minmatar missile hac and the Muninn as it stands probably won't get much use. There's no Minmatar T1 attack or combat cruiser, either. Their "missile cruiser" is a disruption one. There's nothing that would lead someone to believe that Minmatar would get a missile HAC, either. I fully expect the Huginn to become the Minmatar T2 missile boat, as much as the Bellicose serves as its T1 option. Couldn't you see the Stabber and Rupture and expect that their HAC variants would more-or-less perform their roles? I'm sure many of us thought HACs were going to be stronger dps (application, damage amount, optimal, falloff, etc.) versions of their ships (in much the way a Zealot is flat-out better than an Omen), but Rise is content to make them "resilient" boats, but now seeing the Command ship overhauls, I'm honestly not sure where these HACs stand. Those new Command Ships have sensor strength on-par, dps on-par, much more tank (with more slots, more stats and the same resistances), and 2x utility high slots. So why, then, would I fly a HAC over a more survivable-and-equally-efficient-and-somewhat-better CS? Over a Navy BC? Do they have a unique bonus that allows them to fit an MJD? Is their damage-per-isk output *so* much higher than a CS? Sadly, no. The Vulture, for example, has the same dual optimal bonuses, same resist bonus but it has a 10%! bonus damage to turrets per level than an Eagle's 5%, making the Vulture as effective or better at range with 7.5 effective turrets over the Eagle's 6.25. So where is the compelling reason? Oh wait, they have an MWD bonus that works well if they decide to kite yet is totally worthless for brawling play styles....right..... compelling.
mm... the only way the mwd bonus is useful is if you're kiting at around 20km Vaga style with the transversal up ... there is no reason to fly the current eagle its speed and sig and dps is so poor you might aswell use a ferox or Vulture or railgun deimos or Naga or Talos..... 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:46:00 -
[1762] - Quote
I like the idea of Resilient, Anti -recon/ hunting mobile assault skirmishers but most of these HAC's aren't that resilient, mobile or even that resistant to e-war, and just lack straight up dps. Half of them are snipers which are just a complete waste and might aswell be in a different class or be T1 for as much use they are. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1203
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:51:00 -
[1763] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20) Cool, but what about deimos powergrid? I don't much like fitting electron blasters while everyone else has heavy pulses and 425s.
I fit ions and 200 just fine. What fit you attempting? Duel prop cap injected duel reps? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:11:00 -
[1764] - Quote
The rail deimos is op as hell, btw. As is the dual rep version (lol 1k active tank ebofre implants heat and links), it needs to be toned down.
It isnt a perfect frig killer but it hits nearly any crusier going at full transverasl at 20km for nearly perfect damage. Thats over 700dps at 20km. |
Serenity 159080
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:24:00 -
[1765] - Quote
Some very exciting changes, I'll be looking forward to the 1.1 release.
I couldn't see any post that brought this up, would a small exploration bonus be out of the question? Perhaps not to the default scan strength, but to either duration or deviation, or even to probe warp speed or scan range.
Just an interesting thought, that may tie into the electronics focus of HAC's. Either way, cross training for all HAC's has really paid off. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1204
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:31:00 -
[1766] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:The rail deimos is op as hell, btw. As is the dual rep version (lol 1k active tank ebofre implants heat and links), it needs to be toned down.
It isnt a perfect frig killer but it hits nearly any crusier going at full transverasl at 20km for nearly perfect damage. Thats over 700dps at 20km.
nah i like it where it stands.
that 1k active tank can be really hurt by neuts and part of that 700 dps comes from lackluster medium drones.
plus as its a kiter an arazu will really ruin its day.
i am really liking the ship. though i wont be armor tanking it any time soon. as i feel the shield version will be my choice for the ship. not sure if the 2500 armor is enough buffer to risk me duel tanking it as certain ships will just alpha the poor bugger. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1101
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:37:00 -
[1767] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:i am really liking the ship. though i wont be armor tanking it any time soon.
Pretty much this. With rails in gangs shield fitted and lows full of dmg mods, with blasters mandatory plate unlless solo stuff where shield will also be omgfck'in rocks veldspar drop in my cargo.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
152
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:46:00 -
[1768] - Quote
Ishtar bonuses look funky. Make the drone speed bonus apply to all scout/heavy drones, not just heavy drones. A drone speed bonus is nice and not particularly OP. Same for tracking, give the tracking to all non-sentry drones. OR instead, if you guys want it to really be a heavy drone bonus specifically, make it bigger than 7.5%. Heavy drones are REALLY slow. Heavy drones with a 37.5% speed bonus are still slow.
Also the Ishtar has ABYSMAL CPU. ABSOLUTELY ABYSMAL CPU. It cannot fit drone stuff properly. Drone rigs murder it further. Necessary drone mods also use INSANE AMOUNTS OF CPU.
Give the Ishtar more CPU OR Increase the drone control range bonus to 10km per level, this would help with the cpu issue.
omg after looking more closely it looks like it'll have higher CPU thank you so much. The first iteration of the new versions didn't have this and i was very upset. Fighting is Magic |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:08:00 -
[1769] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:The rail deimos is op as hell, btw. As is the dual rep version (lol 1k active tank ebofre implants heat and links), it needs to be toned down.
It isnt a perfect frig killer but it hits nearly any crusier going at full transverasl at 20km for nearly perfect damage. Thats over 700dps at 20km. nah i like it where it stands. that 1k active tank can be really hurt by neuts and part of that 700 dps comes from lackluster medium drones. plus as its a kiter an arazu will really ruin its day.
Both of those are arguments which really dont count, a arazu will ruine very mwd kiters day, and neuts will ruin any active tanked ships day.
That howver does not mean that some active tanked ships can reach absurd amounts of tank or be incredibly op as kiters.
The deimos changes + railbuff make it absurdly op, just as t2 resitances and the rep bonus stack and become op as well. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:10:00 -
[1770] - Quote
@ rise
one last request since vaga is supossed to be asb tanked could we have a little bit more cargohold plz? |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:14:00 -
[1771] - Quote
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. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:15:00 -
[1772] - Quote
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.
You gave up very little, it still does 500+dps, has 20k ehp, is as fast as a shield fit and tanks 1k dps. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:35:00 -
[1773] - Quote
Quote:You give up very little, it still does 500+dps, has 20k ehp, is as fast as a shield fit and tanks 1k dps.
20k EHP is OP? Nope. Not by any stretch. I'm wondering now if you're trolling. Even the tech 1 cruisers can top 20k. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:40:00 -
[1774] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:You give up very little, it still does 500+dps, has 20k ehp, is as fast as a shield fit and tanks 1k dps. 20k EHP is OP? Nope. Not by any stretch. I'm wondering now if you're trolling. Even the tech 1 cruisers can top 20k.
Do yourself a favor and compare ehp values of an active tanked cruiser with no plates. Comparing a buffer fit t1 to an active tanked t2 is not really a good way to compare ehp values... Just saying bro
|
Kick Rocks
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:45:00 -
[1775] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote: I see no reason to ask for the muninn to be changed to missiles. It has its own role, and artillery is it. That said, it would benefit from a bit more power grid so you could fit 720mm IIs and a 1600mm plate without both rig slots using an ancillary current router. Otherwise, it will remain only a Black Legion toy, not having enough damage/tank to make even an anti-support fleet. If intended as small gang/solo play.... Well, the minmatar already have the vagabond, don't they?
I am hoping we are not going for a Solo Muninn. I might be the only pilot insane enough to even try that. However I do feel that it sacrifices a bit too much damage to fit a tank similar to it's breathern. I might just be wrong on this and I am willing to accept that. CCP Rise, if you want this to be an Armor HAC as satated on the radio, please consider giving it a little boost to it's PG. I don't think the original PG had that type of fit in mind.
v/r 1 of about 25 Muninn pilots. Yes, I am an alt. -áNo, I do not care how you feel about that. -á |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:47:00 -
[1776] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Naomi Knight wrote: bought too many vagas and you cant sell them or what? btw it seems the vaga can fit 425mm + mwd + shield tank pretty well , so where is the problem?
The problem is that people won't be happy until the ship can out brawl, out tank, and out kite all of it's competition. some people want to fit 425s on top of that shield bonus. Some people would rather that easily abusable with links/blue pill and implant bonus be switched for another falloff bonus so the ship doesn't have to run from most things that aren't frigates. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:54:00 -
[1777] - Quote
Quote:Do yourself a favor and compare ehp values of an active tanked cruiser with no plates. Comparing a buffer fit t1 to an active tanked t2 is not really a good way to compare ehp values... Just saying bro
Wow. Say you're wondering if someone's trolling, get a response from trollolcorp. I have my answer.
Seriously, though. I don't this uber-on-paper tank is going to perform like you think. We'll wait and see, though. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:09:00 -
[1778] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Do yourself a favor and compare ehp values of an active tanked cruiser with no plates. Comparing a buffer fit t1 to an active tanked t2 is not really a good way to compare ehp values... Just saying bro Wow. Say you're wondering if someone's trolling, get a response from trollolcorp. I have my answer. Seriously, though. I don't this uber-on-paper tank is going to perform like you think. We'll wait and see, though.
You do now i was talking about a dualrep fit that tanks about 1k dps preheat? Not about a buffer fit. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:23:00 -
[1779] - Quote
Quote:You do now i was talking about a dualrep fit that tanks about 1k dps preheat? Not about a buffer fit.
Yes, I do. And, I don't think it's going to perform how you think. Cap is going to be an issue even with the new MWD bonus and cap changes. A cap booster will be another drain on powergrid. We still haven't seen how well these new rails are going to apply damage at full transversal. All in all, I just think it's not going to come out the beast that you think it will be. I don't see it becoming the new Cynabal. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
755
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:31:00 -
[1780] - Quote
Diemos solution is obvious, you adopt the same tactic as you did against the pre-nerf Angel hulls: Blue-ball the bastards until you have enough neuting lined up to make him into a fluffy bunny.
I suspect the Curse will go through a huge popularity increase as everyone and their mother jumps on the Gallente bandwagon scary bit about it is that it has better cap recharge than the current Sacrilege with the revised Sac being only marginally better .. roll on Gallente bias .. first more lows than the kings of lows and now more cap, can't wait to see what they think of next! |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:54:00 -
[1781] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:You do now i was talking about a dualrep fit that tanks about 1k dps preheat? Not about a buffer fit. Yes, I do. And, I don't think it's going to perform how you think. Cap is going to be an issue even with the new MWD bonus and cap changes. A cap booster will be another drain on powergrid. We still haven't seen how well these new rails are going to apply damage at full transversal. All in all, I just think it's not going to come out the beast that you think it will be. I don't see it becoming the new Cynabal.
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.
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:00:00 -
[1782] - Quote
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
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:04:00 -
[1783] - 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. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:13:00 -
[1784] - Quote
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
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:36:00 -
[1785] - Quote
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
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:46:00 -
[1786] - Quote
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
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:50:00 -
[1787] - Quote
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
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:30:00 -
[1788] - Quote
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
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:25:00 -
[1789] - Quote
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
trolllolcorp
514
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 02:21:00 -
[1790] - Quote
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
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:17:00 -
[1791] - 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. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 05:20:00 -
[1792] - Quote
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
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 05:36:00 -
[1793] - Quote
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
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 05:59:00 -
[1794] - Quote
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 natrual predator of cruiser hulls. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 07:17:00 -
[1795] - Quote
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 doesnGÇÖt 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 doesnGÇÖt 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 donGÇÖt make it the jack of all trades ship - itGÇÖs against your own philosophy to specialize t2 ships. |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:15:00 -
[1796] - Quote
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 their either, 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
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:37:00 -
[1797] - Quote
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
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:57:00 -
[1798] - Quote
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
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 09:33:00 -
[1799] - Quote
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
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 09:42:00 -
[1800] - Quote
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?
|
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
142
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:17:00 -
[1801] - Quote
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. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:28:00 -
[1802] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs)
http://i.imgur.com/SK4ktTS.png - absolutely terrible.
PS: 480dps@45km using antimatter, @53 with rangescript. I only correct my own spelling. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1114
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:30:00 -
[1803] - Quote
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.
Nope, at all.
Player skill AND experience should make the difference, not an unexplainable ultra boosted beyond reason whatever ship with OGB twink script safe at the POS.
You're clearly not making the difference in between different tools doing the same thing in the same time limit and uncreative thinking where the "smarter" would obviously go for the OP stuff and "dumb" for everything else. There's nothing smart or dumb in those choices but a lack of options of equally viable tools.
I'm pretty sure every single solo elite pvp fan of solo alt falcon and solo alt logi with the obvious solo boosting ship park at the pos think they're the best SOLO pvp guys earth internet and even the universe has ever seen... *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
477
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:36:00 -
[1804] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: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. Nope, at all. Player skill AND experience should make the difference, not an unexplainable ultra boosted beyond reason whatever ship with OGB twink script safe at the POS. You're clearly not making the difference in between different tools doing the same thing in the same time limit and uncreative thinking where the "smarter" would obviously go for the OP stuff and "dumb" for everything else. There's nothing smart or dumb in those choices but a lack of options of equally viable tools. I'm pretty sure every single solo elite pvp fan of solo alt falcon and solo alt logi with the obvious solo boosting ship park at the pos think they're the best SOLO pvp guys earth internet and even the universe has ever seen...
no.. you are wrong. HE is right. Perfect balance within class is DULL and dumb.
THat is why ancient eve balance was more fun, and way better. It had clear zones.. races were balanced.. but within a same class or role there was Healthy unbalance. Minmatar ships were CLEAR choices for hit and run but had the weakest battleships and capitals, Blaster boats were clear choices for in your face fights but gallente had huge gap on covering the kiting fight style, Ravens were the best long range support things ( Cruise missiles with Dampeners era) but had difficulty playing solo, ammar had the best large ships but the weakest frigates and cruisers. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
277
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:37:00 -
[1805] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs)
[Eagle, Rail] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Large Shield Extender II
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
85K EHP before heat with a lowest resist of 77.3% Explosive, just over 2K/S with a Zors and 414DPS out to 79+25 with Uranium or 497DPS at 53+25 with CNAM.
Looks pretty good to be honest.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:43:00 -
[1806] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs) [Eagle, Rail] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Large Shield Extender II 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I 85K EHP before heat with a lowest resist of 77.3% Explosive, just over 2K/S with a Zors and 414DPS out to 79+25 with Uranium or 497DPS at 53+25 with CNAM. Looks pretty good to be honest.
nonono, it's superbad... cause you know... ABCs are so much better at those ranges Given no one shoots back :| I only correct my own spelling. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:47:00 -
[1807] - Quote
Quote:Get out, you have nothing to say in a balancing thread, and with that attitude nothing you say should be taken seriously.
If you want a game where races have no real flavor and only offer different skins on identically performing classes, Star Wars: The Old Republic is free to play. That's not what Eve is about. Our races have real differences with different styles of play and different strengths/weaknesses. We'd like it to stay that way. Choosing to train for racial ships means something in Eve. You want all brawling cruisers to have total parity? Go play an Orgre swashbuckler in Everquest 2.
Quote:[Eagle, Rail] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Large Shield Extender II
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
85K EHP before heat with a lowest resist of 77.3% Explosive, just over 2K/S with a Zors and 414DPS out to 79+25 with Uranium or 497DPS at 53+25 with CNAM.
Looks pretty good to be honest.
This answered my question about the numbers, and I have to agree with this poster. This ship looks to be about as valid a fleet ship as any. How about you go look at the people complaining about some of the other ships with much more lackluster numbers for a little perspective here. You have a ship that can project antimatter dps at 78 km. Sorry, but if you think it needs a buff, I think the problem is more in how you've been using the ship than the ship itself. The ship has all the potential in the world as it stands. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1114
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:51:00 -
[1808] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs) http://i.imgur.com/SK4ktTS.png - absolutely terrible. PS: 480dps@45km using antimatter, @53 with rangescript.
480DPS at 45 km with battleship tank seems pretty balanced to me. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1114
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:57:00 -
[1809] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:nonono, it's superbad... cause you know... ABCs are so much better at those ranges Given no one shoots back :|
ABCs indeed have higher alpha/dps at those ranges but with what? -15/17K EHP?
If you push any ABC tank to limits those become slow briks T2 fitted with noob dps, even then 35K at best with links in gangs imho (haven't check this earlier)
Then unless you have 20/30 Arty Nados alpha one shot that Eagle I'm pretty sure those Eagles will gtfo or be at the right range to actually apply 470dps/300x20 and pop those Nados 1 by one, specially T2 ships with high resist profile making incoming reps exponentially better vs glass canons with resist holes everywhere if they want to spew some decent dmg or target in reasonable delays.
At least that one will be able to shoot at 100km AND have a tank. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
baltec1
Bat Country
7510
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:26:00 -
[1810] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
no.. you are wrong. HE is right. Perfect balance within class is DULL and dumb.
THat is why ancient eve balance was more fun, and way better. It had clear zones.. races were balanced.. but within a same class or role there was Healthy unbalance. Minmatar ships were CLEAR choices for hit and run but had the weakest battleships and capitals, Blaster boats were clear choices for in your face fights but gallente had huge gap on covering the kiting fight style, Ravens were the best long range support things ( Cruise missiles with Dampeners era) but had difficulty playing solo, ammar had the best large ships but the weakest frigates and cruisers.
Yes lets go back to a time when most of the ships were useless because they could do nothing to the handful that were good. |
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:32:00 -
[1811] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs) [Eagle, Rail] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Large Shield Extender II 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I 85K EHP before heat with a lowest resist of 77.3% Explosive, just over 2K/S with a Zors and 414DPS out to 79+25 with Uranium or 497DPS at 53+25 with CNAM. Looks pretty good to be honest.
Makes me wish i could fit a similar tank on my heavy beam zealot.
I also find it funny that you cry about the vaga needing an ACR to fit dual extenders + 425's but not that the eagle needs one to fit its largest guns and a tank
IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
277
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:39:00 -
[1812] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs) [Eagle, Rail] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Large Shield Extender II 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I 85K EHP before heat with a lowest resist of 77.3% Explosive, just over 2K/S with a Zors and 414DPS out to 79+25 with Uranium or 497DPS at 53+25 with CNAM. Looks pretty good to be honest. Makes me wish i could fit a similar tank on my heavy beam zealot. I also find it funny that you cry about the vaga needing an ACR to fit dual extenders + 425's but not that the eagle needs one to fit its largest guns and a tank
Please go fit 2 LSEs an MWD and 720s on a Vaga and tell me how that goes. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7511
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:45:00 -
[1813] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Please go fit 2 LSEs an MWD and 720s on a Vaga and tell me how that goes.
God forbid you have to chose between firepower or tank. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1115
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:46:00 -
[1814] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Please go fit 2 LSEs an MWD and 720s on a Vaga and tell me how that goes.
If you do that you're doing it wrong all down the hill.
Fit 720's and make it a-a-insta-cane but loking faster and as much tank with smaller sign? -of course it's possible
If you want to fit tank and use arties go Munnin, that what he's meant for.
What you're saying there makes no sense, it's like if you were trying to snipe with rails ishtar forgetting his bonus are drones one...well vaga is about the same and on top is about 750m/s faster than any other hac without gimp whatsoever. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1115
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:50:00 -
[1815] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:
Please go fit 2 LSEs an MWD and 720s on a Vaga and tell me how that goes.
God forbid you have to chose between firepower or tank.
They want both, 70K EHP 800dps at 40km with autocanons 7500m/s with 100mn AB and and a extra slot/fittings for Xl'asb but theirs will get an extra bonus, will use no cap nor charges and reps 150% per cycle when heat -heat dmg 0%
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3248
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:53:00 -
[1816] - Quote
Forgive them, minnie pilots are used to fitting the biggest guns, two T2 medium neuts on an all T2 fit without any fitting mods.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:58:00 -
[1817] - Quote
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?
This at least take out one low and gives a med , if you wont budge on the bonus. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
833
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:01:00 -
[1818] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Please go fit 2 LSEs an MWD and 720s on a Vaga and tell me how that goes.
It appears to go 2453 m/s, about 1000 m/s faster than the Eagle. |
dR PaNouKLa
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:04:00 -
[1819] - Quote
Vaga's new bonus is rediculous. A falloff and a bit more damage would make more sense. CPU and PGD are just fine as was.
And then maybe the fact that it is quite fragile (the lowsest EHP HAC by far) can compensate for its high speed. (It's not that faster now after all this agility/speed changes in other hacs while it remains bad in dmg-range).
Thankfully Deimos/Cerberus can do the same job, but better than vaga now. They have quite more EHP, more damage, better range, more agility and a little less speed after these changes... |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
378
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:13:00 -
[1820] - Quote
dR PaNouKLa wrote:Thankfully Deimos/Cerberus can do the same job, but better than vaga now. They have quite more EHP, more damage, better range, more agility and a little less speed after these changes...
This is the first time I ever heard someone call a 30% difference "a little". In that case, sure, Vindicator only has a little more dps than the blaster Rokh... :p |
|
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:14:00 -
[1821] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote: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? This at least take out one low and gives a med , if you wont budge on the bonus.
Another med would make it quite more versatile and OP. Slots are fine as they are now.
Atm it has the worst tank, bad dmg and even worse dmg application it's falloff is bad.
Vagabond's role should be (and always was) to apply dmg from disruptor range while it relies on its speed in order not to get in stasis/scram range. This is why new bonus is indeed ridiculous and it's dmg is not equal to the other HACs/t1 cruisers (oops). |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
514
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:15:00 -
[1822] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:.
THat is why ancient eve balance was more fun, and way better. It had clear zones.. races were balanced..
Please stop posting, "ancient" eve was one of the most poorly balanced games I've ever played... I'd advise you to take off your nostalgia goggles before making timeline comparisons like this, thanks!
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:26:00 -
[1823] - Quote
Seems like someone might be emotionally attached to a hull and a role, but the hull they are attached to doesn't fit the role they want. Hulls are not all-in-one. You pick a balance between gank, tank, support, drones, etc. Not a ship exists that lacks a weakness.
The hybrid blaster Proteus with PCM/FEP/HPA/AP/LI subs and a full set of slave implants is about as expensive and beasty as you can go in a solo PVP hull, and it can be whittled away by a number of ships once its drones are knocked down and its cap drained. I'm starting to think some of the commenters want to fly a tech 3 at the price point of an AHAC. |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:45:00 -
[1824] - Quote
Romar Thel wrote:Pesadel0 wrote: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? This at least take out one low and gives a med , if you wont budge on the bonus. Another med would make it quite more versatile and OP. Slots are fine as they are now. Atm it has the worst tank, bad dmg and even worse dmg application it's falloff is bad. Vagabond's role should be (and always was) to apply dmg from disruptor range while it relies on its speed in order not to get in stasis/scram range. This is why new bonus is indeed ridiculous and it's dmg is not equal to the other HACs/t1 cruisers (oops).
Err i agree with you , but if the dev isnt changing the bonus i really i don't see any vaga going in close range with a tank of 2 slots sorry but that is ridiculous, and telling that with 5 meds it would be overpower well i dont really agree.
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:47:00 -
[1825] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs) http://i.imgur.com/SK4ktTS.png - absolutely terrible. PS: 480dps@45km using antimatter, @53 with rangescript.
Posting a fit under full links dosent prove the ship isent terible, it just shows you need links to make it decwnt compaired to the rest. Not only that but if your going to sniper fit that eagle you are going to need to fit a sebo, either to actualy lock out to your spike range, or actualy lock anything before it warps off. Even with the rail buff i doubt you will see many more eagles sniping than you do today, the naga just has it in a strangel hold, and is cheeper.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
277
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:08:00 -
[1826] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs) http://i.imgur.com/SK4ktTS.png - absolutely terrible. PS: 480dps@45km using antimatter, @53 with rangescript. Posting a fit under full links dosent prove the ship isent terible, it just shows you need links to make it decwnt compaired to the rest. Not only that but if your going to sniper fit that eagle you are going to need to fit a sebo, either to actualy lock out to your spike range, or actualy lock anything before it warps off. Even with the rail buff i doubt you will see many more eagles sniping than you do today, the naga just has it in a strangel hold, and is cheeper.
I'm pretty sure you will find every single gang with any serious intentions has dual links these days. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:11:00 -
[1827] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)
You may wish to update the first post regarding the Zealot CPU :) |
dR PaNouKLa
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:22:00 -
[1828] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:dR PaNouKLa wrote:Thankfully Deimos/Cerberus can do the same job, but better than vaga now. They have quite more EHP, more damage, better range, more agility and a little less speed after these changes... This is the first time I ever heard someone call a 30% difference "a little". In that case, sure, Vindicator only has a little more dps than the blaster Rokh... :p
Deimos: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875)
Vaga: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 295(+56) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s
That's not that bad... |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:38:00 -
[1829] - Quote
I'm not asking for damage or engagement range; I'm talking about sig to speed, which is needed for cruisers to deal with battleship sized weaponry. For what is intended, I think the tank, damage, and projection are good. I just think it needs a little more speed and a little less size to make it better fit said intended role.
Hell, Lloyd, I'm projecting it with republic fleet extenders (most of the better equipped zealot gangs used dark blood hardeners for ~200m after fitting. Current prices put eagle with republic fleet extenders at about the same) for a little bit better signature. It's still coming in a little bit on the large side for a cruiser with skirmish boosts active, though. It gets a little bit more off with a MWD, but that may just be how the ship ends up being flown to keep range.
I'd like to see a rail fleet after the expansion, but am not sure it will happen. The eagle has had these ranges and similar tanks before, and we still haven't seen it. It just doesn't have what makes the zealot attractive as a fleet doctrine. After the medium weapon rebalance, I don't know. Rails are losing a significant amount of tracking, which is going to essentially negate half of the buff they're receiving against cruisers and below. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
439
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:04:00 -
[1830] - Quote
dR PaNouKLa wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:dR PaNouKLa wrote:Thankfully Deimos/Cerberus can do the same job, but better than vaga now. They have quite more EHP, more damage, better range, more agility and a little less speed after these changes... This is the first time I ever heard someone call a 30% difference "a little". In that case, sure, Vindicator only has a little more dps than the blaster Rokh... :p Deimos: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Vaga: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 295(+56) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s That's not that bad...
its far from fair though its crazy that minnie get such massive advantages over the rest ... 180 on eagle compared to 295 are these ships even in the same class??????? not to mention that minnie have higher T2 resists 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
dR PaNouKLa
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:08:00 -
[1831] - Quote
Yes... if you consider that the eagle can hit from 250km and vaga has half dmg at 25km...
It's not an advantage, it's different role.
|
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:24:00 -
[1832] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:baltec1 wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:
Please go fit 2 LSEs an MWD and 720s on a Vaga and tell me how that goes.
God forbid you have to chose between firepower or tank. They want both, 70K EHP 800dps at 40km with autocanons 7500m/s with 100mn AB and and a extra slot/fittings for Xl'asb but theirs will get an extra bonus, will use no cap nor charges and reps 150% per cycle when heat -heat dmg 0% Straw men are fun. The sensible people still speaking about the Vaga don't want more than a switching of the shield boosting bonus for another fall off bonus so we can use ammo that isn't barrage at point range on the 220s we can can currently fit.
Now let me try. You want one of the fastest cruisers in the game to get super silly when you undock it with your HG crystals, blue pill and your loki and tengu links so you and your buddies can dump over everything you come across or GTFO as needed. Was that as accurate a representation of your views as your representation was of those who still want work on the Vaga? |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:39:00 -
[1833] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Get out, you have nothing to say in a balancing thread, and with that attitude nothing you say should be taken seriously. If you want a game where races have no real flavor and only offer different skins on identically performing classes, Star Wars: The Old Republic is free to play. That's not what Eve is about. Our races have real differences with different styles of play and different strengths/weaknesses. We'd like it to stay that way. Choosing to train for racial ships means something in Eve. You want all brawling cruisers to have total parity? Go play an Orgre swashbuckler in Everquest 2..
There is a difference between races beeing similar and beeing balanced, you can balance stuff by making it different. That in no way means that stuff should be op, beeing the best brawler/kiter in its class does not mean op, op means beeing a whole lot better at it and beeing to strong in general.
Which the deimos with these changes is. The t2 resitances act as a rep boost on their own, once you introduce the rep buff that is also comming and then add the role bonus on top you achieve silly numbers.
The new deimos tanks ca 85% more on a single booster then a t1 cruisers that is on tq right now. And thats before you adress the fact that due to how resitance change fits the % rises yet again, or that its fitting allows it to fit without compromise.
The biggest problem is the fact that all hacs are deisgned atm as brawlers (even the vaga with its asb boost), having one brawler to ebat them all is bad design.
Also, people who claim neuts are a problem dont know what they are talking about, i theory they are right but due to the death of the cane meta utility neuts are very rare and mostly used on kiters if they are used at all. This leaves neuts on specialized ships i.e curse and co, in which case youd be ****** anyways and battleships, but bs **** over hacs anyways so youd be dead either way.
Normal ships running around dont tend to be neut heavy, the meta isnt neut heavy at all, this as i already mentioned is due to the fact that canes are dead and that asbs were so common and as everyone knows, those cant be neuted. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:12:00 -
[1834] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs) http://i.imgur.com/SK4ktTS.png - absolutely terrible. PS: 480dps@45km using antimatter, @53 with rangescript. Posting a fit under full links dosent prove the ship isent terible, it just shows you need links to make it decwnt compaired to the rest. Not only that but if your going to sniper fit that eagle you are going to need to fit a sebo, either to actualy lock out to your spike range, or actualy lock anything before it warps off. Even with the rail buff i doubt you will see many more eagles sniping than you do today, the naga just has it in a strangel hold, and is cheeper. I'm pretty sure you will find every single gang with any serious intentions has dual links these days.
Your missing the point by a mile, saying the eagle is good under links is fine, but so are most ships, the problem is that the eagle is terible without links and the rest of the HaCs are not. So his fit with links has no bearing on making the eagles base usefulness on par with the rest. Its like saying intercepters dont need buffs they just need links and halo sets |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:21:00 -
[1835] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs) [Eagle, Rail] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Large Shield Extender II 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I 85K EHP before heat with a lowest resist of 77.3% Explosive, just over 2K/S with a Zors and 414DPS out to 79+25 with Uranium or 497DPS at 53+25 with CNAM. Looks pretty good to be honest. And the Eagle's true calling is revealed |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
439
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:27:00 -
[1836] - Quote
mm.. the claymore is nearly as fast as the eagle!!!! .. what does this tell you??? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:40:00 -
[1837] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:mm.. the claymore is nearly as fast as the eagle!!!! .. what does this tell you???
It tells us that the claymore needs more speed. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7513
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 16:06:00 -
[1838] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:Harvey James wrote:mm.. the claymore is nearly as fast as the eagle!!!! .. what does this tell you??? It tells us that the claymore needs more speed.
Why? |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 16:46:00 -
[1839] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Get out, you have nothing to say in a balancing thread, and with that attitude nothing you say should be taken seriously. If you want a game where races have no real flavor and only offer different skins on identically performing classes, Star Wars: The Old Republic is free to play. That's not what Eve is about. Our races have real differences with different styles of play and different strengths/weaknesses. We'd like it to stay that way. Choosing to train for racial ships means something in Eve. You want all brawling cruisers to have total parity? Go play an Orgre swashbuckler in Everquest 2.. There is a difference between races beeing similar and beeing balanced, you can balance stuff by making it different. That in no way means that stuff should be op, beeing the best brawler/kiter in its class does not mean op, op means beeing a whole lot better at it and beeing to strong in general. Which the deimos with these changes is. The t2 resitances act as a rep boost on their own, once you introduce the rep buff that is also comming and then add the role bonus on top you achieve silly numbers. The new deimos tanks ca 85% more on a single booster then a t1 cruisers that is on tq right now. And thats before you adress the fact that due to how resitance change fits the % rises yet again, or that its fitting allows it to fit without compromise. The biggest problem is the fact that all hacs are deisgned atm as brawlers (even the vaga with its asb boost), having one brawler to ebat them all is bad design. Also, people who claim neuts are a problem dont know what they are talking about, i theory they are right but due to the death of the cane meta utility neuts are very rare and mostly used on kiters if they are used at all. This leaves neuts on specialized ships i.e curse and co, in which case youd be ****** anyways and battleships, but bs **** over hacs anyways so youd be dead either way. Normal ships running around dont tend to be neut heavy, the meta isnt neut heavy at all, this as i already mentioned is due to the fact that canes are dead and that asbs were so common and as everyone knows, those cant be neuted.
So the Deimos excels in solo / small scale pvp. Bet it doesn't do too well against a few T3 bc's calling it primary. I think local reppers should play a larger role in the game; buffers are the tank style of choice for most pvp as it is. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
278
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 16:57:00 -
[1840] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs) http://i.imgur.com/SK4ktTS.png - absolutely terrible. PS: 480dps@45km using antimatter, @53 with rangescript. Posting a fit under full links dosent prove the ship isent terible, it just shows you need links to make it decwnt compaired to the rest. Not only that but if your going to sniper fit that eagle you are going to need to fit a sebo, either to actualy lock out to your spike range, or actualy lock anything before it warps off. Even with the rail buff i doubt you will see many more eagles sniping than you do today, the naga just has it in a strangel hold, and is cheeper. I'm pretty sure you will find every single gang with any serious intentions has dual links these days. Your missing the point by a mile, saying the eagle is good under links is fine, but so are most ships, the problem is that the eagle is terible without links and the rest of the HaCs are not. So his fit with links has no bearing on making the eagles base usefulness on par with the rest. Its like saying intercepters dont need buffs they just need links and halo sets
The Eagle is obviously designed with fleet work in mind, so yes I applied links to the fit.
Comparing it to a linked Naga it has almost tripple the EHP vs Omni and 5x the EHP versus a Naga, looses 200 DPS and has a tiny sig.
People who think every fight is about ERMERGED I HAVE MOAR ALFA N DPS I WIN are just wrong. |
|
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 17:54:00 -
[1841] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:
People who think every fight is about ERMERGED I HAVE MOAR ALFA N DPS I WIN are just wrong.
Exactly. That's why I think the eagle needs, in addition to it's current plans, a better speed to sig ratio so that it can compete where HACs have shined already in fleet fights. Tank, damage and projection are currently fine. The sig is going to be worse anyway because of the shield extenders and rigs. This is fine, because it has other advantages it can use. But it'll need the size and speed to be able to come in short range to survive battleship class weaponry.
Hard tackle then becomes an issue for the eagle, as it should be. Give the huginns and bellicoses (bellicosi?) something to do. |
Pesadel0
the muppets DARKNESS.
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 17:58:00 -
[1842] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:Harvey James wrote:mm.. the claymore is nearly as fast as the eagle!!!! .. what does this tell you??? It tells us that the claymore needs more speed. Why?
Well clearly if a caldari ship missiles and slow moving brick is being has fast as a minmatar fast/nimble guerilla ship it must be changed no? |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
147
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 18:08:00 -
[1843] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Your missing the point by a mile, saying the eagle is good under links is fine, but so are most ships, the problem is that the eagle is terible without links and the rest of the HaCs are not. So his fit with links has no bearing on making the eagles base usefulness on par with the rest. Its like saying intercepters dont need buffs they just need links and halo sets
Thing is, fly a rail-eagle-fleet without links because you're so... what? I mostly compare fits in their respective situation, so I expect a 20-T3-wh-fleet to have a damnation, a 100mn tengu to have a 4-link loki and a shieldfleet... to have a matching CS. When you're going as far as saying that the ship is totally broken, without even considering how that ship could be used in a normal situation (flying with a CS is not THAT unusual), upon seeing a possible application calling 'drek, cheater' is not really insightful.
If it helps, replace the stats with the nonlinked stats... so EHP drops from 95ish to 80k EHP. Signature is up to 208 and velocity goes down by ~10%. If that breaks the ship for you, pls go ahead and cry us a river.
Edit: removed the pyramid :| I only correct my own spelling. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
440
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 18:52:00 -
[1844] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:Harvey James wrote:mm.. the claymore is nearly as fast as the eagle!!!! .. what does this tell you??? It tells us that the claymore needs more speed. Why? Well clearly if a caldari ship missiles and slow moving brick is being has fast as a minmatar fast/nimble guerilla ship it must be changed no?
If i have to explain to you why a cruiser should be quicker than a Battlecruiser than you shouldn't be posting on the forums 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:09:00 -
[1845] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Pesadel0 wrote: Well clearly if a caldari ship missiles and slow moving brick is being has fast as a minmatar fast/nimble guerilla ship it must be changed no?
If i have to explain to you why a cruiser should be quicker than a Battlecruiser than you shouldn't be posting on the forums
Harvey James wrote:mm.. the claymore is nearly as fast as the eagle!!!! .. what does this tell you???
to me this sounds like the cruiser is faster than the bc.... |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:30:00 -
[1846] - Quote
Yes, "sadly" eagle is the slowest hac (one has to take that position). But it relies on its range rather than speed to play. That is its role. Long range sniping. Other ships dont have even half of its range.
It's really strange to see people complain why sacri, eagle or whatever doesnt go fast and blabla. If you want a really fast ship fly the vaga... if you want an armor buff you should go for sacri and likewise for many other doctrine requirements (range, alpha, missiles...). But it doesnt mean that all ships should be fast AND have good armor buffer AND...
Each has a role. If you cannot choose the one that suits best for each case then you shouldnt blame ship balancing issues... ...nor expect to replace it evenly with another ship. No, it shouldnt have the same performance.
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 21:55:00 -
[1847] - Quote
Quote:There is a difference between races beeing similar and beeing balanced, you can balance stuff by making it different. That in no way means that stuff should be op, beeing the best brawler/kiter in its class does not mean op, op means beeing a whole lot better at it and beeing to strong in general.Which the deimos with these changes is.
It's not at all. As was already pointed out, a few good tech 1 ships with decent enough alpha will still rip through it. Also, your claim that neuts are dead is pretty out of touch. Every ship I've fought in the past 2 few months that has a utility high and isn't a drone boat has had a neut or nos equipped. Heck, I just fought a Brutix pilot the other day that had one. I really don't know what makes you think neuts are dead. They aren't by a long shot, and they are the balance to any active armor repper. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
256
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 22:34:00 -
[1848] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:baltec1 wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:
Please go fit 2 LSEs an MWD and 720s on a Vaga and tell me how that goes.
God forbid you have to chose between firepower or tank. They want both, 70K EHP 800dps at 40km with autocanons 7500m/s with 100mn AB and and a extra slot/fittings for Xl'asb but theirs will get an extra bonus, will use no cap nor charges and reps 150% per cycle when heat -heat dmg 0%
If you can do that all on the same Vagabond fit, well, its not possible so what I'd so isn't relevant. Find another straw man, the Vaga should be a decent kiter, currently it is severely outclassed, and now it has a useless bonus. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
256
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 22:36:00 -
[1849] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote: (eagle is terribly broken, needs fixes, doesn#t qualify for fleetuse, outranged by ABCs) [Eagle, Rail] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Large Shield Extender II 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Uranium Charge M Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I 85K EHP before heat with a lowest resist of 77.3% Explosive, just over 2K/S with a Zors and 414DPS out to 79+25 with Uranium or 497DPS at 53+25 with CNAM. Looks pretty good to be honest.
Meanwhile the average Naga fit... How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
145
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 22:39:00 -
[1850] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:There is a difference between races beeing similar and beeing balanced, you can balance stuff by making it different. That in no way means that stuff should be op, beeing the best brawler/kiter in its class does not mean op, op means beeing a whole lot better at it and beeing to strong in general.Which the deimos with these changes is. It's not at all. As was already pointed out, a few good tech 1 ships with decent enough alpha will still rip through it. Also, your claim that neuts are dead is pretty out of touch. Every ship I've fought in the past 2 few months that has a utility high and isn't a drone boat has had a neut or nos equipped. Heck, I just fought a Brutix pilot the other day that had one. I really don't know what makes you think neuts are dead. They aren't by a long shot, and they are the balance to any active armor repper.
A brutic with a medium neut is failfit, and you know that (or should at least), not that one medium neut would put any real preasssure on it.
And again, "a blob is a counter to it" is no argument.
Hurr durr titans werent op, if you dropped 2k alpha nados on them they get alphaed. |
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:02:00 -
[1851] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:There is a difference between races beeing similar and beeing balanced, you can balance stuff by making it different. That in no way means that stuff should be op, beeing the best brawler/kiter in its class does not mean op, op means beeing a whole lot better at it and beeing to strong in general.Which the deimos with these changes is. It's not at all. As was already pointed out, a few good tech 1 ships with decent enough alpha will still rip through it. Also, your claim that neuts are dead is pretty out of touch. Every ship I've fought in the past 2 few months that has a utility high and isn't a drone boat has had a neut or nos equipped. Heck, I just fought a Brutix pilot the other day that had one. I really don't know what makes you think neuts are dead. They aren't by a long shot, and they are the balance to any active armor repper. A brutic with a medium neut is failfit, and you know that (or should at least), not that one medium neut would put any real preasssure on it. And again, "a blob is a counter to it" is no argument. Hurr durr titans werent op, if you dropped 2k alpha nados on them they get alphaed.
Fail fit eh? its not entirely hard to fit a med newt on a brutix shield or armor, not to mention dule newt cyclones, dule or triple newt prophecys, dule newt vexors, dule med newt navy vexor, duel med newt navy aurgors, and plently of other stuff.
And just because a second person or 50 isen't a legit counter its going to happen.
I admit the ships going to be quite powerful but there will be counters and as the ship gets more popular more counters will be made, thats how eve works. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:07:00 -
[1852] - Quote
Quote:Fail fit eh? its not entirely hard to fit a med newt on a brutix shield or armor, not to mention dule newt cyclones, dule or triple newt prophecys, dule newt vexors, dule med newt navy vexor, duel med newt navy aurgors, and plently of other stuff.-áAnd just so we are clear 2-4 people vs one is not a blob, people have friends and they are likely to bring at least some so your more than likely going to run into more newts, ewar, or dps than you can handel eventualy if not right off the bat.I admit the ships going to be quite powerful but there will be counters and as the ship gets more popular more counters will be made, thats how eve works.
Well, said, but I don't think you're going to get through to him. He seems to be convinced that the balance of Eve is dependent on all ships being leveled one a 1v1 playing field. There's not much else to say. Bottom line, he'll be unhappy until he can solo kill a Deimos with his favorite ship.
I'm reminded of an old quote...
"CCP, this is Scissors. Nerf rock. Paper is fine." |
Aglais
Liberation Army
336
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:10:00 -
[1853] - Quote
Romar Thel wrote:Yes, "sadly" eagle is the slowest hac (one has to take that position). But it relies on its range rather than speed to play. That is its role. Long range sniping. Other ships dont have even half of its range.
I'll let you know when hitting at like 150km with medium rails (even after the "buff") is useful. Don't hold your breath- the prolonged lack of oxygen would end up killing you. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:14:00 -
[1854] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Fail fit eh? its not entirely hard to fit a med newt on a brutix shield or armor, not to mention dule newt cyclones, dule or triple newt prophecys, dule newt vexors, dule med newt navy vexor, duel med newt navy aurgors, and plently of other stuff.-áAnd just so we are clear 2-4 people vs one is not a blob, people have friends and they are likely to bring at least some so your more than likely going to run into more newts, ewar, or dps than you can handel eventualy if not right off the bat.I admit the ships going to be quite powerful but there will be counters and as the ship gets more popular more counters will be made, thats how eve works. Well, said, but I don't think you're going to get through to him. He seems to be convinced that the balance of Eve is dependent on all ships being leveled one a 1v1 playing field. There's not much else to say. Bottom line, he'll be unhappy until he can solo kill a Deimos with his favorite ship. I'm reminded of an old quote... "CCP, this is Scissors. Nerf rock. Paper is fine."
My favorit part was when he said you cant count BS newts because BSs always beat hacs so your dead either way, when its commen knowledge that Hacs are one of the best counters to BSs because they can so easily get under their guns with low sig high tank. Of course hacs being anti BS kinda grew out of style because T1 cruiser gangs and AF gangs do it for way cheeper.
|
Roseline Penshar
Illusory Superiority
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:20:00 -
[1855] - Quote
how about making ishtar bonus to heavy drone change to all drone except sentry |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:22:00 -
[1856] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Romar Thel wrote:Yes, "sadly" eagle is the slowest hac (one has to take that position). But it relies on its range rather than speed to play. That is its role. Long range sniping. Other ships dont have even half of its range.
I'll let you know when hitting at like 150km with medium rails (even after the "buff") is useful. Don't hold your breath- the prolonged lack of oxygen would end up killing you.
The fact that you dont like it doesnt mean that it's not a role and that someone wont use it successfully as a doctrine. In the end.... latest gameplay makes you totally safe at 150kms. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7524
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 04:13:00 -
[1857] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:Harvey James wrote:mm.. the claymore is nearly as fast as the eagle!!!! .. what does this tell you??? It tells us that the claymore needs more speed. Why? Well clearly if a caldari ship missiles and slow moving brick is being has fast as a minmatar fast/nimble guerilla ship it must be changed no?
Its a battlecruiser and a command ship to boot. It also has the airodynamics of a fridge. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:05:00 -
[1858] - Quote
Quote:I'll let you know when hitting at like 150km with medium rails (even after the "buff") is useful. Don't hold your breath- the prolonged lack of oxygen would end up killing you.
Wait...
Are you saying that no one wants a ship that can field a battleship tank and track small targets at 70+ km?
Did I miss a staff meeting? |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:40:00 -
[1859] - Quote
Is there any chance you can change Sacriledge missile velocity bonus to explosion velocity bonus? Would be better for brawling and put it more in line with gallente close range brawler that has double 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage? |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
280
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:48:00 -
[1860] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Romar Thel wrote:Yes, "sadly" eagle is the slowest hac (one has to take that position). But it relies on its range rather than speed to play. That is its role. Long range sniping. Other ships dont have even half of its range.
I'll let you know when hitting at like 150km with medium rails (even after the "buff") is useful. Don't hold your breath- the prolonged lack of oxygen would end up killing you.
ITT people not understanding that 150km sniping is essentially dead and that the Eagle looks to be an amazing 50-90 skirmisher with way more survivability than Tier 3s with the added bonus of not being immediately ****** if somebody gets a good warp in on you or like 5 bombers turn up. |
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
134
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 08:34:00 -
[1861] - Quote
Ok, so did I miss the part where CCP Rise clarifies the actual ROLE of the HACs that justifies their T2 bonus (and skill requirement)?
Reminder |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 08:39:00 -
[1862] - Quote
Thanks to the rail buff the eagle is going from 'sucks' to 'meh.' What really works against it is that a beam zealot is better at doing damage until about 100k off and that is too small an amount of time spent moving for most fleets to give up on a higher base damage.
However, the eagle has secured the role of general use sniper in high and low because it can actually hit things that are smaller than battleships and that are orbiting at less than 30km. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
281
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 10:12:00 -
[1863] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Thanks to the rail buff the eagle is going from 'sucks' to 'meh.' What really works against it is that a beam zealot is better at doing damage until about 100k off and that is too small an amount of time spent moving for most fleets to give up on a higher base damage.
However, the eagle has secured the role of general use sniper in high and low because it can actually hit things that are smaller than battleships and that are orbiting at less than 30km.
The Eagle actually outdamages the Beam zealot past 50K.
Im just saying. |
lollerwaffle
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 10:26:00 -
[1864] - Quote
All I gotta say is, LOVING HAC 5!!
(Might even come back and start playing )
lol |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 12:21:00 -
[1865] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Thanks to the rail buff the eagle is going from 'sucks' to 'meh.' What really works against it is that a beam zealot is better at doing damage until about 100k off and that is too small an amount of time spent moving for most fleets to give up on a higher base damage.
However, the eagle has secured the role of general use sniper in high and low because it can actually hit things that are smaller than battleships and that are orbiting at less than 30km.
there is also to consider that the beam zealot cannot fit a tank at all with the largest guns fitted , whereas the eagle can get up to 80k ehp and fit its largest guns with only one fitting mod IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
147
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 13:26:00 -
[1866] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Fail fit eh? its not entirely hard to fit a med newt on a brutix shield or armor, not to mention dule newt cyclones, dule or triple newt prophecys, dule newt vexors, dule med newt navy vexor, duel med newt navy aurgors, and plently of other stuff.-áAnd just so we are clear 2-4 people vs one is not a blob, people have friends and they are likely to bring at least some so your more than likely going to run into more newts, ewar, or dps than you can handel eventualy if not right off the bat.I admit the ships going to be quite powerful but there will be counters and as the ship gets more popular more counters will be made, thats how eve works. Well, said, but I don't think you're going to get through to him. He seems to be convinced that the balance of Eve is dependent on all ships being leveled one a 1v1 playing field. There's not much else to say. Bottom line, he'll be unhappy until he can solo kill a Deimos with his favorite ship. I'm reminded of an old quote... "CCP, this is Scissors. Nerf rock. Paper is fine." My favorit part was when he said you cant count BS newts because BSs always beat hacs so your dead either way, when its commen knowledge that Hacs are one of the best counters to BSs because they can so easily get under their guns with low sig high tank. Of course hacs being anti BS kinda grew out of style because T1 cruiser gangs and AF gangs do it for way cheeper. L2p, hac fleets are a counter, not a single hac. In a fleet you don't active tank, solo you do, solo a bs will almost always beat a hac. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
110
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 13:33:00 -
[1867] - Quote
94 pages... is this train wreck still going? |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
524
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 13:34:00 -
[1868] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: L2p, hac fleets are a counter, not a single hac. In a fleet you don't active tank, solo you do, solo a bs will almost always beat a hac.
This is very very very heavily dependent on the BS involved... If a BS does not have more than 1 heavy nuet, and does not have 2x webs, it's going to die a very long drawn out death to pretty much any hac pilot with half a brain.
There is this crazy concept called manually orbiting at less than 500m, this allows BCs to mitigate large amounts of damage against a bs even while webbed... If a bc can significantly reduce the dmg of a BS, I'm pretty sure a HAC, that's faster and much smaller can do it far better.
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
147
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 14:01:00 -
[1869] - Quote
You can counter manual piloting by lowering transversal yourself. Against a nomral orbiting hac you can do the webbing trick.
Its not like a hac cant beat a bs, but that engagement usually tends to favor the bs.
But that isnt really important, what is important is that even if a ship tends to get neuted, blobbed or primaried it doesnt mean it should get a op tank, which is exactly what the deimos is getting.
The old bonus, albeit far from perfect was a lot better, it allowed for kiter to mwd longer and it gave brawlers more cap, it wasnt useless in fleets nor was it op in solo stuff. It wasnt that good a bonus (flat cap boni usually arent that great) but it was a balanced one.
The rep bonus itself wouldnt be that bad (still bad design as it puts ships in once role) but a flat 15% buff to all reps on top means over a 52% increase in rep ability over tq.
Lastly, becuase it annoys me, @ CCP how can you listen to people who complain that the mwd bonus only was good for kiting ship and fits that use their mwd a lot, those people clearly have no idea what they are taking about.
I.e.
Its a bonus that reduces the amount of cap a ship loses when it fits a mwd (if you do not know that fitting a mwd reduces the cap on a ship by a flat amount and that t2 reduces less cap then meta you should not comment on any ship balancing issues ever), it was so potent that a deimos with a mwd fitted had more cap then without. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3259
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 14:14:00 -
[1870] - Quote
Why do you think the Deimos tank is "op"? What is the threshold for "op tank"?
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
|
Liam Inkuras
Justified Chaos
379
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 14:20:00 -
[1871] - Quote
The new Deimos makes me wiggle with excitement. I can wait to apply a dual rep fit to it. On top of the 15% rep buff, SWEET JESUS will that thing be good. I wear my goggles at night.
Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 14:51:00 -
[1872] - Quote
Roime wrote:Why do you think the Deimos tank is "op"? What is the threshold for "op tank"?
I have no real threshod, but if a cruiser ship can reach 1 k tank before links or implants something is wrong. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 15:07:00 -
[1873] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: *snip*
Lastly, becuase it annoys me, @ CCP how can you listen to people who complain that the mwd bonus only was good for kiting ship and fits that use their mwd a lot, those people clearly have no idea what they are taking about.
I.e.
Its a bonus that reduces the amount of cap a ship loses when it fits a mwd (if you do not know that fitting a mwd reduces the cap on a ship by a flat amount and that t2 reduces less cap then meta you should not comment on any ship balancing issues ever), it was so potent that a deimos with a mwd fitted had more cap then without.
How do you complain about a rep bonus putting it into a roll when a MWD bonus is not much diferant, if you fit an AB instead of a MWD its a waisted mwd bonus, if you go for a shield MWD fit the rep bonus is waisted. Not only that but becaus eall Hacs got a better cap per second, and the deimos got some more again when it lost its MWD bonus, so its really no worse off. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 15:45:00 -
[1874] - Quote
I havnt said its a good bonus, it howver is usefull on a couple of fits, not just active tanked one (and yes, there is a difference between mwd and reps, mwd fits are much more commong, abs are exrteme niche).
I just am saying its tank potential is overpowered, which is bad. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
524
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 15:56:00 -
[1875] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Roime wrote:Why do you think the Deimos tank is "op"? What is the threshold for "op tank"?
I have no real threshod, but if a cruiser ship can reach 1 k tank before links or implants something is wrong.
Wolf dude, you're comparison are so one sided it's honestly hard not to laugh most of the time.
For example, comparing a dual xl asb eagle to the deimos w/o even mentioning cap usage/susceptibility... |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:27:00 -
[1876] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Roime wrote:Why do you think the Deimos tank is "op"? What is the threshold for "op tank"?
I have no real threshod, but if a cruiser ship can reach 1 k tank before links or implants something is wrong. Wolf dude, you're comparison are so one sided it's honestly hard not to laugh most of the time. For example, comparing a dual xl asb eagle to the deimos w/o even mentioning cap usage/susceptibility...
If a dual asb egale gets neuted its dead, its weapons need cap, no difference there.
And try to fit a dual xlasb eagle. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
524
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:43:00 -
[1877] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Roime wrote:Why do you think the Deimos tank is "op"? What is the threshold for "op tank"?
I have no real threshod, but if a cruiser ship can reach 1 k tank before links or implants something is wrong. Wolf dude, you're comparison are so one sided it's honestly hard not to laugh most of the time. For example, comparing a dual xl asb eagle to the deimos w/o even mentioning cap usage/susceptibility... If a dual asb egale gets neuted its dead, its weapons need cap, no difference there. And try to fit a dual xlasb eagle.
Are you honestly trying to say that there is no difference in survivability between a dual xl asb eagle and a deimos when dealing with heavy nuetage?
Again dude, your posts are comical.
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 17:05:00 -
[1878] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:I havnt said its a good bonus, it howver is usefull on a couple of fits, not just active tanked one (and yes, there is a difference between mwd and reps, mwd fits are much more commong, abs are exrteme niche).
I just am saying its tank potential is overpowered, which is bad.
I have to admit that having flown the dule rep fleet stabber and being able to take on almost any other ship 1v1 that The deimos with better rep, better damage, better resists dose sound a bit powerful, but I still think that people will easily come up with counters, such as amarr, mimatar, or galent recons, AFs and more. I just dont think that having a ship thats really good at solo pvp is a bad thing, I think others such as the Cerb and the Sac will do great aswell. I think overall we need to wait for it to hit the test server and maybe Tranquility then nerf the rep amount if needed. I think your going to see allot more skirmish Deimos than duel rep ones in the end, just because small gang skirmish is way more popular than solo hunting. |
Andy Landen
Battlestars Ex Cinere Scriptor
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:18:00 -
[1879] - Quote
For some real bonuses:
Quote:ISHTAR
...
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to (ALL) Drone speed and tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to (ALL) Drone optimal range and tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Slot layout: 5H (-0), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 780 PWG(+80), 340 CPU(+55) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400 (-6) / 1600 (-18) / 2300 (+191) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400 (+275) / 265s (-70s) / 5.28/s (+1.9) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+4) / .52 / 11100000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+250) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+20km) / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+7) Signature radius: 145
oh, and rethink your 7.5% Alliance Tournament recoiling non-sense. The previous 10% bonus is appropriate for a drone boat. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:36:00 -
[1880] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:I havnt said its a good bonus, it howver is usefull on a couple of fits, not just active tanked one (and yes, there is a difference between mwd and reps, mwd fits are much more commong, abs are exrteme niche).
I just am saying its tank potential is overpowered, which is bad. I have to admit that having flown the dule rep fleet stabber and being able to take on almost any other ship 1v1 that The deimos with better rep, better damage, better resists dose sound a bit powerful, but I still think that people will easily come up with counters, such as amarr, mimatar, or galent recons, AFs and more. I just dont think that having a ship thats really good at solo pvp is a bad thing, I think others such as the Cerb and the Sac will do great aswell. I think overall we need to wait for it to hit the test server and maybe Tranquility then nerf the rep amount if needed. I think your going to see allot more skirmish Deimos than duel rep ones in the end, just because small gang skirmish is way more popular than solo hunting.
You can counter everything tho, not really a argument tbh. In hac defences the deimos tank seems op, its offensive power is euqal or greater then the damage of its peers.
And @ the eagle guy, firstly it tanks less, it also is nealry impossible to fit and if you do you gimp your fit so badly it doesnt work anymore. And yes under extremly heavy neuting the deimos is clearly superior, it isnt able to tank as much but it poses a chance, a curse would murder a eagle for example, it neuts its guns off leaving it pointless (no you cant fit a nos nor a cap booster) and without any damage at all, the deimos would win. Yes it tank stays up (barely, under full bhaalghorn neuts you are looking at 400 dps tank of a deimos vs 600dps tank of the eagle).
|
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
526
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:39:00 -
[1881] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: And yes under extremly heavy neuting the deimos is clearly superior
Stop posting
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:58:00 -
[1882] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
You can counter everything tho, not really a argument tbh. In hac defences the deimos tank seems op, its offensive power is euqal or greater then the damage of its peers.
Isent that bassed more on mmm i dont know weapon system balancing than ship bonuses, sure it could probialy lose 25m3 drone bay but thats about as far as i would go.
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: And yes under extremly heavy neuting the deimos is clearly superior
Stop posting
Im startign to agree |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 20:06:00 -
[1883] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: And yes under extremly heavy neuting the deimos is clearly superior
Stop posting
Start thinking? A ship that does 0 dps is more useless then a ship that tanks a bit less then half of what it can on paper. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 20:20:00 -
[1884] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: And yes under extremly heavy neuting the deimos is clearly superior
Stop posting Start thinking? A ship that does 0 dps is more useless then a ship that tanks a bit less then half of what it can on paper.
The Eagles going to use far less cap to run its point/guns than a Deimos will to run rep+ web+point, You will have to newt trough all of the eagles cap and Keep it newted out to stop its dps and tank, and still has the option to deagro and escape if near a gate or station. A Deimos will destroy its own capaciter in no time flat, and will have to depend heavily on its cap booster to run anything, which is still going to bearly cut it, add on even a speratic newt and this will cause serious cap problems resulting in losign point, dps, or tank or in rare ocasions all three. So unless your basing your idea of some magic senario where both ships are newted to 0 instantly and have 0 cap recharge, then yes the eagle is worse off, but if you base it in a real game senario the eagles much better off. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 20:24:00 -
[1885] - Quote
Thats heavy neuting m8, a deimos is perfectly cap stable, even with 1 med neut on it, the eagle however is dry after 1min 50, with w neits the deimos still has cap most of the time, the eagle however is dry after 50 secs.
A dual xlasb tank is simply worse. |
Tor Saani
Salt Lake Wrecking Crew Strictly Unprofessional
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 20:35:00 -
[1886] - Quote
Reading the first version of this post I was like "Ishtar! Ishtar!". This version is almost perfect, HACs will have a clear place in the game again.
There is just one last tweak you need to make:
Vagabond +1 Mid (-1 High or -1 Low).
This final tweak would give it a role seperate from the Cynabal.
Having a shield boost bonus and only 4 mids is silly and will need to be changed at some point. Why not just do it with this patch and save yourselves having to spend time fixing it later? (I am really helping you out here!) |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 21:23:00 -
[1887] - Quote
Looking forward to the new Deimos, and the Sacrilege for that matter. When will these changes hit the test server? |
Kasife Vynneve
Zeewolf Corporation The Order of Pandora
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 21:42:00 -
[1888] - Quote
Not going to read all 95 odd pages to see if its mentioned but
Why have a Turret slot on the Sacrilege? Its a Missile Ship and could do with having a extra Low slot given its heritage of the Maller in place of a High
I know several of the Khanid ships have mixed high slots but why take away 3 turrets and leave one. a Utility high can be of use but time is needed for a full on Armour Missile (and only Missile) boat and this should be it.
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3262
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 05:49:00 -
[1889] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Roime wrote:Why do you think the Deimos tank is "op"? What is the threshold for "op tank"?
I have no real threshod, but if a cruiser ship can reach 1 k tank before links or implants something is wrong.
Ok, that's why you think the Vaga and Moa are OP as well.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
467
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 05:56:00 -
[1890] - Quote
Tor Saani wrote:Reading the first version of this post I was like "Ishtar! Ishtar!". This version is almost perfect, HACs will have a clear place in the game again.
There is just one last tweak you need to make:
Vagabond +1 Mid (-1 High or -1 Low).
This final tweak would give it a role seperate from the Cynabal.
Having a shield boost bonus and only 4 mids is silly and will need to be changed at some point. Why not just do it with this patch and save yourselves having to spend time fixing it later? (I am really helping you out here!) its role will be separated when cynabal gets its deserved nerf |
|
Ariel Dawn
F9X
1115
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 07:43:00 -
[1891] - Quote
Probably will get drowned by the angry people, but could it be possible to make the Vagabond a little more "vagabond'-y?
Increasing the cargo hold (so it can store a few more cap booster charges to use it's new bonus) Change the drone bay from 25/25 to 25/50 or maybe even 25/75!
Running out of cap charges/drones fairly quickly can cut short roams with the ship! |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 11:38:00 -
[1892] - Quote
Or dont change any slots for vaga, take out the silly new bonus and replace it with a falloff or dmg bonus.
|
Darth Khasei
Wavestar Business Ventures Inc.
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 13:23:00 -
[1893] - Quote
Respect.
1-Tech 1 Cruisers. 2-Tech 2 Cruisers=HAC's 3-Tech 3 Cruisers=Strategic Cruisers 4-Pirate faction 5-Navy Faction 6-Heavy Interdictors 7-Recons 8-Logistics
Six attack based models all trying not to step on each others toes is the problem with the balancing of this hull class. Nerfing Pirate ships again as suggested is not the answer to HAC balance as it was not for the recent Navy Cruiser balance, especially since pirate ships were already "balanced/nerfed" before.
Why not just recognize there will be a some role blending in the attack area with this hull class instead of searching for differences that are already there in the significantly different resistance levels.
Seems like a dog chasing his tail here if that is the best "solution" this iteration of the dev balance team can come up with today.
Oh well that is MMO's and "rebalancing" a big dog chasing his tail.
Carry on CCP. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
154
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:09:00 -
[1894] - Quote
^Not a serious remark, would love if the entire hac line had kiting as its specialitation. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:25:00 -
[1895] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:^Not a serious remark, would love if the entire hac line had kiting as its specialitation.
What I'm going to write down now may shock you, so fasten your seat belts!
Some people want their HACs to be HEAVY and/or ASSAULTing...my god the revelation!! But who's to blame you for not knowing that? Even the Folks at CCP don't have a knack what to do with them! Surprisingly so many people here do have some decent ideas about their favourite HACs...but I'm not even sure if CCP reads them at all.
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
156
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:41:00 -
[1896] - Quote
Yes i know, but there are tons of brawling boats and very very few dedicated kiting ships, especially in the cruiser class. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
442
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:47:00 -
[1897] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yes i know, but there are tons of brawling boats and very very few dedicated kiting ships, especially in the cruiser class.
Yes i agree that HAC's should be the premier kiting ship in the game think much more mobile ABC's but with the resilience/ ability to mitigate damage much better but with less dps.
Brawling HAC's is just pointless who want's to risk 200 plus mil in a brawl when you can use much cheaper and more effective brawlers ... i.e. bc's why do you think people use the Vaga but not the eagle or sacrilege as much? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:54:00 -
[1898] - Quote
Ariel Dawn wrote:Probably will get drowned by the angry people, but could it be possible to make the Vagabond a little more "vagabond'-y?
Increasing the cargo hold (so it can store a few more cap booster charges to use it's new bonus) Change the drone bay from 25/25 to 25/50 or maybe even 25/75!
Running out of cap charges/drones fairly quickly can cut short roams with the ship!
agree that the cargo holds should be revisioned - at the moment, those that favor active tanking mosty got the smallest holds aswell. I only correct my own spelling. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 16:00:00 -
[1899] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yes i know, but there are tons of brawling boats and very very few dedicated kiting ships, especially in the cruiser class.
I've got no problem with a little diversity in the HAC line of ships. I also think the whole issue was made more difficult without proper reason. 4 Brawlers (Slow/medium speed, Heavy/very heavy tanks with average/weak DMG) and 4 Kiters(Fast/very Fast with good/very good damage and average/weak tank).
Let's make this simple. You would have sufficient diversity and clear defined roles by balancing those ships through these 3 categories.
Example: Sacrilege= Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. Vagabond= Weak tank+ medium damage + amazing speed Deimos= Medium tank + medium damage + medium speed Zealot= Medium tank+ high damage + slow speed
There's no need for overcomplicating the whole issue even further, we need good and simple solutions now.
|
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 16:04:00 -
[1900] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yes i know, but there are tons of brawling boats and very very few dedicated kiting ships, especially in the cruiser class. Yes i agree that HAC's should be the premier kiting ship in the game think much more mobile ABC's but with the resilience/ ability to mitigate damage much better but with less dps. Brawling HAC's is just pointless who want's to risk 200 plus mil in a brawl when you can use much cheaper and more effective brawlers ... i.e. bc's why do you think people use the Vaga but not the eagle or sacrilege as much?
This would turn the whole meaning of HEAVY ASSAULT ships upside down. If you fear to lose a brawling ship then it's either because your tanking skills suck or the tanking abilities of your ship stinks. Easy solution, buff your skills or (god forbid) let's turn some of the HACs into decent and/or affordable Brawlers. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
442
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 16:10:00 -
[1901] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yes i know, but there are tons of brawling boats and very very few dedicated kiting ships, especially in the cruiser class. I've got no problem with a little diversity in the HAC line of ships. I also think the whole issue was made more difficult without proper reason. 4 Brawlers (Slow/medium speed, Heavy/very heavy tanks with average/weak DMG) and 4 Kiters(Fast/very Fast with good/very good damage and average/weak tank). Let's make this simple. You would have sufficient diversity and clear defined roles by balancing those ships through these 3 categories. Example: Sacrilege= Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. Vagabond= Weak tank+ medium damage + amazing speed Deimos= Medium tank + medium damage + medium speed Zealot= Medium tank+ high damage + slow speed There's no need for overcomplicating the whole issue even further, we need good and simple solutions now.
No the problem with that is you might aswell make a new class of ship because they will be so different but then again they are already like that which is why people are confused about the role of a HAC.. there is no consistency in the class.
What would be interesting would be if they made that separate class say Fast assault cruisers or fast attack cruisers. This class could have all the fast skirmishers essentially T2 attack cruisers - Vagabond = Weak tank/active + medium damage + amazing speed - Deimos = Weak tank/active + strong damage + excellent speed - Cerberus = decent tank + strong damage + strong speed - Zealot = decent tank + medium damage + strong speed
HAC's -eagle = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -sacrilege = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -Ishtar = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -Muninn = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 16:22:00 -
[1902] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Lucien Cain wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yes i know, but there are tons of brawling boats and very very few dedicated kiting ships, especially in the cruiser class. I've got no problem with a little diversity in the HAC line of ships. I also think the whole issue was made more difficult without proper reason. 4 Brawlers (Slow/medium speed, Heavy/very heavy tanks with average/weak DMG) and 4 Kiters(Fast/very Fast with good/very good damage and average/weak tank). Let's make this simple. You would have sufficient diversity and clear defined roles by balancing those ships through these 3 categories. Example: Sacrilege= Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. Vagabond= Weak tank+ medium damage + amazing speed Deimos= Medium tank + medium damage + medium speed Zealot= Medium tank+ high damage + slow speed There's no need for overcomplicating the whole issue even further, we need good and simple solutions now. No the problem with that is you might aswell make a new class of ship because they will be so different but then again they are already like that which is why people are confused about the role of a HAC.. there is no consistency in the class. What would be interesting would be if they made that separate class say Fast assault cruisers or fast attack cruisers. This class could have all the fast skirmishers essentially T2 attack cruisers - Vagabond = Weak tank/active + medium damage + amazing speed - Deimos = Weak tank/active + strong damage + excellent speed - Cerberus = decent tank + strong damage + strong speed - Zealot = decent tank + medium damage + strong speed HAC's -eagle = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -sacrilege = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -Ishtar = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -Muninn = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed.
Well you could split the Brawlers (Ishtar, Eagle, Sacrilege, Muninn) and the Kiters (Vagabond, Deimos, Cerberus, Zealot) into the classic HACs and (your suggested) FACs. A viable solution from my perspective. Let's take this further then. Why not give them both different Role Bonuses?
Example : HACs - 50% Bonus to Armor/Shield (or any other Tank Bonus) FACs - 25% Capacitor Capacity with MWD equipped (or any other Speed Bonus)
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
442
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 16:30:00 -
[1903] - Quote
Example : HACs - 50% Bonus to Armor/Shield (or any other Tank Bonus) .. perhaps HP/ active tank bonuses
FACs - 25% Capacitor Capacity with MWD equipped (or any other Speed Bonus)... perhaps as a FAC skill bonus 5% mwd cap i like the mwd sig reduction role bonus would work well with the lower sig radius they would get. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 18:46:00 -
[1904] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Lucien Cain wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yes i know, but there are tons of brawling boats and very very few dedicated kiting ships, especially in the cruiser class. I've got no problem with a little diversity in the HAC line of ships. I also think the whole issue was made more difficult without proper reason. 4 Brawlers (Slow/medium speed, Heavy/very heavy tanks with average/weak DMG) and 4 Kiters(Fast/very Fast with good/very good damage and average/weak tank). Let's make this simple. You would have sufficient diversity and clear defined roles by balancing those ships through these 3 categories. Example: Sacrilege= Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. Vagabond= Weak tank+ medium damage + amazing speed Deimos= Medium tank + medium damage + medium speed Zealot= Medium tank+ high damage + slow speed There's no need for overcomplicating the whole issue even further, we need good and simple solutions now. No the problem with that is you might aswell make a new class of ship because they will be so different but then again they are already like that which is why people are confused about the role of a HAC.. there is no consistency in the class. What would be interesting would be if they made that separate class say Fast assault cruisers or fast attack cruisers. This class could have all the fast skirmishers essentially T2 attack cruisers - Vagabond = Weak tank + medium damage + amazing speed - Deimos = Weak tank + strong damage + excellent speed - Cerberus = decent tank + strong damage + strong speed - Zealot = decent tank + medium damage + strong speed HAC's -eagle = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -sacrilege = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -Ishtar = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -Muninn = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed.
did you not just describe the current hac lineup with its proposed changes?
|
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 18:49:00 -
[1905] - Quote
Of course when you same low/medium/high damage you mean..... at all ranges, at all tracking.... |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 19:22:00 -
[1906] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Harvey James wrote:Lucien Cain wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Yes i know, but there are tons of brawling boats and very very few dedicated kiting ships, especially in the cruiser class. I've got no problem with a little diversity in the HAC line of ships. I also think the whole issue was made more difficult without proper reason. 4 Brawlers (Slow/medium speed, Heavy/very heavy tanks with average/weak DMG) and 4 Kiters(Fast/very Fast with good/very good damage and average/weak tank). Let's make this simple. You would have sufficient diversity and clear defined roles by balancing those ships through these 3 categories. Example: Sacrilege= Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. Vagabond= Weak tank+ medium damage + amazing speed Deimos= Medium tank + medium damage + medium speed Zealot= Medium tank+ high damage + slow speed There's no need for overcomplicating the whole issue even further, we need good and simple solutions now. No the problem with that is you might aswell make a new class of ship because they will be so different but then again they are already like that which is why people are confused about the role of a HAC.. there is no consistency in the class. What would be interesting would be if they made that separate class say Fast assault cruisers or fast attack cruisers. This class could have all the fast skirmishers essentially T2 attack cruisers - Vagabond = Weak tank + medium damage + amazing speed - Deimos = Weak tank + strong damage + excellent speed - Cerberus = decent tank + strong damage + strong speed - Zealot = decent tank + medium damage + strong speed HAC's -eagle = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -sacrilege = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -Ishtar = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. -Muninn = Heavy tank + medium damage + slow speed. did you not just describe the current hac lineup with its proposed changes?
Perhaps in some regards, but personally i see the brawlers as being too weak in their tanking role (SAC for example) for them to be defined as HEAVY. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 19:48:00 -
[1907] - Quote
Romar Thel wrote:Of course when you same low/medium/high damage you mean..... at all ranges, at all tracking....
Kiters should hit harder (more dmg) and better (good tracking), while being fast and needing to be fast because of their weak defenses. I'm not exactly sure about the range though, but having the option to choose between close and long range damage for all kiters would be preferable. A specific weapon tracking, damage and speed bonus (details to be defined) for all kiters would enable them to fill their roles admirably. Their Strengths would favour the ASSAULT Aspect.
The (slower) Brawlers on the other hand should be focused on taking as much of a beating, as reason would allow for a ship of their size, while dealing decent damage at the same time. Tracking bonuses should be probably left out in favour of damage, tank and perhaps web bonuses. As brawlers i expect these ships to be close to mid range damage dealers. Being strong Armor/Shield tanking ships they should clearly favour the HEAVY Aspect.
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 03:23:00 -
[1908] - Quote
I find it odd that people think there are "so many" dedicated brawlers. I think that's just an incorrect perception. Even in the past 2 pages, people have listed the Deimos as both a kiter and a brawler as well as a few others. If anything, that shows the hulls are more diverse than people are giving them credit for. |
SMT008
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Verge of Collapse
666
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 09:44:00 -
[1909] - Quote
So when are we seeing this on Singularity ? |
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 18:20:00 -
[1910] - Quote
Well I think the current changes are about as good as we can hope for (excluding the Vaga shield bonus, which is interesting but only if the Vaga changes from its classic kiting role to some sort of heavy tackle jobbie).
I particularly like the Diemos especially the brawler armour or shield kite diversity it now appears to offer. Perhaps we should allow the Diemos and the Cerberus their time in the Sun, as they have been so terrible for so long. |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
282
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 22:05:00 -
[1911] - Quote
Dysgenesis wrote:Well I think the current changes are about as good as we can hope for (excluding the Vaga shield bonus, which is interesting but only if the Vaga changes from its classic kiting role to some sort of heavy tackle jobbie).
I particularly like the Diemos especially the brawler armour or shield kite diversity it now appears to offer. Perhaps we should allow the Diemos and the Cerberus their time in the Sun, as they have been so terrible for so long.
The Deimos has been good for some time actually.
The Cerb not so much. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
230
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 23:39:00 -
[1912] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:Kiters should hit harder (more dmg) and better (good tracking), while being fast and needing to be fast because of their weak defenses. I'm not exactly sure about the range though, but having the option to choose between close and long range damage for all kiters would be preferable. A specific weapon tracking, damage and speed bonus (details to be defined) for all kiters would enable them to fill their roles admirably. Their Strengths would favour the ASSAULT Aspect. The problem is that hi-damage + hi-speed also tends to include hi-tank via speed and range. If your opponent's weapons cannot track or reach you, then you have a 100% effective tank. And all that in one ship is not exactly balanced. Kiters should be mediocre level damage at best, and it should take awhile to grind down an opponent. Sure swooping in and melting the target with amazing dps, while avoiding attacks with incredible speed and agility, and then escaping like a ninja when the blob arrives, it sounds all great and ASSAULT-like.... but why would you ever fly anything else? I know I wouldn't. That ain't balanced.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
282
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 00:28:00 -
[1913] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Lucien Cain wrote:Kiters should hit harder (more dmg) and better (good tracking), while being fast and needing to be fast because of their weak defenses. I'm not exactly sure about the range though, but having the option to choose between close and long range damage for all kiters would be preferable. A specific weapon tracking, damage and speed bonus (details to be defined) for all kiters would enable them to fill their roles admirably. Their Strengths would favour the ASSAULT Aspect. The problem is that hi-damage + hi-speed also tends to include hi-tank via speed and range. If your opponent's weapons cannot track or reach you, then you have a 100% effective tank. And all that in one ship is not exactly balanced. Kiters should be mediocre level damage at best, and it should take awhile to grind down an opponent. Sure swooping in and melting the target with amazing dps, while avoiding attacks with incredible speed and agility, and then escaping like a ninja when the blob arrives, it sounds all great and ASSAULT-like.... but why would you ever fly anything else? I know I wouldn't. That ain't balanced.
Yeah, its a good thing CCP didn't put a ship in the Game that does 800 DPS at heated point range and goes very fast for its class.
Oh no wait thats exactly what they did. |
RanmaruMori
FIRST SHOCK SQUADRON Darkness of Despair
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 06:23:00 -
[1914] - Quote
Eagle is bad in all. Others are dumb, case they don't see all. Go in another topic and just compare Vulture and Eagle. Vulture have same range, better tank, better damage, more utility slots, 5 drones, 2 links (if you want) vs slightly less mobility. Why must i choose eagle instead of vulture?
Cerberus have range and speed, when Nighthawk have damage and tank. This is balance. Vulture and Eagle are same. Eagle must be changed in any cases. |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 10:02:00 -
[1915] - Quote
RanmaruMori wrote:Eagle is bad in all. Others are dumb, case they don't see all. Go in another topic and just compare Vulture and Eagle. Vulture have same range, better tank, better damage, more utility slots, 5 drones, 2 links (if you want) vs slightly less mobility. Why must i choose eagle instead of vulture?
Cerberus have range and speed, when Nighthawk have damage and tank. This is balance. Vulture and Eagle are same. Eagle must be changed in any cases.
Good point, and lets face it the Eagle isn't winning any races. |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
1257
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 10:17:00 -
[1916] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: DEIMOS
For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repair amount
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
eh? Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
|
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 11:24:00 -
[1917] - Quote
RanmaruMori wrote:Eagle is bad in all. Others are dumb, case they don't see all. Go in another topic and just compare Vulture and Eagle. Vulture have same range, better tank, better damage, more utility slots, 5 drones, 2 links (if you want) vs slightly less mobility. Why must i choose eagle instead of vulture?
Cerberus have range and speed, when Nighthawk have damage and tank. This is balance. Vulture and Eagle are same. Eagle must be changed in any cases. I've barely even looked at the Eagle so I can't say it doesn't suck, but I think you want a better argument than that a cruiser hull doesn't perform as well as a battlecruiser hull, except in speed. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
445
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 12:17:00 -
[1918] - Quote
RISE
The Vagabond's speed is out of place here the max speed the other HAC's have is 230 so why does the Vaga get 295? It also conflicts with the current trend of faction/attack cruisers being the quickest ... so trade speed for more tank since the HAC's are about resilience not speed right? .. unless you are happy to contradict this.
- reduce speed to 260 m/s - add extra HP across the board to encourage ASB tanking
This besides making sense in terms of HAC's not being fast but tanky/resilient but also follows the trend of faction/Attack cruisers being the quickest .. this also creates a more distinct difference between it and the stabber/cynabal.
just compare Nomen/Omen to zealot and you'll understand my point perfectly 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
159
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 12:28:00 -
[1919] - Quote
God no. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
445
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 12:34:00 -
[1920] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:RanmaruMori wrote:Eagle is bad in all. Others are dumb, case they don't see all. Go in another topic and just compare Vulture and Eagle. Vulture have same range, better tank, better damage, more utility slots, 5 drones, 2 links (if you want) vs slightly less mobility. Why must i choose eagle instead of vulture?
Cerberus have range and speed, when Nighthawk have damage and tank. This is balance. Vulture and Eagle are same. Eagle must be changed in any cases. Good point, and lets face it the Eagle isn't winning any races.
even the blackbird has more base speed 190m/s .. granted it has more mass but still.... 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
283
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 12:52:00 -
[1921] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:RISE
The Vagabond's speed is out of place here the max speed the other HAC's have is 230 so why does the Vaga get 295? It also conflicts with the current trend of faction/attack cruisers being the quickest ... so trade speed for more tank since the HAC's are about resilience not speed right? .. unless you are happy to contradict this.
- reduce speed to 260 m/s - add extra HP across the board to encourage ASB tanking
This besides making sense in terms of HAC's not being fast but tanky/resilient but also follows the trend of faction/Attack cruisers being the quickest .. this also creates a more distinct difference between it and the stabber/cynabal.
just compare Nomen/Omen to zealot and you'll understand my point perfectly
Look, more people proposing more stupid changes to the Vagabond when all it needs is a second falloff bonus. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
424
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 12:55:00 -
[1922] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Harvey James wrote:RISE
The Vagabond's speed is out of place here the max speed the other HAC's have is 230 so why does the Vaga get 295? It also conflicts with the current trend of faction/attack cruisers being the quickest ... so trade speed for more tank since the HAC's are about resilience not speed right? .. unless you are happy to contradict this.
- reduce speed to 260 m/s - add extra HP across the board to encourage ASB tanking
This besides making sense in terms of HAC's not being fast but tanky/resilient but also follows the trend of faction/Attack cruisers being the quickest .. this also creates a more distinct difference between it and the stabber/cynabal.
just compare Nomen/Omen to zealot and you'll understand my point perfectly Look, more people proposing more stupid changes to the Vagabond when all it needs is a second falloff bonus.
Or the ability to fit a credible tank with 425s.
.....neither of which is happening. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
447
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 14:12:00 -
[1923] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Harvey James wrote:RISE
The Vagabond's speed is out of place here the max speed the other HAC's have is 230 so why does the Vaga get 295? It also conflicts with the current trend of faction/attack cruisers being the quickest ... so trade speed for more tank since the HAC's are about resilience not speed right? .. unless you are happy to contradict this.
- reduce speed to 260 m/s - add extra HP across the board to encourage ASB tanking
This besides making sense in terms of HAC's not being fast but tanky/resilient but also follows the trend of faction/Attack cruisers being the quickest .. this also creates a more distinct difference between it and the stabber/cynabal.
just compare Nomen/Omen to zealot and you'll understand my point perfectly Look, more people proposing more stupid changes to the Vagabond when all it needs is a second falloff bonus.
Yes cos a second falloff bonus on a Vaga wouldn't be stupidly OP at all 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
424
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 14:15:00 -
[1924] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Harvey James wrote:RISE
The Vagabond's speed is out of place here the max speed the other HAC's have is 230 so why does the Vaga get 295? It also conflicts with the current trend of faction/attack cruisers being the quickest ... so trade speed for more tank since the HAC's are about resilience not speed right? .. unless you are happy to contradict this.
- reduce speed to 260 m/s - add extra HP across the board to encourage ASB tanking
This besides making sense in terms of HAC's not being fast but tanky/resilient but also follows the trend of faction/Attack cruisers being the quickest .. this also creates a more distinct difference between it and the stabber/cynabal.
just compare Nomen/Omen to zealot and you'll understand my point perfectly Look, more people proposing more stupid changes to the Vagabond when all it needs is a second falloff bonus. Yes cos a second falloff bonus on a Vaga wouldn't be stupidly OP at all
When it can barely hit past web range hack and slash doesn't really work anymore.
If I'm going to pay 200mil for a ship with 37k eHP I want some bang for my buck. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
447
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 14:23:00 -
[1925] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Harvey James wrote:RISE
The Vagabond's speed is out of place here the max speed the other HAC's have is 230 so why does the Vaga get 295? It also conflicts with the current trend of faction/attack cruisers being the quickest ... so trade speed for more tank since the HAC's are about resilience not speed right? .. unless you are happy to contradict this.
- reduce speed to 260 m/s - add extra HP across the board to encourage ASB tanking
This besides making sense in terms of HAC's not being fast but tanky/resilient but also follows the trend of faction/Attack cruisers being the quickest .. this also creates a more distinct difference between it and the stabber/cynabal.
just compare Nomen/Omen to zealot and you'll understand my point perfectly Look, more people proposing more stupid changes to the Vagabond when all it needs is a second falloff bonus. Yes cos a second falloff bonus on a Vaga wouldn't be stupidly OP at all When it can barely hit past web range hack and slash doesn't really work anymore. If I'm going to pay 200mil for a ship with 37k eHP I want some bang for my buck.
i assume you mean dps after 10km is a bit low? well yes on top of more buffer and pg it could use stronger damage bonuses
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
448
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 14:29:00 -
[1926] - Quote
Vagabond Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount (was 5% bonus to max velocity)
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 1000 PWG(+145), 410 CPU(+15) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2150(+497) / 1500(+163) / 1280(+296) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1200(+137.5) / 245s (-90s) / 4.9/s (+1.7) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 260(+21) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+20km) / 330 / 6(+1) Sensor strength: 21 Ladar(+7) Signature radius: 115
Maybe something like this .. this way it is a better tanker/resilient than cynabal and stabber .. at the cost of a little speed ... a fair trade i would say especially as the other HAC's are so much slower still its out of place in its current form and overshadows the stabber and will end up better than cynabal probably .... but these changes give it a unique role and reduces overlap considerably. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
283
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:17:00 -
[1927] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Harvey James wrote:RISE
The Vagabond's speed is out of place here the max speed the other HAC's have is 230 so why does the Vaga get 295? It also conflicts with the current trend of faction/attack cruisers being the quickest ... so trade speed for more tank since the HAC's are about resilience not speed right? .. unless you are happy to contradict this.
- reduce speed to 260 m/s - add extra HP across the board to encourage ASB tanking
This besides making sense in terms of HAC's not being fast but tanky/resilient but also follows the trend of faction/Attack cruisers being the quickest .. this also creates a more distinct difference between it and the stabber/cynabal.
just compare Nomen/Omen to zealot and you'll understand my point perfectly Look, more people proposing more stupid changes to the Vagabond when all it needs is a second falloff bonus. Yes cos a second falloff bonus on a Vaga wouldn't be stupidly OP at all
See this is the thing, you ask anybody who has actually flown a shield Loki or a Vaga or any kiting AC ship and they will tell you AC kiting is bad, and has been for some time, a double falloff bonus is absolutely needed to make the hull usefull. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:27:00 -
[1928] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Harvey James wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Harvey James wrote:RISE
The Vagabond's speed is out of place here the max speed the other HAC's have is 230 so why does the Vaga get 295? It also conflicts with the current trend of faction/attack cruisers being the quickest ... so trade speed for more tank since the HAC's are about resilience not speed right? .. unless you are happy to contradict this.
- reduce speed to 260 m/s - add extra HP across the board to encourage ASB tanking
This besides making sense in terms of HAC's not being fast but tanky/resilient but also follows the trend of faction/Attack cruisers being the quickest .. this also creates a more distinct difference between it and the stabber/cynabal.
just compare Nomen/Omen to zealot and you'll understand my point perfectly Look, more people proposing more stupid changes to the Vagabond when all it needs is a second falloff bonus. Yes cos a second falloff bonus on a Vaga wouldn't be stupidly OP at all See this is the thing, you ask anybody who has actually flown a shield Loki or a Vaga or any kiting AC ship and they will tell you AC kiting is bad, and has been for some time, a double falloff bonus is absolutely needed to make the hull usefull.
Now the Deimos, that's a ship that needs a stronger falloff bonus or a second falloff bonus, the AC kiting ships just need more dps, being able to fit 425's will help with that aswell as adding range
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
115
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:27:00 -
[1929] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:See this is the thing, you ask anybody who has actually flown a shield Loki or a Vaga or any kiting AC ship and they will tell you AC kiting is bad, and has been for some time, a double falloff bonus is absolutely needed to make the hull usefull.
AC kiting is now 'bad' because of adjustment due to winmatar and no one flying anything but (and it ain't actually bad dude, no cap, damage selection, good tracking etc). Remember?
Welcome to balance. The fastest most disengagable ships suffer from falloff limited projection - this is a better world for EVE. If you want to kite with ACs you get locked into a T2 ammo damage type and live with lower DPS the farther you go. You get to keep your tracking, damage selection with short range ammo, capless guns, and very healthy damage. If projection is the ultimate consideration for YOU go fly something like a NOmen and deal with Cap dependency and razor thin shield tank. There has to be tradeoffs and, with the huge buffs the Vaga is getting on top of its already massive strengths, awesome damage projection would make it way too much. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
2220
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:50:00 -
[1930] - Quote
Hey guys just a heads up for you - all of these ships, along with the command ships and pretty much everything else, are on singularity now for testing.
Please go have a look and let us know what you think in the test server feedback forum or in these threads on features and ideas.
Thanks! |
|
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
424
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:50:00 -
[1931] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:See this is the thing, you ask anybody who has actually flown a shield Loki or a Vaga or any kiting AC ship and they will tell you AC kiting is bad, and has been for some time, a double falloff bonus is absolutely needed to make the hull usefull. AC kiting is now 'bad' because of adjustment due to winmatar and no one flying anything but (and it ain't actually bad dude, no cap, damage selection, good tracking etc). Remember? Welcome to balance. The fastest most disengagable ships suffer from falloff limited projection - this is a better world for EVE. If you want to kite with ACs you get locked into a T2 ammo damage type and live with lower DPS the farther you go. You get to keep your tracking, damage selection with short range ammo, capless guns, and very healthy damage. If projection is the ultimate consideration for YOU go fly something like a NOmen and deal with Cap dependency and razor thin shield tank. There has to be tradeoffs and, with the huge buffs the Vaga is getting on top of its already massive strengths, awesome damage projection would make it way too much.
OK so what do you with 200mil of crap dps that can't tank and can't damage from range but goes very fast?
Oh wait I'll tell you fly a Fleet stabber that has more tank, similar damage and dual prop that's what. At least it can do something other than point. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 15:52:00 -
[1932] - Quote
So, welp, no changes to the Cerb?
I for one will not be welcoming our new Cerb Overlords. |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
115
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:00:00 -
[1933] - Quote
Onictus wrote:OK so what do you with 200mil of crap dps that can't tank and can't damage from range but goes very fast?
Leverage its awesome tank with an ASB and amazing minnie T2 shield resists? Or use that top-of-class speed and apply your limited damage to plink away at a target with no fear of getting caught with your capless weapons, great cap so you can MWD all day long, resistance to dishonour drones and damps, and reduced sig rad due to the role bonus? Or sacrifice some of your invulnerability to small stuff by dropping the med neut and fitting 425s and achieving that better damage/projection?
IE. pretty much anything you want - minnie flexibility is rampant in this hull.
Onictus wrote:Oh wait I'll tell you fly a Fleet stabber that has more tank, similar damage and dual prop that's what. At least it can do something other than point.
SFI is a good ship. The number of viable hulls right now is amazing and a testament to the work the rest balance team have done. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:04:00 -
[1934] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys just a heads up for you - all of these ships, along with the command ships and pretty much everything else, are on singularity now for testing. Please go have a look and let us know what you think in the test server feedback forum or in these threads on features and ideas. Thanks!
Rise any response to my vaga change post .. a few posts up on this page? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
283
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:06:00 -
[1935] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:Onictus wrote:OK so what do you with 200mil of crap dps that can't tank and can't damage from range but goes very fast? Leverage its awesome tank with an ASB and amazing minnie T2 shield resists? Or use that top-of-class speed and apply your limited damage to plink away at a target with no fear of getting caught with your capless weapons, great cap so you can MWD all day long, resistance to dishonour drones and damps, and reduced sig rad due to the role bonus? Or sacrifice some of your invulnerability to small stuff by dropping the med neut and fitting 425s and achieving that better damage/projection? IE. pretty much anything you want - minnie flexibility is rampant in this hull. Onictus wrote:Oh wait I'll tell you fly a Fleet stabber that has more tank, similar damage and dual prop that's what. At least it can do something other than point. SFI is a good ship. The number of viable hulls right now is amazing and a testament to the work the balance team have be doing. I haven't agreed with every change but you can't argue with the success of their results so far.
No I think you will find that everybody will just fly other ships that do much better damage at much better range while having more EHP.
Basically, every other HAC.
Congratulations CCP, you have made another rifter, a useless ship in a post buff EVE.
And you didn't even answer any of our actual concerns about the Vaga to boot, you just ignored them, fantastic work really. |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
115
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:13:00 -
[1936] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:No I think you will find that everybody will just fly other ships that do much better damage at much better range while having more EHP.
Basically, every ABC.
Congratulations CCP, you have made another rifter, a useless ship compared to the Cynabal (another problem in the line of OP angel ship) and the ABCs which still need a tweak.
At least you fixed the Vaga so that once you bring this other stuff in line people will fly it, fantastic work really.
Fixed your post up to reflect a bit more reality (at least the in game type of reality ).
Also edited my post you quoted because I forgot about the amazing Vaga assets of default med neuts and nice drones bay/bandwidth for a second there. Man that hull has a lot going for it. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
283
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:17:00 -
[1937] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:No I think you will find that everybody will just fly other ships that do much better damage at much better range while having more EHP.
Basically, every ABC.
Congratulations CCP, you have made another rifter, a useless ship compared to the Cynabal (another problem in the line of OP angel ship) and the ABCs which still need a tweak.
At least you fixed the Vaga so that once you bring this other stuff in line people will fly it, fantastic work really. Fixed your post up to reflect a bit more reality (at least the in game type of reality ). Also edited, above, my post that you quoted because I forgot about the amazing Vaga assets of default med neuts and nice drones bay/bandwidth for a second there. Man that hull has a lot going for it.
Literally give me one reason I should fly the Vaga over a Deimos a Cerb or a Talos or a Navy Omen.
All of those are plenty fast in the kiting role and in the meantime they do much better DPS at range have much better projection and in the case of the Cerb and the Deimos, have more EHP to boot.
But god we couldn't make a good Minmatar kiting cruiser because then everybody would moan about the ******* nano days and scream "winmatar". |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
116
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:25:00 -
[1938] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Literally give me one reason I should fly the Vaga over a Deimos a Cerb or a Talos or a Navy Omen.
Only one?
Okay, right off the top of my head: A good vaga pilot will never ever get caught and die to any of the four ships you just listed. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1125
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:26:00 -
[1939] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Literally give me one reason I should fly the Vaga over a Deimos a Cerb or a Talos or a Navy Omen
And why would you fly a Diefaster Talos or NOmen over a cynabal or vigilant?
For the same reasons, different ships, different abilities, different classes all with a purpose. You just don't like the new Vaga everyone has understood that already but if so many tell you your reasoning is bad then why not just go on SISI test it isntead of same arguments again and again? Maybe it's not the ship for you anymore after TE nerf but don't ask to give it an integrated double TE, it's too obvious why it would not be balanced even if you don't admit or don't like it, the current version is OK *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:32:00 -
[1940] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Literally give me one reason I should fly the Vaga over a Deimos a Cerb or a Talos or a Navy Omen And why would you fly a Diefaster Talos or NOmen over a cynabal or vigilant? For the same reasons, different ships, different abilities, different classes all with a purpose. You just don't like the new Vaga everyone has understood that already but if so many tell you your reasoning is bad then why not just go on SISI test it isntead of same arguments again and again? Maybe it's not the ship for you anymore after TE nerf but don't ask to give it an integrated double TE, it's too obvious why it would not be balanced even if you don't admit or don't like it, the current version is OK
The problem with the proposed Vaga is it is still too similar to the stabber and cynabal ... it has got the bonus to ASB but it still lacks EHP and its dps is still unconvincing even if you fit 425's which is difficult with its tight fittings its also one rig short compared to the other 2.
At least my proposal rectifies these issues (besides rigs) at the cost of some speed .. so there is still a reason to use the other 2. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
116
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:45:00 -
[1941] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:The problem with the proposed Vaga is it is still too similar to the stabber and cynabal ... it has got the bonus to ASB but it still lacks EHP and its dps is still unconvincing even if you fit 425's which is difficult with its tight fittings its also one rig short compared to the other 2.
You can't count the Cynabal - that problem is CCP acknowledged with a fix incoming sometime.
For the SFI - I don't want to get you confused with Danny ref the projection discussion but the Vaga has that falloff bonus, so you are saying the SFI is a better kiting ship without a range bonus at all? (going back through posts I don't think you said that so take it as an honest question) That combined with rep bonuses and T2 resists vs the SFI tracking bonus provide me with PLENTY of reasons to pick one or the other depending on what job I want to get done.
I find those two a lot more distinct then say the NOmen and Zealot as an example. People are really underestimating the role bonus and electronic/cap buffs in my opinion, ESPECIALLY in relation to what it will do for the Vaga. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1127
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 16:48:00 -
[1942] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:The problem with the proposed Vaga is it is still too similar to the stabber and cynabal ... it has got the bonus to ASB but it still lacks EHP and its dps is still unconvincing even if you fit 425's which is difficult with its tight fittings its also one rig short compared to the other 2.
At least my proposal rectifies these issues (besides rigs) at the cost of some speed .. so there is still a reason to use the other 2. but also gives the Vaga a role that's a little more unique and better than it is
It has at least 750m/s on top of every other HAC and a mwd bonus to mitigate even further the incoming dmg, it's not perfect but it's a decent trade off.
If you can't get caught you can't be killed, if you have the ability to dictate range on top of keeping a huge transversal while using guns with almost perfect tracking you'll always put more dmg on your enemy than he will put on you.
Cynabals are tears harvesters in this domain, dictate range and dmg application. Now we can agree this ship is out of whack and needs the nerfhammer but makes years this is required, also step by step we're getting there, we don't need to overbuff Vaga right now and once Cynas get nerf see Vaga as next Cyna but with absolutely no predator unless the pilot is dumb.
I'm sure this ship will be very very strong for solo pilots, small gangs, and offering a nice hull for creative players but it doesn't need more fall off bonus on top or it will simply become an almost invincible solo pownmachine.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Ahnn
Space Zombiez
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:03:00 -
[1943] - Quote
Edit: never mind. Didn't read it close enough... |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
116
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:07:00 -
[1944] - Quote
Ahnn wrote:CCP, you guys need to look at why the Deimos is called the "Diemost" by players. Think on it. Meditate on it. Mull it over. Then ask yourselves exactly why you lowered its survivability even more. Then explain to us here why you did it. Maybe you're seeing something that we don't, but if your version hit's live, it's gonna go from being the "Diemost" to the "Never fly. Under any circumstances. Ever."
With all that negative stuff over with, gotta say that I'm very intrigued by the Ishtar.
Dude, I think you are operating on old information. Check the updated OP.
The Deimos gains tank on every level, has an amazing sig rad role bonus being added, AND is getting a rep bonus.
That hull is getting more survivable from the current TQ version in every way that a ship can.
Edit: see you cut your post - you would have been correct with the first proposed changes though so it was probably an honest mistake - Rise fixed it up for us though. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:17:00 -
[1945] - Quote
But looking at the Vaga it has more speed than the stabber and more effective range its almost like its navy version but with T2 bonuses/role. Then you look at the other HAC's compared to there T1 versions and they are very different ships with different roles. The lack of consistency regarding minmatar ships compared to the other races ships is strange.
Vagabond Stabber Cynabal
All three are very similar but the Vaga is the odd one out since its meant to be a T2 specialist ship its speed and role but its still almost same as the other 2 .. There needs to be more uniqueness to each ship over the other 2.
Vagabond - slower but more resilient/ heavier dps Stabber - fast but low dps, more utility/flexibility Cynabal - fast and agile good dps a upgrade on the stabber like its fleet version should be 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
116
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:26:00 -
[1946] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:But looking at the Vaga it has more speed than the stabber and more effective range its almost like its navy version but with T2 bonuses/role. Then you look at the other HAC's compared to there T1 versions and they are very different ships with different roles. The lack of consistency regarding minmatar ships compared to the other races ships is strange.
Vagabond Stabber Cynabal
All three are very similar but the Vaga is the odd one out since its meant to be a T2 specialist ship its speed and role but its still almost same as the other 2 .. There needs to be more uniqueness to each ship over the other 2.
Vagabond - slower but more resilient/ heavier dps Stabber - fast but low dps, more utility/flexibility Cynabal - fast and agile good dps a upgrade on the stabber like its fleet version should be
I would be interested to see your exact same analysis for the Omen and Caracal lineups between navy and HAC (angel pirate ships are pretty unique in their minnie overlap compared to the way the laser ships sit and with no real missile pirate cruiser). How do you see less hull similarity between those, then between the minnie lineup?
If I was going to rate the lineups on diversity I would personally start at thorax as most diverse, followed by stabber, caracal, omen variants in that order. What is your perspective and what distinctions is it based on? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:36:00 -
[1947] - Quote
Omen - good speed/ decent dps/projection Navy Omen - better than omen in every way, especially with 7 low slots gives lots of options Zealot - slow/decent dps/good projection and strong tank Phantasm - Tracking bonus combined with shield tank is nice/ lots of potential .. needs a lot of work though
Caracal - fastest of the lot/ good projection/ decent dps Navy Caracal - slow/ decent tank ,good damage application more of a brawler Cerberus - good speed/ good dps/ excellent projection / decent tank 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:50:00 -
[1948] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omen - good speed/ decent dps/projection Navy Omen - better than omen in every way, especially with 7 low slots gives lots of options Zealot - slow/decent dps/good projection and strong tank Phantasm - Tracking bonus combined with shield tank is nice/ lots of potential .. needs a lot of work though
Caracal - fastest of the lot/ good projection/ decent dps Navy Caracal - slow/ decent tank ,good damage application more of a brawler Cerberus - good speed/ good dps/ excellent projection / decent tank
Nomen does more damage than the omen, has more bandwidth and a utility high. Zealot has better tank, damage and projection trading the drones, and mobility for it.
All three have locked damages (except for drones on the omen/nomen) cap dependancy and bad tracking at closer ranges. All except the nomen are helpless against frigs IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:53:00 -
[1949] - Quote
Breacher - Talwar - Bellicose - Cyclone - Claymore - Typhoon
Please turn the distinctly meh Munnin into a launcher based platform.
Please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 17:55:00 -
[1950] - Quote
Seolfor wrote:Breacher - Talwar - Bellicose - Cyclone - Claymore - Typhoon
Please turn the distinctly meh Munnin into a launcher based platform.
Please.
scythe fleet issue is a nice missile ship too something the muninn could be modelled on and still keep its artie identity intact 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 18:01:00 -
[1951] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: scythe fleet issue is a nice missile ship too something the muninn could be modelled on and still keep its artie identity intact
Excellent reference point.
The Munnin is such a meh, afterthought design.. no one complains about it, no one likes it A LOT or dislikes it A LOT.
It is one of 2 matari HACs, for god's sake dont let it be an infuriatingly mediocre design.
Split weapons for Munnin please - exactly like Navy Scythe! Let its 'thing' be adaptability and flexibility!
Im sure this has been suggested before - please do this Rise. |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 18:13:00 -
[1952] - Quote
Muninn still needs fixing. Not only it needs another midslot, but the optimal range bonus is pathetic even if you fit 720mm's. I say increase the optimal bonus to 20% per level to compensate for short optimal range of Projectile turrets. Same goes for other ships that have bonus to optimal range of Projectile turrets, such as Jaguar. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:09:00 -
[1953] - Quote
Seolfor wrote:Harvey James wrote: scythe fleet issue is a nice missile ship too something the muninn could be modelled on and still keep its artie identity intact
Excellent reference point. The Munnin is such a meh, afterthought design.. no one complains about it, no one likes it A LOT or dislikes it A LOT. It is one of 2 matari HACs, for god's sake dont let it be an infuriatingly mediocre design. Split weapons for Munnin please - exactly like Navy Scythe! Let its 'thing' be adaptability and flexibility! Im sure this has been suggested before - please do this Rise.
Arties kinda don't work well without exactly that set of bonus'. Although with the fitting requirements for either, it would certainly allow for incredibly powerful fittings. I only correct my own spelling. |
Alsyth
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:30:00 -
[1954] - Quote
Make 100MN AB only fit on cruisers or you'll have a ton of these HACS fitted with 100MN AB.
As annoying as 100MN AB T3s, which would be somehow fixed by that.
No reason there should be a limitation on MJD only. Or make it so their align time with oversized propulsion is something like 100s, because 20s is clearly nowhere near enough. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
159
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:21:00 -
[1955] - Quote
Some of you dont grasp the problem with the vagabond, if those changes go live you have a amazing brawling cruiser that cant really be kited. A ship doing 600dps, while sporting, due to the way asbs stack with resitance boni and t2 resitances, an incredible tank (not as hardcore as the deimos but still nice), if you have amazing micro you can get over 80k ehp out of it with a xlasb, or 55k ehp with dual large asbs but with the option of reaching the xlasb and getting 80k ehp if you manage to get a reload of the second booster.
That alone makes it able to outbrawl pretty much any hac, t1 cruiser or bc (bar very few ones). If you pair this with the speed, with is over 3.4km/s with heat and reaches well over 5km/s with links and lg snakes, you make it an incredibe anti kiting platform, you simply wouldnt stand a chance in a cyna, omen navy, shield deimos and co. Youd get caught in seconds and would have no means of survival.
If you are in a kiting ship or a small kiting gang a competent vaga pilot makes it impossible to survive.
This is one sence is good, its a specialized role, one neither the cyna nor the stabber fulfill, a cyna whle strong isnt a very good brawler nor is the stabber, its specialization is anti kiting.
I however fear that it does it to well and thus is slighply op in its brawling role.
The second problem is that very few people want a vaga to be a brawler, they want a kiter. And here is where some people are wrong, you cant give it much more dps, that would make it op as hell as a brawler, you need to give it a boost at range without making it better as a brawler or op as a kiter, this means it shouldnt oudps a zealot in scorch range nor track better then a deimos.
If you would just give it a second faloff bonus you give it no change to its brawling capabilitys, not making it op, you dont push its damage to hard so at 40km its still under zealot/sacrilege and co dps, you just give it a nice dps boost at range making it a viable kiter.
If ccp intend to force it into brawling it their decision, but i really think a double faloff bonus is the way to go.
Also lol @ the 100mn comment, you can easily counter that, it toally gimps the fit. 100mn fits are fine. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:36:00 -
[1956] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: If you would just give it a second faloff bonus you give it no change to its brawling capabilitys, not making it op, you dont push its damage to hard so at 40km its still under zealot/sacrilege and co dps, you just give it a nice dps boost at range making it a viable kiter.
If ccp intend to force it into brawling it their decision, but i really think a double faloff bonus is the way to go.
The problem with a dual falloff bonus is that it makes it impossible the already hard task of fighting a vaga in a frigate. If the dual falloff bonus is given, say hello to a vaga that can kill frigs at 60k with a short range weapon. And you may say what you will, sure it cant kill a well tanked cruiser in a reasonable amount of time at 30k, but not many ships can while fitting the same combination of speed, tank and gank.
And to be completely honest: the vaga already has better tracking, no cap usage, high ammo clip, and selectable damage type. I think thats enough.
IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Gargantoi
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:36:00 -
[1957] - Quote
cerb + eagle need more dps ..sacrilege needs +1 more low ..as for muninn as long as tornado + zealot + hurricane are around no one will use it |
Intercostal
Dhoomcats
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 21:48:00 -
[1958] - Quote
Amarr ships:
Sac (missiles=cap less weapons) gets more cap recharge than Zealot (lasers=heavy cap use weapon). Even with the 'bonus' to laser cap use for the Zealot this still doesn't make sense.
I guess active tanking a Zealot is not allowed by this balance pass. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:04:00 -
[1959] - Quote
Intercostal wrote:Amarr ships:
Sac (missiles=cap less weapons) gets more cap recharge than Zealot (lasers=heavy cap use weapon). Even with the 'bonus' to laser cap use for the Zealot this still doesn't make sense.
I guess active tanking a Zealot is not allowed by this balance pass.
Tbh with the added cap recharge added in this pass you might be able to do a light active armor tank (single rep kiting fit)
And look at the maller , nomen and naugs. You can pretty reliably active tank them provided you dont have a medium neut against you and manage to minimise transversal. IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
159
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:10:00 -
[1960] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: If you would just give it a second faloff bonus you give it no change to its brawling capabilitys, not making it op, you dont push its damage to hard so at 40km its still under zealot/sacrilege and co dps, you just give it a nice dps boost at range making it a viable kiter.
If ccp intend to force it into brawling it their decision, but i really think a double faloff bonus is the way to go.
The problem with a dual falloff bonus is that it makes it impossible the already hard task of fighting a vaga in a frigate. If the dual falloff bonus is given, say hello to a vaga that can kill frigs at 60k with a short range weapon. And you may say what you will, sure it cant kill a well tanked cruiser in a reasonable amount of time at 30k, but not many ships can while fitting the same combination of speed, tank and gank. And to be completely honest: the vaga already has better tracking, no cap usage, high ammo clip, and selectable damage type. I think thats enough.
A frig at 60 can easily warp tho, thats hardly a reason to be op, what counts is point rnage, i.e within 43 or 53 km. It has **** tracking tbh, only lazors track worse, meaning the zealot is the only hac that has worse tracking then the vagabond, muninn has a tracking bonus and the rest uses missiles or blasters, all tracking better. And again, damage selction is a bit of a joke, you need barrage if you want to hit further out then 30, and even with a double faloff bonus, which, carries worse dps and a tracking maulus compared to faction ammo.
The vaga is a terrible kiter atm (as is the cynabal btw), it will still be a terrible kiter post patch. |
|
TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:10:00 -
[1961] - Quote
So after re-examining the role etc, I'm reversing my opinion that the Zealot really needs any huge speed buff, it tanks very well. Still, I'd really like to see just a small bump to help AB fit, as the T1 cruisers are absurdly faster and can get remarkably similar EHP numbers.
Regardless, there is one very specific change I'd like to mention that nobody else has.
Zealot has a ridiculously small 240m3 cargo hold. Using it in the kiting sense with this MWD bonus is really going to be difficult to realize unless this is buffed imho. Even with perfect skills running MWD, long point, and Scorch requires nearly all a small booster can provide with navy 400's. That lasts about 3.5 minutes, which seems fine unless you want to use the t2 resists and run a local rep.
Running a local rep on the Zealot works great for about two minutes flat, then you're dead in space with no more boosters.
Basically the problem is that Zealot requires a cap booster to operate at all with a MWD, so the cargo hold size is a direct measure of it's longevity. The t1 hulls get 400m3, so I'm effectively forced to choose Navy Omen for tanky kiting (gimping its speed with plates/etc to get the needed EHP) even though I'd rather do it in a Zealot that was 'specialized' for that. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:21:00 -
[1962] - Quote
The argument "but he can warp at anytime!" Is moot when you get twoshotted.....
Blasters may have better tracking but they also supposedly have shorter range. :balance:
And yes the zealot needs more cargohold! My 60m long magnate has more cargo than the 400m long zealot.... IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
283
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:28:00 -
[1963] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:sten mattson wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: If you would just give it a second faloff bonus you give it no change to its brawling capabilitys, not making it op, you dont push its damage to hard so at 40km its still under zealot/sacrilege and co dps, you just give it a nice dps boost at range making it a viable kiter.
If ccp intend to force it into brawling it their decision, but i really think a double faloff bonus is the way to go.
The problem with a dual falloff bonus is that it makes it impossible the already hard task of fighting a vaga in a frigate. If the dual falloff bonus is given, say hello to a vaga that can kill frigs at 60k with a short range weapon. And you may say what you will, sure it cant kill a well tanked cruiser in a reasonable amount of time at 30k, but not many ships can while fitting the same combination of speed, tank and gank. And to be completely honest: the vaga already has better tracking, no cap usage, high ammo clip, and selectable damage type. I think thats enough. A frig at 60 can easily warp tho, thats hardly a reason to be op, what counts is point rnage, i.e within 43 or 53 km. It has **** tracking tbh, only lazors track worse, meaning the zealot is the only hac that has worse tracking then the vagabond, muninn has a tracking bonus and the rest uses missiles or blasters, all tracking better. And again, damage selction is a bit of a joke, you need barrage if you want to hit further out then 30, and even with a double faloff bonus, which, carries worse dps and a tracking maulus compared to faction ammo. The vaga is a terrible kiter atm (as is the cynabal btw), it will still be a terrible kiter post patch.
Pretty much, the Cyna is basically just a fast brawler with good disengagement options, hence why it is so popular.
If you actually fly any AC kiting ship you know how bad AC kiting is in its current state, its outdone massively by lasers and missiles and is roughly as good as blasters, with the added caveat that blasters can at least do way more DPS at close range.
People still have this horrible thing in their head from the Nano days when these ships were true powerhouses, now the Vaga will be nothing but a heavy tackler and a nano ship that doesn't have the DPS to be a nano ship.
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2188
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:38:00 -
[1964] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I think the Phantasm has tremendous potential and could be the best of the lot
Omen - good speed/ decent dps/projection Navy Omen - better than omen in every way, especially with 7 low slots gives lots of options Zealot - slow/decent dps/good projection and strong tank Phantasm - Tracking bonus combined with shield tank is nice/ lots of potential .. needs a lot of work though
Caracal - fastest of the lot/ good projection/ decent dps Navy Caracal - slow/ decent tank ,good damage application more of a brawler Cerberus - good speed/ good dps/ excellent projection / decent tank
Stupid me - always looked for HACs specialized role and didn't realize that HACs specialize in being slow all that time. Obama - you're a Genius.
Sarcasm aside, If CCP want to equlize ships potential across all skill levels, that's fine with me, but then, they also should require the same effort and materials to produce - i.e. cost the same.
Funny you mention the Phantasm - back when pirate faction cruisers were revamped, the Phantasm was the best one, so CCP stated it should remain unchanged as it already was a good ship and - as we all know - went the way of the Dodo.
I predict the same fate for the Zealot - everything around it gets buffed whilst it gets a role-bonus that is counter-productive to its strenghts and isn't viable due to cap, fitting and cargohold restraints. You know... morons. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 23:22:00 -
[1965] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:If you actually fly any AC kiting ship you know how bad AC kiting is in its current state, its outdone massively by lasers and missiles and is roughly as good as blasters This is why we can't have nice things. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
159
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 23:33:00 -
[1966] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:The argument "but he can warp at anytime!" Is moot when you get twoshotted.....
Blasters may have better tracking but they also supposedly have shorter range. :balance:
And yes the zealot needs more cargohold! My 60m long magnate has more cargo than the 400m long zealot....
You dont get twoshotted by a vaga at 60km, a vaga will do way less then 150dps at 60km, a normal t1 frig has 4-6k ehp, that takes a while. |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 04:02:00 -
[1967] - Quote
Did you took the MWD bonus off? It's not on the test servers. |
Jysella Halcyon
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 05:48:00 -
[1968] - Quote
Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.
The 50% sig bloom reduction doesn't fit that for HACs and porting it from AFs is lazy thinking. AFs love that 50% sig reduction because they are ships that spend most of their time hoping to up-engage against cruisers, BCs, and BS. The same thing they loved to do before their buff from heavy tackle to relevence, but now they do it better while also being respectable fighting ships in their own right (how many AFs did we see in AT X and XI?) in a small-gang environment. You bring AFs on a roam when mobility and up-engagement are important. The AF role bonus helps them do this by cutting down the likelihood of them dying on their approach to their larger targets.
Still with me? Good.
Here's where that role bonus falls apart ported to a larger class. AFs engaging BCs and up (the common targets at the time before the cruiser rebalance) were relying on not getting hit as their primary tank. Frigates of all shapes lean on high speed and small sigs to avoid being wiped out by large targets. They use their (buffed) MWD to close range and then by and large go propless once in weapons range. They lean just as heavily on their MWD to get them from target to target because their weapons ranges are generally very short. Their bonus helps them stay alive to deal their damage by mitigating incoming fire while they move from target to target.
HACs are rarely used on TQ in anything but blobs of Zealots (with the occasional BL Munnin or Agony Deimos fleets) that don't need MWD to close range because they have lasers with scorch. TWEED Deimos dual-prop but once in range fight much like a Zealot gang but with blasters. They don't need help surviving the approach, they need help surviving the brawl where scrams negate the MWD role bonus. HACs have falen by the wayside in the kiting and sniping roles due to the better power and projection of ABCs. A kiting-oriented MWD bonus on ships that are at home in the furball is counter-intuitive in a way not seen on frigates - HACs aren't forced to rely on sig-tanking for dear life, it's just a nice bonus to being small in a BS-gun world.
But this isn't a BS-gun world. Small-gangs overwhelmingly prefer more mobile cruisers and BCs which track a HAC just fine. Out in the fleet-driven world of sovwar fleets, large, long-range guns are only common in large numbers, large enough to have enough people who can track small hings in tight orbits just fine to kill them. More common in the last wars were fleets of massed caracals - which have no problem hiting a HAC of any sort, though an AB HAC will have some mitigation.
Finally, AFs are worth the price differential over their T1 cousins. a T2-fitted T1 frigate will run about 10M isk. A T2-fitted AF will run 30-40M isk, or 3-4x the price of T1. Faction frigates are popular but are outperformed slightly by AFs in combat and have a corresponding price tag of around 20-30M isk. Pirate Frigates are either ignored by players or are named beginning with D and run about double an AF but with the versatility to make the price worth it.
A T2-fitted T1 cruiser runs in the same ballpark as an AF (30-35M). We would expect, then, for the price ramp of 3-4x to hold true for HAC prices, but a reasonable fit for the common HACs will clock in around 160-200M isk with a premium for the less common ones owing to fewer builders. This is a price bump of 5-7x the T1 price. If they constituted a similar power bump over the Frigate-AF transition this might be reasonable, but they don't. Many of the HACs are overshadowed entirely by their own T1 versions. The new versions in this thread bring the power comparison into line, but don't address the fact that unlike AFs, HACs fill no niche on their own at their price point. AFs are THE choice for mobile, survivable damage. Destroyers out-damage them but can't tank nearly as well and Frigates and interceptors are more mobile but don't tank or dish out enough damage to compete. HACs are not specialized ewar platforms and can either brawl or kite - but there are better options at a lower price point for both roles. ABCs have the corner on the kiting/sniping market at half the price of a HAC. Combat BCs out-brawl HACs. HACs only have an advantage over these classes when brawling with BS, and BS are usually only found in large enough numbers to make brawling with them a question of logistics, not the core classes you've brought.
The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it. |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2246
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 06:40:00 -
[1969] - Quote
Jysella Halcyon wrote:Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.
The 50% sig bloom reduction doesn't fit that for HACs and porting it from AFs is lazy thinking. AFs love that 50% sig reduction because they are ships that spend most of their time hoping to up-engage against cruisers, BCs, and BS. The same thing they loved to do before their buff from heavy tackle to relevence, but now they do it better while also being respectable fighting ships in their own right (how many AFs did we see in AT X and XI?) in a small-gang environment. You bring AFs on a roam when mobility and up-engagement are important. The AF role bonus helps them do this by cutting down the likelihood of them dying on their approach to their larger targets.
Still with me? Good.
Here's where that role bonus falls apart ported to a larger class. AFs engaging BCs and up (the common targets at the time before the cruiser rebalance) were relying on not getting hit as their primary tank. Frigates of all shapes lean on high speed and small sigs to avoid being wiped out by large targets. They use their (buffed) MWD to close range and then by and large go propless once in weapons range. They lean just as heavily on their MWD to get them from target to target because their weapons ranges are generally very short. Their bonus helps them stay alive to deal their damage by mitigating incoming fire while they move from target to target.
HACs are rarely used on TQ in anything but blobs of Zealots (with the occasional BL Munnin or Agony Deimos fleets) that don't need MWD to close range because they have lasers with scorch. TWEED Deimos dual-prop but once in range fight much like a Zealot gang but with blasters. They don't need help surviving the approach, they need help surviving the brawl where scrams negate the MWD role bonus. HACs have falen by the wayside in the kiting and sniping roles due to the better power and projection of ABCs. A kiting-oriented MWD bonus on ships that are at home in the furball is counter-intuitive in a way not seen on frigates - HACs aren't forced to rely on sig-tanking for dear life, it's just a nice bonus to being small in a BS-gun world.
But this isn't a BS-gun world. Small-gangs overwhelmingly prefer more mobile cruisers and BCs which track a HAC just fine. Out in the fleet-driven world of sovwar fleets, large, long-range guns are only common in large numbers, large enough to have enough people who can track small hings in tight orbits just fine to kill them. More common in the last wars were fleets of massed caracals - which have no problem hiting a HAC of any sort, though an AB HAC will have some mitigation.
Finally, AFs are worth the price differential over their T1 cousins. a T2-fitted T1 frigate will run about 10M isk. A T2-fitted AF will run 30-40M isk, or 3-4x the price of T1. Faction frigates are popular but are outperformed slightly by AFs in combat and have a corresponding price tag of around 20-30M isk. Pirate Frigates are either ignored by players or are named beginning with D and run about double an AF but with the versatility to make the price worth it.
A T2-fitted T1 cruiser runs in the same ballpark as an AF (30-35M). We would expect, then, for the price ramp of 3-4x to hold true for HAC prices, but a reasonable fit for the common HACs will clock in around 160-200M isk with a premium for the less common ones owing to fewer builders. This is a price bump of 5-7x the T1 price. If they constituted a similar power bump over the Frigate-AF transition this might be reasonable, but they don't. Many of the HACs are overshadowed entirely by their own T1 versions. The new versions in this thread bring the power comparison into line, but don't address the fact that unlike AFs, HACs fill no niche on their own at their price point. AFs are THE choice for mobile, survivable damage. Destroyers out-damage them but can't tank nearly as well and Frigates and interceptors are more mobile but don't tank or dish out enough damage to compete. HACs are not specialized ewar platforms and can either brawl or kite - but there are better options at a lower price point for both roles. ABCs have the corner on the kiting/sniping market at half the price of a HAC. Combat BCs out-brawl HACs. HACs only have an advantage over these classes when brawling with BS, and BS are usually only found in large enough numbers to make brawling with them a question of logistics, not the core classes you've brought.
The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it. ^this guy gets it. thanks for the nice post.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
764
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 08:27:00 -
[1970] - Quote
TekGnosis wrote:...Regardless, there is one very specific change I'd like to mention that nobody else has... Nice catch, happily gloss over the bits not directly related to shooting stuff in the face
Speaking of .. look at the mass numbers, Zealot is almost as heavy as the Cerberus with each and every other hull being downright anorexic by comparison, why? Cerberus mass kind of makes sense considering its immense range capability and TD immune weaponry but why is the Zealot that fat .. reducing the mass to Sacrilege level would not break it as the base speeds are still differentiated as is cap/eWar potential (3mids + ****** = solo/small-gang fail) and Diemos will always be king as the 4th mid will make shield buffer/gank/speed way too tasty to ignore for the sheep herds. - Reduce Zealot mass by at least one 1600 plate worth. Helps both AB and MWD performance.
Jysella Halcyon wrote:...The 50% sig bloom reduction doesn't fit that for HACs and porting it from AFs is lazy thinking. AFs love that 50% sig reduction... Welcome to the Common Sense Club
Makes sense on AF's as they stay under large gun signatures, but makes zero sense on HACs as they will only get to remain under capital gun signatures .. as useless as a full size espresso maker in an F16.
I have given up my dream/hope of racially relevant bonuses on T2 so will try to help find the proverbial needle: What if the bonus was changed to a 50% rebate on all propulsion cap costs and reducing recharge rates a little bit to compensate? - Makes AB use inconsequential cap wise and allows them to practically perma-run MWD's until neuted. They are being set up as eWar hunters with the insane sensors so Devs must mean for them to be zipping all over the place.
Prices around 100M seems about right, less than the destined to be overbuffed Pirate hulls while being "only" four times the price of AF's .. I'd recommend/prefer considering adding my long desired improvement step to invention whereby one can improve ME of BPC, essentially trading time for ISK. |
|
Grey Stone
Fatal and The rabbit The G0dfathers
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 08:35:00 -
[1971] - Quote
Jysella Halcyon wrote:Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.
The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it.
Thank you very much for taking time to write such elaborate post. Right on spot imho! |
Torrema Sinclair
Justified Chaos
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 10:50:00 -
[1972] - Quote
Grey Stone wrote:Jysella Halcyon wrote:Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.
The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it. Thank you very much for taking time to write such elaborate post. Right on spot imho!
BLASPHEMY!!! Dont do eeeettt! Prizes are fine as they are now. . |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 11:18:00 -
[1973] - Quote
Jysella Halcyon wrote:Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.
*snip*
The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it.
Love it. This is the money post. Kudos and Salute o7
Two changes required:
- Make T2 fitted HACs cost ~120M - Give HACs a class bonus to 10MN AB and MWD usage - like a +25% speed bonus
I absolutely cant see any reason to brawl in a 200m ship when Combat BCs perform better at half cost.
I fear the current long-range HACs will become the bear ship of choice out of high sec or fleet warfare due to better tank over ABCs. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
344
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 11:20:00 -
[1974] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys just a heads up for you - all of these ships, along with the command ships and pretty much everything else, are on singularity now for testing. Please go have a look and let us know what you think in the test server feedback forum or in these threads on features and ideas. Thanks!
Is there somewhere on singularity for testing, or am I going to be blobbed by test server-dwellers with their titan bonuses, machariels, vindicators, tengus and dreads? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 11:20:00 -
[1975] - Quote
Seolfor wrote:Jysella Halcyon wrote:Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.
*snip*
The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it. Love it. This is the money post. Kudos and Salute o7 Two changes required: - Make T2 fitted HACs cost ~120M - Give HACs a class bonus to 10MN AB usage - like a +25% speed bonus Brawlers All, though id still take fly a Combat BC over a HAC in a heartbeat. Can easily take on ~3 cruisers in a simple BC at 50-60M. I fear the current long-range HACs will become the bear ship of choice out of high sec or fleet warfare due to better tank over ABCs.
well they do seem to have been designed with 0.0 fleet doctrines in mind rather than being designed for small gang viability 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
449
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 11:46:00 -
[1976] - Quote
RISE
is the ishtar meant to be the slowest of the vexor variants? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 12:13:00 -
[1977] - Quote
I love the reasoning behind the wall of texts attacking the implementation of the MWD sig bonus but I think people are not considering a few facts: - The rebalancing is about change, so you shouldn't be taking the actual HACs use as such an important factor. - Other changes already implemented in the game, such as the recent moon goo rebalance will affect the T2 prices in time. - This bonus would give a new purpose to Faction and Deadspace 10MN MWDs, wich right now are not as relevant as they should. My only concern with this bonus is that the HACs may get too powerful in comparison to other ship classes of the same size. I have no idea what CCP is going to do with the pirate cruisers for instance since they are a bit underpowered in relation to the rebalanced cruiser classes if you consider what they used to be. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
228
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 12:19:00 -
[1978] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Funny you mention the Phantasm - back when pirate faction cruisers were revamped, the Phantasm was the best one, so CCP stated it should remain unchanged as it already was a good ship and - as we all know - went the way of the Dodo.
thats what CCP does when they speak about balancing, see rifter & rupture |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1132
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 12:39:00 -
[1979] - Quote
100 pages hitting so, what's the final word on HACs Rise?
@ People wanting Vaga to get stupid buffs:
Go on SiSi, fit one properly and if you can't ask someone to tell you how to, then try to take strong boosters fit pirate implants use OGB then come here tell us how bad your vaga is.
No short range weapon system should ever be able to hit past 15/17 km without modules/rigs to achieve this. You can come with as many arguments as you think are valid, they're not, and Rise (Kill2) knows it better than most of you what this would make Vaga look like.
If you guys after this Vaga buff can't succeed with, it' not the ships fault but simple because you guys are horrible with at fittings and flying it point blank, it's about time you admit it.
So, now this is said, you guys could stop polluting this thread with pages of horrible ideas arguments and wtf stuff about Vaga, actually talk a bit more about other ships in real need of buffs unlike the Vaga *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Hicksimus
Hyperion Corporation
193
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 13:08:00 -
[1980] - Quote
AAAAAnnnnnndddddd I'd still rather use the navy cruisers.........good thing I trained these skills.....
Seriously, I don't want to fly MOST of the "new" HAC's, for the most part they are not interesting, they're more of the same outclassed overpriced garbage. Do you have it? |
|
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
861
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 13:31:00 -
[1981] - Quote
Let's not forget that new Vaga is now cap stable with its MWD active. In addition to all the other changes, this means that it can kite for as long as it wants to, which it wasn't able to before. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
161
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:09:00 -
[1982] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:100 pages hitting so, what's the final word on HACs Rise?
@ People wanting Vaga to get stupid buffs:
Go on SiSi, fit one properly and if you can't ask someone to tell you how to, then try to take strong boosters fit pirate implants use OGB then come here tell us how bad your vaga is.
No short range weapon system should ever be able to hit past 15/17 km without modules/rigs to achieve this. You can come with as many arguments as you think are valid, they're not, and Rise (Kill2) knows it better than most of you what this would make Vaga look like.
If you guys after this Vaga buff can't succeed with, it' not the ships fault but simple because you guys are horrible with at fittings and flying it point blank, it's about time you admit it.
So, now this is said, you guys could stop polluting this thread with pages of horrible ideas arguments and wtf stuff about Vaga, actually talk a bit more about other ships in real need of buffs unlike the Vaga
Scorch disagrees, (as do javelins and general missile range boni). |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
90
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:23:00 -
[1983] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:100 pages hitting so, what's the final word on HACs Rise?
@ People wanting Vaga to get stupid buffs:
Go on SiSi, fit one properly and if you can't ask someone to tell you how to, then try to take strong boosters fit pirate implants use OGB then come here tell us how bad your vaga is.
No short range weapon system should ever be able to hit past 15/17 km without modules/rigs to achieve this. You can come with as many arguments as you think are valid, they're not, and Rise (Kill2) knows it better than most of you what this would make Vaga look like.
If you guys after this Vaga buff can't succeed with, it' not the ships fault but simple because you guys are horrible with at fittings and flying it point blank, it's about time you admit it.
So, now this is said, you guys could stop polluting this thread with pages of horrible ideas arguments and wtf stuff about Vaga, actually talk a bit more about other ships in real need of buffs unlike the Vaga Scorch disagrees, (as do javelins and general missile range boni). hell, fit lasers with standard on a zealot and you get 18 optimal + 4k falloff |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 15:49:00 -
[1984] - Quote
Sentry Ishtar is extremely strong, maybe even a little OP |
Syrias Bizniz
Space-Brewery-Association 24eme Legion Etrangere
217
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:10:00 -
[1985] - Quote
Why do the Gallente, which are the upcoming 'Armor-Skirmish' race, have such big, big signatures radiuses on their HACs?
I mean, come on, around 130+10 would be better, somewhere between Amarr and Caldari. Or switch it with the Amarr sigs.
But 150m Sig on a Deimos, that's like... wtf man. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
344
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:23:00 -
[1986] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Why do the Gallente, which are the upcoming 'Armor-Skirmish' race, have such big, big signatures radiuses on their HACs?
I mean, come on, around 130+10 would be better, somewhere between Amarr and Caldari. Or switch it with the Amarr sigs.
But 150m Sig on a Deimos, that's like... wtf man.
It's not just HACs. Gallente have bad sig pretty much all the time. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:32:00 -
[1987] - Quote
First things first, I agree that a large amount of the large alliances taxes- errrm I mean moon poo has to get removed from the blueprint copies we can invent so that HACs are in line with thier performance and pricetags.
Now as far as I can tell all Caldari, Gallente and Amarr HACs can burn with their mwd's on forever if they wish, so thank you for that.
I just have some concerns about the Sacrilege and the Cerberus.
Both of them can carry heavy missiles and the range on them seems fine, but I think heavy missiles don't have that "punch" they used to have. You can hit ship at amazing ranges but when those missiles impact they poke a ship instead of hurting it and it doesn't feel right.
I haven't tried hams yet but with rlml's both are very capable anti support ships.
Even my Eagle is looking okay with rails now. Just don't gimp the tracking of medium rails as proposed, you know that most other ships can close range to that Eagle quickly enough to become a threat and below 40km it will be time to go.
Anything in close to scram-range and even those pimped railguns won't save you from an expensive loss.
Which turns me to dat Deimos. Now that boat is so..., let's say she will be good, very good.
The Ishtar will definately be flown and she can be fitted now.
Now I have to check out the Zealot and see, if they fixed some more things on SiSi. FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
151
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:50:00 -
[1988] - Quote
Tried HACs on SiSi.
+1, hilarious.
multiple for the vaga/deimos design. I only correct my own spelling. |
Gul Amarr
Orange County Cruisers
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 17:20:00 -
[1989] - Quote
Jysella Halcyon wrote:Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.
The 50% sig bloom reduction doesn't fit that for HACs and porting it from AFs is lazy thinking. AFs love that 50% sig reduction because they are ships that spend most of their time hoping to up-engage against cruisers, BCs, and BS. The same thing they loved to do before their buff from heavy tackle to relevence, but now they do it better while also being respectable fighting ships in their own right (how many AFs did we see in AT X and XI?) in a small-gang environment. You bring AFs on a roam when mobility and up-engagement are important. The AF role bonus helps them do this by cutting down the likelihood of them dying on their approach to their larger targets.
Still with me? Good.
Here's where that role bonus falls apart ported to a larger class. AFs engaging BCs and up (the common targets at the time before the cruiser rebalance) were relying on not getting hit as their primary tank. Frigates of all shapes lean on high speed and small sigs to avoid being wiped out by large targets. They use their (buffed) MWD to close range and then by and large go propless once in weapons range. They lean just as heavily on their MWD to get them from target to target because their weapons ranges are generally very short. Their bonus helps them stay alive to deal their damage by mitigating incoming fire while they move from target to target.
HACs are rarely used on TQ in anything but blobs of Zealots (with the occasional BL Munnin or Agony Deimos fleets) that don't need MWD to close range because they have lasers with scorch. TWEED Deimos dual-prop but once in range fight much like a Zealot gang but with blasters. They don't need help surviving the approach, they need help surviving the brawl where scrams negate the MWD role bonus. HACs have falen by the wayside in the kiting and sniping roles due to the better power and projection of ABCs. A kiting-oriented MWD bonus on ships that are at home in the furball is counter-intuitive in a way not seen on frigates - HACs aren't forced to rely on sig-tanking for dear life, it's just a nice bonus to being small in a BS-gun world.
But this isn't a BS-gun world. Small-gangs overwhelmingly prefer more mobile cruisers and BCs which track a HAC just fine. Out in the fleet-driven world of sovwar fleets, large, long-range guns are only common in large numbers, large enough to have enough people who can track small hings in tight orbits just fine to kill them. More common in the last wars were fleets of massed caracals - which have no problem hiting a HAC of any sort, though an AB HAC will have some mitigation.
Finally, AFs are worth the price differential over their T1 cousins. a T2-fitted T1 frigate will run about 10M isk. A T2-fitted AF will run 30-40M isk, or 3-4x the price of T1. Faction frigates are popular but are outperformed slightly by AFs in combat and have a corresponding price tag of around 20-30M isk. Pirate Frigates are either ignored by players or are named beginning with D and run about double an AF but with the versatility to make the price worth it.
A T2-fitted T1 cruiser runs in the same ballpark as an AF (30-35M). We would expect, then, for the price ramp of 3-4x to hold true for HAC prices, but a reasonable fit for the common HACs will clock in around 160-200M isk with a premium for the less common ones owing to fewer builders. This is a price bump of 5-7x the T1 price. If they constituted a similar power bump over the Frigate-AF transition this might be reasonable, but they don't. Many of the HACs are overshadowed entirely by their own T1 versions. The new versions in this thread bring the power comparison into line, but don't address the fact that unlike AFs, HACs fill no niche on their own at their price point. AFs are THE choice for mobile, survivable damage. Destroyers out-damage them but can't tank nearly as well and Frigates and interceptors are more mobile but don't tank or dish out enough damage to compete. HACs are not specialized ewar platforms and can either brawl or kite - but there are better options at a lower price point for both roles. ABCs have the corner on the kiting/sniping market at half the price of a HAC. Combat BCs out-brawl HACs. HACs only have an advantage over these classes when brawling with BS, and BS are usually only found in large enough numbers to make brawling with them a question of logistics, not the core classes you've brought.
The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it.
This sums it up very nicely. |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 18:45:00 -
[1990] - Quote
Gul Amarr wrote:Jysella Halcyon wrote:Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.
The 50% sig bloom reduction doesn't fit that for HACs and porting it from AFs is lazy thinking. AFs love that 50% sig reduction because they are ships that spend most of their time hoping to up-engage against cruisers, BCs, and BS. The same thing they loved to do before their buff from heavy tackle to relevence, but now they do it better while also being respectable fighting ships in their own right (how many AFs did we see in AT X and XI?) in a small-gang environment. You bring AFs on a roam when mobility and up-engagement are important. The AF role bonus helps them do this by cutting down the likelihood of them dying on their approach to their larger targets.
Still with me? Good.
Here's where that role bonus falls apart ported to a larger class. AFs engaging BCs and up (the common targets at the time before the cruiser rebalance) were relying on not getting hit as their primary tank. Frigates of all shapes lean on high speed and small sigs to avoid being wiped out by large targets. They use their (buffed) MWD to close range and then by and large go propless once in weapons range. They lean just as heavily on their MWD to get them from target to target because their weapons ranges are generally very short. Their bonus helps them stay alive to deal their damage by mitigating incoming fire while they move from target to target.
HACs are rarely used on TQ in anything but blobs of Zealots (with the occasional BL Munnin or Agony Deimos fleets) that don't need MWD to close range because they have lasers with scorch. TWEED Deimos dual-prop but once in range fight much like a Zealot gang but with blasters. They don't need help surviving the approach, they need help surviving the brawl where scrams negate the MWD role bonus. HACs have falen by the wayside in the kiting and sniping roles due to the better power and projection of ABCs. A kiting-oriented MWD bonus on ships that are at home in the furball is counter-intuitive in a way not seen on frigates - HACs aren't forced to rely on sig-tanking for dear life, it's just a nice bonus to being small in a BS-gun world.
But this isn't a BS-gun world. Small-gangs overwhelmingly prefer more mobile cruisers and BCs which track a HAC just fine. Out in the fleet-driven world of sovwar fleets, large, long-range guns are only common in large numbers, large enough to have enough people who can track small hings in tight orbits just fine to kill them. More common in the last wars were fleets of massed caracals - which have no problem hiting a HAC of any sort, though an AB HAC will have some mitigation.
Finally, AFs are worth the price differential over their T1 cousins. a T2-fitted T1 frigate will run about 10M isk. A T2-fitted AF will run 30-40M isk, or 3-4x the price of T1. Faction frigates are popular but are outperformed slightly by AFs in combat and have a corresponding price tag of around 20-30M isk. Pirate Frigates are either ignored by players or are named beginning with D and run about double an AF but with the versatility to make the price worth it.
A T2-fitted T1 cruiser runs in the same ballpark as an AF (30-35M). We would expect, then, for the price ramp of 3-4x to hold true for HAC prices, but a reasonable fit for the common HACs will clock in around 160-200M isk with a premium for the less common ones owing to fewer builders. This is a price bump of 5-7x the T1 price. If they constituted a similar power bump over the Frigate-AF transition this might be reasonable, but they don't. Many of the HACs are overshadowed entirely by their own T1 versions. The new versions in this thread bring the power comparison into line, but don't address the fact that unlike AFs, HACs fill no niche on their own at their price point. AFs are THE choice for mobile, survivable damage. Destroyers out-damage them but can't tank nearly as well and Frigates and interceptors are more mobile but don't tank or dish out enough damage to compete. HACs are not specialized ewar platforms and can either brawl or kite - but there are better options at a lower price point for both roles. ABCs have the corner on the kiting/sniping market at half the price of a HAC. Combat BCs out-brawl HACs. HACs only have an advantage over these classes when brawling with BS, and BS are usually only found in large enough numbers to make brawling with them a question of logistics, not the core classes you've brought.
The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it. This sums it up very nicely.
Confirming that quoting giant walls of text with a single line in the reply adds a lot to the discussion.
|
|
Dev Tesla
Autumn Interval Winter Solstice.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 19:16:00 -
[1991] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:Gul Amarr wrote:Jysella Halcyon wrote:Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.
The 50% sig bloom reduction doesn't fit that for HACs and porting it from AFs is lazy thinking. AFs love that 50% sig reduction because they are ships that spend most of their time hoping to up-engage against cruisers, BCs, and BS. The same thing they loved to do before their buff from heavy tackle to relevence, but now they do it better while also being respectable fighting ships in their own right (how many AFs did we see in AT X and XI?) in a small-gang environment. You bring AFs on a roam when mobility and up-engagement are important. The AF role bonus helps them do this by cutting down the likelihood of them dying on their approach to their larger targets.
Still with me? Good.
Here's where that role bonus falls apart ported to a larger class. AFs engaging BCs and up (the common targets at the time before the cruiser rebalance) were relying on not getting hit as their primary tank. Frigates of all shapes lean on high speed and small sigs to avoid being wiped out by large targets. They use their (buffed) MWD to close range and then by and large go propless once in weapons range. They lean just as heavily on their MWD to get them from target to target because their weapons ranges are generally very short. Their bonus helps them stay alive to deal their damage by mitigating incoming fire while they move from target to target.
HACs are rarely used on TQ in anything but blobs of Zealots (with the occasional BL Munnin or Agony Deimos fleets) that don't need MWD to close range because they have lasers with scorch. TWEED Deimos dual-prop but once in range fight much like a Zealot gang but with blasters. They don't need help surviving the approach, they need help surviving the brawl where scrams negate the MWD role bonus. HACs have falen by the wayside in the kiting and sniping roles due to the better power and projection of ABCs. A kiting-oriented MWD bonus on ships that are at home in the furball is counter-intuitive in a way not seen on frigates - HACs aren't forced to rely on sig-tanking for dear life, it's just a nice bonus to being small in a BS-gun world.
But this isn't a BS-gun world. Small-gangs overwhelmingly prefer more mobile cruisers and BCs which track a HAC just fine. Out in the fleet-driven world of sovwar fleets, large, long-range guns are only common in large numbers, large enough to have enough people who can track small hings in tight orbits just fine to kill them. More common in the last wars were fleets of massed caracals - which have no problem hiting a HAC of any sort, though an AB HAC will have some mitigation.
Finally, AFs are worth the price differential over their T1 cousins. a T2-fitted T1 frigate will run about 10M isk. A T2-fitted AF will run 30-40M isk, or 3-4x the price of T1. Faction frigates are popular but are outperformed slightly by AFs in combat and have a corresponding price tag of around 20-30M isk. Pirate Frigates are either ignored by players or are named beginning with D and run about double an AF but with the versatility to make the price worth it.
A T2-fitted T1 cruiser runs in the same ballpark as an AF (30-35M). We would expect, then, for the price ramp of 3-4x to hold true for HAC prices, but a reasonable fit for the common HACs will clock in around 160-200M isk with a premium for the less common ones owing to fewer builders. This is a price bump of 5-7x the T1 price. If they constituted a similar power bump over the Frigate-AF transition this might be reasonable, but they don't. Many of the HACs are overshadowed entirely by their own T1 versions. The new versions in this thread bring the power comparison into line, but don't address the fact that unlike AFs, HACs fill no niche on their own at their price point. AFs are THE choice for mobile, survivable damage. Destroyers out-damage them but can't tank nearly as well and Frigates and interceptors are more mobile but don't tank or dish out enough damage to compete. HACs are not specialized ewar platforms and can either brawl or kite - but there are better options at a lower price point for both roles. ABCs have the corner on the kiting/sniping market at half the price of a HAC. Combat BCs out-brawl HACs. HACs only have an advantage over these classes when brawling with BS, and BS are usually only found in large enough numbers to make brawling with them a question of logistics, not the core classes you've brought.
The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it. This sums it up very nicely. Confirming that quoting giant walls of text with a single line in the reply adds a lot to the discussion.
Considering Rise used a count of people that were for or against things as a measurement for the balance success, having more people "vote" to agree that HACs are over-priced seems logical. Now, where does that leave your post? Since it clearly accomplishes so much...
I for one agree with Jysella Halcyon. I don't see myself wanting to fly a HAC at any point when a BC will do the job I'm looking to do at a fraction the cost.
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3277
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 19:29:00 -
[1992] - Quote
Dev Tesla wrote: I for one agree with Jysella Halcyon. I don't see myself wanting to fly a HAC at any point when a BC will do the job I'm looking to do at a fraction the cost.
Good for you then.
For me, there won't be any substitutes for Deimos and Ishtar, which will both prefect ships for what I do and nothing in their price range really comes even close.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Gul Amarr
Orange County Cruisers
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 19:31:00 -
[1993] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:
Confirming that quoting giant walls of text with a single line in the reply adds a lot to the discussion.
Considering it serves moving it to the next page so more people read it, it does.
The guy quoting it on the same page as the original post, or your post of course is a different issue.
As a matter of fact that post is worth more than the hundreds of posts where people complain about [insert fav HAC] not being strong enough whilst they don't see the fundamental problems with this sad excuse of an overhaul:
- The MWD bonus mostly helps them vs BS, but survivability vs BS never was their problem. - T1 cruisers outmaneuver them, former Tier 1+2 BCs outbrawl them and ABC's outmaneuver and outdamage them regardless of the MWD sig bonus, whilst they're considerably more expensive to produce than all of the above and are taking longer to train at the same time.
This 'rebalance' is so incredibly FUBAR I can't believe it.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
529
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 19:39:00 -
[1994] - Quote
Dev Tesla wrote:
I for one agree with Jysella Halcyon. I don't see myself wanting to fly a HAC at any point when a BC will do the job I'm looking to do at a fraction the cost.
This argument again? /facepalm
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
161
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 19:43:00 -
[1995] - Quote
The mwd bonus reduced all rincoming missile damage when mwding, it makes it very hard for abcs to kill the hac and it reduced drone dps.
Its not usefull if you brawl, and unlike on the frig hulls it feels like a incredible lazy bonus but its not broken.
What else do you want? Mwd speed? Still useless in a brawl. AB speed? Makes 100mn cerbs and co way to op. And so on, a good role bonus can be very hard to implement.
Not directly relevant, ABCs need a mobility buff and a flat tracking maulus of 25% (and the talos needs a new bonus) |
Nag'o
Scorpion on a Stick
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 19:44:00 -
[1996] - Quote
Dev Tesla wrote: Considering Rise used a count of people that were for or against things as a measurement for the balance success, having more people "vote" to agree that HACs are over-priced seems logical. Now, where does that leave your post? Since it clearly accomplishes so much...
I for one agree with Jysella Halcyon. I don't see myself wanting to fly a HAC at any point when a BC will do the job I'm looking to do at a fraction the cost.
Maybe that's what liking a post is for?
|
Prester Tom
Death By Design
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 19:47:00 -
[1997] - Quote
When inties? they're a little redundant with the tackle t1 frigs now. Sneak in 'sader optimal bonus please |
Dev Tesla
Autumn Interval Winter Solstice.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 19:48:00 -
[1998] - Quote
Nag'o wrote:Dev Tesla wrote: Considering Rise used a count of people that were for or against things as a measurement for the balance success, having more people "vote" to agree that HACs are over-priced seems logical. Now, where does that leave your post? Since it clearly accomplishes so much...
I for one agree with Jysella Halcyon. I don't see myself wanting to fly a HAC at any point when a BC will do the job I'm looking to do at a fraction the cost.
Maybe that's what liking a post is for?
I smell troll. |
Stridsflygplan
Tigers in the Snow Nyratic
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:34:00 -
[1999] - Quote
Tried the HACs on the test server. I think the Vagabond needs +5 to +10 more power grid since it has some really tight and enjoying fitting cases. Maybe its just wishful thinking from my side |
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:56:00 -
[2000] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:it makes it very hard for abcs to kill the hac.
Rises own DPS Graph shows how a Neutron Talos still outdamages a Zealot at hitting a Sac with the bonus between ~16-38 km at 60-¦ transversal and full speed - by the looks of it it's without drones and doesn't take into account that the Talos can mitigate some transversal through maneuvering.
Needless to say that the Talos is also faster and thus able to dictate range - bad times for a ham Sac, even with the missile velocity bonus.
I wouldn't exactly call that very hard.
It also shows quite nicely how medium turrets aren't really affected by the bonus (scorch pulses are the worst tracking short range turrets, so it will affect others even less), so it wont help vs. other turret BC's or Cruisers.
Totally warrants their cost and skilltime, really...
If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only. |
|
Krissinator
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:57:00 -
[2001] - Quote
I dont see why gallente and amarr is the only ones that have 2 HACs each that are actually usefull for pvp (thinking of small scale pvp) i think a good idea would be to look in to the eagle and the muninn again to see if there is any changes that would make them usefull to any hac pilot :) the muninn as well as the vagabond would really be great with a shield boost.. boost :P and i guess it wont repurpose it just as with the vaga, it will just get more reason to own one. the eagle i have never understood much other than just for sniping. but the naga/talos/nado/oracle stole that role.. |
Krissinator
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 20:59:00 -
[2002] - Quote
Quote:If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only.
INDEED! |
Weasel Leblanc
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 21:08:00 -
[2003] - Quote
I'm not sure how often this has been pointed out, but... why does the Zealot have a tankier slot layout than the Sacreliege when the Sac is the one with the tank bonuses and the higher EHP? Seems kind of off, from where I'm standing.
In other news, I am exceptionally pleased that the new Ishtar isn't getting the same "HA HA NO GUNS" treatment as the Navy Vexor. However, having all the ship's HP hiding in hull, where it gets no benefit from tech 2 resists, seems exceptionally silly. |
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 21:25:00 -
[2004] - Quote
Krissinator wrote:Quote:If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only.
INDEED!
Well - they should just make sure they only do it after HACs get a different bonus - I'm just on Sisi and god do they suck - 100 MN HM Sac is the only way I can imagine flying that POS atm. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 21:39:00 -
[2005] - Quote
Krissinator wrote:Quote:If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only.
INDEED!
They could also make it so the bonus only applies to the 10 mn afterburners. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
681
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 21:41:00 -
[2006] - Quote
Baron vonDoom wrote:If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only. Personally I can't think of creating artificial rules to prevent oversized module fitting as a good thing for any reason. |
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 21:51:00 -
[2007] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Baron vonDoom wrote:If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only. Personally I can't think of creating artificial rules to prevent oversized module fitting as a good thing for any reason.
I completely agree - I even miss dual propmods being able to be activated the same time - left more room for creativity and surprising fits, but if it is what it takes to fix HACs and prevent that awful role bonus, I'd bite the bullet. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 21:51:00 -
[2008] - Quote
Krissinator wrote:Quote:If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only.
INDEED!
Nah, reducing fitting abilitys is bad imo. Its a core feature of eve, heavy neut curse and 100mn tengu and co are good things, not bad ones. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
450
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 22:36:00 -
[2009] - Quote
RISE
the deimos hull is based on the thorax .. Thorax- 120 Vigilant - 130 Deimos - 150 ??
The pattern is somewhat off .. considering the Thorax is an attack cruiser... Thorax - 240m/s Vigilant - 206 m/s Deimos - 230m/s
Surely the vigilant should have the highest sig radius as it is the slowest... granted it will get buffed at some point. But it is a blaster boat at heart and they need all the help they can get to survive incoming damage as they approach a target.. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
267
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 22:38:00 -
[2010] - Quote
Torrema Sinclair wrote:Grey Stone wrote:Jysella Halcyon wrote:Rise, I'm gathering that you're trying to take the Cruiser/HAC relationship in the same direction as the Frigate/AF balance with the role bonus and the "super cruisers for gank/tank/resilience" line.
The niche and power doesn't justify the price. Bring a fitted HAC down to the 90-120M price range so they can compete with the fair BCs and broken ABCs on a level playing field and make a legitimate choice hapen. Just a simple reduction in the T2 materials involved in new builds would do it. Thank you very much for taking time to write such elaborate post. Right on spot imho! BLASPHEMY!!! Dont do eeeettt! Prizes are fine as they are now. .
First, *prices.
More importantly, the price:power ratio for HACs is far worse than AFs, and as such they won't become popular after the patch like AFs did.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
267
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 22:43:00 -
[2011] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Go on SiSi, fit one properly and if you can't ask someone to tell you how to, then try to take strong boosters fit pirate implants use OGB then come here tell us how bad your vaga is.
So you mean I have to spend 1.1b on low grade crystals for my 150m Vagabond to be useful? Or pay another $15/month?
"Spend 7x more isk than you are on your hull on implants" isn't something everyone is able or willing to do, and its not a valid excuse for leaving the Vagabond in its **** poor condition. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2192
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:38:00 -
[2012] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Go on SiSi, fit one properly and if you can't ask someone to tell you how to, then try to take strong boosters fit pirate implants use OGB then come here tell us how bad your vaga is.
So you mean I have to spend 1.1b on low grade crystals for my 150m Vagabond to be useful? Or pay another $15/month? "Spend 7x more isk than you are on your hull on implants" isn't something everyone is able or willing to do, and its not a valid excuse for leaving the Vagabond in its poor overall condition.
Considering what's wrong with the game currently, Mikey just gave us the perfect description. Nothing wrong with boosters or imps.
If you want to use a HAC It's 'use an OGB or die' - otherwise get slaughtered by a T1 frig (yay - Zealot still getting no drone bay). You know... morons. |
Asa Shahni
TunDraGon Suddenly Spaceships.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:42:00 -
[2013] - Quote
the sac need love not some HML bonus that no one use ...get that spare high in the lows |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
94
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 00:14:00 -
[2014] - Quote
Asa Shahni wrote:the sac need love not some HML bonus that no one use ...get that spare high in the lows it works on HAMs too. |
Gargantoi
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 01:07:00 -
[2015] - Quote
When u specialize a t2 ship after its t1 version ..u should look into some things ...speed / tank / dmg / range / tracking and ofc with the last patches ccp did they looked probably @ star wars or some **** In eve is not about a "ship" war is about the ISK war ..if u go up vs 4 cruisers and u kill 3 but the 4th kills your hac ..u lose the isk war Some ships get a buff others get _|_ ..i call that bs . Cerberus / muninn / eagle / sacrilege this ships wont be used ..even after the patch ..
For cerb /sacrilege heavy missiles r way to nerfed atm to do proper dmg ..ham's got bad range and dmg gets reduced to much when ship moves For muninn + eagle ...if i wanna snipe with 720mm i use cane if i wanna snipe with a caldari ship i just get naga ..eagle wont fit
The faults u guys made over the past year/years were that u introduced things that werent needed and u guys nerf stuff to fast and to much witouth talking with the people first..and i mean people who pvp ..not people who rat U nerfed nos in 2008 ..now u bringing it back because it wasnt used anymore *facepalms U nerfed heavy missiles ..cerb + sacrilege wont work ..not to mention the new nighthawk wich is absolutelly crap U are calling this a hac boost or a t2 rebalance patch ?? I call this a joke ..u guys arent taking the game serious ...the changes u make are not tought trough ..how will they affect the players how will they affect the price ..how will they affect some implants (talisman set for nos) What i see now from u guys is ..making everything expencive and witouth a purpose so we spend X hours of playing to make bilions then to lose them instantlly ..i mean lets face it ..whats 1 bilion isk now ? in 2008 u could buy 1 year of gtc or like 20 dominix'es ..command ships were 110 mil and hac's were 80 m then ..1 bilion was worth something ..now with 1 bil u barelly buy 3 fleet bs's ..then again ..is a business and it needs to make money ..show a shinny trailer atract new people and get customers to pay 35$ for gtc's but the old players know that is the same bullshit in this game as allways . |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
115
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 01:09:00 -
[2016] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Go on SiSi, fit one properly and if you can't ask someone to tell you how to, then try to take strong boosters fit pirate implants use OGB then come here tell us how bad your vaga is.
So you mean I have to spend 1.1b on low grade crystals for my 150m Vagabond to be useful? Or pay another $15/month? "Spend 7x more isk than you are on your hull on implants" isn't something everyone is able or willing to do, and its not a valid excuse for leaving the Vagabond in its poor overall condition. Kahega Amielden wrote:Let's not forget that new Vaga is now cap stable with its MWD active. In addition to all the other changes, this means that it can kite for as long as it wants to, which it wasn't able to before. With or without a point running?
Kahega has a very valid point here. Previously, an armour brawler could kill (or force the retreat of) a vaga simply by burning towards him using cap boosters. That's no longer possible. This makes the Vaga a lot more dangerous to small gangs and solo pilots.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
117
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 02:15:00 -
[2017] - Quote
So I have spent 12 hours flying the new HACs on Sisi. They are excellent and provide a whole new world of choice for skirmishing.
I live in WH space, where up until now it's been pretty much T3 or nothing.
As of today, it will be viable to field a squad of HACs to take down an opposing fleet. This gives us choice, tactical options and increased enjoyment.
+1
Thanks for the good work.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
345
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 04:33:00 -
[2018] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Baron vonDoom wrote:If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only. Personally I can't think of creating artificial rules to prevent oversized module fitting as a good thing for any reason.
Are you forgetting that oversized prop is broken as ****? |
Ahnn
Space Zombiez
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 05:02:00 -
[2019] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:Ahnn wrote:CCP, you guys need to look at why the Deimos is called the "Diemost" by players. Think on it. Meditate on it. Mull it over. Then ask yourselves exactly why you lowered its survivability even more. Then explain to us here why you did it. Maybe you're seeing something that we don't, but if your version hit's live, it's gonna go from being the "Diemost" to the "Never fly. Under any circumstances. Ever."
With all that negative stuff over with, gotta say that I'm very intrigued by the Ishtar. Dude, I think you are operating on old information. Check the updated OP. The Deimos gains tank on every level, has an amazing sig rad role bonus being added, AND is getting a rep bonus. That hull is getting more survivable from the current TQ version in every way that a ship can. Edit: see you cut your post - you would have been correct with the first proposed changes though so it was probably an honest mistake - Rise fixed it up for us though.
Yup, that's exactly what happened. I had an old version of the page loaded when I read the initially proposed changes. So I made my post, reloaded the first page, and read that it had been updated/changed.
Very glad to see the Deimos get some love. Hopefully, the signature radius buff it's getting will be more substantial than the very mediocre HP buff it got. The rep bonus... gotta give that a "we'll see". Would be nice to have an active tank, without the speed penalty of fat plates, but throwing an active rep, an MWD, and cap hungry blasters on it might very well prove to be difficult. Actually being able to use (as in get them to fit and have a decent amount of cap time) the modules needed to take advantage of the ships bonuses would be the best bonus of all.
Time to get on Sisi and take the new Gallente ships out for a spin. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 06:27:00 -
[2020] - Quote
Quote:Time to get on Sisi and take the new Gallente ships out for a spin.
Take it from someone who's been getting blown up repeatedly and taking targets with me in the new Deimos. It's just swell.
This is my favorite hull. I've only really gotten to upengage battleship fleets with booster support, but a buddy of mine and I in two Deimos not 10 minutes ago just fought a Sleipner, Astarte, three Vagabonds, and a geddon. We actually lasted under neut and fire through three kills before going down. Can't really ask for much else. Excellent, CCP. These are true front line hulls now.
Well, at least I'm happy. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me why I'm wrong. |
|
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 06:59:00 -
[2021] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Well, at least I'm happy. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me why I'm wrong. Mumble, mumble, Vaga, mumble mumble, kiting, mumble, "useless" bonuses, mumble, damage application.
Eagle and Mun are the only ones that aren't really nice at something now and all the Min pilots are talking about the 'Better at Everything, but Somehow Worse: Vaga.' |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 07:59:00 -
[2022] - Quote
Quote:Mumble, mumble, Vaga, mumble mumble, kiting, mumble, "useless" bonuses, mumble, damage application.
Eagle and Mun are the only ones that aren't really nice at something now and all the Min pilots are talking about the 'Better at Everything, but Somehow Worse: Vaga.'
The Vaga is doing very well on the test server right now. There have been some guys using it to great effect. It's fast, the damage isn't massive, but it shouldn't be. It's damage is consistent, though. It is capable of harassing a small gang by itself. I'd say that in its role as a hit and run skirmisher, it's doing fine.
Strangely, I haven't even come across anyone flying an Eagle or Munin. So, I'm inclined to believe there is something about their performance that's making them undesirable. I've got a few pilots in my corp that can fly them with decent skills. I'll get them on there to see what they can make of it.
On a different note, the new Sacrilege is a BEAST! |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
285
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 08:12:00 -
[2023] - Quote
The reason your not seeing a lot of Eagles and Muninns is they aren't solo viable, they are obviously intended with medium > large scale gangs in mind.
The issue a lot of people have had with the Vaga is giving it an active bonus has done 2 things;
Not fixed the primary issue with the hull, its poor damage projection (even worse since the TE nerf, I would think they would at least improve the falloff bonus to make up for that).
By giving it a bonus obviously tailored to ASBs it allows you to fit low level guns etc you creating a Vaga that, while not terrible useful solo, is an incredibly quick and fairly resilient heavy tackler, the presence on grid of such a ship would effectively nullify any other nano ship excepting maybe the Cyna. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
152
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 10:35:00 -
[2024] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:The reason your not seeing a lot of Eagles and Muninns is they aren't solo viable, they are obviously intended with medium > large scale gangs in mind.
The issue a lot of people have had with the Vaga is giving it an active bonus has done 2 things;
Not fixed the primary issue with the hull, its poor damage projection (even worse since the TE nerf, I would think they would at least improve the falloff bonus to make up for that).
By giving it a bonus obviously tailored to ASBs it allows you to fit low level guns etc you creating a Vaga that, while not terrible useful solo, is an incredibly quick and fairly resilient heavy tackler, the presence on grid of such a ship would effectively nullify any other nano ship excepting maybe the Cyna.
Thanks to the PG buff, you can actually now fit up a real kiting-vaga, meaning:
650mm artillery, small antri-frig neut mwd, point, cap booster, large SB 2 gyros, 2 TEs, DCU OR nano (preference) - using two tech-1 ACRs or 1 t2 ACR and a 'gatotte' CB
while still having both the AC-antisupport-vaga and the kovorix-brawl-vaga as open and viable choices.
Same for deimos, you can passive shield tank it with railguns, active shieldtank with blasters and some 15km damage envelope using null, you can put a ridiculous active armor tank on it - while running your MAR cap-stable :o, or straight buffer it with 200mm rails or ions. All pretty decent. (Got in a brawl with a kronos and a sacriledge on SiSi, killed the sac, ran from the kronos http://i.imgur.com/YE6Xihe.jpg?1 , was fun)
Especially those two are real blessings, with zealot/sac/ishtar/muninn/eagle being rather narrowed down into a certain role. Didn't test the cerb yet.
On a sidenote, you can fit a 100mn active-armor-muninn with artillery, the high base cap recharge let's you run your **** using a small CB and the recent ROF buff helps a lot. I only correct my own spelling. |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 10:53:00 -
[2025] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:The mwd bonus reduced all rincoming missile damage when mwding, it makes it very hard for abcs to kill the hac and it reduced drone dps.
Its not usefull if you brawl, and unlike on the frig hulls it feels like a incredible lazy bonus but its not broken.
What else do you want? Mwd speed? Still useless in a brawl. AB speed? Makes 100mn cerbs and co way to op. And so on, a good role bonus can be very hard to implement.
Not directly relevant, ABCs need a mobility buff and a flat tracking maulus of 25% (and the talos needs a new bonus)
As many before stated the HAC's already used en mass never fitted MWD and won't so in the future just because survivability is much higher with AB and because MWD is harder to fit - you mostly need to do kompromises to get one online. With the MWD Role Bonus of 50% the only advantage you get comes with speed. But you will still get 40 - 60% (for the Vaga this value will go up to 300%) more damage than with AB, because 50% isn't enough.
The Bonus must be changed into 75% if CCP really wants this bonus for HAC's (what I will never support) or they have to change the Role Bonus into something much more interesting - something that would get the HAC's any specialization they are missing right now. Hell, even a Speedbonus for AB's is far better than this MWD Bonus...
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 11:01:00 -
[2026] - Quote
S1dy wrote:[quote=W0lf Crendraven]With the MWD Role Bonus of 50% the only advantage you get comes with speed. But you will still get 40 - 60% (for the Vaga this value will go up to 300%) more damage than with AB, because 50% isn't enough.
The Bonus must be changed into 75% if CCP really wants this bonus for HAC's (what I will never support) or they have to change the Role Bonus into something much more interesting - something that would get the HAC's any specialization they are missing right now. Hell, even a Speedbonus for AB's is far better than this MWD Bonus...
Must agree that a 75% reduction (like on talwars?) would be well noticable. Currently, the mwd sig is good, but way less of a game changer compared to AFs or even Interceptors - mostly cause of the considerable base signature of HACs. Though will all those changes that occured to those HACs, they appear to be in pretty good shape on the test server atleast - and that might be to much candy for actual large scale fleetfights. I only correct my own spelling. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
285
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 11:18:00 -
[2027] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:The reason your not seeing a lot of Eagles and Muninns is they aren't solo viable, they are obviously intended with medium > large scale gangs in mind.
The issue a lot of people have had with the Vaga is giving it an active bonus has done 2 things;
Not fixed the primary issue with the hull, its poor damage projection (even worse since the TE nerf, I would think they would at least improve the falloff bonus to make up for that).
By giving it a bonus obviously tailored to ASBs it allows you to fit low level guns etc you creating a Vaga that, while not terrible useful solo, is an incredibly quick and fairly resilient heavy tackler, the presence on grid of such a ship would effectively nullify any other nano ship excepting maybe the Cyna. Thanks to the PG buff, you can actually now fit up a real kiting-vaga, meaning: 650mm artillery, small antri-frig neut mwd, point, cap booster, large SB 2 gyros, 2 TEs, DCU OR nano (preference) - using two tech-1 ACRs or 1 t2 ACR and a 'gatotte' CB while still having both the AC-antisupport-vaga and the kovorix-brawl-vaga as open and viable choices. Same for deimos, you can passive shield tank it with railguns, active shieldtank with blasters and some 15km damage envelope using null, you can put a ridiculous active armor tank on it - while running your MAR cap-stable :o, or straight buffer it with 200mm rails or ions. All pretty decent. (Got in a brawl with a kronos and a sacriledge on SiSi, killed the sac, ran from the kronos http://i.imgur.com/YE6Xihe.jpg?1 , was fun) - testing the ship a while on SiSi also shows why any smaller sig radius on the deimos would prolly push it over the edge of OP. Especially those two are real blessings, with zealot/sac/ishtar/muninn/eagle being rather narrowed down into a certain role. Didn't test the cerb yet. On a sidenote, you can fit a 100mn active-armor-muninn with artillery, the high base cap recharge let's you run your **** using a small CB and the yo: UPCOMING ROF buff helps a lot.
Still doesn't have enough grid for a half decent arty fit or enough range for ACs, so basically, that leaves the relatively terrible Brawl/XLASB Vaga, it looses out to the Cerb the Deimos or any other HAC really. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 11:25:00 -
[2028] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: Still doesn't have enough grid for a half decent arty fit or enough range for ACs, so basically, that leaves the relatively terrible Brawl/XLASB Vaga, it looses out to the Cerb the Deimos or any other HAC really.
It's way to small and fast to receive all the shiny things. And it's role doesn't overlap in the slightest with the deimos/cerb - that's like comparing a stiletto to an enyo once and to a hawk afterwards. I only correct my own spelling. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
287
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 11:27:00 -
[2029] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Still doesn't have enough grid for a half decent arty fit or enough range for ACs, so basically, that leaves the relatively terrible Brawl/XLASB Vaga, it looses out to the Cerb the Deimos or any other HAC really.
It's way to small and fast to receive all the shiny things. And it's role doesn't overlap in the slightest with the deimos/cerb - that's like comparing a stiletto to an enyo once and to a hawk afterwards.
Yes thats exactly what its like, the Stilleto goes nice and fast.
It can't kill much, but it goes nice and fast. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
450
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 11:36:00 -
[2030] - Quote
I wonder if RISE is even reading this thread anymore.. there's is no indication he is??
Vagabond, Eagle and Deimos still need help...
Vagabond - nerf speed .. its faster than the stabber now yet all the other HACs are not allowed to be faster than there attack cruisers -buff tank .. its EHP is barely better than the stabbers .. although its resists are still too high as minnie's T2 resists are. - bigger cargobay for capboosters - needs stronger dps
Eagle - its incredibly slow even ABC's are probably quicker - anemic dps .. needs a 10% damage bonus - could use an extra low .. doesn't need 6 mids - needs a dronebay - needs its utility high back
Deimos - high sig should be 130 at most - needs its utility high back .. just increase damage bonuses - stronger falloff bonus for blasterboats 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 11:55:00 -
[2031] - Quote
Quote:I wonder if RISE is even reading this thread anymore.. there's is no indication he is??Vagabond, Eagle and Deimos still need help...
No. Deimos doesn't need one... damned... bit of help. Trust me. Get on the test server and fly it.
Ions in your highs. MWD/web/scram/med cap booster 2 in the mids. DC2/EANM/Exp hardener/800mm plate/MAAR/Mag stab in the lows. Hammerhead 2s. Nanobot accelerator and nano pump for rigs. Just do it. This boat isn't hurting at all now and is in a really good place. It's not OP, but it certainly holds its own. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
765
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 12:10:00 -
[2032] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: Deimos - high sig should be 130 at most - needs its utility high back .. just increase damage bonuses - stronger falloff bonus for blasterboats
With the capability of pulling off a 1k+ active tank, going 2k/s unheated, dealing 550+ dps (sans drones) and having a better capacitor than the droneless three midslot laser boat ... and you want more?
Seeing as it is a Gallente hull I reckon you might get it, but it will just be all the more broken .. eerily close to the OPness line as is.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 12:17:00 -
[2033] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:I wonder if RISE is even reading this thread anymore.. there's is no indication he is??Vagabond, Eagle and Deimos still need help... No. Deimos doesn't need one... damned... bit of help. Trust me. Get on the test server and fly it. Ions in your highs. MWD/web/scram/med cap booster 2 in the mids. DC2/EANM/Exp hardener/800mm plate/MAAR/Mag stab in the lows. Hammerhead 2s. Nanobot accelerator and nano pump for rigs. Just do it. This boat isn't hurting at all now and is in a really good place. It's not OP, but it certainly holds its own.
Bleh, go full platinum balls, 5 neutrons, CB, AB, web+scram, MAR, ancil MAR, explo hardener, DCU, 2 magstabs, em-rig and a nanopump I believe. 740dps with valks and void. I only correct my own spelling. |
Takanuro
Space-Brewery-Association 24eme Legion Etrangere
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:46:00 -
[2034] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
ZEALOT
No big changes here other than the electronics and cap changes.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H, 3M, 7L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1180 PWG, 320 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 980(-4) / 2250 / 1670(-18) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1500 / 285s (-50s) / 5.26/s (+.78) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+1) / .553 / 12580000 / 9.64s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km(+20km) / 306 / 6 Sensor strength: 21 Radar(+8) Signature radius: 125
I don't understand why so little is being changed on the Zealot. I've been looking at it compared to the Navy Omen and can't get to grips with this rebalance.
The Nomen is a lot faster (265 v 210), it has more shield (1800 v 980), more armor (2550 v 2250), it has smaller Sig (100mm v 125mm) and less mass (10850000kg v 12580000kg).
On the electronics side, Nomen can lock more targets (7 v 6) and has better scan res (320 v 306).
Nomen also gets the Drone Bay (50m3) whereas Zealot left with any utility here and gets the extra rig slot where it's still classed as T1.
New Zealot seems to have too many 'negative' stats compared to the Nomen that it seems like its going backwards where everything around it is/has been buffed.
Can someone 'sell' flying the new Zealot to me as I'd would really like if it can be justified.
Yes, we're going to die, but you're coming with us!
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:54:00 -
[2035] - Quote
Takanuro wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
ZEALOT
No big changes here other than the electronics and cap changes.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H, 3M, 7L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1180 PWG, 320 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 980(-4) / 2250 / 1670(-18) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1500 / 285s (-50s) / 5.26/s (+.78) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+1) / .553 / 12580000 / 9.64s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km(+20km) / 306 / 6 Sensor strength: 21 Radar(+8) Signature radius: 125
I don't understand why so little is being changed on the Zealot. I've been looking at it compared to the Navy Omen and can't get to grips with this rebalance. The Nomen is a lot faster (265 v 210), it has more shield (1800 v 980), more armor (2550 v 2250), it has smaller Sig (100mm v 125mm) and less mass (10850000kg v 12580000kg). On the electronics side, Nomen can lock more targets (7 v 6) and has better scan res (320 v 306). Nomen also gets the Drone Bay (50m3) whereas Zealot left with any utility here and gets the extra rig slot where it's still classed as T1. New Zealot seems to have too many 'negative' stats compared to the Nomen that it seems like its going backwards where everything around it is/has been buffed. Can someone 'sell' flying the new Zealot to me as I'd would really like if it can be justified.
About the only reason i can think of for most of this class of ship is that you get T2 resists beyond that i'm struggling myself 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 16:23:00 -
[2036] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Takanuro wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
ZEALOT
No big changes here other than the electronics and cap changes.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H, 3M, 7L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1180 PWG, 320 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 980(-4) / 2250 / 1670(-18) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1500 / 285s (-50s) / 5.26/s (+.78) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+1) / .553 / 12580000 / 9.64s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km(+20km) / 306 / 6 Sensor strength: 21 Radar(+8) Signature radius: 125
I don't understand why so little is being changed on the Zealot. I've been looking at it compared to the Navy Omen and can't get to grips with this rebalance. The Nomen is a lot faster (265 v 210), it has more shield (1800 v 980), more armor (2550 v 2250), it has smaller Sig (100mm v 125mm) and less mass (10850000kg v 12580000kg). On the electronics side, Nomen can lock more targets (7 v 6) and has better scan res (320 v 306). Nomen also gets the Drone Bay (50m3) whereas Zealot left with any utility here and gets the extra rig slot where it's still classed as T1. New Zealot seems to have too many 'negative' stats compared to the Nomen that it seems like its going backwards where everything around it is/has been buffed. Can someone 'sell' flying the new Zealot to me as I'd would really like if it can be justified. About the only reason i can think of for most of this class of ship is that you get T2 resists beyond that i'm struggling myself
You get more dmg , sensor strengh and locking range not to mention a stronger capacitor for the zealot. Asize from that the nomen is stronger/more versatile.
I'd love to see the zealot get at least 25mb bandwidth. Then it would at least have a chace against frigs that got a tackle and a kigger cargohold. IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Mnemonym
Salvage Security Services MK.VII
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 16:40:00 -
[2037] - Quote
I think while the Zealot among the HAC crowd is seemingly balanced, vs the Omen and Navy Omen its damage output is lacking.
While I'm content with the Zealot lacking a drone bay, I feel that it should be compensated in some way.
All Level 5 skills: Heavy Beams T2 Hammerhead II Multifrequency 3 faction HS: Zealot: 461 dps Omen: 495 dps (368 dps + 127 drone dps) Navy Omen: 490 dps (332 dps + 158 drone dps )
Perhaps add a dmg role bonus? 50% increase Thermal damage from lasers Work out as a ~20% increase to dmg for the above. dps 557
interestingly the dmg increase varies based on crystal.(aprox values) in distance order.
Gleam: 25% Conflagration 25% Multi: 20.0% Gamma: 18.2% Xray: 20.0% Ultraviolet: 16.7% Standard: 18.8% Infrared: 14.3% Microwave: 16.7% Scorch: 9.1% Radio: 0% Aurora: 18.8%
I feel that this would evolve the Heavy Assault nature without breaking much. Luckily Scorch is heavy EM dmg and thus doesnt bolster Pulse Zealot into overpowered territory. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
122
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:02:00 -
[2038] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
...
Deimos - high sig should be 130 at most - needs its utility high back .. just increase damage bonuses - stronger falloff bonus for blasterboats
I spent 12 hours on sisi yesterday flying around in a dual rep deimos. So here's how it really panned out:
1. I was in a gang with astarte, vaga and my deimos. 2. we had skirmish and armour gang links 3. sig radius (without implants) was 103. It was 265 with MWD doing 2000m/s 4. I could perma-rep most ships with 1 repper and no cap injection 5. I frequently ran out of AMMO rather than CAP BOOSTERS. 6. That small gang cleared CA1, CA2 and CA3 of all ships barring capitals, for the loss of 1 Astarte, 1 Deimos and 1 Vaga (while my mate was learning how to fit it).
This ship is really fine. At last we have an armour brawler that can engage in more than 1 fight before visiting a station for re-supply.
I was able to fly directly into a tornado's howitzer fire for 70km, tank the damage, scram the toenado and then kill it easily.
I tanked 2 vindicators for long enough for the gang to kill them.
The ship really does not need any more. As it is, I will use it a lot on TQ.
Feel free to convo me in TQ or Sisi if you like. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 18:23:00 -
[2039] - Quote
Takanuro wrote:[quote=CCP Rise] I don't understand why so little is being changed on the Zealot. I've been looking at it compared to the Navy Omen and can't get to grips with this rebalance.
The Nomen is a lot faster (265 v 210), it has more shield (1800 v 980), more armor (2550 v 2250), it has smaller Sig (100mm v 125mm) and less mass (10850000kg v 12580000kg).
On the electronics side, Nomen can lock more targets (7 v 6) and has better scan res (320 v 306).
Nomen also gets the Drone Bay (50m3) whereas Zealot left with any utility here and gets the extra rig slot where it's still classed as T1.
New Zealot seems to have too many 'negative' stats compared to the Nomen that it seems like its going backwards where everything around it is/has been buffed.
Can someone 'sell' flying the new Zealot to me as I'd would really like if it can be justified.
Go make a build for one, you'll understand why FCs love them. Basically, beam fit they can switch to any range between 20 and 80km instantly and still tank, or they can pulse fit and have freakish tracking out to 30 and fit a bigger tank. |
Psychedelic Faynin
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:02:00 -
[2040] - Quote
Fix the description.
Apparently the dev's are unaware of the requirement to have cruisers trained to level 5 to fly a HAC.
Minmatar Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage per level.
Obviously minmatar cruiser is always == 5, since it is a requirement to fly the ship.
Why am I explaining this to them? |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:05:00 -
[2041] - Quote
S1dy wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:The mwd bonus reduced all rincoming missile damage when mwding, it makes it very hard for abcs to kill the hac and it reduced drone dps.
Its not usefull if you brawl, and unlike on the frig hulls it feels like a incredible lazy bonus but its not broken.
What else do you want? Mwd speed? Still useless in a brawl. AB speed? Makes 100mn cerbs and co way to op. And so on, a good role bonus can be very hard to implement.
Not directly relevant, ABCs need a mobility buff and a flat tracking maulus of 25% (and the talos needs a new bonus) As many before stated the HAC's already used en mass never fitted MWD and won't so in the future just because survivability is much higher with AB and because MWD is harder to fit - you mostly need to do kompromises to get one online. With the MWD Role Bonus of 50% the only advantage you get comes with speed. But you will still get 40 - 60% (for the Vaga this value will go up to 300%) more damage than with AB, because 50% isn't enough. The Bonus must be changed into 75% if CCP really wants this bonus for HAC's (what I will never support) or they have to change the Role Bonus into something much more interesting - something that would get the HAC's any specialization they are missing right now. Hell, even a Speedbonus for AB's is far better than this MWD Bonus...
No, most hac fleets atm use mwds (altho sometimes they are dualprop), hacs itself are way to expensive and they dont offer much in comparison to a bs or even a t1 crusier to warrant its price in blob warfare.
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:18:00 -
[2042] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Time to get on Sisi and take the new Gallente ships out for a spin. Take it from someone who's been getting blown up repeatedly and taking targets with me in the new Deimos. It's just swell. This is my favorite hull. I've only really gotten to upengage battleship fleets with booster support, but a buddy of mine and I in two Deimos not 10 minutes ago just fought a Sleipner, Astarte, three Vagabonds, and a geddon. We actually lasted under neut and fire through three kills before going down. Can't really ask for much else. Excellent, CCP. These are true front line hulls now. Well, at least I'm happy. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me why I'm wrong.
Yes i am, if you go OMG that ship is amazing the devs did something wrong. That only happens if stuff is op (look at ABCs, everyone was super happy about them, compare them to the new dessies, nearly no one was hyped which is a clear sign that they are nicely done).
And it doesnt strike you as op as hell if 2 deimos can take 2 cs, 3 hacs and 1 bs up front and kill 3 ships ebfore they die?
From what ive seen on the test server:
Deimos is to good, ishtar (with sentrys) is to good, zealot is way to slow and gets totally replaced by the legion for brawling and by the Nomen for kiting, sacrilege is good (mayve a bit to strong, not sure). Vaga is a amazing anti kiting ship yet sucks still as a kiter , muninn is utter crap i fear, cerb is good 450dps at 70km with rlmls or 700 at 40km not sure if not to good, cant judge eagle from flying or fighting it but i think it could be a monster in fleets.
Railbuff + deimos is over the top, and stop seeding unique ships on the server (and caps of all kinds). |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
533
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 19:26:00 -
[2043] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Railbuff + deimos is over the top, and stop seeding unique ships on the server (and caps of all kinds).
I'm going to confirm that seeding caps on the test server is counter productive. If caps must remain, change the "sub cap only" system to the default moveme system and then allow caps at the current "sub cap only" system...
It always ends in a spam of caps, alliance tourney ships, and poorly fit vindicators. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1350
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 20:25:00 -
[2044] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Time to get on Sisi and take the new Gallente ships out for a spin. Take it from someone who's been getting blown up repeatedly and taking targets with me in the new Deimos. It's just swell. This is my favorite hull. I've only really gotten to upengage battleship fleets with booster support, but a buddy of mine and I in two Deimos not 10 minutes ago just fought a Sleipner, Astarte, three Vagabonds, and a geddon. We actually lasted under neut and fire through three kills before going down. Can't really ask for much else. Excellent, CCP. These are true front line hulls now. Well, at least I'm happy. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me why I'm wrong. Yes i am, if you go OMG that ship is amazing the devs did something wrong. That only happens if stuff is op (look at ABCs, everyone was super happy about them, compare them to the new dessies, nearly no one was hyped which is a clear sign that they are nicely done). And it doesnt strike you as op as hell if 2 deimos can take 2 cs, 3 hacs and 1 bs up front and kill 3 ships ebfore they die?
From what ive seen on the test server: Deimos is to good, ishtar (with sentrys) is to good, zealot is way to slow and gets totally replaced by the legion for brawling and by the Nomen for kiting, sacrilege is good (mayve a bit to strong, not sure). Vaga is a amazing anti kiting ship yet sucks still as a kiter , muninn is utter crap i fear, cerb is good 450dps at 70km with rlmls or 700 at 40km not sure if not to good, cant judge eagle from flying or fighting it but i think it could be a monster in fleets. Railbuff + deimos is over the top, and stop seeding unique ships on the server (and caps of all kinds).
Make the "No caps" system the default system you get moved into
The test server... uhm... inhabitants? Yes lets go with that.. Yea they are awful. Back when i was testing the Talwar a vindicator i had tackled warped a thanatos on grid to rep him -_-
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Tribal Band
334
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 20:43:00 -
[2045] - Quote
Krissinator wrote:I dont see why gallente and amarr is the only ones that have 2 HACs each that are actually usefull for pvp (thinking of small scale pvp) i think a good idea would be to look in to the eagle and the muninn again to see if there is any changes that would make them usefull to any hac pilot :) the muninn as well as the vagabond would really be great with a shield boost.. boost :P and i guess it wont repurpose it just as with the vaga, it will just get more reason to own one. the eagle i have never understood much other than just for sniping. but the naga/talos/nado/oracle stole that role..
I hadn't noticed. Raped an Oracle last night with an Eagle, and my skills are **** with turret HACs. HAC 3, no T2 rails, turret support skills no better than 3. He landed at 70. I spiraled in with MWD and filled his ass full of creamy white antimatter.
That same Eagle was perfectly capable of soloing a Moros that I tackled. But didn't feel like plinking away for an hour. (Don't think I had enough ammo for it either. :P ) Free Ripley Weaver! |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 21:21:00 -
[2046] - Quote
Psychedelic Faynin wrote:Fix the description.
Apparently the dev's are unaware of the requirement to have cruisers trained to level 5 to fly a HAC.
Minmatar Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage per level.
Obviously minmatar cruiser is always == 5, since it is a requirement to fly the ship.
Why am I explaining this to them? Calling it now: new player, hasn't looked around.
Eagle doesn't suck now and it counters sniper ABCs, it's just sitting in a very, very narrow niche. |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 22:04:00 -
[2047] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: No, most hac fleets atm use mwds (altho sometimes they are dualprop), hacs itself are way to expensive and they dont offer much in comparison to a bs or even a t1 crusier to warrant its price in blob warfare.
You really have no plan my friend... I've never seen any HAC (including Tech 3) using MWD in fleets. Nearly all doctrines in nullsec are with AB and nothing else. The only MWD HAC's I've ever seen were MWD Zealots in smallscale/solo. Maybe there are MWD Deimos as well, but never seen any. And, we shouldn't forget there are a lot of HAC's in use for PvE and they all have - if any - an AB fitted. Never seen an Ishtar using MWD for PvE...
But nevertheless, besides that we share the same thoughts about HAC's. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 22:26:00 -
[2048] - Quote
Quote:Yes i am, if you go OMG that ship is amazing the devs did something wrong. That only happens if stuff is op (look at ABCs, everyone was super happy about them, compare them to the new dessies, nearly no one was hyped which is a clear sign that they are nicely done).And it doesnt strike you as op as hell if 2 deimos can take 2 cs, 3 hacs and 1 bs up front and kill 3 ships ebfore they die?
Not OP at all. We did everything right in that fight. We managed our ranges and transversals, applied heat to knock out priority targets, pulled a ship just outside his gang's engagement range to buy us time to kill it...
Two ships winning that kind of fight doesn't mean it's OP. Tactics do count for something, you know. If you must know, the ship that gave us the hardest time and forced us to retreat was a lone Sacrilege with skirmish links. I think you're just intent on being sore at this point. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
127
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 00:26:00 -
[2049] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: ... It always ends in a spam of caps, alliance tourney ships, and poorly fit vindicators.
So true. What is it about noobs, vindicators and machariels?
:-)
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 01:40:00 -
[2050] - Quote
S1dy wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: No, most hac fleets atm use mwds (altho sometimes they are dualprop), hacs itself are way to expensive and they dont offer much in comparison to a bs or even a t1 crusier to warrant its price in blob warfare.
You really have no plan my friend... I've never seen any HAC (including Tech 3) using MWD in fleets. Nearly all doctrines in nullsec are with AB and nothing else. The only MWD HAC's I've ever seen were MWD Zealots in smallscale/solo. Maybe there are MWD Deimos as well, but never seen any. And, we shouldn't forget there are a lot of HAC's in use for PvE and they all have - if any - an AB fitted. Never seen an Ishtar using MWD for PvE... But nevertheless, besides that we share the same thoughts about HAC's.
You don't use hacs in big scale engagements, their price and the t1 buff see to that. And mwd hacs do see some use. |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 01:55:00 -
[2051] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Yes i am, if you go OMG that ship is amazing the devs did something wrong. That only happens if stuff is op (look at ABCs, everyone was super happy about them, compare them to the new dessies, nearly no one was hyped which is a clear sign that they are nicely done).And it doesnt strike you as op as hell if 2 deimos can take 2 cs, 3 hacs and 1 bs up front and kill 3 ships ebfore they die? Not OP at all. We did everything right in that fight. We managed our ranges and transversals, applied heat to knock out priority targets, pulled a ship just outside his gang's engagement range to buy us time to kill it... Two ships winning that kind of fight doesn't mean it's OP. Tactics do count for something, you know. If you must know, the ship that gave us the hardest time and forced us to retreat was a lone Sacrilege with skirmish links. I think you're just intent on being sore at this point.
Why should I, i dont have anything against you, nor do i dislike the deimos (i rather like them) so i dont argue to spite you or the ship. The only thing i do is try to be as just and fair to the entire hac lineup as i can be, my corp is one of the few ones that still uses hacs on a regular basis, so i can at least talk from some experience, i have flown every hac at least once and while i dont really like any of them (and i loathe all stabber hulls, cant stand them, so i really dislike the vaga) i dont harbour a hate for any of them that would cloud my judgement (if this was the falcon thread ... ).
I just report what eft, sisi and comparison to current ships tell me.
Mainly that the fault with hacs arent their boni nor their slots, you could leave them exactly as they are right now on tq, woudlnt change a thing, the proposed balancing is nice but not of real importance, the main problem with the ships is the price.
Other then that i dislike the fact that t2 resitances stack with rep boni atop of the proposed rep changes making them bad ships, sort of like the cyclone pre asb nerf, you wont engage them if you see them unless you are out to blobbing them.
I also think having a ship with buffer bc like ehip (xlasb vaga) that is amongst the fastet ingame will make kiting a pita.
And the muninn still is garbage. |
Analette
Silver Wings Research
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 02:59:00 -
[2052] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
CCP Rise, please reread the in-game description of the deimos' bonuses. It does not have any sort of "MWD cap use bonus." It has a bonus to compensate for the MWD capacitor penalty. Because of this the bonus is "useful when not MWDing as well;" a fact which the statement I just quoted would suggest is not the case. It's incredibly frustrating when you, as a developer, either word things in a confusing manner or are outright wrong with regards to a ship's given bonus.
That said...
I don't understand why you say, "The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second." Even when using an A-Type MWD with a 3% capacitor amount penalty, and subsequently a 22% capacitor amount bonus, the ship saw an average capacitor regeneration of 5.009 cap per second. 1678 / 335. Compared to the base regeneration value of 4.1/second that's an increase of only .909/second, not 4.5. Even the peak/EFT recharge rate only goes up by approximately 2.2 cap/second.
I'm also not sure that further reducing the ship's capacitor recharge rate to compensate for the loss of what amounts to a capacitor amount bonus is a good idea. The ship might still have higher capacitor regeneration amounts than it does now, but it will be at the cost of dropping from 1678 capacitor with an A-Type MWD and 1375 with a T1 MWD to, post-change and factoring in the +25 capacitor amount, 1358 and 1050 respectively.
It seems to me that this method of compensating for the removal of the MWD capacitor amount penalty reduction bonus will also increase the ship's vulnerability to neutralizers. In light of the removal of the ship's "utility" high slot this can be viewed as a "double whammy" to the ship's vulnerability to capacitor warfare.
You could achieve the same average capacitor regeneration amount of 6.2/second by increasing the ship's capacitor amount from 1375 to 1581 instead of dropping the recharge time from (I believe) 255s to 225s. While this wouldn't have fully compensated the ship's increased capacitor warfare vulnerability for people fitting T1 modules it would still have resulted in a loss of only 13.763~%, 1375 to 1185.75, compared to the current deimos' capacitor amount with a T1 MWD equipped. This also wouldn't have resulted in as high of a "maximum" capacitor value either. With an A-Type MWD the ship's capacitor value would be 1533.57, a drop of 8.6% capacitor amount compared to current value of 1678.
To be honest I don't really like the change. I see it as removing yet another relatively unique and interesting bonus from the game, and much as a repair bonus might be more beneficial to the PvE uses I put my deimos to than the MWD bonus is I still don't appreciate losing that bit of flavor. I don't believe every ship in the game should be a special little snowflake, but when you remove bonuses like this from various ships the game gets a little more dull. Hell, I wouldn't have much liked it, and it certainly wouldn't have been nearly as useful in PvE, but I'd have preferred a 10% armor bonus for the deimos over a repair bonus.
Also, you might want to edit your second post again. When you edited in the change to the deimos' second GalCru bonus you invalidated your previous statement about not changing said bonus.
"CCP Rise" wrote: DEIMOS
For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repair amount
When I glanced over the post to see if any new changes had occurred seeing "we're not changing the MWD bonus" followed by no MWD bonus and a repair bonus instead my immediate response was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEtRoZ5FWNc |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 03:31:00 -
[2053] - Quote
Quote:Why should I, i dont have anything against you, nor do i dislike the deimos (i rather like them) so i dont argue to spite you or the ship. The only thing i do is try to be as just and fair to the entire hac lineup as i can be, my corp is one of the few ones that still uses hacs on a regular basis, so i can at least talk from some experience, i have flown every hac at least once and while i dont really like any of them (and i loathe all stabber hulls, cant stand them, so i really dislike the vaga) i dont harbour a hate for any of them that would cloud my judgement (if this was the falcon thread ... ).
I just report what eft, sisi and comparison to current ships tell me.
Mainly that the fault with hacs arent their boni nor their slots, you could leave them exactly as they are right now on tq, woudlnt change a thing, the proposed balancing is nice but not of real importance, the main problem with the ships is the price.
Other then that i dislike the fact that t2 resitances stack with rep boni atop of the proposed rep changes making them bad ships, sort of like the cyclone pre asb nerf, you wont engage them if you see them unless you are out to blobbing them.
I also think having a ship with buffer bc like ehip (xlasb vaga) that is amongst the fastet ingame will make kiting a pita.
And the muninn still is garbage.
I agree with you in as far as all of the hulls don't seem useful, at least not generally. A couple are pretty niche, perhaps a little too niche. The Eagle and Muninn are two I thought should perform extremely well based off of EFT numbers, but no one is flying them. Someone already pointed out that it is because they require larger fleets to shine, and I'm inclined to believe that is the case.
As for the ships being too expensive, I'm torn. On the one hand, their increases to survivability make you less likely to lose them if you're smart which can probably justify a higher price tag. But, if their survivability were pititful, I'd certainly say they weren't worth their price. Whether or not their new level of survivability warrants their price, I'm not sure, yet. |
RanmaruMori
FIRST SHOCK SQUADRON Darkness of Despair
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 05:50:00 -
[2054] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Why should I, i dont have anything against you, nor do i dislike the deimos (i rather like them) so i dont argue to spite you or the ship. The only thing i do is try to be as just and fair to the entire hac lineup as i can be, my corp is one of the few ones that still uses hacs on a regular basis, so i can at least talk from some experience, i have flown every hac at least once and while i dont really like any of them (and i loathe all stabber hulls, cant stand them, so i really dislike the vaga) i dont harbour a hate for any of them that would cloud my judgement (if this was the falcon thread ... ).
I just report what eft, sisi and comparison to current ships tell me.
Mainly that the fault with hacs arent their boni nor their slots, you could leave them exactly as they are right now on tq, woudlnt change a thing, the proposed balancing is nice but not of real importance, the main problem with the ships is the price.
Other then that i dislike the fact that t2 resitances stack with rep boni atop of the proposed rep changes making them bad ships, sort of like the cyclone pre asb nerf, you wont engage them if you see them unless you are out to blobbing them.
I also think having a ship with buffer bc like ehip (xlasb vaga) that is amongst the fastet ingame will make kiting a pita.
And the muninn still is garbage. I agree with you in as far as all of the hulls don't seem useful, at least not generally. A couple are pretty niche, perhaps a little too niche. The Eagle and Muninn are two I thought should perform extremely well based off of EFT numbers, but no one is flying them. Someone already pointed out that it is because they require larger fleets to shine, and I'm inclined to believe that is the case. As for the ships being too expensive, I'm torn. On the one hand, their increases to survivability make you less likely to lose them if you're smart which can probably justify a higher price tag. But, if their survivability were pititful, I'd certainly say they weren't worth their price. Whether or not their new level of survivability warrants their price, I'm not sure, yet.
If Muninn and Eagle are for fleets with 20+ ships or only can do roles in those fleets, why must I fly them instead of Vulture or Sleipnir? Both of them better for sniping or long range combat, have better tank and can provide fleet bonuses (if other can't do it).
Same true if you'll take Tengu or Loki. They cost more, but better in all aspects.
We will see Muninn rarely, but Eagle will disappear from space.
Some numbers on new HACs below: Muninn------- aling time 6.3 s, speed with MWD 1732 m/s Vagabond -- 5.5 s, 2453 m/s Ishtar--------- 5.4 s, 1663 m/s Deimos------ 5.1 s, 1925 m/s Zealot-------- 6.5 s, 1662 m/s Sacrilege---- 6.2 s, 1649 m/s Cerberus---- 5.5 s, 1730 m/s Eagle--------- 6.3 s, 1487 m/s |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Suddenly Spaceships.
843
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 06:38:00 -
[2055] - Quote
Thoughts- Eagle needs a bit more fitting, speed. Mainly just speed. Its still much too slow, and considerably slower than other hacs. Its range is great and damage is decent.
Deimos has obscene tank when using a cap booster with 2 repairers, such that its pretty unkillable by another hac in 1v1 and has a permarunning tank. Maybe with neuts it could be killed but only a few hacs have the utility high.
Cerb is basically the caracal with more range, and since i wont be fighting a whole fight at 40km, the range does not really warrant 1v1 usage over a caracal.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
287
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:18:00 -
[2056] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Thoughts- Eagle needs a bit more fitting, speed. Mainly just speed. Its still much too slow, and considerably slower than other hacs. Its range is great and damage is decent.
Deimos has obscene tank when using a cap booster with 2 repairers, such that its pretty unkillable by another hac in 1v1 and has a permarunning tank. Maybe with neuts it could be killed but only a few hacs have the utility high.
Cerb is basically the caracal with more range, and since i wont be fighting a whole fight at 40km, the range does not really warrant 1v1 usage over a caracal.
Your wrong about the Cerb, for a start the damage increase is fantastic, second with HAMs it hits reliably out to 40, thats huge because of the mechanics of missile flight.
The Cerb will be amazing post patch, I'll probably use it as my go to kiting platform instead of the Vaga tbh. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:52:00 -
[2057] - Quote
Quote:Deimos has obscene tank when using a cap booster with 2 repairers, such that its pretty unkillable by another hac in 1v1 and has a permarunning tank. Maybe with neuts it could be killed but only a few hacs have the utility high.
The Deimos almost seems like the perfect anti-HAC to me. I'm okay with that. Heavy neuts will give it trouble. My partner and I were pretty hard pressed fighting a Bhaalgorn even wtih the cap boosters.
Also, is anyone else having the reload bug on the test server? Every time I get down to my last 5 shots, my guns won't cycle until I manually reload them. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 08:04:00 -
[2058] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Deimos has obscene tank when using a cap booster with 2 repairers, such that its pretty unkillable by another hac in 1v1 and has a permarunning tank. Maybe with neuts it could be killed but only a few hacs have the utility high. The Deimos almost seems like the perfect anti-HAC to me. I'm okay with that. Heavy neuts will give it trouble. My partner and I were pretty hard pressed fighting a Bhaalgorn even with the cap boosters. Also, is anyone else having the reload bug on the test server? Every time I get down to my last 5 shots, my guns won't cycle until I manually reload them.
I think you guys are over inflating the Deimos quite a bit in situations that are unrealistic on the live server. You're also not considering all the changes combined that are going to affect live doctrine changes that will hit as a result of 1.1 or the prior patches.
These hacs are not that great and with some of the changes coming, I think you're going to quickly find out how isolated their roles really are.
Everyone keeps saying OMG Deimos.... when at basically reasonably comparable speeds and engagement ranges, a massively superior tank and slot options, you have a claymore that is going to dominate the countryside of small scale PvP.
You're going to start to feel real little when the meta game hits you on live that's not currently hitting you on the test server.
What's even more sad is that the other hacs really have no legitimate roles either and are going to be trumped so heavily by superior choices within the overall meta, that I just can't see them being used at any higher level. Every one of these ships is going to be novelty use only post 1.1.... people just aren't grasping that yet. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Suddenly Spaceships.
843
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 08:08:00 -
[2059] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Deimos has obscene tank when using a cap booster with 2 repairers, such that its pretty unkillable by another hac in 1v1 and has a permarunning tank. Maybe with neuts it could be killed but only a few hacs have the utility high. The Deimos almost seems like the perfect anti-HAC to me. I'm okay with that. Heavy neuts will give it trouble. My partner and I were pretty hard pressed fighting a Bhaalgorn even with the cap boosters. Also, is anyone else having the reload bug on the test server? Every time I get down to my last 5 shots, my guns won't cycle until I manually reload them. I think you guys are over inflating the Deimos quite a bit in situations that are unrealistic on the live server. You're also not considering all the changes combined that are going to affect live doctrine changes that will hit as a result of 1.1 or the prior patches. These hacs are not that great and with some of the changes coming, I think you're going to quickly find out how isolated their roles really are. Everyone keeps saying OMG Deimos.... when at basically reasonably comparable speeds and engagement ranges, a massively superior tank and slot options, you have a claymore that is going to dominate the countryside of small scale PvP. You're going to start to feel real little when the meta game hits you on live that's not currently hitting you on the test server.
Command ships being powerful and tanky is normal, due to their high skill requirements and bigger price tag |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 08:18:00 -
[2060] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:MJ Incognito wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Deimos has obscene tank when using a cap booster with 2 repairers, such that its pretty unkillable by another hac in 1v1 and has a permarunning tank. Maybe with neuts it could be killed but only a few hacs have the utility high. The Deimos almost seems like the perfect anti-HAC to me. I'm okay with that. Heavy neuts will give it trouble. My partner and I were pretty hard pressed fighting a Bhaalgorn even with the cap boosters. Also, is anyone else having the reload bug on the test server? Every time I get down to my last 5 shots, my guns won't cycle until I manually reload them. I think you guys are over inflating the Deimos quite a bit in situations that are unrealistic on the live server. You're also not considering all the changes combined that are going to affect live doctrine changes that will hit as a result of 1.1 or the prior patches. These hacs are not that great and with some of the changes coming, I think you're going to quickly find out how isolated their roles really are. Everyone keeps saying OMG Deimos.... when at basically reasonably comparable speeds and engagement ranges, a massively superior tank and slot options, you have a claymore that is going to dominate the countryside of small scale PvP. You're going to start to feel real little when the meta game hits you on live that's not currently hitting you on the test server. Command ships being powerful and tanky is normal, due to their high skill requirements and bigger price tag
WTF is your point... we're talking about a role. People keep praising the Diemos speed, tank, and dps... all of which get obsoleted and vastly trumped by the overall effects of a Claymore. So tell me, why are you going to fly a Deimos in that case? |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 08:23:00 -
[2061] - Quote
Quote:WTF is your point... we're talking about a role. People keep praising the Diemos speed, tank, and dps... all of which get obsoleted and vastly trumped by the overall effects of a Claymore.
HAC Pilot: Man! I'm so happy that Scissors is now viable! Loving it.
CS Pilot: WTF is your problem!?!?! Look at effin' rock! ROCKZ!!!!
Unfortunately, that just happened. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 08:29:00 -
[2062] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:WTF is your point... we're talking about a role. People keep praising the Diemos speed, tank, and dps... all of which get obsoleted and vastly trumped by the overall effects of a Claymore. HAC Pilot: Man! I'm so happy that Scissors is now viable! Loving it. CS Pilot: WTF is your problem!?!?! Look at effin' rock! ROCKZ!!!! Unfortunately, that just happened.
You just proved why the devs have no reason to listen to any of the praise they're getting on this thread or the Command ship thread with so many warnings coming from other players. You're a fanboy of something for the pure sake of just because rather than understanding what 95% of EVE is driven by.
I'm glad you can find fun in a ship just because. But that is in no way what EVE is driven on. People don't want their sandcastles so easily taken by the tide... and you're not understanding or perceiving the changes in the way the water is moving.
This is the issue with overlapping roles and not defining a reason to have a ship. If there's something better.... most people are going to flood to the best choice in a given role.... not fly a ship just because.
Truth is, they could change all the hacs and give them a defined and relevant role.... and you'd still probably appreciate it even more, while the rest of us wouldn't have this massive concern on are minds. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 08:44:00 -
[2063] - Quote
Quote:You just proved why the devs have no reason to listen to any of the praise they're getting on this thread or the Command ship thread with so many warnings coming from other players. You're a fanboy of something for the pure sake of just because rather than understanding what 95% of EVE is driven by.
I'm glad you can find fun in a ship just because. But that is in no way what EVE is driven on. People don't want their sandcastles so easily taken by the tide... and you're not understanding or perceiving the changes in the way the water is moving.
This is the issue with overlapping roles and not defining a reason to have a ship. If there's something better.... most people are going to flood to the best choice in a given role.... not fly a ship just because.
Ignorance. This is a thread about HACs. If you want to hear me praise another ship, check another thread. I love the Damnation, Curse, Megathron, etc. But, this thread isn't about them, now is it? It's about HACs, and the new Deimos is obviously in a much better place than it's been in a long time. That's good by any measure. Jumping in the HAC thread just to say "OMFG CLAYMORE" is more indicative of your own status as a fanboy. Time will tell if the field gets flooded with Claymores. If it does, CCP's ever-reliable nerf bat will soon be in the works, I asure you. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 08:45:00 -
[2064] - Quote
The Dominix is such a good example of exactly my point..... people last patch were fear mongering over the Geddon and how great it was going to be, while a small few were screaming, OMG no the Dominix is going to destroy this game once meta hits.
Almost nobody even understood just how vastly superior the Dominix concept was over almost everything else in game considering it's EWAR resistant, one of the purest form of alpha fleets, cruiser like tracking on a BS platform, the infinite drone spam problem of carrier bays in 0.0, the reign of sentries in lowsec, and the underwelming bonus of 12km on a neut as a full on bonus coming from an Armageddon.
Then everyone's eyes get opened up during the Alliance tournament as to what the meta game really means for this **** and how bad that patch really was for EVE.
It's not that the other BS weren't nice in some way... it's just that the Dominix trumps them all in so may ways.
Now you have the same thing being said about this entire patch... and history is repeating itself. Only this time, far more people are being outspoken because the flaws of the Devs are so apparent. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:07:00 -
[2065] - Quote
Quote:And you're totally missing the point so many of us are making in this thread. Yes the Deimos is better than it was... BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO FIT INTO EVE FFS. IT HAS 0 PURPOSE! It's purpose is just usurped by so many other ships.
You think saying that in all caps made it less bogus than it was?
It may not fit into your narrow definition of Eve, but not everyone plays the game the way you do. The Deimos in small gangs is going to do quite well.
Just to clarify a point here... what the hell are you actually saying? You want to buff the Deimos some more? You want to make it comparable to a Claymore? Why don't you post your proposal for the Deimos. I'm not being antagonistic here, seriously. Your posts just seem like nothing but "it doesn't work the way I think it should" but offer no alternative. I'm curious to see what you think a "Deimos that works" looks like. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:19:00 -
[2066] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:And you're totally missing the point so many of us are making in this thread. Yes the Deimos is better than it was... BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO FIT INTO EVE FFS. IT HAS 0 PURPOSE! It's purpose is just usurped by so many other ships. You think saying that in all caps made it less bogus than it was? It may not fit into your narrow definition of Eve, but not everyone plays the game the way you do. The Deimos in small gangs is going to do quite well. Just to clarify a point here... what the hell are you actually saying? You want to buff the Deimos some more? You want to make it comparable to a Claymore? Why don't you post your proposal for the Deimos. I'm not being antagonistic here, seriously. Your posts just seem like nothing but "it doesn't work the way I think it should" but offer no alternative. I'm curious to see what you think a "Deimos that works" looks like.
There are 35+ proposals between the 2 HAC threads for how to give HAC's roles that all have merit and because you seem to ignore the 99% of this thread, you want me to list it all out here for you?
I have not said buff the Deimos more you dense ****, I've said give it a unique role. A role means a unique quality that is not currently being seen or utilized in game. Things like localized defensive modules for hacs that have unique limitations to define more offensive or defensive capabilities with limitations to how and when one can change out to either.... IE Cooldowns similar to switching on/off HIC bubbles. This means you can define more offensive and defensive roles on the ship helping necessitate which is more necessary rather than give a very mundane balance to each that is already seen in game 50 times over on other better ships.
This can create unique balances such as higher AB speeds, better resist, etc while trading off receiving remote repairs, projecting offense, etc. Essentially, it's a stopgap module that makes you choose what is needed most, while almost totally removing the other aspects at that time and limiting when you can swap to the other set of bonuses....
In other words, roles and balance without mundane mediocrity in the middle, but forcible choices by players in how to utilize a ship actively during a fight (something this game has lost a lot of.) |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
288
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:24:00 -
[2067] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:And you're totally missing the point so many of us are making in this thread. Yes the Deimos is better than it was... BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO FIT INTO EVE FFS. IT HAS 0 PURPOSE! It's purpose is just usurped by so many other ships. You think saying that in all caps made it less bogus than it was? It may not fit into your narrow definition of Eve, but not everyone plays the game the way you do. The Deimos in small gangs is going to do quite well. Just to clarify a point here... what the hell are you actually saying? You want to buff the Deimos some more? You want to make it comparable to a Claymore? Why don't you post your proposal for the Deimos. I'm not being antagonistic here, seriously. Your posts just seem like nothing but "it doesn't work the way I think it should" but offer no alternative. I'm curious to see what you think a "Deimos that works" looks like. There are 35+ proposals between the 2 HAC threads for how to give HAC's roles that all have merit and because you seem to ignore the 99% of this thread, you want me to list it all out here for you? I have not said buff the Deimos more you dense ****, I've said give it a unique role. A role means a unique quality that is not currently being seen or utilized in game. Things like localized defensive modules for hacs that have unique limitations to define more offensive or defensive capabilities with limitations to how and when one can change out to either.... IE Cooldowns similar to switching on/off HIC bubbles. This means you can define more offensive and defensive roles on the ship helping necessitate which is more necessary rather than give a very mundane balance to each that is already seen in game 50 times over on other better ships. This can create unique balances such as higher AB speeds, better resist, etc while trading off receiving remote repairs, projecting offense, etc. Essentially, it's a stopgap module that makes you choose what is needed most, while almost totally removing the other aspects at that time and limiting when you can swap to the other set of bonuses.... In other words, roles and balance without mundane mediocrity in the middle, but forcible choices by players in how to utilize a ship actively during a fight (something this game has lost a lot of.)
Modules dedicated to 1 class of ship are generally pretty crap as they limit fitting choices.
To be honest, the HACs generally look in a good place at this point, the Eagle maybe needs a little more speed but I really think we need to see that one on TQ before we can say for sure, the Vaga needs a second falloff bonus to be a viable kiter, apart from that things are looking Ok. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:35:00 -
[2068] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: Modules dedicated to 1 class of ship are generally pretty crap as they limit fitting choices.
To be honest, the HACs generally look in a good place at this point, the Eagle maybe needs a little more speed but I really think we need to see that one on TQ before we can say for sure, the Vaga needs a second falloff bonus to be a viable kiter, apart from that things are looking Ok.
OK compared to what?
I'm sorry, but define what these ships do in game that's not already being done 50 times over by other ships, and almost always better and cheaper?
A module dedicated to 1 ship in 1 slot to affect a role has no real impact on fitting choices... especially when you can give a bonus slot to every ship for that specific module.
This is exactly my point... you guys think they're ok b/c they look better on a forum post and on a horrific simulation test server... you don't have a clue what's going to happen live when the meta game hits. Meta game creates winners and losers. Hacs have been loser for so long b/c they have no real purpose.... and how do you think any of these changes affect a purpose? They don't... they just make **** ships slightly less ****** than before.
You can put a flower on a turd and make it smell better, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a turd. |
Akturous
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:37:00 -
[2069] - Quote
Seriously Fozzie, cargo hold on the deimos, 315 on an active tanker? That's 11 cap boosters if you want minimal ammo, seriously mate, cargo holds on all these ships are way over the shop, cmd ships as well. Some space please. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:43:00 -
[2070] - Quote
Quote:There are 35+ proposals between the 2 HAC threads for how to give HAC's roles that all have merit and because you seem to ignore the 99% of this thread, you want me to list it all out here for you?
I have not said buff the Deimos more you dense ****, I've said give it a unique role. A role means a unique quality that is not currently being seen or utilized in game. Things like localized defensive modules for hacs that have unique limitations to define more offensive or defensive capabilities with limitations to how and when one can change out to either.... IE Cooldowns similar to switching on/off HIC bubbles. This means you can define more offensive and defensive roles on the ship helping necessitate which is more necessary rather than give a very mundane balance to each that is already seen in game 50 times over on other better ships.
This can create unique balances such as higher AB speeds, better resist, etc while trading off receiving remote repairs, projecting offense, etc. Essentially, it's a stopgap module that makes you choose what is needed most, while almost totally removing the other aspects at that time and limiting when you can swap to the other set of bonuses....
In other words, roles and balance without mundane mediocrity in the middle, but forcible choices by players in how to utilize a ship actively during a fight (something this game has lost a lot of.)
Personal insults aside, your post seems a bit unrealistic. Also, your assertion that I haven't noticed all the Deimos proposals in this thread is wrong. But, no one has suggested what you have. It's all been more speed, lower sig, etc. It's just stat changes, nothing more.
Your idea of, essentially, a "command" style module that will provide a buff like a boosting module would certainly be unique and isn't a bad one in my view, but what will those effects be? Command ships and tech 3s already boost armor, speed/agility, e-war, and shields. How do you boost defensive capability without overlapping your role with the Damnation? The idea needs some fleshing out, but it isn't a bad line of thought. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:43:00 -
[2071] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Seriously Fozzie, cargo hold on the deimos, 315 on an active tanker? That's 11 cap boosters if you want minimal ammo, seriously mate, cargo holds on all these ships are way over the shop, cmd ships as well. Some space please.
I thought this too - until I flew the ship.
It has a very strong capacitor and can almost perma-run 1 repper on cap recharge alone. I assure you I have been running out of ammo before cap boosters.
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:44:00 -
[2072] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Seriously Fozzie, cargo hold on the deimos, 315 on an active tanker? That's 11 cap boosters if you want minimal ammo, seriously mate, cargo holds on all these ships are way over the shop, cmd ships as well. Some space please.
Whah? Are you using navy 400s? That's really all you need, and I am able to fit 21 of them easily with plenty of room left for nanite paste and ammo. |
galessin
Fumble et Black Cat
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:22:00 -
[2073] - Quote
ishtar has 3 useables bonus at the same time, all others HAC have 4.... something seems to be wrong... |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:22:00 -
[2074] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:
Your idea of, essentially, a "command" style module that will provide a buff like a boosting module would certainly be unique and isn't a bad one in my view, but what will those effects be? Command ships and tech 3s already boost armor, speed/agility, e-war, and shields. How do you boost defensive capability without overlapping your role with the Damnation? The idea needs some fleshing out, but it isn't a bad line of thought.
You just create a module that has an active and passive effect that determines where your ship shines and falls.... you could actually do multiple varieties.
For instance:
Active: Boost AB speed 75%, Boost resistances 50%, boost local armor/shield repair speed 25% --- But, Reduces Optimal 75%, Reduces tracking 75%, reduces remote repair assistance, Increases Cap Injector duration by 300% (IE slowing down cap injector rates) in total for minute duration
Passive: NO pros, no cons....
So you question yourself... do I need that approach speed if it's going to totally force me to rely on my own repairers and capacitor... or are my logistics ships all jammed and I need to boost my local defenses thinking we can't get them unjammed...and **** I'm stuck if they get unjammed, and I get webbed down to **** and neuted. |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:25:00 -
[2075] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:
Personal insults aside, your post seems a bit unrealistic. Also, your assertion that I haven't noticed all the Deimos proposals in this thread is wrong. But, no one has suggested what you have. It's all been more speed, lower sig, etc. It's just stat changes, nothing more.
Your idea of, essentially, a "command" style module that will provide a buff like a boosting module would certainly be unique and isn't a bad one in my view, but what will those effects be? Command ships and tech 3s already boost armor, speed/agility, e-war, and shields. How do you boost defensive capability without overlapping your role with the Damnation? The idea needs some fleshing out, but it isn't a bad line of thought.
It's just an example. His goal is to determine a specific role, a specialization and that's what I want for HAC's as well. It's a Tech 2 ship that should have a specialization for anything (even CCP stated that a few times in the past). In both threads to the HAC changes are so many examples for what it could be that would make the HAC's special and worth it to use (or buy). Some stated Large Micro Jump Drives, bonus to Target Spectrum Breaker, etc etc. There are enough examples. some are bad, some are good. But the Role Bonus right now is crap and even the bad examples are far better than the MWD Bonus.
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:30:00 -
[2076] - Quote
Quote:You just create a module that has an active and passive effect that determines where your ship shines and falls.... you could actually do multiple varieties.
For instance:
Active: Boost AB speed 75%, Boost resistances 50%, boost local armor/shield repair speed 25% --- But, Reduces Optimal 75%, Reduces tracking 75%, reduces remote repair assistance, Increases Cap Injector duration by 300% (IE slowing down cap injector rates) in total for minute duration
Passive: NO pros, no cons....
So you question yourself... do I need that approach speed if it's going to totally force me to rely on my own repairers and capacitor... or are my logistics ships all jammed and I need to boost my local defenses thinking we can't get them unjammed...and **** I'm stuck if they get unjammed, and I get webbed down to **** and neuted.
Not bad. A coding nightmare, but that's not our problem. Lol. I basically understand your idea as beign portable "wormhole system style effects" packed in a module. I could see something like that being a fun addition, even if it does provide a rather tedious level of micromanagement for fleet commanders. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:32:00 -
[2077] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:You just create a module that has an active and passive effect that determines where your ship shines and falls.... you could actually do multiple varieties.
For instance:
Active: Boost AB speed 75%, Boost resistances 50%, boost local armor/shield repair speed 25% --- But, Reduces Optimal 75%, Reduces tracking 75%, reduces remote repair assistance, Increases Cap Injector duration by 300% (IE slowing down cap injector rates) in total for minute duration
Passive: NO pros, no cons....
So you question yourself... do I need that approach speed if it's going to totally force me to rely on my own repairers and capacitor... or are my logistics ships all jammed and I need to boost my local defenses thinking we can't get them unjammed...and **** I'm stuck if they get unjammed, and I get webbed down to **** and neuted. Not bad. A coding nightmare, but that's not our problem. Lol. I basically understand your idea as beign portable "wormhole system style effects" packed in a module. I could see something like that being a fun addition, even if it does provide a rather tedious level of micromanagement for fleet commanders.
That's more of a local pilot decision than an FC decision... that's the point..... the FC would never micromanage on that level just as any HIC pilot already knows. It's not a coding nightmare either... We already have modules that do all those sorts of things... It's just combining effects into one module.... |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
288
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:45:00 -
[2078] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Modules dedicated to 1 class of ship are generally pretty crap as they limit fitting choices.
To be honest, the HACs generally look in a good place at this point, the Eagle maybe needs a little more speed but I really think we need to see that one on TQ before we can say for sure, the Vaga needs a second falloff bonus to be a viable kiter, apart from that things are looking Ok.
OK compared to what? I'm sorry, but define what these ships do in game that's not already being done 50 times over by other ships, and almost always better and cheaper? A module dedicated to 1 ship in 1 slot to affect a role has no real impact on fitting choices... especially when you can give a bonus slot to every ship for that specific module. This is exactly my point... you guys think they're ok b/c they look better on a forum post and on a horrific simulation test server... you don't have a clue what's going to happen live when the meta game hits. Meta game creates winners and losers. Hacs have been loser for so long b/c they have no real purpose.... and how do you think any of these changes affect a purpose? They don't... they just make **** ships slightly less ****** than before. You can put a flower on a turd and make it smell better, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a turd.
You really just proved my point, the balancing is almost at a good point now, Im still not happy about the Vaga but Im pretty much resigned to the fact that CCP don't want their to be a good kiting Minmatar HAC because then idiots who don't know how to counter such things would whine.
We need to see these changes on TQ and take it from their, see how the meta changes and balance pass as it goes along. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:50:00 -
[2079] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:MJ Incognito wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Modules dedicated to 1 class of ship are generally pretty crap as they limit fitting choices.
To be honest, the HACs generally look in a good place at this point, the Eagle maybe needs a little more speed but I really think we need to see that one on TQ before we can say for sure, the Vaga needs a second falloff bonus to be a viable kiter, apart from that things are looking Ok.
OK compared to what? I'm sorry, but define what these ships do in game that's not already being done 50 times over by other ships, and almost always better and cheaper? A module dedicated to 1 ship in 1 slot to affect a role has no real impact on fitting choices... especially when you can give a bonus slot to every ship for that specific module. This is exactly my point... you guys think they're ok b/c they look better on a forum post and on a horrific simulation test server... you don't have a clue what's going to happen live when the meta game hits. Meta game creates winners and losers. Hacs have been loser for so long b/c they have no real purpose.... and how do you think any of these changes affect a purpose? They don't... they just make **** ships slightly less ****** than before. You can put a flower on a turd and make it smell better, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a turd. You really just proved my point, the balancing is almost at a good point now, Im still not happy about the Vaga but Im pretty much resigned to the fact that CCP don't want their to be a good kiting Minmatar HAC because then idiots who don't know how to counter such things would whine. We need to see these changes on TQ and take it from their, see how the meta changes and balance pass as it goes along.
How the hell does any of that support what you say? I already know what's going to happen on TQ with all of these b/c the changes are so mild and unimaginative. All they did on these is ever so slightly close the gap on tech 3s while making command ships overlap them far more than before... but by doing most things hacs did better. I doesn't even take a rocket scientist to see that.
This is not a spreadsheet issue, this is an experience issue.
|
Hell Bitch
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:22:00 -
[2080] - Quote
MJ Incognito wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: Modules dedicated to 1 class of ship are generally pretty crap as they limit fitting choices.
To be honest, the HACs generally look in a good place at this point, the Eagle maybe needs a little more speed but I really think we need to see that one on TQ before we can say for sure, the Vaga needs a second falloff bonus to be a viable kiter, apart from that things are looking Ok.
OK compared to what? I'm sorry, but define what these ships do in game that's not already being done 50 times over by other ships, and almost always better and cheaper? A module dedicated to 1 ship in 1 slot to affect a role has no real impact on fitting choices... especially when you can give a bonus slot to every ship for that specific module. This is exactly my point... you guys think they're ok b/c they look better on a forum post and on a horrific simulation test server... you don't have a clue what's going to happen live when the meta game hits. Meta game creates winners and losers. Hacs have been loser for so long b/c they have no real purpose.... and how do you think any of these changes affect a purpose? They don't... they just make **** ships slightly less ****** than before. You can put a flower on a turd and make it smell better, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a turd.
I think i get what your trying to achieve, rather than just a numerical stat increase (spend more isk your ship has more numbers) you want a real role bonus. having mulled this over during a quiet morning at work i can see where your coming from and I'll try and re-iterate this, but in my own words, so that maybe others will see your point too.
Currently the problem that you see with Eves ship prgression is that it is pretty much a numbers game, and this is not unique to eve, a LOT of rpg ish games have this feature, such that end game you are pretty much doing the same as you were start game, just that all the numbers are bigger.
e.g you'll hit harder, have more hp, repair more blah blah bigger numbers but the core gameplay hasn't changed.
There are areas where isn't true, Stealth bombers, Dreads, Carriers......etc all have roles that define them as being different from the standard more numbers = better.
These roles give the pilot choice that extends beyond the fitting window, there are actually tactical choices to be made when flying those ships, do i drop cloak, go into seige, triage etc, they are all double edged and carry a trade off. The only choices to be made when flying these HAC's happens in the market and fitting screen.
The propsed HAC role bonus is pretty crap, unless i really want to fly a smaller MWD'ing cruiser, HAC as they stand are numerical increases, nothing more. And then the problem is that there are better options for going down the numerical increase route than the HAC's.
Seems like a fair point
|
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 12:42:00 -
[2081] - Quote
galessin wrote:ishtar has 3 useables bonus at the same time, all others HAC have 4.... something seems to be wrong...
Lazor weapon cap use anyone? Welcome to eve on hard mode IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
288
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 12:53:00 -
[2082] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:galessin wrote:ishtar has 3 useables bonus at the same time, all others HAC have 4.... something seems to be wrong... Lazor weapon cap use anyone? Welcome to eve on hard mode
You can complain about that when scorch isn't amazing. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
130
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 13:23:00 -
[2083] - Quote
I have been looking for effective HAC counters to the deimos on Sisi.
First of all, let me be open about this. I prefer the get-in-close-and-blast-away style of fighting so I am happy to finally see a local rep a ship that can get a point and hold it like a terrier.
I am also concerned about game balance.
So I fitted up 2 zealots and tried them in turn against a willing sport on Sisi. He was in a DR deimos.
Note that a zealot in my view is a fleet ship, having no rep bonus etc. Not ideal for the role, but I wanted to see...
Here are the results: brawl fit: single rep + AB + 2 heat sinks + resists (active thermal). zealot lost, but not my much - deimos was in 2/3 structure. I had to blap his ec-600 drones quickly in order to keep a scram on him and dictate range. At 8.5km the zealot was in optimal for conflagration. the deimos's damage was very reduced.
Kite fit: single rep, 2 polycarbons, MWD and warp distruptor gave the zealot a 3 m/s base speed advantage over the deimos. In the end the zealot lost, probably more because I'm not an expert at maintaining range. Again, deimos was in structure. Even when he got me scrammed, I lasted quite a long time and caused him some pain.
In both cases, the zealot was pushing EM damage into what I assumed was his weakest resist.
Given that the deimos is designed for the job of brawling, it didn't easily overwhelm the zealot. I think it won fairly, as it should. But by no means by a wide margin.
I think the deimos is a powerful, strong ship able to hold a point for a long timem but I don't think it's OP.
/MC
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 14:13:00 -
[2084] - Quote
galessin wrote:ishtar has 3 useables bonus at the same time, all others HAC have 4.... something seems to be wrong...
CCP Rise has already said in the Dominix rebalance thread that the doble bonuses such as this one
7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed
Are efectivly two bonuses rolled into one, because if you look at say the Muninn, it has a serperate bonus for its main weapon systems range and one for its tracking. So in that regaurd the Ishtar is extreamly gifted with likely MORE bonuses than the rest. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 14:22:00 -
[2085] - Quote
I have just tried the cerberus with HMLs. It's pretty good!. 300 dps (with my rubbish missile skills) at 100km+ is pretty nice, and it's quick enough to stay out of range.
A few of these hurling pain into a brawl could work well.
I also think it's a very effective counter to falcons.
Sweet ship.
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 14:37:00 -
[2086] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I have just tried the cerberus with HMLs. It's pretty good!. 300 dps (with my rubbish missile skills) at 100km+ is pretty nice, and it's quick enough to stay out of range.
A few of these hurling pain into a brawl could work well.
I also think it's a very effective counter to falcons.
Sweet ship.
Im not so sure, It can do close to 300 damage out to 200km now but its the damage delay out at sniper ranges that usualy turn people off from the ship, if their going to be at sniper ranges they usualy are going to fly Nados, Nagas, or maybe that new Eagle lol. Ijust see the 70k RLML Cerb and like 30 or was it 40km HAM cerb being used in small gangs far more often. RLML have better aplication and HAMs have better damage, I think the heavy missle nerf was a bit heavy handed but oh well. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 14:58:00 -
[2087] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I have just tried the cerberus with HMLs. It's pretty good!. 300 dps (with my rubbish missile skills) at 100km+ is pretty nice, and it's quick enough to stay out of range.
A few of these hurling pain into a brawl could work well.
I also think it's a very effective counter to falcons.
Sweet ship.
Im not so sure, It can do close to 300 damage out to 200km now but its the damage delay out at sniper ranges that usualy turn people off from the ship, if their going to be at sniper ranges they usualy are going to fly Nados, Nagas, or maybe that new Eagle lol. Ijust see the 70k RLML Cerb and like 30 or was it 40km HAM cerb being used in small gangs far more often. RLML have better aplication and HAMs have better damage, I think the heavy missle nerf was a bit heavy handed but oh well.
I was thinking ant-falcon since with a falcon all you really want to do is force it off the field while you kill it's DPS friends. It doesn't really matter whether the missile land or not. If he seems them coming he's going to bounce or lose a ship.
Hmm, hadn't thought of HAMs at 40km.. (!!)
Re the nerf, maybe, but before that a brawling ship couldn't get in range of a missile ship and railguns etc had no role at all.
But what CCP takes away with one hand, it gives with the other. Cruise missiles are amazing when coupled with a target painter or 2. As mentioned before, I lost a fleet-boosted dual rep deimos to 2 cruise ravens. I got to them from 100km, but by the time I was there I was in low armour and the next 2 volleys destroyed the ship.
No neuts, just applied cruise missile dps.
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 15:16:00 -
[2088] - Quote
Well Since ABCs came out i see far less falcons than i used to, I mostly see falcons paired with gate camps as added protection, or kinda as jam and run tactics. And yeah nano phoons with cruise missles are amazing missle skirmish/snipers. |
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 15:30:00 -
[2089] - Quote
Anyone have any comments about the Sacrilege changes? Most of the recent discussion seems to be about the Deimos, Vagabond and Eagle. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 15:38:00 -
[2090] - Quote
Quote:Anyone have any comments about the Sacrilege changes? Most of the recent discussion seems to be about the Deimos, Vagabond and Eagle.
In practice, it's doing quite well! I've seen one particularly skilled pilot show its mettle in a straight brawl with two Deimoses where he basically permatanked their damage. The match was more or less a stalemate, but I'd give the win to the Sac for lasting through it with full tank even though no ships died. |
|
Jysella Halcyon
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 16:19:00 -
[2091] - Quote
Hell ***** wrote:
I think i get what your trying to achieve, rather than just a numerical stat increase (spend more isk your ship has more numbers) you want a real role bonus. having mulled this over during a quiet morning at work i can see where your coming from and I'll try and re-iterate this, but in my own words, so that maybe others will see your point too.
Currently the problem that you see with Eves ship prgression is that it is pretty much a numbers game, and this is not unique to eve, a LOT of rpg ish games have this feature, such that end game you are pretty much doing the same as you were start game, just that all the numbers are bigger.
e.g you'll hit harder, have more hp, repair more blah blah bigger numbers but the core gameplay hasn't changed.
There are areas where isn't true, Stealth bombers, Dreads, Carriers......etc all have roles that define them as being different from the standard more numbers = better.
These roles give the pilot choice that extends beyond the fitting window, there are actually tactical choices to be made when flying those ships, do i drop cloak, go into seige, triage etc, they are all double edged and carry a trade off. The only choices to be made when flying these HAC's happens in the market and fitting screen.
The propsed HAC role bonus is pretty crap, unless i really want to fly a smaller MWD'ing cruiser, HAC as they stand are numerical increases, nothing more. And then the problem is that there are better options for going down the numerical increase route than the HAC's.
Seems like a fair point
Exactly. Every other T2 ship has something that it does par excelence. When T2 roles rely on being better at number than T1 and nothing else they fall by the wayside. Look at the Taranis After the Atron buff - sure, it was ever so slightly better at everything, but you don't run a Taranis in a fleet most of the time, you use it solo. Soloers die a lot, so telling them they can spend 3x more to get a tiny increase in numbers wasn't enough. people started flying the T1.
Hell, AFs are even the fast heavy tackle kings whule being T1+numbers. What about HACs will make them compelling to fly in a landscape like was talked up at FF 2013? What is their specialization? So far we're seeing that they play better with logistics (which need to be looked at) and don't get put in time-out as often by ECM (which is an un-fun mechanic that needs to be gutted and overhauled).
Why am I going to shell out T2 premiums outside of an SRP to fly these? Sure, I can do some really sick stuff with a Deimos, but I could do slightly less insane things with 6 thoraxes and have enough ISK left over for a Rifter.
=======
Off-topic: Rigs. Is there a rebalance coming for rigs? The current meta at cruiser and up of "patch resists/trimark/CDFE" with the occasional PG/CPU rig is really unhealthy. Are there any plans to make trimarks/CDFEs not the obvious default choice on a ship? |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 16:45:00 -
[2092] - Quote
ArcticPrism wrote:Anyone have any comments about the Sacrilege changes? Most of the recent discussion seems to be about the Deimos, Vagabond and Eagle.
I wana hear more about the 100mn AB sac myself Im hearing rumors or rumors lol, but yeah im very interested in the sac |
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 16:47:00 -
[2093] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Anyone have any comments about the Sacrilege changes? Most of the recent discussion seems to be about the Deimos, Vagabond and Eagle. In practice, it's doing quite well! I've seen one particularly skilled pilot show its mettle in a straight brawl with two Deimoses where he basically permatanked their damage. The match was more or less a stalemate, but I'd give the win to the Sac for lasting through it with full tank even though no ships died.
Wasn't the Sacrilege already capable of this though? It has worse cap recharge than before and the range bonus vs blaster Deimos ships does nothing for it. The only thing I've noticed with the pg increase is that you can fit medium nos/neut rather than small. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 17:54:00 -
[2094] - Quote
ArcticPrism wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Anyone have any comments about the Sacrilege changes? Most of the recent discussion seems to be about the Deimos, Vagabond and Eagle. In practice, it's doing quite well! I've seen one particularly skilled pilot show its mettle in a straight brawl with two Deimoses where he basically permatanked their damage. The match was more or less a stalemate, but I'd give the win to the Sac for lasting through it with full tank even though no ships died. Wasn't the Sacrilege already capable of this though? It has worse cap recharge than before and the range bonus vs blaster Deimos ships does nothing for it. The only thing I've noticed with the pg increase is that you can fit medium nos/neut rather than small. It's tank is also worse than before thanks to the global resist bonus nerf. It has better cap than before
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 19:06:00 -
[2095] - Quote
Someone was asking about the sacrilege?
I tried one with dual rep, 1 ballistic, 5 heavy assaults and 1 heavy pulse, web and scram.
It's epic :-)
Killed an ishtar then evaded a vaga + deimos because I had to go out to dinner.
nice ship.
|
Aplier Shivra
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 19:11:00 -
[2096] - Quote
So just out of curiosity, why aren't heavy assault battlecruisers getting the same extra cap as heavy assault cruiser to go along with the lock range and sensor strength buffs they're all getting? HABC's are still at 4.5 cap/second despite being larger hulls and receiving the other electronics buffs. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
269
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 19:20:00 -
[2097] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Harvey James wrote:
...
Deimos - high sig should be 130 at most - needs its utility high back .. just increase damage bonuses - stronger falloff bonus for blasterboats
I spent 12 hours on sisi yesterday flying around in a dual rep deimos. So here's how it really panned out: 1. I was in a gang with astarte, vaga and my deimos. 2. we had skirmish and armour gang links
Because we all fly with a $15/month alt in skirmish links. Like i said earlier, not everyone can/is willing to pay for a booster alt, so arguing "this ship is so great, you only have to spend 1.5b on a ship for your alt and its implants!" is invalid. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew Spears of Destiny
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 19:46:00 -
[2098] - Quote
Heh, Buffbots. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
169
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 19:48:00 -
[2099] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Harvey James wrote:
...
Deimos - high sig should be 130 at most - needs its utility high back .. just increase damage bonuses - stronger falloff bonus for blasterboats
I spent 12 hours on sisi yesterday flying around in a dual rep deimos. So here's how it really panned out: 1. I was in a gang with astarte, vaga and my deimos. 2. we had skirmish and armour gang links Because we all fly with a $15/month alt in skirmish links. Like i said earlier, not everyone can/is willing to pay for a booster alt, so arguing "this ship is so great, you only have to spend 1.5b on a ship for your alt and its implants!" is invalid.
Its invalid on a frig, someone who has the isk to go out soloing in a hac either is daft or has a link alts (or is super rich, i.e can easily afford a link alt).
Hacs will be flown with link 90% and more of the time they are used. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
156
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 20:29:00 -
[2100] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Hacs will be flown with link 90% and more of the time they are used.
It was about time. I agree.
I only correct my own spelling. |
|
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
867
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 20:44:00 -
[2101] - Quote
Quote:Its invalid on a frig, someone who has the isk to go out soloing in a hac either is daft or has a link alts (or is super rich, i.e can easily afford a link alt).
Hacs will be flown with link 90% and more of the time they are used.
Regardless of whether or not this is true now, it is CCP's stated goal that links will be brought on grid. I certainly don't see links being used on HACs 90+% of the time once that is true, so it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate them without links. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
533
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 21:23:00 -
[2102] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Because we all fly with a $15/month alt in skirmish links. Like i said earlier, not everyone can/is willing to pay for a booster alt, so arguing "this ship is so great, you only have to spend 1.5b on a ship for your alt and its implants!" is invalid.
/facepalm |
Kane Fenris
NWP
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 21:49:00 -
[2103] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Seriously Fozzie, cargo hold on the deimos, 315 on an active tanker? That's 11 cap boosters if you want minimal ammo, seriously mate, cargo holds on all these ships are way over the shop, cmd ships as well. Some space please.
+1 vaga with new asb bonus suffers from its unchanged cargo too |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 22:00:00 -
[2104] - Quote
Take out the bonus and you dont even need to change the cargo...
Instead of improving the ship, you add a bonus that only applies to a "special" solo fitting.
And by nerfing the cynabal, vagabond wont become better.. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
169
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 23:14:00 -
[2105] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Akturous wrote:Seriously Fozzie, cargo hold on the deimos, 315 on an active tanker? That's 11 cap boosters if you want minimal ammo, seriously mate, cargo holds on all these ships are way over the shop, cmd ships as well. Some space please. +1 vaga with new asb bonus suffers from its unchanged cargo too
Nope, not really, if you get 3 relaods off then youll be in trouble. But i doubt you will in a single fights.
Also i agree, the cyna shouldnt get nerfed, it if anything needs a buff (double faloff bonus too), the times when it was op was ebfore t1 cruiser and anvy cruiser revam. It right now is ok. |
Akturous
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
222
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 01:36:00 -
[2106] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Akturous wrote:Seriously Fozzie, cargo hold on the deimos, 315 on an active tanker? That's 11 cap boosters if you want minimal ammo, seriously mate, cargo holds on all these ships are way over the shop, cmd ships as well. Some space please. Whah? Are you using navy 400s? That's really all you need, and I am able to fit 21 of them easily with plenty of room left for nanite paste and ammo.
Dual rep doesn't run on 400's. There's also this thing in the game called neutralizers.
The Sac gets far more cargohold, yet has capless weapons, no rep bonus and a much stronger capacitor. I really don't understand how they pick cargohold size other than 'let's make it hard to do what it's supposed to do'. Big cargoholds don't break the game.
Vaga cargohold is fine if you use an asb, which you probably will, but if you use a regular booster+800s, it's not great. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:18:00 -
[2107] - Quote
Quote:Dual rep doesn't run on 400's. There's also this thing in the game called neutralizers.The Sac gets far more cargohold, yet has capless weapons, no rep bonus and a much stronger capacitor. I really don't understand how they pick cargohold size other than 'let's make it hard to do what it's supposed to do'. Big cargoholds don't break the game.Vaga cargohold is fine if you use an asb, which you probably will, but if you use a regular booster+800s, it's not great.
First, not everyone is running dual rep. I've had great success with just the MAAR and plate. That will run just fine under neuts, as I stated earlier in the thread, but I guess you haven't been keeping up or you'd know that.
Some people are arguing that the Deimos having a 1000 dps tank is OP. It doesn't really need it, but even if it is OP, not having room for reload after reload of 800s is a pretty good balance to me. Just go try it with the 800mm plate and MAAR against non-stupified targets on the test server (meaning those running setups they'd never dream of fielding on Tranquility). You'll be pleasantly surprised. Sure, the dual rep option expands its engagement profile, but you really shouldn't be trying to solo Vindicators and Bhaalgorns anyway (not that I don't try for fun). |
Xorionna
Power Absolute Absolute Damage Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:35:00 -
[2108] - Quote
106 pages, i didnt read all that.
some newb question if you don't mind : are the HAC get more sensor strength than the recon ships with this change ? I don't see the logic in that. |
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 02:37:00 -
[2109] - Quote
Xorionna wrote:106 pages, i didnt read all that.
some newb question if you don't mind : are the HAC get more sensor strength than the recon ships with this change ? I don't see the logic in that.
No. With +7 a Sacrilege is 22. Curse is 28.(without sensor strength skills) |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
469
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 04:17:00 -
[2110] - Quote
Xorionna wrote:106 pages, i didnt read all that.
some newb question if you don't mind : are the HAC get more sensor strength than the recon ships with this change ? I don't see the logic in that. who cares nobody will use ecm anyway |
|
Goldensaver
Perkone Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 07:21:00 -
[2111] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:sten mattson wrote:galessin wrote:ishtar has 3 useables bonus at the same time, all others HAC have 4.... something seems to be wrong... Lazor weapon cap use anyone? Welcome to eve on hard mode You can complain about that when scorch isn't amazing. I can complain all I want as long as lasers are the Emperor of Man and Scorch is the Golden Throne. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 07:30:00 -
[2112] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:... I had to blap his ec-600 drones quickly in order to keep a scram on him and dictate range. At 8.5km the zealot was in optimal for conflagration. the deimos's damage was very reduced ... I think the deimos is a powerful, strong ship able to hold a point for a long time but I don't think it's OP. Bit of a flawed assessment if made on a dilettantes use of it if you ask me, sounds like he wanted to test the tanking potential more than anything else and still won even after being noobish enough to throw away 150+ dps on the off chance of getting a drone jam on a now BS strength sensor cluster. Besides, the generic dual rep Deimos will not make it to TQ as those fits are highly ineffective (dps/tank ratio way off) which means you are more likely to run into twin webs, TDs, TCs, DP and what not with tank made up of a plate+AAR duo of some sort any of which will shred a Zealot regardless of fit or pilot expertise.
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Anyone have any comments about the Sacrilege changes? Most of the recent discussion seems to be about the Deimos, Vagabond and Eagle. In practice, it's doing quite well! I've seen one particularly skilled pilot show its mettle in a straight brawl with two Deimoses where he basically permatanked their damage. The match was more or less a stalemate, but I'd give the win to the Sac for lasting through it with full tank even though no ships died. All that shows is that people have to have time to get reacquainted with flying active tank blaster cruisers. The described fight does not show the one change made to the Sacrilege which is the useless range bonus .. cap was rolled into hull + a smidgen but otherwise the same. With no actual changes made and the ship hitting like the same redheaded girl (albeit a robust one) it has always been, giving it default victory is folly. Now if the useless PvE centric (hull to slow for proper kiting) range bonus was something useful like application (exp. velocity), raw dps (damage) or neuting power you would have a case but Sacrilege is for all intents and purposes the exact same ship as current live.
Make it as good a brawler as the Cerberus is a LR spammer by one of above bonus changes or move the utility high to lows to at least give the option of going gank without giving up all tank .. but I suppose one could do an ASB fit in that case. Perhaps that is what the Devs want it to do in the future, abuse the broken one while spamming HMLs from the edge of the fight with speed/dmg in lows.
Kahega Amielden wrote:Regardless of whether or not this is true now, it is CCP's stated goal that links will be brought on grid. I certainly don't see links being used on HACs 90+% of the time once that is true, so it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate them without links. Not really. PLEX system allows you to trade activity for $/month which is what most do, Devs are reluctant to give them a pew timer on link activation so a neutral link ship on gate/station will be the new black and even if Devs give them the timer the CC tanks are far superior to anything a small gang can throw out in the 60s before he jumps .. you'll need a bat-phone to clear "solo'ers" links or avoid fights on stations/gates. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 07:49:00 -
[2113] - Quote
Quote:Not really. PLEX system allows you to trade activity for $/month which is what most do, Devs are reluctant to give them a pew timer on link activation so a neutral link ship on gate/station will be the new black and even if Devs give them the timer the CC tanks are far superior to anything a small gang can throw out in the 60s before he jumps .. you'll need a bat-phone to clear "solo'ers" links or avoid fights on stations/gates.
I don't think most of us count griefer corps with neutral logis and boosters as being the mainstay of the game. Null sec or wormhole space are really where we'll see these boosting ships effected in a major way. In those environments, it's very important to evaluate these HAC changes without links since your FCs might become much more reluctant to field them if they have to stick around for the duration of the fights.
Quote:Besides, the generic dual rep Deimos will not make it to TQ as those fits are highly ineffective (dps/tank ratio way off) which means you are more likely to run into twin webs, TDs, TCs, DP and what not with tank made up of a plate+AAR duo of some sort any of which will shred a Zealot regardless of fit or pilot expertise.
Yes! I've been trying to convince people of the merits of the plate+AAR setup for a couple of days, but people really seem to be hung up on this dual rep idea. I was initially running the Deimos with a cap booster in the fourth mid for neut protection, but I've since started trying it with the TC and find it to be a very effective setup. |
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 07:59:00 -
[2114] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Quote:Anyone have any comments about the Sacrilege changes? Most of the recent discussion seems to be about the Deimos, Vagabond and Eagle. In practice, it's doing quite well! I've seen one particularly skilled pilot show its mettle in a straight brawl with two Deimoses where he basically permatanked their damage. The match was more or less a stalemate, but I'd give the win to the Sac for lasting through it with full tank even though no ships died. All that shows is that people have to have time to get reacquainted with flying active tank blaster cruisers. The described fight does not show the one change made to the Sacrilege which is the useless range bonus .. cap was rolled into hull + a smidgen but otherwise the same. With no actual changes made and the ship hitting like the same redheaded girl (albeit a robust one) it has always been, giving it default victory is folly. Now if the useless PvE centric (hull to slow for proper kiting) range bonus was something useful like application (exp. velocity), raw dps (damage) or neuting power you would have a case but Sacrilege is for all intents and purposes the exact same ship as current live. Make it as good a brawler as the Cerberus is a LR spammer by one of above bonus changes or move the utility high to lows to at least give the option of going gank without giving up all tank .. but I suppose one could do an ASB fit in that case. Perhaps that is what the Devs want it to do in the future, abuse the broken one while spamming HMLs from the edge of the fight with speed/dmg in lows.
That's what I was thinking about. I've seen a few posts about how amazing the new Sacrilege is but I think the list of changes to it is just having a placebo kind of effect on people. The ship has hardly changed but it's good now somehow. |
Grunnax Aurelius
The Horny Heron's
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 09:15:00 -
[2115] - Quote
SACRILEGE
We wanted to get rid of the cap recharge bonus, as it is both kind of dated and strange, and also doesn't do much for a ship that doesn't even use cap for its main weapon system. We played with a lot of options but ultimately settled on a Missile Velocity bonus which should be very helpful in projecting some of that HAM damage. Other changes include tweaks to fitting, slightly lowered Signature radius, and of course the electronics changes. While we did not role the entire benefit of the former cap recharge bonus into the base stats, the Sacrilege does retain the highest cap/second of any Heavy Assault Cruisers.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (added heavy missiles) 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile velocity (was capacitor recharge time) 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers Fittings: 1100 PWG(+70), 420 CPU(+20) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1100(-293) / 2250(+162) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1700(+75) / 255s (-80s) / 6.66s (+1.8) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 200(+2) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+20km) / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 22 Radar(+7) Signature radius: 135(-5)
ZEALOT
No big changes here other than the electronics and cap changes.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H, 3M, 7L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1180 PWG, 320 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 980(-4) / 2250 / 1670(-18) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1500 / 285s (-50s) / 5.26/s (+.78) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+1) / .553 / 12580000 / 9.64s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km(+20km) / 306 / 6 Sensor strength: 21 Radar(+8) Signature radius: 125
=============================================================================
CERBERUS
In the first iteration we didn't quite go far enough with the Cerb in terms of power. In this pass we are going further to support its role as both a long range missile platform and a potential skirmisher by increasing its speed significantly and also adding more fitting to make fielding the extra launcher more comfortable. The change to cap recharge should go a long way to help the Cerb.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Missile flight time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 4L; 0 turrets, 6 launchers(+1) Fittings: 800 PWG(+165), 520 CPU(+80) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2000(-4) / 1200(+4) / 1400(-6) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1200(+137.5) / 235s (-100s) / 5.1/s (+1.93) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 220(+45) / .463 / 12720000 / 8.17s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+15) / 15(+15) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 95km(+15km) / 282 / 6 Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric(+8) Signature radius: 135
EAGLE
For the Eagle there aren't huge changes. Along with the electronics and cap changes we are going to speed it up slightly, lower the signature radius by 10 and make some small adjustments to the fitting so that fitting rails is a little easier.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 990 PWG(+115), 440 CPU(+2) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1350(-25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.29/s (+1.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 180(+16) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km(+20km) / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 25 Gravimetric(+7) Signature radius: 140(-10)
OMG great changes, esspecially the changes to the cerberus Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 10:27:00 -
[2116] - Quote
I wish CCP Dev team will get same approach with medical treatment from doctors as they use while balancing/patching ships... |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
661
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 10:46:00 -
[2117] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Also i agree, the cyna shouldnt get nerfed, it if anything needs a buff (double faloff bonus too), the times when it was op was before t1 cruiser and navy cruiser revamp. It right now is ok.
Reading on my phone and I see this and think, this has to come from w0lf, and yup it did. The cynabal is way OP. All pirate ships should end up somewhere between the Phantasm and the Vigilant in terms of power. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:31:00 -
[2118] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:I wish CCP Dev team will get same approach with medical treatment from doctors as they use while balancing/patching ships... 6-8 weeks of probing before being told there's no cure and kicking them back out into the world... only this time every looks at them differently? |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:54:00 -
[2119] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote: . . . OMG great changes, esspecially the changes to the Cerberus Yeah, you noticed it too.
Welcome to the shift from Drakes Online to Cerbs Online. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
140
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:48:00 -
[2120] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Akturous wrote:Seriously Fozzie, cargo hold on the deimos, 315 on an active tanker? That's 11 cap boosters if you want minimal ammo, seriously mate, cargo holds on all these ships are way over the shop, cmd ships as well. Some space please. Whah? Are you using navy 400s? That's really all you need, and I am able to fit 21 of them easily with plenty of room left for nanite paste and ammo. Dual rep doesn't run on 400's. There's also this thing in the game called neutralizers. The Sac gets far more cargohold, yet has capless weapons, no rep bonus and a much stronger capacitor. I really don't understand how they pick cargohold size other than 'let's make it hard to do what it's supposed to do'. Big cargoholds don't break the game. Vaga cargohold is fine if you use an asb, which you probably will, but if you use a regular booster+800s, it's not great.
Earlier in the thread someone posted a fit for a single rep deimos with 800 plate.
I was sceptical as to whether it would work so I tried it.
In this case, I took out 4000 rounds of ammo and 23 navy 400 cap boosters. After scoring 5 or so kills, some solo some not, I returned to the station with no ammo left and... 22 cap boosters (20 in the hold, 2 in the medium capacitor booster module).
I can understand people's disbelief because of the utter sh*tness of previous armour tanking hulls. But we are in a new ere here, and it's a good one |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 13:59:00 -
[2121] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Akturous wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Akturous wrote:Seriously Fozzie, cargo hold on the deimos, 315 on an active tanker? That's 11 cap boosters if you want minimal ammo, seriously mate, cargo holds on all these ships are way over the shop, cmd ships as well. Some space please. Whah? Are you using navy 400s? That's really all you need, and I am able to fit 21 of them easily with plenty of room left for nanite paste and ammo. Dual rep doesn't run on 400's. There's also this thing in the game called neutralizers. The Sac gets far more cargohold, yet has capless weapons, no rep bonus and a much stronger capacitor. I really don't understand how they pick cargohold size other than 'let's make it hard to do what it's supposed to do'. Big cargoholds don't break the game. Vaga cargohold is fine if you use an asb, which you probably will, but if you use a regular booster+800s, it's not great. Earlier in the thread someone posted a fit for a single rep deimos with 800 plate. I was sceptical as to whether it would work so I tried it. In this case, I took out 4000 rounds of ammo and 23 navy 400 cap boosters. After scoring 5 or so kills, some solo some not, I returned to the station with no ammo left and... 22 cap boosters (20 in the hold, 2 in the medium capacitor booster module). I can understand people's disbelief because of the utter sh*tness of previous armour tanking hulls. But we are in a new ere here, and it's a good one
Welcome to the new era, my friend! |
Grunnax Aurelius
The Horny Heron's
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:22:00 -
[2122] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote: . . . OMG great changes, esspecially the changes to the Cerberus Yeah, you noticed it too. Welcome to the shift from Drakes Online to Cerbs Online.
MWD Cap Stable, and 38km HAMs dealing 700dps!!! OMFG loving that ccp is showing most of the caldari missile boats some love with the reworks!!! Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 14:56:00 -
[2123] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Earlier in the thread someone posted a fit for a single rep deimos with 800 plate. I was sceptical as to whether it would work so I tried it. In this case, I took out 4000 rounds of ammo and 23 navy 400 cap boosters. After scoring 5 or so kills, some solo some not, I returned to the station with no ammo left and... 22 cap boosters (20 in the hold, 2 in the medium capacitor booster module). I can understand people's disbelief because of the utter sh*tness of previous armour tanking hulls. But we are in a new ere here, and it's a good one Congratulations, you have just graduated from the Amarr School of Optimal Mid Use .. now go out and use that mid for something useful and then join me in the call to nerf the Deimos capacitor so that it is no longer possible .. a free mid on top of performance = breakage
Besides, it has almost same capacitor performance as the Sacrilege which is just naff .. or has that 6.66 not been updated properly?
Beauty of the Plate+MAAR solution, beyond saving the mid, is that it gives you a much stronger alpha resistance and with some maneuvering allow you to more easily survive the MAAR reload .. plus with one less active mod in the rack the MAAR can be heated far longer.
On a related note: In the repair thread (or was it this one?) there was a suggestion to change the Gallente repair amount bonus to a cycle time bonus to first weaken the mad cap they all now possess and second to make it bursty which is more in line with the "step on his foot and headbutt him repeatedly" doctrine of blaster warfare. Which brings me to: Minmatar and Caldari share the shield rep bonus, but Amarr does not share the armour ditto with Gallente .. why? Would be a pretty nifty racial distinction if for instance Gallente had cycle time and the mid deficient Amarr an amount bonus (to maximize cap) .. obviously won't work with shields due to shorter cycles but should work for armour.
In short: Buffer tanking is so last decade give everyone active options! |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
141
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 15:09:00 -
[2124] - Quote
hmm. I wouldn't ever fly pvp in a gallante or amarr ship without a cap booster. one heavy neut and you'll know you need it. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 15:19:00 -
[2125] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:Cyaron wars wrote:I wish CCP Dev team will get same approach with medical treatment from doctors as they use while balancing/patching ships... 6-8 weeks of probing before being told there's no cure and kicking them back out into the world... only this time every looks at them differently? More like trying to cure regular flue by simply cutting one kidney off rest of the buddy but forgetting to take it out before sewing. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 16:16:00 -
[2126] - Quote
Why are half the posters in this forum so negative? I have not seen a single HAC nerfed in this update. They're all very much better than before and finally worth spending money on. I'd happily part with cash for any one of them, and I would not turn a single one away from my skirmish fleet.
CCP have done a Good Thing (tm). They don't always do that, and we would be wise to encourage and praise these Good Things so that the development team is more inclined to listen enthusiastically when we constructively criticize.
So far this year we've had:
Navy cruisers: good Battlecruiser updates: good for some (not gallente) - overall OK Navy Battlecruisers: looking good on killmails :-) Navy Battleships: good Hacking game: utter crap but some people seem to like it. frigates: now actually good for something local tank improvement: finally viable - good! Command Ships: I have my doubts about the gallente ones but they are definitely better than before - i.e. GOOD!
i.e. overwhelmingly good!
Guys, the devs are human. They need encouragment and praise. The more you praise, the more your criticism will stand out when it happens and the more inclined they will be to listen.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2583
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 16:20:00 -
[2127] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Why are half the posters in this forum so negative? I have not seen a single HAC nerfed in this update. They're all very much better than before and finally worth spending money on. I'd happily part with cash for any one of them, and I would not turn a single one away from my skirmish fleet.
CCP have done a Good Thing (tm). They don't always do that, and we would be wise to encourage and praise these Good Things so that the development team is more inclined to listen enthusiastically when we constructively criticize.
So far this year we've had:
Navy cruisers: good Battlecruiser updates: good for some (not gallente) - overall OK Navy Battlecruisers: looking good on killmails :-) Navy Battleships: good Hacking game: utter crap but some people seem to like it. frigates: now actually good for something local tank improvement: finally viable - good! Command Ships: I have my doubts about the gallente ones but they are definitely better than before - i.e. GOOD!
i.e. overwhelmingly good!
Guys, the devs are human. They need encouragment and praise. The more you praise, the more your criticism will stand out when it happens and the more inclined they will be to listen.
Complaining about free stuff (like game balance tweaking and the updating of ships that previously didn't get use much but are now every popular like tech 1 cruisers) is base human nature. People just basically suck..
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
156
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 16:23:00 -
[2128] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Also i agree, the cyna shouldnt get nerfed, it if anything needs a buff (double faloff bonus too), the times when it was op was before t1 cruiser and navy cruiser revamp. It right now is ok.
Reading on my phone and I see this and think, this has to come from w0lf, and yup it did. The cynabal is way OP. All pirate ships should end up somewhere between the Phantasm and the Vigilant in terms of power.
Phantasm. Vigilant. In between. That's a boatload of empty space :|
And in a time of NOmens and basically every t1 cruiser on it's own nearly matching it in key attributes really did put an end to a cyna-vaga-only era. It's nice that it's a dramiel with med. Guns and cruisertank... but still t1-cruisertank. Usually a significant part of your dps comes from your drones, which speaks a lot for itself regarding a 50m-¦ unbonused dronebay. I only correct my own spelling. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 16:35:00 -
[2129] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Why are half the posters in this forum so negative? I have not seen a single HAC nerfed in this update. They're all very much better than before and finally worth spending money on. I'd happily part with cash for any one of them, and I would not turn a single one away from my skirmish fleet.
CCP have done a Good Thing (tm). They don't always do that, and we would be wise to encourage and praise these Good Things so that the development team is more inclined to listen enthusiastically when we constructively criticize.
So far this year we've had:
Navy cruisers: good Battlecruiser updates: good for some (not gallente) - overall OK Navy Battlecruisers: looking good on killmails :-) Navy Battleships: good Hacking game: utter crap but some people seem to like it. frigates: now actually good for something local tank improvement: finally viable - good! Command Ships: I have my doubts about the gallente ones but they are definitely better than before - i.e. GOOD!
i.e. overwhelmingly good!
Guys, the devs are human. They need encouragment and praise. The more you praise, the more your criticism will stand out when it happens and the more inclined they will be to listen.
Complaining about free stuff (like game balance tweaking and the updating of ships that previously didn't get use much but are now every popular like tech 1 cruisers) is base human nature. People just basically suck..
Certainly humans are naturally irrational in the main, and rationality needs to be trained.
So here it is: To be completely selfish about it, it's in our best interests if the devs like our company and enjoy listening to us. So let's make their day enjoyable, because then they'll be inclined to give us the things we need to enjoy our game.
How about that?
|
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:33:00 -
[2130] - Quote
What happens is that CCP is not able to balance at once anything because they probably dont know the game from the player perspective. They might play but it's like they have a 1 year character (with the proper attitude).
So when it comes to balance, by changing something in the game they destroy something else. And CCP does this by trial and error. First try is to see (real) players' reaction, doing some changing, test server, do some changes, apply to game... changes after a year or so.
Now as it was quite difficult to justify t1 cruiser massive boost, CCP is trying to impress with sometimes good changes and sometimes no changes at HACS. Some were needing a boost before the cruiser boost but now obviously ALL need a boost.
But not all are getting one.
After some time that the excitement from the changes will pass only the ships that were really benefited will play.
Probably ishtar and cerb will be the most used hacs now. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4520
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:39:00 -
[2131] - Quote
Romar Thel wrote:What happens is that CCP is not able to balance at once anything because they probably dont know the game from the player perspective. They might play but it's like they have a 1 year character (with the proper attitude).
So when it comes to balance, by changing something in the game they destroy something else. And CCP does this by trial and error. First try is to see (real) players' reaction, doing some changing, test server, do some changes, apply to game... changes after a year or so.
Now as it was quite difficult to justify t1 cruiser massive boost, CCP is trying to impress with sometimes good changes and sometimes no changes at HACS. Some were needing a boost before the cruiser boost but now obviously ALL need a boost.
But not all are getting one.
After some time that the excitement from the changes will pass only the ships that were really benefited will play.
Probably ishtar and cerb will be the most used hacs now. You do realize that the devs on the balancing team are highly experienced combat pilots, right?
Now there is truth that there is a cycle of "initial change, feed back, 2nd pass, feed back, released for wide spread use, feed back, iteration going on".
This is exactly what the player base has been begging CCP to do for years.
You kind of sound like you are one of those folks that somehow think a nice boost to HAM range on a Sac is useless. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:44:00 -
[2132] - Quote
I really dont... |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4520
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:44:00 -
[2133] - Quote
Now you do. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:49:00 -
[2134] - Quote
"highly experienced combat pilots" that for example didnt see any problem in ishtar's fitting when the rest of eve was shouting.
If you ever used one, you would know.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
288
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:57:00 -
[2135] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Also i agree, the cyna shouldnt get nerfed, it if anything needs a buff (double faloff bonus too), the times when it was op was before t1 cruiser and navy cruiser revamp. It right now is ok.
Reading on my phone and I see this and think, this has to come from w0lf, and yup it did. The cynabal is way OP. All pirate ships should end up somewhere between the Phantasm and the Vigilant in terms of power. Phantasm. Vigilant. In between. That's a boatload of empty space :| And in a time of NOmens and basically every t1 cruiser on it's own nearly matching it in key attributes really did put an end to a cyna-vaga-only era. It's nice that it's a dramiel with med. Guns and cruisertank... but still t1-cruisertank. Usually a significant part of your dps comes from your drones, which speaks a lot for itself regarding a 50m-¦ unbonused dronebay.
Pretty much this, AC kiting hasn't been amazing for a while, then Tier 3s turned up, then everything go buffed around it, and then they put the TE nerf in.
There are so many better platforms for this sort of thing now, they need to be tuned up or the Vaga will be nothing more than heavy tackle and the Cyna will be, well, a mediocre brawler/kiter with good disengagement options. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:00:00 -
[2136] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Romar Thel wrote: Probably ishtar and cerb will be the most used hacs now. You do realize that the devs on the balancing team are highly experienced combat pilots, right? Now there is truth that there is a cycle of "initial change, feed back, 2nd pass, feed back, released for wide spread use, feed back, iteration" going on. This is exactly what the player base has been begging CCP to do for years. You kind of sound like you are one of those folks that somehow think a nice boost to HAM range on a Sac is useless. I decided to view your post, as whatever argument I had with you before and caused me to block seeing your posts has worn off.
So, in response to your last sentence. I would say yes. That Sac, and it's slightly improved range, will be useless with the first Cerb it runs into. Or more precisely, can't put it's missiles into.
I do agree with your comment that the cycle they are engaging in is more responsive than it used to be. Drakes Online lasted 3 years. Cerbs Online hopefully won't last anywhere near as long. Unfortunately we will still be treated to Cerbs Online. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 22:36:00 -
[2137] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Akturous wrote:Seriously Fozzie, cargo hold on the deimos, 315 on an active tanker? That's 11 cap boosters if you want minimal ammo, seriously mate, cargo holds on all these ships are way over the shop, cmd ships as well. Some space please. +1 vaga with new asb bonus suffers from its unchanged cargo too Nope, not really, if you get 3 relaods off then youll be in trouble. But i doubt you will in a single fights. Also i agree, the cyna shouldnt get nerfed, it if anything needs a buff (double faloff bonus too), the times when it was op was before t1 cruiser and navy cruiser revamp. It right now is ok.
uhm yeah ... so when i kill someone and want to loot some stuff ill need to throw out stuff? and why you asume youll only get 1 fight? stocking up in null isnt easy... |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4521
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 23:57:00 -
[2138] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Romar Thel wrote: Probably ishtar and cerb will be the most used hacs now. You do realize that the devs on the balancing team are highly experienced combat pilots, right? Now there is truth that there is a cycle of "initial change, feed back, 2nd pass, feed back, released for wide spread use, feed back, iteration" going on. This is exactly what the player base has been begging CCP to do for years. You kind of sound like you are one of those folks that somehow think a nice boost to HAM range on a Sac is useless. I decided to view your post, as whatever argument I had with you before and caused me to block seeing your posts has worn off. So, in response to your last sentence. I would say yes. That Sac, and it's slightly improved range, will be useless with the first Cerb it runs into. Or more precisely, can't put it's missiles into. I do agree with your comment that the cycle they are engaging in is more responsive than it used to be. Drakes Online lasted 3 years. Cerbs Online hopefully won't last anywhere near as long. Unfortunately we will still be treated to Cerbs Online. Fair enough.
I'll certainly agree that a hard hitting sniper from extreme range is dangerous, but not just vs the Sac. Few ships will be able to reach out and touch a well fit Cerb.
That being said, in that situation the Sac can warp out and reposition just like every other ship, with little fear of being alpha'd while doing so.
One of the main problem for the Sac has been surviving long enough to get into position to do damage, or getting into range even if in no danger of dying. The extra range will certainly help with that against most opponents it will be facing.
If I were wanting a tweak I'd actually rather have a bit more speed, but that's just me. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
147
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 01:59:00 -
[2139] - Quote
I just wanted to add a little to Ranger's comment.
Yes, the cerberus has the best range. Yes the deimos has the most brawling power, the vaga is the fastest and best at dictating range... and so on.
This is as it should be, because if all ships could compete in the same environment equally well, there'd be no need for a choice of ships - we'd all just fly a gnosis for everything (or god forbid, a pre-nerf uber-drake).
So I personally am glad that my blaster deimos cannot touch a cerberus, and can't catch a vaga. It's good that a vaga must avoid getting into scram range at all costs, and good that a cerberus will want to work hard at keeping his range advantage. It means I've got to use my head and make sure my fleet has enough fast ships, enough ranged dps and enough brawlers to meet whatever it finds. And when I don't have exactly what I need (i.e. always) I have to use my head again, bounce off planets, tactically retreat, feint and parry until I get my enemy where I want him.
This adds a tactical dimension to the game that is was probably lacking previously. It's a good thing.
Tactics will change. And again, that's a good thing. The previous tactics were based around a broken game. No doubt vagabond, hurricane and cynabal pilots have had things a little too easy for too long, and no doubt there was little challenge for them. Now we'll have to develop new tactics around a more balanced (but certainly not equal) game.
I'm very pleased by this. It makes me feel as if my subscription is being well spent and I am getting good value.
A final word on the Vaga, because I know that many people will feel the pain of it not being quite as OP as it was, just like the drake crowd did. I fought one on Sisi. I was was in a deimos. Eventually I was able to slingshot and catch it. I assumed that it would be an easy kill... but guess what? I was surprised to find that not only could it move fast, it could also tank, at least for a while.
So now I know when and if I scram a vaga, it's not over. He still has time to call in help. PVP is going to be more exciting, more likely to escalate, better.
I think we should all be happy about that.
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
169
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 05:15:00 -
[2140] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Akturous wrote:Seriously Fozzie, cargo hold on the deimos, 315 on an active tanker? That's 11 cap boosters if you want minimal ammo, seriously mate, cargo holds on all these ships are way over the shop, cmd ships as well. Some space please. +1 vaga with new asb bonus suffers from its unchanged cargo too Nope, not really, if you get 3 relaods off then youll be in trouble. But i doubt you will in a single fights. Also i agree, the cyna shouldnt get nerfed, it if anything needs a buff (double faloff bonus too), the times when it was op was before t1 cruiser and navy cruiser revamp. It right now is ok. uhm yeah ... so when i kill someone and want to loot some stuff ill need to throw out stuff? and why you asume youll only get 1 fight? stocking up in null isnt easy...
You actually loot non faction crap? O.o |
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
469
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 06:43:00 -
[2141] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: You actually loot non faction crap? O.o
yup we do , cause we are good at pvp not like you :) go post some more whines why the vaga is weak and the cynabal needs buffs...
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 08:15:00 -
[2142] - Quote
Alright. I'm pretty satisfied wtih the HACs, at least the ones I have the skills to test for myself (armor ships). But, now I have a question that is kind of nagging me.
CCP said that tech 2s are about specialization while tech 3s are about generalization. Does this mean that the benchmark in gank/tank on the tech 3 rebalance will be these tech 2 HACs? For example, will the new Proteus only get comparable or less gank than the Deimos or the Legion less tank than the Sacrilege? Or, am I reading too much into that and seeing something that isn't there? |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
169
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 08:52:00 -
[2143] - Quote
I never said the vaga was weak, i said it was bad as a kiter due to acs beeing **** at kiting.
Medium Acs always were crap as such, they were non crap due to blaster having zero range (before the buff) and bad dps, and due to amarr cruisers simply beeing garbage (again, pre buff), atop of rlmls beeing crap as well (so no cracals and co).
So while scorch M in theory was amazing there were fewer ships in game actually able to use it, null still did very little dps at range so nothing really could project, this is why the vagabond of old times was good, there simply wasnt much that could do stuff at range, afs were huge slow deathtraps (prenerf, again), t1 frigs were all kinda crap and ceptors are, well, ceptors.
Acs in t1 hulls are noncrap at brawling due to the ships having double damage boni while all the other ones had single ones, this works reasonably well on t1 hulls, look at a thorax/omen/moa for example those all have a single damage bonus, the rupture in turn has 2. And again, look at the cane, that has 2 damage boni while the brutix/harbi for example only have 1. So while this double bonus idea works well (sort of) on t1 hulls, it gets problematic on t2 ones when all the other ships get 2 boni too, its at that point that acs beeing terrible really shows (muninn, vaga)
Take a ship with 8 turrets and no bonus to any medium sized guns to see what i mean (a maelstrom for example), with 2 damage mods (gyros/mag stabs( and 2 trackign enhancers you are looking at 439 dps at 0 with emp and 233 dps at 20km with barrage with 425s. The same ship with neutron blasters is doing 599dps with antimatter at 0 and 177dps at 20km (the point at which the acs do less dmaage is at about 18km), beyond that neither do any meaningfull dps.
So for kiting both are bad, yet quite similar.
So for t1 your are looking at some sort of balance, acs have better projection, blasters better dps. Once you introduce t2 however this goes a bit bad, a vagabond loses huge gank potential compared to a deimos and yet its projection isnt anywhere near as good as it should be, this results in the fact that a sheild deimos outdpses a vaga to the edge of point range. This alone means that the null has caught up, weakening the vaga, then you have rlmls beeing amazing, 300 dps with rlmls doesnt sound like much but it outdps the vaga from 28km onwards, it also has no tracking and can be used when caught.
Now when you look at the 450dps a cerb does with rlmls you make the vaga (and ac kiting in general) look even worse.
And now enter lasers, they dont only have more pure damage then the acs with 489 at 0 with multi, they do 390dps all the way to 30km with scorch at which point they outdps the ac nearly by a factor of 3. In the old days this wasnt very relevant, there were about 3 ships who actually were any good with medium lasers, the oni (wich has cap so bad it was amazing), the zealot (slow, no frig defence at all) and the harbinger. Nowadays you have a lot more ships which are viable with them, this again weakens the vagas ability to compete.
Again, for t1 the crappyness of acs gets cured with a double dps bonus while nearly all other t1 cruisers get only a single 1, with hacs where most hacs get dual boni as well the badness of them gets shows, blasters win at all ranges due to the incrtedible dps which means that even with worse range they do more dps far away, scorch m simply is amazing and missiles outrange and dps the vaga anyways. (which btw is the reason the muninn is crap)
TL:DR
Long ago blaster were crap and had 0 range, missile ships were bad, there were very very few ships that could use medium lasers due to amarr t1 lineup beeing garbage, this all meant that the vaga was boss. Everything else got buffed, vaga got nerfed slightly (te nerf) which results in the poor state t2 minmatar cruisers are in at the moment.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
288
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 10:47:00 -
[2144] - Quote
W0lf posts good post, in other news crowds gather to pray for the possible apocalypse.
Seriously though, read W0lfs post it explains pretty well the issues the Vaga will now face.
A double falloff bonus (in line with the Cerb) would (as has been already stated many times) make the Vaga a competent kiter while not increasing its DPS at brawling range, preventing it from being OP, it would still do less DPS than a HAM cerb or any close range HACs but it would be able to actually compete this way, as it currently stands Sacs and Deimos will perma tank it, a HAM Cerb would **** it or force it off, so would an RLML Cerb, an Ishtar would drop sentries and easy-mode it and again it would either run or die, the Eagle and Muninn are both fleet ships so I won't count those.
As it stands all CCP have made as a fantastic anti-kiter (too fantastic IMO) for small gangs while not really doing much else with the ship. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 11:08:00 -
[2145] - Quote
I agree, W0lf has explained his concerns well. I agree that the vaga will face more challenges than before, and I still think that this is a good thing. A heated vagabond will do 4000 m/s. it is by any normal measure uncatchable.
on the downside, it's dps is un impressive.
note that when it's doing 4000 m/s, the damage it will take from heavy missiles is almost nill.
it is a ship which has a powerful tactical advantage, rather than a solo pwnmobile.
I think this is true of all the hacs, and again, that's a good thing for the game. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
454
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 11:40:00 -
[2146] - Quote
its sad if there are no more changes incoming... the HAC class is still full of random ships there is no coherent pattern...
What is HAC's role? resilient ... is still a bit loose and not very descriptive... the only thing resilient is the T2 resists but then there are many ships with this . so they have failed in even this respect..
Some tweaks needed at the very least? Vagabond - is too quick , needs more EHP, needs more dps. Eagle - is a shambles it needs more of everything Muninn - is very specific niche when switching a few bonuses could make it very useful Zealot - could use some drones and more mobility Cerberus - needs more tank Deimos - reduce sig radius Ishtar - a little on the slow side not very tanky. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 12:03:00 -
[2147] - Quote
Sigh. Vaga is fine. Test server results show that it is a bit more vulnerable than before but still very effective when flown right. I think people are wanting the vaga to do everything. Be fast. Have dps to take down a resistance bonused HAC. Enough EHP to be alpha resistant. It's not supposed to be that. It's meant to hit lighter targets fast and get away or harass gangs that don't have the speed to catch it. People really want to turn this ship into another Cynabal, and that ship is all of those things and OP. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 12:07:00 -
[2148] - Quote
Quote:Deimos - reduce sig radius
That will push it to OP. It's my favorite HAC. I plan to die a lot in it. But its survivability is fine. Try that 800mm/MAAR fit and you'll see what I mean. If you add sig tanking to it, it would easily be OP. Sig radius is probably its key balancing factor, right along with the choices you make due to powergrid.
Quote:Zealot - could use some drones and more mobility
Actually, I think it would be best served with just a tad more cpu. It could become a tanking beast. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 12:29:00 -
[2149] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Alright. I'm pretty satisfied wtih the HACs, at least the ones I have the skills to test for myself (armor ships). But, now I have a question that is kind of nagging me.
CCP said that tech 2s are about specialization while tech 3s are about generalization. Does this mean that the benchmark in gank/tank on the tech 3 rebalance will be these tech 2 HACs? For example, will the new Proteus only get comparable or less gank than the Deimos or the Legion less tank than the Sacrilege? Or, am I reading too much into that and seeing something that isn't there?
I wouldn't be surprised if they end up between T1 and T2 |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 12:29:00 -
[2150] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Sigh. Vaga is fine. Test server results show that it is a bit more vulnerable than before but still very effective when flown right. I think people are wanting the vaga to do everything. Be fast. Have dps to take down a resistance bonused HAC. Enough EHP to be alpha resistant. It's not supposed to be that. It's meant to hit lighter targets fast and get away or harass gangs that don't have the speed to catch it. People really want to turn this ship into another Cynabal, and that ship is all of those things and OP.
Have you even read the post 3 posts above yours? It clearly states why every hac would still be able to force off the vagabond.
Also stop with the 800mm plate stuff, in comparison, a dualrep fit pulls ahead of the plate/rep version after 23 seconds, in that time there is no chance of you having taken down anything with huge amounts of dps, so the buffer doesnt help you one bit. To claim that you are worried about alpha also is a bad argument, you easily can cyle reppers differently, meaning your enemys need enough dps to alpha over 9k ehp in under 4 seconds to negate your reps effects.
So unless you want to die to ratting abaddons change the fit.
Also, as ive read it a few times, never ever reaload a aar midfight, you turn it on and leave it running, it outreps a regular one for quite a bit, if you reload midfight you are doing a very bad thing and a regular version would have served you better. |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 12:40:00 -
[2151] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Sigh. Vaga is fine. Test server results show that it is a bit more vulnerable than before but still very effective when flown right. I think people are wanting the vaga to do everything. Be fast. Have dps to take down a resistance bonused HAC. Enough EHP to be alpha resistant. It's not supposed to be that. It's meant to hit lighter targets fast and get away or harass gangs that don't have the speed to catch it. People really want to turn this ship into another Cynabal, and that ship is all of those things and OP. Have you even read the post 3 posts above yours? It clearly states why every hac would still be able to force off the vagabond. Also stop with the 800mm plate stuff, in comparison, a dualrep fit pulls ahead of the plate/rep version after 23 seconds, in that time there is no chance of you having taken down anything with huge amounts of dps, so the buffer doesnt help you one bit. To claim that you are worried about alpha also is a bad argument, you easily can cyle reppers differently, meaning your enemys need enough dps to alpha over 9k ehp in under 4 seconds to negate your reps effects. So unless you want to die to ratting abaddons change the fit. Also, as ive read it a few times, never ever reaload a aar midfight, you turn it on and leave it running, it outreps a regular one for quite a bit, if you reload midfight you are doing a very bad thing and a regular version would have served you better.
Stop with your pitiful whines about your precious vaga. Fly what you want. Fit what you want. I've welped a number of these hulls already on the test server and racked a number of kills with them. I'm going by what is happening in practice. If you can't fly your vaga well enough to hang with the pilots racking up kills in them, that's your problem. The hull doesn't need a boost to make up for your shortcomings. EFT warriors. I swear. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 12:52:00 -
[2152] - Quote
I flew it (and every other hac), on the test server, it sucks as a kiter, fact. I hate the ship and dont really want to fly it (just as i really dislike ac cynas) but it shpuld imo be a viable kiter. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
533
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 13:38:00 -
[2153] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:I flew it (and every other hac), on the test server, it sucks as a kiter, fact. I hate the ship and dont really want to fly it (just as i really dislike ac cynas) but it shpuld imo be a viable kiter.
Also, have you actually flow the vagabond?
This dude complains about the kiting aspect of the vaga yet fails to mention that it has very formidable brawling capabilities... Maybe not quite on par with the other hacs, but still dude... It's not a pure kiting ship like it use to be (although it's better than it was) it's a "hybrid" kiting ship with robust brawling capabilities compared to similar ships.
My only gripe is that the fitting should be modestly increased to allow for 220s w/o excessive compromise on a dual prop xl asb setup.
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 13:47:00 -
[2154] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: So I personally am glad that my blaster deimos cannot touch a cerberus, and can't catch a vaga. It's good that a vaga must avoid getting into scram range at all costs, and good that a cerberus will want to work hard at keeping his range advantage. It means I've got to use my head and make sure my fleet has enough fast ships, enough ranged dps and enough brawlers to meet whatever it finds. And when I don't have exactly what I need (i.e. always) I have to use my head again, bounce off planets, tactically retreat, feint and parry until I get my enemy where I want him.
This adds a tactical dimension to the game that is was probably lacking previously. It's a good thing. Not really. This game lends too much power to range advantages. And the Cerb has plenty of slots to play with to boost it's already overdone agility, supplement it's not stellar speed, and perma mwd. So realistically it won't have to worry much about getting caught, nor will the Vaga. The mobility is the tank.
Of course balancing is always an odd endeavor in Eve, because ships do not solo, they pack. However, conceptually the game should be giving ships that have better weapons range less agility and speed. Shorter ranged ships should get agility and speed. Then the dance will be on. But what I think we are going to get with the new Cerb is a pack ship with excellent range and excellent mobility. Will anything or any other fleet comp be able to dance with it? It will be the new "Draek".
The balancing team should reduce the agility and ditch the dronebay at the very least. Because a double range bonused (100% added range on all missiles) agile and fast missile boat is too powerful and is going to create a problem. Think about double ranged light missiles from RLMLs or double ranged precision heavy missiles, or double ranged HAMs. All of these will be very powerful, and except for the HAM configurations, frigates will be in deep trouble.
How about a perma mwd HM fleet. In null it might very well motor out of bubbles and warp before any bombs down it. With 2x ranged high damage heavys will it have to worry about pulse lasers? Zipping around will have to worry about arty or rail tracking? I would love someone to present numbers that it won't be impervious to other fleet comps. But it appears to me to be a new, albeit more expensive, better Draek. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 13:51:00 -
[2155] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:I flew it (and every other hac), on the test server, it sucks as a kiter, fact. I hate the ship and dont really want to fly it (just as i really dislike ac cynas) but it shpuld imo be a viable kiter.
Also, have you actually flow the vagabond?
I have flown the vagabond on Sisi. On an equal footing with any other HAC (links and implants-wise) the vaga can choose the engagement range and choose when to disengage.
That does not mean it can beat everything in a 1:1, nor should it be able to. But it needn't die to anything, and it can pretty much tackle anything it wants to.
This is not the case for any ship which is slower. i.e. all of them.
Each of these ships, as I see has a specific advantage. That one advantage alone is not enough to win every fight.
All of the ships have changed and this is requiring that we all change tactics a little.
For example, on TQ I use a dual rep brawling ishtar to solo-kill wormhole visitors - this will no longer be viable because the ishtar no longer has the right slots to maintain a DR tank. So I'll change tactics. I'll use a deimos for that role now, and use the ishtar as a skirmishing sentry drone platform, with 5 ogres in the drone bay just in case anything gets close enough that I can drop them.
I probably won't ever use the ishtar solo any more, but that's ok. I'll happily make that trade in return for a more diverse game.
I can't see that there is a problem.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
150
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 14:01:00 -
[2156] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Not really. This game lends too much power to range advantages. And the Cerb has plenty of slots to play with to boost it's already overdone agility, supplement it's not stellar speed, and perma mwd. So realistically it won't have to worry much about getting caught, nor will the Vaga. The mobility is the tank.
I guess time will tell on this one. It's difficult to test larger scale fights on sisi.
But why is this a problem particular to the cerberus? The deimos with railguns can hit hard to 100km with instantanious damage application and perma MWD.
Why is this less dangerous than the cerberus?
I think what we're coming to is a place where all skirmish fleets should have the capability to engage at range as well as at close quarters. That seems reasonable.
The frigates issue I grant you is an interesting one. I guess it's a case of not bringing a knife to a gunfight. If that distant cerberus fleet was instead a distant cruise-fitted, TP-fitted raven fleet the carnage would be all the greater, no?
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 14:11:00 -
[2157] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:I flew it (and every other hac), on the test server, it sucks as a kiter, fact. I hate the ship and dont really want to fly it (just as i really dislike ac cynas) but it shpuld imo be a viable kiter.
Also, have you actually flow the vagabond? This dude complains about the kiting aspect of the vaga yet fails to mention that it has very formidable brawling capabilities... Maybe not quite on par with the other hacs, but still dude... It's not a pure kiting ship like it use to be (although it's better than it was) it's a "hybrid" kiting ship with robust brawling capabilities compared to similar ships. My only gripe is that the fitting should be modestly increased to allow for 220s w/o excessive compromise on a dual prop xl asb setup.
Start reading for once, i have been saying for ages that the vaga is going to be a very good brawler (maybe even to good). |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 14:28:00 -
[2158] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:My only gripe is that the fitting should be modestly increased to allow for 220s w/o excessive compromise on a dual prop xl asb setup.
So you want to be able to fit moderately sized guns, along with an oversized ASB AND dual prop? I'd say you are asking a little too much there. You can do it with a T2 Reactor Control or a T2 powergrid rig. Even with losing out on that slot for more tank/gank/speed it still looks pretty solid on paper if you pick your targets well. Even with a web being used against it it'll still be able to move 500m/s with overheat, so you could orbit up close and evade a lot of incoming dps against some ships. You'd not want to go near anything with a web bonus, or a tracking bonus mind. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
533
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 14:46:00 -
[2159] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:I flew it (and every other hac), on the test server, it sucks as a kiter, fact. I hate the ship and dont really want to fly it (just as i really dislike ac cynas) but it shpuld imo be a viable kiter.
Also, have you actually flow the vagabond? This dude complains about the kiting aspect of the vaga yet fails to mention that it has very formidable brawling capabilities... Maybe not quite on par with the other hacs, but still dude... It's not a pure kiting ship like it use to be (although it's better than it was) it's a "hybrid" kiting ship with robust brawling capabilities compared to similar ships. My only gripe is that the fitting should be modestly increased to allow for 220s w/o excessive compromise on a dual prop xl asb setup. Start reading for once, i have been saying for ages that the vaga is going to be a very good brawler (maybe even to good).
So you know it's a good brawler but want it to be an amazing kiter as well?
So in short you want it to be OP. I'm glad we're on the same page now, thanks
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 14:52:00 -
[2160] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:I flew it (and every other hac), on the test server, it sucks as a kiter, fact. I hate the ship and dont really want to fly it (just as i really dislike ac cynas) but it shpuld imo be a viable kiter.
Also, have you actually flow the vagabond? This dude complains about the kiting aspect of the vaga yet fails to mention that it has very formidable brawling capabilities... Maybe not quite on par with the other hacs, but still dude... It's not a pure kiting ship like it use to be (although it's better than it was) it's a "hybrid" kiting ship with robust brawling capabilities compared to similar ships. My only gripe is that the fitting should be modestly increased to allow for 220s w/o excessive compromise on a dual prop xl asb setup. Start reading for once, i have been saying for ages that the vaga is going to be a very good brawler (maybe even to good). So you know it's a good brawler but want it to be an amazing kiter as well? So in short you want it to be OP. I'm glad we're on the same page now, thanks
If you had read on you would have come across several posts of me (and other people) explaining while making it a good kiter wont break balancing in the slightest nor make it in any form op. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
533
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 15:02:00 -
[2161] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
If you had read on you would have come across several posts of me (and other people) explaining while making it a good kiter wont break balancing in the slightest nor make it in any form op.
It's already a good kiter, sure, there are better alternatives for pure kiting, but please don't sit here and claim that the vaga is bad at kiting...
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 15:18:00 -
[2162] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:Not really. This game lends too much power to range advantages. And the Cerb has plenty of slots to play with to boost it's already overdone agility, supplement it's not stellar speed, and perma mwd. So realistically it won't have to worry much about getting caught, nor will the Vaga. The mobility is the tank.
I guess time will tell on this one. It's difficult to test larger scale fights on sisi. But why is this a problem particular to the cerberus? The deimos with railguns can hit hard to 100km with instantanious damage application and perma MWD. Why is this less dangerous than the cerberus? I think what we're coming to is a place where all skirmish fleets should have the capability to engage at range as well as at close quarters. That seems reasonable. The frigates issue I grant you is an interesting one. I guess it's a case of not bringing a knife to a gunfight. If that distant cerberus fleet was instead a distant cruise-fitted, TP-fitted raven fleet the carnage would be all the greater, no? Will the Deimos be perma-mwd now while firing the rails (since the bonus was changed)? Will it be as click button and not worry about trajectory parameters? I doubt it with the tracking nerf to long range medium guns that goes with the damage buff. Will a shield tanked Deimos have as sturdy a tank? No.
This is all basically the old drake. Only now it will have better mobility and range, while being somewhat more expensive in isk and sp. I doubt we will see a Deimos fleet comp to challenge it. I hope you are right, but right now I don't think you are. I think a lot of other fleet comps will get outranged, outrun, or both.
edit - and I focus on the mobility stats because unlike an armor tank these are easily supplemented with mods and rigs while presering the mids for all tank, mwd and sensor booster (since tackle is largely outsourced in a fleet).
So to me the difference with the Sac is striking. The Sac only gets 50% range bonus, the Cerb 100%. The Sac has a terrible base agility while supposedly it should be the speedy brawler hac to the Zealot sniper hac. Especially since the Sac will probably be plated (amarr shield resist profile sucks bigtime). The difference between it's mobility stats and the ability to supplement them as compared to the Cerb is striking. The Sac or Sac fleet will probably be unable to apply damage to a Cerb or Cerb fleet.
The balancing team needs to buff the Sac base agility a lot and the speed to be at least equal to a Cerb. Or nerf the speed and agility of the Cerb. Or both to some degree. Otherwise the Cerbs will be running circles around the Sacs as they pick them off. The Sac is just a brick waiting to die. The Cerb is the opposite. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 16:04:00 -
[2163] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:SACRILEGE
We wanted to get rid of the cap recharge bonus, as it is both kind of dated and strange, and also doesn't do much for a ship that doesn't even use cap for its main weapon system. We played with a lot of options but ultimately settled on a Missile Velocity bonus which should be very helpful in projecting some of that HAM damage. Other changes include tweaks to fitting, slightly lowered Signature radius, and of course the electronics changes. While we did not role the entire benefit of the former cap recharge bonus into the base stats, the Sacrilege does retain the highest cap/second of any Heavy Assault Cruisers.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (added heavy missiles) 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile velocity (was capacitor recharge time) 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers Fittings: 1100 PWG(+70), 420 CPU(+20) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1100(-293) / 2250(+162) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1700(+75) / 255s (-80s) / 6.66s (+1.8) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 200(+2) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+20km) / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 22 Radar(+7) Signature radius: 135(-5)
Rise can you explain to me this please. Since this ship has a tank bonus (resistance) it's supposed to be a close range brawling ship (mostly dual rep, sometimes buffer with HAM's). Newly added projection bonus (+50% missile velocity) seems kinda odd to me. Explosion velocity or explosion radius would seem more beneficial to close range brawl role. Is it possible to change that bonus to something else? |
Kane Fenris
NWP
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 22:09:00 -
[2164] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:I flew it (and every other hac), on the test server, it sucks as a kiter, fact. I hate the ship and dont really want to fly it (just as i really dislike ac cynas) but it shpuld imo be a viable kiter.
Also, have you actually flow the vagabond? It's not a pure kiting ship like it use to be (although it's better than it was) it's a "hybrid" kiting ship with robust brawling capabilities compared to similar ships.
i looked it up in a Dictionary Eve/English:
hybrid ship: -not good at anything -sucks at everything -not worth the isk
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
156
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 23:20:00 -
[2165] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:I flew it (and every other hac), on the test server, it sucks as a kiter, fact. I hate the ship and dont really want to fly it (just as i really dislike ac cynas) but it shpuld imo be a viable kiter.
Also, have you actually flow the vagabond? It's not a pure kiting ship like it use to be (although it's better than it was) it's a "hybrid" kiting ship with robust brawling capabilities compared to similar ships. i looked it up in a Dictionary Eve/English: hybrid ship: -not good at anything -sucks at everything -not worth the isk
Just chiming in: tested it as a Arty-Kiter with large SB, 650 arty, med cap booster II for 3 navy 400s and skirmishlinks (no shieldlinks given), and mostly killed what couldn't shoot back sufficiently (NOmens, Harbinger Navies, and all those shortrange-brawlcruisers that are sometimes even ABing around), but died a horrible death once caught.
dualpro-ASB-vaga: (180s, 2 TE, 2 gyros) It was (in my opinion) an impressive brawler, less due to that somewhat amazing damagecomponent, but because it damn right mitigated all incoming damage better than it's opponent. Add to that the acceptable tracking and the rather constant dps anywhere in scramrange - and you are sure to find a sweetspot favoring you somewhere around your opponent.
220s, 2 gyros, 2 TEs, nano: And lastly the normal kiting vaga, continues to slauhter AFs and Inties at 25-30 using RF, even beyond using barrage. I see nothing wrong with that. I just wouldn't suggest using it for heavy duty damage application. But if you just have to peel off tackle of one of your actual ships or run over the occasional ABC, it's all working sufficiently. Though running down ABCs is rather ASB-vaga-turf.
So I don't really get that Hybrid thingy either, but I'm fairly certain it was adressing the widened scope thx to new 7.5% active tank bonus. I only correct my own spelling. |
aSacHorYu
the muppets DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 08:19:00 -
[2166] - Quote
I think the issue with the vaga is that no one asked for the boost rep and goes against all that the ship represents , but i guess she will maintain this changes , at least now i can use the cerb or isthar as a nano ***. |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 09:36:00 -
[2167] - Quote
aSacHorYu wrote:I think the issue with the vaga is that no one asked for the boost rep and goes against all that the ship represents , but i guess she will maintain this changes , at least now i can use the cerb or isthar as a nano ***.
exactly..
|
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 11:11:00 -
[2168] - Quote
It's frightening in which direction the discussions went here. The balancing for every ship went well, there's nothing to complain about, not even about the Deimos and Vagabond (letter one is still the some, just with a new bonus, but still able to fit the same as now). Even the Eagle is interesting now though it's mainly because of the Medium Railgun changes.
That there are only minor discussions about this and that and the ones claiming the ship is well balanced and the ones stating it's not shows the balancing just for the ships itself went well enough.
The core problem with the HAC's is still their missing role/specialization. You guys should not forget that this class is still everything and at the same time nothing special. They do everything: Tanking, doing a lot of DPS, can brawl, are able to kite, are able to do Damage by large range and the same at ultrashortrange. Though it depends on which ship you're flying there's a large range they are able to achive. But exactly this is what it so many in this thread critisized: It's for the Tech 1 ships to be that generalized. Tech 2 should be specialized - like the Recons for example. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
157
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 11:24:00 -
[2169] - Quote
I don't see why the HACs need to be specialised in some esoteric way. The clue is in the name I think. They are cruisers with heavy armour/shield designed for assaults. The stormtroopers of space. I think each one has its own unique specialty, based around its hardiness, ability to project damage, speed and maneuverability.
For me the fact that the entire group offers a toolbox from which I can draw the ship I need for the job is a good thing.
If I need specialist EWAR, I still have the recons and the electronic attack ships to choose from. If I need OPness, I still have T3s (although I'd be happy to see T3 ships quietly nerfed). |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 11:58:00 -
[2170] - Quote
S1dy wrote:...Tech 2 should be specialized - like the Recons for example. CCP are diverging from the overall scheme of things with regards to HACs as described in the second paragraph of the original post.
Also, the first and second pass have been atrocious for the Amarr hulls while the others have gotten huge viability envelopes: Zealot remains as is because it is damn near perfect in swarms, yet suicidal solo .. buffing the latter would break the former so the caution/laziness is understandable to a certain degree. - None of the hulls of other three races even come close to that kind of niche/specialization, they will pretty much all excel with both short and long range weaponry with extra focus in one or the other.
Sacrilege ought to be for solo/brawl what the Zealot is for the swarm, but with no real change to the hull it will not be able to compete in any sense of the word. Tank is the same, it got 2 light drones extra and an utterly pointless range bonus .. pointless because anything it might use it for is better and more effectively covered by the Zealot. It simply does not have any advantage whatsoever, best thing about it is its ability to tank (and even that is worse than the Deimos) .. rest ranges from mediocre to downright abysmal.
The sad thing about the Sacrilege is that the shortfalls cannot be attributed to lasers outdated performance so it won't be fixed by the, what I hope will be imminent, laser revision.
Shorter: It is fine that HACs are multi-role, but the groundwork has not been done properly which has resulted in some being over the top with roles added to already excellent performance in primary role while others (read: Amarr) gets to keep their one role/place which amounts to an outright nerf (everything else buffed/expanded, it staying the same = nerf). |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 13:59:00 -
[2171] - Quote
Quote:I don't see why the HACs need to be specialised in some esoteric way. The clue is in the name I think. They are cruisers with heavy armour/shield designed for assaults. The stormtroopers of space. I think each one has its own unique specialty, based around its hardiness, ability to project damage, speed and maneuverability.For me the fact thepentire group offers a toolbox from which I can draw the ship I need for the job is a good thing.If I need specialist EWAR, I still have the recons and the electronic attack ships to choose from. If I need OPness, I still have T3s (although I'd be happy to see T3 ships quietly nerfed).
I'm pretty much with this. I mean, these ships specialize in assaults, going out to hurt something. To kill people and break things. People who want a specialized role have some interesting ideas like W0lf's command ship-style mods, but they don't change the ship purpose. It still kills people and breaks things. Logis don't kill people, they keep others alive. Recons can, but it isn't what they are really for. They are, well, recon, the cav scouts of Eve. Heavy Interdictors interdict, pull things off course and stop them in their tracks. Heavy Assault Cruisers assault things... and are heavy. I can't really see why it needs more.
Now, could the role bonus be better? I suppose so. Perhaps it could also provide some bonus to afterburners for AB HACs? Or, maybe a game changing role? I can think of a number of things that would REALLY change the meta...
Ability to warp to ships greater than 150 km away on grid that the HAC is not fleeted with (how's that for a shake up?)
Natural immunity to the effects of interdiction spheres.
A role bonus that essentially acted as a free cap battery, reflecting some neut/nos effects.
Reload time bonus to ancillary rep/booster mods to specialize them as active tankers.
A special cargo bay for cap booster charges and flat bonus to booster amount.
-áI mean, I can think of a TON of things that would shake up the game and make these ships used ten times more than they are. And, they are along the same line of thought CCP has laid out, increased cap, mobility, and e-war resistance. But, how much would people reject such a notion? I think pretty hard.These types of changes would only really work if the tech 3 rebalance put the strat cruiser combat performance below the HACs, which I guess is possible and something I'd support. But, for now, ships designed simply to fight seem fine. That simple role is enough. Perhaps when the rest of ships are worked over, particularly the tech 3s, it will be easier to consider a deeper meaning for HACs. For now, I'm satisfied with them being the advanced infantry. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
428
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 16:13:00 -
[2172] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:
-áI mean, I can think of a TON of things that would shake up the game and make these ships used ten times more than they are. And, they are along the same line of thought CCP has laid out, increased cap, mobility, and e-war resistance. But, how much would people reject such a notion? I think pretty hard.These types of changes would only really work if the tech 3 rebalance put the strat cruiser combat performance below the HACs, which I guess is possible and something I'd support. But, for now, ships designed simply to fight seem fine. That simple role is enough. Perhaps when the rest of ships are worked over, particularly the tech 3s, it will be easier to consider a deeper meaning for HACs. For now, I'm satisfied with them being the advanced infantry.
They aren't going far enough with the HACs, Making a T3 worse than a HAC and better than a T1 cruiser would make the T3s universally useless.
Does a T3 logi as well as a logi, no Does a T3 ECM/point/web as well as a recon, no HACs suck, and are going to continue to suck until the do something to make it worth the price over a combat or attack battlecruiser.
Right now there are at most 2-3 of the hulls that are even worthwhile, and even then the utility over a BC that is half of the price is questionable.
.....MWD bonus, meh.
FFS free up the fittings, they need something to make them worth the price and a training. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
157
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 16:32:00 -
[2173] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:
-áI mean, I can think of a TON of things that would shake up the game and make these ships used ten times more than they are. And, they are along the same line of thought CCP has laid out, increased cap, mobility, and e-war resistance. But, how much would people reject such a notion? I think pretty hard.These types of changes would only really work if the tech 3 rebalance put the strat cruiser combat performance below the HACs, which I guess is possible and something I'd support. But, for now, ships designed simply to fight seem fine. That simple role is enough. Perhaps when the rest of ships are worked over, particularly the tech 3s, it will be easier to consider a deeper meaning for HACs. For now, I'm satisfied with them being the advanced infantry.
They aren't going far enough with the HACs, Making a T3 worse than a HAC and better than a T1 cruiser would make the T3s universally useless. Does a T3 logi as well as a logi, no Does a T3 ECM/point/web as well as a recon, no HACs suck, and are going to continue to suck until the do something to make it worth the price over a combat or attack battlecruiser. Right now there are at most 2-3 of the hulls that are even worthwhile, and even then the utility over a BC that is half of the price is questionable. .....MWD bonus, meh. FFS free up the fittings, they need something to make them worth the price and a training.
they're definitely worth the price. they'll solo a battleship. the sac is already immune to a heavy neut
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
428
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 19:02:00 -
[2174] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
they're definitely worth the price. they'll solo a battleship. the sac is already immune to a heavy neut
Yeah great, so long as that battleship is solo.
Solo isn't a mode many battleships operate in usually. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 20:41:00 -
[2175] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:...the sac is already immune to a heavy neut Big whoop.
Heavy Neutralizer II drains 25 cap per second.
Only doing four, but just by boarding the HACs I get (in fitting screen): Vagabond - 20.4 cap/s (enough to test for neut presence) Cerberus - 21.3 cap/s (will never be in neut range) Deimos - 25.9 cap/s (No words ...) Sacrilege - 27.8 cap/s (Will still need injector as low dps mandates dual-rep to live long enough to kill anything).
Sacrilege does not exactly stand out now does it .. if it had 35+ it could claim to be the cap king but the blanket buff has erased that .. it has nothing to set it apart, nothing at all except maybe for a pretty damn nice model.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 22:45:00 -
[2176] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:
they're definitely worth the price. they'll solo a battleship. the sac is already immune to a heavy neut
Yeah great, so long as that battleship is solo. Solo isn't a mode many battleships operate in usually.
That is correct, battleships don't often operate alone for good reason. I mention this simply as an indicator (valid or not) as to these ships' power and strength.
They cost about as much as a battleship, and in a 1:1 they perform (on the whole) better. OK sure, a properly flown pirate battleship will make mincemeat of them (and to be fair most of the pirate battleships on Sisi are not properly flown...) but they cost 6-8 times as much, so that seems more than fair to me.
These HACs are *very* strong and powerful. They are designed to be used in groups and as the vanguard of an assault, or hard-to-catch long range guerrilla warriors I think they will perform brilliantly.
5 HACs vs 5 BCs with some logi on both sides of a conflict? My money is on the HACs every time, for three very good reasons: 1. sig radius 2. resistances 3. mobility
Obviously you'll want a little buffer on the HACs, but you would on any ship.
5 battleships vs 5 hacs might be a little more difficult to call, but then there is price parity, so that seems reasonable.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 22:54:00 -
[2177] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:...the sac is already immune to a heavy neut Big whoop. Heavy Neutralizer II drains 25 cap per second. Only doing four, but just by boarding the HACs I get (in fitting screen): Vagabond - 20.4 cap/s (enough to test for neut presence) Cerberus - 21.3 cap/s (will never be in neut range) Deimos - 25.9 cap/s (No words ...) Sacrilege - 27.8 cap/s (Will still need injector as low dps mandates dual-rep to live long enough to kill anything). Sacrilege does not exactly stand out now does it .. if it had 35+ it could claim to be the cap king but the blanket buff has erased that .. it has nothing to set it apart, nothing at all except maybe for a pretty damn nice model.
Next time we're both on sisi, let's try some tests with the sacrilege and a battleship. I think you'll be surprised how it performs if: you fit a cap booster (I would always do this anyway) with navy 400s fit some buffer and a repper maybe use the extra mid for dual prop or some ewar?
It as a small sig radius and very strong resistances. It's natural cap recharge will shrug off a heavy neut meaning you can happily run the tank on the cap booster with no effort. With dual prop orbitiing a BS close it's unhittable by large guns, even when webbed, and can push out its 500 or so dps with for maximum effect for as long as it wants.
Crucially, because it has better mobility than a battleship, it can disengage whenever it chooses.
Properly flown, there is no reason to fear for its safety. It's a damn good ship!
|
Just Lilly
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 00:42:00 -
[2178] - Quote
The Cerberus...
That poor ship have been collecting dust and kept for spare parts in the back of the hangar for far too long.
Maybe now it will roam space and strike fear, rather than giggles into the enemies Powered by Nvidia GTX 690 |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
428
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 02:05:00 -
[2179] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
5 HACs vs 5 BCs with some logi on both sides of a conflict? My money is on the HACs every time, for three very good reasons: 1. sig radius 2. resistances 3. mobility
Yeah, and hope and pray that no 2 month old noobie with a bellicose just happens along. |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2258
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 02:38:00 -
[2180] - Quote
CCP, why the hate of brawling HACs? could you explain it to me please?
Each race has 2 HACs, would it really be so hard to give each race 1 brawler and 1 kiter/sniper in the ship class? in HACs: Calradi can't brawl at all, minmatar can't brawl at all (no, munin CANT brawl), galente can brawl in theory but both HACs perform TONS better as kiters so why would they.
This leave amarr which currently has the good mix of zealot for range and sac for up close (with zealot also being able to brawl) but you're moving them to sac being a kiter and zealot not being touched, making them still the best balanced HACs but no dedicated brawler.
deimos needs to be a dedicated brawler, it's a gallente blaster boat for gods sake! ishtar can fill the kite/snipe role fine with sentries. munin needs to be a brawler. minmatar currently have ZERO armour tanked brawling options in any T2 ship, this is appauling! if you feel the need to give minmatar a kity arty platform, make the vaga or sleip into it. youre mostly doing it with the sleip anyway with that double damage bonus rather than ROF. for caldari, i can understand both ships wanting to keep range but a brawler would still be nice.
even the title 'heavy ASSAULT ship' implies that these ships can put out high DPS in your face while having good survivability. instead, theyre being relegated to nancy kiting ships that get out performed in almost all situations by tier 3 BCs anyway.
please, FIX HACs. these changes are still not good enough to make HACs a viable option and they will remain irrelevant. |
|
sten mattson
1st Praetorian Guard Curatores Veritatis Alliance
51
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 02:44:00 -
[2181] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:CCP, why the hate of brawling HACs? could you explain it to me please?
Each race has 2 HACs, would it really be so hard to give each race 1 brawler and 1 kiter/sniper in the ship class? in HACs: Calradi can't brawl at all, minmatar can't brawl at all (no, munin CANT brawl), galente can brawl in theory but both HACs perform TONS better as kiters so why would they.
This leave amarr which currently has the good mix of zealot for range and sac for up close (with zealot also being able to brawl) but you're moving them to sac being a kiter and zealot not being touched, making them still the best balanced HACs but no dedicated brawler.
deimos needs to be a dedicated brawler, it's a gallente blaster boat for gods sake! ishtar can fill the kite/snipe role fine with sentries. munin needs to be a brawler. minmatar currently have ZERO armour tanked brawling options in any T2 ship, this is appauling! if you feel the need to give minmatar a kity arty platform, make the vaga or sleip into it. youre mostly doing it with the sleip anyway with that double damage bonus rather than ROF. for caldari, i can understand both ships wanting to keep range but a brawler would still be nice.
even the title 'heavy ASSAULT ship' implies that these ships can put out high DPS in your face while having good survivability. instead, theyre being relegated to nancy kiting ships that get out performed in almost all situations by tier 3 BCs anyway.
please, FIX HACs. these changes are still not good enough to make HACs a viable option and they will remain irrelevant.
i dont know why people say that the zealot can brawl but not the muninn. they have both the same amount of mids, the muninn got moar tracking with ACs , capless, selectable damage type weapons , a utility high and a flight of light drones.
what does the zealot have? a slightly smaller resist hole and more range. thats it
i'd say its more the zealot that cant brawl and people just havent realized how good the muninn is at brawling IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!! |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2258
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 02:57:00 -
[2182] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:i dont know why people say that the zealot can brawl but not the muninn. they have both the same amount of mids, the muninn got moar tracking with ACs , capless, selectable damage type weapons , a utility high and a flight of light drones. what does the zealot have? a slightly smaller resist hole and more range. thats it i'd say its more the zealot that cant brawl and people just havent realized how good the muninn is at brawling for starters it has 1 less low slot. this means you end up with way worse resists with either same EHP and less DPS or same dps and a lot less ehp and EVEN worse resists. this leads to it being about 30% weaker under reps with virtually identical fits it's also slower, has worse range and relies on drones for 100 of its dps.
in any role other than a dedicated alpha fleet, it's total garbage. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 03:58:00 -
[2183] - Quote
Quote:deimos needs to be a dedicated brawler, it's a gallente blaster boat for gods sake!
Deimos is a brawler. One of the best. Are you sure you're not looking at the old changes before they updated them? |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2258
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 04:12:00 -
[2184] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:deimos needs to be a dedicated brawler, it's a gallente blaster boat for gods sake! Deimos is a brawler. One of the best. Are you sure you're not looking at the old changes before they updated them? one of the best? it's virtually unfittable and flat out worse than a brutix or myrm in every way. (let alone compared to something like a zealot...) |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 04:15:00 -
[2185] - Quote
Quote:one of the best? it's virtually unfittable and flat out worse than a brutix or myrm in every way. (let alone compared to something like a zealot...)
Huh? Deimos will fit ions with 800mm plate and a MAAR and a Microwarp drive. It can also do neutrons with dual rep. How are you having a hard time fitting it? |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 04:16:00 -
[2186] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:DEIMOS
For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repair amount
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1050 PWG(+60), 360 CPU(+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1200(+40) / 2100(+60) / 2550(+19) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400(+25) / 225s (-110s) / 6.2/s (+2.1) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7) Signature radius: 150 Ummm. Was that a typo? You said you couldn't find anything decent to replace the MWD bonus... and then its replaced with a armor rep bonus. Or did I miss a post? |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2258
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 04:25:00 -
[2187] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:one of the best? it's virtually unfittable and flat out worse than a brutix or myrm in every way. (let alone compared to something like a zealot...) Huh? Deimos will fit ions with 800mm plate and a MAAR and a Microwarp drive. It can also do neutrons with dual rep. How are you having a hard time fitting it? Also, it'll solo a Brutix or Myrmidon with no trouble if you utilize the rep bonus. you lost me at '800mm plate'. sure, you can active rep it. then you can tank 1 other cruiser, barely. combined with the fleet boost nerf, it's going to be used even less.
what you cant do is buffer it properly, which is a FAR more common fit for any cruiser ever. seriously, an active rep bonus on any cruiser hull in the game should be accompanied with a troll face next to it.
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 04:26:00 -
[2188] - Quote
Quote:Ummm. Was that a typo? You said you couldn't find anything decent to replace the MWD bonus... and then its replaced with a armor rep bonus. Or did I miss a post?
The intial change proposed in this thread was something entirely different. The originaly change had the Deimos getting its armor and hull nerfed by hundreds of points with a 190 boost to its base shield. People were very unhappy with that change. So, it was placed back into its role as a brawler and given the rep bonus. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 04:29:00 -
[2189] - Quote
Quote:you lost me at '800mm plate'. sure, you can active rep it. then you can tank 1 other cruiser, barely. combined with the fleet boost nerf, it's going to be used even less.
what you cant do is buffer it properly, which is a FAR more common fit for any cruiser ever. seriously, an active rep bonus on any cruiser hull in the game should be accompanied with a troll face next to it.
PS: any solo active tank ship will always beat any non active tank ship in it's class (unless you are terrible). soooo not the point.
Dude, go fly it. Seriously. It will tank MUCH more than you seem to think it will. You really need to go see it in practice before you knock it. It has no trouble at all tanking a whole lot more firepower than one cruiser. People were just complaining a few pages back about how it's now OP because it can actually rep through 1000 dps with one particular fit. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 04:41:00 -
[2190] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Ummm. Was that a typo? You said you couldn't find anything decent to replace the MWD bonus... and then its replaced with a armor rep bonus. Or did I miss a post? The intial change proposed in this thread was something entirely different. The originaly change had the Deimos getting its armor and hull nerfed by hundreds of points with a 190 boost to its base shield. People were very unhappy with that change. So, it was placed back into its role as a brawler and given the rep bonus. They should probably change the description then so others who haven't kept up with this thread from the start don't get confused.
Also, shouldn't the Deimos then receive a significant buff to its cap? (more so than the general buff being given to the HACs) as it's losing the MWD cap bonus and gaining an active armor bonus? Or is the additional mid now a compulsory cap booster slot? (I was really excited about the increased versatility of a 4th mid but I guess that won't be the case now). |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 04:44:00 -
[2191] - Quote
Quote:Also, shouldn't the Deimos then receive a significant buff to its cap? (more so than the general buff being given to the HACs) as it's losing the MWD cap bonus and gaining an active armor bonus? Or is the additional mid now a compulsory cap booster slot? (I was really excited about the increased versatility of a 4th mid but I guess that won't be the case now).
If you're active repping, then yeah. That 4th mid is pretty much going to be a cap booster. If you're buffer fitting and going to have logi, you can do e-war. But, for small gang sans logi, that cap booster/MAAR combo works very nicely. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 05:11:00 -
[2192] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:one of the best? it's virtually unfittable and flat out worse than a brutix or myrm in every way. (let alone compared to something like a zealot...) Huh? Deimos will fit ions with 800mm plate and a MAAR and a Microwarp drive. It can also do neutrons with dual rep. How are you having a hard time fitting it? Also, it'll solo a Brutix or Myrmidon with no trouble if you utilize the rep bonus. you lost me at '800mm plate'. sure, you can active rep it. then you can tank 1 other cruiser, barely. combined with the fleet boost nerf, it's going to be used even less. what you cant do is buffer it properly, which is a FAR more common fit for any cruiser ever. seriously, an active rep bonus on any cruiser hull in the game should be accompanied with a troll face next to it. PS: any solo active tank ship will always beat any non active tank ship in it's class (unless you are terrible). soooo not the point.
You get 20k ehp, 1k dps tank preheat, 600dps and good speed/agility without any links or implants out of a dualrep version. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
158
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 06:28:00 -
[2193] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:deimos needs to be a dedicated brawler, it's a gallente blaster boat for gods sake! Deimos is a brawler. One of the best. Are you sure you're not looking at the old changes before they updated them? one of the best? it's virtually unfittable and flat out worse than a brutix or myrm in every way. (let alone compared to something like a zealot...)
You know, HACs are revamped. That statement is clearly based on 1.0 stats, else it would be pretty wrong. (There are more stickies about other impacting changes, also linked rep-amount won't significantly change)
I only correct my own spelling. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
160
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 07:08:00 -
[2194] - Quote
There seems to be a lot of uninformed whining on this forum by people who have clearly not tried these ships out on the test server.
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 07:15:00 -
[2195] - Quote
Quote:There seems to be a lot of uninformed whining on this forum by people who have clearly not tried these ships out on the test server.
I know, right? Now, if they'd just update my skills so I can try out some more stuff on Sisi... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
160
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 07:18:00 -
[2196] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:There seems to be a lot of uninformed whining on this forum by people who have clearly not tried these ships out on the test server. I know, right? Now, if they'd just update my skills so I can try out some more stuff on Sisi...
trust me, when you get into these ships you will fall in love with them.
|
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 07:42:00 -
[2197] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Also, shouldn't the Deimos then receive a significant buff to its cap? (more so than the general buff being given to the HACs) as it's losing the MWD cap bonus and gaining an active armor bonus? Or is the additional mid now a compulsory cap booster slot? (I was really excited about the increased versatility of a 4th mid but I guess that won't be the case now). If you're active repping, then yeah. That 4th mid is pretty much going to be a cap booster. If you're buffer fitting and going to have logi, you can do e-war. But, for small gang sans logi, that cap booster/MAAR combo works very nicely. I think if this is the path for the Deimos, it would be better served with a tracking bonus like the Thorax instead of the falloff bonus. This would help running a dual rep, dual prop deimos (kind of like the standard/old brawling SFI fit).
However it probably spells the end of shield will adama-esque anti-support deimos (though TE nerf already hit that pretty hard before this).
On another subject, I'm rather unimpressed by the Zealot. I feel it will become the rifter of the HAC revamp. Give it a 25m drone bay please. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 08:01:00 -
[2198] - Quote
Quote:I think if this is the path for the Deimos, it would be better served with a tracking bonus like the Thorax instead of the falloff bonus. This would help running a dual rep, dual prop deimos (kind of like the standard/old brawling SFI fit).
I'm really torn on that. I know some people want to kite with the Deimos, so the falloff helps there. It wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit to see it go full on brawler with a tracking bonus, but I think the falloff bonus keeps the rail option viable. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
768
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 08:55:00 -
[2199] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Also, shouldn't the Deimos then receive a significant buff to its cap? (more so than the general buff being given to the HACs) as it's losing the MWD cap bonus and gaining an active armor bonus? Or is the additional mid now a compulsory cap booster slot? (I was really excited about the increased versatility of a 4th mid but I guess that won't be the case now). If you're active repping, then yeah. That 4th mid is pretty much going to be a cap booster. If you're buffer fitting and going to have logi, you can do e-war. But, for small gang sans logi, that cap booster/MAAR combo works very nicely. You are doing it wrong, dual-rep has not been necessary on rep bonused hulls after the AAR introduction, plate+MAAR is what you want.
Deimos capacitor is as (if not more) powerful than the TQ Sacrilege so you only need to inject if your cap is alpha'ed or when up against a multi-neut medium neut hull of which there are none .. single medium neut ships won't live long enough for the neut to do its job, it is strong enough to effectively shrug at heavy neuts all you might need is a small injector with 400's which just happens to be pretty damn near the recharge sweet spot on a cruiser.
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:...On another subject, I'm rather unimpressed by the Zealot. I feel it will become the rifter of the HAC revamp. Give it a 25m drone bay please. It is unchanged because of Scorch I reckon, works so well in swarms with that lens type that it is considered good while all others are getting buffed to function in and out of swarms. Adding a flight of light drones is a crutch move, like wanting covops on something broken thinking it will help. Between AARs and ASBs a flight of damage drones is no threat to frigates, sensor strengths have gone up with new skills and implants so ec300s will be pointless .. so what would be the purpose of that flight?
It needs what all laser boats needs: Tracking.
Introduce the 3rd pulses (M/L Gatlings) or do a combo bonus similar to what has been done for drones with +5% optimal/+5% tracking, trading some of the range for actually being able to apply damage inside web range.
Won't happen of course, because Amarr is not meant to be solo/small-gang viable until sometime after 2016 to give Gallente lovers enough time to harvest tears from us |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 09:01:00 -
[2200] - Quote
Quote:You are doing it wrong, dual-rep has not been necessary on rep bonused hulls after the AAR introduction, plate+MAAR is what you want.
You haven't read the thread, obviously, or you'd know that the cap boosted MAAR setup I'm referring to is the 800mm plate setup. I've been the one arguing AGAINST the dual rep option. |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 09:22:00 -
[2201] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:You are doing it wrong, dual-rep has not been necessary on rep bonused hulls after the AAR introduction, plate+MAAR is what you want. You haven't read the thread, obviously, or you'd know that the cap boosted MAAR setup I'm referring to is the 800mm plate setup. I've been the one arguing AGAINST the dual rep option. I'm not really sure where you got that I'm promoting dual reps. Dual rep isn't mentioned anywhere in what you quoted.
And you still havnt replied to the statement that dualrep is better after 23 seconds and that this means the usual buffer doesnt count.
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 09:28:00 -
[2202] - Quote
Quote:And you still havnt replied to the statement that dualrep is better after 23 seconds and that this means the usual buffer doesnt count.
Get on TQ with that dual rep fit. I've tried to tell you that the plate+MAAR is outperforming it in practice. Take that or leave it. Fly what you want. What you die in makes no difference to me. The Deimos simply doesn't need that kind of setup and is perfectly capable of upengaging or tanking multiple targets without it. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 09:33:00 -
[2203] - Quote
Im not talking about tq atm, im talking about sis where they buffed the deimos rep power compared to tq by over 50%.
Plate + aar frit on non frigs are bad in general. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 09:37:00 -
[2204] - Quote
And I'm talking about when that Sisi Deimos hits TQ. Time will tell whether or not that dual rep sees much flight time after the first month or so after it hits. I don't think it will. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 09:46:00 -
[2205] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:And I'm talking about when that Sisi Deimos hits TQ. Time will tell whether or not that dual rep sees much flight time after the first month or so after it hits. I don't think it will.
The whole ship wont, nor will the hac class in general. They will be just as bad post patch as they are now. The problem is the price of the things and the fact that they offer nothing unique. The fine tuning of balancing is of very little relevance.
If i want as much performance per isk as possible from a cruiser sized ship i run t1 cruisers, if i want the best performance possible of a cruiser i run with t3s. ABCs are what hacs should have been, |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 09:47:00 -
[2206] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:...On another subject, I'm rather unimpressed by the Zealot. I feel it will become the rifter of the HAC revamp. Give it a 25m drone bay please. It is unchanged because of Scorch I reckon, works so well in swarms with that lens type that it is considered good while all others are getting buffed to function in and out of swarms. Adding a flight of light drones is a crutch move, like wanting covops on something broken thinking it will help. Between AARs and ASBs a flight of damage drones is no threat to frigates, sensor strengths have gone up with new skills and implants so ec300s will be pointless .. so what would be the purpose of that flight? It needs what all laser boats needs: Tracking. Introduce the 3rd pulses (M/L Gatlings) or do a combo bonus similar to what has been done for drones with +5% optimal/+5% tracking, trading some of the range for actually being able to apply damage inside web range. Won't happen of course, because Amarr is not meant to be solo/small-gang viable until sometime after 2016 to give Gallente lovers enough time to harvest tears from us Well Pilgrim and curse are pretty standard solo ships. Slicer and Omen Navy Issue (especially the Nomen) are arguably some of the best solo hulls out there. I get that it's probably a bad idea for the Zealot to go as fast as a Nomen since it'll be unkillable with the t2 resists and the 50% mwd sig bonus (and because it'll obsolete the Nomen) but surely a little bit of anti-tackle/anti-frig capability isn't going to make it broken OP. Assault frigs and some of the tankier frigs like Merlins and Incursuses don't care about a flight of warriors so it's not like it'll be untackleable. But a flight of ec-300s might save you every blue moon. That's really all I think it will take the make the Zealot on par with the other buffed HACs.
This isn't comparable to some herp derp suggestion like add a cov-ops on an abaddon or something. It'll just make the zealot kind of like a shied talos - still vulnerable to frig tackle but not utterly and completely dead if something gets under 10km. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
768
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 11:20:00 -
[2207] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Well Pilgrim and curse are pretty standard solo ships... They are also not HACs and have not yet been through the wringer, I have no doubt that the Devs will find some ingenious way to mess them up as well.
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Slicer and Omen Navy Issue (especially the Nomen) .. Also not HACs and if you look at them you'd know that their eminent solo capability hinges on one, count it ONE, playstyle. They are superb kiters but are distinctly sub-par if they want to brawl .. no other T1 hulls have the same narrow niche .. and Nomen has 50m3 drones which does exactly squat. You have one guess as to why they don't function inside scram/web range (hint: starts with "T", rhymes with fracking).
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:..but surely a little bit of anti-tackle/anti-frig capability isn't going to make it broken OP.. . That is just it, adding drones does not constitute anti-frig capability, against a noob frig pilot perhaps but anyone in FW, and I guess RvB as well, who flies frigs a lot will tell you that an OV tab for drones makes short work of both light and medium. They pose a credible and real threat to frigates in swarms, but then the frigate has much more pressing matters to attend to making the point moot. EC drones will help once in a while, but I flat out refuse to accept balancing based on what is generally regarded as a broken thing, even people who abuse the snot of EC drones support a revision of them .. hell, CCP themselves have said they don't like them for Goddess sake.
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:This isn't comparable to some herp derp suggestion like add a cov-ops on an abaddon or something. It'll just make the zealot kind of like a shied talos - still vulnerable to frig tackle but not utterly and completely dead if something gets under 10km. And I would be perfectly fine with that kind of balancing if it was applied as a general rule, but it is only the Amarr hulls that have to make abhorrent sacrifices in order to function outside of their niche .. I'd even go so far as to say they are the only HACs with a niche.
Equal opportunity is what I want, nothing more. Zealot would work brilliantly if we had access to a gatling type medium gun so the hull itself is not really at fault, but unless said gatling is added then something has to be changed for equal opportunity to exist.
Sacrilege is just 'meh'. Same as always but with a range bonus it will rarely if ever need .. missiles, HAMs in particular, require tackle or free mids for painting .. what good is +50% range if you have to be on top of the target to apply any damage in the first place and where is the speed that is necessary to make that range matter? Compare to Cerberus and cringe .. that thing will almost outdamage and certainly outrange and outrun the Sacrilege using AML's which double as the ultimate frigate swatters and frees up more fittings than it can use.
In short: Amarr hulls are the only ones of which I cannot confidently say "I can make that work" in more than a few engagements and/or engagement types. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
535
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 12:25:00 -
[2208] - Quote
Here is my general question. Why do hacs have 2x the cap recharge rate of a command ship?
Why can a deimos run a single MARII tackle and guns with cap recharge (no cap boosters) Where an eos/astarte cannot even with 2x nos fitted.
Hac cap regen seems a bit over the top. |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 12:30:00 -
[2209] - Quote
T2s specialise in areas, HACs happen to specialise in cap management. They also cant boost fleets or have battleship tank. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
535
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 12:41:00 -
[2210] - Quote
Mr Doctor wrote:T2s specialise in areas, HACs happen to specialise in cap management. They also cant boost fleets or have battleship tank.
Hacs tank better than commands in both the fleet level (with logi) and the individual (self rep). Mucher smaller sig and a higher speed mitigates far more damage than a command in fleet or solo play.
If you don't believe me, hop on sisi and see which is easier to kill. An astarte/eos, or a Deimos. You will find that the Deimos is significantly tankier.
|
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
161
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 13:39:00 -
[2211] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:You are doing it wrong, dual-rep has not been necessary on rep bonused hulls after the AAR introduction, plate+MAAR is what you want. You haven't read the thread, obviously, or you'd know that the cap boosted MAAR setup I'm referring to is the 800mm plate setup. I've been the one arguing AGAINST the dual rep option. I'm not really sure where you got that I'm promoting dual reps. Dual rep isn't mentioned anywhere in what you quoted. And you still havnt replied to the statement that dualrep is better after 23 seconds and that this means the usual buffer doesnt count.
actually i've ben using it with 800 plate and single MAR, medium cap booster, 400 boosters. needs a small PG implant.
works very well until it encounters 3 heavy neuts on 120 degree cycles. and even then it doesn't die quickly.
deimos doesnt need a tracking bonus. the falloff bonus is useful as it allows the ship to hit anything in scram range. its also useful in the 200mm railgun fit.
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 14:02:00 -
[2212] - Quote
Quote:actually i've ben using it with 800 plate and single MAR, medium cap booster, 400 boosters. needs a small PG implant.
Actually, with ions and the ancillary rep, you don't need implants at all. Give it a shot! |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
161
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 14:13:00 -
[2213] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:actually i've ben using it with 800 plate and single MAR, medium cap booster, 400 boosters. needs a small PG implant. Actually, with ions and the ancillary rep, you don't need implants at all. Give it a shot!
It worked well for me with the ancillary until I encountered 2 opponents at once.
The 800 plate was not enough to see me through the reload. I prefer the predictability of the MAR, but I accept that it can't mitigate as much early-fight damage.
Jerrick, we've always seen eye to eye mate but I think it's ok that the HACs have better cap management than the CSs. The HACs are going to be in the brawl at the start and need to last the course. You (I) wouldn't commit the command ship to scram/neut range until the fight was clearly going in my favour.
I think this is where in practice the tactical advantage of the EOS may become apparent, since it can apply damage from 30km away via drones or sentries while maintaining its options.
Presumably the same is true of a rail-fitted astarte, and the minny ships.
In this use case, the EOS has the advantage of being able to engage at any range like a missile boat (with the obvious downside that drones can be blapped).
It seems to me to all balance out. Let's organise a 10v10 fight on Sisi and see how it works out?
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
535
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 14:28:00 -
[2214] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Let's organise a 10v10 fight on Sisi and see how it works out?
I'm down however it's going to be hard to get an accurate picture of fleet cap stability until the cap xfer bug is fixed.
|
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
67
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 17:10:00 -
[2215] - Quote
The Deimos needs to be re-examined. It may not be Op in a fleet scenario, however solo / small gang it is simply too effective with local reppers.
Check it out on the test server and you'll see how crazy it tanks. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
535
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 17:20:00 -
[2216] - Quote
Phaade wrote:The Deimos needs to be re-examined. It may not be Op in a fleet scenario, however solo / small gang it is simply too effective with local reppers.
Check it out on the test server and you'll see how crazy it tanks.
Being cap stable running a marII all guns, and tackle (with a mwd fit) just seems a bit too crazy imo especially considering it does not need a single cap mod to achieve this. I'd like to see it's cap regen nerfed to be more inline with other hacs barring the sac of course. Overall the ability to tank another hac forever simple off cap recharge seems a bit cheesy especially when it's doing around 700 dps. With links, -sig pill, and -sig implants it becomes simply cheese. If the deimos was forced to burn a cap booster every now and then while running a single mar I don't think we would see nearly the issue that is present on sisi.
In conclusion: A 5 slot tank deimos should not be tankier and more cap stable than a 6 slot tank eos with 2x med nos, just saying...
I understand that the overall massive increase to cap recharge on hacs was to allow them to run mwd forever however this massive buff has had very significant impacts on other aspects of the game.
|
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 17:31:00 -
[2217] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Phaade wrote:The Deimos needs to be re-examined. It may not be Op in a fleet scenario, however solo / small gang it is simply too effective with local reppers.
Check it out on the test server and you'll see how crazy it tanks. Being cap stable running a marII all guns, and tackle (with a mwd fit) just seems a bit too crazy imo especially considering it does not need a single cap mod to achieve this. I'd like to see it's cap regen nerfed to be more inline with other hacs barring the sac of course. Overall the ability to tank another hac forever simple off cap recharge seems a bit cheesy especially when it's doing around 700 dps. With links, -sig pill, and -sig implants it becomes simply (lol rly ccp?) status. If the deimos was forced to burn a cap booster every now and then while running a single mar I don't think we would see nearly the issue that is present on sisi. In conclusion: A 5 slot tank deimos should not be tankier and more cap stable than a 6 slot tank eos with 2x med nos, just saying... I understand that the overall massive increase to cap recharge on hacs was to allow them to run mwd forever however this massive buff has had very significant impacts on other aspects of the game.
I think the idea is that the deimos has, to this point, found itself constantly the target of energy neutralization. The capacitor reflects that it should be stable until is it neutralized. This should be a common problem for the deimos, due to the ranges in which it engages. You'll still need that cap booster, because even your guns turn off when neuted out in a hybrid ship. This isn't so with the other brawlers.
At least, I've yet to actually SEE a zealot deliberately enter neut range. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
535
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 17:43:00 -
[2218] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:
I think the idea is that the deimos has, to this point, found itself constantly the target of energy neutralization. The capacitor reflects that it should be stable until is it neutralized. This should be a common problem for the deimos, due to the ranges in which it engages. You'll still need that cap booster, because even your guns turn off when neuted out in a hybrid ship. This isn't so with the other brawlers.
At least, I've yet to actually SEE a zealot deliberately enter neut range.
The recharge rate really does not have any significant impact if you're being heavily nueted. You're going to be burning your charges anyway.
The problem comes when you're fighting targets w/o lots of nuets or any nuets. The deimos is very close to un-killable (even when out numbered) against the majority of hacs and up in these situations.
Hop and Sisi and i'll show ya.
|
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
67
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 18:08:00 -
[2219] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote:
I think the idea is that the deimos has, to this point, found itself constantly the target of energy neutralization. The capacitor reflects that it should be stable until is it neutralized. This should be a common problem for the deimos, due to the ranges in which it engages. You'll still need that cap booster, because even your guns turn off when neuted out in a hybrid ship. This isn't so with the other brawlers.
At least, I've yet to actually SEE a zealot deliberately enter neut range.
The recharge rate really does not have any significant impact if you're being heavily nueted. You're going to be burning your charges anyway and probably going to be dieing anyway. The problem comes when you're fighting targets w/o lots of nuets or any nuets. The deimos is very close to un-killable (even when out numbered) against the majority of hacs and up in these situations. Hop and Sisi and i'll show ya.
I couldn't believe how well you tanked it, honestly was ridiculous. It must be perma tanking about 500-600 dps while running guns and tackle. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
162
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:09:00 -
[2220] - Quote
Well yes... that's its job...
|
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
536
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:23:00 -
[2221] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes... that's its job...
It's one of the fastest hacs, is the highest dps hac (700ish dps with void, hammers, 5% med hybrid implants and 1 mag stab) and is also one of the tankiest sub caps in the game.
I don't think it's job is to do all of that at the same time which it currently does.
I'm not arguing removing the tank bonus, or changing speed, sig, or fittings. I simply (strongly) believe that it's cap recharge is too high and imo ALL of the hacs need to have their recharge looked into.
It simply makes no sense that a deimos is cap stable with a mar, tackle, and guns compared to an eos with 2x med nos that's not. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
70
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:30:00 -
[2222] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes... that's its job...
Try the Deimos out on Singularity, then get back to me. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
162
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 22:41:00 -
[2223] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes... that's its job...
Try the Deimos out on Singularity, then get back to me.
I have, extensively. Both with and without fleet boosts and drugs.
I have seen what it can kill solo and I have seen how it is beaten.
You generally won't beat it in a close-up brawl unless you bring 2 neuts (try a neut ishtar). However, it's not the fastest ship so it can be kited and killed by many of the faster ships available.
It will defeat a badly flown/fitted battleship but has a harder time against a well fitted/flown one.
It also has a hard time against navy BCs (although it will kill a navy drake at close quarters, because the DNI is designed for remote DPS). It won't catch many of the navy cruisers.
It's an excellent primary tackler with good staying power against larger foes. It's disengagement options are limited and its tank can be overwhelmed, particularly with EM ammo (kiting zealots and sacrileges and vagabonds are quite dangerous to it if well flown).
read back through the forums, I flew it for 12 hours non-stop before posting about my findings.
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:05:00 -
[2224] - Quote
Most of the fits I see being flown in singularity will be a laugh in tranquility. Dual reppers/XL ASB with insane active tanking are good in singularity where everyhting is "free" and full snake/crystal sets are the rule, but in tranquiltiy thats the buff that counts since in 99% of the times you will be flying in gangs with logistic supports and with primarys being called.
No matter if you can tank 2000 DPS, if your EHP is about 15k, it will insta explode under the fire of 3/4 enemy ships. So basing all the conclusions in the results of flying the hacs in singularity is doomed to be wrong since is not how it works "in real life". It can give some hints for the vagabond as example but not many more.
|
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2260
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:07:00 -
[2225] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes... that's its job...
Try the Deimos out on Singularity, then get back to me. I have, extensively. Both with and without fleet boosts and drugs. I have seen what it can kill solo and I have seen how it is beaten. You generally won't beat it in a close-up brawl unless you bring 2 neuts (try a neut ishtar). However, it's not the fastest ship so it can be kited and killed by many of the faster ships available. It will defeat a badly flown/fitted battleship but has a harder time against a well fitted/flown one. It also has a hard time against navy BCs (although it will kill a navy drake at close quarters, because the DNI is designed for remote DPS). It won't catch many of the navy cruisers. It's an excellent primary tackler with good staying power against larger foes. It's disengagement options are limited and its tank can be overwhelmed, particularly with EM ammo (kiting zealots and sacrileges and vagabonds are quite dangerous to it if well flown). read back through the forums, I flew it for 12 hours non-stop before posting about my findings. this seems accurate. it basically works like all other active rep bonused ships: great solo, horrible in fleets. it's essentially the new sacrilege with more DPS and less range. so... how many people currently fly a sac? yeah, none.
id bet you any amount of isk that it wont see use in the long run either. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
162
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 23:17:00 -
[2226] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes... that's its job...
Try the Deimos out on Singularity, then get back to me. I have, extensively. Both with and without fleet boosts and drugs. I have seen what it can kill solo and I have seen how it is beaten. You generally won't beat it in a close-up brawl unless you bring 2 neuts (try a neut ishtar). However, it's not the fastest ship so it can be kited and killed by many of the faster ships available. It will defeat a badly flown/fitted battleship but has a harder time against a well fitted/flown one. It also has a hard time against navy BCs (although it will kill a navy drake at close quarters, because the DNI is designed for remote DPS). It won't catch many of the navy cruisers. It's an excellent primary tackler with good staying power against larger foes. It's disengagement options are limited and its tank can be overwhelmed, particularly with EM ammo (kiting zealots and sacrileges and vagabonds are quite dangerous to it if well flown). read back through the forums, I flew it for 12 hours non-stop before posting about my findings. this seems accurate. it basically works like all other active rep bonused ships: great solo, horrible in fleets. it's essentially the new sacrilege with more DPS and less range. so... how many people currently fly a sac? yeah, none. id bet you any amount of isk that it wont see use in the long run either.
I have also flown the Sacrilege for about 90 minutes. Less time purely because I don't yet have T2 missile skills. Nevertheless even I got it to 500dps of any damage type (right into my opponent's resistance hole). I fitted it to be dual prop to give it a disengagement option since it's tank is not as strong as a deimos. The dual prop gives it mobility, sig tanking, a defence against scrams. It's strong capacitor makes it effectively immune to a heavy neut. 2 or 3 if you couple that with a medium cap booster with navy 400 charges.
It's a strong versatile ship that will work well in small gangs or larger fleets. I was really taken with it and will definitely be using it.
As for the deimos in TQ, I agree with the above. I'll be fitting it single rep with an 800 plate. The rep will mostly be to patch up between fights rather than something to rely upon in an extended engagement. I won't fly the deimos solo because while it is very strong up close, it's very vulnerable when more than 10km away from a target, unless fitted with railgun in which case it's vulnerable to anything within 15 kms.
These are all good ships,and they all have vulnerabilities. This is a good thing. I sincerely hope the days of "fly ship x or die" are gone. I want combat to require thought, teamwork, feints, retreats and finally outright violence. The new HACs give us these opportunities. I encourage you to embrace them.
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
181
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 00:12:00 -
[2227] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:actually i've ben using it with 800 plate and single MAR, medium cap booster, 400 boosters. needs a small PG implant. Actually, with ions and the ancillary rep, you don't need implants at all. Give it a shot! It worked well for me with the ancillary until I encountered 2 opponents at once. The 800 plate was not enough to see me through the reload. I prefer the predictability of the MAR, but I accept that it can't mitigate as much early-fight damage. Jerrick, we've always seen eye to eye mate but I think it's ok that the HACs have better cap management than the CSs. The HACs are going to be in the brawl at the start and need to last the course. You (I) wouldn't commit the command ship to scram/neut range until the fight was clearly going in my favour. I think this is where in practice the tactical advantage of the EOS may become apparent, since it can apply damage from 30km away via drones or sentries while maintaining its options. Presumably the same is true of a rail-fitted astarte, and the minny ships. In this use case, the EOS has the advantage of being able to engage at any range like a missile boat (with the obvious downside that drones can be blapped). It seems to me to all balance out. Let's organise a 10v10 fight on Sisi and see how it works out?
/o\, you never ever reaload the maar midfight, never. Thats pure math.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 00:24:00 -
[2228] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: /o\, you never ever reaload the maar midfight, never. Thats pure math.
You don't do it deliberately no, but if you have auto-reload on and you get neutralised at the wrong moment, you get no choice in the matter (fail, I know...)
I have done the maths and to be honest if the ship is going to survive under the tank of an unloaded MAAR then it's going to survive a whole lot longer under the tank of a MAR.
I have agonised over this choice for some time, and my overall experience with the MAR is a happier one on all ships except frigates and destroyers.
I personally feel that the xAARs are broken. I'm sure I'm not alone in that respect. I think the reload time needs to be reducable with skills down to 15s for a small, 30 seconds for a medium and 45 seconds for a large.
Then I think they'll be viable.
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 00:37:00 -
[2229] - Quote
Not really, i dont like them as much either but they are better then a t2 version for quite some time (about 3 minutes), by that time in a deimos there is quite a chance that you killed something, with 600dps by the time a mar is better you could have killed 2 canes (as you do over 100k damage in that time). For a linked version normal ones are better but maar arent useless. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 00:39:00 -
[2230] - Quote
Fair point mate. More testing required...
|
|
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 02:32:00 -
[2231] - Quote
Everyone can debate the balance tweaks till you go blue in the face, but unless CCP revises the cost of the HACs, they will continue to be the "occasional pimp lark PvP" of the rich at best, or the "Bears' eco choice v/s T3s" for PvE
Very approximate, since the costs vary wildly by race, lets take Gallente ship line:
Tristan, full T2 fit: 8-10M Ishkur: 35-40M Vexor: 45-50M Navy Vexor: 100-110M (and i must specify, this is one of the most expensive Navy cruisers e.g. SFI is half the cost) Myrmidon: 75-85M Navy Brutix: ~200M
Ishtar: ~200M
Is the Ishtar really going to deliver 2X Navy Vexor performance? And this is the most biased (in favor of HAC) economic comparison. E.g. Scythe Fleet vs Munnin is a near 4X difference.
Fully T2 fit HACs need their material requirement brought down, so within a month of 1.1 the avg price settles at around the ~130-140M mark. |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2261
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 03:01:00 -
[2232] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes... that's its job...
Try the Deimos out on Singularity, then get back to me. I have, extensively. Both with and without fleet boosts and drugs. I have seen what it can kill solo and I have seen how it is beaten. You generally won't beat it in a close-up brawl unless you bring 2 neuts (try a neut ishtar). However, it's not the fastest ship so it can be kited and killed by many of the faster ships available. It will defeat a badly flown/fitted battleship but has a harder time against a well fitted/flown one. It also has a hard time against navy BCs (although it will kill a navy drake at close quarters, because the DNI is designed for remote DPS). It won't catch many of the navy cruisers. It's an excellent primary tackler with good staying power against larger foes. It's disengagement options are limited and its tank can be overwhelmed, particularly with EM ammo (kiting zealots and sacrileges and vagabonds are quite dangerous to it if well flown). read back through the forums, I flew it for 12 hours non-stop before posting about my findings. this seems accurate. it basically works like all other active rep bonused ships: great solo, horrible in fleets. it's essentially the new sacrilege with more DPS and less range. so... how many people currently fly a sac? yeah, none. id bet you any amount of isk that it wont see use in the long run either. I have also flown the Sacrilege for about 90 minutes. Less time purely because I don't yet have T2 missile skills. Nevertheless even I got it to 500dps of any damage type (right into my opponent's resistance hole). I fitted it to be dual prop to give it a disengagement option since it's tank is not as strong as a deimos. The dual prop gives it mobility, sig tanking, a defence against scrams. It's strong capacitor makes it effectively immune to a heavy neut. 2 or 3 if you couple that with a medium cap booster with navy 400 charges. It's a strong versatile ship that will work well in small gangs or larger fleets. I was really taken with it and will definitely be using it. As for the deimos in TQ, I agree with the above. I'll be fitting it single rep with an 800 plate. The rep will mostly be to patch up between fights rather than something to rely upon in an extended engagement. I won't fly the deimos solo because while it is very strong up close, it's very vulnerable when more than 10km away from a target, unless fitted with railgun in which case it's vulnerable to anything within 15 kms. These are all good ships,and they all have vulnerabilities. This is a good thing. I sincerely hope the days of "fly ship x or die" are gone. I want combat to require thought, teamwork, feints, retreats and finally outright violence. The new HACs give us these opportunities. I encourage you to embrace them. oh i meant sac as it is now on TQ. post patch sac will be way better than it is now and tons better than the deimos since it's actually useful in fleets. |
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 04:02:00 -
[2233] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote: oh i meant sac as it is now on TQ. post patch sac will be way better than it is now and tons better than the deimos since it's actually useful in fleets.
Of the changes made to it which ones make it way better than it is currently on TQ? |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 05:00:00 -
[2234] - Quote
ArcticPrism wrote:
Of the changes made to it which ones make it way better than it is currently on TQ?
- Missile velocity bonus means you can kite in point range with HAMs
- Boost to MAR/MAAR repping amounts by 15% in 1.1
- MWD Class bonus [reduced sig], further helps in mitigating damage while kiting in above role
- Though CAP was never the SACs problem, its even better Cap mgmt now [All HACs have their cap recharge per second set to around 5.5 rather than the former 3.5 - 4.5 cap/sec]
- Larger drone bay AND more bandwidth, either full flight of med drones or a spare flight of dishonor ECM lights to GTFO i.e. better counter vs tacklers OR more power if brawling as dual prop
- More PG helps get in the Med Neut in the spare high, without using anci rig, means more tank if youre flying the solo/small gang dual prop variety or in fleets
Further minor but useful buffs: - All HACs will gain 7-8 sensor strength, putting their average Sensor Strength at 22 which is right around combat battleship range. [Helps vs ECM drones and multi-racial ECM] - All HACs gain 15k to 25k lock range [Helps RR Ball fleets v/s Sensor Damps]
Want More? |
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 05:11:00 -
[2235] - Quote
Navy Omen VS Zealot http://s24.postimg.org/f9tuk94ut/Navy_Omen_vs_Zealot.png
Navy Omen vs Zealot Speed ........................ 1962 vs 1462 Align ............................ 7.2 vs 10.6 Damge (with drones). ... 409 vs 406 Optimal (Scorch) ........... 34 vs 34 Dronebay ....................... 40 vs 0 Capacitor ................... 1671 vs 1519 Cap peak recharge ....... 19.8 vs 17.1 Lock Range ................ 71.9 vs 68.8 Maximum Target ............. 7 vs 6 Scann Resolution ....... 400 vs 382 Sensor Strength ........... 20 vs 15 Signature ................... 600 vs 750 Armor ....................... 9703 vs 8813
Why is Zealot worse that Navy Omen by all this attributes?
Zealot has resistances (and total EHP) better than Navy Omen only.
I think Zealot must have dronebay at least for 5 light drones and much more speed!!! |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
186
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 06:24:00 -
[2236] - Quote
Boris Amarr wrote:Navy Omen VS Zealot http://s24.postimg.org/f9tuk94ut/Navy_Omen_vs_Zealot.png Navy Omen vs Zealot Speed ........................ 1962 vs 1462 Align ............................ 7.2 vs 10.6 Damge (with drones). ... 409 vs 406 Optimal (Scorch) ........... 34 vs 34 Dronebay ....................... 40 vs 0 Capacitor ................... 1671 vs 1519 Cap peak recharge ....... 19.8 vs 17.1 Lock Range ................ 71.9 vs 68.8 Maximum Target ............. 7 vs 6 Scann Resolution ....... 400 vs 382 Sensor Strength ........... 20 vs 15 Signature ................... 600 vs 750 Armor ....................... 9703 vs 8813 Why is Zealot worse that Navy Omen by all this attributes? Zealot has resistances (and total EHP) better than Navy Omen only. I think Zealot must have dronebay at least for 5 light drones and much more speed!!!
Take a look at ehp and resitance profile (epecially with legion links) and youll see. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
770
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 08:02:00 -
[2237] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Take a look at ehp and resitance profile (epecially with legion links) and youll see. The Nanonomomom's tank is its speed, who cares about resist profiles if nothing in your weight class can catch you? So I'll see your Legion links and raise you a set of Loki links
The Nomen config, with its specialized niche but option to act in swarm porcupines, would have been perfect for the Zealot but Devs decided on a topsy-turvy interpretation of T1/Navy when they designed the thing.
Fast kiting Zealot with range, only three mids and no drones vs. Nomen with range, same mids and 50m3 drones .. swap the mobility and its balanced out automatically plus we can put the call for Zealot drones to rest for good as it would be redundant.
But it would require Zealot capacitor to be nerfed from proposed HAC stats to introduce injector dependency when kiting and the vulnerability it presents .. wishes and hopes are eternal.
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
186
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 08:24:00 -
[2238] - Quote
The nomen can easily be cought and killed, it really isnt hard to fight. But yes its a lot better then a zealot at solo stuff, in nearly any sort of logi supported fleet the zealot is way better though. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 08:59:00 -
[2239] - Quote
Boris Amarr wrote:Navy Omen VS Zealot http://s24.postimg.org/f9tuk94ut/Navy_Omen_vs_Zealot.png Navy Omen vs Zealot Speed ........................ 1962 vs 1462 Align ............................ 7.2 vs 10.6 Damge (with drones). ... 409 vs 406 Optimal (Scorch) ........... 34 vs 34 Dronebay ....................... 40 vs 0 Capacitor ................... 1671 vs 1519 Cap peak recharge ....... 19.8 vs 17.1 Lock Range ................ 71.9 vs 68.8 Maximum Target ............. 7 vs 6 Scann Resolution ....... 400 vs 382 Sensor Strength ........... 20 vs 15 Signature ................... 600 vs 750 Armor ....................... 9703 vs 8813 Why is Zealot worse that Navy Omen by all this attributes? Zealot has resistances (and total EHP) better than Navy Omen only. I think Zealot must have dronebay at least for 5 light drones and much more speed!!!
The signature of a the zealot is not 750 under MWD. It has a 50% reduction to sig penalty. So it's doing 1462 m/s with a sig radius of 500ish. That will mitigate an epic amount of damage from guns and missiles.
In addition, as mentioned, T2 resists. The sensor strength you post here looks like pre-1.1 numbers. Check the ship in sisi.
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3289
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 09:29:00 -
[2240] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote: oh i meant sac as it is now on TQ. post patch sac will be way better than it is now and tons better than the deimos since it's actually useful in fleets.
You mean because it applies less than half of the damage of a rail Deimos, while being slower and less agile? Sure, it has 7-8K more EHP, but that doesn't really matter when dps is only 200 vs 500 of the rail Deimos. (Target: MWDing Deimos that can kite the Sac forever)
Comparing blaster Deimos to HAM Sac looks just way worse for the Sac, applied damage difference is 3/4-fold.
Against different targets results will vary, but it does look like a Deimos fleet will blatantly stomp a Sac fleet in both close and long range fits. The much debated MWD role bonus really hurts missiles in this context.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
|
Akturous
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
223
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 09:36:00 -
[2241] - Quote
Not sure if anyone else has noticed, but the Muninn is still ******* aweful. It hasn't got the alpha or dps it needs with armour, nor the mid slots for shield.
It needs an extra turret at the very least. The Deimos and ishtar walk all over this pos, how is this ok? Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 09:43:00 -
[2242] - Quote
Roime wrote:Jack Miton wrote: oh i meant sac as it is now on TQ. post patch sac will be way better than it is now and tons better than the deimos since it's actually useful in fleets.
You mean because it applies less than half of the damage of a rail Deimos, while being slower and less agile? Sure, it has 7-8K more EHP, but that doesn't really matter when dps is only 200 vs 500 of the rail Deimos. (Target: MWDing Deimos that can kite the Sac forever) Comparing blaster Deimos to HAM Sac looks just way worse for the Sac, applied damage difference is 3/4-fold. Against different targets results will vary, but it does look like a Deimos fleet will blatantly stomp a Sac fleet in both close and long range fits. The much debated MWD role bonus really hurts missiles in this context.
This is simply not true. A viable blaster deimos tops out at 700dps of only kinetic and thermal damage (i.e. known and counterable). It deals that damage out to about 4km. The HAM sac deals 500 or so damage of any damage type. The HAM sac can deal this damage at 8.9km - on the edge of scram range and at a range where the deimos is dealing no more than half it's ideal damage.
Put a dual prop on the sac and watch it pop a deimos.
It's not designed to brawl in optimal blaster range, that's what the deimos is for.
You have to fly these ships... |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3289
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 09:57:00 -
[2243] - Quote
HAM Sac with faction HAMS and two BCUs does 495 (heated) on paper yes, of which only 250 [i]in the best case[i/] are applied to a MWDing HAC.
A dual prop Deimos can unfortunately dictate the range against a Sac, being the faster ship of the two. Once you factor in the Reactive Armor Hardener, which you can fit on Deimos with two damage mods unlike the Sac, the Deimos has even more EHP against it's weakest resist than Sac has against kin/therm. Not even mentioning an active fit :D
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:10:00 -
[2244] - Quote
Roime wrote:HAM Sac with faction HAMS and two BCUs does 495 (heated) on paper yes, of which only 250 [i]in the best case[i/] are applied to a MWDing HAC.
A dual prop Deimos can unfortunately dictate the range against a Sac, being the faster ship of the two. Once you factor in the Reactive Armor Hardener, which you can fit on Deimos with two damage mods unlike the Sac, the Deimos has even more EHP against it's weakest resist than Sac has against kin/therm. Not even mentioning an active fit :D
We are beginning to get into an escalation of counter and counter-counter here.
If you dual-prop a deimos you have 2 options:- no cap booster (suicide) or no web.
If you drop the web, the sac can still dictate range because it has 5 mid slots: MDW, AB, WEB, SCRAM, cap booster.
The deimos is now travelling at 150 m/s (AB - web) while the sac is travelling at double that.
Those HAMs are now hitting at almost full damage. The blasters are barely hitting again (range, transversal). The SAC can disengage any time it wants (align, overheat scram and web, switch from AB to overheated MWD, warp). The deimos is there for the duration whether it likes it or not.
The advantage remains with the SAC.
If you drop the cap booster in the deimos, well, your're gambling that no-one you encounter will have a neut. That's not something you do more than once. Not if you're there to brawl.
The deimos is a great bulldog, but without a master to support it, it will die.
I think both these ships are great. I will be using them both.
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3289
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:12:00 -
[2245] - Quote
Sac has four mids.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:16:00 -
[2246] - Quote
forgive me, which ship am I mixing it up with? I'm on a laptop here and unable to run sisi to check again.
edit: try sacrilege with NOS instead of cap booster. It's the one with a +25 cap recharge right?
apologies for this error. I'm getting old :-) |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3290
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:30:00 -
[2247] - Quote
No worries, obviously nothing is so black and white and engagements on TQ are a far cry from EFT warrioring. My point was mostly that new Deimos looks very good and is certainly not unusable compared to the Sac, which itself looks great as well.
I honestly don't get the whining in this thread, all the new HACs are sweet and only time will truly tell how they fit into doctrines and the meta. I just know that I'll be flying the Deimos like there's no tomorrow, both solo and in gangs 8-)
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
770
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:34:00 -
[2248] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:forgive me, which ship am I mixing it up with? I'm on a laptop here and unable to run sisi to check again... Heh.
What it comes down to is that to get that ~500 paper damage the Sacrilege have to try to survive with a three slot tank and the range bonus is not actually doing it any favours as the main issue with HAMs is and always has been application .. basically, if it kites (using the range) it won't be able to kill much of anything and if it brawls it (full tackle) it dies from lack of tank .. that is assuming one can even make the damn thing 'kite' with the mobility profile it has (only the Eagle is worse off).
If you DP you increase the tank against non-webbing opponents but restrict yourself to single rep as you can't inject .. unless you forego your own web making damage application problematic. It is actually very nicely balanced with sacrifices and trade-offs everywhere, problem is that none/few of the other HACs are made from the same forced-decision mold putting the venerable Sacrilege at a severe disadvantage.
Explosion Velocity bonus would be infinitely better for both the HML and HAM Sacrilege ... then again perhaps the Dev thinking leans towards ASB kiting .. hahahaha. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:35:00 -
[2249] - Quote
Yeah, I'm down with that.
There's going to be a *lot* of T2 salvage lying around after 1.1 as HAC squads meet HAC squads. It's going to be messy.
Hoo-Rah!
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
159
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:41:00 -
[2250] - Quote
but guys... capstable med-neut on a bufferfit sacriledge together with a 15+km damage comfy zone... :D AND EC-600s FINALLY!!!!!11!1
Could even neglect some dps, go dualmed and just **** capitals +á la welpcane! I only correct my own spelling. |
|
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
110
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 12:30:00 -
[2251] - Quote
This has me wondering how this chart is going to work: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
The pirate ships are supposed to be an "improvement" over the T2 ships, whatever that means. I don't know how you can make a ship less specialized and an "improvement" at the same time though. Specialization is king in EVE. I currently fly a Gila for exploration and love it. I like that it has an extra midslot and an extra 25 m3 of drone bay compared to the Ishtar. I never bother to put missiles on it though, its a drone ship. You play to your ship's strengths in this game. CPU can not be wasted on piddly un-bonused missile DPS. I'll probably switch to the Ishtar after the patch for its sentry bonus. As far as drone ships go, it will be better. Its hard to imagine how the Gila can be buffed to stay viable while not overshadowing the Ishtar again. I guess they could copy over the bonuses from the Ishtar and remove the missiles. So it would essentially be a choice between an armor tanking ship with T2 resists or a shield tanking ship with more buffer. Not terribly interesting I guess. It will be tough. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3290
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 13:09:00 -
[2252] - Quote
Idk, pirate ships are an upgrade from navy ships, which are upgrades from T1. T2 is just specialized- I'm betting Gila gets strong bonuses to mobile drones, and Isthar remains the sentry king.
Once again, there's the urgent need to fix drones, CCP is intent on turning drone ships into pure drone ships, which is simply subpar strategy in PVP until the drone UI and basic mechanics are fixed.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1145
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 13:37:00 -
[2253] - Quote
Roime wrote:Idk, pirate ships are an upgrade from navy ships, which are upgrades from T1. T2 is just specialized- I'm betting Gila gets strong bonuses to mobile drones, and Isthar remains the sentry king.
Once again, there's the urgent need to fix drones, CCP is intent on turning drone ships into pure drone ships, which is simply subpar strategy in PVP until the drone UI and basic mechanics are fixed.
Got a Gila BPC a month or two ago, build the thing and fitted then waww....
Capacitor is worst than Gallente hulls, missiles dps I can barely explain or find a word justifying those high's but "total crap", fit an ASB requires far too much CPU meaning 1rig1slot is taken just to fit that asb leaving you with either 2 DDAs and a DCU or 3DDAs and no DCU, drones dps on paper is not bad but no real advantage over missiles or guns.
Maybe because i don't like drone boats, and believe me I've tried to love them but I can't, Gila for a pirate ship imho is a horrible slow ass and ugly on top. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
179
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 15:28:00 -
[2254] - Quote
Roime wrote:Idk, pirate ships are an upgrade from navy ships, which are upgrades from T1. T2 is just specialized- I'm betting Gila gets strong bonuses to mobile drones, and Isthar remains the sentry king.
Once again, there's the urgent need to fix drones, CCP is intent on turning drone ships into pure drone ships, which is simply subpar strategy in PVP until the drone UI and basic mechanics are fixed. Let's not forget drone hp. The damn things die too easily. You lose some even while recalling them and redeploying. And that tactic kills your dps anyway, even if you manage to keep the drones from dying. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:20:00 -
[2255] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes... that's its job...
Try the Deimos out on Singularity, then get back to me. I have, extensively. Both with and without fleet boosts and drugs. I have seen what it can kill solo and I have seen how it is beaten. You generally won't beat it in a close-up brawl unless you bring 2 neuts (try a neut ishtar). However, it's not the fastest ship so it can be kited and killed by many of the faster ships available. It will defeat a badly flown/fitted battleship but has a harder time against a well fitted/flown one. It also has a hard time against navy BCs (although it will kill a navy drake at close quarters, because the DNI is designed for remote DPS). It won't catch many of the navy cruisers. It's an excellent primary tackler with good staying power against larger foes. It's disengagement options are limited and its tank can be overwhelmed, particularly with EM ammo (kiting zealots and sacrileges and vagabonds are quite dangerous to it if well flown). read back through the forums, I flew it for 12 hours non-stop before posting about my findings.
It may have a neut weakness, however it can tank anything that would to kite it. A zealot / sac / vaga cannot deal enough dps to break it's tank. Perhaps 2, and with boosters (god forbid links) it will tank easily tank them as well.
I can't see hit having a hard time with BC's, too fast / small sig / rep amount / DPS.
All that being said, how do you feel it matches up with other HACs? I still find the sacrilege lacking, but overall I like the new balance. RLM nano Cerberus is pretty wicked, just not against anything with reps |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 18:00:00 -
[2256] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes... that's its job...
Try the Deimos out on Singularity, then get back to me. I have, extensively. Both with and without fleet boosts and drugs. I have seen what it can kill solo and I have seen how it is beaten. You generally won't beat it in a close-up brawl unless you bring 2 neuts (try a neut ishtar). However, it's not the fastest ship so it can be kited and killed by many of the faster ships available. It will defeat a badly flown/fitted battleship but has a harder time against a well fitted/flown one. It also has a hard time against navy BCs (although it will kill a navy drake at close quarters, because the DNI is designed for remote DPS). It won't catch many of the navy cruisers. It's an excellent primary tackler with good staying power against larger foes. It's disengagement options are limited and its tank can be overwhelmed, particularly with EM ammo (kiting zealots and sacrileges and vagabonds are quite dangerous to it if well flown). read back through the forums, I flew it for 12 hours non-stop before posting about my findings. It may have a neut weakness, however it can tank anything that would to kite it. A zealot / sac / vaga cannot deal enough dps to break it's tank. Perhaps 2, and with boosters (god forbid links) it will easily tank them as well. I can't see hit having a hard time with BC's, too fast / small sig / rep amount / DPS. All that being said, how do you feel it matches up with other HACs? I still find the sacrilege lacking, but overall I like the new balance. RLM nano Cerberus is pretty wicked, just not against anything with reps
Well look, obviously for close in brawling the Deimos will normally be the hac of choice, but read on...
My background is in using compute grids to calculate the fair price of exotic financial products. We call these multivariate problems because there are lots of variables (sorry if I'm insulting anyone's intelligence).
these problems often take many hours to run over many thousands of processors, and the number of variables is, wait for it, minuscule compared to the problem of computing the chance of each fitting of each ship to beat every other ship.
Seriously, even culling the daft fits, I do not believe it would be possible to compute a ranking of each hac by fit, initial engagement range and numbers in fleet. It's simply a gargantuan problem. Building a chess playing mainframe us a walk in the park by comparison. So the truth is, I have no idea. we'll just have to fight and find out. the answer will be in the number of wrecks produced.
/r
|
dR PaNouKLa
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 18:49:00 -
[2257] - Quote
vaga is slightly slower than before |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1236
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 20:03:00 -
[2258] - Quote
I am just going to quickly come back to role here.
It seems both faction Crusiers and Hacs share the exact same role.
both have more ehp both have more base damage. they are pretty much upgrades of the tech I version.
TBH the only ships that are somewhat unique are the ones that do not have a faction crusier variant like the thorax.
Personally I think CCP is a little chicken to do a real role for hacs and there is a heavy heavy nostalgia about thier use.
and at the time of inception hacs where is the role they were meant to be just upgrades over the tech I version.
but now it seems tech II is supposed to be special. be it infinte point on a hic or long point on an inty or special e-war for recon ships. command ships have warefare links. heck even BLOPS have a special role.
but hacs? nah they are just upgraded tech I ships. not saying i dont like them infact i am rather happy where they landed... i just dont think they are tech II... if the definition of Tech II is specialized.
a special role should be something that no other class can do. like covert jump bridges or infinate points.
dont get me wrong a -50% mwd works great on frigs because you have medium then large then capital. but this does not scale that well for hacs as there is only large then capital and since the mwd sig bloom will bring the ship up to 750 sig radius large weapons will be doing max damage.
so really CCP can hacs please have a role bonus?
TBH there are plenty of good ideas... we just need CCP to be fearless and do it. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 20:07:00 -
[2259] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Well yes... that's its job...
Try the Deimos out on Singularity, then get back to me. I have, extensively. Both with and without fleet boosts and drugs. I have seen what it can kill solo and I have seen how it is beaten. You generally won't beat it in a close-up brawl unless you bring 2 neuts (try a neut ishtar). However, it's not the fastest ship so it can be kited and killed by many of the faster ships available. It will defeat a badly flown/fitted battleship but has a harder time against a well fitted/flown one. It also has a hard time against navy BCs (although it will kill a navy drake at close quarters, because the DNI is designed for remote DPS). It won't catch many of the navy cruisers. It's an excellent primary tackler with good staying power against larger foes. It's disengagement options are limited and its tank can be overwhelmed, particularly with EM ammo (kiting zealots and sacrileges and vagabonds are quite dangerous to it if well flown). read back through the forums, I flew it for 12 hours non-stop before posting about my findings. It may have a neut weakness, however it can tank anything that would to kite it. A zealot / sac / vaga cannot deal enough dps to break it's tank. Perhaps 2, and with boosters (god forbid links) it will easily tank them as well. I can't see hit having a hard time with BC's, too fast / small sig / rep amount / DPS. All that being said, how do you feel it matches up with other HACs? I still find the sacrilege lacking, but overall I like the new balance. RLM nano Cerberus is pretty wicked, just not against anything with reps Well look, obviously for close in brawling the Deimos will normally be the hac of choice, but read on... My background is in using compute grids to calculate the fair price of exotic financial products. We call these multivariate problems because there are lots of variables (sorry if I'm insulting anyone's intelligence). these problems often take many hours to run over many thousands of processors, and the number of variables is, wait for it, minuscule compared to the problem of computing the chance of each fitting of each ship to beat every other ship. Seriously, even culling the daft fits, I do not believe it would be possible to compute a ranking of each hac by fit, initial engagement range and numbers in fleet. It's simply a gargantuan problem. Building a chess playing mainframe us a walk in the park by comparison. So the truth is, I have no idea. we'll just have to fight and find out. the answer will be in the number of wrecks produced. /r
I understand what you're doing, but I don't think you need to go based on statistics that way. It would be more beneficial to look at how some of the most common / most powerful fits perform. Currently, IMO, the Deimos is too powerful with a few fits. It's nearly unkillable 1v1, and based off what I saw, 2v1. If you can kite it, you can't break it's tank. If you brawl with it, you still can't break it's tank. Perhaps with med or higher Neuts you can eventually break it's tank, but without Neuts, you're getting nowhere.
I had dual NOS on it (granted NOS are still, well, garbage) in a 150k EHP HAM damnation and had no chance. He just slooowwly killed me. My assessment it not solely based off of this engagement; there were many others.
It may be balanced in larger engagements, but I strongly believe the Deimos is too powerful in small scale pvp. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
107
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 22:18:00 -
[2260] - Quote
Phaade wrote:
- snip -
It may be balanced in larger engagements, but I strongly believe the Deimos is too powerful in small scale pvp.
Until you jump into a small gang of three Tornados 50km of that gate that ruin your day FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 22:41:00 -
[2261] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Phaade wrote:
- snip -
It may be balanced in larger engagements, but I strongly believe the Deimos is too powerful in small scale pvp.
Until you jump into a small gang of three Tornados 50km of that gate that ruin your day
Agreed.
There is a problem here. You can't build a self rep ship that's fair in 1v1 that stands a chance unaided in a skirmish.
So 1v1 the self rep brawlers have to be overpowered in order to stand any chance at all in 2v2.
That's just the way it is. I can't see how the mathematics would work any other way. There are other ships that are like this of course: cyclone tengu hyperion etc.
Incidentally, 2 ravens killed my deimos easily, as did an ishtar + a tornado.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:29:00 -
[2262] - Quote
Phaade wrote: I understand what you're doing, but I don't think you need to go based on statistics that way. It would be more beneficial to look at how some of the most common / most powerful fits perform.
Numbers are dangerous things. To do this we need to define the term "perform". Is it the chance of *winning* the encounter if both ships stay, or is it one minus the chance of losing your ship?
Consider a hypothetical brawler. Let's say that in a brawl it has a 90% chance of winning (destroying the other ship) and a zero percent chance of disengaging safely.
What this means is that you will lose your ship in 1 time in every 10 fight's it's involved in, whether or not it wants to fight.
Now consider a hypothetical skirmisher. Let's say it has a 10% chance of winning (destroying the other ship) but a 90% of disengaging if it wants to.
You'll lose that ship 9 times in every 100, or 0.9 in 10 every time it fights.
So the skirmisher is actually cheaper to fight with because you'll lose it 10% less often.
This is an approximation, and the actual numbers are horribly difficult to even approximate accurately for all ships (mentioned prior). I would argue that what eve pilots find most important is *not losing the ship* rather than *winning the encounter at all costs*.
A reasonable pvp'er will seek to control his entry into an engagement and his commitment level. He is absolutely unable to do this in a brawler. Therefore for the lossmail ratio to work out 'fairly' (if that is what we want), the brawler must be much more powerful once it's committed and the skirmisher must be much more able to choose whether to take the fight.
This is pretty much the situation we have.
|
DHB WildCat
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 03:32:00 -
[2263] - Quote
Just I thing Kil2,
Can we for the love of god stop penalizing caldari missile boats and get rid of the singular damage type bonus?
This bonus has always been stupid. All other ships get a 10% bonus to damage, while caldari missile boats get a 5% bonus to KINETIC missile. Why?
Please change this to 5% Missile damage. They still do less dps than most other ships in its class but this way selectable damage would actually be worth while.
Please start changing the missile boats to a universal damage bonus like ALL other ships in this game. Thank you
Wild |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
179
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 04:34:00 -
[2264] - Quote
DHB WildCat wrote:Just I thing Kil2,
Can we for the love of god stop penalizing caldari missile boats and get rid of the singular damage type bonus?
This bonus has always been stupid. All other ships get a 10% bonus to damage, while caldari missile boats get a 5% bonus to KINETIC missile. Why?
Please change this to 5% Missile damage. They still do less dps than most other ships in its class but this way selectable damage would actually be worth while.
Please start changing the missile boats to a universal damage bonus like ALL other ships in this game. Thank you
Wild And you've been playing this game how long?
I don't think "all other ships get 10% bonus to damage." You have a fair amount of proof to present on that one. There are plenty of 5% per level to damage or 5% per level to rof bonuses out there. Some ships get two 5% bonuses. But that 5 + 5 on lasers for example is em heavy. Why should not the Caldari missile boats have a parital damage type limitation too?
"Please start changing the missile boats to a universal damage bonus like ALL other ships in this game." So, then, let's have lasers not only do em and therm. Oh and hybrids kinetic and therm. And as for projectiles let's expand the tech II ammo selection to also do more than explo/kin.
Anyway, they've already spoken on this. Some Caldari missile ships, when it makes sense for balancing, will get broad spectrum damage bonuses. Others will remain wedded to the kinetic racial damage preference that has been in the game historically. Just as em is for Amarr, thermal for Gallente, and explo for Minmatar. Sorry no favoritism is presently occurring and what you suggest would result in favoritism. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
771
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 07:02:00 -
[2265] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:...Incidentally, 2 ravens killed my deimos easily, as did an ishtar + a tornado. Good. I am glad that all I have to do when approached by a Deimos is to pick up the phone and bring in some friends .. not over the top, no siree!
It has the mids to inject and the lows to tank, swap its capacitor with the Zealot (ie. Deimos and Ishtar to have similar capacitors) .. there needs to be sacrifices and forcing the injector choice only when 2+ heavy neuts or multiple similar or heavier enemies are expected is nowhere near enough, not with four mids on an armour hull.
Let Amarr be Amarr for once in the tiericide show, let them be the cap race for Goddess sake .. |
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 07:07:00 -
[2266] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:DHB WildCat wrote:Just I thing Kil2,
Can we for the love of god stop penalizing caldari missile boats and get rid of the singular damage type bonus?
This bonus has always been stupid. All other ships get a 10% bonus to damage, while caldari missile boats get a 5% bonus to KINETIC missile. Why?
Please change this to 5% Missile damage. They still do less dps than most other ships in its class but this way selectable damage would actually be worth while.
Please start changing the missile boats to a universal damage bonus like ALL other ships in this game. Thank you
Wild And you've been playing this game how long? I don't think "all other ships get 10% bonus to damage." You have a fair amount of proof to present on that one. There are plenty of 5% per level to damage or 5% per level to rof bonuses out there. Some ships get two 5% bonuses. But that 5 + 5 on lasers for example is em heavy. Why should not the Caldari missile boats have a parital damage type limitation too? "Please start changing the missile boats to a universal damage bonus like ALL other ships in this game." So, then, let's have lasers not only do em and therm. Oh and hybrids kinetic and therm. And as for projectiles let's expand the tech II ammo selection to also do more than explo/kin. Anyway, they've already spoken on this. Some Caldari missile ships, when it makes sense for balancing, will get broad spectrum damage bonuses. Others will remain wedded to the kinetic racial damage preference that has been in the game historically. Just as em is for Amarr, thermal for Gallente, and explo for Minmatar. Sorry no favoritism is presently occurring and what you suggest would result in favoritism.
Also 20-25% of any Minmatar ammo type is not the desired damage type(EMP is partially kin/exp) And yeah, only missiles still allow you to select damage type with t2 missiles. Amarr locked to EM/Therm with everything. Kin/Therm for Galente and Exp/Kin for Minmatar. |
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 07:09:00 -
[2267] - Quote
Um, I'm a bit late to the game on this one, but why no love for the Zealot (like, at all)?
Sure it's decent fleet AHAC but the new Nomen essentially trumps it in all but DPS (100).
A plated Nomen goes faster and aligns better than a nano'd Zealot. Despite resists, similarly fit they're about the same EHP.
Compared to say the changes to the Cerberus (which are obscene - in a good way, 25% speed, extra launcher, a drone bay, etc etc) isn't Zealot deserving of something to truly separate it from the other Omen variants? Especially as it's little more than a flying gun (no utility slots, limited mids, no drones, cap issues) with a plethora of hard counters.
How about 7.5% tracking per level?
Or MWD cap reduction per level (to truly own the new role bonus)?
Or more cap, or something, like. . . anything. . .
>.>
I'm sorry I've haven't read through all the pages here so if there's a chorus already saying this I appologise, if there's not a chorus though, then please community wake up. Zealot is entering RIP territory outside of limited niches if this goes live.
That said, the changes to the other HAC's here all look great and very welcome. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
107
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 08:33:00 -
[2268] - Quote
Vaal Hadren wrote:Um, I'm a bit late to the game on this one, but why no love for the Zealot (like, at all)?
Sure it's decent fleet AHAC but the new Nomen literally trumps it in all but DPS (by a mere 100 - and tbf, the HAC-wide role bonus).
A plated Nomen goes faster and aligns better than a nano'd Zealot. Despite resists, similarly fit they're about the same EHP.
Compared to say the changes to the Cerberus (which are obscene - in a good way, 25% speed, extra launcher, a drone bay, etc etc) isn't Zealot deserving of something to truly separate it from the other Omen variants? Especially as it's little more than a flying gun (no utility slots, limited mids, no drones, cap issues) with a plethora of hard counters.
How about 7.5% tracking per level?
Or MWD cap reduction per level (to truly own the new role bonus)?
Or more cap, or something, like. . . anything. . .
>.>
I'm sorry I've haven't read through all the pages here so if there's a chorus already saying this I appologise, if there's not a chorus though, then please community wake up. Zealot is entering RIP territory outside of limited niches if this goes live.
That said, the changes to the other HAC's here all look great and very welcome.
I'm just quoting in case of someone beats me to it.
All HACs on SiSi that I have flown, which includes the Zealot, will be able to leave an mwd on from the point you undock until the next downtime, you jump through a gate or get yourself blown up in her.
So I will assume that all of them can do it.
I suggest you enter SiSi and fly one of them and check them out.
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
771
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 09:59:00 -
[2269] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:So I will assume that all of them can do it... And Benny Hill'ing all over creation accomplishes what exactly?
Zealot can MWD all it likes, activate a single T2 point and you are almost exactly at peak recharge.
Would you like to try to fire your guns?
HPLII (the norm for Zealots) draws almost 40% more cap than a Heavy Neutron II (not the norm) with a 25% faster RoF, you need to downgrade to Focused Pulse to equate the cap performance of Neutrons.
From SiSi: Delta cap for HPLII with MWD and T2 point on is: -8.3 GJ/s Delta cap for Neutron w. MWD and T2 point on is: -0.5 GJ/s
Just fo fun: Delta cap for 250mm rails (Scouts, haven't got T2 spec ) w. MWD and T2 point on is: -2.3 GJ/s Delta cap for Hvy.Mod Beams (best named out of fairness) w. MWD and T2 point on is: -9.5 GJ/s
Now factor in the 4th midslot (Inject!) that separate the Deimos/Zealot, the mobility difference, the drone difference, the range/tracking difference and the tanking difference.
The lack of cap forces the Zealot to buffer tank and even then it has to sacrifice a precious midslot for an injector if it wants to move at any time while shooting .. which is quite frequent due to ****-poor tracking and optimal manipulation. Deimos has to make comparatively no sacrifices at all, it does not need an injector except against neuts or the odd dual-tank. It will kite, brawl, bait and Benny Hill so much better than all the others that it should be classified as a HAC Mk.2.
Switching cap on Deimos and Zealot alleviates the issues with Zealot but does not remove them and opens up for active tanking (with injector) by essentially "splitting the difference" caused by insane laser cap use. Deimos will have to use injector in a few more instances but will otherwise not experience any adverse effects as the value/power of that 4th midslot creates an entirely different beast .. one thing I might suggest in conjunction is to lower the Deimos signature by 10-15m as it is abnormally high for a supposed brawler. |
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:19:00 -
[2270] - Quote
Quote:All HACs on SiSi that I have flown, which includes the Zealot, will be able to leave an mwd on from the point you undock until the next downtime, you jump through a gate or get yourself blown up in her.
Well, that's wonderful, but I was kinda hoping for a variant that could also fire its lasers, you know, simultaneously. . .
You do realise that the Zealot in my hangar is no different to the Zealot on SisSi except that on SiSi it has the HAC-Wide MWD signature radius bonus and an increased Sensor Strength, right?
Zealot alone among the HACs has recieved zero buffs. Sorry to say, but it's not that good (especially next to the dreamy new Nomen and the other 'new' HACs) and will continue to only shine (if that's even the proper term now) in a Sig tanking >AB< fit AHAC Logi Gang (thus completely ignoring the new "Role Bonus.")
This was kinda my point.
|
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:22:00 -
[2271] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Boris Amarr wrote:Navy Omen VS Zealot http://s24.postimg.org/f9tuk94ut/Navy_Omen_vs_Zealot.png Navy Omen vs Zealot Speed ........................ 1962 vs 1462 Align ............................ 7.2 vs 10.6 Damge (with drones). ... 409 vs 406 Optimal (Scorch) ........... 34 vs 34 Dronebay ....................... 40 vs 0 Capacitor ................... 1671 vs 1519 Cap peak recharge ....... 19.8 vs 17.1 Lock Range ................ 71.9 vs 68.8 Maximum Target ............. 7 vs 6 Scann Resolution ....... 400 vs 382 Sensor Strength ........... 20 vs 15 Signature ................... 600 vs 750 Armor ....................... 9703 vs 8813 Why is Zealot worse that Navy Omen by all this attributes? Zealot has resistances (and total EHP) better than Navy Omen only. I think Zealot must have dronebay at least for 5 light drones and much more speed!!! Take a look at ehp and resitance profile (epecially with legion links) and youll see.
Ur fitting is sooo pro man.... , your using data that is incorrect, after the 1.1 patch the zealot will beat the navy omen... not by alot but by a small margin in some aspects and larger in others. i.e Sig and EHP. Oh and since the ship is 140m to buy then why are you fitting it for cost effectiveness?? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:37:00 -
[2272] - Quote
This is the problem with HAC's atm is that the 50% mwd has been slapped on to the ships but since they weren't designed with it in mind not many of these HAC's actually will benefit from utilising it ..
Which kind of sums up HAC's for you is that they don't want to change them too much as they don't want too annoy people who use them as they are well AHAC gangs but that completely ignores the role bonus .. its such a flawed design . 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
God's Apples
The Tuskers
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:42:00 -
[2273] - Quote
Deimos is hilariously OP. I fit one up on SiSi with my only tank mods being 2x MAR, EANM, DCU, exp hard, and 1 auxil nano pump. That is a 6 slot tank, or a triple rep myrmidon's low slots without rigs. I didn't not use links, had a pure t2 fit, and standard exile.
My first fight was against 2x XLASB vigilants with HG crystals (they were repping over 70% shields per cycle) and a nomen. I tanked both vigilants with occasional heat but I was never really in danger. I managed to take one vigilant down with me before popping taking 30k damage. Seems balanced...
The second fight I fought a dual medium neut astarte and an AC nado. Since the deimos reps like 50% of its armor with one cycle even under neuting pressure you can just active cap booster and reps at the same time and be close to full again. Since now the astarte is a better deimos of course I went down eventually, but not before taking 50k damage.
Next, I turned on astarte links and then things just got silly like tanking BS with 1 rep or whole cruiser gangs easily. I'm not sure how to fix it, but it definitely needs to be toned down somehow. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3293
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:44:00 -
[2274] - Quote
So you lost both fights, and still think it's OP?
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:01:00 -
[2275] - Quote
Roime wrote:So you lost both fights, and still think it's OP?
Agree. It will certainly be a popular HAC for have-a-go heros. But Eve TQ is going to be littered with deimos wrecks.
I've mentioned before that a dedicated brawler HAS to be OP at brawling because it sucks at everything else and can't ever get away unless it wins. Anything faster, even 1m/s faster, can eventually disengage and dictate the terms of the encounter.
There was no reason at all for God's Apples' opponents to lose *any* vigilants against a deimos - they should have used their bonused webs on him and kited away. If your opponents don't use their ships abilities to full effect I think they can fairly be expected to fly home in a pod.
Deimos in a 1v1 is definitely the most powerful unless the opponent: pulls range (blaster effective range is 5km) has strong kin/therm resists (blasters have a well known damage profile) has neuts (2 med neuts and it's eventually game over for a deimos)
People will learn this very quickly and anyone looking for a 1v1 in a deimos will either find himself kited by something faster or ignored. He will not get many kills at all, in the same way a myrmidon doesn't.
The deimos' role (as I see it) is to tag and hold onto hard-hitting ships, surviving long enough until help arrives. It's about time we had an armour ship that can do this.
It's not as if the game does not have other ships that are *more* powerful at self tanking: cyclone tengu hawk hyperion
and so on...
|
Darling Hassasin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:01:00 -
[2276] - Quote
Actually an OP diemost is a good change... Let the poor ship have its moment in the sun. |
God's Apples
The Tuskers
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:05:00 -
[2277] - Quote
Roime wrote:So you lost both fights, and still think it's OP?
I won plenty of fights with it. I feel the fights I lost showcase more how it's OP since I tanked over 1000 dps for a very extended period of time fully t2 fit with no implants and links. You have to also keep in mind that the majority of people on the test server are using HG implants and some of them links. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3293
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:14:00 -
[2278] - Quote
I still don't get why "tanking over 1000 dps for a while and then dying" is OP? Obviously those engagement were more than the ship could handle, which sounds pretty balanced tbh.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:18:00 -
[2279] - Quote
God's Apples wrote:Deimos is hilariously OP. I fit one up on SiSi with my only tank mods being 2x MAR, EANM, DCU, exp hard, and 1 auxil nano pump. That is a 6 slot tank, or a triple rep myrmidon's low slots without rigs. I didn't not use links, had a pure t2 fit, and standard exile.
My first fight was against 2x XLASB vigilants with HG crystals (they were repping over 70% shields per cycle) and a nomen. I tanked both vigilants with occasional heat but I was never really in danger. I managed to take one vigilant down with me before popping taking 30k damage. Seems balanced...
The second fight I fought a dual medium neut astarte and an AC nado. Since the deimos reps like 50% of its armor with one cycle even under neuting pressure you can just active cap booster and reps at the same time and be close to full again. Since now the astarte is a better deimos of course I went down eventually, but not before taking 50k damage.
Next, I turned on astarte links and then things just got silly like tanking BS with 1 rep or whole cruiser gangs easily. I'm not sure how to fix it, but it definitely needs to be toned down somehow.
So you found out that gallente t2 resists on a local-rep bonused hull together with the recent local-armor buff works quite good to tank two blasterboats and a Nomen using only a standard exile, and no links (whose enhancements have been partially built into the module itself)
What's next? Lokis can tank three absolutions all day, it's just nothing special. Surely doesn't mean it's OP. I only correct my own spelling. |
God's Apples
The Tuskers
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:25:00 -
[2280] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Roime wrote:So you lost both fights, and still think it's OP?
Agree. It will certainly be a popular HAC for have-a-go heros. But Eve TQ is going to be littered with deimos wrecks. I've mentioned before that a dedicated brawler HAS to be OP at brawling because it sucks at everything else and can't ever get away unless it wins. Anything faster, even 1m/s faster, can eventually disengage and dictate the terms of the encounter. There was no reason at all for God's Apples' opponents to lose *any* vigilants against a deimos - they should have used their bonused webs on him and kited away. If your opponents don't use their ships abilities to full effect I think they can fairly be expected to fly home in a pod. Deimos in a 1v1 is definitely the most powerful unless the opponent: pulls range (blaster effective range is 5km) has strong kin/therm resists (blasters have a well known damage profile) has neuts (2 med neuts and it's eventually game over for a deimos) People will learn this very quickly and anyone looking for a 1v1 in a deimos will either find himself kited by something faster or ignored. He will not get many kills at all, in the same way a myrmidon doesn't. The deimos' role (as I see it) is to tag and hold onto hard-hitting ships, surviving long enough until help arrives. It's about time we had an armour ship that can do this. It's not as if the game does not have other ships that are *more* powerful at self tanking: cyclone tengu hawk hyperion and so on...
Deimos has a falloff bonus so it can hit anywhere in scram range for over 50% dps with antimatter. Deimos also has strong kin/therm resists. I suppose there are a couple of ships with strong kin/therm resists, but kin/therm is the best type to shoot at t1 hulls usually as well as being good against t2 minmatar and amarr. Neuts counter any active tanked ship, but the deimos is all about rep per cycle so even 1 cap inject and 1 OH'd rep cycle sets your opponent back very far.
As to your second point of ships self tanking well:
Cyclone has **** poor dps if you make it tank the same sustained dps as a deimos and even worse application. A tengu costs 3 times as much and is rarely effective when t2 fit. Hawk is in the same boat as the deimos but it can't tank cruisers too well and is slow whereas an active cruiser's bane should be t3 BCs yet the deimos outpaces them easily and can permatank them even at 0 transversal. Hyperion is a rep bonused battleship that not too many ships would willingly engage solo, but has relatively poor mobility whereas the deimos can not only tank every ship in its class but can also catch them. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
173
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:27:00 -
[2281] - Quote
... and that most of them don't have a clue how to fit or use a ship, or are in ships they don't really have the skills for...
Example: SR Deimos with 800 plate vs a vindicator (an extreme example to illustrate a point):
vindicator has 1 web and the pilot has minmatar battleship I: vindicator will die since the Deimos will orbit at 500m and never get hit.
now give the vindi pilot 4 days to train to minmatar BS IV, and show him how to fit 2 webs... That Deimos is going nowhere and will be shredded in moments as it gets the full attention of the vindicator's very overheated, very angry neutron blaster cannons.
eve is not just about the ship bonuses, it's absolutely about knowing how to use them, and when. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
772
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:52:00 -
[2282] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Agree. It will certainly be a popular HAC for have-a-go heros. But Eve TQ is going to be littered with deimos wrecks... Same was said and held true with regard to the Dramiel, how did that turn out again? For every pilot with a clue you had 10 who just jumped on the bandwagon and it was still enough for CCP to reach for the bat.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I've mentioned before that a dedicated brawler HAS to be OP at brawling because it sucks at everything else and can't ever get away unless it wins. Anything faster, even 1m/s faster, can eventually disengage and dictate the terms of the encounter. So you'll be OK with a massive Deimos level boost to Sacrilege effectiveness, like double damage and RoF bonuses, then as it is as much of a dedicated brawler as the Deimos ever was albeit with the weaker tank now (rep bonus + 6 lows > 20% resists + 5 lows)?
Mournful Conciousness wrote:People will learn this very quickly and anyone looking for a 1v1 in a deimos will either find himself kited by something faster or ignored. He will not get many kills at all, in the same way a myrmidon doesn't. Not much will be faster than the Deimos, high base speed and low mass = high speed under thrust .. and nothing that can outrange/outrun it will be able to break even an unloaded MAAR.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The deimos' role (as I see it) is to tag and hold onto hard-hitting ships, surviving long enough until help arrives. It's about time we had an armour ship that can do this. It is about time .. except the Sacrilege had that "role" since its inception but was rarely if ever used in that role as it was/is/will be useless for anything else. It is fine that the Deimos is able to fill the role, but be aware that it should not be able to do much least of all damage once in the holding pattern so decrease fittings to a point where fitting electrons becomes problematic when optimized for 'holding' .. somehow doubt you'd want that.
The "problem" is not the tank; It is the ability to kill, tank, hold, maneuver etc. all at the same time that pushes it over the top and it doesn't even have to use specific fits in most cases.
All the HACs should be as viable in as many roles as the Deimos. Having one that stands out in such spectacular fashion ruins the whole idea of tiericide/rebalancing.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:...now give the vindi pilot 4 days to train to minmatar BS IV, and show him how to fit 2 webs... So you reckon that using a specific counter fit on a pirate BS which is 4-5 classes above indicates that it is balanced properly? Most of the others will have issues against ships their own size and some will die to T1 cruisers but that is OK too I guess, because a counter-fitted BS can defeat the Deimos ... the second you found that you had to think up that scenario was the second the little voice should have yelled "Waitaminute!". |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 12:24:00 -
[2283] - Quote
Quote:So you reckon that using a specific counter fit on a pirate BS which is 4-5 classes above indicates that it is balanced properly? Most of the others will have issues against ships their own size and some will die to T1 cruisers but that is OK too I guess, because a counter-fitted BS can defeat the Deimos ... the second you found that you had to think up that scenario was the second the little voice should have yelled "Waitaminute!".
Don't take him out of context. That example was simply meant to illustrate his point about knowing how fly to a ship's strengths. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:29:00 -
[2284] - Quote
Vesha is right on the money in regards to the deimos.
There is no doubt that it's rather OP atm and imo that is strictly a result of it's cap recharge. Being able to perma run a mar with full tackle/guns is simply Overkill.
As vesha said, the deimos will tank anything that can kite it, catch anything that can't and can out brawl Commands and BS so long as large numbers of nuets are involved. Furthermore, you can use -sig implants and pills to drops it's sig into the 60s which makes it easily one of the tankiest ships in the game.
Dropping it's recharge to around the level of the zealot (5.2-5.4/s) instead of (6.2/s) would at least force it to burn charges every now and then when being kited or running a single MAR.... Also, why do hacs have better cap/s in comparison to command ships? They both use the same modules however commands are intended to use gang links which pushes their cap demand well beyond that of a hac, just saying... |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:43:00 -
[2285] - Quote
Initially, like when that round two got announced, everyone was yelling '**** cap recharge, it's irrelevant'. Nice to see people actually admitting that the capacitor was worthy a round two :D
I only correct my own spelling. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:47:00 -
[2286] - Quote
Quote:Initially, like when that round two got announced, everyone was yelling '**** cap recharge, it's irrelevant'. Nice to see people actually admitting that the capacitor was worthy a round two :D
Gawd, I know. Most... bipolar... thread... ever. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 14:06:00 -
[2287] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Initially, like when that round two got announced, everyone was yelling '**** cap recharge, it's irrelevant'. Nice to see people actually admitting that the capacitor was worthy a round two :D Gawd, I know. Most... bipolar... thread... ever.
You mean bipolar GAME ever surely?
A ship or weapons system only has to perform 0.01% more effectively than its closest competition in the field du jour and everyone runs around screaming, "IT'S OP, IT"S OP, WE'RE ALL DOOMED, ALL MY SKILLPOINTS ARE WASTED, OMG WTF CCP USUK!", instead of just quietly reshipping and getting on with the job of harvesting ISK, or tears, or just having a cool time with the awesome Eve community.
Publish and be damned I say. Eve is in a much better state than it was a year ago, when every 2nd ship ever built for any job whatsoever was a drake. It can withstand a little Deimos OPness in the brawling department, and a little Vagabond OPness in the kiting department, and a little sniping OPness in the cerberus department, and.... it's a long list....
|
Naomi Anthar
102
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:25:00 -
[2288] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Initially, like when that round two got announced, everyone was yelling '**** cap recharge, it's irrelevant'. Nice to see people actually admitting that the capacitor was worthy a round two :D Gawd, I know. Most... bipolar... thread... ever. You mean bipolar GAME ever surely? A ship or weapons system only has to perform 0.01% more effectively than its closest competition in the field du jour and everyone runs around screaming, "IT'S OP, IT"S OP, WE'RE ALL DOOMED, ALL MY SKILLPOINTS ARE WASTED, OMG WTF CCP USUK!", instead of just quietly reshipping and getting on with the job of harvesting ISK, or tears, or just having a cool time with the awesome Eve community. Publish and be damned I say. Eve is in a much better state than it was a year ago, when every 2nd ship ever built for any job whatsoever was a drake. It can withstand a little Deimos OPness in the brawling department, and a little Vagabond OPness in the kiting department, and a little sniping OPness in the cerberus department, and.... it's a long list....
And i don't want to give it a try... for some time i was happy gallente hulls are getting buffs . But seems like MASSIVE ASSAULT on forums resulted in super ******** buffs to gallente ships - not just buffs. And i'm starting to be tired of that.
All in all ... i don't want to explain how biased game is toward gallente right now. I agree Deimos cannot go live like that. Maybe give him utility high like sacrilege and/or reduce cap recharge by 0,7. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:38:00 -
[2289] - Quote
I hear you, but gallente blaster hulls need to be strong tankers because they have no damage projection. They have no choice but to be in scram range if they are to participate. You can't look at each hull in isolation, you have to consider it in the real environment of eve.
One rapier on the field and a deimos will hit absolutely nothing in an entire fight, so its dps is zero. The opposing fleet (if they are sensible) will web it, ignore it and come back to it for singular attention once everyone else is dead. You don't even need a rapier - just 2 ships at 9.9km webbing the deimos. It's like putting a muzzle on a pit-bull.
It is not like that for any other class of ship because autocannons, lasers and missiles project very much further, mitigating the deleterious effect of webs.
It's not even like that for gallente drone ships, because the drones are effectively immune to EWAR and project (eventually) for 60km.
The deimos needs to stay strong, or there will be no role for small-scale logi-less skirmishing in armour ships.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:46:00 -
[2290] - Quote
Mourn, the cap recharge on the deimos is op, just accept it :P |
|
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:02:00 -
[2291] - Quote
Tanks blasters with deimos resists. Whines OP.
Rail deimos is where I'd look to see if something is off. If that trumps the rest of kiters by a rofl margin and kills close quarters with javelin, you have a problem. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
175
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:13:00 -
[2292] - Quote
The Spod wrote:Tanks blasters with deimos resists. Whines OP.
Rail deimos is where I'd look to see if something is off. If that trumps the rest of kiters by a rofl margin and kills close quarters with javelin, you have a problem.
Ssh! I was going to use that!
;-) |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:14:00 -
[2293] - Quote
The Spod wrote:Tanks blasters with deimos resists. Whines OP.
I'm not sure if this is a troll or trying to be serious post...
Here is another example, I just easily tanked 2x navy omen on sisi with pills, implants, and no links with only running the second repper every now and then... EM was my lowest resistance with thermal being at around 80%.
A minute later, I had only burned 1 800. So yeah, the "whines" about deimos being op are not restricted to tanking blasters.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
175
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:23:00 -
[2294] - Quote
if I was faced with that choice I'd choose to increase its sig radius and leave the cap where it is.
it's really refreshing not to have to visit a station after every fight. we'll finally be able to do armour roams. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:26:00 -
[2295] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:if I was faced with that choice I'd choose to increase its sig radius and leave the cap where it is.
it's really refreshing not to have to visit a station after every fight. we'll finally be able to do armour roams.
So you still want it to be OP, glad we're on the same page then.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:48:00 -
[2296] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:if I was faced with that choice I'd choose to increase its sig radius and leave the cap where it is.
it's really refreshing not to have to visit a station after every fight. we'll finally be able to do armour roams. So you still want it to be OP, glad we're on the same page then.
No, I just want to be able to armour tank somewhere other than in my home system.
For an armour tanker, cap recharge is the exact same thing as shield recharge is for a shield tanker. Free hitpoints.
Armour ships have always been behind on this, which is pretty much why all roams are in shield fleets.
I value having the alternative.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 16:52:00 -
[2297] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:if I was faced with that choice I'd choose to increase its sig radius and leave the cap where it is.
it's really refreshing not to have to visit a station after every fight. we'll finally be able to do armour roams. So you still want it to be OP, glad we're on the same page then. No, I just want to be able to armour tank somewhere other than in my home system. For an armour tanker, cap recharge is the exact same thing as shield recharge is for a shield tanker. Free hitpoints. Armour ships have always been behind on this, which is pretty much why all roams are in shield fleets. I value having the alternative.
It would be nice if they let armour recharge itself ... doesn't need to be as quick as shields and since there are no mods to improve armour recharge either i don't see why they don't do it 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 17:12:00 -
[2298] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:if I was faced with that choice I'd choose to increase its sig radius and leave the cap where it is.
it's really refreshing not to have to visit a station after every fight. we'll finally be able to do armour roams. So you still want it to be OP, glad we're on the same page then. No, I just want to be able to armour tank somewhere other than in my home system. For an armour tanker, cap recharge is the exact same thing as shield recharge is for a shield tanker. Free hitpoints. Armour ships have always been behind on this, which is pretty much why all roams are in shield fleets. I value having the alternative. It would be nice if they let armour recharge itself ... doesn't need to be as quick as shields and since there are no mods to improve armour recharge either i don't see why they don't do it
Seems Legit, because they already have some nanobots in the armor lorewise...
On the other hand... its another homogenization... |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
538
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 17:12:00 -
[2299] - Quote
I'm sorry mourn, but 6.2/s cap recharge goes far beyond "viable". It's simply OP as it allows the ship to endlessly tank another ship in it's class (or similar) forever...
Your bias towards the deimos is becoming glaringly obvious.
|
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 17:27:00 -
[2300] - Quote
An active armor tank should be weakish but very easy on cap as opposed to cap intensive but overpowered active shield tank. IMHO the active armor should always win 1vs1, active shield should survive longest in 1vs2-3, buffer armor should be highest ehp for fleets and buffer shield should be a squishy twitch tank for speedgank setups.
Deimos cap is not a problem for me. Rep amount can be. An active deimos should be known to tank forever unless neuted, but only tank one ship of its size.
The rail deimos looks to be spitting on kiters while spitting on brawlers in 1v1 too. This is the biggest issue for me. As for tanking blasters, i just pointed it out as it's pretty much what it's made for. |
|
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 17:42:00 -
[2301] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Phaade wrote:
- snip -
It may be balanced in larger engagements, but I strongly believe the Deimos is too powerful in small scale pvp.
Until you jump into a small gang of three Tornados 50km of that gate that ruin your day
.................................................that's a terrible argument. And without tackle, you'd probably warp off just fine. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 17:47:00 -
[2302] - Quote
Phaade wrote:elitatwo wrote:Phaade wrote:
- snip -
It may be balanced in larger engagements, but I strongly believe the Deimos is too powerful in small scale pvp.
Until you jump into a small gang of three Tornados 50km of that gate that ruin your day .................................................that's a terrible argument. And without tackle, you'd probably warp off just fine.
The only way that 3 nados would ever alpha you is if they got lucky roles, and you managed to stay stationary for them to shoot you. Which is a combination of freak rng, and a ******** deimos pilot.
So yeah, I agree with you phaade, the argument is bad.
|
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 17:50:00 -
[2303] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote: I understand what you're doing, but I don't think you need to go based on statistics that way. It would be more beneficial to look at how some of the most common / most powerful fits perform.
Numbers are dangerous things. To do this we need to define the term "perform". Is it the chance of *winning* the encounter if both ships stay, or is it one minus the chance of losing your ship? Consider a hypothetical brawler. Let's say that in a brawl it has a 90% chance of winning (destroying the other ship) and a zero percent chance of disengaging safely. What this means is that you will lose your ship in 1 time in every 10 fight's it's involved in, whether or not it wants to fight. Now consider a hypothetical skirmisher. Let's say it has a 10% chance of winning (destroying the other ship) but a 90% of disengaging if it wants to. You'll lose that ship 9 times in every 100, or 0.9 in 10 every time it fights. So the skirmisher is actually cheaper to fight with because you'll lose it 10% less often. This is an approximation, and the actual numbers are horribly difficult to even approximate accurately for all ships (mentioned prior). I would argue that what eve pilots find most important is *not losing the ship* rather than *winning the encounter at all costs*. A reasonable pvp'er will seek to control his entry into an engagement and his commitment level. He is absolutely unable to do this in a brawler. Therefore for the lossmail ratio to work out 'fairly' (if that is what we want), the brawler must be much more powerful once it's committed and the skirmisher must be much more able to choose whether to take the fight. This is pretty much the situation we have.
The problem with your argument is that most times, aside from jumping into a gate camp or some other weird situation, you choose your engagements whether kiting or brawling.
If I choose to engage with a 90% change of winning, I'll ******* take those odds in Eve. You say a kite ship has a 90% chance of disengaging? Statistically, with a perfect pilot maybe. IMO, doubtful. You make ONE mistake and get caught, you die; you must fly perfectly for the duration of the fight. The Deimos, on the other hand, has a 90% chance of winning regardless. Discount that you can't break it's tank anyway....
Numbers can be powerful; they are not useful in this situation. As you mentioned, there are FAR too many variables in fits alone, now include pilot decision making.
The Deimos is too powerful in small scale with all of these changes. Just because you can think up a counter in this incredibly complex game doesn't mean it's reasonable. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:03:00 -
[2304] - Quote
God's Apples wrote:Deimos is hilariously OP. I fit one up on SiSi with my only tank mods being 2x MAR, EANM, DCU, exp hard, and 1 auxil nano pump. That is a 6 slot tank, or a triple rep myrmidon's low slots without rigs. I didn't not use links, had a pure t2 fit, and standard exile.
My first fight was against 2x XLASB vigilants with HG crystals (they were repping over 70% shields per cycle) and a nomen. I tanked both vigilants with occasional heat but I was never really in danger. I managed to take one vigilant down with me before popping taking 30k damage. Seems balanced...
The second fight I fought a dual medium neut astarte and an AC nado. Since the deimos reps like 50% of its armor with one cycle even under neuting pressure you can just active cap booster and reps at the same time and be close to full again. Since now the astarte is a better deimos of course I went down eventually, but not before taking 50k damage.
Next, I turned on astarte links and then things just got silly like tanking BS with 1 rep or whole cruiser gangs easily. I'm not sure how to fix it, but it definitely needs to be toned down somehow.
Let me re-iterate in light of this new evidence: I strongly believe the Deimos is too powerful in small scale PvP. |
Temuken Radzu
Bendebeukers The Predictables
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:07:00 -
[2305] - Quote
Prehaps the Diemos needs a name change if it is so powerfull: Lifemos |
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:11:00 -
[2306] - Quote
Temuken Radzu wrote:Prehaps the Diemos needs a name change if it is so powerfull: Lifemos
I think Diemost > Livemost. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:11:00 -
[2307] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I hear you, but gallente blaster hulls need to be strong tankers because they have no damage projection. They have no choice but to be in scram range if they are to participate. You can't look at each hull in isolation, you have to consider it in the real environment of eve.
One rapier on the field and a deimos will hit absolutely nothing in an entire fight, so its dps is zero. The opposing fleet (if they are sensible) will web it, ignore it and come back to it for singular attention once everyone else is dead. You don't even need a rapier - just 2 ships at 9.9km webbing the deimos. It's like putting a muzzle on a pit-bull.
It is not like that for any other class of ship because autocannons, lasers and missiles project very much further, mitigating the deleterious effect of webs.
It's not even like that for gallente drone ships, because the drones are effectively immune to EWAR and project (eventually) for 60km.
The deimos needs to stay strong, or there will be no role for small-scale logi-less skirmishing in armour ships.
I don't think you understand the damage Medium Rails can do. Fail argument. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:13:00 -
[2308] - Quote
As to looking at competitiveness based on chance of loss, this does not tell the proper story. The ship with a 9/10 chance to win after engaging has a 9-1 kill/loss mail ratio. The ship that can disengage 90% of the time will have a ratio much closer to 1-1 kill/loss because the "I escaped with my hull intact" instances aren't recorded anywhere. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
177
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:14:00 -
[2309] - Quote
Eve is not a reasonable game. The premise of spaceships that are coated with armour that can absorb the energy of a high energy projectile (or even a tiny spec of space debris) is not even reasonably conceivable in our universe.
Eve is an interesting and challenging dynamic realtime strategy game on a huge scale. It is full of unreasonable ships that, despite their unreasonableness, must be countered somehow.
Many of them cannot be countered 1:1.
For example:
A blaster proteus will always die to a web-bonused loki (can't hit it at all). No single T3 can defeat the tank of a self-tanked, cap stable tengu. a blaster deimos cannot defeat the tank of a deadspace active shield DEIMOS, ishtar or any other HAC (except maybe a zealot). A hyperion will toast most things it encounters if at point blank range (including vindicators, bhaalgorns and machariels which cost 4 times as much) ... there's a long list...
Nevertheless, all these ships have a role. Crucially, most pvp encounters are not 1:1 affairs, so the game ought not to be balanced around that.
The deimos happens to be a great 1:1 ship (unless it meets something with long range or bonused webs), but in a 5:5 all of those advantages vanish.
I have been accused of being "pro deimos". That is not the case. I am happy to see an armour ship that can finally hold on to a tackle against unpleasant odds. I wouldn't care if it was an ishtar, zealot, sacrilege or a muninn. But it happens to be the deimos.
I think the game needs a ship like this.
It gives players another reasonably priced option to have a go at countering the other unreasonable ships out there without it being unkillable and dangerous at all ranges.
I think it will make the game richer.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
178
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:18:00 -
[2310] - Quote
Iome Ambraelle wrote:As to looking at competitiveness based on chance of loss, this does not tell the proper story. The ship with a 9/10 chance to win after engaging has a 9-1 kill/loss mail ratio. The ship that can disengage 90% of the time will have a ratio much closer to 1-1 kill/loss because the "I escaped with my hull intact" instances aren't recorded anywhere.
I completely agree and this is my point.
What are we measuring when we measure "power"? Brawl win chance, or survivability?
Survivability incudes the ability to escape, and I agree it's not recored on eve-kill, but it's supremely important to capsuleers who value every escape very highly!
|
|
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:19:00 -
[2311] - Quote
Man, you must not have tried the Deimos on Singularity.
I don't think you realize just how ridiculous it is. At the very least, it certainly is not in line with other HACs.... it's like what the sacrilege wishes it were. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
178
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:22:00 -
[2312] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Man, you must not have tried the Deimos on Singularity.
I don't think you realize just how ridiculous it is. At the very least, it certainly is not in line with other HACs.... it's like what the sacrilege wishes it were.
Flew it for 12 hours straight, in all configurations.
1:1 at close range it almost always wins. As does the hyp, proteus etc etc. That's the job of a gallente blaster boat isn't it?
in larger scale conflicts it starts to look less OP.
|
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:29:00 -
[2313] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: at close range it almost always wins. As does the hyp, proteus etc etc. That's the job of a gallente blaster boat isn't it?
Of course you should blast everything at close range, the problem is all the rest that's included in the package. OBS: This HAC stuff is out of my league. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:29:00 -
[2314] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:Man, you must not have tried the Deimos on Singularity.
I don't think you realize just how ridiculous it is. At the very least, it certainly is not in line with other HACs.... it's like what the sacrilege wishes it were. Flew it for 12 hours straight, in all configurations. 1:1 at close range it almost always wins. As does the hyp, proteus etc etc. That's the job of a gallente blaster boat isn't it? in larger scale conflicts it starts to look less OP.
Umm....no?
That's pretty close to admitting it is not in line with other HAC's. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:38:00 -
[2315] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
1:1 at close range it almost always wins. As does the hyp, proteus etc etc. That's the job of a gallente blaster boat isn't it?
The difference is that the Hyperion can in no way perma tank another BS on cap recharge alone, it must burn charges, and in many cases, must burn large numbers of them. This means that the tanking duration is finite, not infinite in these situations.
As for the proteus? t3 have not seen their balance pass yet and will be getting the nerfbat soon enough so using the proteus as a justification for the deimos's OPness is not really a sound argument.
Also, the Hyperion will not beat a vindicator in similar fit. The hypes tank advantage in no way makes up for the massive dps advantage the Vindicator has. You will find that the Hyperion will be burning charges quite a bit faster than the vindicator. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
178
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:38:00 -
[2316] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Phaade wrote:Man, you must not have tried the Deimos on Singularity.
I don't think you realize just how ridiculous it is. At the very least, it certainly is not in line with other HACs.... it's like what the sacrilege wishes it were. Flew it for 12 hours straight, in all configurations. 1:1 at close range it almost always wins. As does the hyp, proteus etc etc. That's the job of a gallente blaster boat isn't it? in larger scale conflicts it starts to look less OP. Umm....no? That's pretty close to admitting it is not in line with other HAC's.
ok lets consider a number of 2:2 situations, which I personally have been involved in: 2 blaster deimos vs:
tornado + ishtar: both deimos will die, never catching either 2 ravens: 1 deimos will die on the way to the ravens, the other will die when it gets there 2 sacrileges: deimos's will probably win 2 vagabonds: one deimos will die, the other will have to warp off or die.
other scenarios I have not tested personally, I expect a combination of wins and losses.
now let's go on sisi and try 3:3 (I am free on Saturday if you are). The lack of range of the blaster deimos will, I am sure, start to show in many situations and we'll see many more deimos losses.
It's a great ship, but it does not scale.
Now, a rail deimos I have not tried. I am really happy to test that on saturday too.
Who's up for it?
/MC
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:57:00 -
[2317] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
The difference is that it's much harder to kite against medium blasters within scram/web range than it is smalls. If the ships with medium blasters have a falloff bonus it makes that style of kiting (which is very effective in frig size) far less relevant.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
178
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 19:02:00 -
[2318] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: The difference is that it's much harder to kite against medium blasters within scram/web range than it is smalls. If the ships with medium blasters have a falloff bonus it makes that style of kiting (which is very effective in frig size) far less relevant.
Lets try it on the weekend. We can draw up and publish a table of 1:1 and 2:2 deimos counters and give an effectiveness rating to each.
In data lies the truth...
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
108
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 19:12:00 -
[2319] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Man, you must not have tried the Deimos on Singularity. It will not die to ANYTHING in it's weight class 1v1, including friggin faction HACs. It won't die to Command ships, laughably destroy CBC's and ABC's, will kill any BS without huge reps or Neuts, it's pretty much easymode.
I don't think you realize just how ridiculous it is. At the very least, it certainly is not in line with other HACs.... it's like what the sacrilege wishes it were.
You mean, OMG it's a Gallente boat that does certain things better than a Cynabel or Vagabond, so it must be op.
Only Cynabels and Vagabonds get to do that, period. FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 19:19:00 -
[2320] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:
You mean, OMG it's a Gallente boat that does certain things better than a Cynabel or Vagabond, so it must be op.
Only Cynabels and Vagabonds get to do that, period.
Pretty sure the vagabond/cynabal have nothing to do with the deimos discussion at hand...
But you know, strawman it up and keep looking like a fool.
You can keep posting, and I'll keep laughing.
|
|
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 19:42:00 -
[2321] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
It is a good post, but will you plate your blaster deimos like the incursus was plated in those examples? Honest question.
|
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 20:09:00 -
[2322] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Phaade wrote:Man, you must not have tried the Deimos on Singularity. It will not die to ANYTHING in it's weight class 1v1, including friggin faction HACs. It won't die to Command ships, laughably destroy CBC's and ABC's, will kill any BS without huge reps or Neuts, it's pretty much easymode.
I don't think you realize just how ridiculous it is. At the very least, it certainly is not in line with other HACs.... it's like what the sacrilege wishes it were. You mean, OMG it's a Gallente boat that does certain things better than a Cynabel or Vagabond, so it must be op. Only Cynabels and Vagabonds get to do that, period.
First, I don't fly either of those ships.
Second, those are kiting ships, not brawling ships. Wtf are you talking about? |
elitatwo
Congregatio
109
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 20:43:00 -
[2323] - Quote
Phaade wrote:elitatwo wrote:Phaade wrote:Man, you must not have tried the Deimos on Singularity. It will not die to ANYTHING in it's weight class 1v1, including friggin faction HACs. It won't die to Command ships, laughably destroy CBC's and ABC's, will kill any BS without huge reps or Neuts, it's pretty much easymode.
I don't think you realize just how ridiculous it is. At the very least, it certainly is not in line with other HACs.... it's like what the sacrilege wishes it were. You mean, OMG it's a Gallente boat that does certain things better than a Cynabel or Vagabond, so it must be op. Only Cynabels and Vagabonds get to do that, period. First, I don't fly either of those ships. Second, those are kiting ships, not brawling ships. Wtf are you talking about?
I am so sorry that I don't use autocannons. But I do know that autocannons to moar damage if you get closer to your victim. FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Kane Fenris
NWP
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 21:45:00 -
[2324] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Phaade wrote:elitatwo wrote:Phaade wrote:Man, you must not have tried the Deimos on Singularity. It will not die to ANYTHING in it's weight class 1v1, including friggin faction HACs. It won't die to Command ships, laughably destroy CBC's and ABC's, will kill any BS without huge reps or Neuts, it's pretty much easymode.
I don't think you realize just how ridiculous it is. At the very least, it certainly is not in line with other HACs.... it's like what the sacrilege wishes it were. You mean, OMG it's a Gallente boat that does certain things better than a Cynabel or Vagabond, so it must be op. Only Cynabels and Vagabonds get to do that, period. First, I don't fly either of those ships. Second, those are kiting ships, not brawling ships. Wtf are you talking about? I am so sorry that I don't use autocannons. But I do know that autocannons to moar damage if you get closer to your victim.
yup they do but under neraly all condition they are now worse than blasters which shouldnt be the case... (this is considering all the relevant fits on the relevant hulls under current game mechanics) |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
181
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 21:46:00 -
[2325] - Quote
What about the condition that the ship they're on is out of cap? Are they worse then?
Just sayin'
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 21:53:00 -
[2326] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:What about the condition that the ship they're on is out of cap? Are they worse then? Just sayin' just w8ted for someone to pull the capless car tbh.....
for me it doesnt make sense to have a advantage to be capless when all the hulls are adapted to support capless guns...
i have a advantage which is no advantage? |
Kane Fenris
NWP
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 21:53:00 -
[2327] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:What about the condition that the ship they're on is out of cap? Are they worse then? Just sayin' just w8ted for someone to pull the capless card tbh..... for me it doesnt make sense to have a advantage to be capless when all the hulls are adapted to support capless guns... i have a advantage which is no advantage?
sry for the qoute just wanted to erase the typo in "card" |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
181
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 22:03:00 -
[2328] - Quote
I guess you're talking about the Vaga? The fact that it has a strong capacitor allows it to zip about at 4000m/s for a very long time, with a very small sig radius. If it does get caught, it's able to keep fighting (while using the self rep bonus) to it's last breath. I think it's a very tasty little ship.
For example, put some remote logi on it and it's a very nice little bhaalgorn or armageddon killer, as well as an awesome tackler, skirmisher, escapologist.
Alll these ships have advantages that should be viewed in the context of the real game, not in hypothetical 1v1 HAC contests.
In the end, for a 1v1 everyone will bring the baddest thing they have.
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 22:24:00 -
[2329] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I guess you're talking about the Vaga? The fact that it has a strong capacitor allows it to zip about at 4000m/s for a very long time, with a very small sig radius. If it does get caught, it's able to keep fighting (while using the self rep bonus) to it's last breath. I think it's a very tasty little ship.
For example, put some remote logi on it and it's a very nice little bhaalgorn or armageddon killer, as well as an awesome tackler, skirmisher, escapologist.
Alll these ships have advantages that should be viewed in the context of the real game, not in hypothetical 1v1 HAC contests.
In the end, for a 1v1 everyone will bring the baddest thing they have.
no im not refereing to a single ship.... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
181
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 23:00:00 -
[2330] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I guess you're talking about the Vaga? The fact that it has a strong capacitor allows it to zip about at 4000m/s for a very long time, with a very small sig radius. If it does get caught, it's able to keep fighting (while using the self rep bonus) to it's last breath. I think it's a very tasty little ship.
For example, put some remote logi on it and it's a very nice little bhaalgorn or armageddon killer, as well as an awesome tackler, skirmisher, escapologist.
Alll these ships have advantages that should be viewed in the context of the real game, not in hypothetical 1v1 HAC contests.
In the end, for a 1v1 everyone will bring the baddest thing they have.
no im not refereing to a single ship....
But you are referring to projectile weapons in the context of HACs I think. That leaves (barring lolfits) 2 hulls, the vagabond and the Muninn.
I think it's fair to say that projectile weapons make the vaga an extremely versatile HAC, as mentioned above.
The Muninn I have more difficulty with. I can't visualise a role I would put it to for the find of fleet work I do. Maybe someone else can enlighten me.
|
|
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 23:06:00 -
[2331] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I guess you're talking about the Vaga? The fact that it has a strong capacitor allows it to zip about at 4000m/s for a very long time, with a very small sig radius. If it does get caught, it's able to keep fighting (while using the self rep bonus) to it's last breath. I think it's a very tasty little ship.
For example, put some remote logi on it and it's a very nice little bhaalgorn or armageddon killer, as well as an awesome tackler, skirmisher, escapologist.
Alll these ships have advantages that should be viewed in the context of the real game, not in hypothetical 1v1 HAC contests.
In the end, for a 1v1 everyone will bring the baddest thing they have.
no im not refereing to a single ship.... But you are referring to projectile weapons in the context of HACs I think. That leaves (barring lolfits) 2 hulls, the vagabond and the Muninn. I think it's fair to say that projectile weapons make the vaga an extremely versatile HAC, as mentioned above. The Muninn I have more difficulty with. I can't visualise a role I would put it to for the find of fleet work I do. Maybe someone else can enlighten me.
Hit and run snipers for anti-support in large fleets. With 720mms, they have good range, excellent cruiser-sized alpha strike, and quick enough align time to avoid becoming a main target. Also possible, with these same statistics, to use them as very effective anti-bombers, though honestly consider SFI superior in that role.
I'm not sure about the muninn's use in small gang/solo after the patch. It isn't changing much, so its utility is unlikely to change as well.
Black Legion swears by their muninn gangs, but only elite forces can actually make effective use of the drive-by muninn gang. Line members have to ACTUALLY align when the FC says align for these fleets to function. :)
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 23:18:00 -
[2332] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:Black Legion swears by their muninn gangs, but only elite forces can actually make effective use of the drive-by muninn gang. Line members have to ACTUALLY align when the FC says align for these fleets to function. :)
What? You mean there's a fleet of guys out there who actually pay attention and do what they're told?
It sounds... unbelievable...
|
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 03:25:00 -
[2333] - Quote
Mournful seems obsessive about posting in this thread about how 'balanced' the Deimos is. I mean really, for someone who almost exclusively flies Gallente and Blaster boats, you have to admit, its not helping your faux-scientific arguments.
Is there a way to beat the Deimos 1v1, ofcourse. But, as others have pointed out, despite the similar conundrum vs the Dramiel of old, that didnt stop the nerf bat.
It has to be an 'all other things being equal' argument.
However, current Gallente Cruisers are edging out their counterparts, due to multiple factors:
- Like it or not Drones, while cumbersome to handle, are a RELATIVELY powerful weapon system. Sure you can shoot at them (but so can you recall, swap them with the large drone bays and HP bonuses). Theyre capless weapon systems that are not effected by Neuts, TDs, ECM. Droneboats have enough protection vs kiters in the shape of either a full flight of warriors or dishonor ECM drones (without hurting dps, since the large drone bays allow the spare flight to lie as insurance). You can very reliably choose between full thermal or full explosive application, which frankly covers most enemy resist profiles.
- Like it or not, Blasters post the fall off bonus, Medium variety, hit hard enough from 1km to scram edge. Gallente frig hulls are balanced out vs scram edge kiters since small blasters dont. However med blasters do just fine. You want to kite a Gallente Med Blaster user, it needs to be point range kiting and there comes the local rep to the rescue vs long range damage.
- One med neut wont do much against a decent PvP fit Gallente Cruiser, enough mids that Med blaster users know how critical a cap booster is. Even a small with navy 400s is enough. So unless facing a dedicated Neut boat, youll be just fine.
- Dont get me started on local armor reppers. In low sec and small gangs/solo, they are already very good and a further 15% boost is lul.
Ofcourse you wont agree, EvE players fighting for their 'skill queue' cause, rarely do. Youre specialized in gallente and med blasters/drones, ofcourse you will advocate for the Deimos.
One look at the relative price tells you where Gallente Cruiser hulls are compared to the rest. E.g. [Sell Prices, as on Aug 22]
Thorax vs Stabber Vexor vs Rupture Navy Vexor vs Stab FI Navy Exeq vs Scy FI Brutix vs Cyclone ..
You get the idea. Hell, look at the anticipatory pricing on Ishtar [195m] vs Muninn [145m] Deimos [172m] vs Vagabond [152m]
Theyre expensive for a reason. Hint, its not limited supply. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 03:55:00 -
[2334] - Quote
Quote:It has to be an 'all other things being equal' argument.
No, it doesn't. In Eve, it never has been. Quite frankly, most of the people arguing against the Deimos really seem to just be saying "OMG! I can't pad my kilboard with these ships anymore!". This is still a very beatable ship, as Sisi demonstrates everyday. As was already pointed out, the Deimos while excelling in 1v1, doesn't scale as well as other hulls. In gangs, it'll still earn its rightful place as the Diemost. It has a number of counters, some of which can fight it with impunity. The argument that the high speed Minnie cruisers have GTFO ability if very valid. Blaster Deimos must commit. If it's target is heavy neut equipped, bait, ECM equipped with good skills, or even equipped with a tracking disrupter, Deimos is going to be faced with a very unpleasant outlook.
The bottom line is that everyone thinks their ship is entitled to cap strengh. Kiters want indefinite AB or MWD and capless guns. Active shield tankers want enough mids and powergrid for a booster. Laser pilots want enough to NOT need a booster or beg for extra mids. I could go on. It's the everlasting gripe of all pilots regardless of race. They all want viability under neuts. It doesn't mean the current Deimos is OP. It means you have to change how you address it on the field. Play smarter. |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 04:01:00 -
[2335] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:It has to be an 'all other things being equal' argument. No, it doesn't. In Eve, it never has been. ..... This is still a very beatable ship, as Sisi demostrates everyday. ...
Uh moot point. The last 18 months of Tiericide is a commitment that last 10 years of balance is not representative of what EvE INTENDS to be. No one cares what it 'has never been'.
Why is this a hard concept to grasp - THIS ISNT ABOUT THE DEIMOS BEING BEATABLE. Every single ship is beatable, duh.
Were talking about an entire class of ships being rebalanced and the point is simply that some HACs are currently lacklustre, while others are overtuned.
Deimos HAPPENS to be overtuned. Munnin happens to be crap. As players, it is our responsibility to remind the designers of this imbalance on the test server.
Not cry your eyes out about WAAAAT I has lost Deimos to Armageddon heavy neut, WTFXX its balance oK!!!!
This isnt a Can you Kill a Deimos thread. Youre just another Gallente pilot obsessed with wanting to cling onto an overtuned ship on SiSi. Most on the other hand are wanting a somewhat parity for the 8 HACs.
Dont worry, it wont make it to TQ. Let the tears flow. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 04:10:00 -
[2336] - Quote
Quote:Were talking about an entire class of ships being rebalanced and the point is simply that some HACs are currently lacklustre, while others are overtuned.
One ship not being tuned enough isn't indicative of any other being OP.
Quote:Youre just another Gallente pilot obsessed with wanting to cling onto an overtuned ship on SiSi. Most on the other hand are wanting a somewhat parity for the 8 HACs.
Ad hominem attack aside, this argument also fails. Counting over the more than a hundred pages, you'll find there's only a small number of vocal people arguing against the Deimost. Your claim of majority is unfounded.
Quote:Dont worry, it wont make it to TQ.
We'll see. |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 04:59:00 -
[2337] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote: Counting over the more than a hundred pages, you'll find there's only a small number of vocal people arguing against the Deimost. Your claim of majority is unfounded. ..
We'll see.
I said majority are interested in parity for the 8 HACs, not that majority are insisting the Deimos be nerfed.
Its your continuing obsession "DO NOT NERF DEIMOS, ITS FINE, NOTHING TO SEE HERE".. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 05:09:00 -
[2338] - Quote
Quote:Its your continuing obsession "DO NOT NERF DEIMOS, ITS FINE, NOTHING TO SEE HERE"..
Nope. My continuing obsession is "IT CAN FINALLY DO ITS JOB! Let's have some more of that all around." |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3293
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 06:35:00 -
[2339] - Quote
Seolfor wrote:Devon Weeks wrote: Counting over the more than a hundred pages, you'll find there's only a small number of vocal people arguing against the Deimost. Your claim of majority is unfounded. ..
We'll see. I said majority are interested in parity for the 8 HACs, not that majority are insisting the Deimos be nerfed. Its your continuing obsession "DO NOT NERF DEIMOS, ITS FINE, NOTHING TO SEE HERE"..
Or your obsession stating that it needs to be nerfed, without actually demonstrating the need in any way. Hint: just an NPC corp scrub saying that a ship is "overtuned" doesn't mean it is.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 08:32:00 -
[2340] - Quote
Seolfor wrote: (Nerf the Deimos so it can't solo anymore, buff muninn and egale because they aren't strong enough).
Dear Lady, no.
For once, people finally got in the Deimos a ship that delivers a top solo hull, is affordable and even though it got a strong tank (weaker than t3s though) doesn't make you lose SP on death. In like all situations, your solo ship is only as strong as you're deploying it correctly - use it to run down a tengu NP. But as Numbers rise even a little card turns pretty fastly. Get tackled by a daredevil and have an oracle warping to within 20k, and no matter how hard you rep, it's gonna burn you down, take a more normal situation and you're suddenly facing something horrible like 2 propheces and a phobos, so say goodbye cap.
I'm in no way doubting that the Deimos is a top notch soloship, though it's advantages on that part start disappearing when facing more than a tiny group of hostiles. It's also not that deadly and tanky at the same time, while it theoretically has 580something void-dps with most configs, 580 voiddps ain't that much - and given that you're in orbit around something that isn't a battleship, void won't hit for ****.
The Deimos is completely bound to fight single or small groups of targets that have - no ewar (really, dies to a single TD), get's obliterated by any dps and a crucifier. - not to many webs (or they'll be able to pull you out to the egde of antimatter or even null). - not more than ~800-1000 dps (aka a battlecruiser and a frigate), the boat is far from OP before links. It's a good active tanker, but active tanking is and will still stay irrelevant for all but solo/minifleets. - not have neuts.
Ye, I chose TD and neuts as clearly easy-going choices against it, cause even with that capacitor - recharge from 0 is slim, once you got them down there (the 'buffer' on you HAC's cap ain't that impressive) there ain't no coming up again from a plate/AAR, dualwebscram-fit, and the dualrep-Deimos - having but some 2.5k Buffer on armor, suddenly drops like a stone if it is missing two or three repcycles. Dear, I had bugs on SiSi just rendering my cap booster inactive (didn't reload, stuck, no response from the module no matter what I clicked), dying instantly afterwards - possibly cause whoever I was fighting had a med neut
But I agree, the Deimos is incrediby powerful if people don't bring anything to neutralise it's style going for those big-christmas-candle-like-glowing-weaknesses. an just remember how my testdeimos started melting once fully tackled. Links make it extremely strong (and I got the suspicion that links is the normal people are arguing about), but links also turn a dualrep Rupture into a nearly unbreakable brick.
"When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 10:07:00 -
[2341] - Quote
So those that think the deimos is balanced, please hop on Sisi so i can completely abuse you with the ship.
As has been pointed out by myself and others, the major issue with the deimos is it's cap recharge... Being able to perma tank 1 (and sometimes more) ships of similar class is not a good idea, especially when the ship doing it is faster than most hacs, more agile than most hacs, has a larger drone bay than most hacs, AND does the most dps of ALL the hacs. IF it was forced to burn more charges in some of these fights making it's staying time finite it would be FAR more balanced.
The reality is that it's simply far too good...
Also, Why does the Deimos have almost 40% more cap recharge compared to command ships which have higher cap demands and have far less ability to engage or disengage and have much larger sigs... If anything, the ships able to perma run a MAR off cap recharge should be command ships, not a hac(s).... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
187
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 10:18:00 -
[2342] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:If anything, the ships able to perma run a MAR off cap recharge should be command ships, not a hac(s)....
I am not sure I agree Jerick.
It seems to me that a HAC is something you throw at your opponents at the beginning of the fight, when they are strongest. They are fast so they can get there before being popped and once they are there, they're going to have to survive long enough for everyone else to catch up.
Survival in a local tanker, whether shield or armour, is dependant on the capacitor staying solvent. It seems reasonable to me that these front line, first in ships should be fast and strong since they will take the most punishment.
The command ships are slower, bigger and designed for a different job. I agree it would be nice if they had stronger capacitors, but it does not seem to me that that is crucial for them to fulfil their role.
|
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 10:30:00 -
[2343] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:If anything, the ships able to perma run a MAR off cap recharge should be command ships, not a hac(s).... Survival in a local tanker, whether shield or armour, is dependant on the capacitor staying solvent. It seems reasonable to me that these front line, first in ships should be fast and strong since they will take the most punishment.
Use a MAAR, with or without a 2nd MAR and/or Plate. *Psst, it doesnt use cap while loaded with goo.*
To the gallente trolls saying FINALLY you have a solo pwnmobile, wtf is wrong with you? The idea of the HAC rebalance isnt to give to players ONE solo pwnmobile.
And finally, to gents asking about how to 'nerf' the sisi Deimos, well where to begin, the 4th mid wasnt required, but was given as essentially Med neut counter. The only same/sub class counter to the Deimos then is TDs.
To those asking 'how':
Since the utopian option of 'lets buff ALL HACs so they can brawl as effectively as the Deimos' will never happen, my suggestion, in addition to the many, many, many times already stated in this thread, nerf the cap/cap recharge on Deimos, so it frankly at least FEEL some pressure when under a med neut AND half its fall-off bonus, if youre going to give it the local rep bonus, improved local reps modules AND a 4th mid.
Seriously, where is Rise? This Blaster boat lovefest is getting a bit stupid. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 10:32:00 -
[2344] - Quote
Mourn, hacs have numerous other advantages compared to commands, namely speed, agility, and most importantly, signature radius. There is 100% no reason they should have superior staying power as well once committed.
As it is right now, A deimos is far more survivable than comparable commands in almost every situation... It's much quicker/faster allowing it avoid/start far more fights, It's got like half the sig as well as much higher speeds making it speed tank much much better, it's got 40% more cap recharge allowing it to perma run a mar where an eos/astarte is forced to burn charges (even with nos fit) AND it's less expensive as well as takes less time to train into... ALL of these advantages seem fine to me OTHER THAN cap recharge. Staying power should be in the domain of Commands, not hacs... |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 10:39:00 -
[2345] - Quote
Quote:Use a MAAR, with or without a 2nd MAR and/or Plate. *Psst, it doesnt use cap while loaded with goo.*
Now, it's pretty apparent you don't fly or understand armor ships. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 11:08:00 -
[2346] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote: Now, it's pretty apparent you don't fly or understand armor ships.
^^ or never fitted an aar, not even a small one.
Shoudn't T2 ships be super-specialized or something?
Munnin, appears to be heavy specialized at one thing only, which makes it almost unusable, honestly never saw one in low sec, I know that there are groups that fly it and swear by it, and I believe the ship is that good at what it does, but it makes sense to have a ship that is used by so few?
On the other side, in the same class, you have others that are clearly designed for mass consumption, both galente hacs, vaga, cerberus, etc. I don't understand where the specialization starts and when it ends. Now you even have T1 ships, that sould be more *generic*, super-specialized in some roles. Is the tempest being used for other things beside capitals-neuting per example?
What a mess, deimos works with blasters or rails, I don't see vaga working with arties or munnin with auto-cannons or eagle with blasters. I though that the tiericide/rebalance was to end with this mess, instead you're just shuffling the cards again, some ships to the top, others to the bottom, we'll get back at it in a few months/years. |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 11:13:00 -
[2347] - Quote
Yes, that AAR not needing cap was my fubar, was thinking ASBs for some reason. Need to stop posting on phone at work :)
Again, sorry about that, edited it out. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
190
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 11:45:00 -
[2348] - Quote
I agree than the Muninn needs something special to attract me to it. At the moment it seems to lack any speciality.
I like the zealot for damage projection, vagabond for speed, sacrilege for good dps in all damage types with a strong hull, Ishtar for pwnage at any range at all, Deimos for brawling, eagle and Cerberus for ++ber range.
but the muninn stands alone looking a bit sad :-( |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 11:47:00 -
[2349] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I agree than the Muninn needs something special to attract me to it. At the moment it seems to lack any speciality. I like the zealot for damage projection, vagabond for speed, sacrilege for good dps in all damage types with a strong hull, Ishtar for pwnage at any range at all, Deimos for brawling, eagle and Cerberus for ++ber range. but the muninn stands alone looking a bit sad :-(
Or is it the contrary? Munnin and Eagle are ok and what they really want, and everything else is wrong?
|
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 12:25:00 -
[2350] - Quote
Munnin either needs to go the Scythe Navy way i.e. supreme flexibility with all the T2/HAC benefits over the Navy Cruisers.
OR
Munnin needs to take its Shield boosting bonus and become an AC/ASB version of the Deimos i.e. many more mids, 4 lows and make it a strong shield brawler.
Right now, its .. lolwut.
This 100mn AB Arty version must be REALLY popular, ive seen it all of ZERO times in all my years of high + low sec. OR this must be the rare null only ship. I guess we really do need a null only HAC, am i right? |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
773
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 12:35:00 -
[2351] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:...For once, people finally got in the Deimos a ship that delivers a top solo hull... Right you are, but how do you justify the Deimos being the only (cost) effective HAC?
It is in a good place powerwise in relation to the various lines up/down .. pretty much where I'd place a HAC if I came in from outside and asked to create a niche/hull to fill the gap between cruisers and BC/BS. The ability to solo anything, defeat non-habitual PvP'ers in 2:1's and draw blood before perishing in 3-4:1 fights .. all for the low low price of a few hours worth of ISK generation.
All the HACs should be where the Deimos is, which means either all but the Deimos should receive buffs to meet the bar or the Deimos must take a massive hit.
- The capacitor swap I suggested be conducted with the Zealot barely touches the Deimos thanks to that gratuitous midslot but would mean the world to the Zealot which is two birds with one stone -> pre-nerfs HAC line by lowering the bar set by the Deimos ever so slightly and pretty much sorts the Zealot (still want the medium Gatlings though ) - Sacrilege needs application/major damage increase or some other way to control fights, partial to the neut/nos bonus myself because of versatility .. gives a leg up in solo with option to act as heavy tackle/de-capifier in larger bouts.
- Cerberus looks like a fairly solid add-in dps platform but needs something to do that does not require it to orbit at 60km, could add 15m3 drones or something but my missile brawling experience is limited to active armour Sacs so uncertain. - Eagle is just pathetic. Slow, fat and tanky .. can't run, can't engage on its own terms. Either it is sped up significantly or it is given the ability to do what it must do sitting on its fat-ass. Replace one of the hybrid range bonuses with a +7.5% hybrid tracking bonus and if necessary increase the remaining to +15%/lvl.
- Deimos as proposed but swap cap with Zealot (see above). - Ishtar might do well to have the heavy bonus being expanded to included light/medium but the tracking component should then be changed to orbit speed (ie. all speed bonus) to encourage pilots to bring the right composition as mediums will be iffy against small targets. Increase bay by 25-50m3 to make the choices a little easier.
- Vagabond .. I am loathe to mess with auto boats due to previous Winmatar cycle, but it needs something to set it apart so make it the active shield equivalent to the Deimos. What if it was Fleet Phooned: adding 4 launcher slots, change damage bonuses to 7.5% RoF for HML and AML and a 10% RoF to projectiles .. gives missile kiting or auto brawling option. Falloff bonus I am uncertain of .. should be used to augment either the brawling or kiting aspect but which I don't know. - Muninn is trickier as its the HAC version of the Hurricanes. Change RoF to damage and increase both to 7.5% .. ever so slightly lower dps than Hurricanes but with higher alpha, better application and range. Basically an artillery platform that doesn't automatically fail with autos.
End: Would rather buff everything upwards than nerf the Deimos as I truly believe it is where/what the HACs should be.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
190
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 12:41:00 -
[2352] - Quote
right now I think the Ishtar is the most deadly and versatile hac |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1150
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 12:50:00 -
[2353] - Quote
Urkhan Law wrote:What a mess, deimos works with blasters or rails, I don't see vaga working with arties or munnin with auto-cannons or eagle with blasters. I though that the tiericide/rebalance was to end with this mess, instead you're just shuffling the cards again, some ships to the top, others to the bottom, we'll get back at it in a few months/years.
Vaga with arties? -of course it can needs to do trade offs like Deimos does but yes it can
Autos Munnin? -why don't you try it out? -did you already projected dps potential out of it? -you didn't that's why.
Eagle with blasters gets battleship EHP with a huge resist profile and traded some speed to actually hit with blasters at rails Deimost range.
No problems or imbalances here, just tradeoffs, you guys need to be a bit more creative and think/see out of your little box. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 12:58:00 -
[2354] - Quote
After testing the Eagle I have concluded it is only good at dying slow painful deaths.
I recommend no one fly it ever. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 13:20:00 -
[2355] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: No problems or imbalances here, just tradeoffs, you guys need to be a bit more creative and think/see out of your little box.
What are the deimos drawbacks? Munnin can become an excelente brawler, so good that I think the 3rd mid can be removed from the deimos, after all is not doing nothing in there right? And the Eagle can really put some damage, but just for a few seconds until deimos closes in. But that was not really the point of my post and I'm not in the mood to make you a drawing. |
Jell Feed
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 13:56:00 -
[2356] - Quote
CCP ISuckAtRebalance could you let us know whats the expected time frame for the us to start crying these about these op gallente and ammar ships.
After their realese ie...
Thanks |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 14:38:00 -
[2357] - Quote
Urkhan Law wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: No problems or imbalances here, just tradeoffs, you guys need to be a bit more creative and think/see out of your little box.
What are the deimos drawbacks? Munnin can become an excelente brawler, so good that I think the 3rd mid can be removed from the deimos, after all is not doing nothing in there right? And the Blaster Eagle can really put some damage, but just for a few seconds until deimos closes in. But that was not really the point of my post and I'm not in the mood to make you a drawing.
Its like you never heard of a tracking disruptor.... |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3296
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 14:42:00 -
[2358] - Quote
Urkhan Law wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: No problems or imbalances here, just tradeoffs, you guys need to be a bit more creative and think/see out of your little box.
What are the deimos drawbacks? Munnin can become an excelente brawler, so good that I think the 3rd mid can be removed from the deimos, after all is not doing nothing in there right? And the Blaster Eagle can really put some damage, but just for a few seconds until deimos closes in. But that was not really the point of my post and I'm not in the mood to make you a drawing.
Wtf, you guys are losing the grip on reality here.
Deimos drawbacks?
It's is a damn active armor tanked blaster ship without a tracking bonus, with the biggest sig of all HACs. That's four (4) obvious weaknesses most ships can easily exploit.
I know you lot are used to this type of ship being a complete, utter and miserably hopeless failure in PVP, since that's how things have been so far, but please just get a grip and don't get your panties twisted when CCP finally gets their stuff together and makes an effort to rebalance a engagement concept that has been massively broken since the dawn of times.
The times when all armor tanked blaster ships were free killmails to everyone who could press "keep at range" are over, bring the appropriate counter or just ******* deal with it.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 14:54:00 -
[2359] - Quote
Roime wrote:[quote=Urkhan Law]
The times when all armor tanked blaster ships were free killmails to everyone who could press "keep at range" are over, bring the appropriate counter or just ******* deal with it.
Or just alpha the non-buffer holding duakl repper hip into the floor. Use rails just hook it and run if you can't close on it...with blasters it has to fight in scram range. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 15:08:00 -
[2360] - Quote
Romie have you actually flown the deimos on sisi? I'm asking in a non facetious manner btw... |
|
Sira Fiinikkusu
THE AESIR. Ragnarok.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 15:13:00 -
[2361] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Roime wrote:[quote=Urkhan Law]
The times when all armor tanked blaster ships were free killmails to everyone who could press "keep at range" are over, bring the appropriate counter or just ******* deal with it.
Or just alpha the non-buffer holding duakl repper hip into the floor. Use rails just hook it and run if you can't close on it...with blasters it has to fight in scram range. nevermind the fact that if anyone notices you using rails on a deimos, you're pretty much screwed as you wont hit anything that gets in brawling range outside of a battleship.
also forum lurker here and i just want to point out that this argument in general right now is pretty hilarious, you wont or almost never see a dual repped deimos on TQ post patch, fitted like that the ship will have so little armor hp that you could essentially alpha the ship or bleed into hull in between each rep cycle. 800 plate (or if implanted 1600) + MAAR is pretty much the brawling way to go and you wont last forever like that.
also the removal of the incoming 4th slot is pretty amusing as well, thorax, vigilant and phobos all have 5 highs (excluding phobos' bubble high) and 4 mids, why is it the T2 variant should do without? The removal of the high makes sense because again 5 highs throughout the thorax hulls.
as for the statement about deimos' speed, you do realize it's armor based and it would be losing it's speed lead it has on the rest of the hacs (barring vagabond which makes sense in it's own right). The only reason they increased the speed of the ship is to bring it's speed in line with your typical brawling shield fit and it has a large sig radius to compensate.
i lurk these topics all the time just to keep an eye out on whats to come but honestly some of you should just pipe down as you do not know how to fit a ship, know anything about armor tanking (or shield tanking in some topics) and basically have no combat experience what so ever and it shows. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 15:19:00 -
[2362] - Quote
Roime wrote: The times when all armor tanked blaster ships were free killmails to everyone who could press "keep at range" are over.
-.- ffs, not the point. Some ships are over-specialized and will continue to not see much use. Others will be over used. What is this "tiericide" for then? If it does not even fix this usage balance (like it happened to frigs/cruisers), is just a re-shuffle.
And tbh I don't think the old age of "approach" was much more interesting, but what ever rides your boat. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 15:21:00 -
[2363] - Quote
Quote:also forum lurker here and i just want to point out that this argument in general right now is pretty hilarious, you wont or almost never see a dual repped deimos on TQ post patch, fitted like that the ship will have so little armor hp that you could essentially alpha the ship or bleed into hull in between each rep cycle. 800 plate (or if implanted 1600) + MAAR is pretty much the brawling way to go and you wont last forever like that.-á
Someone gets it!!! Hallapenyo! |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
192
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 15:26:00 -
[2364] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:also forum lurker here and i just want to point out that this argument in general right now is pretty hilarious, you wont or almost never see a dual repped deimos on TQ post patch, fitted like that the ship will have so little armor hp that you could essentially alpha the ship or bleed into hull in between each rep cycle. 800 plate (or if implanted 1600) + MAAR is pretty much the brawling way to go and you wont last forever like that.-á Someone gets it!!! Hallapenyo!
I think we all get it, and I agree - I am a convert to the way of the 800 plate + single repper.
There is a lot of alarm as to the dual-repping power of the deimos, and I agree in practice these fits will not last on TQ.
In fact this discussion has caused me to wonder about refitting my brutix to be a buffer/rep hybrid rather than dual-rep with nosferatu.
I wonder if that's what the original designer of armour rep ships intended all those years ago?
Even a hyperion, with 1600 plate and LAAR starts to make sense, certainly in a small fleet scenario - that's something like 100k ehp plus 500 ehp/second.
interesting times...
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
110
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 15:48:00 -
[2365] - Quote
Seolfor wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:If anything, the ships able to perma run a MAR off cap recharge should be command ships, not a hac(s).... Survival in a local tanker, whether shield or armour, is dependant on the capacitor staying solvent. It seems reasonable to me that these front line, first in ships should be fast and strong since they will take the most punishment. To the gallente trolls saying FINALLY you have a solo pwnmobile, wtf is wrong with you? The idea of the HAC rebalance isnt to give to players ONE solo pwnmobile. And finally, to gents asking about how to 'nerf' the sisi Deimos, well where to begin, the 4th mid wasnt required, but was given as essentially Med neut counter. The only same/sub class counter to the Deimos then is TDs. To those asking 'how': Since the utopian option of 'lets buff ALL HACs so they can brawl as effectively as the Deimos' will never happen, my suggestion, in addition to the many, many, many times already stated in this thread, nerf the cap/cap recharge on Deimos, so it frankly at least FEEL some pressure when under a med neut AND half its fall-off bonus, if youre going to give it the local rep bonus, improved local reps modules AND a 4th mid. Seriously, where is Rise? This Blaster boat lovefest is getting a bit stupid.
Yolo, umadbro??
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
elitatwo
Congregatio
110
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 16:06:00 -
[2366] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:also forum lurker here and i just want to point out that this argument in general right now is pretty hilarious, you wont or almost never see a dual repped deimos on TQ post patch, fitted like that the ship will have so little armor hp that you could essentially alpha the ship or bleed into hull in between each rep cycle. 800 plate (or if implanted 1600) + MAAR is pretty much the brawling way to go and you wont last forever like that.-á Someone gets it!!! Hallapenyo! I think we all get it, and I agree - I am a convert to the way of the 800 plate + single repper. There is a lot of alarm as to the dual-repping power of the deimos, and I agree in practice these fits will not last on TQ. In fact this discussion has caused me to wonder about refitting my brutix to be a buffer/rep hybrid rather than dual-rep with nosferatu. I wonder if that's what the original designer of armour rep ships intended all those years ago? Even a hyperion, with 1600 plate and LAAR starts to make sense, certainly in a small fleet scenario - that's something like 100k ehp plus 500 ehp/second. interesting times...
I believe that came from trial and error back in the day and the way armor reps work.
Since you need to "wait" until the cycle hits, you need to have that "backup armor" on your boat until the rep is giving you back the armor hp.
That's why the plate + rep combo works so well.
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 16:47:00 -
[2367] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:It has to be an 'all other things being equal' argument. No, it doesn't. In Eve, it never has been. Quite frankly, most of the people arguing against the Deimos really seem to just be saying "OMG! I can't pad my kilboard with these ships anymore!". This is still a very beatable ship, as Sisi demonstrates everyday. As was already pointed out, the Deimos while excelling in 1v1, doesn't scale as well as other hulls. In gangs, it'll still earn its rightful place as the Diemost. It has a number of counters, some of which can fight it with impunity. The argument that the high speed Minnie cruisers have GTFO ability if very valid. Blaster Deimos must commit. If it's target is heavy neut equipped, bait, ECM equipped with good skills, or even equipped with a tracking disrupter, Deimos is going to be faced with a very unpleasant outlook. The bottom line is that everyone thinks their ship is entitled to cap strengh. Kiters want indefinite AB or MWD and capless guns. Active shield tankers want enough mids and powergrid for a booster. Laser pilots want enough to NOT need a booster or beg for extra mids. I could go on. It's the everlasting gripe of all pilots regardless of race. They all want viability under neuts. It doesn't mean the current Deimos is OP. It means you have to change how you address it on the field. Play smarter.
As respectfully as possible, you are full of ****.
The Deimos, as proven on Singularity, is nearly unkillable. You put a reactive armor hardener on it and my god, after 30-60 seconds, your dps is absolute crap.
I engaged a Deimos in a Nighthawk with 5x HAMs and 2x Neuts. It perma-tanked 500 dps under neut pressure. That is not reasonable. With cap boosters? Sure. With a NOS or 2? Sure. With base cap regen alone? NO.
Explain to me how that's reasonable. Please. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 16:55:00 -
[2368] - Quote
Phaade wrote:
As respectfully as possible, you are full of ****.
The Deimos, as proven on Singularity, is nearly unkillable. You put a reactive armor hardener on it and my god, after 30-60 seconds, your dps is absolute crap.
I engaged a Deimos in a Nighthawk with 5x HAMs and 2x Neuts. It perma-tanked 500 dps under neut pressure. That is not reasonable. With cap boosters? Sure. With a NOS or 2? Sure. With base cap regen alone? NO.
Explain to me how that's reasonable. Please.
Umm as a point of order that diemost that you are complaining about likely was only running a point and the guns on cap. MAARs sort of don't use any, and MARs wouldn't be able to tank that (well they can buy it takes exile boosters)
.....unless you were doing something silly like shooting scourge at it into its strongest resist and never changed damage types, because no one would ever do that? Right? |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 16:57:00 -
[2369] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:It has to be an 'all other things being equal' argument. No, it doesn't. In Eve, it never has been. Quite frankly, most of the people arguing against the Deimos really seem to just be saying "OMG! I can't pad my kilboard with these ships anymore!". This is still a very beatable ship, as Sisi demonstrates everyday. As was already pointed out, the Deimos while excelling in 1v1, doesn't scale as well as other hulls. In gangs, it'll still earn its rightful place as the Diemost. It has a number of counters, some of which can fight it with impunity. The argument that the high speed Minnie cruisers have GTFO ability if very valid. Blaster Deimos must commit. If it's target is heavy neut equipped, bait, ECM equipped with good skills, or even equipped with a tracking disrupter, Deimos is going to be faced with a very unpleasant outlook. The bottom line is that everyone thinks their ship is entitled to cap strengh. Kiters want indefinite AB or MWD and capless guns. Active shield tankers want enough mids and powergrid for a booster. Laser pilots want enough to NOT need a booster or beg for extra mids. I could go on. It's the everlasting gripe of all pilots regardless of race. They all want viability under neuts. It doesn't mean the current Deimos is OP. It means you have to change how you address it on the field. Play smarter. As respectfully as possible, you are full of ****. The Deimos, as proven on Singularity, is nearly unkillable. You put a reactive armor hardener on it and my god, after 30-60 seconds, your dps is absolute crap. I engaged a Deimos in a Nighthawk with 5x HAMs and 2x Neuts. It perma-tanked 500 dps under neut pressure. That is not reasonable. With cap boosters? Sure. With a NOS or 2? Sure. With base cap regen alone? NO. Explain to me how that's reasonable. Please.
Childish comments will get you nothing. I prefer a more of a mature approach to debate, but I'll indulge you just once and suggest that you read a few posts ahead of this one. You'll find several very effective counters for the Deimos listed. And, for the record, just because YOU have an experience against or with a certain hull doesn't mean that experience will be repeated with all other pilots. Many pilots are winning and losing in that ship every day on Sisi. I'll not rehash all the ways it happens here. |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 16:58:00 -
[2370] - Quote
AARs use cap.... |
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 16:58:00 -
[2371] - Quote
Quote:MAARs sort of don't use any (capacitor)
MAARs do use the exact same amount of cap as MARs, with or without nanopaste. |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:00:00 -
[2372] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:It has to be an 'all other things being equal' argument. No, it doesn't. In Eve, it never has been. Quite frankly, most of the people arguing against the Deimos really seem to just be saying "OMG! I can't pad my kilboard with these ships anymore!". This is still a very beatable ship, as Sisi demonstrates everyday. As was already pointed out, the Deimos while excelling in 1v1, doesn't scale as well as other hulls. In gangs, it'll still earn its rightful place as the Diemost. It has a number of counters, some of which can fight it with impunity. The argument that the high speed Minnie cruisers have GTFO ability if very valid. Blaster Deimos must commit. If it's target is heavy neut equipped, bait, ECM equipped with good skills, or even equipped with a tracking disrupter, Deimos is going to be faced with a very unpleasant outlook. The bottom line is that everyone thinks their ship is entitled to cap strengh. Kiters want indefinite AB or MWD and capless guns. Active shield tankers want enough mids and powergrid for a booster. Laser pilots want enough to NOT need a booster or beg for extra mids. I could go on. It's the everlasting gripe of all pilots regardless of race. They all want viability under neuts. It doesn't mean the current Deimos is OP. It means you have to change how you address it on the field. Play smarter. As respectfully as possible, you are full of ****. The Deimos, as proven on Singularity, is nearly unkillable. You put a reactive armor hardener on it and my god, after 30-60 seconds, your dps is absolute crap. I engaged a Deimos in a Nighthawk with 5x HAMs and 2x Neuts. It perma-tanked 500 dps under neut pressure. That is not reasonable. With cap boosters? Sure. With a NOS or 2? Sure. With base cap regen alone? NO. Explain to me how that's reasonable. Please.
This is a problem with HAM damage projection against sig tanking cruisers, rather than the problem of MARs on the deimos. ~600 DPS nighthawk putting faction missiles on a cruiser with 150m sig and 600 m/s is dealing under 275 actual damage. Consider also that to get the whole posted 600 DPS on the nighthawk, that must be kinetic damage, to which the deimos is exceptionally well-tanked (Just short of 90% with one EANM). It takes much less cap to pulse your armor reps on the deimos and keep the AB running than it is to keep the reps running. After resists and speed, you're suddenly doing a little under 30 dps. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:02:00 -
[2373] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Urkhan Law wrote:What a mess, deimos works with blasters or rails, I don't see vaga working with arties or munnin with auto-cannons or eagle with blasters. I though that the tiericide/rebalance was to end with this mess, instead you're just shuffling the cards again, some ships to the top, others to the bottom, we'll get back at it in a few months/years. Vaga with arties? -of course it can needs to do trade offs like Deimos does but yes it can Autos Munnin? -why don't you try it out? -did you already projected dps potential out of it? -you didn't that's why. Eagle with blasters gets battleship EHP with a huge resist profile and traded some speed to actually hit with blasters at rails Deimost range. No problems or imbalances here, just tradeoffs, you guys need to be a bit more creative and think/see out of your little box.
The Eagle is okay at brawling, it will take down most t1's BC down.....but optimal bonuses don't do a damn thing for blasters. Falloff is FAR superior.
If you want to brawl with blasters and you choose the Eagle, you ****** up. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
197
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:05:00 -
[2374] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:Phaade wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:It has to be an 'all other things being equal' argument. No, it doesn't. In Eve, it never has been. Quite frankly, most of the people arguing against the Deimos really seem to just be saying "OMG! I can't pad my kilboard with these ships anymore!". This is still a very beatable ship, as Sisi demonstrates everyday. As was already pointed out, the Deimos while excelling in 1v1, doesn't scale as well as other hulls. In gangs, it'll still earn its rightful place as the Diemost. It has a number of counters, some of which can fight it with impunity. The argument that the high speed Minnie cruisers have GTFO ability if very valid. Blaster Deimos must commit. If it's target is heavy neut equipped, bait, ECM equipped with good skills, or even equipped with a tracking disrupter, Deimos is going to be faced with a very unpleasant outlook. The bottom line is that everyone thinks their ship is entitled to cap strengh. Kiters want indefinite AB or MWD and capless guns. Active shield tankers want enough mids and powergrid for a booster. Laser pilots want enough to NOT need a booster or beg for extra mids. I could go on. It's the everlasting gripe of all pilots regardless of race. They all want viability under neuts. It doesn't mean the current Deimos is OP. It means you have to change how you address it on the field. Play smarter. As respectfully as possible, you are full of ****. The Deimos, as proven on Singularity, is nearly unkillable. You put a reactive armor hardener on it and my god, after 30-60 seconds, your dps is absolute crap. I engaged a Deimos in a Nighthawk with 5x HAMs and 2x Neuts. It perma-tanked 500 dps under neut pressure. That is not reasonable. With cap boosters? Sure. With a NOS or 2? Sure. With base cap regen alone? NO. Explain to me how that's reasonable. Please. This is a problem with HAM damage projection against sig tanking cruisers, rather than the problem of MARs on the deimos. ~600 DPS nighthawk putting faction missiles on a cruiser with 150m sig and 600 m/s is dealing under 275 actual damage. Consider also that to get the whole posted 600 DPS on the nighthawk, that must be kinetic damage, to which the deimos is exceptionally well-tanked (Just short of 90% with one EANM). It takes much less cap to pulse your armor reps on the deimos and keep the AB running than it is to keep the reps running. After resists and speed, you're suddenly doing a little under 30 dps.
For a cruiser to be doing 600m/s it's going to be using an afterburner. Whether it's AB only or dual-prop it'll have to have made sacrifices somewhere else in order to do this.
It's an unusual fit, except in the case of a cynabal (or maybe the new vaga?)
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:09:00 -
[2375] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote:
This is a problem with HAM damage projection against sig tanking cruisers, rather than the problem of MARs on the deimos. ~600 DPS nighthawk putting faction missiles on a cruiser with 150m sig and 600 m/s is dealing under 275 actual damage. Consider also that to get the whole posted 600 DPS on the nighthawk, that must be kinetic damage, to which the deimos is exceptionally well-tanked (Just short of 90% with one EANM). It takes much less cap to pulse your armor reps on the deimos and keep the AB running than it is to keep the reps running. After resists and speed, you're suddenly doing a little under 30 dps.
For a cruiser to be doing 600m/s it's going to be using an afterburner. Whether it's AB only or dual-prop it'll have to have made sacrifices somewhere else in order to do this. It's an unusual fit, except in the case of a cynabal (or maybe the new vaga?)
They gave us a 50% MWD sig bloom, just enough PG and CPU upgrade to fit an AB in that extra mid slot, and I intend to use it! :)
At least, for a little while. We'll see, once it drops on Tranquility, if it actually survives real EVE combat. I tend to fly with small gangs rather than solo, however. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:10:00 -
[2376] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:MAARs sort of don't use any (capacitor) MAARs do use the exact same amount of cap as MARs, with or without nanopaste.
Your right, brain damage.
Since I can't be arsed to download a sisi fitter I have to fire up the test server. I had a deimost fitted up but it didn't see, like all that. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
197
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:19:00 -
[2377] - Quote
I was just thinking about the recent post about the effects of dual neuts on the nighthawk v. deimos.
Let's do this scientifically rather than insulting each other:
Givens for deimos cap performance: effective peak cap recharge: +20/s (we can't keep it at the sweet spot all the time, and don't forget the effects of the MWD) Single MAR or MAAR: -17.8 Web: -0.68/s Scram: -0.68/s Heavy Ion blasters w/void x 5: -5.65/s 2 Incoming medium neuts: -21.2/s explosive hardener: -1.5/s Damage Control: -0.0333/s MWD: OFF
Total net cap use per second: -27.5433/s
Total navy 400 cap boosters: 20 in hold, 3 in medium booster: 23 total cap-booster cap available: 23 * 400 = 9200 Gj
total time until cap booster depletion: 9200 / 27.5433 = 334 seconds = 5 minutes and 34 seconds.
So, strategy for killing a deimos with 800 plate + single MAAR or MAR is: 2 medium neuts while applying moderate EM or explosive damage. Stay alive for 5 minutes and you'll win. With that in mind, now let's examine whether we can build a nighthawk that will tank 700dps of kin/therm for 5 minutes. I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader, since I'm not going to to all the work of telling you how to fit a ship.
hint: it's not hard...
;-)
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:21:00 -
[2378] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:MAARs sort of don't use any (capacitor) MAARs do use the exact same amount of cap as MARs, with or without nanopaste.
It really depends how you look at it. Yes, per cycle the MAAR and MAR use the same cap however cap efficiency per hp healed is very different. A Maar loaded with paste heals allot more hp per cap than a MAR, this is most certainly what devon weeks was getting at.
Either way, a Deimos can run the repper, tackle, and guns on cap recharge alone which leads to infinite tanking potential against a wide variety of similar sized targets. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
197
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:26:00 -
[2379] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Either way, a Deimos can run the repper, tackle, and guns on cap recharge alone which leads to infinite tanking potential against a wide variety of similar sized targets.
Actually Jerick, although you are my dear friend, I'll have to call you on that one. It's not quite true. See the calculation 2 posts prior.
I will grant you that it can run the guns, tank and tackle for a *fair while* without a booster (provided there are no neuts on the field), but not forever.
Having done the calculation above, it becomes very obvious to me how important neut ships are going to be when fighting HACs. Fortunately, there is already a plated armageddon waiting in the SMA of my POS.
Let the games begin!
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
widgetman
Widgetland
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:33:00 -
[2380] - Quote
The problem is, as i see it, all of the changes still take away the fact that people will compare against tech 1 Battlecrusiers........they are way cheaper do more DPS and kill HAC's very easy.......this is the problem in balancing a ship class that is way out of date.
I have no idea myself how you should balance ship classes like HAC , and also the Command ship class, they need a massive overhaul not just small tweaking, which i fear is just what is happening due to most of the GM's etc also seeing the complicated situation in front of them.
What happened as far as im concerned is the new introduction of Tech 3, and the new battlecrusiers( i say new, it was new when it happened :) ), made the HAC and Command classes just not viable in Eve ................how we change this, i just dont have a clue , i'm only expressing my opinion, but i'm sure others who have seen all the new introductions in ships will understand what i mean.
Widgetman. x |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:34:00 -
[2381] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I will grant you that it can run the guns, tank and tackle for a *fair while* without a booster (provided there are no neuts on the field), but not forever.
Looking at it right now on SiSi with a single maar and a rack of neutron blasters and the usual point/web MWD and its cap endurance is all of 50 seconds without a cap booster or cap rigs. Two minutes with an AB but there is NO WAY you are dual propping it.
With MWD its not even very fast, 2284 overloaded, the DCII + reactive hardener does look pretty nice though, but still all of 15000 eHP (eve) with dual trimarks.
Not exactly unbeatable.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:36:00 -
[2382] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Either way, a Deimos can run the repper, tackle, and guns on cap recharge alone which leads to infinite tanking potential against a wide variety of similar sized targets.
Actually Jerick, although you are my dear friend, I'll have to call you on that one. It's not quite true. See the calculation 2 posts prior. I will grant you that it can run the guns, tank and tackle for a *fair while* without a booster (provided there are no neuts on the field), but not forever. Having done the calculation above, it becomes very obvious to me how important neut ships are going to be when fighting HACs. Fortunately, there is already a plated armageddon waiting in the SMA of my POS. Let the games begin!
If you don't use a rep speed rig (nano acell) it's cap stable, if you have a nano acell, it's just barley not. fit it up on sisi, undock, and run your repper. You will see that I'm not really wrong in my statement. BTW, i do roll ca-1 and ca-2 increasing my cap by a small margin as well.
Now if you fit a reactive armor hardener, that perma tank cap stability is most certainly not true.
But you are correct, in terms of "Actual fits" which include a nano accel, it's not 100% cap stable (cheers for calling me on that). Then again, turning your repper off for a couple cycles during the overall cap depletion duration will get you back to "stable"
On another note, I've spent a good amount of time in a Sac as of late and I must say that it is the king of Maar+plate setups. My hams skills are kind **** so i'm only at around 420 dps with faction ammo. Either way 70k+ ehp (no slaves, no links) 80-90% resistance and an "oh ****" heated maar has turned out to be a fantastic counter to some of the hard counters killing the deimos. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
198
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:43:00 -
[2383] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Either way, a Deimos can run the repper, tackle, and guns on cap recharge alone which leads to infinite tanking potential against a wide variety of similar sized targets.
Actually Jerick, although you are my dear friend, I'll have to call you on that one. It's not quite true. See the calculation 2 posts prior. I will grant you that it can run the guns, tank and tackle for a *fair while* without a booster (provided there are no neuts on the field), but not forever. Having done the calculation above, it becomes very obvious to me how important neut ships are going to be when fighting HACs. Fortunately, there is already a plated armageddon waiting in the SMA of my POS. Let the games begin! If you don't use a rep speed rig (nano acell) it's cap stable, if you have a nano acell, it's just barley not. fit it up on sisi, undock, and run your repper. You will see that I'm not really wrong in my statement.
The numbers I quoted above (take a look) come from a deimos fitted with dual nano pumps. If you fit a nanobot accelerator the cap depletion from the armour repairer (of either type) rises to 22.2 per unit. For this reason I avoid the nanobot accelerator in all my fits.
For an armour tanker, victory lies in cap efficiency. The counter for armour tankers is neuts. 2 neuts are troublesome to a deimos. 3 neuts are deadly.
If you're worried about OP HACs, don't get too distracted with the deimos - look closely at the ishtar. utra-tracking Heavy EM or explosive drones + multiple neuts + a massive shield tank + the ability to engage at any range.
Look at it's price in Jita. The market knows...
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:45:00 -
[2384] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Phaade wrote:
As respectfully as possible, you are full of ****.
The Deimos, as proven on Singularity, is nearly unkillable. You put a reactive armor hardener on it and my god, after 30-60 seconds, your dps is absolute crap.
I engaged a Deimos in a Nighthawk with 5x HAMs and 2x Neuts. It perma-tanked 500 dps under neut pressure. That is not reasonable. With cap boosters? Sure. With a NOS or 2? Sure. With base cap regen alone? NO.
Explain to me how that's reasonable. Please.
Umm as a point of order that diemost that you are complaining about likely was only running a point and the guns on cap. MAARs sort of don't use any, and MARs wouldn't be able to tank that (well they can buy it takes exile boosters) .....unless you were doing something silly like shooting scourge at it into its strongest resist and never changed damage types, because no one would ever do that? Right?
What part of PERMANENTLY tanking 500 dps did you not understand? I went through like 5 - 6 reload cycles. Thats not a MAAR, its a MAR II |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:46:00 -
[2385] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Onictus wrote:Phaade wrote:
As respectfully as possible, you are full of ****.
The Deimos, as proven on Singularity, is nearly unkillable. You put a reactive armor hardener on it and my god, after 30-60 seconds, your dps is absolute crap.
I engaged a Deimos in a Nighthawk with 5x HAMs and 2x Neuts. It perma-tanked 500 dps under neut pressure. That is not reasonable. With cap boosters? Sure. With a NOS or 2? Sure. With base cap regen alone? NO.
Explain to me how that's reasonable. Please.
Umm as a point of order that diemost that you are complaining about likely was only running a point and the guns on cap. MAARs sort of don't use any, and MARs wouldn't be able to tank that (well they can buy it takes exile boosters) .....unless you were doing something silly like shooting scourge at it into its strongest resist and never changed damage types, because no one would ever do that? Right? What part of PERMANENTLY tanking 500 dps did you not understand? I went through like 5 - 6 reload cycles. Thats not a MAAR, its a MAR II
Yeah then he was also using boosters or you were shooting into its stong resist
|
Arieth Cash
Silent Step
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:49:00 -
[2386] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: So, strategy for killing a deimos with 800 plate + single MAAR or MAR is: 2 medium neuts while applying moderate EM or explosive damage. Stay alive for 5 minutes and you'll win. With that in mind, now let's examine whether we can build a nighthawk that will tank 700dps of kin/therm for 5 minutes. I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader, since I'm not going to to all the work of telling you how to fit a ship.
I think a TD, or simply the good old *run away* is a better option. Cap to run 2 neuts, repair 700 dps/sec while performing enough damage to force the deimos to use his cap does not look a small feat. Since you gave as an example a t2 bc, I sincerelly hope they can do it easily since they should me *tanking* monsters.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
540
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:50:00 -
[2387] - Quote
Good post mourn, I'm sitting just under cap stable with the suggested fit (you're right, it's not perma 100% cap stable). I'll probably be rolling to nanopumps over nanobots as a second rig on all t2 active from this point forward. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
198
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 17:54:00 -
[2388] - Quote
Arieth Cash wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: So, strategy for killing a deimos with 800 plate + single MAAR or MAR is: 2 medium neuts while applying moderate EM or explosive damage. Stay alive for 5 minutes and you'll win. With that in mind, now let's examine whether we can build a nighthawk that will tank 700dps of kin/therm for 5 minutes. I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader, since I'm not going to to all the work of telling you how to fit a ship.
I think a TD, or simply the good old *run away* is a better option. Cap to run 2 neuts, repair 700 dps/sec while performing enough damage to force the deimos to use his cap does not look a small feat. Since you gave as an example a t2 bc, I sincerelly hope they can do it easily since they should me *tanking* monsters.
Actually I had a re-think about this. The NH does not even need to tank 700 dps of kin/therm. It only needs to tank 550. The NH has drones with which it can harrass the medium drones of the deimos in a 1:1, thus the deimos' damage output is really only 550 max.
In kin/therm the NH can tank that with 1 large ASB and 1 invulerability field (not even overheated, no links, no implants, no boosters). Note that this is an example, it may be that better results can be achieved with a shield booster.
Of course, the NH is not the ideal ship for the job, it's designed for a buffer tank (in my view) but this was the example provided. A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
198
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 18:12:00 -
[2389] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: On another note, I've spent a good amount of time in a Sac as of late and I must say that it is the king of Maar+plate setups. My hams skills are kind **** so i'm only at around 420 dps with faction ammo. Either way 70k+ ehp (no slaves, no links) 80-90% resistance and an "oh ****" heated maar has turned out to be a fantastic counter to some of the hard counters killing the deimos.
I think it's a much-underrated ship, and I look forward to surprising people with it on TQ.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 18:59:00 -
[2390] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: On another note, I've spent a good amount of time in a Sac as of late and I must say that it is the king of Maar+plate setups. My hams skills are kind **** so i'm only at around 420 dps with faction ammo. Either way 70k+ ehp (no slaves, no links) 80-90% resistance and an "oh ****" heated maar has turned out to be a fantastic counter to some of the hard counters killing the deimos.
I think it's a much-underrated ship, and I look forward to surprising people with it on TQ.
Yeah all of the whining about the Deimost......the sac is something. REALLY digging the changes there. |
|
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 19:06:00 -
[2391] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: On another note, I've spent a good amount of time in a Sac as of late and I must say that it is the king of Maar+plate setups. My hams skills are kind **** so i'm only at around 420 dps with faction ammo. Either way 70k+ ehp (no slaves, no links) 80-90% resistance and an "oh ****" heated maar has turned out to be a fantastic counter to some of the hard counters killing the deimos.
I think it's a much-underrated ship, and I look forward to surprising people with it on TQ. Yeah all of the whining about the Deimost......the sac is something. REALLY digging the changes there.
This thread seems to be moving from ship to ship, realizing how they can all be awesome at what they're supposed to do.
I GREATLY look forward to HACs being a big thing in both small gang and large fleet.
I may even train amarr cruiser V in the near future. :) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 19:08:00 -
[2392] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: On another note, I've spent a good amount of time in a Sac as of late and I must say that it is the king of Maar+plate setups. My hams skills are kind **** so i'm only at around 420 dps with faction ammo. Either way 70k+ ehp (no slaves, no links) 80-90% resistance and an "oh ****" heated maar has turned out to be a fantastic counter to some of the hard counters killing the deimos.
I think it's a much-underrated ship, and I look forward to surprising people with it on TQ. Yeah all of the whining about the Deimost......the sac is something. REALLY digging the changes there. This thread seems to be moving from ship to ship, realizing how they can all be awesome at what they're supposed to do. I GREATLY look forward to HACs being a big thing in both small gang and large fleet. I may even train amarr cruiser V in the near future. :)
I'd love to know how the eagle is awesome at anything .. besides being slow 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 19:16:00 -
[2393] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote:Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: On another note, I've spent a good amount of time in a Sac as of late and I must say that it is the king of Maar+plate setups. My hams skills are kind **** so i'm only at around 420 dps with faction ammo. Either way 70k+ ehp (no slaves, no links) 80-90% resistance and an "oh ****" heated maar has turned out to be a fantastic counter to some of the hard counters killing the deimos.
I think it's a much-underrated ship, and I look forward to surprising people with it on TQ. Yeah all of the whining about the Deimost......the sac is something. REALLY digging the changes there. This thread seems to be moving from ship to ship, realizing how they can all be awesome at what they're supposed to do. I GREATLY look forward to HACs being a big thing in both small gang and large fleet. I may even train amarr cruiser V in the near future. :) I'd love to know how the eagle is awesome at anything .. besides being slow
Eagle is going to be hard to call. It may be another muninn, in that it will depend heavily on the tactical genius of a fleet commander and disciplined line members that actually switch props when told, align where told, and orbit when told. Like the deimos, it's getting another mid slot and just enough PG and CPU increase to fit a dual prop. In addition to the rail buff, that may make it viable as a fleet boat. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 19:17:00 -
[2394] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:
Eagle is going to be hard to call. It may be another muninn, in that it will depend heavily on the tactical genius of a fleet commander and disciplined line members that actually switch props when told, align where told, and orbit when told. Like the deimos, it's getting another mid slot and just enough PG and CPU increase to fit a dual prop. In addition to the rail buff, that may make it viable as a fleet boat.
Dual prop won't apply to fleet builds.
A couple SeBos and a bit of spike it could be great anti-support. But we'll see. I haven't gotten to putz with that one yet. |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 19:31:00 -
[2395] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote:
Eagle is going to be hard to call. It may be another muninn, in that it will depend heavily on the tactical genius of a fleet commander and disciplined line members that actually switch props when told, align where told, and orbit when told. Like the deimos, it's getting another mid slot and just enough PG and CPU increase to fit a dual prop. In addition to the rail buff, that may make it viable as a fleet boat.
Dual prop won't apply to fleet builds. A couple SeBos and a bit of spike it could be great anti-support. But we'll see. I haven't gotten to putz with that one yet.
Au contraire. Dual prop allows the eagle fleet to reposition the fleet mid-engagement while bubbled, and hold onto range advantage against other HAC fleets. Zealot fleet is afterburner fit only. So you'll use the microwarp to pull range rather than disengaging, then switch off to preserve capacitor. Against battleship fleets, MWD will allow the fleet to move in closer while swapping to javelin ammunition, and the prop prevents the fleet from taking damage while under large guns. Since the eagle has a double optimal bonus to hybrids, the only weaponry that will outrange it is battleship class. It requires the ship be flown intelligently, but it has a niche.
But again, that might be complicated for line members. :/ |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 19:45:00 -
[2396] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:Onictus wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote:
Eagle is going to be hard to call. It may be another muninn, in that it will depend heavily on the tactical genius of a fleet commander and disciplined line members that actually switch props when told, align where told, and orbit when told. Like the deimos, it's getting another mid slot and just enough PG and CPU increase to fit a dual prop. In addition to the rail buff, that may make it viable as a fleet boat.
Dual prop won't apply to fleet builds. A couple SeBos and a bit of spike it could be great anti-support. But we'll see. I haven't gotten to putz with that one yet. Au contraire. Dual prop allows the eagle fleet to reposition the fleet mid-engagement while bubbled, and hold onto range advantage against other HAC fleets. Zealot fleet is afterburner fit only. So you'll use the microwarp to pull range rather than disengaging, then switch off to preserve capacitor. Against battleship fleets, MWD will allow the fleet to move in closer while swapping to javelin ammunition, and the prop prevents the fleet from taking damage while under large guns. Since the eagle has a double optimal bonus to hybrids, the only weaponry that will outrange it is battleship class. It requires the ship be flown intelligently, but it has a niche. But again, that might be complicated for line members. :/
Its a heavy range hull, there is no need for the AB, you wouldn't be using it as a comp of its own, you have to dual prop, which means you are making seriously fitting compromises, notably in the tank department. Factor that with the +sig nature of a shield tank to start with and its vulnerability to anything that can use a painter.....yeah, way to easily countered.
As an anti-support sniper in a heavier fleet it would be pretty effective, much in the same fashion that alliances use inta canes.....the reason being the shield tank. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 20:00:00 -
[2397] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:Phaade wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:It has to be an 'all other things being equal' argument. No, it doesn't. In Eve, it never has been. Quite frankly, most of the people arguing against the Deimos really seem to just be saying "OMG! I can't pad my kilboard with these ships anymore!". This is still a very beatable ship, as Sisi demonstrates everyday. As was already pointed out, the Deimos while excelling in 1v1, doesn't scale as well as other hulls. In gangs, it'll still earn its rightful place as the Diemost. It has a number of counters, some of which can fight it with impunity. The argument that the high speed Minnie cruisers have GTFO ability if very valid. Blaster Deimos must commit. If it's target is heavy neut equipped, bait, ECM equipped with good skills, or even equipped with a tracking disrupter, Deimos is going to be faced with a very unpleasant outlook. The bottom line is that everyone thinks their ship is entitled to cap strengh. Kiters want indefinite AB or MWD and capless guns. Active shield tankers want enough mids and powergrid for a booster. Laser pilots want enough to NOT need a booster or beg for extra mids. I could go on. It's the everlasting gripe of all pilots regardless of race. They all want viability under neuts. It doesn't mean the current Deimos is OP. It means you have to change how you address it on the field. Play smarter. As respectfully as possible, you are full of ****. The Deimos, as proven on Singularity, is nearly unkillable. You put a reactive armor hardener on it and my god, after 30-60 seconds, your dps is absolute crap. I engaged a Deimos in a Nighthawk with 5x HAMs and 2x Neuts. It perma-tanked 500 dps under neut pressure. That is not reasonable. With cap boosters? Sure. With a NOS or 2? Sure. With base cap regen alone? NO. Explain to me how that's reasonable. Please. This is a problem with HAM damage projection against sig tanking cruisers, rather than the problem of MARs on the deimos. ~600 DPS nighthawk putting faction missiles on a cruiser with 150m sig and 600 m/s is dealing under 275 actual damage. Consider also that to get the whole posted 600 DPS on the nighthawk, that must be kinetic damage, to which the deimos is exceptionally well-tanked (Just short of 90% with one EANM). It takes much less cap to pulse your armor reps on the deimos and keep the AB running than it is to keep the reps running. After resists and speed, you're suddenly doing a little under 30 dps.
Was switching between EM / Exp damage due to the reactive. With these damage types my dps was roughly 500. I also had a web / scram, so speed wasn't too much of a problem. I believe he was also MWD fit, not sure if dual prop or not.
To the tard above who thinks the Deimos is balanced because he can find a couple counters to this ship; I have a hard time arguing with such statements, as they make no sense. Just because your Deimos can lose to a faction BS does not mean it is balanced. It certainly can't be killed by anything smaller than that unless it was specifically and completely designed to kill a specific Deimos fit. Nothing CS down can apply enough damage to kill it. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 20:04:00 -
[2398] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: On another note, I've spent a good amount of time in a Sac as of late and I must say that it is the king of Maar+plate setups. My hams skills are kind **** so i'm only at around 420 dps with faction ammo. Either way 70k+ ehp (no slaves, no links) 80-90% resistance and an "oh ****" heated maar has turned out to be a fantastic counter to some of the hard counters killing the deimos.
I think it's a much-underrated ship, and I look forward to surprising people with it on TQ. Yeah all of the whining about the Deimost......the sac is something. REALLY digging the changes there.
The Sac will lose to the Deimos in a brawl. If you want to try a kiting Sac, be my guest, but you still won't break the Deimos. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 20:18:00 -
[2399] - Quote
Phaade wrote:[quote=Onictus]
The Sac will lose to the Deimos in a brawl. If you want to try a kiting Sac, be my guest, but you still won't break the Deimos.
You are right I broke about three of them.
|
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 20:46:00 -
[2400] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:
It requires the ship be flown intelligently, but it has a niche.
But again, that might be complicated for line members. :/
This is code for it is a bad ship.
Just compare it to the Ishtar since I fly both. How does anything the Eagle have compensate for the Ishtar having +125 drone bandwidth. + 1 gun? LOLOLOLOL |
|
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
667
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 20:58:00 -
[2401] - Quote
so has the utility high slot been swapped to a low slot of the sac yet?
OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 20:59:00 -
[2402] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote:
It requires the ship be flown intelligently, but it has a niche.
But again, that might be complicated for line members. :/
This is code for it is a bad ship.
Did I read this right? Are you trolling?
The requirement to think when you fly makes a ship bad?
Many people would tell you to stop flying, but please continue to do so! I look forward to looting many wrecks upon which your name is emblazoned! |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 21:04:00 -
[2403] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:so has the utility high slot been swapped to a low slot of the sac yet?
But then it would lose the neutraliser...
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 21:50:00 -
[2404] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:
Did I read this right? Are you trolling?
The requirement to think when you fly makes a ship bad?
Many people would tell you to stop flying, but please continue to do so! I look forward to looting many wrecks upon which your name is emblazoned!
Forum ate my post. But basically...
If the ship requires you to out think your opponent to be viable, then It is bad. Why not just fly a ship that is viable then out think/play them with it to gain a better advantage?
Anyways I'm done. It was the worst HAC and has received almost no attention so it is likely to remain the worst and everyone is OK with it.
|
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 22:10:00 -
[2405] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Phaade wrote:[quote=Onictus]
The Sac will lose to the Deimos in a brawl. If you want to try a kiting Sac, be my guest, but you still won't break the Deimos. You are right I broke about three of them.
No you didn't. Not if it was properly fit. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
775
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 22:54:00 -
[2406] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: On another note, I've spent a good amount of time in a Sac as of late and I must say that it is the king of Maar+plate setups. My hams skills are kind **** so i'm only at around 420 dps with faction ammo. Either way 70k+ ehp (no slaves, no links) 80-90% resistance and an "oh ****" heated maar has turned out to be a fantastic counter to some of the hard counters killing the deimos.
I think it's a much-underrated ship, and I look forward to surprising people with it on TQ. Yeah all of the whining about the Deimost......the sac is something. REALLY digging the changes there.
What changes, has Rise been around since I went to work? Sac is as it was .. no change other than a whopping 0.2 extra base recharge at max skills.
80-90% resists are only possible without BCU's dropping your damage down to destroyer levels and with a 1600 plate + twin trimarks needed for that 70k EHP number you are moving like a slug and will never, ever kill anything as you'll never land a web much less a scram or neut cycle.
I have gone through just about all possible permutations (never the ASB/Gank though as I stay well clear of broken stuff due to having morals ) of the Sacrilege on TQ over the years and can say with some certainty that it will not be some glorious beast with that extra 0.2 base recharge and useless +50% range. It is a weed-killer, mows scrubs very effectively but then so does any ship from noob to Titan .. actual fights will take a loooong time due to low applied damage and the days when you had 5-10 minutes of "peace" to whittle down an enemy are long gone.
By far the most effective fit I came up with had (pure active because buffer, even partial is just painful with just 5 slots) : Centii SAR/ MARII/ DCUII/ EANMII/ BCUII MWD/ M.Inject/ Web/ Scram 5x HAMs / Med. Neutralizer (whatever you do go medium, will save you more times than not if you get the 5-10 minutes peace) Tank/Application rigs NB: Was was based on a ratting fit that held up against a 10 man mixed frigate/cruiser gang for quite a while.
I would not dream of taking that up against either of the revised Gallente HACs as it is outbuffered, out manoeuvred, outtanked and outdamaged .. you need at least twin BCU's to compete but that kills your tank and even with a med neut you'll be there until next downtime waiting for the break.
In short: Amarr hulls were not changed other than the meaningless class bonus, the blanket sensor buff, a pointless range bonus on the Sacrilege and a staggeringly +0.7 base recharge on the Zealot. If you want to know how they will handle you don't need to go to SiSi at all .. which is good because all the experience you may have with them remains valid, but ever so sad for their future. |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 23:39:00 -
[2407] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:Alex Tutuola wrote:
Did I read this right? Are you trolling?
The requirement to think when you fly makes a ship bad?
Many people would tell you to stop flying, but please continue to do so! I look forward to looting many wrecks upon which your name is emblazoned!
Forum ate my post. But basically... If the ship requires you to out think your opponent to be viable, then It is bad. Why not just fly a ship that is viable then out think/play them with it to gain a better advantage? Anyways I'm done. It was the worst HAC and has received almost no attention so it is likely to remain the worst and everyone is OK with it.
I think it need more speed and slightly better signature, but that the fittings are excellent. For the eagle's intended purpose, it needs nothing else. I think EVE should involve out-thinking your opponents. The eagle, when flown in a dual propped fleet, can theoretically beat a lot of different fleets. Now, the breakdown is going to be in the deployment speed, because it is still the slowest HAC in base speed. To fight HACs, it's going to need to pull range. Base speed modifies how long they stay in the other fleet's range. To fight battleships, they need to get under the guns. That's why dual prop for a fleet, so you can sig tank the large weapons.
However, if you want to just win by choosing the "right" ship without any other considerations, I suggest you consider another game! |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 03:19:00 -
[2408] - Quote
Phaade wrote:
The Eagle is okay at brawling, it will take down most t1's BC down.....but optimal bonuses don't do a damn thing for blasters. Falloff is FAR superior.
If you want to brawl with blasters and you choose the Eagle, you ****** up.
Wow, im glad all this HAC rebalance then served the Eagle so well. It was and remains a Railgun boat, period.
Whoopdie Doo, look maa no more Drake/Raven for L4s!
Caracal: Kite with any launcher platform, not enough utility (spare highs, dronebay) to Brawl, but can try
Deimos: Superb with Blasters in scram range, not too shabby with Rails + point Ishtar: Shield or Armor, Neuts or Blasters or ACs, Brawl or Kite
Zealot: Tougher ONI as a kiter, not too shabby as a brawler [Can be Better as a brawler, needs at least 3, ideally 5 light drones] Sac: Superb with HAMs in scram range, HMLs kite fits now plausible [Ideally a little faster base speed to make the kite fits viable]
Vaga: Still a good kiter, though needs to use Barrage to apply notable damage. Brawling with a shield boosting, 4 mids ship.. lul Muninn: Apparently the 100mn Arty fits are DA BOMB (lol), but outside of Arty-Kite fits, no plan B.
Seriously, this is the rebalance for HACs? As someone put it so well - this is just reshuffling the deck of 8, some become superb, some supercrap. Rinse repeat a year later? |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 03:29:00 -
[2409] - Quote
Quote:Just because your Deimos can lose to a faction BS does not mean it is balanced. It certainly can't be killed by anything smaller than that unless it was specifically and completely designed to kill a specific Deimos fit. Nothing CS down can apply enough damage to kill it.
Really? You can't kill one with anything short of a faction battleship? Well, I know who I'm hunting when 1.1 hits... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 03:36:00 -
[2410] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Just because your Deimos can lose to a faction BS does not mean it is balanced. It certainly can't be killed by anything smaller than that unless it was specifically and completely designed to kill a specific Deimos fit. Nothing CS down can apply enough damage to kill it. Really? You can't kill one with anything short of a faction battleship? Well, I know who I'm hunting when 1.1 hits...
I tinkered around with about 6-7 different Diemost fits this morning ......still trying to hit these magic numbers. |
|
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 03:54:00 -
[2411] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
What changes, has Rise been around since I went to work? Sac is as it was .. no change other than a whopping 0.2 extra base recharge at max skills.
*snip*
In short: Amarr hulls were not changed other than the meaningless class bonus, the blanket sensor buff, a pointless range bonus on the Sacrilege and a staggeringly +0.7 base recharge on the Zealot. If you want to know how they will handle you don't need to go to SiSi at all .. which is good because all the experience you may have with them remains valid, but ever so sad for their future.
Uh.. no.
From a previous post:
[1] Missile velocity bonus means you can kite in point range with HAMs
[2] Boost to MAR/MAAR repping amounts by 15% in 1.1
[3] MWD Class bonus [reduced sig], further helps in mitigating damage while kiting in above role
[4] Though CAP was never the SACs problem, its even better Cap mgmt now [All HACs have their cap recharge per second set to around 5.5 rather than the former 3.5 - 4.5 cap/sec]
[5] Larger drone bay AND more bandwidth, either full flight of med drones or a spare flight of dishonor ECM lights to GTFO i.e. better counter vs tacklers OR more power if brawling as dual prop
[6] More PG helps get in the Med Neut in the spare high, without using anci rig, means more tank if youre flying the solo/small gang dual prop variety or in fleets
Further, minor but useful buffs:
[7] All HACs will gain 7-8 sensor strength, putting their average Sensor Strength at 22 which is right around combat battleship range. [Helps vs ECM drones and multi-racial ECM]
[8] All HACs gain 15k to 25k lock range [Helps RR Ball fleets v/s Sensor Damps]
Want More?
Try dual prop with HAMs, active or buffer to your taste. Faction web if youre feeling generous. Sac is fine, in fact, its great.
|
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 04:54:00 -
[2412] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Just because your Deimos can lose to a faction BS does not mean it is balanced. It certainly can't be killed by anything smaller than that unless it was specifically and completely designed to kill a specific Deimos fit. Nothing CS down can apply enough damage to kill it. Really? You can't kill one with anything short of a faction battleship? Well, I know who I'm hunting when 1.1 hits... I tinkered around with about 6-7 different Diemost fits this morning ......still trying to hit these magic numbers.
You know what, for the damage and time of engagement that was being quoted, maybe it was a pure tackle deimos. I mean, you don't worry about the damage, and you can go down to electrons for PG, drop the mag field stabs for more armor... It would become an extremely tough heavy tackler! |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
775
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 06:34:00 -
[2413] - Quote
Seolfor wrote:Uh.. no.... Why waste that wall on regurgitated matter when you could just have said I forgot the +35m3 drones?
Yeah, I forgot about the drone increase but does not change the end result by much. Unbonused drones pop right fast against any experienced opponent and EC-XXX will be removed from game at some point, it is one of the few items in database that both players and CCP considers broken after all, kind of odd that they haven't been axed already really.
Too slow, too heavy and damage too sig/speed dependent for it to be able to kite unless you really go ape cherry-picking your targets .. which is actually OK .. but then I'd want all HACs to have to cherry-pick which is not the case. You mention "at point range", guess how long you get to stay there when you are slower than the majority .. Time-to-Kill is high enough to make even 'only slightly' faster boats problematic.
Will lose the dps/EHP war 99% of the time, with five lows it can never win it .. might go shield/gank but if those kinds of tricks are to be used something is off to begin with. Against buffer tanks you have more than a decent chance but with blanket repairer buffs active will be all the rage so target pool will suffer.
You managed to add one thing of merit, DP. Hadn't considered that config and it will be as good as it is now. You'll get a handful of kills with it in the opening weeks and none after that as it becomes the de facto standard with potential opponents avoiding Sacs unless prepared for it .. then it is back to pruning the shrubberies.
So one specific fit will work .. does the same apply to all the others? If "no" then it is not 'great' but rather more sub-par bordering on waste-of-ISK.
PS: Have a look at where I want the HACs to be in one of my previous posts .. just want them all to be viable in multiple scenarios and configs which is simply not the case as proposed. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 07:19:00 -
[2414] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:Onictus wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:Just because your Deimos can lose to a faction BS does not mean it is balanced. It certainly can't be killed by anything smaller than that unless it was specifically and completely designed to kill a specific Deimos fit. Nothing CS down can apply enough damage to kill it. Really? You can't kill one with anything short of a faction battleship? Well, I know who I'm hunting when 1.1 hits... I tinkered around with about 6-7 different Diemost fits this morning ......still trying to hit these magic numbers. You know what, for the damage and time of engagement that was being quoted, maybe it was a pure tackle deimos. I mean, you don't worry about the damage, and you can go down to electrons for PG, drop the mag field stabs for more armor... It would become an extremely tough heavy tackler!
No way in hell you are getting that type of tank with neutrons, not in any form of cap stable. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 09:29:00 -
[2415] - Quote
Quote:No way in hell you are getting that type of tank with neutrons, not in any form of cap stable.
Of course not. That's why he said drop to electrons for powergrid. Pretty much all of the most popular blaster Deimos fits on Sisi right now are ions. Dropping to electrons does get you enough powergrid to get a good bit more tank. I'll be curious to see the numbers on an all tank tackle Deimos. My suspicion is that it won't perform as well as some other ships, but I could be wrong. Dual propped, it might be a rather tenacious tackler. |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 09:49:00 -
[2416] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Seolfor wrote:Uh.. no.... Why waste that wall on regurgitated matter when you could just have said I forgot the +35m3 drones? ... You managed to add one thing of merit, DP. Hadn't considered that config and it will be as good as it is now. You'll get a handful of kills with it in the opening weeks and none after that as it becomes the de facto standard with potential opponents avoiding Sacs unless prepared for it .. then it is back to pruning the shrubberies. So one specific fit will work .. does the same apply to all the others? If "no" then it is not 'great' but rather more sub-par bordering on waste-of-ISK.
My my, arent you the armchair EFT warrior.
Have you tried the Dual Prop fit ingame SiSi or TQ? Im guessing No.
If the Sac is a waste of isk to you, kindly pass me on any Sac hulls you may have.
- Its arguably the best HAC in large fleet with logi support
- In 5-10 man RR ball gangs, its superb
- In solo/2-3 wolf pack its fine, not just as DualProp, but standard 1600 plate brawl version or dual MAR/MAR+MAAR versions also. Passive fit its cap independent, making it immune to Neut and TDs. If you wish to target bigger stuff a Med NOS works like a charm in the utility high. [Again, vs TQ, the SiSi Sac now has the new NOS mechanics AND the +15% on MAR/MAAR benefiting it]
- The HML addition to the ship AND the range bonus addition, AND the better cap gen (so no, not JUST +35m3 drone) means its now a very viable PvE option for running 5 or 6/10s or C3s or blitzing L4s, if you dont wish to invest in a T3 or would rather not attract attention in low/null sec using a T3/CShip/BShip.
What youre asking for the ship would make it OP.
You keep saying 'other' HACs. Which other HACs? Im guessing youre hell bent on comparing it to the Deimos/Ishtar, which anyways the SiSi debate is ongoing. I personally think the Deimos is so far better, that everything looks a little/extra bit worse.
We all want reasonably balanced HACs, but you demanding the SAC to be buffed is just plain uninformed. Its a very good ship currently on SiSi. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
207
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 09:53:00 -
[2417] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:No way in hell you are getting that type of tank with neutrons, not in any form of cap stable. Of course not. That's why he said drop to electrons for powergrid. Pretty much all of the most popular blaster Deimos fits on Sisi right now are ions. Dropping to electrons does get you enough powergrid to get a good bit more tank. I'll be curious to see the numbers on an all tank tackle Deimos. My suspicion is that it won't perform as well as some other ships, but I could be wrong. Dual propped, it might be a rather tenacious tackler.
I tried a dual prop deimos. It couldn't kill anything but it could get initial tackle on a MWD ship and then extricate itself when it needed to. It's a nice concept. Swapping the 1x mag stab (which is how I fit a deimos) for another eanm would give it more staying power.
I think that fit works well for its role as a tough little tackler of battleships.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 09:56:00 -
[2418] - Quote
Quote:- Its arguably the best HAC in large fleet with logi support
See, this is something that isn't mentioned enough. Scalability is a balancing factor, and, as was pointed out a page or two ago, it is a quality the Deimos simply doesn't have. The Sacrilege is an amazing ship, and it certainly scales well. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 11:06:00 -
[2419] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:- Its arguably the best HAC in large fleet with logi support
See, this is something that isn't mentioned enough. Scalability is a balancing factor, and, as was pointed out a page or two ago, it is a quality the Deimos simply doesn't have. The Sacrilege is an amazing ship, and it certainly scales well.
I imagine after the first couple weeks all I'll ever see are ishtars, Sacs, zealots and cerbs...
In that order.
Just because the active tanking thing doesn't do so hot out here. It can work, but you'll just get blapped as soon as you make yourself annoying.
I don't care how many reppers you pack ontp a Diemost, it'll still get mangled by more than two ships. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1762
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 11:14:00 -
[2420] - Quote
Seolfor wrote:
Try Dual Prop with HAMs, long point, active or buffer to your taste. Faction web if youre feeling generous.
Kite with MWD at 20km, when target eventually closes you down, web, AB-on, Spam keep at range 12-15km (depending on web, links) and enjoy.
vs Deimos, use Faction EMP and full flight of Valks explo and have fun.
Sac is fine, in fact, its great.
I think you think it has more mid slots than it does. If you use HAMS, your mids need a scram and web, end of discussion, that means if you dual prop it suddenly you're out of mid slots and can only buffer fit it.
If you go active tanked you can't dual prop it because you NEED a cap injector, no questions about it.
If you drop any portion of your tackle you can't apply DPS properly, if you drop the cap injector you're limited to one crappy tank type, if you want cruiser DPS you can't tank properly, if you want HAC tank you can't do any DPS, and nobody in their right mind is fitting a flight of mediums, it will be 1 ec300 flight and 1 light flight.
Stop being a fanboy, the Sac sucks now compared to other Hacs, it'll suck after too, it hasn't been worth a damn since the nano age. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 11:43:00 -
[2421] - Quote
Seolfor wrote:Phaade wrote:
The Eagle is okay at brawling, it will take down most t1's BC down.....but optimal bonuses don't do a damn thing for blasters. Falloff is FAR superior.
If you want to brawl with blasters and you choose the Eagle, you ****** up.
Wow, im glad all this HAC rebalance then served the Eagle so well. It was and remains a Railgun boat, period. Whoopdie Doo, look maa no more Drake/Raven for L4s! Caracal: Kite with any launcher platform, not enough utility (spare highs, dronebay) to Brawl, but can try Deimos: Superb with Blasters in scram range, not too shabby with Rails + point Ishtar: Shield or Armor, Neuts or Blasters or ACs, Brawl or Kite Zealot: Tougher ONI as a kiter, not too shabby as a brawler [Can be Better as a brawler, needs at least 3, ideally 5 light drones] Sac: Superb with HAMs in scram range, HMLs kite fits now plausible [Ideally a little faster base speed to make the kite fits viable] Vaga: Still a good kiter, though needs to use Barrage to apply notable damage. Brawling with a shield boosting, 4 mids ship.. lul Muninn: Apparently the 100mn Arty fits are DA BOMB (lol), but outside of Arty-Kite fits, no plan B. Seriously, this is the rebalance for HACs? As someone put it so well - this is just reshuffling the deck of 8, some become superb, some supercrap. Rinse repeat a year later? Whats fine, or arguably, 'overtuned': - Deimos - Ishtar - Sac - Cerb Im frankly not very clear on the SiSi status of: - Zealot - Vagabond Whats clearly not: - Eagle [One niche, RailGun kiter, thats not even that fast or agile, so essentially a Fleet Railgun platform - talk about one trick pony] - Muninn
This is what annoys me about the eagle is its so niche .... but the deimos can do many things ... the eagle could have been as good as the deimos as a 20km blaster kiter or it could have brawled to a lesser extent .. but with its poor damage output , lack of drones and chronic lack of mobility it just makes it a waste of time i would rather use a Rail Talos or Naga. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1156
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 12:38:00 -
[2422] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:- Its arguably the best HAC in large fleet with logi support
See, this is something that isn't mentioned enough. Scalability is a balancing factor, and, as was pointed out a page or two ago, it is a quality the Deimos simply doesn't have. The Sacrilege is an amazing ship, and it certainly scales well.
This.
Solo small gang yep, might be a tough thing to deal with, large fleets? -not sure at all and for heavy tackle Proteus is by far better suited/bonus than Deimos for ONLY double price tag cost, doesn't mean Proteus is cheap but rather Deimos is way too expensive for its small teeth. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
widgetman
Widgetland
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 13:24:00 -
[2423] - Quote
I did laugh at the changes to the Vagabond, a shield boost bonus on a 4 slot mid slot HAC, and got rid of the speed bonus....... it is as if whoever looked at the changes had never flown a Vagabond...LMAO |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 13:27:00 -
[2424] - Quote
widgetman wrote:I did laugh at the changes to the Vagabond, a shield boost bonus on a 4 slot mid slot HAC, and got rid of the speed bonus....... it is as if whoever looked at the changes had never flown a Vagabond...LMAO
well at first glance perhaps. but then they gave all that speed back into the hull so it's now faster than the stabber the only HAC allowed to be faster than its attack cruiser ... and they gave it more fittings but not as much EHP as it needs for ASB to be really effective. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
208
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 13:57:00 -
[2425] - Quote
vaga is way more powerful than it was. it doesn't run out of cap so quickly so it can kite for longer. it's as fast as it was before plus it gets the repair bonus so if it gets caught (unlikely) it will survive much longer than its predecessor.
do people who post here try the ships on sisi first, or is it only me? A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 14:39:00 -
[2426] - Quote
It's not a nullified un-scramable winmatar boat, so it must be bad.
Everything else that's not winmatar is op.
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
458
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 14:43:00 -
[2427] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:vaga is way more powerful than it was. it doesn't run out of cap so quickly so it can kite for longer. it's as fast as it was before plus it gets the repair bonus so if it gets caught (unlikely) it will survive much longer than its predecessor.
do people who post here try the ships on sisi first, or is it only me?
It needs a speed nerf .. it shouldn't be faster than the stabber it looks like a straight upgrade to it rather than a T2 version 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
209
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 15:06:00 -
[2428] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:vaga is way more powerful than it was. it doesn't run out of cap so quickly so it can kite for longer. it's as fast as it was before plus it gets the repair bonus so if it gets caught (unlikely) it will survive much longer than its predecessor.
do people who post here try the ships on sisi first, or is it only me? It needs a speed nerf .. it shouldn't be faster than the stabber it looks like a straight upgrade to it rather than a T2 version
If I was a scientist in the T2 labs of New Eden I would be looking to make what I had already designed Better, Faster, Stronger.
I think it's entirely ok that a vagabond (140 million) is better than a stabber (6 million).
Why is there an obsession with specialisation? Why can't these ships just be better cruisers?
It seems a bit like saying that it's not OK to make an F-16 better at shooting down other aircraft than a P-59 mustang, because it's "not specialised". That makes no sense. It's simply an technological improvement that changes the game. A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
458
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 15:11:00 -
[2429] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Harvey James wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:vaga is way more powerful than it was. it doesn't run out of cap so quickly so it can kite for longer. it's as fast as it was before plus it gets the repair bonus so if it gets caught (unlikely) it will survive much longer than its predecessor.
do people who post here try the ships on sisi first, or is it only me? It needs a speed nerf .. it shouldn't be faster than the stabber it looks like a straight upgrade to it rather than a T2 version If I was a scientist in the T2 labs of New Eden I would be looking to make what I had already designed Better, Faster, Stronger. I think it's entirely ok that a vagabond (140 million) is better than a stabber (6 million). Why is there an obsession with specialisation? Why can't these ships just be better cruisers? It seems a bit like saying that it's not OK to make an F-16 better at shooting down other aircraft than a P-59 mustang, because it's "not specialised". That makes no sense. It's simply an technological improvement that changes the game.
because navy are meant to be the better version... T2 is being better at something at the expense of something else... Also why should minmatar be the only one allowed to do this? otherwise Deimos should be better than the Thorax in every way but it isn't... so therefore the vaga should sacrifice some speed for the extra resilience it gains.. otherwise it will be the cheaty HAC 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 15:13:00 -
[2430] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:vaga is way more powerful than it was. it doesn't run out of cap so quickly so it can kite for longer. it's as fast as it was before plus it gets the repair bonus so if it gets caught (unlikely) it will survive much longer than its predecessor.
do people who post here try the ships on sisi first, or is it only me? It needs a speed nerf .. it shouldn't be faster than the stabber it looks like a straight upgrade to it rather than a T2 version
and why this si automatically the vagas fault?
they changed the stabber with all t1 hulls before they changed the vaga when it was clear that the vaga wont end up in a new role when it gets changed.... so the only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the wanted it to be like this. and why not? if the isk drifference equals the power diffrence theres an argument for flying both ships dependent on your preferences fly cheap or fly most powerfull so there that trade off.
the staement you may be reffereing to that tey do not want t2 to be straight upgrades was a statement towards diversity. and haveing one or two hulls wich break that rule strangely even adds diversity in general. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
209
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 15:18:00 -
[2431] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:[ ... because navy are meant to be the better version... T2 is being better at something at the expense of something else... Also why should minmatar be the only one allowed to do this? otherwise Deimos should be better than the Thorax in every way but it isn't... so therefore the vaga should sacrifice some speed for the extra resilience it gains.. otherwise it will be the cheaty HAC
I cannot think of any way in which a thorax is better at anything than a deimos as things stand (this is a good thing).
The vagabond's speed is easily countered with a rapier, huginn, arazu or lachesis. *these* are specialised ships that really do give up something for their special abilities. Nevertheless, you can still shield tank an arazu pretty effectively and kit it out for close to 500dps. It's not helpless.
You can also counter a vagabond with an armageddon (5 neuts will slow the little b*stard down...)
As I see it, on grounds of cost alone the progression in cruiser power is: T1, Navy, HAC
With other hull types working asymmetrically across this progression. (HAC has an easier time against a battleship than a battlecruiser, for example).
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
458
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 15:39:00 -
[2432] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Harvey James wrote:[ ... because navy are meant to be the better version... T2 is being better at something at the expense of something else... Also why should minmatar be the only one allowed to do this? otherwise Deimos should be better than the Thorax in every way but it isn't... so therefore the vaga should sacrifice some speed for the extra resilience it gains.. otherwise it will be the cheaty HAC I cannot think of any way in which a thorax is better at anything than a deimos as things stand (this is a good thing). The vagabond's speed is easily countered with a rapier, huginn, arazu or lachesis. *these* are specialised ships that really do give up something for their special abilities. Nevertheless, you can still shield tank an arazu pretty effectively and kit it out for close to 500dps. It's not helpless. You can also counter a vagabond with an armageddon (5 neuts will slow the little b*stard down...) As I see it, on grounds of cost alone the progression in cruiser power is: T1, Navy, HAC With other hull types working asymmetrically across this progression. (HAC has an easier time against a battleship than a battlecruiser, for example).
Thorax is quicker and more agile and also has a tracking bonus... and CCP don't see it your way progression and divergence T1 , Navy/ Pirate T2 specialist T3 Generalist 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 16:13:00 -
[2433] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: Thorax is quicker and more agile and also has a tracking bonus... and CCP don't see it your way progression and divergence T1 , Navy/ Pirate T2 specialist T3 Generalist
I think the thorax's ability to get into trouble faster is a questionable improvement over the deimos' better staying power but ok, the analogy still works. A F16 needs more runway to get off the ground than an mustang, but I'll still take the F-16 thanks.
The first two steps of CCP's stated aim agree with my observations. The third is true for recons and logistics. But HACs? give me a break. They're just cruisers with beefed up weapons, armour, electronics and powergrids. They're Heavy Assault Cruisers: Heavy as in strongly armoured (and maybe a little slower as a result'?)
I don't see what else they could be.
The T3 configurable/generalisation thing is too b0rked for words. These ship in reality come in a very few game-breaking flavours: 1. cloaked scout with massive EHP 2. EHP of 2 battleships with battleship dps 3. unkillable shield tank lolpwnmobiles 4. rapier with 150k ehp 5. mega-tanked 100mn scorpion replacement 6. off-grid booster (soon to be deprecated)
The distinct price characteristics of the subsystems tell the whole story there.
T3s need to be made a lot weaker, and need to be changed to allow subsystem refitting in a POS. Then they'll be sensible. At the moment they just damage the gameplay of Eve.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 16:26:00 -
[2434] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:It needs a speed nerf .. it shouldn't be faster than the stabber it looks like a straight upgrade to it rather than a T2 version
Just going to throw out that if you think that T2 ships are going to be worse then the T1 base hulls you're fooling yourself. The only situations where I think the T2 version isn't a straight upgrade to the T1 are:
1. The ship gains the ability to jump (Blops, jump freighter) 2. The ship gains the ability to cloak 3. The ship gets interdiction bubbles of some sort
Now there are some situations where T1 ships have gone through tiericide and the T2 ships have different bonuses, particularly with EWAR ships, but I would expect all these ships to end up realigned with the T1 hull bonuses and be straight upgrades across the board. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 17:30:00 -
[2435] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:- Its arguably the best HAC in large fleet with logi support
See, this is something that isn't mentioned enough. Scalability is a balancing factor, and, as was pointed out a page or two ago, it is a quality the Deimos simply doesn't have. The Sacrilege is an amazing ship, and it certainly scales well. This. Solo small gang yep, might be a tough thing to deal with, large fleets? -not sure at all and for heavy tackle Proteus is by far better suited/bonus than Deimos for ONLY double price tag cost, doesn't mean Proteus is cheap but rather Deimos is way too expensive for its small teeth.
Right, you can't fit a plate onto a Deimos. Or rails.
And it's rack of ion / neutron blasters with 550 dps are certainly "small teeth."
On a side note, is the Proteus really that cheap? |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 17:32:00 -
[2436] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Harvey James wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:vaga is way more powerful than it was. it doesn't run out of cap so quickly so it can kite for longer. it's as fast as it was before plus it gets the repair bonus so if it gets caught (unlikely) it will survive much longer than its predecessor.
do people who post here try the ships on sisi first, or is it only me? It needs a speed nerf .. it shouldn't be faster than the stabber it looks like a straight upgrade to it rather than a T2 version If I was a scientist in the T2 labs of New Eden I would be looking to make what I had already designed Better, Faster, Stronger. I think it's entirely ok that a vagabond (140 million) is better than a stabber (6 million). Why is there an obsession with specialisation? Why can't these ships just be better cruisers? It seems a bit like saying that it's not OK to make an F-16 better at shooting down other aircraft than a P-59 mustang, because it's "not specialised". That makes no sense. It's simply an technological improvement that changes the game. because navy are meant to be the better version... T2 is being better at something at the expense of something else... Also why should minmatar be the only one allowed to do this? otherwise Deimos should be better than the Thorax in every way but it isn't... so therefore the vaga should sacrifice some speed for the extra resilience it gains.. otherwise it will be the cheaty HAC
Lol, did you really just say the Deimos isn't better than the Thorax? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
459
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 17:41:00 -
[2437] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Harvey James wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Harvey James wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:vaga is way more powerful than it was. it doesn't run out of cap so quickly so it can kite for longer. it's as fast as it was before plus it gets the repair bonus so if it gets caught (unlikely) it will survive much longer than its predecessor.
do people who post here try the ships on sisi first, or is it only me? It needs a speed nerf .. it shouldn't be faster than the stabber it looks like a straight upgrade to it rather than a T2 version If I was a scientist in the T2 labs of New Eden I would be looking to make what I had already designed Better, Faster, Stronger. I think it's entirely ok that a vagabond (140 million) is better than a stabber (6 million). Why is there an obsession with specialisation? Why can't these ships just be better cruisers? It seems a bit like saying that it's not OK to make an F-16 better at shooting down other aircraft than a P-59 mustang, because it's "not specialised". That makes no sense. It's simply an technological improvement that changes the game. because navy are meant to be the better version... T2 is being better at something at the expense of something else... Also why should minmatar be the only one allowed to do this? otherwise Deimos should be better than the Thorax in every way but it isn't... so therefore the vaga should sacrifice some speed for the extra resilience it gains.. otherwise it will be the cheaty HAC Lol, did you really just say the Deimos isn't better than the Thorax?
nope ... you obviously missed a bit ...
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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sigras
Conglomo
516
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 19:38:00 -
[2438] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Harvey James wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:vaga is way more powerful than it was. it doesn't run out of cap so quickly so it can kite for longer. it's as fast as it was before plus it gets the repair bonus so if it gets caught (unlikely) it will survive much longer than its predecessor.
do people who post here try the ships on sisi first, or is it only me? It needs a speed nerf .. it shouldn't be faster than the stabber it looks like a straight upgrade to it rather than a T2 version If I was a scientist in the T2 labs of New Eden I would be looking to make what I had already designed Better, Faster, Stronger. I think it's entirely ok that a vagabond (140 million) is better than a stabber (6 million). Why is there an obsession with specialisation? Why can't these ships just be better cruisers? It seems a bit like saying that it's not OK to make an F-16 better at shooting down other aircraft than a P-59 mustang, because it's "not specialised". That makes no sense. It's simply an technological improvement that changes the game. The problem is that scientists in the real world arent worried about game balance.
Cost isnt enough of a balancing factor to justify a straight upgrade. To 90% of New Eden, me included, the difference in cost between a vagabond and a stabber is like the difference in cost between a can of soda and a 2 liter of soda. Sure if I dont need/want that much soda, ill save myself the extra cash but cost isnt going to be the determining factor in my purchase.
If you make one ship a straight upgrade to another you essentially remove the inferior ship from the game, or you relegate it to the status of "noob ship" what people fly if they are poor and cant afford better.
That isnt what I would call game balance. |
Lister Vindaloo
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 22:27:00 -
[2439] - Quote
I've found this thread really interesting as I'm currently training towards HACs but I just wanted a little clarification, all this discussion of Ishtar and Deimos fits, particularly cap stability with local reppers, does sisi take into account the changes to rep amount that are due with 1.1 or are the calculations based on the current rep amount without the proposed changes? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
110
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 23:29:00 -
[2440] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:vaga is way more powerful than it was. it doesn't run out of cap so quickly so it can kite for longer. it's as fast as it was before plus it gets the repair bonus so if it gets caught (unlikely) it will survive much longer than its predecessor.
do people who post here try the ships on sisi first, or is it only me? It needs a speed nerf .. it shouldn't be faster than the stabber it looks like a straight upgrade to it rather than a T2 version i think being faster IS the specialization. Stabber is a good speedboat. Vagabond is a better good speedboat. |
|
Akturous
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
223
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 23:36:00 -
[2441] - Quote
The current Sisi build is 1.1, so it includes all the proposed changes, (cmd ships, med long range weapons, hacs, nos (lol), and whatever I've forgotten). Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
216
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 23:46:00 -
[2442] - Quote
Lister Vindaloo wrote:I've found this thread really interesting as I'm currently training towards HACs but I just wanted a little clarification, all this discussion of Ishtar and Deimos fits, particularly cap stability with local reppers, does sisi take into account the changes to rep amount that are due with 1.1 or are the calculations based on the current rep amount without the proposed changes?
The new repairer and booster amounts are live on SiSi. The capacitor requirement has not changed for them, but you get more hit points repaired per unit energy.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
229
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 00:51:00 -
[2443] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Aplier Shivra wrote:Well, sacrilege had a random capacitor bonus as one of it's hull bonuses, and when rebalancing the hacs, Rise felt generous and decided to remove that as a hull bonus and give the sac a real hull bonus, but leave the increased cap regen as a part of sac's base numbers.... He did far more than that .. he removed the Sacrilege 25% bonus and effectively applied it to ALL the hulls, recharge rate changes as follows: Sacrilege -24% Zealot - 15% (WTF!) Deimos -33% (hahahaha) Ishtar -21% Cerberus -30% Eagle -24% Vagabond -27% Muninn -24% So he was indeed generous, enough to give the Sacrilege bonus to everyone without giving anything to the Sacrilege in return Command recharges are a tad low considering they are expected to run links .. but since they are not on-grid as of yet I am more than willing to let it slide as they will have to get a second, third, fourth pass once that fateful day arrives so there is ample time to sort it. by the same logic it removed the speed bonus to the vaga and added it to the hull, doing the same thing to other hulls like cerb, deimos, and sacrilege via mass reduction, making the "boost" less meaningful.
one thing that comes out of this it is seems like the deimos got a collection of hidden boosts
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 01:34:00 -
[2444] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: The T3 configurable/generalisation thing is too b0rked for words. These ship in reality come in a very few game-breaking flavours: 1. cloaked scout with massive EHP 2. EHP of 2 battleships with battleship dps 3. unkillable shield tank lolpwnmobiles 4. rapier with 150k ehp 5. mega-tanked 100mn scorpion replacement 6. off-grid booster (soon to be deprecated)
The distinct price characteristics of the subsystems tell the whole story there.
T3s need to be made a lot weaker, and need to be changed to allow subsystem refitting in a POS. Then they'll be sensible. At the moment they just damage the gameplay of Eve.
You don't fly T3s much do you?
1) fair, covert subs generally don't kill your tank. 2) if you fit for the eHP f two BSs you get the DPS of a T1 cruisers...or less. 3) They are perfectly killable, its called a web 4) Rapiers have a significanlt longer web range 5) Just lol ECM Tengu? Really? 6) like you said, fixed
T3s are fine HACs suck. Period.
:edit
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18181867 I tacked that with a friggin bomber, there is your unkillable pwnmobile. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 03:28:00 -
[2445] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:- Its arguably the best HAC in large fleet with logi support
See, this is something that isn't mentioned enough. Scalability is a balancing factor, and, as was pointed out a page or two ago, it is a quality the Deimos simply doesn't have. The Sacrilege is an amazing ship, and it certainly scales well. This. Solo small gang yep, might be a tough thing to deal with, large fleets? -not sure at all and for heavy tackle Proteus is by far better suited/bonus than Deimos for ONLY double price tag cost, doesn't mean Proteus is cheap but rather Deimos is way too expensive for its small teeth. Right, you can't fit a plate onto a Deimos. Or rails. And it's rack of ion / neutron blasters with 550 dps are certainly "small teeth." On a side note, is the Proteus really that cheap?
Oh? 1600mm plates are all that's needed to make a ship fleet worthy? I anxiously await the footage of your fleet Deimoses in acion.
Where'd I put my popcorn? |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
217
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:42:00 -
[2446] - Quote
Onictus wrote:You don't fly T3s much do you?
Yes, we use them all the time. We have no choice because the wormhole arms race has settled on these ships as the optimal concentration of firepower, maneuverability and survivability.
On the whole, bringing another class of ship to a wormhole fight is a waste of a pilot.
So the presence of these ships in their current form reduces the number of rational tactical choices and thus removes depth, complexity and richness from the game.
I completely understand that existing owners of lolpwnships (including myself) would feel the loss of all this power in the short term, and many would want to resist it. But they would adapt, and learn to use a wider variety of T1 and T2 ships in their place.
I my view, the resulting diversity would be good for the game.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 09:31:00 -
[2447] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote:You don't fly T3s much do you?
Yes, we use them all the time. We have no choice because the wormhole arms race has settled on these ships as the optimal concentration of firepower, maneuverability and survivability. On the whole, bringing another class of ship to a wormhole fight is a waste of a pilot. So the presence of these ships in their current form reduces the number of rational tactical choices and thus removes depth, complexity and richness from the game. I completely understand that existing owners of lolpwnships (including myself) would feel the loss of all this power in the short term, and many would want to resist it. But they would adapt, and learn to use a wider variety of T1 and T2 ships in their place. I my view, the resulting diversity would be good for the game.
So, as someone who doesn't particularly care for T3's personally (not in a, I want them to go away sense, I just don't like the skillpoint loss as it applies to me) I'm somewhat conflicted on this.
I do have to agree with the results of a discussion I had with a very experienced wormhole person with regard to T3s and that comes down to a couple of points:
One, T3s are used primarily in wormholes because they allow you to put a good combination of tank, DPS, and utility on field for comparatively little mass. You can cook up various other fleet comps that can do horrible things to T3s, but if you want to go somewhere else in W-space and do things then you bring T3s, which means that's what you have on hand when someone else decides to crash your hole. Combine this with a dread-blap PvP meta for W-Space that kills Battleships worse than T3s and you sort of end up with a ship ship occupying a very oddly shaped niche that's rather hard to replace.
Two, T3s definitely step on the toes of HACs. They're more expensive but no longer hilariously so and field similar DPS, more utility, and better tank, especially in the context of small gangs with logistics. They make up for this in skill-point loss when they pop. If they lose most of their current tank and/or DPS then they also no longer deserve the SP loss penalty since at that point they are both far easier to lose and far less special. They're simply able to do all of the other things the T1 and T2 cruisers can do but not to the same extent and not at the same time, even if they can sometimes do them in interesting combinations.
Third, any such examination and re-balancing of T3s should probably come after the various ships they mimic so there is a strong base-line for where T3s are over-performing compared to their more specialized T2 counterparts. That's probably less than ideal from the perspective of a HAC user, but if you want to fly more Recons then you'd probably be glad for it.
The rest of Eve would probably survive just fine, W-Space on the other hand would need an answer to dread-blap and probably a lot of little tweaks to things like mass limits and site compositions. I mean, if you're going to yank the rug out from under the life blood of an entire area of space it's kind of fair to give it a transfusion, so to speak. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 13:26:00 -
[2448] - Quote
Quote:So, as someone who doesn't particularly care for T3's personally (not in a, I want them to go away sense, I just don't like the skillpoint loss as it applies to me) I'm somewhat conflicted on this.
So rather than post an opinion I really don't have I'll toss in the results of a discussion I had with a very experienced wormhole person with regard to T3s and that comes down to a couple of points:
One, T3s are used primarily in wormholes because they allow you to put a good combination of tank, DPS, and utility on field for comparatively little mass. You can cook up various other fleet comps that can do horrible things to T3s, but if you want to go somewhere else in W-space and do things then you bring T3s, which means that's what you have on hand when someone else decides to crash your hole. Combine this with a dread-blap PvP meta for W-Space that kills Battleships worse than T3s and you sort of end up with a ship ship occupying a very oddly shaped niche that's rather hard to replace.
Two, T3s definitely step on the toes of HACs. They're more expensive but no longer hilariously so and field similar DPS, more utility, and better tank, especially in the context of small gangs with logistics. They make up for this in skill-point loss when they pop. If they lose most of their current tank and/or DPS then they also no longer deserve the SP loss penalty since at that point they are both far easier to lose and far less special. They're simply able to do all of the other things the T1 and T2 cruisers can do but not to the same extent and not at the same time, even if they can sometimes do them in interesting combinations.
Third, any such examination and re-balancing of T3s should probably come after the various ships they mimic so there is a strong base-line for where T3s are over-performing compared to their more specialized T2 counterparts. That's probably less than ideal from the perspective of a HAC user, but if you want to fly more Recons then you'd probably be glad for it.
The rest of Eve would probably survive just fine, W-Space on the other hand would need an answer to dread-blap and probably a lot of little tweaks to things like mass limits and site compositions. I mean, if you're going to yank the rug out from under the life blood of an entire area of space it's kind of fair to give it a transfusion, so to speak.
These are very valid points. I flew in wormholes a lot last year while learning about tech 3s, and I have to agree that there really isn't anything I can see that will replace them adequately. They will need a hard look. They probably shouldn't perform leagues better than a HAC, as in hundreds of thousands of EHP better, but they should remain competitive in their intended environment. I'll have to think hard on that before I can provided any meaningful suggestions. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
218
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 13:39:00 -
[2449] - Quote
They are valid points but you know, the new navy cruisers are not so far away from T3s in terms of damage output.
HACs, logistics, recons, and all types of T1 cruisers will all fit down a wormhole just fine.
The reason you'd take a proteus (say) over an exequeror navy issue is because the proteus has 4-5 times the hitpoints while remote repairs on it are at least twice as powerful. So its value is something like 8 times that of an almost-equivalent navy cruiser.
No-one in wormholes is short of money, but they are always short of pilots, so a rational FC will demand a proteus over the navy issue cruiser every time without pausing to consider any silly arguments why not.
The presence of T3 in WH combat in their current form eliminate any rational choices that involve navy cruisers or battleships (complete with the mass tradeoff problem) except some very specialised choices (I accept that I am simplifying the issue for convenience):
a. Bhaalgorn (for draining the cap of a capital) b. Vindicator for finishing up.
Any other battleship, even on home turf where mass is not an issue, is outclassed by the superior toughness. maneuverability and signature radius of a T3.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 17:13:00 -
[2450] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:These are very valid points. I flew in wormholes a lot last year while learning about tech 3s, and I have to agree that there really isn't anything I can see that will replace them adequately. They will need a hard look. They probably shouldn't perform leagues better than a HAC, as in hundreds of thousands of EHP better, but they should remain competitive in their intended environment. I'll have to think hard on that before I can provided any meaningful suggestions.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The presence of T3 in WH combat in their current form eliminate any rational choices that involve navy cruisers or battleships (complete with the mass tradeoff problem) ... Why not make T3 a worm semi-exclusive, subject to sanctions and what not to increase their value .. opens the door for be being more lenient (to a point) in their balancing as general access to them would be reduced due to pricing/volume concerns.
Restrict construction of the subsystems to worm-space and reduce their volume to facilitate/help logistics operations. That means a worm denies passage of any ship carrying materials exclusive to worms .. or/and one could make it contraband for extra nastiness. - T3's are, backstory wise, as pure military hardware as can be (mortal enemy of mankind and all that) so adding empire (read: high-sec) sanctions to the parts/sub-systems make all kinds of sense. Serves to not only make potentially OP hulls marginally more scarce but also adds a smuggling item, increases value of etc.
The End: T3's should be pricey, they should be powerful in whatever narrow niche they are fitted to occupy and they should be a way for the people outside of society proper to make a mint. Would add that an entity that occupies several systems in worm-space should have to live with an increasing amount of external holes (relative to internal), that grows proportional with the amount of systems owned .. cosmic joke, natural forces coalescing .. there numerous ways to explain it but it all comes down to game balance |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 17:14:00 -
[2451] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote:You don't fly T3s much do you?
Yes, we use them all the time. We have no choice because the wormhole arms race has settled on these ships as the optimal concentration of firepower, maneuverability and survivability. On the whole, bringing another class of ship to a wormhole fight is a waste of a pilot. So the presence of these ships in their current form reduces the number of rational tactical choices and thus removes depth, complexity and richness from the game. I completely understand that existing owners of lolpwnships (including myself) would feel the loss of all this power in the short term, and many would want to resist it. But they would adapt, and learn to use a wider variety of T1 and T2 ships in their place. I my view, the resulting diversity would be good for the game.
I think that T3s are fine for that they are.
Like I've said, its the HACs that suck. Which isn't getting fixed. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 17:21:00 -
[2452] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote:You don't fly T3s much do you?
Yes, we use them all the time. We have no choice because the wormhole arms race has settled on these ships as the optimal concentration of firepower, maneuverability and survivability. On the whole, bringing another class of ship to a wormhole fight is a waste of a pilot. So the presence of these ships in their current form reduces the number of rational tactical choices and thus removes depth, complexity and richness from the game. I completely understand that existing owners of lolpwnships (including myself) would feel the loss of all this power in the short term, and many would want to resist it. But they would adapt, and learn to use a wider variety of T1 and T2 ships in their place. I my view, the resulting diversity would be good for the game. I think that T3s are fine for that they are. Like I've said, its the HACs that suck. Which isn't getting fixed.
I doubt that HACs suck, or will not be used/useful for wormholes. Especially peeking at Deimos/Astarte/Cerberus/Absolution/Nighthawk, all of those offer some of T3s key-attributes without SP-loss and in some cases, even advantages. In little detail:
- Astarte is competing with the proteus, simply cause green blasterboat. Their Agility isn't far apart from each other, their damageoutput very similiar. Remaining advantages for the proteus are mobility (goes like 10% faster) and sigradius. And around two to three times the buffer... ... ... (rhetorical pause) WH-Proteus normally got mwd/Scram (with hell of a range) and EITHER web or long point, I didn't yet shoot one of those equipped with a cap booster. Advantage of the Astarte: No one will laugh at you for fitting T2 tank and you lose no SP on death. Has neuts and a cap booster. The Deimos though is just special. Guess it's a scout that survives when fitted with AAR, 800 plate, dualprop. You'd prolly achieve better results tackling with a (cloaky) proteus, but that Deimos doesn't make everyone and their moms shiver in fear. Deimos is an OP-Brawler, runs one MAR on it's own - sounds like slowly killing drakes in c2s , waiting for them to bite.
- Nighthawk and Cerb... being the competition to the Tengu. While they are so much more fragile (Cerberus) or so incredibly much slower (Nighthawk) compared to a Tengu, a perma-mwd'ing Cerb with ONLY (*cough*) four times the sigsize and pretty much same damageoutput and still maybe sufficient tank could do, or if you are intending to chill around bubbles or directly on a POS brawling carriers: two med neuts onto the nighthawk, HAMs and a rig - and go 920+ kinetic rage dps. (mentioned the med-neuts that no tengu would ever have)
- Absolution versus Legion... Superslowbrick with accidentally neuts/smartbombs compared to a muchmuch faster and smaller brick that shoots much further. It kinda looks like the Legion is leading, but if you need to press utility into the hull and don't need that speed/range anyways, can stay with an abso for a near identical experience. On the upside I once slingshotted out of a lokis pointrange by overheating my active absolution's mwd. Never lose hope
None of those four T2 ships outperforms their respective T3-pendant, however they are able to perform similiar and sometimes almost identical given a certain task. With the current Gap in punishment upon loss (like some 200-300mil for T2, or 700mil+ and SP for a proper T3), losses of T2 are so much more sustainable that usage of them is attractive from that POV.
Since that rebalance will greatly lower the gap in performance, partly due to utility on CS and the ebefing up of HACs (hopefully everyone agrees that HACs will be a lot more useful now [esp. Sacriledge, Ishtar] 8) ), T2 should allow rather new starting PvP'ers to directly advance out of their prophecies/myrms/Drakes/Brutixes(?) into a resp. T2 variant, instead of transferring directly into T3s if they wish to ever get 'guns instead of knifes for those wormholeshootings' - hope that makes sense and hits the spot. So just looking at the tengu and caracal - now there at least IS a tech-II counterpart.
I actually can't see anything wrong with strat cruisers' resistances. Those resistances are jsut what you get for blinging up that thing. Only Issue I can perceive is *Buffersubs 10%*, *Local-Tank-subs 10%*, *those shiphulls are larger (!) compared to batlecruisers, someone please step by, mention that somewhere and adjust that sigradius to like two times or so* "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
218
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 17:21:00 -
[2453] - Quote
the Titan story is a lesson in why expense will never limit the proliferation of OP materiel.
t3s just need their bonuses shaved is that each subsystem only adds 1 bonus rather than 2, those bonuses measured in 5% increments rather than 10%.
that'll do it. you could even increase the number of types of subsystems to offer more choice. The ships would then be versatile without being OP.
Either that, or leave them OP bug increase the cost of loss to 1m skill points. Now there's a trade off. Dare you, or dare you not Big Man?
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Jeffrey Donovan
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 17:38:00 -
[2454] - Quote
why cant the cerbus have the same bonus as the hookbill? 20% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 10% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 18:18:00 -
[2455] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote:You don't fly T3s much do you?
Yes, we use them all the time. We have no choice because the wormhole arms race has settled on these ships as the optimal concentration of firepower, maneuverability and survivability. On the whole, bringing another class of ship to a wormhole fight is a waste of a pilot. So the presence of these ships in their current form reduces the number of rational tactical choices and thus removes depth, complexity and richness from the game. I completely understand that existing owners of lolpwnships (including myself) would feel the loss of all this power in the short term, and many would want to resist it. But they would adapt, and learn to use a wider variety of T1 and T2 ships in their place. I my view, the resulting diversity would be good for the game. I think that T3s are fine for that they are. Like I've said, its the HACs that suck. Which isn't getting fixed. I doubt that HACs suck, or will not be used/useful for wormholes. Especially peeking at Deimos/Astarte/Cerberus/Absolution/Nighthawk, all of those offer some of T3s key-attributes without SP-loss and in some cases, even advantages. In little detail: - Astarte is competing with the proteus, simply cause green blasterboat. Their Agility isn't far apart from each other, their damageoutput very similiar. Remaining advantages for the proteus are mobility (goes like 10% faster) and sigradius. And around two to three times the buffer... ... ... (rhetorical pause) WH-Proteus normally got mwd/Scram (with hell of a range) and EITHER web or long point, I didn't yet shoot one of those equipped with a cap booster. Advantage of the Astarte: No one will laugh at you for fitting T2 tank and you lose no SP on death. Has neuts and a cap booster. The Deimos though is just special. Guess it's a scout that survives when fitted with AAR, 800 plate, dualprop. You'd prolly achieve better results tackling with a (cloaky) proteus, but that Deimos doesn't make everyone and their moms shiver in fear. Deimos is an OP-Brawler, runs one MAR on it's own - sounds like slowly killing drakes in c2s , waiting for them to bite. - Nighthawk and Cerb... being the competition to the Tengu. While they are so much more fragile (Cerberus) or so incredibly much slower (Nighthawk) compared to a Tengu, a perma-mwd'ing Cerb with ONLY (*cough*) four times the sigsize and pretty much same damageoutput and still maybe sufficient tank could do, or if you are intending to chill around bubbles or directly on a POS brawling carriers: two med neuts onto the nighthawk, HAMs and a rig - and go 920+ kinetic rage dps. (mentioned the med-neuts that no tengu would ever have) - Absolution versus Legion... Superslowbrick with accidentally neuts/smartbombs compared to a muchmuch faster and smaller brick that shoots much further. It kinda looks like the Legion is leading, but if you need to press utility into the hull and don't need that speed/range anyways, can stay with an abso for a near identical experience. On the upside I once slingshotted out of a lokis pointrange by overheating my active absolution's mwd. Never lose hope None of those four T2 ships outperforms their respective T3-pendant, however they are able to perform similiar and sometimes almost identical given a certain task. With the current Gap in punishment upon loss (like some 200-300mil for T2, or 700mil+ and SP for a proper T3), losses of T2 are so much more sustainable that usage of them is attractive from that POV. Since that rebalance will greatly lower the gap in performance, partly due to utility on CS and the ebefing up of HACs (hopefully everyone agrees that HACs will be a lot more useful now [esp. Sacriledge, Ishtar] 8) ), T2 should allow rather new starting PvP'ers to directly advance out of their prophecies/myrms/Drakes/Brutixes(?) into a resp. T2 variant, instead of transferring directly into T3s if they wish to ever get 'guns instead of knifes for those wormholeshootings' - hope that makes sense and hits the spot. So just looking at the tengu and caracal - now there at least IS a tech-II counterpart. I actually can't see anything wrong with strat cruisers' resistances. Those resistances are jsut what you get for blinging up that thing. Only Issue I can perceive is *Buffersubs 10%*, *Local-Tank-subs 10%*, *those shiphulls are larger (!) compared to batlecruisers, someone please step by, mention that somewhere and adjust that sigradius to like two times or so* What T3s offer beyond that is that of a cloaky dps/tackle (which atm only the blasterpilgrim can do, haha tank), the option of being a nullified cloaky 600mil cruisersized scout (potentially with tank or links) and that of dedicated BLOPS-logi (legion/tengu), and a couple even more narrow niche applications unique to the game. Guess it's not bad to have those roles enabled by some ship afterall, it just happens that you always build it starting off with a strat cruiser.
I've done HAC patrols in wormholes from c1 to c3. Beyond that, they often don't hold up. In a well organized c4 corp, I could see them getting some use. But, in c5 or c6, you run into the blapmobile problem and need those strat cruisers.
|
Xander Det89
ROC Academy The ROC
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 19:42:00 -
[2456] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:the Titan story is a lesson in why expense will never limit the proliferation of OP materiel.
t3s just need their bonuses shaved is that each subsystem only adds 1 bonus rather than 2, those bonuses measured in 5% increments rather than 10%.
that'll do it. you could even increase the number of types of subsystems to offer more choice. The ships would then be versatile without being OP.
Either that, or leave them OP but increase the cost of loss to 1m skill points. Now there's a trade off. Dare you, or dare you not Big Man?
edit: apologies, crossed with the previous very valid post.
Except then they'd actually suck and no one would actually fly them :P |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 20:24:00 -
[2457] - Quote
It's been two weeks since our last dev response.
Well, guys, if you're done revising the HACs, can we fly them on TQ already? I'm ready to see them perform in ACTUAL internet spaceships, as opposed to the test server. :) |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
219
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 21:29:00 -
[2458] - Quote
Xander Det89 wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:the Titan story is a lesson in why expense will never limit the proliferation of OP materiel.
t3s just need their bonuses shaved is that each subsystem only adds 1 bonus rather than 2, those bonuses measured in 5% increments rather than 10%.
that'll do it. you could even increase the number of types of subsystems to offer more choice. The ships would then be versatile without being OP.
Either that, or leave them OP but increase the cost of loss to 1m skill points. Now there's a trade off. Dare you, or dare you not Big Man?
edit: apologies, crossed with the previous very valid post. Except then they'd actually suck and no one would actually fly them :P
They'd suck if they were OP, or they'd suck if they were highly configurable ships with T2 resists and 5 bonuses rather than a T2 ship's 4?
At the moment, they have a total of 10 bonuses and T2 resists.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2198
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 21:41:00 -
[2459] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:
I doubt that HACs suck, or will not be used/useful for wormholes. Especially peeking at Deimos/Astarte/Cerberus/Absolution/Nighthawk, all of those offer some of T3s key-attributes without SP-loss and in some cases, even advantages.
Three out of five of those 'HACs' you mentioned are in fact CS - just saying.
And I still don't see the point in a relatively skill-intense & expensive ship class that gets a role bonus which is useful for frigs and whose most distinct specialization is at being slow.
You know... morons. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 21:46:00 -
[2460] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:These are very valid points. I flew in wormholes a lot last year while learning about tech 3s, and I have to agree that there really isn't anything I can see that will replace them adequately. They will need a hard look. They probably shouldn't perform leagues better than a HAC, as in hundreds of thousands of EHP better, but they should remain competitive in their intended environment. I'll have to think hard on that before I can provided any meaningful suggestions.
I've only rarely seen a T3 with EHP 10 times that of a similarly tanked HAC and they tend to give up DPS to do it. The trouble point is more the sweet spot where they're doing about HAC DPS or a little better but have the EHP of a well-tanked Battleship. This tends not to be several hundred thousand more but more in the range of 100-150k EHP, which is still pretty silly when you factor in their small sig radius, speed, and resists.
Mournful Conciousness wrote:They are valid points but you know, the new navy cruisers are not so far away from T3s in terms of damage output.
HACs, logistics, recons, and all types of T1 cruisers will all fit down a wormhole just fine.
The reason you'd take a proteus (say) over an exequeror navy issue is because the proteus has 4-5 times the hitpoints while remote repairs on it are at least twice as powerful. So its value is something like 8 times that of an almost-equivalent navy cruiser.
No-one in wormholes is short of money, but they are always short of pilots, so a rational FC will demand a proteus over the navy issue cruiser every time without pausing to consider any silly arguments why not.
The presence of T3 in WH combat in their current form eliminate any rational choices that involve navy cruisers or battleships (complete with the mass tradeoff problem) except some very specialised choices (I accept that I am simplifying the issue for convenience):
a. Bhaalgorn (for draining the cap of a capital) b. Vindicator for finishing up.
Any other battleship, even on home turf where mass is not an issue, is outclassed by the superior toughness. maneuverability and signature radius of a T3.
Pretty much, yeah. Though you might be able to add the Scorpion/Falcon/Rook there for powerful ECM projection, but even that may not be worth the trade-off with an ECM Tengu unless it's a home defense fleet and you can use bouncing warps to keep the enemy at long range.
The Vindi being there is more of a problem with the Vindi and less of a problem with T3s >.>
Really I think the comment about the pilot to EHP and DPS ratio is really the crux of the issue for WH pilots. The question is whether or not it should be changed.
Veshta Yoshida wrote: Why not make T3 a worm semi-exclusive, subject to sanctions and what not to increase their value .. opens the door for be being more lenient (to a point) in their balancing as general access to them would be reduced due to pricing/volume concerns.
This was the balancing logic that originally lead to Titans with AOE doomsday weapons. "Because there would only ever be about 5 in the game".
Alex Tutuola wrote:It's been two weeks since our last dev response.
Well, guys, if you're done revising the HACs, can we fly them on TQ already? I'm ready to see them perform in ACTUAL internet spaceships, as opposed to the test server. :)
They're probably still getting metrics/feedback from the test server. |
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
229
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 22:31:00 -
[2461] - Quote
Jeffrey Donovan wrote:why cant the cerbus have the same bonus as the hookbill? 20% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 10% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
or atleast
10% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 5% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage i dont know... maybe for the same reason the vaga dont have a +25% to projectile damage like the firetail |
elitatwo
Congregatio
113
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 23:28:00 -
[2462] - Quote
Jeffrey Donovan wrote:why cant the cerbus have the same bonus as the hookbill? 20% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 10% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
or atleast
10% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 5% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage
The Hookbil has three launchers and the Cerberus has six.
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 10:41:00 -
[2463] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote: Three out of five of those 'HACs' you mentioned are in fact CS - just saying.
You are a bright little fella. You are right, I actually WAS comparing the revamped Tech-II to the strats, I thought I wrote quite in detail how tech II compares to tech III in verious roles. "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Jeffrey Donovan
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 11:25:00 -
[2464] - Quote
well to me the whole thing atleast for the sac and cerbus is the cerbus was designed for long distance hm assalts where as the sac was designed for close end tanking and ganking with hams so i hope they stay along these lines i liked using a sac in small gangsit was fun using reps and hams for closer end high dps shooting!!!! |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 13:20:00 -
[2465] - Quote
yea, sac is for close range brawl so missile velocity bonus is kinda odd to me and i think it should be changed to something more useful like missile explosion velocity or explosion radius. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 17:35:00 -
[2466] - Quote
raawe wrote:yea, sac is for close range brawl so missile velocity bonus is kinda odd to me and i think it should be changed to something more useful like missile explosion velocity or explosion radius.
It's probably meant to let it fit HAMs and still apply DPS if a miss-timed MWD direction change leaves it at an odd range, as well as allowing it to more effectively fit longer range Heavy Missile setups. With a MWD orbit just out of scram range the Sac would have 20km on it's HAMs (at all 5s), with this bonus that's up to 30km, which gives it less chance of being sling-shotted out of range by an opponent. |
Jeffrey Donovan
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 07:24:00 -
[2467] - Quote
i personally feel more -dmg and range and some tank for the cerbus - high dps (rof) and volocety and tank for the sac thats why i was worried about the talk of cap recharge reduction that was talked about earlier! I rather get rid of the 3 drones and give more to cap on the sac !!! |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 07:35:00 -
[2468] - Quote
Jeffrey Donovan wrote:i personally feel more -dmg and range and some tank for the cerbus - high dps (rof) and volocety and tank for the sac thats why i was worried about the talk of cap recharge reduction that was talked about earlier! I rather get rid of the 3 drones and give more to cap on the sac !!!
The Cerberus is already double bonused for range.
Why does a missile ship need better cap? It's already got great cap recharge. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 07:39:00 -
[2469] - Quote
Quote:I like it, but why is the Diemos(t) loosing tank?
It didn't. It gained tank, quite a bit, actually. The original post was one that had it pushed almost exclusively into shield kiting. That was changed. The update is posted now and has an increase in tank and an active rep bonus.
EDIT: Original post I quoted was removed. Ignore. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 07:54:00 -
[2470] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:... with this bonus that's up to 30km, which gives it less chance of being sling-shotted out of range by an opponent. Which is a very good thing for a kiting ship, but what purpose does that bonus serve for a brawler?
Jeffrey Donovan wrote:i personally feel more -dmg and range and some tank for the cerbus - high dps (rof) and volocety and tank for the sac thats why i was worried about the talk of cap recharge reduction that was talked about earlier! I rather get rid of the 3 drones and give more to cap on the sac !!! What is there to spend the cap on? It can already almost pull a dual tank on a small injector .. it (and the Zealot) needs to be treated equally in relation to the others, they ought to have a thing they do really well without being pre-nerfed when trying something else ..
Sacrilege needs application or fight control, that means explosion velocity/radius or one more mid (not likely) or neuting.
Zealot needs tracking, not on the hull but as a fitting choice (gatling pulses) and you can throw in some drones on top if you like, if only to compensate it for the comparatively abysmal capacitor Amarr engineers decided on for one of their most iconic pure laser boats.
It is like the Devs went into the HACs with a clear idea of the what/where/why of the Gallente boats, mid for Deimos due to line in general and increased fight control which is the nemesis of blasters and an Ishtar made based on lessons learned from the Dominix (ie. heavy/sentry differentiation). Rest basically just got the blanket buffs (cap/sensor/MWD sig) with a tanking preference added to the Muninn .. they are not buffing the HACs, they are buffing the Deimos/Ishtar and distributing pacifiers to the rest in hopes of shutting them up. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 08:55:00 -
[2471] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:... with this bonus that's up to 30km, which gives it less chance of being sling-shotted out of range by an opponent. Which is a very good thing for a kiting ship, but what purpose does that bonus serve for a brawler?
Pretty sure you're still brawling if you're within long point range, or is that reserve for Scram range fights with zero traversal now? A damage application bonus is always going to be at least a little useful because it lets you project damage better. I could ask you a similar question regarding a tracking bonus if you have a dual web fitted.
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Jeffrey Donovan wrote:i personally feel more -dmg and range and some tank for the cerbus - high dps (rof) and volocety and tank for the sac thats why i was worried about the talk of cap recharge reduction that was talked about earlier! I rather get rid of the 3 drones and give more to cap on the sac !!! What is there to spend the cap on? It can already almost pull a dual tank on a small injector .. it (and the Zealot) needs to be treated equally in relation to the others, they ought to have a thing they do really well without being pre-nerfed when trying something else .. Sacrilege needs application or fight control, that means explosion velocity/radius or one more mid (not likely) or neuting. Zealot needs tracking, not on the hull but as a fitting choice (gatling pulses) and you can throw in some drones on top if you like, if only to compensate it for the comparatively abysmal capacitor Amarr engineers decided on for one of their most iconic pure laser boats. It is like the Devs went into the HACs with a clear idea of the what/where/why of the Gallente boats, mid for Deimos due to line in general and increased fight control which is the nemesis of blasters and an Ishtar made based on lessons learned from the Dominix (ie. heavy/sentry differentiation). Rest basically just got the blanket buffs (cap/sensor/MWD sig) with a tanking preference added to the Muninn .. they are not buffing the HACs, they are buffing the Deimos/Ishtar and distributing pacifiers to the rest in hopes of shutting them up.
Sac already has the missile velocity bonus.
Really most of the damage application bonuses for these ships seem geared toward a MWD play-style, which is fine, but I can also see why it's annoying a few people. In-fact now that I look at things again every ship has a range bonus of one sort or another, so that seems to just be an intentional decision on Rise/CCP's part to make these ships a little more kity/stand-off range focused.
A second glance shows that the Zealot is not, in-fact, having its bonuses altered at all from TQ so I'm not sure what you're complaining about since the Zealot has been one of the mainstays of A-HAC gangs along with the Munnin for a while now.
It's also likely that given how the HAC's are going the pirate Cruisers will end up with a different focus, and since the Ashimmu and Vigilant can already be said to be brawlers(at least from my understanding of the term ) and probably the Phantasm as well (when it's used) it's not outside the realm of possibility that the Gila and Cynabal will see some minor re-purposing to be more short-range focused. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 11:08:00 -
[2472] - Quote
raawe wrote:yea, sac is for close range brawl so missile velocity bonus is kinda odd to me and i think it should be changed to something more useful like missile explosion velocity or explosion radius.
Sorry but this would be disastrous. With the current state of the HAMS that would mean the range would be limited 20Km with the faction Missiles and 16km with the crappy rage.
With the slow sacrilege velocity you can not catch easily your targets and that would mean that you could be disrupted and not being able to deal with the target unless you would use javelins. A Vagabond or any other ship would just have to orbit you at 20km and watch you bleed until dead, unless help would arrive.
The HAM nerf was so bad te Sacrilege REALLLY needs that bonus. If CCP would have not nerfed also so badly the HM's you could still look at the HM versions and eventually drop the bonus, but with their current state if CCP removes the velocity bonus the ship will just be useless.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 11:09:00 -
[2473] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Pretty sure you're still brawling if you're within long point range, or is that reserve for Scram range fights with zero traversal now?... Scram/Web range yes, zero transversal .. what? The shorter the range the more transversal you get out of each m/s speed, brawlers when engaged are slower moving when seen from afar but faster moving in relation to each other. But for argument sake, if "brawling" was to be extended to cover disruptor range, where does that leave kiting .. 30-50 km and thus only applicable with faction points and boosters?
Cade Windstalker wrote:Sac already has the missile velocity bonus... It has it if these changes go through you mean. My argument is that it does not actually help the Sacrilege no matter how you choose to fly/fit it .. it augments HMLs most of all making it a PvE centric bonus because HAMs need the target to be immobilized which just isn't happening without scram/web .. alternative is to add a damage surplus as in the case of the Cerberus to negate the damage reduction inherent in unguided missiles.
Cade Windstalker wrote:Really most of the damage application bonuses for these ships seem geared toward a MWD play-style, which is fine, but I can also see why it's annoying a few people. In-fact now that I look at things again every ship has a range bonus of one sort or another, so that seems to just be an intentional decision on Rise/CCP's part to make these ships a little more kity/stand-off range focused. Which is all fine and dandy, except that Deimos, Ishtar, Cerberus and Vagabond and to a lesser degree the Muninn will all have the ability/option to brawl or kite as they see fit with roughly equal strength in either .. some will do it without refitting for Goddess sake (/me waves at Gallente HACs)!
Cade Windstalker wrote:A second glance shows that the Zealot is not, in-fact, having its bonuses altered at all from TQ so I'm not sure what you're complaining about since the Zealot has been one of the mainstays of A-HAC gangs along with the Munnin for a while now. It is indeed excellent in blobs, but it will die horribly to ****-fit T1 frigates without the laser porcupine of that AHAC swarm .. been there, done that. How do you propose it be flown outside of a blob .. doesn't have the slots to control a fight because it need injector to run tank, doesn't have tracking (or even the option) to survive without the control which leaves pure buffer fits as only "viable" option and believe it or not, buffers without the ability to hit anything reliably are not really much use at all.
I couldn't care less about what the plans may be for pirate hulls, I want the HACs to meet a common standard as Rise went out of his way to explain .. I and others have bitched and moaned about CCP going back on their scheme of T1 = generalized, T2 = specialized so he specifically stated that it would not hold true for HACs because they are cool (paraphrased) .. he should be forced, coerced and cajoled into fulfilling his own damn idea of what HACs are and not be allowed to apply it to some but not others.
Equal opportunities. That is all.
DeadDuck wrote:With the slow sacrilege velocity you can not catch easily your targets and that would mean that you could be disrupted and not being able to deal with the target unless you would use javelins. A Vagabond or any other ship would just have to orbit you at 20km and watch you bleed until dead, unless help would arrive... Nothing you cannot catch will not be able to break your tank .. especially the Vagabond with the explosive heavy barrage he will be forced to use at that range. You see the exact same phenomenon with the Vengeance, it can simply not be kited but it will die easily enough with a bit of neuting and damage mitigation. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 11:24:00 -
[2474] - Quote
Quote:I want the HACs to meet a common standard as Rise went out of his way to explain
Could you expand on that? What is this standard? Can you define it concrete terms? It is difficult to have an exchange when we only understand your idea in the abstract. How do HACs fulfill your standard? What universal terms must they all meet? |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 11:56:00 -
[2475] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:I want the HACs to meet a common standard as Rise went out of his way to explain Could you expand on that? What is this standard? Can you define it concrete terms? It is difficult to have an exchange when we only understand your idea in the abstract. How do HACs fulfill your standard? What universal terms must they all meet? Not my standard. Not my idea. Not my universal terms.
Read the opening three paragraphs in the original post .. thought I made it abundantly clear as what I was alluding to.
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 11:57:00 -
[2476] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:[Nothing you cannot catch will not be able to break your tank .. especially the Vagabond with the explosive heavy barrage he will be forced to use at that range. You see the exact same phenomenon with the Vengeance, it can simply not be kited but it will die easily enough with a bit of neuting and damage mitigation.
The fact is that I'm not talking about active repper sacs. I'm talking about Buffered ones. These are the kind of ships you will see 99,00% of the times in 0.0 where a logistic wing/squad is present most of the times, and where bomber runs, alpha damage and so on dictates the rules.
An active repper sac can be good enough to low sec but in 0.0 is asking to die in the 1st few seconds to alpha damage or a bomber run. In fact the ship velocity will limitate is use to gangs since it simply doesn't have enough speed to be able to roam alone. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1762
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 12:00:00 -
[2477] - Quote
So is it safe to say that with this being the last week in August and no patch notification that the fabled "1.1 release for August" won't quite make it out in August? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1762
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 12:03:00 -
[2478] - Quote
Also the Sac is crap you should stop talking about it, after all this time its plainly obvious that CCP Rise doesn't care what the players think about it (even though its blatantly worse in every regard than every other hac and most t1 cruisers because its pretty locked in fitting wise, and the end result is complete garbage).
Best to just move on and ignore the fact that the game developers that used to play stopped listening to the players about the things wrong with the ships they've been asked to fix. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
459
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 12:58:00 -
[2479] - Quote
@ RISE
if by any chance you are still reading this thread could you please explain to us the refusal to give the eagle the things it needs - 210 m/s at least - 20/20 drones at least - 10% damage bonus - more agility - lower sig
even muninn gets most of these things and it does the same thing although the zealot is in the same boat as the eagle in some respects too .... its minnie favouritism claeraly along with the more numerous resists minnie ships get 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
186
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 13:58:00 -
[2480] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:@ RISE
if by any chance you are still reading this thread could you please explain to us the refusal to give the eagle the things it needs - 210 m/s at least - 20/20 drones at least - 10% damage bonus - more agility - lower sig
even muninn gets most of these things and it does the same thing although the zealot is in the same boat as the eagle in some respects too .... its minnie favouritism claeraly along with the more numerous resists minnie ships get You don't seem to get what they are trying to do. So even though I don't agree with what they are doing, let me explain why your wish list for the Eagle will not happen. That is, unless they start changing their thinking.
speed : The HACs appear to be being set roughly into a slow sniper and fast/agile brawler/kiter for each. The Eagle is fitting into the sniper paradigm. It will not get more speed. The other ships in this group are the Zealot, Ishtar, and Munnin. It is not seen as needing speed. It has snipe range. It is meant to warp out if things get too close.
dronebay : Being a sniper it like the Zealot has no drones. Why the Munnin of the Minmatar, which have been pushed toward missile use and not drones, is retaining its dronebay is a mystery. The Ishtar of course is being pushed to use its immobile sentrys for sniping.
I agree with you that instead of the Cerb getting a 15/15 dronebay it should be the Eagle. The hull afterall is used for the Gila, which was made a droneboat. The Cerb doesn't really need a dronebay. It will either have 100% range bonused light missiles, or 100% range bonused precision Heavys to shoot at frigs. And if HAM fit then well it probably was looking to kill BSs and as such the dronebay is irrelevant.
The Zealot and the Eagle deserve the small dronebays. So they can at least throw out a few dishonor drones and hope to get a lucky jam on a tackling frig that is under the guns. But I doubt the balancing team will do this. So we will be left with a Cerb that doesn't need drones, an Eagle and Zealot that do but won't get them, and a Munnin and Ishtar that have them.
moar damage : Are you unaware that medium long range guns are getting a damage bonus? If it weren't for the simultaneous tracking nerf this would be a huge buff already.
agility : All of the "sniper HACs" will have poor agility. Range is their thing. They had better be aligned and ready to warp if anything lands next to them. Which is fine. A long range boat should not have good agility or speed. Then it would just be op, not catchable and always able to maintain its range advantage.
Of course this is where the Cerb and Sac stick out as mistakes. The Cerb was given range bonuses. So essentially the Caldari have two sniper HACs. Meanwhile it was also given the agility of a brawler/kiter. And because of the shield tank it can supplement its not great speed with lowslot mods and rigs. The Cerb will be the new more nimble and better ranged Drake in nullsec fleets, and a great new dps boat for lowsec. Hopefully we won't have 3 years of it.
The Sac will be a useless brick. It appears to have been meant as the Amarr brawler/kiter. But it has terrible agility, and lackluster speed. Being meant to armor tank both agility and speed will only get worse or stay lackluster (rig penalties, plate penalties, active armor lol).
The Ishtar will cross over like the Cerb. It will be able to perform both roles. I do not see much use in sentry sniping. The sentry immobility is pita and gets expensive over time from losing so many tech II sentrys. So it will probably be used more to brawl.
lower sig: Why? It is a shield tank. Once you extender up a shield ship, even a Minmatar one, the sig is not going to be in your favor anyway. Learn to live with it. It is not as bad a tradeoff as the mobility penalties are to armor tanks meant to get into short range.
So there you are. Maybe we will see some sniper HAC use. But I think we will see mostly Zealots in AHAC fittings, Cerbs in nullsec blob fleets or HAM and RLML lowsec dps roles, Ishtars and Deimos in brawler or AHAC roles, and Vagas still in solo/small gang roaming. We will see very little Sac, Eagle, or Munnin. Unless they do something to change the current proposed stats on these ships. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
459
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 14:08:00 -
[2481] - Quote
i understand all that but ... yet too leave the eagle in its very poor state is just criminal .. even the muninn has 210m/s and its full dronebay yet the eagle has to remain slower than a blackbird which is already an slow turd but at least its an e-war ship so no one cares but with the eagle if they did those things i listed it could also be used as a blasterboat. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Jeffrey Donovan
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 14:19:00 -
[2482] - Quote
i just say cap because it used to be my tripple reping montor when i used to fly them :) just like i hope they dont mess up the awesome speed tanking ability of the vaga I rember the days trying to stay just out of webbing range shooting and hoping i dont get poped :)
|
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 14:47:00 -
[2483] - Quote
Rise. Rise. Rise. Rise. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 14:53:00 -
[2484] - Quote
Quote:Not my standard. Not my idea. Not my universal terms.Read the opening three paragraphs in the original post .. thought I made it abundantly clear as what I was alluding to.
Really? Because in the first three paragraphs, I see Rise saying that they moved AWAY from specialization and role to keep ships steeped in lore and history. I don't see him allude to any "standard". You said that you, you yourself, wanted HACs to meet a standard. I want to know the terms of such a standard. Rise made his position clear, that HACs wouldn't be focusing on a specific role since other projects pulled them away from that. What you have is HACs specializing in, well, being heavy for their size class and assaulting things. Beyond that, I don't know of any other standard he set. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 15:58:00 -
[2485] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Really? Because in the first three paragraphs, I see Rise saying that they moved AWAY from specialization... *Sigh* Read it again and think about what is being said and know that interpersonal communication is not made in Hollywood so every little facet is not spoon fed to the masses even if it is pretty damn close to it.
CCP Rise wrote:...The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization', but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers.
CCP Rise wrote:...but ultimately decided that it wasn't worth completely throwing out the ships we had. Not only do they have a lot of history in the game, which leads to attachment, but they also have a lot of legitimate use already which we wanted to avoid disrupting if possible. HACs will deviate from the high-end goal and essentially remain cruisers on steroids but with a focus, albeit never as focused as f.ex. SBs and Recons. Very easy and very simple.
CCP Rise wrote:...So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor. He then goes on to describe the focus they opted for which is hardening everything that can be hardened; Capacitor, sensors and tanks.
And that is where the whole thing breaks down. - Sacrilege got the sensors but no tank and no capacitor (+0.2 is a kick in the groin) but got a bonus that will not help it in the vast majority of situations it will find itself in. It will be sub-par in just about any role .. cost of giving its main redeeming (super cap, comparatively) feature to almost everyone without getting anything in return. - Zealot got sensors and a CCC pre-installed so I guess Amarr haters will claim that is a cap boost despite the fact that it is less half that of the ship that got a new mid, has drones and comparatively cap-free guns .. it got nothing else whatsoever, no tank, no speed no nothing. Will excel in one scenario, the same as laser boats always has .. the porcupine/swarm where tracking is irrelevant due to fields of fire and that is it .. no expansion of viability at all.
Deimos got all plus a little extra loving (read: overbuff) and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto. Ishtar got all and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto. Cerberus got all and then some and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto. Eagle is Eagle and is doomed to be **** forever more. Vaga got all but will struggle as sniper/arty boat, mostly due to arty tracking performance though. Muninn got all with a shift towards armour but will remain in an extreme niche |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 16:48:00 -
[2486] - Quote
Quote:And that is where the whole thing breaks down.-á- Sacrilege got the sensors but no tank and no capacitor (+0.2 is a kick in the groin) but got a bonus that will not help it in the vast majority of situations it will find itself in. It will be sub-par in just about any role .. cost of giving its main redeeming (super cap, comparatively) feature to almost everyone without getting anything in return.- Zealot got sensors and a CCC pre-installed so I guess Amarr haters will claim that is a cap boost despite the fact that it is less half that of the ship that got a new mid, has drones and comparatively cap-free guns .. it got nothing else whatsoever, no tank, no speed no nothing. Will excel in one scenario, the same as laser boats always has .. the porcupine/swarm where tracking is irrelevant due to fields of fire and that is it .. no expansion of viability at all.Deimos got all plus a little extra loving (read: overbuff) and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto.Ishtar got all and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto.Cerberus got all and then some and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto.Eagle is Eagle and is doomed to be **** forever more.Vaga got all but will struggle as sniper/arty boat, mostly due to arty tracking performance though.Muninn got all with a shift towards armour but will remain in an extreme niche
Sac already had cap and tank and is doing extremely well on Sisi, especially with -sig boosters.
Zealot was already the HAC of choice for a reason and simply didn't need much to begin with. Its strength is its scalability.-á
Deimos is good, but nowhere near the beast you and others make it out to be. Ask 0racle sometime about kiting them in an Omen Navy Issue while holding disruptor.-á
Ishtar isn't the beast you make it out to be. Once tackled, it isn't hard at all to bring down.
Cerberus we agree on mostly. I do find it a little clumsy, for lack of a better word. It's pretty easy to catch.
Eagle already had battleship tank and should never even be in drone range range to begin with. Not liking its purpose doesn't make it ****.
Vaga is doing very well, though I admit to having been skeptical of its numbers on paper. It does quite well in practice. It is best as an initial tackle in my opinion, but some guys are using it very well as a solo boat.
Munnin we agree on. Very niche, perhaps a bit too much.
The HACs all got the things Rise said in the opening. Overall, I am impressed. The Eagle and Munnin I'm kind of on the fence about just because not a lot of large fleet fights happen on Sisi which is apparently where they are supposed to shine. I think only TQ will tell the whole story there. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 17:30:00 -
[2487] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Jeffrey Donovan wrote:why cant the cerbus have the same bonus as the hookbill? 20% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 10% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage 10% bonus to Missile velocity
or atleast
10% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 5% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage The Hookbil has three launchers and the Cerberus has six.
You fail to realize what he wants.
The idea is to not pigeonhole Caldari missile boats into pure Kinetic damage.
Everyone always argues that blasters / lasers are fixed damage types, but they deal 2 different types while missiles deal one. It's lame that I'm forced to deal one type of damage or take a 25% damage cut.... |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
546
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 17:42:00 -
[2488] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: - Sacrilege got the sensors but no tank and no capacitor (+0.2 is a kick in the groin) but got a bonus that will not help it in the vast majority of situations it will find itself in. It will be sub-par in just about any role .. cost of giving its main redeeming (super cap, comparatively) feature to almost everyone without getting anything in return.
This dude is complaining about cap on the sec yet it's got by far the best cap of any of the hacs. As an example, it's got 6.7/s base compared to the deimos 6.2/s base. Both of them have far more cap/s compared to the other hacs which still have pretty damn good cap recharge.
Overall, your cap whine does not really hold any weight, just saying...
|
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 17:46:00 -
[2489] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote: - Sacrilege got the sensors but no tank and no capacitor (+0.2 is a kick in the groin) but got a bonus that will not help it in the vast majority of situations it will find itself in. It will be sub-par in just about any role .. cost of giving its main redeeming (super cap, comparatively) feature to almost everyone without getting anything in return.
This dude is complaining about cap on the sec yet it's got by far the best cap of any of the hacs. As an example, it's got 6.7/s base compared to the deimos 6.2/s base. Both of them have far more cap/s compared to the other hacs which still have pretty damn good cap recharge. Overall, your cap whine does not really hold any weight, just saying...
I think what he's unhappy about is that before the cap of the Sacrilege was one of the special things about it. Now that all the other HACS got cap buffs it isn't so specal now. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 19:20:00 -
[2490] - Quote
ArcticPrism wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote: - Sacrilege got the sensors but no tank and no capacitor (+0.2 is a kick in the groin) but got a bonus that will not help it in the vast majority of situations it will find itself in. It will be sub-par in just about any role .. cost of giving its main redeeming (super cap, comparatively) feature to almost everyone without getting anything in return.
This dude is complaining about cap on the sec yet it's got by far the best cap of any of the hacs. As an example, it's got 6.7/s base compared to the deimos 6.2/s base. Both of them have far more cap/s compared to the other hacs which still have pretty damn good cap recharge. Overall, your cap whine does not really hold any weight, just saying... Maybe he wants its cap to stand out as much as before.
*Suddenly some weird neuting bonus* - that'd be awesome. Y'know, instead of that range on missiles XD "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
|
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 19:25:00 -
[2491] - Quote
A neut/nos bonus could be interesting since Rise is so adamant about keeping the utility high on the Sacrilege. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 19:30:00 -
[2492] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: And that is where the whole thing breaks down. - Sacrilege got the sensors but no tank and no capacitor (+0.2 is a kick in the groin) but got a bonus that will not help it in the vast majority of situations it will find itself in. It will be sub-par in just about any role .. cost of giving its main redeeming (super cap, comparatively) feature to almost everyone without getting anything in return. - Zealot got sensors and a CCC pre-installed so I guess Amarr haters will claim that is a cap boost despite the fact that it is less half that of the ship that got a new mid, has drones and comparatively cap-free guns .. it got nothing else whatsoever, no tank, no speed no nothing. Will excel in one scenario, the same as laser boats always has .. the porcupine/swarm where tracking is irrelevant due to fields of fire and that is it .. no expansion of viability at all.
Deimos got all plus a little extra loving (read: overbuff) and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto. Ishtar got all and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto. Cerberus got all and then some and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto. Eagle is Eagle and is doomed to be **** forever more. Vaga got all but will struggle as sniper/arty boat, mostly due to arty tracking performance though. Muninn got all with a shift towards armour but will remain in an extreme niche
I fail to see how this "breaks down". Per Rise:
CCP Rise wrote:...but ultimately decided that it wasn't worth completely throwing out the ships we had. Not only do they have a lot of history in the game, which leads to attachment, but they also have a lot of legitimate use already which we wanted to avoid disrupting if possible.
Hence the lack of change in the already solid HACs. That's why only three out of 8 even had bonuses changed and all of those were really rather odd bonuses or on ships that were in a rather bad spot. Speed bonus on the Vaga and Cap bonus on the Sac in the former case and the Ishtar in the latter case.
Everything else beyond the three main changes to Cap, Sensor Strength, and Lock Range is extra fitting room, slot layout adjustments, more tank, and other fairly minor stat tweaks.
About the only thing I could really get behind is a bit more speed -OR- a smaller sig radius on the Eagle so it can perform a little better with Blasters, but that might end up making its kiting or tanking potential a little too much, I don't know for sure.
Would I like to see a 10% damage bonus on the Eagle? Sure! Would that be hilariously OP? Hells yes.
---
I also get the want for a ship you like in some ways to fit your specific play style but there is no requirement, anywhere, that all of these ships be equally good at brawling and fleet roles. That's just not going to happen. Maybe some of them are more able to swap between the two but there are trade offs to that as well, generally in fittings.
If things go live and certain ships are generally considered to be in a **** spot in winter then they'll probably get a second look, just like the Dominix is getting some tweaks after the previous patch.
Before anyone chimes in with "well of course X is going to be in a **** spot!!!" you're no more precognitive than the devs are, you may have seen something they haven't but the reverse is also true. Your play-style is not everyone's play style. Live with it. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 20:07:00 -
[2493] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:And that is where the whole thing breaks down.-á- Sacrilege got the sensors but no tank and no capacitor (+0.2 is a kick in the groin) but got a bonus that will not help it in the vast majority of situations it will find itself in. It will be sub-par in just about any role .. cost of giving its main redeeming (super cap, comparatively) feature to almost everyone without getting anything in return.- Zealot got sensors and a CCC pre-installed so I guess Amarr haters will claim that is a cap boost despite the fact that it is less half that of the ship that got a new mid, has drones and comparatively cap-free guns .. it got nothing else whatsoever, no tank, no speed no nothing. Will excel in one scenario, the same as laser boats always has .. the porcupine/swarm where tracking is irrelevant due to fields of fire and that is it .. no expansion of viability at all.Deimos got all plus a little extra loving (read: overbuff) and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto.Ishtar got all and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto.Cerberus got all and then some and will do pretty much all roles with equal gusto.Eagle is Eagle and is doomed to be **** forever more.Vaga got all but will struggle as sniper/arty boat, mostly due to arty tracking performance though.Muninn got all with a shift towards armour but will remain in an extreme niche Sac already had cap and tank and is doing extremely well on Sisi, especially with -sig boosters. Zealot was already the HAC of choice for a reason and simply didn't need much to begin with. Its strength is its scalability.-á Deimos is good, but nowhere near the beast you and others make it out to be. Ask 0racle sometime about kiting them in an Omen Navy Issue while holding disruptor.-á Ishtar isn't the beast you make it out to be. Once tackled, it isn't hard at all to bring down. Cerberus we agree on mostly. I do find it a little clumsy, for lack of a better word. It's pretty easy to catch. Eagle already had battleship tank and should never even be in drone range range to begin with. Not liking its purpose doesn't make it ****. Vaga is doing very well, though I admit to having been skeptical of its numbers on paper. It does quite well in practice. It is best as an initial tackle in my opinion, but some guys are using it very well as a solo boat. Munnin we agree on. Very niche, perhaps a bit too much. The HACs all got the things Rise said in the opening. Overall, I am impressed. The Eagle and Munnin I'm kind of on the fence about just because not a lot of large fleet fights happen on Sisi which is apparently where they are supposed to shine. I think only TQ will tell the whole story there.
The Deimos is the beast we've made it out to be. You can't kill it with a kiting ship. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
659
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 20:16:00 -
[2494] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:ISHTAR
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed and tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 780 PWG(+80), 340 CPU(+55) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400 (-6) / 1600 (-18) / 2300 (+191) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400 (+275) / 265s (-70s) / 5.28/s (+1.9) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+4) / .52 / 11100000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+250) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+20km) / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+7) Signature radius: 145
Any particular reasoning behind giving the Ishtar 14 slots? All the other HACs have 15... HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
548
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 22:09:00 -
[2495] - Quote
Infinite Force wrote:
Any particular reasoning behind giving the Ishtar 14 slots? All the other HACs have 15...
I'm going to guess it has something to with how almost every single dedicated drone ship (ones with drone bonuses and very large drone bays) have -1 slot compared to "Comparable" ships.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
234
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 22:22:00 -
[2496] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Infinite Force wrote:
Any particular reasoning behind giving the Ishtar 14 slots? All the other HACs have 15...
I'm going to guess it has something to with how almost every single dedicated drone ship (ones with drone bonuses and very large drone bays) have -1 slot compared to "Comparable" ships.
Illogical and indefensible I know...
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 00:06:00 -
[2497] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Infinite Force wrote:
Any particular reasoning behind giving the Ishtar 14 slots? All the other HACs have 15...
I'm going to guess it has something to with how almost every single dedicated drone ship (ones with drone bonuses and very large drone bays) have -1 slot compared to "Comparable" ships. Illogical and indefensible I know...
And yet it seems to be coming out at a fairly balanced point... They are essentially trading that slot for the massive drone bay. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 01:41:00 -
[2498] - Quote
Quote:The Deimos is the beast we've made it out to be. You can't kill it with a kiting ship.
You most certainly can, and it's being done every morning on the test server. Go try it. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1762
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 01:51:00 -
[2499] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:The Deimos is the beast we've made it out to be. You can't kill it with a kiting ship. You most certainly can, and it's being done every morning on the test server. Go try it.
The Test server, the metric by which all ships should be judged on their quality |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 01:59:00 -
[2500] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:The Deimos is the beast we've made it out to be. You can't kill it with a kiting ship. You most certainly can, and it's being done every morning on the test server. Go try it. The Test server, the metric by which all ships should be judged on their quality
I dunno, I think I'd put more stock in live results and practical testing than spit-balling numbers on a forum.
If I had 1 million ISK for every time someone on these forums declared something horribly OP (or agreed with someone's declaration of horrible OP-ness) and then this turned out to be so much space-dust when the changes hit TQ I think I would be able to buy enough Titans to spell out "I Told You So!" in space. |
|
Strange Shadow
Hedion University Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 02:17:00 -
[2501] - Quote
How about change -50% MWD sig role bonus for +100% Afterburner speed bonus? Awesome sig, awesome cap (not hinted by MWD), compensated by somewhat lower speed (still slower than MWD). At least that would gave them role as slower but tankier cruisers, exactly what HACs supposed to be.... And yes you could still fit MWD on vaga and it would perform the same.... |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 03:02:00 -
[2502] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
If I had 1 million ISK for every time someone on these forums declared something horribly OP (or agreed with someone's declaration of horrible OP-ness) and then this turned out to be so much space-dust when the changes hit TQ I think I would be able to buy enough Titans to spell out "I Told You So!" in space.
Like when you said the Eagle would be OP with a 10% damage bonus? |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative The Explicit Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 03:28:00 -
[2503] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:The Deimos is the beast we've made it out to be. You can't kill it with a kiting ship. You most certainly can, and it's being done every morning on the test server. Go try it. The Test server, the metric by which all ships should be judged on their quality
The forums, the metric by which all ships should be judged on their quality. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 04:37:00 -
[2504] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
If I had 1 million ISK for every time someone on these forums declared something horribly OP (or agreed with someone's declaration of horrible OP-ness) and then this turned out to be so much space-dust when the changes hit TQ I think I would be able to buy enough Titans to spell out "I Told You So!" in space.
Like when you said the Eagle would be OP with a 10% damage bonus?
I'm talking about stuff that actually has a chance of making in game. If Rise puts a 10% damage bonus on the Eagle and it goes live to TQ AND isn't OP, then I'll eat crow. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 06:07:00 -
[2505] - Quote
Sac would be 10x better if Rise would remove utility high and add one more low slot imo... |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 07:21:00 -
[2506] - Quote
raawe wrote:Sac would be 10x better if Rise would remove utility high and add one more low slot imo...
yea maybe for PVE but that utility high is a god-send in pvp, with the new changes you can ab fit and perma run the medium neut, cant get much better than that |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
169
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 08:58:00 -
[2507] - Quote
Strange Shadow wrote:How about change -50% MWD sig role bonus for +100% Afterburner speed bonus? Awesome sig, awesome cap (not hinted by MWD)....
... and 100mn rapid light cerbs going 2.7km/s before links with a 120m sig radius...
To ask the rest of the audience: Can anyone of you imagine some sort of neuting bonus (or bonus to neut behavior) that wouldn't potentially push the sacriledge way over the cliff into OP-land? Only something similiar to the geddon comes to mind (increasing the med neut coverage from 12 to 18km, or beyond regular heavy tackle range to max navy HAM range, still far less than a curse) "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 10:40:00 -
[2508] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Strange Shadow wrote:How about change -50% MWD sig role bonus for +100% Afterburner speed bonus? Awesome sig, awesome cap (not hinted by MWD).... ... and 100mn rapid light cerbs going 2.7km/s before links with a 120m sig radius... To ask the rest of the audience: Can anyone of you imagine some sort of neuting bonus (or bonus to neut behavior) that wouldn't potentially push the sacriledge way over the cliff into OP-land? Only something similiar to the geddon comes to mind (increasing the med neut coverage from 12 to 18km, or beyond regular heavy tackle range to max navy HAM range, still far less than a curse)
Honestly my biggest issue with such a bonus would be that it would be OP in solo PvP and half-useless almost everywhere else. You're literally bonusing a single extra slot on most fits or pushing the ship to ignore its weapon bonuses so it can... neut out frigates better? >.>
Never mind that this is Curse/Pilgrim territory and no other HAC gets an 'EWar' bonus.
For all those who (somehow) can't find a use for that slot in fleets you're getting a tank, range, and double damage bonused missile ship that can rotate damage types freely and fits a full flight of medium drones along with 4 utility mids making this a *very* solid Heavy-Tackle/Brawler even with the low ... um low count |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
777
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 11:26:00 -
[2509] - Quote
Strange Shadow wrote:How about change -50% MWD sig role bonus for +100% Afterburner speed bonus? Because it worked so well when it was tested with the AFs back in the day
Lloyd Roses wrote:To ask the rest of the audience: Can anyone of you imagine some sort of neuting bonus (or bonus to neut behavior) that wouldn't potentially push the sacriledge way over the cliff into OP-land?.. Half to Full Pilgrim bonus, that is 10-20%/level. DPS (both paper and applied) is still below par and the only way to increase it is to take large chunks out of the tank. Not sure how it could ever be OP, even with the full Pilgrim bonus .. limited range and majority of ships using injectors with rest being faster and/or longer ranged .. current Pilgrim fields more neuts, bonused TD's and practically tie with the Sacrilege in damage (applied) and tank, that is with Recons not having had their enema yet.
Would it be annoying/difficult to fight with generic fits? Hell yes. Would it be unbeatable? Doubtful.
It is slower than most of the other HACs and they are all able to function even when hit with twin medium neuts (ie. result of full Pilgrim bonus) and even heavy neuts when injected. The ships that will suffer the most are frigates but then they are taking minuscule damage from HAMs so it even out .. Gives it a trump card in solo/small-gang that is not automatically applied but for which it must be in position to play and offers up a new neuting option for fleets where highly mobile neuts with above average (MWD sig actually helps in blobs) survivability is needed.
Last but not least, it would be an Amarr bonus instead of the off-center loaner from Caldari. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 12:23:00 -
[2510] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: Not sure how it could ever be OP, even with the full Pilgrim bonus .. limited range and majority of ships using injectors with rest being faster and/or longer ranged .. current Pilgrim fields more neuts, bonused TD's and practically tie with the Sacrilege in damage (applied) and tank, that is with Recons not having had their enema yet.
I'd say pilgrim is more around 50% of the deeps, and around 50% of the tank, though its' neuts are superior, TD is avaiable and a covops cloak.
I atleast wouldn't mind both the pilgrim and the sacriledge to twist around the same branch, just translating differently to the task, with even the legion (neut-sub + missilesub OR cloakysub) adding another flavor to it. Believe they would differ greatly in playstyle, even though using near identical tools. The current Sacriledge (SiSione) is quite nice, but as the Deimos got a spotlight using the (racial) armorbonus, the vaga got a possibly non-impacting active tank bonus, and flavor in the style of enhanced neuts beyond the existing armorresist-bonus might just pidgeonhole it down to a single neut -always- being in your option high (though a very useful one) BUT could even enable a HAC performing outside of it's obvious role as sort of a weak, but resilent, highresist neuter next to pals like the ashimmu.
As my webs and Scrams generally only reach some 12k cool max, I just feel about that rangebonus as something even more optional compared to even the vagabonds shieldboost. And HAMs+Hammerheads aren't gonna work well with just a long point. "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1762
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 13:05:00 -
[2511] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:raawe wrote:Sac would be 10x better if Rise would remove utility high and add one more low slot imo... yea maybe for PVE but that utility high is a god-send in pvp, with the new changes you can ab fit and perma run the medium neut, cant get much better than that The Sac: Its good because you can perma run the medium neut wiht an ab.
Not because it does good damage, is fast, or tanks well, but because it can perma run a single neut.
Eve Online 2013. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
461
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 13:12:00 -
[2512] - Quote
surely the sac would benefit from having that 6th low slot so why not remove a mid for it instead of the utility high? 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1762
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 13:52:00 -
[2513] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:surely the sac would benefit from having that 6th low slot so why not remove a mid for it instead of the utility high?
Because it needs all 4 mids for any possible useful fitting configuration, thats the thing, theres zero creativity allowed for in fitting the Sac, its shoehorned into sub optimal craptastic fits and nothing about this patch makes it anymore desirable than it was before.
Overall Damage Output: Weak Overall Damage Application: Weak Speed: Slow Tank: Laughable Options When Fitting: Next to None.
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 14:04:00 -
[2514] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
Because it needs all 4 mids for any possible useful fitting configuration, thats the thing, theres zero creativity allowed for in fitting the Sac, its shoehorned into sub optimal craptastic fits and nothing about this patch makes it anymore desirable than it was before.
Overall Damage Output: Weak Overall Damage Application: Weak Speed: Slow Tank: Laughable Options When Fitting: Next to None.
You have no idea how good the sac is and how many varients your going to see soon.
Overall Dmg Output:: Weak - try 700-750 dps when implanted Overall Dmg Aplication: Weak - yep your right here but it is effective vs big targets Speed: slow - so F***ing what its a brawler Tank: Laughable - there is nearly no difference between this and a zealot ahac Qptions When fitting: Next to None - i can make 3 fits for this ship that are all different, but yes ship is designed for 5 hams 1 neut some ewar mids and your standard buffer tank.
Fair play it might be the wrong choice for the 100+ fleets of 0.0 but its a great small-mid gang ship and scales well up to about the 40 man mark |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1762
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 14:34:00 -
[2515] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:
Because it needs all 4 mids for any possible useful fitting configuration, thats the thing, theres zero creativity allowed for in fitting the Sac, its shoehorned into sub optimal craptastic fits and nothing about this patch makes it anymore desirable than it was before.
Overall Damage Output: Weak Overall Damage Application: Weak Speed: Slow Tank: Laughable Options When Fitting: Next to None.
You have no idea how good the sac is and how many varients your going to see soon. Overall Dmg Output:: Weak - try 700-750 dps when implanted Overall Dmg Aplication: Weak - yep your right here but it is effective vs big targets Speed: slow - so F***ing what its a brawler Tank: Laughable - there is nearly no difference between this and a zealot ahac Qptions When fitting: Next to None - i can make 3 fits for this ship that are all different, but yes ship is designed for 5 hams 1 neut some ewar mids and your standard buffer tank. Fair play it might be the wrong choice for the 100+ fleets of 0.0 but its a great small-mid gang ship and scales well up to about the 40 man mark
IF you have 700 DPS, then your statement about its tank isn't possible, you can't have both, or even anything close to both like you can on a Zealot.(this is also paper DPS, not actual in game DPS which is always significantly different than what you actually get - see Damage Application)
You will have 3 fitting variations, and in those fitting variations there is 1 viable high slot configuration, and 2 viable mid slot configuartions (dual prop web scram or single prop injector web scram) and THATS IT..
The Deimos changes and Ishtar changes are pretty amazing/borderline broken, then to see things like the zealot not changing at all (even though you see more Oracle fleets than you do Zealot fleets) and the Sac getting pretty much NO love in any way shape or form while the Cerb becomes some missile spewing monster is fairly disgusting. They break 3 hacs, and basically ignore the rest saying "looks clear!" |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
236
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 14:58:00 -
[2516] - Quote
I think the problem with HAC balancing is that the difference between crap, good and OP is very small.
In addition, each ship lends itself to a different doctrine and environment so side by side comparisons are probably not useful.
It's always nice to think that "my" ship of choice can beat all others in a 1v1 but the truth is that almost no fights that actually matter in Eve are 1v1 - and if you're going to go exclusively looking for 1v1 I imagine you'll play station games, have a look at what the other guy brought and then bring a ship that counters it.
The presence of this style of play should not influence the unique and diverse nature of the HAC bonus distribution.
"What will I use my 1 HAC for?" is the wrong question. The correct question is, "how will these HACs perform in groups of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 100?"
The "best" HAC choice will change throughout this range.
If it's 1v1 and you're at point blank range then obviously you'd want a deimos. If it's 1v1 and you're not at point blank you'd probably want a vagabond (nothing changes there).
As the numbers start to grow, the deimos' bonus looks less useful since the local tank becomes irrelevant and the likes of sacrilege, zealot, munnin, eagle, cerberus (especially) and ishtar start to look more attractive on grounds of versatility, damage projection, damage types and so on.
Interestingly, I don't see the vagabond getting less useful as the numbers grow, simply because it's a supremely fast and hard hitting versatile little ship.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:08:00 -
[2517] - Quote
So I tried the Vaga out on Sisi.
Its still not a very good kiter.
It still needs a double falloff bonus.
Its pushing OP as an anti-nano brawler/heavy tackle with an XLASB now.
Good job CCP... |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:23:00 -
[2518] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: IF you have 700 DPS, then your statement about its tank isn't possible, you can't have both, or even anything close to both like you can on a Zealot.(this is also paper DPS, not actual in game DPS which is always significantly different than what you actually get - see Damage Application)
You will have 3 fitting variations, and in those fitting variations there is 1 viable high slot configuration, and 2 viable mid slot configuartions (dual prop web scram or single prop injector web scram) and THATS IT..
The Deimos changes and Ishtar changes are pretty amazing/borderline broken, then to see things like the zealot not changing at all (even though you see more Oracle fleets than you do Zealot fleets) and the Sac getting pretty much NO love in any way shape or form while the Cerb becomes some missile spewing monster is fairly disgusting. They break 3 hacs, and basically ignore the rest saying "looks clear!"
Wrong with my fits. You can use offensive ewar in a small gang to gain an advantage
try 5HAMS 1 Medium Neut 1 AB 1 Piont 2 Offesive ewar mods (in a fleet we would mix in to these webs TPs Damps and even Jams) 1 Adaptive plating 1 1600mm t2 plate 2 bcu 1 Damage control unit Rigs 1 Thermic Rig (T1) 1 Bay loading accelerator (T2)
5 Hamerhead II
That gives you a **** ton of DPS or if you want to just match it vs a zealot, then drop the BLAII and slap on a trimark, then the only differences is the Zealot is 50m/s faster and has 9 less sig radius and you still keep the 700dps when implanted.
|
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:27:00 -
[2519] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:So I tried the Vaga out on Sisi.
Its still not a very good kiter.
It still needs a double falloff bonus.
Its pushing OP as an anti-nano brawler/heavy tackle with an XLASB now.
Good job CCP...
Well, that's what Rise wanted it to do and he seems set in his ways on keeping it as a brawler. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
461
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:28:00 -
[2520] - Quote
@ RISE
not that you have responded for many pages but hey...
CS have 3% to links as one of there CS skill bonus .. did you think perhaps you could do the same with HACS ..so a 4% resistance bonus .. i think this would certainly help reinforce the resilience identity of HAC's that you are aiming for.and just reduce the base T2 resists on all T2 hulls, yes they are specialist but it doesn't mean all T2 hulls should have high base resistance. so for example
SACRILEGE
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile velocity (was capacitor recharge time) 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire 4% to all Armor Resistances
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M, 6L(+1); 1 turrets(-3), 4 launchers (-1) Fittings: 1100 PWG(+70), 420 CPU(+20) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1100(-293) / 2250(+162) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1700(+75) / 255s (-80s) / 6.66s (+1.8) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+17) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+20km) / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 22 Radar(+7) Signature radius: 135(-5) 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
236
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:32:00 -
[2521] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:So I tried the Vaga out on Sisi.
Its still not a very good kiter.
It still needs a double falloff bonus.
Its pushing OP as an anti-nano brawler/heavy tackle with an XLASB now.
Good job CCP...
Try fitting it with 650mm howitzers and an HML. That gives you about 500dps within disruptor range and falloff to 50km.
The base navigation speed of this ship (with good navigation skills) is 368 m/s With an MWD (which you can almost perma-run) it's 2369 with imperfect skills (you can get another 5% on top of that) overheated I am doing 3369 m/s Add some implants and skirmish links and it becomes... astonishing.
I am struggling to see how this is "not a very good kiter" since it can kite most frigates, all cruisers and everything else in the game.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:37:00 -
[2522] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:So I tried the Vaga out on Sisi.
Its still not a very good kiter.
It still needs a double falloff bonus.
Its pushing OP as an anti-nano brawler/heavy tackle with an XLASB now.
Good job CCP... Try fitting it with 650mm howitzers and an HML. That gives you about 500dps within disruptor range and falloff to 50km. The base navigation speed of this ship (with good navigation skills) is 368 m/s With an MWD (which you can almost perma-run) it's 2369 with imperfect skills (you can get another 5% on top of that) overheated I am doing 3369 m/s Add some implants and skirmish links and it becomes... astonishing. I am struggling to see how this is "not a very good kiter" since it can kite most frigates, all cruisers and everything else in the game.
Yes, now try fitting a tank and a prop mod.
Oh no wait you can't.
You also get way better performance out of a Rail Deimos (Which can fit full tank and 250 rails by the way) for a minimal loss in speed.
You pretty much proved my point. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
777
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:38:00 -
[2523] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:So I tried the Vaga out on Sisi.... The way I'd fly it is to do the falloff dance forcing the enemy to burn charges (injector/AAR/ASB), as enemy nears end of charge capacity switch to EMP/PP and dive in (commence dive 6-7s into own reload cycle) live on your almost pristine tank and performing a time honored coup de grace.
The pure kiting Vagabond of old is dead. Long live the dagger-in-the-back Vagabond!
Could conceivably break even Deimos's, presuming the enemy does the human thing and panics (flight response) as you make the dive just as he is at his weakest. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:44:00 -
[2524] - Quote
Oh I agree its a competent brawler, thats half the problem, all CCP have done is not in any way improve its kiting ability while simultaneously giving New Eden another easy counter to kiters.
Eve Online, The Brawl at 0 and Overload expansion pack. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
237
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:11:00 -
[2525] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:So I tried the Vaga out on Sisi.
Its still not a very good kiter.
It still needs a double falloff bonus.
Its pushing OP as an anti-nano brawler/heavy tackle with an XLASB now.
Good job CCP... Try fitting it with 650mm howitzers and an HML. That gives you about 500dps within disruptor range and falloff to 50km. The base navigation speed of this ship (with good navigation skills) is 368 m/s With an MWD (which you can almost perma-run) it's 2369 with imperfect skills (you can get another 5% on top of that) overheated I am doing 3369 m/s Add some implants and skirmish links and it becomes... astonishing. I am struggling to see how this is "not a very good kiter" since it can kite most frigates, all cruisers and everything else in the game. Yes, now try fitting a tank and a prop mod. Oh no wait you can't. You also get way better performance out of a Rail Deimos (Which can fit full tank and 250 rails by the way) for a minimal loss in speed. You pretty much proved my point.
I never post on here without actually testing on Sisi. I fitted a vaga with: 650mm artillery 1 x HML
10mn MWD (prop mod) warp disruptor II invulnerability field medium ASB
DC II gyro x 3 tracking enhancer x 1
2 shield resist rigs
5 hobgoblins
It quite happily kites pretty much anything for as long as you want while applying almost full damage.
It can dictate range and if the fight looks unwinnable, it can disengage and live to fight another day - burning to a safe distance while using the ASB to stay alive.
This ability to disengage at will is what makes the vagabond so special. It won't beat everything (any more) but there's no excuse for losing one unless you get out maneuvered.
I understand that many lowsec pirates will whine that there is now at last a counter for the vagabond, but that does not mean it's "unable to kite", it just means that it's no longer an auto-win in 1v1 pvp.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association 24eme Legion Etrangere
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:22:00 -
[2526] - Quote
Scan Resolution on the new HACs does not look right to me.
Hull - - - New Scan Res
Ferox - - 195 Naga - - 220 Tornado - - 250
Eagle - - 252 Moa - - 260
Deimos - - 270 Thorax - - 280
These two HACSs above appear too low to me. Particularly the Scan Res on the Eagle (does not compare well to the 'Nado).
Comparison:
Rupture - - 290 Muninn - - 294
Stabber - - 320 Vaga - - 330
Omen - - 300 Zealot - - 306
Maller - - 280 Sacriledge - - 312
Vexor - - 280 Ishtar - - 294
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:24:00 -
[2527] - Quote
Vaga speed advantage over other hacs is uncalled for with its new tankier outlook.
No problem with it being fastest HAc but 240 would seem more appropriate than the 30% faster than nearest rival it currently has.
Vaga now has 5 effective bonuses.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:26:00 -
[2528] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:
Vaga now has 5 effective bonuses.
So do the deimos and sac (they had cap bonuses rolled into the hull).
|
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:32:00 -
[2529] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:@ RISE
not that you have responded for many pages but hey...
CS have 3% to links as one of there CS skill bonus .. did you think perhaps you could do the same with HACS ..so a 4% resistance bonus .. i think this would certainly help reinforce the resilience identity of HAC's that you are aiming for.and just reduce the base T2 resists on all T2 hulls, yes they are specialist but it doesn't mean all T2 hulls should have high base resistance. so for example
SACRILEGE
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile velocity (was capacitor recharge time) 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire 4% to all Armor Resistances
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M, 6L(+1); 1 turrets(-3), 4 launchers (-1) Fittings: 1100 PWG(+70), 420 CPU(+20) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1100(-293) / 2250(+162) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1700(+75) / 255s (-80s) / 6.66s (+1.8) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+17) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+20km) / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 22 Radar(+7) Signature radius: 135(-5)
I don't understand your suggestion. Do you want CCP to nerf every t2 ship in the game to make HAC better? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong. Could you clarify? Also you have a 5% bonus to Heavy Assault. Heavy assault what? |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:39:00 -
[2530] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
Vaga now has 5 effective bonuses.
So do the deimos and sac (they had cap bonuses rolled into the hull).
Hmm funny you should mention that 1.7cap/s increase for the Vaga , 1.8cap/s for sac.
so that makes 6 effective bonuses for the Vaga if you want to include cap changes.
Personally not that interested in the cap changes. More worried about the ship choice if I wan't to fly a kitey Hac, Currently the choices are Vaga, Vaga , Vaga or Vaga. |
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
176
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:44:00 -
[2531] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: The pure kiting Vagabond of old is dead. Long live the dagger-in-the-back Vagabond!
Could conceivably break even Deimos's, ....
Ye tried that one, but it feels a little like a dog hunting it's own tail. Vaga can't overwhelm even that one MAR on that Deimos (thanks to being in the own tracking-red-zone already), while the Deimos just can't track at all. So it's merely a stalemate, favoring whoever of them has the better drone skills <.< "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:59:00 -
[2532] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
Vaga now has 5 effective bonuses.
So do the deimos and sac (they had cap bonuses rolled into the hull). Since cap bonus was HAC wide the Sac really lost its cap bonus. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:08:00 -
[2533] - Quote
Mr Doctor wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
Vaga now has 5 effective bonuses.
So do the deimos and sac (they had cap bonuses rolled into the hull). Since cap bonus was HAC wide the Sac really lost its cap bonus.
It still has a very significant edge in cap/s compared to all other hacs (even the deimos at 6.2/s)
Claiming that it does not have a cap advantage is simply wrong.
|
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:21:00 -
[2534] - Quote
Next Tuesday, the real HAC test begins. They haven't posted a new set of changes, so I'm guessing 1.1 will drop with changes as currently proposed.
That is, the eagle remains worthless in small gang applications, and the deimos remains amazing in said situations. The deimos has little advantage in a fleet with logi ships, the eagle, however... It's a good month for those who have all cruiser skills at V.
Did the zealot get the CPU buff mentioned earlier on the test server? It was never edited into the OP. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
462
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:31:00 -
[2535] - Quote
ArcticPrism wrote:Harvey James wrote:@ RISE
not that you have responded for many pages but hey...
CS have 3% to links as one of there CS skill bonus .. did you think perhaps you could do the same with HACS ..so a 4% resistance bonus .. i think this would certainly help reinforce the resilience identity of HAC's that you are aiming for.and just reduce the base T2 resists on all T2 hulls, yes they are specialist but it doesn't mean all T2 hulls should have high base resistance. so for example
SACRILEGE
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile velocity (was capacitor recharge time) 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire 4% to all Armor Resistances
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M, 6L(+1); 1 turrets(-3), 4 launchers (-1) Fittings: 1100 PWG(+70), 420 CPU(+20) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1100(-293) / 2250(+162) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1700(+75) / 255s (-80s) / 6.66s (+1.8) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+17) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+20km) / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 22 Radar(+7) Signature radius: 135(-5) I don't understand your suggestion. Do you want CCP to nerf every t2 ship in the game to make HAC better? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong. Could you clarify? Also you have a 5% bonus to Heavy Assault. Heavy assault what?
LOL i must have cut the damage part off .. do'h ... well the point being is that T2 shouldn't have high resists as a basic default ... for instance should a Pilgrim have the same resists as a Zealot??? .. no because its an e-war ship not a combat ship designed for resilience ... so yes reduce the resists of all T2 hulls to a lower T2 resist default. Then add the resist to HAC skill so they will have more noticeable resilience. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
ArcticPrism
Bondage Goat Zombie Strictly Unprofessional
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:54:00 -
[2536] - Quote
Wouldn't just increasing the base HP of HACS be a better solution? Something more than +100 shield or armor here and there. I don't think nerfing every t2 ship class in the game is a good idea. That would take a lot of time to do and then there would be testing to see the performance of said ships afterwards. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
238
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:25:00 -
[2537] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
Vaga now has 5 effective bonuses.
So do the deimos and sac (they had cap bonuses rolled into the hull). Hmm funny you should mention that 1.7cap/s increase for the Vaga , 1.8cap/s for sac. so that makes 6 effective bonuses for the Vaga if you want to include cap changes. Personally not that interested in the cap changes. More worried about the ship choice if I wan't to fly a kitey Hac, Currently the choices are Vaga, Vaga , Vaga or Vaga. But let's take a step back and consider what ccp are trying to achieve here. The aim of the game is not to give an equal number of buffs to each hull. It's not even to make each one equally desirable in any given scenario. The purpose is to ensure that each one has some kind of role that will make it attractive to a pilot or FC. To judge whether the changes are a success, we need only answer that question.
I think on the whole, they are a success. They fill some gaps that other ships can't and none of them are useless. That's enough right? A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
mrs Dibbler
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 20:15:00 -
[2538] - Quote
Vagabond is a total disaster. An mwd flying gunboat with shield boost and only FOUR midslots, only one missile launcher, only 25 m3 dronebay, a low slot AND a rig less than the fleet stabber, for me this ship alone represents a complete degradation of the entire concept of a HAC. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 20:47:00 -
[2539] - Quote
mrs Dibbler wrote:Vagabond is a total disaster. An mwd flying gunboat with shield boost and only FOUR midslots, only one missile launcher, only 25 m3 dronebay, a low slot AND a rig less than the fleet stabber, for me this ship alone represents a complete degradation of the entire concept of a HAC.
Well done missing the t2 shield resistances on the vaga....
Bias analysis is best analysis...
|
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
80
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:51:00 -
[2540] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:Quote:The Deimos is the beast we've made it out to be. You can't kill it with a kiting ship. You most certainly can, and it's being done every morning on the test server. Go try it.
Killing a Deimos with an Ardestia (sp) or Vindicator is not my idea of balance.
You won't kill it with a single ship CS down without massive Neuting. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:53:00 -
[2541] - Quote
Phaade wrote:
Killing a Deimos with an Ardestia (sp) or Vindicator is not my idea of balance.
You won't kill it with a single ship CS down without massive Neuting.
And to be fair, a vindi can't even really break it's tank anyway
|
Sira Fiinikkusu
THE AESIR. Ragnarok.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 23:39:00 -
[2542] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Phaade wrote:
Killing a Deimos with an Ardestia (sp) or Vindicator is not my idea of balance.
You won't kill it with a single ship CS down without massive Neuting.
And to be fair, a vindi can't even really break it's tank anyway yes because lets ignore the T2 resists that deimos gets |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 00:00:00 -
[2543] - Quote
Sira Fiinikkusu wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Phaade wrote:
Killing a Deimos with an Ardestia (sp) or Vindicator is not my idea of balance.
You won't kill it with a single ship CS down without massive Neuting.
And to be fair, a vindi can't even really break it's tank anyway yes because lets ignore the T2 resists that deimos gets
Pretty sure that's exactly what I was not forgetting....
|
Tusker Crazinski
War Tech Manufacturing Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 00:26:00 -
[2544] - Quote
Glad to see the Munin getting a velocity buff, I which I could have used it with the dual nuets though.
But what's up with the vagabond speed nerf and tank buff? and really what's with speed nerfs to minmatar ships in general?
Stabber lost it's velocity mod Vigile lost it's velocity mod the cane lost a high and gained a low, I'm under the impression nano ships don't work so well without dual nuets. So this pretty much makes it an armor tanker.
I love minmatar ships specifically because they're effectiveness is solely dependent on their maneuverability.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
244
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 00:29:00 -
[2545] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:Glad to see the Munin getting a velocity buff, I which I could have used it with the dual nuets though.
But what's up with the vagabond speed nerf and tank buff? and really what's with speed nerfs to minmatar ships in general?
Stabber lost it's velocity mod Vigile lost it's velocity mod the cane lost a high and gained a low, I'm under the impression nano ships don't work so well without dual nuets. So this pretty much makes it an armor tanker.
I love minmatar ships specifically because they're effectiveness is solely dependent on their maneuverability.
Does no-one fly the ships before posting on here?
The Vagabond didn't get a speed nerf. For anyone with heavy assault cruisers of 4 or less it got a speed buff. If you have HAC 5 it's essentially the same.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Tusker Crazinski
War Tech Manufacturing Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 00:53:00 -
[2546] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:Glad to see the Munin getting a velocity buff, I which I could have used it with the dual nuets though.
But what's up with the vagabond speed nerf and tank buff? and really what's with speed nerfs to minmatar ships in general?
Stabber lost it's velocity mod Vigile lost it's velocity mod the cane lost a high and gained a low, I'm under the impression nano ships don't work so well without dual nuets. So this pretty much makes it an armor tanker.
I love minmatar ships specifically because they're effectiveness is solely dependent on their maneuverability.
Does no-one fly the ships before posting on here? The Vagabond didn't get a speed nerf. For anyone with heavy assault cruisers of 4 or less it got a speed buff. If you have HAC 5 it's essentially the same.
Actually I'm teching up for T2 cruisers right now, and no nav 5 = 125% to base speed plus
239 X nav 5 1.25 = 298 X vags 1.25x speed bonus = 373.4 |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 01:18:00 -
[2547] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
Actually I'm teching up for T2 cruisers right now, and no nav 5 = 125% to base speed
239 X nav 5 1.25 = 298 X vags 1.25x speed bonus = 373.4
Pre 1.1 vaga with lvl 5 nav and hac 5 is 373.4 m/s as you stated. Post 1.1 vaga with same skills is 368.75 m/s
So you lost 4.6875 m/s base speed.... A big "boo hoo" from me to you on that one
|
Violet Winters
Angelic Eclipse.
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 02:07:00 -
[2548] - Quote
Strange Shadow wrote:How about change -50% MWD sig role bonus for +100% Afterburner speed bonus?
So, make all Hacs for blob ware fare, and completely ignore small-scale stuff? yep sounds good. CEO - Anglic Eclipse.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
432
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 02:44:00 -
[2549] - Quote
Violet Winters wrote:Strange Shadow wrote:How about change -50% MWD sig role bonus for +100% Afterburner speed bonus?
So, make all Hacs for blob ware fare, and completely ignore small-scale stuff? yep sounds good.
Well the fact is that 50% MWD bonus doesn't bring the sig down below large turrets, unlike AFs that made them pretty beast.
So aside from being un-crearative its a waste of a role bonus. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 03:30:00 -
[2550] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Violet Winters wrote:Strange Shadow wrote:How about change -50% MWD sig role bonus for +100% Afterburner speed bonus?
So, make all Hacs for blob ware fare, and completely ignore small-scale stuff? yep sounds good. Well the fact is that 50% MWD bonus doesn't bring the sig down below large turrets, unlike AFs that made them pretty beast. So aside from being un-crearative its a waste of a role bonus.
Someone needs to review the Eve Turret Tracking Formula. For reference the bit you want to look for is where weapon signature resolution and target signature resolution are in a ratio to determine how tracking is affected.
So a 50% radius reduction means you're 50% harder to track. |
|
Aus Unit727
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 06:18:00 -
[2551] - Quote
If your going to give the deimos and vagabond active tank skill please please increase there cargo bay is it's actually viable. right now with ammo and what not I can only fit 7 navy 800's it's not enough. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:11:00 -
[2552] - Quote
Aus Unit727 wrote:If your going to give the deimos and vagabond active tank skill please please increase there cargo bay is it's actually viable. right now with ammo and what not I can only fit 7 navy 800's it's not enough.
Or run an AAR?
They just buffed your local rep power so you should need to run your reps less and you have better cap and cap regen meaning less need for cap boosters in general. It's not like they switched tank types on you or something. You could always active tank a Deimos and you can still buffer or resist fit it, it's active tank just got better.
If every ship gave you everything you wanted there wouldn't be any trade-offs. |
Wu1f
T.R.I.A.D
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:26:00 -
[2553] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
Your not going to kite with hams in a sac, and without webs on your primary the dps is terrible. M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Also in case anyone cares, try flying a kiting ship when something like that is going to exist http://i.imgur.com/omX9rre.png (no cap/sensor strenght changes yet; no it will have even better cap). Thats 98k ehp after the booster is dry (4.25*9*2117 + 17754 = 98729.25). Couple of things: It requires THREE fitting implants, your 98k ehp assumes that it won't get alpha'd of the field with that **** poor 17k EHP, and I could fit up a Cynabal that would do the job better for probably the same cost or less. Yes, 17k ehp (more then a omen or a stabber) is totally going to get alphaed, if you dont like the implants, drop a low or a rigslot. And no a cynabal can never match that, dont talk out of your ass.
i dont think you know how to fit an omen or a stabber then....infact all you do is talk angry crap even to the devs when fozzie called you out on the range bonus.
Get a Sac in close with HAMs, kiting zealots, more range on the cerb, better bonus for the ishtar, less tank on my deimos......wait what?!? ok back up i admit 4 mids is good-ish but i can make do with 3 i just need to stay alive longer then 20 seconds. eagles are just lols
i must admit im looking forward to this :)
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
180
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:37:00 -
[2554] - Quote
Wu1f wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
Your not going to kite with hams in a sac, and without webs on your primary the dps is terrible. M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Also in case anyone cares, try flying a kiting ship when something like that is going to exist http://i.imgur.com/omX9rre.png (no cap/sensor strenght changes yet; no it will have even better cap). Thats 98k ehp after the booster is dry (4.25*9*2117 + 17754 = 98729.25). Couple of things: It requires THREE fitting implants, your 98k ehp assumes that it won't get alpha'd of the field with that **** poor 17k EHP, and I could fit up a Cynabal that would do the job better for probably the same cost or less. Yes, 17k ehp (more then a omen or a stabber) is totally going to get alphaed, if you dont like the implants, drop a low or a rigslot. And no a cynabal can never match that, dont talk out of your ass. i dont think you know how to fit an omen or a stabber then....infact all you do is talk angry crap even to the devs when fozzie called you out on the range bonus. Get a Sac in close with HAMs, kiting zealots, more range on the cerb, better bonus for the ishtar, less tank on my deimos......wait what?!? ok back up i admit 4 mids is good-ish but i can make do with 3 i just need to stay alive longer then 20 seconds. eagles are just lols i must admit im looking forward to this :)
Don't worry, that vagafit is wrong to start with :) Do it right, fit an AB, not an invuln, and two gyros/two TEs so your tracking isn't straight out of hades. "When we're done with links you won't recognize them" - CCP Fozzie |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
247
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 12:11:00 -
[2555] - Quote
Aus Unit727 wrote:If your going to give the deimos and vagabond active tank skill please please increase there cargo bay is it's actually viable. right now with ammo and what not I can only fit 7 navy 800's it's not enough.
It's more than enough. Go and fly one, then comment.
The deimos has an awesome tank (for an armour ship). You will run out of ammo before you run out of cap boosters if you fly it efficiently.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
ComDoggy
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:37:00 -
[2556] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Tusker Crazinski wrote:Glad to see the Munin getting a velocity buff, I which I could have used it with the dual nuets though.
But what's up with the vagabond speed nerf and tank buff? and really what's with speed nerfs to minmatar ships in general?
Stabber lost it's velocity mod Vigile lost it's velocity mod the cane lost a high and gained a low, I'm under the impression nano ships don't work so well without dual nuets. So this pretty much makes it an armor tanker.
I love minmatar ships specifically because they're effectiveness is solely dependent on their maneuverability.
Does no-one fly the ships before posting on here? The Vagabond didn't get a speed nerf. For anyone with heavy assault cruisers of 4 or less it got a speed buff. If you have HAC 5 it's essentially the same.
Its the Cruiser skill that gave the bonus to speed. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:42:00 -
[2557] - Quote
these forums still suck. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:42:00 -
[2558] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Onictus wrote:Violet Winters wrote:Strange Shadow wrote:How about change -50% MWD sig role bonus for +100% Afterburner speed bonus?
So, make all Hacs for blob ware fare, and completely ignore small-scale stuff? yep sounds good. Well the fact is that 50% MWD bonus doesn't bring the sig down below large turrets, unlike AFs that made them pretty beast. So aside from being un-crearative its a waste of a role bonus. Someone needs to review the Eve Turret Tracking Formula. For reference the bit you want to look for is where weapon signature resolution and target signature resolution are in a ratio to determine how tracking is affected. So a 50% radius reduction means you're 50% harder to track.
First you should check some numbers.
The sig of a large turret is 400m the sig of a Sac under MWD is 475, means that factor is ADDING to the chance to hit. Is it easier to hit than a sac in TQ currently.
No?
That formula can't be correct as written. x/infinity = 0 and infinity/x = infinity. They way that formula is written there there turret sig over target sig having a bigger signature would HURT your shot.
Example a 400m (large) turret against a 1600m target, stationary in optimal for that area of the equation you would have (0.5)^.0625 = 0.03125 For a 400m target you would have (0.5)^1^2 =0.5 You would be more likely to hit the SMALLER target which I don't think that is the intent.
Call me crazy.
Eitherway, the sig isn't really enough to have the same effect that it has on AFs because a 100m frigate can usually outrange small weapons and nothing else can easily hit that., with the HAC medium weapons are no issue due to sig, and large turrets aren't going to have THAT hard of a time because all you have to save you from getting blasted is speed, the signature is still larger than the turrets that it has to worry about....i.e. that tracking bonused neutron Talos. |
Jeffrey Donovan
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:30:00 -
[2559] - Quote
Phaade was right the whole idead of that post of mine is that the cerbus should be pigeon hole into one dmg give 10%knetic or 7.5% knetic and only %5 to all others i dont mind!!
btw is it just me or does https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Mournful%20Conciousness
look alittle like keanu reeves
HMM!!! |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:23:00 -
[2560] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Mr Doctor wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
Vaga now has 5 effective bonuses.
So do the deimos and sac (they had cap bonuses rolled into the hull). Since cap bonus was HAC wide the Sac really lost its cap bonus. It still has a very significant edge in cap/s compared to all other hacs (even the deimos at 6.2/s) Claiming that it does not have a cap advantage is simply wrong.
DERP |
|
Space Bacon
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Strictly Unprofessional
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:49:00 -
[2561] - Quote
Vaga 5th mid... how can you call something "specialized" when T1 ships are better than it in it's "specialized" role... Seriously?
Ishtar bonuses: You are a genius take one bonus and divide it into two! :| |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:08:00 -
[2562] - Quote
Wu1f wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
Your not going to kite with hams in a sac, and without webs on your primary the dps is terrible. M1k3y Koontz wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Also in case anyone cares, try flying a kiting ship when something like that is going to exist http://i.imgur.com/omX9rre.png (no cap/sensor strenght changes yet; no it will have even better cap). Thats 98k ehp after the booster is dry (4.25*9*2117 + 17754 = 98729.25). Couple of things: It requires THREE fitting implants, your 98k ehp assumes that it won't get alpha'd of the field with that **** poor 17k EHP, and I could fit up a Cynabal that would do the job better for probably the same cost or less. Yes, 17k ehp (more then a omen or a stabber) is totally going to get alphaed, if you dont like the implants, drop a low or a rigslot. And no a cynabal can never match that, dont talk out of your ass. i dont think you know how to fit an omen or a stabber then....infact all you do is talk angry crap even to the devs when fozzie called you out on the range bonus. Get a Sac in close with HAMs, kiting zealots, more range on the cerb, better bonus for the ishtar, less tank on my deimos......wait what?!? ok back up i admit 4 mids is good-ish but i can make do with 3 i just need to stay alive longer then 20 seconds. eagles are just lols i must admit im looking forward to this :)
Did you actually say less tank on the Deimos??
Good God. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 18:29:00 -
[2563] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Aus Unit727 wrote:If your going to give the deimos and vagabond active tank skill please please increase there cargo bay is it's actually viable. right now with ammo and what not I can only fit 7 navy 800's it's not enough. It's more than enough. Go and fly one, then comment. The deimos has an awesome tank (for an armour ship). You will run out of ammo before you run out of cap boosters if you fly it efficiently.
Don't forget the global buff to armor repair modules! :D (and active armor tankers everywhere went "wait, we missed that bit!" and there was much rejoicing)
Onictus wrote: First you should check some numbers.
The sig of a large turret is 400m the sig of a Sac under MWD is 475, means that factor is ADDING to the chance to hit. Is it easier to hit than a sac in TQ currently.
No?
That formula can't be correct as written. x/infinity = 0 and infinity/x = infinity. They way that formula is written there there turret sig over target sig having a bigger signature would HURT your shot.
Example a 400m (large) turret against a 1600m target, stationary in optimal for that area of the equation you would have (0.5)^.0625 = 0.03125 For a 400m target you would have (0.5)^1^2 =0.5 You would be more likely to hit the SMALLER target which I don't think that is the intent.
Call me crazy.
Eitherway, the sig isn't really enough to have the same effect that it has on AFs because a 100m frigate can usually outrange small weapons and nothing else can easily hit that., with the HAC medium weapons are no issue due to sig, and large turrets aren't going to have THAT hard of a time because all you have to save you from getting blasted is speed, the signature is still larger than the turrets that it has to worry about....i.e. that tracking bonused neutron Talos.
Okay, I am going to step through this to try to explain why this is a 50% tank buff using a Tech 1 10MN Micro Warpdrive.
First off, yes, any increase in signature radius increases your chances to be hit. However any increase in speed decreases these chances (the first bit of the formula) by increasing your traversal on the target.
A Tech1 Microwarpdrive increases your velocity by 500% and also increases your Signature Radius by 500%. This means that overall you don't actually gain much in terms of tank but you do gain a little at very close ranges.
If you cut the signature increase in half then suddenly you have quite a good ratio of sig increase to traversal with the advantage that you can still kite and maintain range on your opponent quite effectively.
If you use a Faction or Deadspace MWD that already has a bonus to its MWD sig bloom or max speed increase then you're looking at an even more effective trade-off.
As to your mathematical concerns, there are no infinities anywhere in that equation because most programming math libraries will evaluate 0/X as 0, not infinity.
Second, the whole formula in parentheses is the exponent of 0.5, meaning a smaller target is, in-fact, harder to hit than a bigger one, however if the transversal is zero the entire thing comes out to x^0 = 1 anyway so your example is moot.
Specifically addressing your Talos related concerns... One, that's not how the tracking formula works, two, yes frigates are always going to be better at speed tanking larger guns, they're smaller and faster than other ships. Speed-tanking HACs have already proven to be hilariously effective in small fleets though and this will be even more effective against your hypothetical Talos because they'll be able to out-run him and keep range on his guns more effectively than if they were AB fit against a MWD fit Talos with webs.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 19:13:00 -
[2564] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Aus Unit727 wrote:If your going to give the deimos and vagabond active tank skill please please increase there cargo bay is it's actually viable. right now with ammo and what not I can only fit 7 navy 800's it's not enough. It's more than enough. Go and fly one, then comment. The deimos has an awesome tank (for an armour ship). You will run out of ammo before you run out of cap boosters if you fly it efficiently. Don't forget the global buff to armor repair modules! :D (and active armor tankers everywhere went "wait, we missed that bit!" and there was much rejoicing) Onictus wrote: First you should check some numbers.
The sig of a large turret is 400m the sig of a Sac under MWD is 475, means that factor is ADDING to the chance to hit. Is it easier to hit than a sac in TQ currently.
No?
That formula can't be correct as written. x/infinity = 0 and infinity/x = infinity. They way that formula is written there there turret sig over target sig having a bigger signature would HURT your shot.
Example a 400m (large) turret against a 1600m target, stationary in optimal for that area of the equation you would have (0.5)^.0625 = 0.03125 For a 400m target you would have (0.5)^1^2 =0.5 You would be more likely to hit the SMALLER target which I don't think that is the intent.
Call me crazy.
Eitherway, the sig isn't really enough to have the same effect that it has on AFs because a 100m frigate can usually outrange small weapons and nothing else can easily hit that., with the HAC medium weapons are no issue due to sig, and large turrets aren't going to have THAT hard of a time because all you have to save you from getting blasted is speed, the signature is still larger than the turrets that it has to worry about....i.e. that tracking bonused neutron Talos.
Okay, I am going to step through this to try to explain why this is a 50% tank buff using a Tech 1 10MN Micro Warpdrive. First off, yes, any increase in signature radius increases your chances to be hit. However any increase in speed decreases these chances (the first bit of the formula) by increasing your traversal on the target. A Tech1 Microwarpdrive increases your velocity by 500% and also increases your Signature Radius by 500%. This means that overall you don't actually gain much in terms of tank but you do gain a little at very close ranges. If you cut the signature increase in half then suddenly you have quite a good ratio of sig increase to traversal with the advantage that you can still kite and maintain range on your opponent quite effectively. If you use a Faction or Deadspace MWD that already has a bonus to its MWD sig bloom or max speed increase then you're looking at an even more effective trade-off. As to your mathematical concerns, there are no infinities anywhere in that equation because most programming math libraries will evaluate 0/X as 0, not infinity. Second, the whole formula in parentheses is the exponent of 0.5, meaning a smaller target is, in-fact, harder to hit than a bigger one, however if the transversal is zero the entire thing comes out to x^0 = 1 anyway so your example is moot. Specifically addressing your Talos related concerns... One, that's not how the tracking formula works, two, yes frigates are always going to be better at speed tanking larger guns, they're smaller and faster than other ships. Speed-tanking HACs have already proven to be hilariously effective in small fleets though and this will be even more effective against your hypothetical Talos because they'll be able to out-run him and keep range on his guns more effectively than if they were AB fit against a MWD fit Talos with webs.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 19:14:00 -
[2565] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
As to your mathematical concerns, there are no infinities anywhere in that equation because most programming math libraries will evaluate 0/X as 0, not infinity.
Second, the whole formula in parentheses is the exponent of 0.5, meaning a smaller target is, in-fact, harder to hit than a bigger one, however if the transversal is zero the entire thing comes out to x^0 = 1 anyway so your example is moot.
Specifically addressing your Talos related concerns... One, that's not how the tracking formula works, two, yes frigates are always going to be better at speed tanking larger guns, they're smaller and faster than other ships. Speed-tanking HACs have already proven to be hilariously effective in small fleets though and this will be even more effective against your hypothetical Talos because they'll be able to out-run him and keep range on his guns more effectively than if they were AB fit against a MWD fit Talos with webs.
Actually I screwed up the math, the smaller expontial gets the closer to 1 you get with a rational exponent
Regardless, 50% off the sig doesn't make add much to the targeting solution, but it certainly doesn't hurt either your solution there are three parts to that equation and they only have to equal all but ensure a hit (depending on the resolution of random generator) essentially its a 20% decreased chance to hit....for that factor.
.....don't let your transferal come down, ever. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 19:51:00 -
[2566] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
As to your mathematical concerns, there are no infinities anywhere in that equation because most programming math libraries will evaluate 0/X as 0, not infinity.
Second, the whole formula in parentheses is the exponent of 0.5, meaning a smaller target is, in-fact, harder to hit than a bigger one, however if the transversal is zero the entire thing comes out to x^0 = 1 anyway so your example is moot.
Specifically addressing your Talos related concerns... One, that's not how the tracking formula works, two, yes frigates are always going to be better at speed tanking larger guns, they're smaller and faster than other ships. Speed-tanking HACs have already proven to be hilariously effective in small fleets though and this will be even more effective against your hypothetical Talos because they'll be able to out-run him and keep range on his guns more effectively than if they were AB fit against a MWD fit Talos with webs.
Actually I screwed up the math, the smaller expontial gets the closer to 1 you get with a rational exponent Regardless, 50% off the sig doesn't make add much to the targeting solution, but it certainly doesn't hurt either your solution there are three parts to that equation and they only have to equal all but ensure a hit (depending on the resolution of random generator) essentially its a 20% decreased chance to hit....for that factor. .....don't let your transferal come down, ever.
This can be, quite literally, a massive decrease in damage taken, it depends entirely on what weapons system you're being shot by.
It's not going to be better than an Afterburner in all situations but if it were that would be a bit over-powered. The point is that it opens up new play styles and fitting options for the ships.
Lets take a look at your Null Talos example. I've fitted mine out in EFT with the All 5s Profile, 2 Tracking Enhancers, and a Tracking Computer.
We're going to be rather cruel to our HAC buddy here and low-ball his speed and not give him any Command Boosts to his sig res. Speed with MWD is 1500 (for reference the current Deimos with all 5s does 1700 and after the changes will go even faster) and base sig radius is 140 which is a little above average for the new HACs.
The sig resolution on a Null Talos is 400 and with our setup tracking is .09937 (the TC has a script). Optimal at 15km, falloff out to 25km.
So lets look at DPS numbers with and without this bonus:
- Without the bonus orbiting at 20km gives out HAC 85.499% damage
- With sig reduction at 20km we take 58.073% damage.
This is 67.9% of the damage taken without the sig bonus.
Lets bring the orbit in to 15km, still outside scram range but with no falloff from the Talos
- Without the bonus at 15km we're taking 79.515% of the Talos's damage.
- With the bonus at 15km we're taking 39.978% of the Talos's damage.
This is a 50% decrease in damage from the Talos orbiting at it's optimal.
And today's lesson is to check your numbers before making assumptions. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 14:49:00 -
[2567] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: This is a 50% decrease in damage from the Talos orbiting at it's optimal.
And today's lesson is to check your numbers before making assumptions.
You see that is just the thing.
I wasn't making assumtions. I took, the Sac, Cerb, Vaga, and Diemost to SiSi....and attacked everything that wasn't pegged down.....with a variety of fits,
Then took a variety of battlecruisers, Drake, Myrm, Brutix, Cyclone, and Bringer and went hunting HACs.
Your kiting Diemost isn't fast enough to speed tank a nano-talos, I smashed a few of them because they set orbit, so I just burned the other direction, they are in structure and/or repping furiously two cycles later. The Sac has the same issue complete with the fact that a HAM Sac basically can't kite, they have to run to close to the edge of point range unbonused (fleets were bugged so I couldn't see with proper links running) Oh and a rail diemost has a hard time hitting ANYTHING that can get close to it. I may hit but its pretty weak.....otherwise hanging out at 20km with medium blasters is kind lol, you'll get a couple hits in but they are rarely for any real damage.
Take something that can actually tank like a myrm/cyclone (remember local reppers got buffed too) I had a sac that first tried to brawl me...and got ruined....then tried to kite me and go ruined worse. Brawl a Brutix with a Diemost and watch what happens, that applies dual rep, buffer armor, AND shield nano....and that is shooting into strong resists for the BC.
The Cerb actually can kite, the eagle ....lol eagle.
Vaga is a little slower but works well as a heavy tackle, and a stupidly fast heavy tackle.....till you have to reload (really active shields with 4 mids da fuq)
Sac's had HUGE issues with Tornados, it was basically plink at them and run away, they either have to bail or get blown up. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
255
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 15:17:00 -
[2568] - Quote
so what you're saying is that the HACs are good, but not OP. I'd say that makes them just about right.
I found them to be much more effective against battleships than against battle cruisers. I think that's about right.
battleships beat BC BC beats HAC HAC beats battleship
rock, paper, scissors.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1173
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 15:32:00 -
[2569] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: battleships beat BC BC beats HAC HAC beats battleship
rock, paper, scissors.
That's a reasonable statement. Get a +1 *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 17:52:00 -
[2570] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote: This is a 50% decrease in damage from the Talos orbiting at it's optimal.
And today's lesson is to check your numbers before making assumptions.
You see that is just the thing. I wasn't making assumtions. I took, the Sac, Cerb, Vaga, and Diemost to SiSi....and attacked everything that wasn't pegged down.....with a variety of fits, Then took a variety of battlecruisers, Drake, Myrm, Brutix, Cyclone, and Bringer and went hunting HACs. Your kiting Diemost isn't fast enough to speed tank a nano-talos, I smashed a few of them because they set orbit, so I just burned the other direction, they are in structure and/or repping furiously two cycles later. The Sac has the same issue complete with the fact that a HAM Sac basically can't kite, they have to run to close to the edge of point range unbonused (fleets were bugged so I couldn't see with proper links running) Oh and a rail diemost has a hard time hitting ANYTHING that can get close to it. I may hit but its pretty weak.....otherwise hanging out at 20km with medium blasters is kind lol, you'll get a couple hits in but they are rarely for any real damage. Take something that can actually tank like a myrm/cyclone (remember local reppers got buffed too) I had a sac that first tried to brawl me...and got ruined....then tried to kite me and go ruined worse. Brawl a Brutix with a Diemost and watch what happens, that applies dual rep, buffer armor, AND shield nano....and that is shooting into strong resists for the BC. The Cerb actually can kite, the eagle ....lol eagle. Vaga is a little slower but works well as a heavy tackle, and a stupidly fast heavy tackle.....till you have to reload (really active shields with 4 mids da fuq) Sac's had HUGE issues with Tornados, it was basically plink at them and run away, they either have to bail or get blown up.
So, from the sound of things:
- Getting in close with a brawling fit ship in a kiting/range control ship is still a bad idea. Working as intended
- Long range guns have tracking issues up close, as always. Working as intended
- Short-range guns are bad at long range engagements. Working as intended
- Trying to play Heavy Tackle with a local-active tank and no support isn't really a good idea with an ASB. Working as intended
From the sound of it you could still beat a lot of things that were strong against your ship inherently if they screwed up and had some things that you were inherently strong against as well. Sound like good balance to me.
PS. For those Tornadoes try getting in close if they're Arty fit or running at medium-short range if they're auto-fit. Large guns as a whole don't track well and the 50% MWD sig bonus only really shows its strength closer in on a ship like that. If they're arty-fit especially you have ~15 seconds between cycles meaning you can time your MWD cycles to their guns and turn it off between cycles to land harder hits. (though I somehow doubt you were having much trouble with an Arty-Tornado in a MWD fit Sac) |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 18:16:00 -
[2571] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: (though I somehow doubt you were having much trouble with an Arty-Tornado in a MWD fit Sac)
I can tell you from experience that you certainly wouldn't want to fly straight down its barrels. You'll want to spiral in unless you can get there within 3 cycles of his guns
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 20:35:00 -
[2572] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:so what you're saying is that the HACs are good, but not OP. I'd say that makes them just about right.
I found them to be much more effective against battleships than against battle cruisers. I think that's about right.
battleships beat BC BC beats HAC HAC beats battleship
rock, paper, scissors.
I'm saying HAC does very little I can't do for half price with a battlecruiser. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 20:37:00 -
[2573] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Onictus wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote: This is a 50% decrease in damage from the Talos orbiting at it's optimal.
And today's lesson is to check your numbers before making assumptions.
You see that is just the thing. I wasn't making assumtions. I took, the Sac, Cerb, Vaga, and Diemost to SiSi....and attacked everything that wasn't pegged down.....with a variety of fits, Then took a variety of battlecruisers, Drake, Myrm, Brutix, Cyclone, and Bringer and went hunting HACs. Your kiting Diemost isn't fast enough to speed tank a nano-talos, I smashed a few of them because they set orbit, so I just burned the other direction, they are in structure and/or repping furiously two cycles later. The Sac has the same issue complete with the fact that a HAM Sac basically can't kite, they have to run to close to the edge of point range unbonused (fleets were bugged so I couldn't see with proper links running) Oh and a rail diemost has a hard time hitting ANYTHING that can get close to it. I may hit but its pretty weak.....otherwise hanging out at 20km with medium blasters is kind lol, you'll get a couple hits in but they are rarely for any real damage. Take something that can actually tank like a myrm/cyclone (remember local reppers got buffed too) I had a sac that first tried to brawl me...and got ruined....then tried to kite me and go ruined worse. Brawl a Brutix with a Diemost and watch what happens, that applies dual rep, buffer armor, AND shield nano....and that is shooting into strong resists for the BC. The Cerb actually can kite, the eagle ....lol eagle. Vaga is a little slower but works well as a heavy tackle, and a stupidly fast heavy tackle.....till you have to reload (really active shields with 4 mids da fuq) Sac's had HUGE issues with Tornados, it was basically plink at them and run away, they either have to bail or get blown up. So, from the sound of things:
- Getting in close with a brawling fit ship in a kiting/range control ship is still a bad idea. Working as intended
- Long range guns have tracking issues up close, as always. Working as intended
- Short-range guns are bad at long range engagements. Working as intended
- Trying to play Heavy Tackle with a local-active tank and no support isn't really a good idea with an ASB. Working as intended
None of which are the least bit applicable beyond a gate camp.
The HACs are still **** and are going to remain so. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 22:17:00 -
[2574] - Quote
Onictus wrote: None of which are the least bit applicable beyond a gate camp.
The HACs are still **** and are going to remain so.
I, my corp mates and the market in Jita respectfully disagree with you.
What is really going to be ***, if it ever sees the light of day is Ytterbium's abortion of a proposal for Marauders.
FIH...
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 15:30:00 -
[2575] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote: None of which are the least bit applicable beyond a gate camp.
The HACs are still **** and are going to remain so.
I, my corp mates and the market in Jita respectfully disagree with you. What is really going to be ***, if it ever sees the light of day is Ytterbium's abortion of a proposal for Marauders. FIH...
That seems to be how they took the attention from HACs! Hey guys, look over there! We're doing something CRAZY with marauders!
:P |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 15:41:00 -
[2576] - Quote
Alex Tutuola wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote: None of which are the least bit applicable beyond a gate camp.
The HACs are still **** and are going to remain so.
I, my corp mates and the market in Jita respectfully disagree with you. What is really going to be ***, if it ever sees the light of day is Ytterbium's abortion of a proposal for Marauders. FIH... That seems to be how they took the attention from HACs! Hey guys, look over there! We're doing something CRAZY with marauders! :P
Well, that'd ok. HACs aren't ghastly. They're pretty much fit for purpose. Rise and Fozzie seem to pretty much know what they're doing.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 16:12:00 -
[2577] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Well, that'd ok. HACs aren't ghastly. They're pretty much fit for purpose. Rise and Fozzie seem to pretty much know what they're doing.
I'm generally happy with the changes, though I'd have liked the eagle to get more speed than that, so it was actually viable in smaller group work. Still, the deimos is a viable brawler now, so there's that.
The matari HACs probably should have lost their utility slots as well, in favor of better tank or utility. The vagabond, especially, could've made good use of a fifth mid slot. If they wanted to make it a serious hybrid deal, a fifth mid for dual prop would have done well to give it a stronger brawling option.
I guess the muninn is fine, though gets very little out of its utility high. Optimal range bonus obviously isn't very helpful to autocannons. =P I should think we have more drive-by fleets to look forward to.
Might actually see the cerberus out roaming now, beyond the purview of an anti-recon. It even got better in its anti-recon role. The sensor strength increase means you can drop a sensor backup array for full damage from its recon hunting fit. And now falcons everywhere will fear to decloak while the cerberus is on field! (Maybe?)
I've never flown amarr T2 or dedicated drone boats, so no real opinion on those three, though. Seeing mixed reviews from others. Sort of curious if heavy drones will become viable with the ishtar's bonus for them.
Four days! <3 |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
266
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 19:42:00 -
[2578] - Quote
I have used that heavy drone bonus on the vexor navy - it's devastating, allowing ogres to track webbed frigates with ease.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Naomi Anthar
107
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 21:20:00 -
[2579] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I have used that heavy drone bonus on the vexor navy - it's devastating, allowing ogres to track webbed frigates with ease.
But guess WHAT? It's not enough for gallente. CCP hates gallente so much ...
Come on CCP give tristan 125 band with 375 bay ... maybe then gallente will be finally viable ... oh man they suck so much right ? Why algos can only send 2 med drones with 3 drones too ? Why so much hate for gallente , give it 50 bandwitch and bigger bay too , cuz at least 2 flights of drones should be there in first place, right guys ?
And what is the story with myrmidon ? Why only 100 band ? should be at least 125 ... and tbh he should field 10 fighters or fighter - bombers. Damn so much hate to gallente ... Always poor gallente. They never get what they want.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
266
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 21:39:00 -
[2580] - Quote
you don't always get what you want. but if you try sometimes, you might get what you need.
~ Mick Jagger, and many others A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
|
dR PaNouKLa
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 22:26:00 -
[2581] - Quote
wow... so much theory, how the vaga can orbit the talos and receive half of the damage... for full whole 6 ASB cycles... of course when there is a second pilot involved in the battle; that evil t1 tackler frig, or a rapier, or an arazu, or whatever with a scrambler... you die in a second.
"7.5% bonus to shield boost amount" like there is a possible fitting that you could use a NON anciliary shield booster...
It must be the most ridiculous bonus ever. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
434
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:54:00 -
[2582] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I have used that heavy drone bonus on the vexor navy - it's devastating, allowing ogres to track webbed frigates with ease.
They always could with a pair of Omnis. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:55:00 -
[2583] - Quote
dR PaNouKLa wrote:wow... so much theory, how the vaga can orbit the talos and receive half of the damage... for full whole 6 ASB cycles... of course when there is a second pilot involved in the battle; that evil t1 tackler frig, or a rapier, or an arazu, or whatever with a scrambler... you die in a second.
"7.5% bonus to shield boost amount" like there is a possible fitting that you could use a NON anciliary shield booster...
It must be the most ridiculous bonus ever.
It's not awesome, but it does keep the ship alive for another 30 seconds if you somehow manage to get caught.
Fear not though, vagabond sales will not dop - it's still an immensely fast range-keeper and tackler with no peer.
It was already streets ahead of the other HACs (except perhaps the ishtar) before the rebalance. Now that it can run the MWD forever, take 25% less damage while doing so and repair what little damage it will incur while freely disengaging, it's still going to be the 1st choice of lowsec pirates all over New Eden.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
272
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:59:00 -
[2584] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I have used that heavy drone bonus on the vexor navy - it's devastating, allowing ogres to track webbed frigates with ease.
They always could with a pair of Omnis.
Well now you can fit just one omni and have room for MWD, web, scram and cap booster / target painter / ASB / shield booster etc.
I have seen all of the above options used. The ishtar is now no longer either long or short range. It can be both in one fit.
Shame it lost a high slot though - that would have been useful for a NOS to help a local tank option...
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Asa Shahni
TunDraGon Suddenly Spaceships.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 07:32:00 -
[2585] - Quote
You removed the cap recharge bonus on the sac !
Im not good with numbers but i hope those change to the capacitor are the bonus added to the hull like you did with the speed bonus on the vaga.
Only thing i dont like about it though (even if that HML bonus is useless it doesnt replace anything so its fine) is the 6th high slot just put it in the lows ..the best you can fit on it is a small neut and tbh with that velocity bonus + javs + hard tackle you can deal with them without too much problems.
If you do that we will gain a bit of tank (ehp is low on that thing) or a bit of dps without nerfing the EHP/rep amount too much.
I do love the drone bay though thats is realy nice GJ \o/ |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 11:01:00 -
[2586] - Quote
Asa Shahni wrote:You removed the cap recharge bonus on the sac !
Im not good with numbers but i hope those changes to the capacitor are the bonus added to the hull like you did with the speed bonus on the vaga.
Only thing i dont like about it though (even if that HML bonus is useless it doesnt replace anything so its fine) is the 6th high slot just put it in the lows ..the best you can fit on it is a small neut and tbh with that velocity bonus + javs + hard tackle you can deal with small stuff without too much problems since the small neut will do next to nothing to other targets.
If you do that we will gain a bit of tank (ehp is low on that thing) or a bit of dps without nerfing the EHP/rep amount too much.
I do love the drone bay though and the new sig radius change is nice GJ \o/
Rest i dont fly and zealot stay the same so i have nothing to say on those.
I know you said you're not good with numbers but you can definitely get a medium-neut on the Sac, albeit with a bit of difficulty. Also the cap bonus was definitely rolled into the hull (all the HACs now have very good cap). |
Asa Shahni
TunDraGon Suddenly Spaceships.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 16:52:00 -
[2587] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Asa Shahni wrote:You removed the cap recharge bonus on the sac !
Im not good with numbers but i hope those changes to the capacitor are the bonus added to the hull like you did with the speed bonus on the vaga.
Only thing i dont like about it though (even if that HML bonus is useless it doesnt replace anything so its fine) is the 6th high slot just put it in the lows ..the best you can fit on it is a small neut and tbh with that velocity bonus + javs + hard tackle you can deal with small stuff without too much problems since the small neut will do next to nothing to other targets.
If you do that we will gain a bit of tank (ehp is low on that thing) or a bit of dps without nerfing the EHP/rep amount too much.
I do love the drone bay though and the new sig radius change is nice GJ \o/
Rest i dont fly and zealot stay the same so i have nothing to say on those. I know you said you're not good with numbers but you can definitely get a medium-neut on the Sac, albeit with a bit of difficulty. Also the cap bonus was definitely rolled into the hull (all the HACs now have very good cap).
Who said something about a medium neut ?
I tried before and tbh i dont want to an 800mm and genos instead of my slaves so medium neut is not an option and i still believe that they should move that high slot.
For the cap bonus im happy to hear that.
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
420
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 19:49:00 -
[2588] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. Please keep it civil people!
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others. ISD Ezwal Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Randy Wray
SUPER GOOSE SQUAD Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
55
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 22:45:00 -
[2589] - Quote
one thing thats mentioned way too little in this thread is how bad the muninn still is. Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @-áhttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 23:40:00 -
[2590] - Quote
Asa Shahni wrote:Who said something about a medium neut ?
And how not being good with nombers as something to do with fitting a ship ?
Im talking about a bonus transformed into stats which is very different than CPU and PW so do the math and show me your calculations when your finish im very interested to see how you do that ^^
I tried before and tbh i dont want an 800mm and genos instead of my slaves just to fit a module so medium neut is not an option and i still believe that they should move that high slot since nobody would nerf his tank that much to fit a meddium neut and the small is next to useless even more so with the new bonus so say just get rid of it.
For the cap bonus im happy to hear that.
Depends on how you're fitting it, if you're plate-tanking then sure you're going to be a bit tight on PG. Several people have mentioned medium-neut solo and small gang fits in this thread though. There was a very good debate over that high slot about 10 or so pages back (not an exact estimate) and about as many people seem glad to have the utility high as want it to be a low slot. |
|
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 12:44:00 -
[2591] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Still worried on the shield boost bonus on a ship with only 4 mids. It bee lines the ship on a basic single fit.
The sacriledge is much better.
The cerberus.. I still fear might become too powerful with speed. but the metagame might not let that happen.. we must wait and see on this case
Well.. I just hope when you reach the recons you do not forget to make the Huggin the same thing you made the bellicose... The presence of the bonus still doesn't force you to use the bonus, any more than it did in the first iteration. hth. That sort of logic really doesn't bode well, especially from an elected representative of the player base. Why put a bonus on a ship that does not in reality have the ability to use it? Or as is the case here, pigeon holes it to a less than ideal specific fit. As for the poor cousin, the munin, it actually comes out with less possible dps than it has now (albeit from an unbonused launcher). It is still unable to fit 720 arties with anything resembling a decent tank let alone the now bonused MWD.
It seems most of the "rebalancing" of hac's is simply going to just leave most of them right where they are now. Overpriced underpowered speciality ships
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
74
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 13:50:00 -
[2592] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:mynnna wrote: The presence of the bonus still doesn't force you to use the bonus, any more than it did in the first iteration. hth.
That sort of logic really doesn't bode well, especially from an elected representative of the player base. Why put a bonus on a ship that does not in reality have the ability to use it? Or as is the case here, pigeon holes it to a less than ideal specific fit. As for the poor cousin, the munin, it actually comes out with less possible dps than it has now (albeit from an unbonused launcher). It is still unable to fit 720 arties with anything resembling a decent tank let alone the now bonused MWD. It seems most of the "rebalancing" of hac's is simply going to just leave most of them right where they are now. Overpriced underpowered speciality ships
I don't think I would particularly advise you toward heavy artillery on the Muninn with a MWD fitted since your tracking is going to be abysmal. That said I'm looking at a test fit right now with 720s and not seeing any particular fitting issues, are you somehow trying to squeeze a 1600 plate on there or something?
Also the shield boosting bonus on the Vagabond opens up some interesting fits and it doesn't particularly lose anything since the speed bonus was rolled into the hull. Overall this can't really even be classified as a trade-off, the Vagabond just gains something more or less for free. Mynnna is entirely correct, no one is forcing you to make use of the bonus and it's only pigeon holing the ship if you let it.
If you'll recall T2 are supposed to be somewhat specialized ships and only about 20% better than T1, aka not cost effective but more pilot effective, so what you're saying is that these are working as intended (even if you don't like how they're working). |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 15:40:00 -
[2593] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Capt Canada wrote:mynnna wrote: The presence of the bonus still doesn't force you to use the bonus, any more than it did in the first iteration. hth.
That sort of logic really doesn't bode well, especially from an elected representative of the player base. Why put a bonus on a ship that does not in reality have the ability to use it? Or as is the case here, pigeon holes it to a less than ideal specific fit. As for the poor cousin, the munin, it actually comes out with less possible dps than it has now (albeit from an unbonused launcher). It is still unable to fit 720 arties with anything resembling a decent tank let alone the now bonused MWD. It seems most of the "rebalancing" of hac's is simply going to just leave most of them right where they are now. Overpriced underpowered speciality ships I don't think I would particularly advise you toward heavy artillery on the Muninn with a MWD fitted since your tracking is going to be abysmal. That said I'm looking at a test fit right now with 720s and not seeing any particular fitting issues, are you somehow trying to squeeze a 1600 plate on there or something? Also the shield boosting bonus on the Vagabond opens up some interesting fits and it doesn't particularly lose anything since the speed bonus was rolled into the hull. Overall this can't really even be classified as a trade-off, the Vagabond just gains something more or less for free. Mynnna is entirely correct, no one is forcing you to make use of the bonus and it's only pigeon holing the ship if you let it. If you'll recall T2 are supposed to be somewhat specialized ships and only about 20% better than T1, aka not cost effective but more pilot effective, so what you're saying is that these are working as intended (even if you don't like how they're working). I would look to see what implants are in the clone you are fitting an arty munin with.. All 5's, No implants 5 X 720 1 X 800T2 plate, 1 X 10mn Experimental MWD = 1496 PG out of an available 1450. This till leaves 3 empty mids, 4 empty lows. With an AB you can fit 720's but then like the vaga it is all choice as to whether you want to use the bonuses being applied in the update.. I was looking to see if the changes would mean the ship could effectively be used as a sniper. Given the Munin has and is keeping a 10% optimal range bonus, is getting +25k to lock range (now 80k), slightly more cap and speed, the idea it might be a viable sniper was worth looking into. The answer is still a resounding NO.
Ahh, actually CCP is pigeon holing it with the bonus. The user has the option to use it or not. Value for isk with most HACS is still not there.
Somewhat specialised is very much an understatement. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
75
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 15:56:00 -
[2594] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:I would look to see what implants are in the clone you are fitting an arty munin with.. All 5's, No implants 5 X 720 1 X 800T2 plate, 1 X 10mn Experimental MWD = 1496 PG out of an available 1450. This till leaves 3 empty mids, 4 empty lows. With an AB you can fit 720's but then like the vaga it is all choice as to whether you want to use the bonuses being applied in the update.. I was looking to see if the changes would mean the ship could effectively be used as a sniper. Given the Munin has and is keeping a 10% optimal range bonus, is getting +25k to lock range (now 80k), slightly more cap and speed, the idea it might be a viable sniper was worth looking into. The answer is still a resounding NO.
Ahh, actually CCP is pigeon holing it with the bonus. The user has the option to use it or not. Value for isk with most HACS is still not there.
Somewhat specialised is very much an understatement.
Then use a fitting rig for Powergrid to get that extra buffer, otherwise go for a resist based tank.
These are powerful ships, the Muninn and Vagabond have both been used to great effect before the patch and will likely continue to be used post-patch since they still compare favorably to other HACs.
As for your sniper, I think it's probably worth looking into but you're going to have to make trade-offs between HP, speed, and fittings. |
Jan'z Kolna
Exanimo Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 16:47:00 -
[2595] - Quote
so ccp goes ahead with those awful changes
what irks me the most is tanking bonuses - sacri , deimos, eagle vaga
why aren't they all like ishtar or muninn , all bonuses to weapons? all bonuses always useful
now deimos in ahac gang - lose a bonus vagabond without shield booster ? - lose a bonus wanna armour tank your eagle? oh, be serious
'nobody forces you to use a bonus' by that kind of logic, laser vagabonds should be ubiquitous ... or shield tanked sacrileges .. or any ship with any fit
what is a bonus for if it is to be ignored?
and all ahacs still outdpsed , or outrun , or both , by those stupid ABCs
ABCs are real ahacs , in all but name |
Capt Canada
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 00:32:00 -
[2596] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Capt Canada wrote:I would look to see what implants are in the clone you are fitting an arty munin with.. All 5's, No implants 5 X 720 1 X 800T2 plate, 1 X 10mn Experimental MWD = 1496 PG out of an available 1450. This till leaves 3 empty mids, 4 empty lows. With an AB you can fit 720's but then like the vaga it is all choice as to whether you want to use the bonuses being applied in the update.. I was looking to see if the changes would mean the ship could effectively be used as a sniper. Given the Munin has and is keeping a 10% optimal range bonus, is getting +25k to lock range (now 80k), slightly more cap and speed, the idea it might be a viable sniper was worth looking into. The answer is still a resounding NO.
Ahh, actually CCP is pigeon holing it with the bonus. The user has the option to use it or not. Value for isk with most HACS is still not there.
Somewhat specialised is very much an understatement. Then use a fitting rig for Powergrid to get that extra buffer, otherwise go for a resist based tank. These are powerful ships, the Muninn and Vagabond have both been used to great effect before the patch and will likely continue to be used post-patch since they still compare favorably to other HACs. As for your sniper, I think it's probably worth looking into but you're going to have to make trade-offs between HP, speed, and fittings. Thing is, I've been in munin sniper fleets, their biggest drawback was lack of mobility and ability to tank more than a rifter, post patch nothing is changing. As for the vaga, it is no more than an overpriced (albeit slightly better specced) stabber. IMO, the navy stabber at less than half the price is the better option. Personally, the idea that the vaga is now comparable to other hacs makes it less appealing, prior to the patch the vaga did have a niche place but now it is just like every other hac, not quite good enough to justify the extra isk needed unless you don't worry about spending it. Maybe part of the problem is, T1 cruisers work very well in their given roles and are cheap, HAC's do the same job just a little bit better but is it enough to justify the huge price differences.. For me personally, probably not. As for the fitting trade off's with the munin, I'll buy a cane, put the same fit on it, have 3 times the EHP and save myself a bundle of isk.
With prices going up the way they are tech fleets are likely to become a thing of the past for all but a few
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
79
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 01:29:00 -
[2597] - Quote
Jan'z Kolna wrote:so ccp goes ahead with those awful changes
what irks me the most is tanking bonuses - sacri , deimos, eagle vaga
why aren't they all like ishtar or muninn , all bonuses to weapons? all bonuses always useful
now deimos in ahac gang - lose a bonus vagabond without shield booster ? - lose a bonus wanna armour tank your eagle? oh, be serious
'nobody forces you to use a bonus' by that kind of logic, laser vagabonds should be ubiquitous ... or shield tanked sacrileges .. or any ship with any fit
what is a bonus for if it is to be ignored?
and all hacs still outdpsed , or outrun , or both , by those stupid ABCs
ABCs are real hacs , in all but name
Just no. Out-DPS'd maybe, but that's sort of their thing. They don't fit as much tank as a HAC though, and they don't out-run them either.
Lets take a look at this second claim specifically:
- Naga: 195 m/s base speed
- Oracle: 200 m/s base speed
- Talos: 220 m/s base speed
- Tornado: 225 m/s base speed
Comparing directly by race we have:
- Eagle: 180 m/s base and Cerberus 220 m/s
- Sacrilege: 200m/s and Zealot: 210 m/s
- Ishtar: 195 m/s and Deimos: 230m/s
- Muninn: 210 m/s and Vagabond: 295 m/s
So we have a total of three cases where a HAC is actually slower than its Attack Battlecruiser counterpart. All three of these are sniper setups, the Ishtar with Sentry drones and the Muninn and Eagle with their respective long range weapon systems. Also these ships all tank better than Attack Battlecruisers and have much lower signature radius, allowing them to speed tank where as if the Attack Battlecruisers tried this they'd end up as an expanding cloud of vapor rather quickly. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
79
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 01:52:00 -
[2598] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:Thing is, I've been in munin sniper fleets, their biggest drawback was lack of mobility and ability to tank more than a rifter, post patch nothing is changing. As for the vaga, it is no more than an overpriced (albeit slightly better specced) stabber. IMO, the navy stabber at less than half the price is the better option. Personally, the idea that the vaga is now comparable to other hacs makes it less appealing, prior to the patch the vaga did have a niche place but now it is just like every other hac, not quite good enough to justify the extra isk needed unless you don't worry about spending it. Maybe part of the problem is, T1 cruisers work very well in their given roles and are cheap, HAC's do the same job just a little bit better but is it enough to justify the huge price differences.. For me personally, probably not. As for the fitting trade off's with the munin, I'll buy a cane, put the same fit on it, have 3 times the EHP and save myself a bundle of isk.
With prices going up the way they are tech fleets are likely to become a thing of the past for all but a few
The question is more whether or not a HAC gang meeting a T1 Cruiser gang is going to win or not. Generally I'd say the HACs are going to win every time assuming most other things being equal.
As for the cost, HAC prices are actually going down.
The Muninn is about as expensive as it was a year ago.
The Vagabond is actually cheaper. (type 360 into and hit Show)
If they continue to hold steady then their real cost vs average income will actually go down and they'll become more viable. Since T2 production prices are overall likely to go down in the next six months due to the moon rebalance HACs seem likely to see more use not less.
|
Estoppel
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 05:58:00 -
[2599] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)
Just read the patch notes over at http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-odyssey-1.1 -- what happened to the increase in Zealot CPU?
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 09:53:00 -
[2600] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Jan'z Kolna wrote:so ccp goes ahead with those awful changes
what irks me the most is tanking bonuses - sacri , deimos, eagle vaga
why aren't they all like ishtar or muninn , all bonuses to weapons? all bonuses always useful
now deimos in ahac gang - lose a bonus vagabond without shield booster ? - lose a bonus wanna armour tank your eagle? oh, be serious
'nobody forces you to use a bonus' by that kind of logic, laser vagabonds should be ubiquitous ... or shield tanked sacrileges .. or any ship with any fit
what is a bonus for if it is to be ignored?
and all hacs still outdpsed , or outrun , or both , by those stupid ABCs
ABCs are real hacs , in all but name Just no. Out-DPS'd maybe, but that's sort of their thing. They don't fit as much tank as a HAC though, and they don't out-run them either. Lets take a look at this second claim specifically:
- Naga: 195 m/s base speed
- Oracle: 200 m/s base speed
- Talos: 220 m/s base speed
- Tornado: 225 m/s base speed
Comparing directly by race we have:
- Eagle: 180 m/s base and Cerberus 220 m/s
- Sacrilege: 200m/s and Zealot: 210 m/s
- Ishtar: 195 m/s and Deimos: 230m/s
- Muninn: 210 m/s and Vagabond: 295 m/s
So we have a total of three cases where a HAC is actually slower than its Attack Battlecruiser counterpart. All three of these are sniper setups, the Ishtar with Sentry drones and the Muninn and Eagle with their respective long range weapon systems. Also these ships all tank better than Attack Battlecruisers and have much lower signature radius, allowing them to speed tank where as if the Attack Battlecruisers tried this they'd end up as an expanding cloud of vapor rather quickly.
In a 1:1 between a deimos and a talos, I'll take the deimos thanks! Ditto for sacrilege, vagabond, zealot, ishtar...
OK, I don't want to fly a vagabond directly towards 3 tornados, but frankly I don't want to fly a talos towards them either!
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
85
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 10:01:00 -
[2601] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: In a 1:1 between a deimos and a talos, I'll take the deimos thanks! Ditto for sacrilege, vagabond, zealot, ishtar...
OK, I don't want to fly a vagabond directly towards 3 tornados, but frankly I don't want to fly a talos towards them either!
Hahaha, at least you might get to fly the Deimos long enough around them to warp out though. The Talos would probably just disappear into a pile of scrap and expanding plasma. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1297
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 10:07:00 -
[2602] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:I would look to see what implants are in the clone you are fitting an arty munin with.. All 5's, No implants 5 X 720 1 X 800T2 plate, 1 X 10mn Experimental MWD = 1496 PG out of an available 1450. This till leaves 3 empty mids, 4 empty lows. With an AB you can fit 720's but then like the vaga it is all choice as to whether you want to use the bonuses being applied in the update.. I was looking to see if the changes would mean the ship could effectively be used as a sniper. Given the Munin has and is keeping a 10% optimal range bonus, is getting +25k to lock range (now 80k), slightly more cap and speed, the idea it might be a viable sniper was worth looking into. The answer is still a resounding NO.
Ahh, actually CCP is pigeon holing it with the bonus. The user has the option to use it or not. Value for isk with most HACS is still not there.
Somewhat specialised is very much an understatement.
Here's an original thought for you:
Don't put a ******* 800 plate on a sniper fit Muninn. Use an LSE instead, and fill the lows with Gyros and TEs. Use your sniper fit as a sniper fit, and kite well outside the range of the things you're shooting at. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 10:21:00 -
[2603] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The question is more whether or not a HAC gang meeting a T1 Cruiser gang is going to win or not. Generally I'd say the HACs are going to win every time assuming most other things being equal. As for the cost, HAC prices are actually going down. The Muninn is about as expensive as it was a year ago.The Vagabond is actually cheaper. (type 360 into and hit Show) If they continue to hold steady then their real cost vs average income will actually go down and they'll become more viable. Since T2 production prices are overall likely to go down in the next six months due to the moon rebalance HACs seem likely to see more use not less.
This is interesting. I think it depends on the size of the fleets. Navy cruisers emit more dps, but are a lot more squishy.
The price movements could be 2 things: 1. oversupply of materiel 2. overexcited HAC enthusiasts have already bought and supply has caught up with demand.
I think the new HACs are great, and will be using them for specialist WH skirmishing and so on, but I still think I'd take a T1 cruiser on a 0-sec roam, purely on grounds of cost. You're going to lose it anyway, so better to lose 20M rather than 150!
If CCP can fix hotdrops so they are not so overwhelming, I'll take a HAC.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
236
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 10:41:00 -
[2604] - Quote
Randy Wray wrote:one thing thats mentioned way too little in this thread is how bad the muninn still is. tbh i have less problem with the new munnin than the new vaga.
the munnin uts getting something very useful like an extra slot, the vaga just got nothing from this rebalance except for a slightly nerfed top speed and a useless bonus
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 10:48:00 -
[2605] - Quote
To mare wrote:Randy Wray wrote:one thing thats mentioned way too little in this thread is how bad the muninn still is. tbh i have less problem with the new munnin than the new vaga. the munnin uts getting something very useful like an extra slot, the vaga just got nothing from this rebalance except for a slightly nerfed top speed and a useless bonus
It didn't get anything because it didn't need anything - it was already the most popular pvp HAC in the game.
The ship rebalance was about... rebalancing. Not indiscriminate buffing.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
478
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 10:55:00 -
[2606] - Quote
To mare wrote:Randy Wray wrote:one thing thats mentioned way too little in this thread is how bad the muninn still is. tbh i have less problem with the new munnin than the new vaga. the munnin uts getting something very useful like an extra slot, the vaga just got nothing from this rebalance except for a slightly nerfed top speed and a useless bonus
The new vaga just massively obsoletes the newly buffed stabber... its sad really... since the other attack cruisers are still faster than their HAC versions. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 11:01:00 -
[2607] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:To mare wrote:Randy Wray wrote:one thing thats mentioned way too little in this thread is how bad the muninn still is. tbh i have less problem with the new munnin than the new vaga. the munnin uts getting something very useful like an extra slot, the vaga just got nothing from this rebalance except for a slightly nerfed top speed and a useless bonus The new vaga just massively obsoletes the newly buffed stabber... its sad really... since the other attack cruisers are still faster than their HAC versions.
A 120 million ISK ship overshadowing a 10m isk ship in performance? Outrageous!
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 13:26:00 -
[2608] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:To mare wrote:Randy Wray wrote:one thing thats mentioned way too little in this thread is how bad the muninn still is. tbh i have less problem with the new munnin than the new vaga. the munnin uts getting something very useful like an extra slot, the vaga just got nothing from this rebalance except for a slightly nerfed top speed and a useless bonus It didn't get anything because it didn't need anything - it was already the most popular pvp HAC in the game. The ship rebalance was about... rebalancing. Not indiscriminate buffing.
Same thing was said about the Rifter and its **** now, popularity does not indicate effectiveness.
I've said it before;
The Vaga is a **** kiter.
Its still going to be a **** kiter.
It needs a second falloff bonus to be an effective kiter.
As anti-nano heavy tackle its now borderline OP because of XLASB/D180 fits.
GJ CCP |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
94
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 13:41:00 -
[2609] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:stuff
Your logic here seems to be that since this ship has always been a kiting ship and it still has it's speed but has gained an active tank bonus... it's somehow no longer viable as a kiting ship? >.>
Not sure where this logic comes from. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
11
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 14:05:00 -
[2610] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: The ship rebalance was about... rebalancing. Not indiscriminate buffing.
Same thing was said about the Rifter and its **** now, popularity does not indicate effectiveness. What balance? The balance word makes no sense for what we have now. It's a re-shuffle based on popularity and past hull issues, don't get me wrong, it seems that it was obvious that something had to be made to the cerberus and to the diemost per example. But balance is the word? You really believe in that? Balanced performance? How the hell you have balance when the roles differ so much from ship to ship? Popularity balance? Maybe in the short term, I doubt it in 1 year when they finally see which ships are at the top and which are at the bottom, and even then, some hulls thanks to their obvious "decade iconic status' will still get used a lot despite not being good at all. Balance... pfffff.
|
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
289
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 14:09:00 -
[2611] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:stuff Your logic here seems to be that since this ship has always been a kiting ship and it still has it's speed but has gained an active tank bonus... it's somehow no longer viable as a kiting ship? >.> Not sure where this logic comes from.
Its not been a good kiting ship for a long time, its been mediocre, and with all the T1 buffs + this incoming Hac buff its going to become simply not worth flying, the rest has Eve has moved up, giving the Vaga a **** bonus doesn't help it compete. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
287
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 00:25:00 -
[2612] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: OK, I don't want to fly a vagabond directly towards 3 tornados, but frankly I don't want to fly a talos towards them either!
The probelm with ABCs is that they osbsolete all sniper HACs right off the bat. Since at range tank is irrelevant, and speed is less important that time to warp, and ALL of that is second to ALPHA, ALPHA, ALPHA, the Tornado rules supreme over the Muninn and all other sniper HACs. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
101
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 00:45:00 -
[2613] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:The probelm with ABCs is that they osbsolete all sniper HACs right off the bat. Since at range tank is irrelevant, and speed is less important that time to warp, and ALL of that is second to ALPHA, ALPHA, ALPHA, the Tornado rules supreme over the Muninn and all other sniper HACs.
Unless, you know, I can snipe AND tank, in which case your alpha doesn't do much when it takes more of your gang to kill one of mine than it takes us to kill one of you, or worse I survive your alpha-strike and you gain nothing.
Plus the Muninn has better tracking, better speed, and better align, and after taking resists into account better damage as well. It loses in cost but it's also more effective and more versatile.
Oh and that's just the Muninn, some of the others don't even need to worry about Tornado alpha because they can still do good DPS when a Tornado's guns feel like they're set to "Tickle-Me Elmo". |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
300
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 01:17:00 -
[2614] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: OK, I don't want to fly a vagabond directly towards 3 tornados, but frankly I don't want to fly a talos towards them either!
The probelm with ABCs is that they osbsolete all sniper HACs right off the bat. Since at range tank is irrelevant, and speed is less important that time to warp, and ALL of that is second to ALPHA, ALPHA, ALPHA, the Tornado rules supreme over the Muninn and all other sniper HACs.
I think the problem is with ABCs themselves.
I came back to eve a few months ago after a 6 month break. I jumped into a blaster talos and warped to a wormhole where I encountered a myrm. I opened up on him and annihilated him. He was dual rep. I just had a shield extender.
It was a nice killmail on my first day back, but it struck me as very wrong that this could happen. The overwhelming firepower of the talos had essentially made a local rep BC obsolete.
My corp uses ABCs to run c3 sites, and pretty much whenever anything needs to be blapped, it's easy to reach for an ABC.
I'm not sure they were a good idea to be honest, they seem a little OP. I feel that if you want battleship damage application you should be made to choose a battleship.
Winter marauders - Mutant Ninja Space Turtles
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 07:37:00 -
[2615] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: OK, I don't want to fly a vagabond directly towards 3 tornados, but frankly I don't want to fly a talos towards them either!
The probelm with ABCs is that they osbsolete all sniper HACs right off the bat. Since at range tank is irrelevant, and speed is less important that time to warp, and ALL of that is second to ALPHA, ALPHA, ALPHA, the Tornado rules supreme over the Muninn and all other sniper HACs.
"At range tank is irrelevant"
Derp comment of 2013 tbh. |
Meyr
Shiva The Retirement Club
30
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 07:47:00 -
[2616] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: OK, I don't want to fly a vagabond directly towards 3 tornados, but frankly I don't want to fly a talos towards them either!
The probelm with ABCs is that they osbsolete all sniper HACs right off the bat. Since at range tank is irrelevant, and speed is less important that time to warp, and ALL of that is second to ALPHA, ALPHA, ALPHA, the Tornado rules supreme over the Muninn and all other sniper HACs. I think the problem is with ABCs themselves. I came back to eve a few months ago after a 6 month break. I jumped into a blaster talos and warped to a wormhole where I encountered a myrm. I opened up on him and annihilated him. He was dual rep. I just had a shield extender. It was a nice killmail on my first day back, but it struck me as very wrong that this could happen. The overwhelming firepower of the talos had essentially made a local rep BC obsolete. My corp uses ABCs to run c3 sites, and pretty much whenever anything needs to be blapped, it's easy to reach for an ABC. I'm not sure they were a good idea to be honest, they seem a little OP. I feel that if you want battleship damage application you should be made to choose a battleship.
They were a gift to the ganking community, who were shedding supertankers full of tears over the loss of insurance, and that they actually had to decide what was likely to be profitable to kill, instead of the damned-near random blapping of anything that moved that had been going on.
I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - the ganking community is the biggest bunch of whining "my fun is more important than your fun" cry-babies in the game. They literally want everything handed to them - better ganking ships, easier-to-kill targets, easier ways to regain sec-status, better drop percentages, etc. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
41
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 12:11:00 -
[2617] - Quote
Meyr wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: OK, I don't want to fly a vagabond directly towards 3 tornados, but frankly I don't want to fly a talos towards them either!
The probelm with ABCs is that they osbsolete all sniper HACs right off the bat. Since at range tank is irrelevant, and speed is less important that time to warp, and ALL of that is second to ALPHA, ALPHA, ALPHA, the Tornado rules supreme over the Muninn and all other sniper HACs. I think the problem is with ABCs themselves. I came back to eve a few months ago after a 6 month break. I jumped into a blaster talos and warped to a wormhole where I encountered a myrm. I opened up on him and annihilated him. He was dual rep. I just had a shield extender. It was a nice killmail on my first day back, but it struck me as very wrong that this could happen. The overwhelming firepower of the talos had essentially made a local rep BC obsolete. My corp uses ABCs to run c3 sites, and pretty much whenever anything needs to be blapped, it's easy to reach for an ABC. I'm not sure they were a good idea to be honest, they seem a little OP. I feel that if you want battleship damage application you should be made to choose a battleship. They were a gift to the ganking community, who were shedding supertankers full of tears over the loss of insurance, and that they actually had to decide what was likely to be profitable to kill, instead of the damned-near random blapping of anything that moved that had been going on. I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - the ganking community is the biggest bunch of whining "my fun is more important than your fun" cry-babies in the game. They literally want everything handed to them - better ganking ships, easier-to-kill targets, easier ways to regain sec-status, better drop percentages, etc.
And aren't griefers' tears the sweetest? Yes. Indeed, they are.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
481
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 12:21:00 -
[2618] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Vaga speed advantage over other hacs is uncalled for with its new tankier outlook.
No problem with it being fastest HAc but 240 would seem more appropriate than the 30% faster than nearest rival it currently has.
Vaga now has 5 effective bonuses.
You mena a shield tank bonus on a ship with 4 mids, that basically cannot field anythign resemblign a REAL tank?
Get lost... or start to think better on your statements.
Vagabond will still have a PATHETIC tank! It got pingeonholed into a single viable fit. Sad... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
329
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 16:28:00 -
[2619] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Dav Varan wrote:Vaga speed advantage over other hacs is uncalled for with its new tankier outlook.
No problem with it being fastest HAc but 240 would seem more appropriate than the 30% faster than nearest rival it currently has.
Vaga now has 5 effective bonuses.
You mena a shield tank bonus on a ship with 4 mids, that basically cannot field anythign resemblign a REAL tank? Get lost... or start to think better on your statements. Vagabond will still have a PATHETIC tank! It got pingeonholed into a single viable fit. Sad...
The Vaga's tank is not a tank. It's an emergency repair option. Fit a large ASB with navy 150s. You get more shield hitpoints from that than with the old way of fitting a shield extender.
The vaga's tank is speed and sig radius. If you want to fly in close and brawl you need a deimos.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 22:59:00 -
[2620] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Dav Varan wrote:Vaga speed advantage over other hacs is uncalled for with its new tankier outlook.
No problem with it being fastest HAc but 240 would seem more appropriate than the 30% faster than nearest rival it currently has.
Vaga now has 5 effective bonuses.
You mena a shield tank bonus on a ship with 4 mids, that basically cannot field anythign resemblign a REAL tank? Get lost... or start to think better on your statements. Vagabond will still have a PATHETIC tank! It got pingeonholed into a single viable fit. Sad... The Vaga's tank is not a tank. It's an emergency repair option. Fit a large ASB with navy 150s. You get more shield hitpoints from that than with the old way of fitting a shield extender. The vaga's tank is speed and sig radius. If you want to fly in close and brawl you need a deimos.
Yeah well that would work if the Vaga could actually apply damage at any reasonable range.
Now its just a not very good kiter that's been pidgeonholed into a vaguely anti-nano brawling role. |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
329
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 00:27:00 -
[2621] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote: Now its just a not very good kiter that's been pidgeonholed into a vaguely anti-nano brawling role.
You do know that if you fit a capacitor control rig, it can run its MWD, warp disruptor and invulnerability field all day long?
It can travel 30% faster than any hull it's likely to come up against and can therefore stay at any range it wants to while scoring zero-transveral hits on its target. Anything that's faster than the vaga can be taken apart by its drones, or the heavy neut you can fit quite easily in the utility high.
That's the very definition of "good kiting ship" isn't it?
I fail to see how the new vaga is worse than the pre-1.1 version in any way whatsoever. It's almost better than a cynabal.
Now one thing that has changed is that some HACs have gained the ability to apply damage at range. This is new. And this means that there is at last some kind of counter to a kiting ship... other than another kiting ship or a huginn.
Some things got better for non-vagas. Vagas didn't get worse.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
290
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 07:58:00 -
[2622] - Quote
Basically your argument is if it can kite forever its good.
If I made a hauler that could kite at 4k/s for ever, it still wouldn't be a very good pvp ship.
Simply going fast is not useful, you need to be able to do decent damage at range to kill the target relatively quickly, right now the pitiful ~300 DPS with Warriors that the Vaga applies at 25 is outshadowed by Rail Deimos, HAM Cerb, RLML Cerb and Pulse Zealots, hell even the Pulse NOmen performs significantly better, Im not talking about it being the new Talos here, Im talking about applying 300 Pure Gun DPS out to 25.
If you think the Vaga is a good kiter in its current state you have not flown it enough, its vastly outshadowed by every other HAC and the massive buff to T1 and faction cruisers means it doesn't even fair that well against them, there is now no reason to fly it over another option.
They should just drop this pitiful Shield Boost bonus and give it another range bonus in a similar fashion to the Cerb, let it be the low tank kiter it was supposed to be, let the Cyna fill the Role as it does now of the Brawl/Kite mix with its better EHP and Dual Prop. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
330
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:35:00 -
[2623] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Basically your argument is if it can kite forever its good.
If I made a hauler that could kite at 4k/s for ever, it still wouldn't be a very good pvp ship.
Simply going fast is not useful, you need to be able to do decent damage at range to kill the target relatively quickly, right now the pitiful ~300 DPS with Warriors that the Vaga applies at 25 is outshadowed by Rail Deimos, HAM Cerb, RLML Cerb and Pulse Zealots, hell even the Pulse NOmen performs significantly better, Im not talking about it being the new Talos here, Im talking about applying 300 Pure Gun DPS out to 25.
If you think the Vaga is a good kiter in its current state you have not flown it enough, its vastly outshadowed by every other HAC and the massive buff to T1 and faction cruisers means it doesn't even fair that well against them, there is now no reason to fly it over another option.
They should just drop this pitiful Shield Boost bonus and give it another range bonus in a similar fashion to the Cerb, let it be the low tank kiter it was supposed to be, let the Cyna fill the Role as it does now of the Brawl/Kite mix with its better EHP and Dual Prop.
You're comparing a rail deimos against an autocannon vagabond. That's not comparing like with like.
How much damage can you get with a vaga at 25km with 650mm artillery and republic EMP - kiting in a perfectly straight trajectory?
The example you quote has nothing to do with the performance of vagabonds, it is simply that railguns have got somewhat better.
In any case, in the example you quote, AC vaga vs rail deimos, the vaga still has speed advantage. It can orbit at any range it feels safe doing so. The deimos won't be able to hit it.
Vagas did not get worse, it's just that now every other HAC does not suck. You know, balance...
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
292
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:22:00 -
[2624] - Quote
ITT People thinking Vagas have the grid to fit arties. |
Roime
The Scope Gallente Federation
3332
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:38:00 -
[2625] - Quote
Medium Ancillary Current Router
90% of EVE-O posts are read in Cartman voice by the common screen reader programs.-á |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
330
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 11:04:00 -
[2626] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:ITT People thinking Vagas have the grid to fit arties.
Also, I sourced several ships, and you poorly argued 1 of them.
Good job.
I fitted an arty vaga on sisi.
I chose one specific example to argue. I made a good case I think. You seem not to have come back with a counter argument.
With regard to the other hulls, well. If you try to use a close range fit (autocannons) against a long range fit (HM cerb, rail deimos etc), you have pretty much one option - you need to get close.
The vaga, at 3500m/s is very good at "getting close" - as good as it is at "not getting close". When burning for that cerb, you'll be glad of the 800dps overheated tank that you get from the ASB, the reduced signature radius and the sheer missile-negating speed of the hull.
Have you tried this on Sisi? I'm not being rude or trying to bait you. It's easy to make snap decisions about things before trying them.
What I think you are expressing is a realisation that the Vaga is no longer OP against everything. The 'balance' that we talk about is essentially making the game of rock-paper-scissors that is eve 1:1 a little more rich and complex, rather than "rock(vagabond) beats everything"
OK, so post-balance you'll need to pick your targets. Welcome to the world that every other ship lives in. If the balance pass had resulted in "vaga is still OP", it wouldn't have been a balance pass now would it?
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
473
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 23:39:00 -
[2627] - Quote
ah still Danny John-Peter qqing is going on nothing changes |
Randy Wray
SUPER GOOSE SQUAD Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
58
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 18:15:00 -
[2628] - Quote
Danny is right though. Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @-áhttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
269
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 21:32:00 -
[2629] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I fitted an arty vaga on sisi. I chose one specific example to argue. I made a good case I think. You seem not to have come back with a counter argument. With regard to the other hulls, well. If you try to use a close range fit (autocannons) against a long range fit (HM cerb, rail deimos etc), you have pretty much one option - you need to get close. The vaga, at 3500m/s is very good at "getting close" - as good as it is at "not getting close". When burning for that cerb, you'll be glad of the 800dps overheated tank that you get from the ASB, the reduced signature radius and the sheer missile-negating speed of the hull. Have you tried this on Sisi? I'm not being rude or trying to bait you. It's easy to make snap decisions about things before trying them. What I think you are expressing is a realisation that the Vaga is no longer OP against everything. The 'balance' that we talk about is essentially making the game of rock-paper-scissors that is eve 1:1 a little more rich and complex, rather than "rock(vagabond) beats everything" OK, so post-balance you'll need to pick your targets. Welcome to the world that every other ship lives in. If the balance pass had resulted in "vaga is still OP", it wouldn't have been a balance pass now would it? EDIT: here's an example of a ~500dps artillery kiting vaga: [Vagabond, standard artillery] 5x 650mm Artillery Cannon II (Republic Fleet EMP M) Heavy Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Nova Heavy Missile) Republic Fleet Warp Disruptor Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Ancillary Shield Booster (Navy Cap Booster 150) 2x Gyrostabilizer II 2x Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II Medium Ancillary Current Router II 5x Hobgoblin II optimal: 14.5km, 1/2 damage at 60km. 483 dps (unheated) will perma-run MWD, invuln and point. Other ammo gives better range/better damage. EDIT: Just for lols, I knocked up this anti-amarr brawling vagabond: [Vagabond, armour?] 5x 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II (Hail M) Rocket Launcher II (Inferno Rage Rocket) 10MN Microwarpdrive II Medium Capacitor Booster II (Navy Cap Booster 800) Warp Scrambler II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer (Nanite Repair Paste) Medium Armor Repairer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Gyrostabilizer II Damage Control II 2x Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump II 5x Hobgoblin II overheated, tanks 1050dps against lasers, does 528 unheated dps and can still move at 3.5km/s. No way could the old vaga do this. Would sir like me to wipe is *rse him him as well?
eft wizard right there STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
337
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 22:26:00 -
[2630] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote: eft wizard right there
EFT seems to be beyond some crybabies...
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
269
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 23:30:00 -
[2631] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote: eft wizard right there
EFT seems to be beyond some crybabies...
so does sarcasm STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
782
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 11:19:00 -
[2632] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:EDIT: here's an example of a ~500dps artillery kiting vaga:.. Looks good, but cost efficiency is pretty much non-existent .. you are looking at a 300-400M undock cost for a fit that is not even that good, doesn't take much movement on you targets part to make artillery fall flat
Mournful Conciousness wrote:EDIT: Just for lols, I knocked up this anti-amarr brawling vagabond:.. Would be perfect in the old days, but now that tiericide is almost over you have several Amarr hulls that work even better than before when going off-race for weapons, especially when taking relative laser performance into account. Provided of course that Amarr hulls will even be common use.
Blasters/Gallente are the new black and that is a gaping hole if ever I saw one ... wasting time coming up with fits to combat a races ships/fits that will not be used to any large extent is kind of pointless.
PS: Moderators frown at forum rule transgressions (special characters to avoid filter). If your statements require the use of filtered words then either rethink the statement or accept the censorship .. there are anally retentive individuals everywhere around here and its a silly demerit to get. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
339
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 11:39:00 -
[2633] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:EDIT: here's an example of a ~500dps artillery kiting vaga:.. Looks good, but cost efficiency is pretty much non-existent .. you are looking at a 300-400M undock cost for a fit that is not even that good, doesn't take much movement on you targets part to make artillery fall flat Mournful Conciousness wrote:EDIT: Just for lols, I knocked up this anti-amarr brawling vagabond:.. Would be perfect in the old days, but now that tiericide is almost over you have several Amarr hulls that work even better than before when going off-race for weapons, especially when taking relative laser performance into account. Provided of course that Amarr hulls will even be common use. Blasters/Gallente are the new black and that is a gaping hole if ever I saw one ... wasting time coming up with fits to combat a races ships/fits that will not be used to any large extent is kind of pointless. PS: Moderators frown at forum rule transgressions (special characters to avoid filter). If your statements require the use of filtered words then either rethink the statement or accept the censorship .. there are anally retentive individuals everywhere around here and its a silly demerit to get.
Sure, that particular one has a price tag. There's no reason to fit a faction warp disruptor unless you want point range superiority. Tech 2 rigs are of course a luxury that I afford myself on T2 hulls, but there are ways to fit the ship if you want to spend less. A couple of implants would remove the requirement of the T2 rigs in this particular case. Players may consider implants to be a wiser investment that hull modules, at least in lowsec.
I'm not saying that the kiting fit I proposed is awesome. I did it in response to a claim that it was not possible. The original poster was complaining that a vaga was "no longer any good at kiting". That claim was later clarified on grounds of weapons range when autcannons were fitted, so I responded with artillery. It was then claimed that the vaga could not fit artillery... hence the fit on which you comment.
I guess I'm just tired of hearing unfounded whining about how the vagabond has been in some way nerfed when all of its stats bar one (max speed dropped by 3 m/s) went up.
The armour vaga was, as you quoted, for lols. But it did occur to me that it would make an epic tackler in an armour fleet, combining good resistances with astonishing speed. One could always swap the MAR for some plate and it would still most likely be the fastest ship on grid.
Not the designed use case, I know...
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative
41
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 12:52:00 -
[2634] - Quote
Quote:I guess I'm just tired of hearing unfounded whining about how the vagabond has been in some way nerfed when all of its stats bar one (max speed dropped by 3 m/s) went up.
This. Nothing else really needs to be said. You don't take a ship that improved in every way save one where it essentially remained the same and say it is now useless where it wasn't before. It's ludicrous. Claiming that Vaga is nerfed by virtue of other ships being buffed is also laughable. It is the argument of someone lamenting the loss of the days when they didn't have to think about what they would engage. Vaga pilots do now, just like everyone else always has. Welcome to the real Eve. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
11530
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 08:48:00 -
[2635] - Quote
Well at this stage I think it's time for everyone to shut up about theory-crafting, and actually use the ships for a while. Let the killboards do the talking.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Connall Tara
Conquering Darkness
98
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 11:39:00 -
[2636] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Well at this stage I think it's time for everyone to shut up about theory-crafting, and actually use the ships for a while. Let the killboards do the talking.
NEVAR! our idle speculation and prejudiced whining is far superior to mere facts! :P Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7
Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything" |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
782
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 12:40:00 -
[2637] - Quote
Just so we are on the same page.
Malcanis wrote:Well at this stage I think it's time for everyone to shut up about theory-crafting, and actually use the ships for a while. Let the killboards do the talking. "At this stage" = Now that changes have gone live after most complaints and worries had been flat out ignored during the supposed feed-back/testing period and what was launched was what the generic Blaster-phile have been soiling his jammies over since CCP hired multiple Gallente lovers. "Theory-crafting" = Supporting or putting forth any point of view that conflicts with design goal regardless of validity or testing data.
As for killboards doing the talking .. what does it matter when the powers that be are hard of hearing? Relevant fact: Winmatar fad lasted 2+ years, that was with 60-75% of all ships (ie. total, including all areas) used being of the projectile variety week in and week out consistently for the entire duration.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that having ships that are capable of tanking pretty much anything one can throw at it while at the same time having versatility and top-tier damage potential will be bad for balance.
NanoAge was pretty bad, Winmatar fad was God Awful but Gallente spam will be good?
Albert Einstein wrote:Insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Balance. Equal opportunity. That should be the aim, not some cyclical dominance thing where more than half of everything gets to gather dust for years on end. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
555
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 13:10:00 -
[2638] - Quote
I still don't understand why the deimos has far better cap recharge compared to the zealot...
|
HazeInADaze
L'Avant Garde
61
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 14:52:00 -
[2639] - Quote
People still itch about the Vaga's rep bonus while the FOTM is kite Nomen with ARR and almost no buffer. Stop EFTing and start undocking. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4602
|
Posted - 2013.09.10 21:25:00 -
[2640] - Quote
HazeInADaze wrote:People still itch about the Vaga's rep bonus while the FOTM is kite Nomen with ARR and almost no buffer. Stop EFTing and start undocking. Well, they would, but some people aren't fond of the taste of crow. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
2673
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 09:49:00 -
[2641] - Quote
Unpinning, 1.1 has been released. |
|
General Jack Cosmo
University of Caille Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 13:59:00 -
[2642] - Quote
I would really like to see a few changes in hac
1- it would be nice to give each one a utility high slot (salvager, imp cloak, tractor beem ect) it would be nice to a have a utility high slot for my ishtar for my lvl 4 missions i do with it :)
2- sacrilege give a rof/dmg of 5 % to ham's only and 10% velocity to ham's only since it was geared towards ham's and tank!
3- give the vaga tracking bonus or shield resistance bonus instead of shield boosts (not every one uses boosts on a hac)
4- maybe change one of the 10% optimal range on the eagle to either 5% optimal/5% tracking or 10% to range on one or both of those so you can use rails or blasters?
5- cerbus what about 7.5% to kinetic and 5% to other dmg types?
also maybe a bonus to not just sig radius but effectiveness of micro warp drives!!!! With lord Xanex by my side I can do anything (Atleast with a smile)-á!!!! |
elitatwo
Congregatio
131
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 14:34:00 -
[2643] - Quote
General Jack Cosmo wrote:I would really like to see a few changes in hac
1- it would be nice to give each one a utility high slot (salvager, imp cloak, tractor beem ect) it would be nice to a have a utility high slot for my ishtar for my lvl 4 missions i do with it :)
2- sacrilege give a rof/dmg of 5 % to ham's only and 10% velocity to ham's only since it was geared towards ham's and tank!
3- give the vaga tracking bonus or shield resistance bonus instead of shield boosts (not every one uses boosts on a hac)
4- maybe change one of the 10% optimal range on the eagle to either 5% optimal/5% tracking or 10% to range on one or both of those so you can use rails or blasters?
5- cerbus what about 7.5% to kinetic and 5% to other dmg types?
also maybe a bonus to not just sig radius but effectiveness of micro warp drives!!!!
I would rather have the Sacrilege get the same bonus for damage and range for the rapid light missile launcher like the Cerberus did.
Seems that Rapid Light Missile Launchers are only a cruiser sized launcher that works for matar and Caldari which is sad for the Sacrilege.
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Diesel47
Appetite 4 Destruction
915
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 13:42:00 -
[2644] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Well at this stage I think it's time for everyone to shut up about theory-crafting, and actually use the ships for a while. Let the killboards do the talking.
I think you should shut up. |
Denson022
Defiance LLC
4
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 07:04:00 -
[2645] - Quote
Is it intended for let's say the Deimos to be able to tank 6 cruiser gang (including HAC) while neuted, or a BS a BC and another HAC, kill em all and go out. In the last example we are talking about ~900-1000 applied DPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d-4SJALYGI
Nice video - but what suprised me is that even neuted it can tank about 350-400 DPS.. And whats more interesting is that it tanks more than the vaga can while both have 7.5% bonus. I think the Vaga really needs a 5 th slot.
I understand the buff to cap recharge but then why Command ships don't have a better cap recharge than the one of the HAC?
Bigger ship, also Tech 2, more cap pool and more cap recharge than the ship class below. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1721
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 07:08:00 -
[2646] - Quote
Denson022 wrote:Is it intended for let's say the Deimos to be able to tank 6 cruiser gang (including HAC) while neuted, or a BS a BC and another HAC, kill em all and go out. In the last example we are talking about ~900-1000 applied DPS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d-4SJALYGINice video - but what suprised me is that even neuted it can tank about 350-400 DPS.. And whats more interesting is that it tanks more than the vaga can while both have 7.5% bonus. I think the Vaga really needs a 5 th slot. I understand the buff to cap recharge but then why Command ships don't have a better cap recharge than the one of the HAC? Bigger ship, also Tech 2, more cap pool and more cap recharge than the ship class below.
Thats just active tank for you.
Look at what a maelstrom can do.
Also Command ships are plenty powerful without retardcap. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
elitatwo
Congregatio
180
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 22:16:00 -
[2647] - Quote
The Zealot still needs a bigger cargo bay.
I suggest 400m-¦ wont break EVE and would be in line with the rest of the bunch. I also believe that a tiny dronebay of 25m-¦ wouldn't hurt the game either. signature |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
621
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 23:45:00 -
[2648] - Quote
and the vagabond should be slower than the stabber .... the eagle should be quicker also with drones.. and HAC's should lose a slot too be consistent with other classes... but CCP don't do consistency all that well. 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 AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
180
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:23:00 -
[2649] - Quote
ooops signature |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: [one page] |