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) |
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. |
|
|
|
|
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 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |