EVE Search - Do the T2 ships need any love, HAC's that is?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Do the T2 ships need any love, HAC's that is?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Incindir Mauser Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 199	Posted - 2013.04.18 22:02:00 - [61] - Quote Kitty Bear wrote: Incindir Mauser wrote: Cerberus isn't fast enough to kite. It's description has always given me the impression that it was meant to sit at range and snipe. One does not simply sit at range and snipe. Immobile sniping is begging for on grid combat probe and subsequent loss of your ship and pod.
Jimmy Binchiette The Way Of The Ninja 1	Posted - 2013.04.18 22:30:00 - [62] - Quote I think that the deimos could really use some more pwg and maybe an extra midslot for a dual prop fit that would tear BS's apart as that is what AHACs are best at
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 723	Posted - 2013.04.19 14:32:00 - [63] - Quote Jimmy Binchiette wrote: I think that the deimos could really use some more pwg and maybe an extra midslot for a dual prop fit that would tear BS's apart as that is what AHACs are best at Still, to push the same dps you can do with a Thorax you'll be doing far more sacrifices than with T1 hull. Of course T2 resistances are a + but until this class gets fully revamp you have no real reason to undock with a Deimos over a Thorax. For simple comparison if you try to make a lol suicide run ship and shield fit both, Thorax can still push by far much more dps and almost double top speed of Deimos. removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Noisrevbus 428	Posted - 2013.04.19 15:23:00 - [64] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Noisrevbus wrote: The BC3 was an attempt at reviving the Mobile sniping strategy (sadly, with opposite effects, if you ask me). Not sure what you're saying here - the tier 3 BCs have revitalised the mobile sniper meta. They're basically almost everything I used to love about sniper HACs, but with good alpha and T1 insurance. I hear a lot of complaints about the tier 3s, but they're exactly what we need more of: ships that are fun to fly, accessible, affordable without being trivially cheap, great at blowing things up and very prone to blowing up themselves. OK T2 large guns are an arse to skill, but you can use meta arty with the nado just fine. The devil is in the details... The things you are listing is excatly why i dislike the ships. I don't dislike that there are cool ships that are fun to fly, but i do (and quite strongly) dislike the result of their features or design ideal. From my perspective there was nothing wrong with HAC and CR in 2010. They were impopular relative BC2, yes, but the real problem back then was the T1 insurance of BC hulls. HAC and CR were, ship performance wise, fairly well balanced to BC and BS. The problem was never that Muninns and Zealots had trouble killing Drakes and Alphacanes, the problem was that the rewards of using them were not worth the risks. The amount of high-number BC2 gangs running about gradually shifted the LR HAC / CR gangs out of popularity (though not existance, BC3 managed that). BC3 are trivially cheap, or can be made trivially cheap and still remain strong enough to obscure LR HAC and CR. We know that groups like Pizza and BBar are good with Bombers. Who do we know that's awesome at BC3 or Cruisers? We don't, because none of them have the capacity to deal with a similar gang 1:5, so they can't really engage the 50-man roams most nullsec entities throw around for *** and giggles. Even if they do it's just *** and giggles, no monetary gain or tangible loss. In the days when HAC were still reasonbly good the game was teeming with HAC gangs willing to take 1:5 fights. All those gangs today are PL. NCdot, Darkside w/e; or are playing in FW, WH or just general "Brosec" (artificially, code-limited-) themeparks. Good alpha present an isolated problem since alpha (and especially on cheap platforms) is what drive critical mass in EVE at the moment. Get sufficient alpha and that is all you ever need. Alpha is so immensely powerful to many other effects at dealing with things like RR that the interesting "micro-games" since at smaller scale quickly disappear. Once you hit that critical mass when you can volley anything and everything, the game enter into a "trading blows" scenario that only serve the side with more numbers or forces immidiate escalation to whatever can withstand alpha at the current scale (alpha any subcap and any numerically inferior force will be forced to escalate to capitals to have any reason to fight; alpha any capital and it simply shifts to supers). That is the same reason why i react against the notion that blowing oneself up easily would be a positive thing. It's trading blows and it only serves a numerically superior opponent. The further we have gone in the direction of "cheap, fun explosions for everyone" we have also gone further from interactivity between differently sized gangs. The more it becomes a question of "trading blows" the less incentive there is for the small to engage the large, because he has more blows to trade. It's really as simple as that. The more time passed from their inception the less the BC3 have been used to up-engage. Instead they have slowly trickled into a cheap gank-tool, or seeded within themeparks (BC3 vs. BC3 gangs in lowsec, gangs that won't go to nullsec and pick fights because it's pointless for them fighting a much larger BC3 gang on a "trade blows" principle). The same goes for the new Cruisers or whatever else, they are all only being used within specific subsets and not in any situation that impact the game. At the end of the day these cheap, accessible hulls with good alpha that are prone to trade blows simply skewers scale-scale balance and make people up-engage less which means we end up with more situations of people deciding not to interact (blue balls) because interacting over numerical disparities is becomming more and more discouraged because of this "let's make everything accessible and fair for new players, beside access to numbers and riches". That situation is far more conservative than any unfair situation in the past - and i believe that affect the life in the game far more than any structure grind or w/e. It's not just shooting the HP that's mindnumbing, it's the knowledge that engaging in it is trivial. That is the same regardless if we discuss cheap towers, tcu, sbu and poco or if we discuss cheap ships.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 1309	Posted - 2013.04.19 16:53:00 - [65] - Quote Veronica Kerrigan wrote: Tech 2 resists are based on lore. Minmatar : EM primary, Thermal secondary. Counters the Matari enemies, the Amarr Amarr : Explosive primary, Kinetic secondary. Counters the damage of the Glorious republic. Caldari : Thermal Primary, Kinetic Secondary. Counters the heavy damage of both blasters, as well as Gallente drones. Gallente : Kinetic Primary, Thermal Secondary. Counters the primarily Kinetic damage of the State, as well as hybrid damage. I always thought it was this: Minmatar - Properly boost shield tanks which they love to use. Amarr - Properly boost armor tanks which they love to use. Caldari, Gallente - Leave the biggest holes in their tanks (EM for Caldari, Explosive for Gallente) alone so that nobody in their right mind would bother flying them.
Roime Shiva Furnace 2582	Posted - 2013.04.19 17:00:00 - [66] - Quote Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Jimmy Binchiette wrote: I think that the deimos could really use some more pwg and maybe an extra midslot for a dual prop fit that would tear BS's apart as that is what AHACs are best at Still, to push the same dps you can do with a Thorax you'll be doing far more sacrifices than with T1 hull. Of course T2 resistances are a + but until this class gets fully revamp you have no real reason to undock with a Deimos over a Thorax. For simple comparison if you try to make a lol suicide run ship and shield fit both, Thorax can still push by far much more dps and almost double top speed of Deimos. Then again, make a dual prop gang fit and Deimos wins hands down in tank and dps. Ishtar is awesome as it is, CPU is tight but nothing is perfect. -á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars -
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 8743	Posted - 2013.04.20 07:00:00 - [67] - Quote Noisrevbus wrote: Malcanis wrote: Tier 3 BCs have revitalised the mobile sniper meta. They're basically almost everything I used to love about sniper HACs, but with good alpha and T1 insurance. I hear a lot of complaints about the tier 3s, but they're exactly what we need more of: ships that are fun to fly, accessible, affordable without being trivially cheap, great at blowing things up and very prone to blowing up themselves. OK T2 large guns are an arse to skill, but you can use meta /.../ just fine. The devil is in the details... The things you are listing are excatly why I dislike the ships. I don't dislike that there are cool ships that are fun to fly, but i do (and quite strongly) dislike the result of their features or design ideal. You used to love them: You assume HAC's had a problem beside risk-reward appeal... I'm afraid you have drawn the wrong inference. That's not why snipe HACs disappeared, and it's not why they won't be coming back. Look, INIT's current fleet doctrine is based on Faction BS hulls, ffs. The cost of a HAC isn't what stops us using them for snipers. The reason we use Nagas is that large weapons are intrinsically superior for shooting things that are a long way away. Snipe HACs went away when the meta switched to widespread use of Logistics. A beam Zealot had around a 2k alpha. A rail Naga has closer to 4k. An arty nado has 8k+. And both the tier 3s do a lot more DPS (~650 vs ~450) as well, and can be switched out to operate at much greater ranges (We're loading Antimatter L and Plutonium L to engage at ranges that would have necessitated Aurora M in the Zealots). Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere My recommended voting list
Jerick Ludhowe Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 426	Posted - 2013.04.20 14:03:00 - [68] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Yep, tech2 ships definitely are on our to-do list. While Command Ships, Black Ops and Heavy Assault Cruisers are quite in dire need of attention, we'll most likely go over them all one class at a time to make sure they fit with what we've done so far with the tiericide. So i'm going to assume that Command ships will not be making summer xpack? Originally you had them at a higher priority than t1 BS :/. Guess we can always wait another 6+ months for ccp to fix a ship class that was broken on implementation (like 7 years ago btw)
Noisrevbus 431	Posted - 2013.04.21 03:43:00 - [69] - Quote Malcanis wrote: I'm afraid you have drawn the wrong inference. That's not why snipe HACs disappeared, and it's not why they won't be coming back. Look, INIT's current fleet doctrine is based on Faction BS hulls, ffs. The cost of a HAC isn't what stops us using them for snipers. The reason we use Nagas is that large weapons are intrinsically superior for shooting things that are a long way away. Snipe HACs went away when the meta switched to widespread use of Logistics. A beam Zealot had around a 2k alpha. A rail Naga has closer to 4k. An arty nado has 8k+. And both the tier 3s do a lot more DPS (~650 vs ~450) as well, and can be switched out to operate at much greater ranges (We're loading Antimatter L and Plutonium L to engage at ranges that would have necessitated Aurora M in the Zealots). What do you mean that they're gone and won't come back? BL never really stopped running Muninns and Zealots. Several groups have experimented with other more or less sincere M-LR concepts and, furthermore: most higher echelon groups at both medium- and large scale have been running Lokis for a good while now. I don't disagree with you that Alpha is king, I made a note on that in the post above too. However, the name of the game is cost-effect and it's still running rampant. The common use of Faction BS can be attributed to two things: a general overflow of resources enabling groups to experiment with polished concepts that may be something you revert from in a dragged out war proper, and a specific overflow of LP (with regards to Navy BS) from the malbalance of FW income levels. It remains to be seen wether Faction BS is something that would stick in a proper war, because this cold war stalemate have left them never really tried and tested. Still, most political groups seem to have contingencies. PL have run both Napocs and Navdomis, but their fallback subcap in any clustering scenario have remained Rokhs (and Baddons). The CFC groups have been sporting Fleetpests lately, but they would arguably fall back to Maels and BC2/3 given a few lost fleets. Obviously supply play it's part too, but it's not like economy isn't one of the main contributing factors. I highly doubt too many groups would be able to welp a handful of larger faction fleets without feeling enough pressure in their wallet and supplies to revert back to similar more cost-effective options. That is with those ships being broken cheap as is, as many other things (the price push on many navy hulls is within 10% of the base hull).. Keep in mind that HAC were losing popularity even before BC3 were introduced, even if HAC didn't really lose combat appeal - i'd rather argue that engaging, overall. lost appeal as most gangs ended up so cost-effective that risking anything to engage them without any tactical incentive began feeling pointless.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 8787	Posted - 2013.04.21 16:01:00 - [70] - Quote Lokis are significantly different from HACs. Making a ship with Tech 3 EHP and a resist subsystem (not to mention a web range bonus subsystem) work is a very, very long way from making a Muninn work. Let alone an Eagle... I'll break it down for you: as long as the "tier 3" BCs can use large rails/beams/arty, snipe HACs aren't coming back. Simple as that. I think HACs have a viable role, but sniping aint it. Kiting? Yes, sure. Attack ships? Umm hmmm maybe, but possible. Sniping? Get out of town. Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 724	Posted - 2013.04.21 18:10:00 - [71] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Lokis are significantly different from HACs. Making a ship with Tech 3 EHP and a resist subsystem (not to mention a web range bonus subsystem) work is a very, very long way from making a Muninn work. Let alone an Eagle... I'll break it down for you: as long as the "tier 3" BCs can use large rails/beams/arty, snipe HACs aren't coming back. Simple as that. I think HACs have a viable role, but sniping aint it. Kiting? Yes, sure. Attack ships? Umm hmmm maybe, but possible. Sniping? Get out of town. I just heard say'in specialized Bomber wings love to suicide Dictors to bubble those and send them 'hellaw" kissing bombs. It's another of these large number of arguments in Eve that makes training and actually spend time playing the game more or less unworthy after a couple days "toying" with new shift. You get no real benefit or interest on the long term investment combat wise: -Clones become more expensive the ships you'll fly, or will be at some point a downside, what's the point of this stupid mechanic? -Ships you'll fly will not bring you any benefit the time you spend training over what they require, you can have a bazillion SP your stupid T1 frig or cruiser still doesn't need more then some millions to operate at 100% -You can engage without fear a 150 Throrax fleet over a 100 Lokis fleet even if you kill just a portion of those, and you will kill a lot, you will inflict dozens more isk damage then you will ever take. You don't even need 150 Rax fleet, just pick 50 of those guys experienced with 40M bombers and watch how hard it is to counter blobs in Eve of how fantastic (or not) large fleet fights can be Of course this is not exactly what Eve is all about but only fighting with spaceships. Once you've done your 100/250 or even +1500 man fleet and figure what fights are about, inflict isk dmg and nothing else it's funny for some time. It's always a matter of numbers and how boring the fight will be, at least how fast someone targets your ship and kills you so you can go back to something a bit more interesting. You know whatever number of ships is camping "x" gate in low? -you have the numbers and try to catch them, they have scouts and as soon as they see a higher number of ships than theirs they kiss the pos -You don't have the numbers and you stay dock or do whatever but will not fight or even try because it's a waste of time and resources for no benefit. removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Noisrevbus 431	Posted - 2013.04.22 00:23:00 - [72] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Lokis are significantly different from HACs. Making a ship with Tech 3 EHP and a resist subsystem (not to mention a web range bonus subsystem) work is a very, very long way from making a Muninn work. Let alone an Eagle... I'll break it down for you: as long as the "tier 3" BCs can use large rails/beams/arty, snipe HACs aren't coming back. Simple as that. I think HACs have a viable role, but sniping aint it. Kiting? Yes, sure. Attack ships? Umm hmmm maybe, but possible. Sniping? Get out of town. I was only using the Lokis in reference to your comments about M-LR weapon systems. As far as I can understand that is still your argument: some sort of disparity between M and L, making HAC undesirable. I don't quite agree with that, at least not beyond the issues revolving around malbalanced LR-web (from Loki, Huginns and Rapiers) counters. With all that in mind, when you say "sniping" you need to define the term properly, especially in times like these when one could argue the environment shifting (HML and L-Pulse losing potential and/or popularity etc.). I have a feeling that you say "sniping" colloquially and refer to a number of different things that need to be separated and examined one by one. It's a very general term that could be anything from 150-250km warp-oriented Caldari tactics that has been extinct for five years to present day 60-100km S/A HAC hybrid concepts like the arty Lokis. The hybrid nature of those setups makes it even more important to separate the different arguments: I never implied that old LR Muninns were the same ship class as Loki, used AB's, armor tanked, had buffers reminiscent of Loki or ran the webs themselves; but if we are discussing M-LR and L-LR weapon systems here, they are using the same kind of weapons at similar ranges with similar support. Within that specific discussion the Loki are "living proof" that M-LR weapon systems still have potential in the face of L-LR.
Novah Soul Mostly Harmless Mining Corp Peregrine Nation 12	Posted - 2013.04.22 01:14:00 - [73] - Quote X Gallentius wrote: Veronica Kerrigan wrote: Tech 2 resists are based on lore. Minmatar : EM primary, Thermal secondary. Counters the Matari enemies, the Amarr Amarr : Explosive primary, Kinetic secondary. Counters the damage of the Glorious republic. Caldari : Thermal Primary, Kinetic Secondary. Counters the heavy damage of both blasters, as well as Gallente drones. Gallente : Kinetic Primary, Thermal Secondary. Counters the primarily Kinetic damage of the State, as well as hybrid damage. I always thought it was this: Minmatar - Properly boost shield tanks which they love to use. Amarr - Properly boost armor tanks which they love to use. Caldari, Gallente - Leave the biggest holes in their tanks (EM for Caldari, Explosive for Gallente) alone so that nobody in their right mind would bother flying them. Lol, this has been my mindset as well for the most part.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space 172	Posted - 2013.04.22 15:37:00 - [74] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Yep, tech2 ships definitely are on our to-do list. While Command Ships, Black Ops and Heavy Assault Cruisers are quite in dire need of attention, we'll most likely go over them all one class at a time to make sure they fit with what we've done so far with the tiericide. Please do not forget the few recons that also have problems (like he huggin that is the worse split weapon system in game) or the Laechis that.. werll there is no reason to use one over an arazu.
Kaestus Caldari Provisions Caldari State 0	Posted - 2013.04.28 19:23:00 - [75] - Quote Please don't touch the Sacrilege. It's my favorite ship.
Djlrj's bro ddd The Dark Templars 0	Posted - 2013.05.01 06:44:00 - [76] - Quote Where's the love for the Ishtar? It gets 100 pg less than a Vexor! what's up with that/?! I skilled into an Ishtar for a lack of ....everything? lol.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 9041	Posted - 2013.05.01 12:17:00 - [77] - Quote Djlrj's bro ddd wrote: Where's the love for the Ishtar? It gets 100 pg less than a Vexor! what's up with that/?! I skilled into an Ishtar for a lack of ....everything? lol. Inhtar is pretty gimpy on the fittings. The resists are nice tho. 1 Kings 12:11
Rual Storge Caldari Provisions Caldari State 8	Posted - 2013.05.01 22:34:00 - [78] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Have you ever seen an eagle? GBC 1 & 2! I swar it dude!!! WHole fleeets full of it. it Was amazing. 300 Insta locking & popping snipe eagles.. or were those zealots... jEez soo long ago 5 years back when BoB was still BoB and PL some renter scrubs. I recall some scrubs losing 50-70 commandships vs a 200 man sniper fleet... Oh god... where went these guuuudddd epic fights... thesedays fleets are like prostututes, you do all this effort to get to one, have fun for 10 minuts and than your depresed that you went in the first place.
Caleb Seremshur Angel of War Whores in space 7	Posted - 2013.05.06 08:16:00 - [79] - Quote Does anybody know about what's happening with recons?
Nessa Aldeen First Among Equals 33	Posted - 2013.05.06 14:23:00 - [80] - Quote For the amount of time spent on training HACs, seems a massive waste. Like their BS counterparts, they've been left behind by BCs in particular Tier 3 and 2. Gone are the days of nano vagas and snipe zealots. Of their current role, I see only Sacrileges being useful due to outstanding tank and missile. I barely see anyone fly a vaga let alone the other hacs these days, such sadness. I do hope, CCP finds a way to fix their new role.
Apoctasy the united Negative Ten. 26	Posted - 2013.05.07 16:06:00 - [81] - Quote Vagabond needs a buff. This used to be the king of kiting nano boats, but now there is no real reason to fly one over a Cynabal or Stabber Fleet Issue
Twikki The Rusty Muskets 1	Posted - 2013.06.18 23:42:00 - [82] - Quote To be fair, all the t2 cruisers need a little buff of some description. Whether it be a 3rd rig slot better sensor strenghts, more slots, more PG & CPU! Recons should remove the targeting delay after de-cloak, maybe give them and extra mid or low, as most of these are now obsolete with T3's on the field Just my 2 pennies worth Ps have a look at T2 Bs's as well, why train all the extra skill for poor scan res or sensor strenght. Anything T2 should be more superior than the T1 Varient in every way
Noisrevbus 455	Posted - 2013.06.20 19:10:00 - [83] - Quote Since this thread got necro'ed and someone highlighted it by giving me a like (thanks), I figured I'd revisit it and throw in some examples of what I have been saying. If you're interested in what I am getting at, it would do you good to read my past posts in this thread to get some substance to the examples. These figures mean nothing without context. Alpha-to-trading blows: Tornado: Meta, ~7-10k alpha. Cruiser / HAC / BC: ~100k ehp Battleship: ~200k ehp Faction BS: ~400k ehp Tech 3: ~150k ehp (250k ehp) Carrier: ~3m ehp 10-15 Meta Tornado to volley Cruiser / HAC / BC. 20-30 Meta Tornado to volley Battleships 40-60 Meta Tornado to volley Faction BS 30-45 Meta Tornado to volley LR Tech 3 (Web Lokis) 50-75 Meta Tornado to volley SR Tech 3 (Hamgus) 300-450 Meta Tornado to volley Carriers Now consider that to the average gang sizes we see today in the game. The point is not that people do this - but that it's not an unreasonable scenario or example. Obviously, they need to hit as well, but that's where the current EW-issues come in. Considering that the counters to Webbing and Painting have been forced into the Webbing, Painting and Damage range of these projection-concepts where they can't survive, or where you do not have those effects on similarily tanky platforms you will also see any tanky main-line ship (ie., your damage-dealers) forced with contending under Web-Paint where essentially anything is always hit by size+1 or where they have to try to out-range either the damage or the tackle in the narrow 50km gap between 100-150km (or the 80km gap between 70-150km if you are being a bit generous). Effective hitpoints in the face of alpha to cost-effect: Cruiser ~ 100k ehp / 10m (1.5m / 4.5m) = 100k ehp / 6m = 1:006 Cruiser II ~ 100k ehp / 150m (irrelevant) = 100k ehp / 150m = 1:150 Cruiser III ~ 150k ehp / 500m (irrelevant) = 150k ehp / 500m = 1:345 Cruiser III ~ 250k ehp / 500m (irrelevant) = 250k ehp / 500m = 1:200 Cruiser N ~ 100k ehp / 80m (irrelevant) = 100k ehp / 80m = 1:08 BC2 ~ 100k ehp / 50m (11m / 38m) = 100k ehp / 23m = 1:023 BC3 ~ 30k ehp / 60m (16m / 55m) = 30k ehp / 21m = 1:070 BC II ~ 200k ehp / 300m (irrelevant) = 200k ehp / 300m = 1:150 BS ~ 200k ehp / 200m (50 / 165) = 200k ehp / 95m = 1:047 BS N ~ 400k ehp / 500m (50 / 165) = 400k ehp / 385m = 1:095 BS P ~ 400k ehp / 500m (50 / 165) = 400k ehp / 385m = 1:095 Carrier ~ 3m ehp / 1.3m (230 / 765) = 3.m ehp / 765m = 1:0002* * Carriers are obviously not quite as cost effective as even their Tech I modules cost a fair bit ontop of the hull. I am terrible at detailed math. This is by no means meant to be any re-usable calculations that you can fetter any other weight to, but simply a rough comparison to give you an overview of what I have tried to point to. Nevertheless, there are some interesting conclusions that you can draw: T3's are nearly as cost-effective as HAC yet have much better critical mass (5x as much). You need to kill roughly 25 Cruisers for every HAC in a fight, or assuming you can suicide a HAC early on you can then go on to lose your entire gang and still come out ontop in a 25-man fight. Back in the Droneland mineral era a Drake was bottomed out and fully covered by insurance, leaving it's hull-price around 11m. Then you had to kill 10-15 Drakes for every lost HAC in a HAC/BC + Logi + Recon + Bonus fight, or a 25-man HAC gang running 15 HAC's (and 10 support) would have to fight 150-225 Drakes to come out squared in a trading-blow scenario. Considering those Drakes had an alpha of 2.2k you would find yourself in that scenario around 50 Drakes - which meant that the old school HAC gangs found themselves at an impasse where they couldn't justify their own existance. Looking at a tankable scenario you'd be somewhere below those 50 Drakes which meant you'd assume to fight them with 3 to 5 HAC to compete at equal risk levels. The greater picture: Then people wonder why HAC-gangs disappeared or why small-gang pilots began putting their ISK into 100mn T3 (tank, web/paint counter-weight) or hotdropping Carriers (tank) that could actually deal with 50-100man gangs in small numbers. Scale that up to the political level and you can see that the two ideals that compete today are the 1000-man groups whose powerbase lie in Capital and Supers (who have done the equivalent "T3 and Carrier" adaption at their scale9 and 10.000-man groups whose powerbase lie in effective use of the 1:0x ship classes (BC2, BC3, BS and Carriers primarily).
Tumahub Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 467	Posted - 2013.06.20 20:22:00 - [84] - Quote Noisrevbus wrote: I for one welcome our slowcat and suicide-dread overlords.
Noisrevbus 455	Posted - 2013.06.20 20:38:00 - [85] - Quote Tumahub wrote: Noisrevbus wrote: I for one welcome our slowcat and suicide-dread overlords. I would know, I am one of them.
Caius Sivaris Dark Nexxus S I L E N T. 66	Posted - 2013.06.21 13:17:00 - [86] - Quote Steve Spooner wrote: Why HAC when you can use a tengu loki legion proteus? You can fit about three Deimos for the price of a Proteus... And you don't lose SP when it pops.
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 869	Posted - 2013.06.21 13:31:00 - [87] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Equus wrote: Honest question here, I am just very slowly returning and getting my feet wet, and the more I think about it when I left, at least for minmatar ships, HAC's were seldom used. Lots of fleet stabbers out, no vagabonds, and munin (sp?), I can't remember the last time I have seen one of those. As for other ships, unfortunately my views are lopsided as currently I really only fly minmatar. Is my viewpoint and experience too limited, or do some of the T2 ships out there need some loving as well? Yes, the ship balancing team have already confirmed that the project will continue through the T2 ship range. They're just doing the T1 ships first. HACs are probably the most urgent case. Pretty much what Malcanis just said. Many people rage at HACs adn T3's without even thinking about a simple fact: you DON'T start balance with higher tiers but the other way around so yes, for the moment T1 counterparts do the same for a fraction of cost, T3's DPS fitted take the HAC spot not because they're too good but because hacks are simply awful. We're at the point past battleship rebalance which means they should start attacking T2 hulls rebalance pretty soon but make no mistake and should not CCP do it as well. They need to start again by T2 frigates with their different hull versions and roles, then cruisers, then BC's probably BS's and only then T3's so they can have a small but handy step back regarding T2 cruisers/BC performances and then take decisions for T3's. It will take some time, doesn't really matter, Eve is a game played on the long term, I care less about having hacs op next week to get them nerf 6 months latter, I rather wait a couple months and have something decently balanced even if some hulls in the end will still miss something and other too op (at less extent but still exists after T1 rebalance with ships in need of another take a look at which is normal) Be patient, have fun like you never had before flying T1 hulls that became really awesome, fly T2 inties and AssFrigs, test new BC's and BS's, there's so much to do and to have fun with you can skip T2 hulls and balance for the moment and months to come. removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Soldarius Deadman W0nderland Tribal Band 320	Posted - 2013.06.21 21:06:00 - [88] - Quote Besides the terribad Caldari HACs (I'm primarily Caldari specced and even I won't fly them) a large part of why HACs are now on the decline is because of tech 3s. They outperform HACs in every catagory and have more versatility. Psychotic tanks, very small sigrad, and better boosters than command ships. NERF NERF NERF. Back on track, both Eagel and Cerb need to be much better. The onyl thing I've every found the Cerb capable of was sniping recons off the field and exploration. Cerb either needs a butt-load more tank or massive speed advantage so it can get to range without dying in the first 12 seconds of an engagement. That would at least justify it's craptastic tank. I have actually seen an Eagle fleet. I think it was GoonSwarm. Kudos to them for giving it a go. I think that if medium rails weren't so ****, they might be better. Free Ripley Weaver!
Jerick Ludhowe The Scope Gallente Federation 470	Posted - 2013.06.21 21:14:00 - [89] - Quote Apoctasy wrote: Vagabond needs a buff. This used to be the king of kiting nano boats, but now there is no real reason to fly one over a Cynabal or Stabber Fleet Issue It seems you've forgotten that higher resistances are actually an advantage...
Shereza Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 138	Posted - 2013.06.22 04:24:00 - [90] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Yep, tech2 ships definitely are on our to-do list. While Command Ships, Black Ops and Heavy Assault Cruisers are quite in dire need of attention, we'll most likely go over them all one class at a time to make sure they fit with what we've done so far with the tiericide. I sincerely hope that when you "re-balance" the heavy assault ships you don't remove the deimos' MWD capacitor penalty bonus.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.