1) A HAC gets no EWAR or logi bonuses, they're pure dps ships. This was covered several times including during the HAC rebalance thread.
2) 825 dps applied from a cerb is certainly preferable which is exactly why I said it. The problem that went over your head is how the jump from cruiser to battleship is such a small increase in DPS, even for T2 battleships. The marauder package got extra tank and projection much like a mini dread --- but critically misses the damage bonus. 3 out of 4 ships got 125% damage at all 5, golem drew the short straw and got better application, on weapon systems that can't cause wrecking hits.

The issue is pretty complex we agree but I'm not the simpleton here.

combat fit t3's don't get ewar or logi bonuses either.

I would love to see this fit.

I was interested in this too. Now with the mobile depot, you can refit the nullifier sub and strip the probe launcher for another HAM launcher and get over 500 dps with any type of rage ham with 3 faction damage mods (4 if you refit scanning sub too) and 5 launchers.

I think you can do pretty similar with a proteus but with a worse tank and much worse range.

You can actually get a locus Proteus over the 200k eHP mark with a T2 fit.....but good luck fitting guns on it, maybe 200DPS (being giving there) with 1 plate and three hardeners, that is cloaky and nullified, but you only have 5 highs and two are cloak and probe launcher.

....and you aren't winning any races with it, trust me.

It's very interesting how detractors aren't posting these 1000 DPS, 750k EHP, 100MN, Cloaky, Scanny fitted T3s with Ewar and Logi that they're crying about.

This conversation is about T3 ships not wormhole space. Do you really need me to explain to you why the mechanics of wormhole space cause people to use t3 ships almost exclusively?

None of those groups are unbeatable...

... so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

The point I am making has been re-iterated above - the best ship at heavy assault ought to be a Heavy Assault Ship. The best ship for deploying an advanced strategy ought to be a Strategic Cruiser.

That's all.

And Marauders should maraud, logistics ships should actually have the role industrials have now. Industrials should be mobile factories. Recon ships should simply have the covert scout role, where did all this ewar come from?

It's very interesting how detractors aren't posting these 1000 DPS, 750k EHP, 100MN, Cloaky, Scanny fitted T3s with Ewar and Logi that they're crying about.

That is not the claim. The claim is that for every HAC there is a better, stronger equivalent T3 which delivers more damage and has much a stronger tank.

here's an example:

Tengu w/6 HAMs, 3BCUs and a T2 bay loading accelerator:
906 dps (unheated), with 55900 (unheated) ehp with MWD, scram, web

cerberus w/HAMs, 3 BCUs, T2 loading bay accelerator + MWD + scram (NO WEB):
619dps (unheated), 38777 ehp (unheated)

In this example, the tengu outperforms the cerberus by 46% on damage output and 44% on ehp.

The tengu has the option to swap 1 BCU for a damage control for extra tank at the expense of a small amount to dps. The cerberus already has a DC so does not have this option. In the new safer configuration, the tengu is pushing out 832 dps (beating the cerb by 34%) and has 66932 ehp (72% more than the cerberus).

Granted, the cerberus can project that HAMs further, but the tengu's will hit harder again by virtue of the web.

It's a no-brainer. sell cerberus, buy tengu. You'll lose less ISK in ship replacement and score more kills in a tengu.

Shame eh?

And Marauders should maraud, logistics ships should actually have the role industrials have now. Industrials should be mobile factories. Recon ships should simply have the covert scout role, where did all this ewar come from?

Why is this bad? A T2 setup that costs 1/4th the cost of a T3 has less dps and less tank.

OK? And?

Why is this bad? A T2 setup that costs 1/4th the cost of a T3 has less dps and less tank.

OK? And?

Not entirely fair. Marauders, logistics et. al. do currently have a role in eve.

My concern is that T3s currently make HACs obsolete in anything other than 1v1

I think T3 should be good ships, but not better at heavy assault than HACs, which have no other role.

You are assuming infinite funding. Not everyone sits in a big blue donut with free T3 cruiser replacements. Nor do we all use daddy's credit card.

Cost to performance ratio matters. So does skill to performance.

If we are ignoring cost, then I want ALL pirate faction ships to be reduced in function to the hulls they are based on. Lets bring the Rattle down to be as useful as a Raven. Drop that Mach down too; it can't be doing more dps than the 250 million isk BS category.

Not entirely fair. Marauders, logistics et. al. do currently have a role in eve.

My concern is that T3s currently make HACs obsolete in anything other than 1v1

I think T3 should be good ships, but not better at heavy assault than HACs, which have no other role.

At current prices, the tengu mentioned above costs 430m isk. The cerberus costs 224m isk. The tengu is easily twice as good as the cerberus. For this level of power you're right, it would be more consistent if the tengu had a price tag of 900m isk.

No, it is fair. You are getting stuck on the name. If HACs were called Rapid Assault Cruisers, would you still have a problem?

HACs are generally faster and have better damage projection while combat T3s are slower and better at brawling. Two completely different roles and fighting styles for T2 completely different classes of ship.

What I'm stuck on is not the name, it's the utility. A HAC fleet has no way of making any headway against an equivalent T3 fleet. The moment they're in close enough range to lock the T3s down, they're dead.

A rational pilot would not choose a HAC over a T3 for anything other than solo fun.

I'd have no problems at all with CCP adjusting the drop rates for T3 materials to raise the price up to a more appropriate level. In my opinion, this should be in the 3-4x T2 cruiser price and 2-3x CS price.

Okay, so you have no official source for your claim. That is what i though, thanks.

Feel free to answer my earlier question as to why you would fly a t3 that was worse than a HAC...

Edit: i don't know if you can call someone a baby if you're the one typing in caps and unable to come up with a ligitamate argument to a reasonable question.

I don't think you have really though this through and because of that, your opinion hold little weight with me. So forgive me if i am unwilling to take your opinion on the nature of Tech 3 ships as fact.

The fact is, many T2 ship can out perform T3 in a similar configuration. The only one people get stuck on is the HAC and the fleet T3 (dps, buffer tank).

Just because it's called a heavy assault cruiser doesn't mean it needs to do the most dps and have the biggest tank of all cruisers. HACs are faster, have a sig reduction bonus, better damage projection and are cheaper. That is what makes the HAC good imo.

I've presented my argument, now please let us all hear yours or top talking to me.

Price is not under any circumstances a balancing factor, isk is an infinite commodity.

W-space depends on a healthy demand for t3's

lol wut?

You want them to cost around 800~900 million?

Price is not under any circumstances a balancing factor, isk is an infinite commodity.

Very much this, although pilots who have only experienced hisec will have difficulty in visualizing the truth of this statement.



This is not actually true of high end WH space. Nanoribbons make up a minority of the ISK earned from an escalated c5 or c6. The vast majority of money comes from the blue 'books' that drop from the elite battleships. These are sold in university stations to the fixed NPC market.

If no-one bought a T3 again, I'd still live in a c5 or c6 because the isk return for time is vastly superior here than anywhere else (amongst other reasons).