Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mortimer Civeri
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 18:41:00 -
[1]
Without the threat of the "I win" button, a lot of Alliances are moving away from the Battleship heavy fleets of yore, the only ship capable of surviving the AOE Doomsday, to a more HAC heavy fleet. HACs, are now the FOTM for Alliance warfare, the most popular being the Zealot/Guardian gangs. Quick and agile, HACs can get into and out of fights quickly, roam through space fast, hit hard, and act as a support fleet for super capitals.
Traditionally, the only form of E-War worth pursuing was ECM. The ships that deployed ECM had the optimal range to reach out to the sniper ranges of BS fleets. While others had only half that range, exposing them to murderous fire if they wanted to employ Damps, Tracking Disruptors, or LOL it's a BS why use Target Painters. Now the resurgence of Cruiser/HAC gangs has marginalized a sniping BS fleets usefulness. HACs and cruisers don't have the range of a sniping BS, which makes fielding the other forms of E-War more survivable for those pilots.
Damping Logistics makes it take longer for them to target and apply support for primaries, or unable to target anything as their lock range is reduced to nothing. Tracking Disruptors, turn the biggest advantage of a HAC, its speed, against itself, or reduce the optimal of their turrets to almost nothing. Target painters turn a armored HACs sig radius, usually bonuses to about the size of a fat frigate, up to the size of a small BC, so that even battleships can hit them for more damage. ECM is already easy, as HACs have a very low signal strength. A Scorpion could jam 6 HACs permanently, or three permajammed with the HACs having ECCM/remote ECCM support.
I guess all the whiners who wanted Damps, TDs, and Painters rebalanced/usefull, got their wish.
|
Absent Cloaker
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 19:08:00 -
[2]
I will have to agree with you, the HAC/Recon Gangs have been ganging strength for a long time now almost to a point where a good HAC or Recon Pilot is prefered over a battleship or even capital ship pilot. Faster more agile gangs are becoming the norm while battleships are generally reserved for large fleet engagements where capitals would be brought into play.
In general I'm glad to see this shift as the cruiser/battlecruiser hulls are favored, and are more fun to fly IMO. Droping the AOE I win off of the Titans was the best thing to happen to 0.0 warfare in a long time.
AC |
Shade Millith
Caldari Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 19:34:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Absent Cloaker generally reserved for large fleet engagements where capitals would be brought into play.
He's actually refering to the Armor HAC fleets that are being used for large fleet engagements. ------------------------
|
Mortimer Civeri
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 22:30:00 -
[4]
A BS fleet seems to be relegated to hitting structures where the use of capital ships would not be prudent. Capital ships are now the kings of structure bashing. Only hauled out to take down structures quickly, and jumped out and docked up quickly to minimize exposure to the enemy. If the possibility of an enemy counter hot-drop is two high, a BS fleet would be used instead. Armored Heavy Assault Cruisers, turn traditional BS fleets into free modules to be looted. Why would anyone try supporting a cap fleet with BS, when a HAC fleet can route the BS fleet and with HICtors pin down a cap fleet to be counter dropped. Gone are the days when Alliances decided fights with Battleships.
What is neat, is going to watch how Alliances incorporate the now more viable E-War platforms into their fleets, to counter HAC gangs.
|
Aiwha
Caldari 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 01:36:00 -
[5]
BC's are 1/4 the cost and just as effective.
Just sayin'...
|
Admiral Hawke
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 01:50:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Admiral Hawke on 03/08/2010 01:50:27
Originally by: Aiwha BC's are 1/4 the cost and just as effective.
Just sayin'...
BC's are good and cheap, but tend to have lower resists, and the signature radius of a BS. Therefore using transversal isn't as effective. Really depends on what your FC asks for though tbh. It's probably Logi > H-Dic > HAC > Arazu/Lachesis > BC
|
Danny Lonnegan
Caldari Nex Somes Ubertas Venator Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 04:49:00 -
[7]
BCs seem to be playing the same role they did with BS fleets--cheap supplemental DPS that poorer/less skilled characters can bring on the field.
|
YouMoWeak
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 17:45:00 -
[8]
here's the original article the OP was taken from: http://www.tentonhammer.com/eve/spymaster/48
|
Voith
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 18:20:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Aiwha BC's are 1/4 the cost and just as effective.
Just sayin'...
Ever tried to hit a Zealot with a 50 sig radius?
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 18:43:00 -
[10]
It is only partially true, there is far more to it than merely the removal of AoE DD. The game has opened up a lot in regards in to what works. - Bombers: Semi-replaced DD as primary threat to heavy BS fleets. - More HACs: Response to Bombers, properly done they cannot be killed by bombs at all (AB speed, Low signatures). - More eWar: Response to HACs, lower base sensors and fewer midslots, ECM exploits this and the range disadvantage. - New Probes: Response to everything, with 5-15s scan time, even for rookies, getting on top of a fleet has never been easier. Etc. Etc.
It is no longer BS Fleets dodging DD's and doing the optimal dance with similar opposing fleets .. more variety, lots more. TP's are still rare, TD's still only has value when engagement is of smaller nature (TD on 10 out of 50 Zeals does diddly ). Damps are still rare (See TD's) but has slightly increased as Logistic/eWar counter. ECM increased in power as overall hull size went down, compensated by the ludicrous super-/capital blobs
PS: Loki - OMFG! Lower sigs, longer points, higher speeds .. made for HAC swarms! Throw in an Arazu or two with faction points and dictors are passTe
|
|
Alexandra Stormwing
Blood Money Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 21:12:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Voith
Originally by: Aiwha BC's are 1/4 the cost and just as effective.Just sayin'...
Ever tried to hit a Zealot with a 50 sig radius?
Is this possible?
|
F3N LI
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 22:27:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Alexandra Stormwing
Originally by: Voith
Originally by: Aiwha BC's are 1/4 the cost and just as effective.Just sayin'...
Ever tried to hit a Zealot with a 50 sig radius?
Is this possible?
Should be, all you'll need are a full set of high grade pirate implants and a max skilled ragnarok pilot in gang and system.
Until then, HAC's are still much harder to hit that BC's.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 02:50:00 -
[13]
Without the Titan you get the Zealot down to below 65 sig radius already, though I guess even the Titan isnt entirely unrealistic for defensive purposes.
Good thing about having one would be you dont even need any implants to get it below 50 sig, which is convenient should you get podded.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 14:26:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Without the Titan you get the Zealot down to below 65 sig radius already, though I guess even the Titan isnt entirely unrealistic for defensive purposes.
Good thing about having one would be you dont even need any implants to get it below 50 sig, which is convenient should you get podded.
HG halos in a 0.0 AB HAC fleet are completely unrealistic though.
I for one, am looking forward to what a well thought out domi gang (looks at cursed alliance) would do to an ab hac gang.
|
Voith
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 16:31:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Originally by: Omara Otawan Without the Titan you get the Zealot down to below 65 sig radius already, though I guess even the Titan isnt entirely unrealistic for defensive purposes.
Good thing about having one would be you dont even need any implants to get it below 50 sig, which is convenient should you get podded.
HG halos in a 0.0 AB HAC fleet are completely unrealistic though.
I for one, am looking forward to what a well thought out domi gang (looks at cursed alliance) would do to an ab hac gang.
HG Halos are practically required for any Armor HAC gang worth its salt.
|
Mortimer Civeri
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 17:22:00 -
[16]
Originally by: YouMoWeak here's the original article the OP was taken from: http://www.tentonhammer.com/eve/spymaster/48
Neat article, but that only gives background as to why HACs are popular.
I am going for more why we will see a resurgence in E-War platforms/types other than plain ECM. We are all familiar with Alliances pinning fleets down with tackling frigates. I expect to see more of their newer players in E-War platforms too. Griffin, Vigil, Maulus, and Crucifier will become more prevalent. Heck this may signal the rise of the EAF, as not LOL worthy when it arrives in a fleet fight.
|
Gecko O'Bac
H A V O C Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 19:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Mortimer Civeri We are all familiar with Alliances pinning fleets down with tackling frigates.
I Lol'ed.
You may want to try Dictor and Hictors.
That said the reason the BSs are not that used anymore is mostly that as close range platforms the hacs (especially armor hacs as was explained above) are usually much better, and sniper bs gangs are much less viable due to how easily they are probed out once on grid. One click, sniper spot busted and sniper BSs killed.
Also while the ragnarok in system may not be available, a fully skilled and mindliked claymore sure is (or in some cases even a loki, which gives a slightly higher bonus). And really, anything under 100m of radius is bonus. Under that point, at the shortish range these gangs work at, cruiser guns start to track badly. Add to that the afterburner (with the claymore bonus, remember?) and a solid logistic structure and you have why armor hac gangs are all the rage now.
Oh also, bombers. They do **** to hacs, but **** battleships.
|
Mortimer Civeri
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 21:39:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Gecko O'Bac
Originally by: Mortimer Civeri We are all familiar with Alliances pinning fleets down with tackling frigates.
I Lol'ed.
You may want to try Dictor and Hictors.
Fair enough. Originally by: Gecko O'Bac That said the reason the BSs are not that used anymore is mostly that as close range platforms the hacs (especially armor hacs as was explained above) are usually much better, and sniper bs gangs are much less viable due to how easily they are probed out once on grid. One click, sniper spot busted and sniper BSs killed.
Also while the ragnarok in system may not be available, a fully skilled and mindliked claymore sure is (or in some cases even a loki, which gives a slightly higher bonus). And really, anything under 100m of radius is bonus. Under that point, at the shortish range these gangs work at, cruiser guns start to track badly. Add to that the afterburner (with the claymore bonus, remember?) and a solid logistic structure and you have why armor hac gangs are all the rage now.
Oh also, bombers. They do **** to hacs, but **** battleships.
All right we get why HAC gangs are FOTM now.
We are supposed to be talking about how the other forms of E-War will likely see a renaissance, as Alliances have shifted to the fast Armored HAC fleet. Gecko, brought up an interesting point, in that Zealots are already pushing the edge of their tracking envelope. Would TDs, with tracking scripts, neuter their DPS? Could Damping their logistics, making them take forever to lock someone in need of reps, be an effective strategy? Target painters would still be the redheaded stepchild of E-War. Even though it balloons a HACs sig radius up, so that every one is able to hit it for full damage, it would also make their logistics easier for them to lock and get reps in.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 12:31:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Mortimer Civeri Target painters would still be the redheaded stepchild of E-War. Even though it balloons a HACs sig radius up, so that every one is able to hit it for full damage, it would also make their logistics easier for them to lock and get reps in.
Target painters can at best approximately double a targets sig radius. A single bonused scan res damp can mitigate that effect. (Double the sig, half the scan res = locking speed is about the same.)
Incidentally, I hear that gang-boosting Proteuses are also suddenly in demand. AHACs are relatively slow and short-ranged; boosted E-War mods can now reasonably allow EW ships to range tank.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Avion Saberis
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.06 09:11:00 -
[20]
It's nice to see everyone changing up their tactics and all, along with a resurface of E-War based ships. Now i will stand a better chance though i still perfer my hide and pew, pew method better. But this time i know that my e-war will make a difference for these fleets. yay! -------------------------------------------
I like to hide, then when the right moment comes, i go pew, pew, pew, then i go back to hiding, :) |
|
Gecko O'Bac
H A V O C Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.08.07 00:21:00 -
[21]
Well actually with long range ammo (omg Scorch is so op =/) they can still track at optimal about 2600 m/s of transversal... And they can just warp closer to use shorter range ammo with even higher tracking and damage. If you think about using TDs to kill optimal... that MAY work but you're going to need an awful lot of tracking disruptors to even start to make a difference.
About dampening on logis... Yes, it's probably the best technique, though combat testing proved it's quite ineffective. They often are remote sensor boosted and have high scan res to start with. Your best bet is trying to separate them from the fleet and range dampen them to hope the fleet/logi chain gets outside locking range. Due to the generally quite tight formation used by this kind of gang (they don't even need to spread to avoid bombing), it's still quite unlikely. Ecm, as already stated, hardly works on ECCMed logis. So...
|
Admiral Hawke
|
Posted - 2010.08.07 13:39:00 -
[22]
Not to mention, some fleets may be remote eccming their logistics on top of their own eccm modules.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |