EVE Search - HAC cant hack it...

All Channels

Ships and Modules

HAC cant hack it...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.02.27 22:16:00 - [31] Originally by: Elain Reverse Edited by: Elain Reverse on 27/02/2007 18:16:28 Originally by: LUKEC Edited by: LUKEC on 27/02/2007 17:08:56 Megathron used to have 4250 base armor. Drake now has 5469 shield and nighthawk has 4805. Problem is also that battlecruisers have too many slots and don't really have to sacrifice dmg for tank. Myrmidon easily outdamages domi, drake comes close to cruise raven and amarr one still gets owned by heavy nosf. Are you joking ? Drake use heavy missiles and can dealt about 300 dmg with each missile when cruise have far better range and do like 500. Also raven can fit Torps and they dealth even more dmg (3 times dmg of drake ?). So for killing frigs drake is better, but for BS it take 15minutes to kill some better BS. Also Nighthawk have 2 times bigger cargo, better targeting range, more bonuses for missiles, more resistances on shields and armor. Also 1 more Lowslot for BCU count. Ugh... too many smart people on forums these days. Sorry, read, think, post. And tell me how exactly 5th low benefit damage? -------- .....
Alowishus Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.27 22:40:00 - [32] Originally by: Mogrin Ok, so the Astarte should beat the Hyperion? And the Enyo should be the Thorax? Gotcha. Compare apples to apples. There's a whole class of ships between Frigate and Cruiser.
Mogrin	Posted - 2007.02.27 23:06:00 - [33] You consider the destroyer a ship class? I consider it a freak of nature. But if you wanna compare apples to apples... So you want battlecruisers to have the dps of a HAC, the tank of a tech1 cruiser, and the signiture radius of a battleship.
Katrina Coreli Soar Angelic	Posted - 2007.02.27 23:38:00 - [34] Originally by: Mogrin You consider the destroyer a ship class? I consider it a freak of nature. But if you wanna compare apples to apples... So you want battlecruisers to have the dps of a HAC, the tank of a tech1 cruiser, and the signiture radius of a battleship. Stop putting words into peoples mouths
n0thing A Black Knight Corp	Posted - 2007.02.28 12:59:00 - [35] Originally by: Mogrin You consider the destroyer a ship class? I consider it a freak of nature. But if you wanna compare apples to apples... So you want battlecruisers to have the dps of a HAC, the tank of a tech1 cruiser, and the signiture radius of a battleship. I think what people mean here that, fine, BCs supposed to be HACs pain, but Command Ships should be the ones between BC class and BS class, and now they are between HAC and BC class. tnx,
Master OlavPancrazio Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.02.28 13:40:00 - [36] The op is suggesting assault frigates should be able to wtfpwn tech 1 cruisers too.
Nian Banks Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.02.28 14:04:00 - [37] Edited by: Nian Banks on 28/02/2007 14:04:25 As I unserstand it, a tech2 ship should be on equal terms to the tech1 ship one size above it. With a little difference here and there. One thing to remember is that all ship types should be equal to their same type. t2 frigate = t2 frigate, 50/50 win within reason but ofcourse racial differences can make it a bit fuzzy. Other than that I see it like this- For t1 ships the hierarchy is easy Frigates <- Destroyer <- Cruiser <- Battlecruiser <- Battleship <- Captitals. For t2 mixed in its not so easy but still not hard. Frigates t2 is greather than frigate is equal to destroyer, destroyer t2 and cruiser, is less than cruiser t2, battlecruiser, battlecruiser t2, battleship and capital ships. (The destroyer just does too good a frig killing job) Cruiser t2 is greater than frigate, frigate t2, destroyer, destroyer t2 and cruiser and is equal to battlecruiser, is less than battlecruiser t2, battleship and capital ships. Destroyer t2 is greater than frigate and is equal to frigate t2 and destroyer, is less than cruiser, cruiser t2, battlecruiser, battlecruiser t2, battleship and capital ships. Cruiser t2 is greater than frigate, frigate t2, destroyer, destroyer t2 and cruiser, is equal to battlecruiser and less than battlecruiser t2, battleship and capital ships. Battlecruiser t2 is greater than frigate, frigate t2, destroyer, destroyer t2, cruiser, cruiser t2 and battlecruiser, is equal to battleship and is less than capital ships. Fair enough guys? Seems simple to me and makes it all nice and fair. T2 isn't an "I win" button but it should be what it is, tech2 as in better than tech1, If I fit a tech2 shield on a ship I expect more shield hitpoints and better resists not less, when I buy a tech2 ship I expect it to be 99.99% tech 2, not tech2 sensors with tech1 for everything else. Otherwise you may aswell give all ships 20 rig slots and let us all make our own custom so called tech 2 ships. For the arguement about skill points equaling pawnage, well... We may aswell all stop training skills right now if those who moan and cry and stamp their feet about people with high skill points wanting a higher chance to win in pvp are in the right. I want to think that when I specialise in a direction and spent months on it that I am somehow better in the field of skills and can pawn some 2 month old account. So back to the problem, when we had a last big patch and there was a hitpoints increase, tech1 ships got far more than tech2 and now its not right, infact its out of wack. allot of tech1 ships have more hitpoints than their tech2 versions. Thats not right and should be fixed damned right immediately.
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.02.28 14:10:00 - [38] A nice boost to CS to bring them halfway between the new BCs and the hypothetical T2 BS would be nice. These ships cost a lot in isk and training time but rarely bring more to the battlefield than their t1 counterparts. sgb
n0thing A Black Knight Corp	Posted - 2007.02.28 16:12:00 - [39] CS should not be better then BS imo. That will lead to serious balance hit since CS is smaller thus more agile, thus easier to move around with. Maybe decrease tier 2 BC capabilities to give CS advantage, maybe less hp, maybe slots, maybe grid to limit weaponary. tnx,
Porklett	Posted - 2007.02.28 17:08:00 - [40] Are you kidding my Nighthawk eats Tier2 BC's for breakfast. I have killed so many bc's and shield doesn't even go lower 85% i agree heavy assault cruisers should be boosted a little but Command ships are not underpowered they are awesome.
Nerogk Shorn Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2007.02.28 18:26:00 - [41] I have had some serious trouble with tier 2 bc's on the test forum flying my command ships. I have lost 1v1 vrs a particular myrmadon several times. Couldn't beat him in a nighthawk, vulture, or sleipnir, though i generally handle other command ships. I suppose i was in range of the myrma so i was playing into his hands but neverthe less he could tank as well and spit out tons more damage than i could tank. I believe he was setup with an Xlarge shield tank, blasters, ogres and several damage mods. Well tanked tier 2 bc's definetly pos a challenge to command ships. That myrma was teh only tier 2 bc that has defeated one of my command ships, but tbh one is too much. = P Tier 2 bc's are in my opinion overpowered. I don't even compare the tier 2 to tier 1 anymore but think of them as a completely new class of ship. They are easy to fit, deal tons of damage (hurricane has 1 less turret than a sliepnir and the same damage bonus's) and have nasty overpowered tanks. D-F-A-A-B-A-A-S
Nerogk Shorn Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2007.02.28 18:26:00 - [42] I have had some serious trouble with tier 2 bc's on the test forum flying my command ships. I have lost 1v1 vrs a particular myrmadon several times. Couldn't beat him in a nighthawk, vulture, or sleipnir, though i generally handle other command ships. I suppose i was in range of the myrma so i was playing into his hands but neverthe less he could tank as well and spit out tons more damage than i could tank. I believe he was setup with an Xlarge shield tank, blasters, ogres and several damage mods. Well tanked tier 2 bc's definetly pos a challenge to command ships. That myrma was teh only tier 2 bc that has defeated one of my command ships, but tbh one is too much. = P Tier 2 bc's are in my opinion overpowered. I don't even compare the tier 2 to tier 1 anymore but think of them as a completely new class of ship. They are easy to fit, deal tons of damage (hurricane has 1 less turret than a sliepnir and the same damage bonus's) and have nasty overpowered tanks. D-F-A-A-B-A-A-S
Angus McLean Gallente Divinity Trials	Posted - 2007.02.28 18:58:00 - [43] Tier 2 Battlecruisers are overpowered and we all know it. Not all of them necessarily but the fact that they cant take on Command ships is way out of place. Now dont go ballistic when I say 'take on' command ships, I dont mean defeat. Any good CS pilot will send a Tier 2 BC pilot home in a pod and no money, but the new Tier 2 BC's can give them a nice run for play. As for the fact that Tier 2 BC's kill HAC...whats wrong with that? To be honest I see a lot of new players that just jump in HACs and get killed by a T1 ship, they think hacs are somehow stupid and broken. The real issue is, Battlecruisers are meant for Battle and HAC's are...cruisers... ---------------- Freedom Of Speech Band of Brothers T-shirt
Spenz Gallente FIRMA Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.02.28 19:07:00 - [44] Battlecruiser and Cruiser are naval terms. They dont decide whether a ship goes into battle or not. It denotes a class of warship. A cruiser can fight, and so can a battlecruiser. If CCP did the whole thing according to how the real navy did it (dont start with this isnt RL, Im just making an example), the battlecruisers would be a little faster than they are now, would mount a full rack of large guns, but would have the armor of a cruiser. Alas the battlecruiser idea was a complete and utter failure (RIP HMS Repulse, HMS Hood, HMS Indefatigable, HMS Princess Royal) and cruisers remained. But I digress. Do NOT categorize a ship just by its name. Thats just stupid. If I had an Alt I would probably post with it...
Mogrin	Posted - 2007.02.28 19:16:00 - [45] Heres my perspective: Tech 2 = Tech 1 + extra bonus + better resists + couple more slots + mildly better other stats. Whats all this nonsense about ship classes, really? A HAC does BC damage but with cruiser sig radius and speed, and has some increadible resists. Thats what they are. Its kinda like the AF-destroyer-cruiser relationship if destroyers could actually stand up to an AF. BCs can stand up to HACs, get trounced by BSs. While all BSs but a nos domi will have a heck of a time breaking a HAC.
Angus McLean Gallente Divinity Trials	Posted - 2007.02.28 19:30:00 - [46] Edited by: Angus McLean on 28/02/2007 19:28:30 Please reread my post. Edit: And no, most HACs dont outdamage their bc counterparts. Zealot < Harbinger. Some hacs I can think of hardly outdamage their T1 cruiser counterpart. (Zealot out DPS's an Omen by about 50 dps if setup correctly.) I was not classifying them by their name directly, but just using information we already know in eve. Im not bringing RL into this at all. In EvE- Battlecruisers are bigger, more amror, more weapons slots, better tanks (generally) and are overall generally better in 1 on 1 situations than cruisers. Cruisers- the exact opposite of BC's. What does this conclude? Naturally tbh cruisers shouldnt have much of a chance at all against BC's. The only real advantage HACs have is a few bonuses, high resistances, and faster. Thus, why is it so hard to believe that a Tier 2 BC can beat a HAC? Its a cruiser thats why. Its armor is still paper thin, HACs are not meant to have amazing damage and tank in one package. They are meant to be manueverable and pack a punch. Tier 2 bc's can kill hacs, and thats how it should be beacuse class wise, they are smaller. ---------------- Freedom Of Speech Band of Brothers T-shirt
Godar Marak Amarr Return Of Red Dawn	Posted - 2007.02.28 19:34:00 - [47] Originally by: Antarus Lars erm, zealot with 30km scramb -> harbringer Or zealot + beam sniping -> harbringer You forget the zealot is alot faster and has much better range with the +10% opt per level..... With skillfull flying a zealot will toast a harbringer, just need to stay out web range. Zealot+mwd active+active lasers running away from mwd harbinger = ops out of cap. If you die to a zealot in a harbinger you suck. -------------------- '\0/\0/\0/\0/\0/' Cant we all just get along?
korrey Taurus Inc	Posted - 2007.02.28 19:35:00 - [48] Originally by: Godar Marak Originally by: Antarus Lars erm, zealot with 30km scramb -> harbringer Or zealot + beam sniping -> harbringer You forget the zealot is alot faster and has much better range with the +10% opt per level..... With skillfull flying a zealot will toast a harbringer, just need to stay out web range. Zealot+mwd active+active lasers running away from mwd harbinger = ops out of cap. If you die to a zealot in a harbinger you suck. QFT ----------- 24.01.06 Small patch that addresses some minor balancing issues 1) All minmatar pilots have been deleted
Godar Marak Amarr Return Of Red Dawn	Posted - 2007.02.28 19:36:00 - [49] Originally by: madaluap Some people actually trained bs lvl 5, large gunnery lvl 5, surgical strike lvl 5 when T2 large guns didnt even exist. Hear hear. -------------------- '\0/\0/\0/\0/\0/' Cant we all just get along?
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.02.28 20:32:00 - [50] Edited by: welsh wizard on 28/02/2007 20:28:53 Originally by: Spenz Battlecruiser and Cruiser are naval terms. They dont decide whether a ship goes into battle or not. It denotes a class of warship. A cruiser can fight, and so can a battlecruiser. If CCP did the whole thing according to how the real navy did it (dont start with this isnt RL, Im just making an example), the battlecruisers would be a little faster than they are now, would mount a full rack of large guns, but would have the armor of a cruiser. Alas the battlecruiser idea was a complete and utter failure (RIP HMS Repulse, HMS Hood, HMS Indefatigable, HMS Princess Royal) and cruisers remained. But I digress. Do NOT categorize a ship just by its name. Thats just stupid. Completely off topic but the Hood and some of the other ships mentioned were the victim of what can only be described as incredibly bad luck/good german gunnery/lack of air cover. The Hood with its escort should have been more than a match for the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen. I disagree that it was a failed concept, more of an unrealised one tbh. Sorry for off topic. :P
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.02.28 21:04:00 - [51] The Hood had some design flaws in her magazine armor though.
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.02.28 21:28:00 - [52] Originally by: Max Hardcase The Hood had some design flaws in her magazine armor though. True, still the shell that penetrated the deck in the precise vicinity of the magazine storage in the space of about 3 minutes could be described as unlucky! That or testament to German gun crew ability. :P
Jerick Ludhowe Internet Tough Guys Inc.	Posted - 2007.02.28 21:33:00 - [53] Originally by: welsh wizard Completely off topic but the Hood and some of the other ships mentioned were the victim of what can only be described as incredibly bad luck/good german gunnery/lack of air cover. The Hood with its escort should have been more than a match for the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen. I disagree that it was a failed concept, more of an unrealised one tbh. Sorry for off topic. :P I'm going to trail offtopic with you. I feel that if the War had carried on a few years longer and the computer/radar guided guns that were fitted on the iowa class were implemented on smaller, less expensive, faster hulls then Battle Cruisers really would have come into their own. Fast enough to stay at long ranges where a small number (4ish) of large (16 inch+) guns would still be extremely accurate/deadly (plunging fire). Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you****got"
Aizhan Ushrakhan The Sword and The Shield	Posted - 2007.03.01 11:43:00 - [54] wow 2 pages. Can we get the CS to be more in line with tech 1 tier 2BCs. e.g. Drones, a little bit more pg? All i'm sayin is make the ships (hacs and CS) to live to their full potential (and t2 namesake). Some of these hacs are well and truly broken for pvp so they are relegated to pve. Again leme repeat..it isnt abt isk...its about potential and not all hacs bar the vaga can do it exceptionally well. Thankyou for keeping it civil..now back to Eve War I.
Tista	Posted - 2007.03.01 11:56:00 - [55] i think a good point in this is that teir 2 BC actualy stand a chance vs t2 command ships.. which is just wrong.. look at frigates you get the incursus vs the enyo.. who will win that? you get the deimos vs thorax.. again who will win? .. myrm vs astarte... now im not certain but a high skilled myrm should stand a fairly good chance.
Scrutt5 Profiteers of War	Posted - 2007.03.01 12:04:00 - [56] When I tested the drake on the test server prior to its release on TQ, I have to admit I was horrified at its versatility and strength. I have also invested an awful lot of time into my HAC's (HAC 5 etc) and was initialy conserned about the points you raise. Last week I tanked 4 BC's in a HAC with no cap for over half the fight, unable to run my scram unfortunatly they all ran for cover as each hit structure. With the addition of rigs, all you have to do is stop reading the "how to set up this ship for pvp" threads and start thinking out of the box a little. I do however think the drake is overpowered, I'll leave it at that.
Tista	Posted - 2007.03.01 12:08:00 - [57] what hac were you flying?! 4 bcs? :O nooby BC or officer/ faction Hac ( unless sacre inwhich case yeah :D)
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Riggers Incorporated	Posted - 2007.03.01 12:09:00 - [58] Originally by: Aizhan Ushrakhan wow 2 pages. Can we get the CS to be more in line with tech 1 tier 2BCs. e.g. Drones, a little bit more pg? All i'm sayin is make the ships (hacs and CS) to live to their full potential (and t2 namesake). Some of these hacs are well and truly broken for pvp so they are relegated to pve. Again leme repeat..it isnt abt isk...its about potential and not all hacs bar the vaga can do it exceptionally well. Thankyou for keeping it civil..now back to Eve War I. Commandships are not just improved BC's. Granted, the Absolution is a hvy hitting combat ship, but the damnation is a true command ship. It only has to relay orders and coordinate the battle (leadership bonuses). Just like the T2 destroyers, its not excatly an improved destroyer, its an entire new role. And i like it
000Hunter000 Gallente Magners Marauders	Posted - 2007.03.01 12:13:00 - [59] Drake is pretty good if u consider it's a T1 ship, 1 vs 1 i think i would be able to beat it in my NH but 2 vs 1 i would be in trouble me thinks Even though i have an alt flying a drake myself i must agree with the op, tier 2 BC are overpowered. Resized tag... again... hope this pleases the tag ninjas from ccp... again :p
n0thing A Black Knight Corp	Posted - 2007.03.01 12:38:00 - [60] Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Originally by: Aizhan Ushrakhan wow 2 pages. Can we get the CS to be more in line with tech 1 tier 2BCs. e.g. Drones, a little bit more pg? All i'm sayin is make the ships (hacs and CS) to live to their full potential (and t2 namesake). Some of these hacs are well and truly broken for pvp so they are relegated to pve. Again leme repeat..it isnt abt isk...its about potential and not all hacs bar the vaga can do it exceptionally well. Thankyou for keeping it civil..now back to Eve War I. Commandships are not just improved BC's. Granted, the Absolution is a hvy hitting combat ship, but the damnation is a true command ship. It only has to relay orders and coordinate the battle (leadership bonuses). Just like the T2 destroyers, its not excatly an improved destroyer, its an entire new role. And i like it Whole idea of Command Ship imo also to be able to stay alive longer that anything else on battlefield. tnx,

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.