I read that in another thread on this subject and assumed it was correct, just checked on one of my characters and it is 6.31 seconds, and for my Loki it is 6.36 seconds, that is still doable.

I don't even play the game any more and unlikely to again - but I still have an interest in the game and a semi-professional (done some video game development, modding and private beta testing) passion for game balance/design.

[quote=Rroff]
Not playing the game puts your opinions on it's current state in question.

I'm sure there will be no shortage of people queuing up to tell me when and where I'm wrong ;)

That is the original CCP vision for them not something I've made up - some of them seem to have lost their way somewhat with more recent changes/balances - maybe for good reason at the time I dunno - some of them like the Deimos are probably hard to balance the bonuses between blaster and rail application.

The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization', but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers.

...

So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.

Not something I necessarily disagree with but the scope of where comparisons should be made is another story and would be clearer if HACs were tweaked back towards their original incarnation i.e. the Deimos should have optimal range and tracking bonuses that the Prot should be atleast 15+% less effective at.

HACs are more of the attack versus combat variety - something CCP seems to apply somewhat patchily but there it is - this is a fairly succinct summary of it:

In the last two pages we got..:

Then they should do so.

Recons are already split between roles.

HACs are largely crap, not only in comparison to T3Cs, but due to universal role bonus and really terrible slot/stat/cap/etc layouts.
Same thing for T2 frigates.

HACs are terrible, just as AFs are.
Not because of T3Cs, but because of class internal stats in comparison.

T3Cs cost more

T3Cs risk SP loss

T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility

These are important characteristics to consider in a nerf.

Diversification of the 4 T3Cs is the best way forward.

T3Cs cost more
T3Cs risk SP loss
T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility

These are important characteristics to consider in a nerf.

snip....

T3Cs cost more
T3Cs risk SP loss
T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility

T3Cs cost more

T3Cs risk SP loss

T3Cs are the only hull that enables nomad life in hostile space, due to versatility

Any ship with a cov ops cloak can do that, what you want is a virtually guaranteed way to avoid gatecamps.

Go check what ships can use covops cloak and name 3 that will be usefull for nomad life.

You misunderstood a bit what I meant with the Deimos - it "should" have that tracking advantage over a T3 - all of those ships "should" have that damage application advantage over their respective T3 counterparts - that is a major feature of their specialisation but some of them embody it more than others i.e. the Ishtar.

You are also basing a lot of that on what CCP Rise said (who didn't work for CCP when they were originally developed) - in the original days HACs were conceived a bit differently to where he went with them on the rebalance - the old vision - which he kind of glosses over in those threads - was for dominant solo ships that could close quickly with their target and efficiently take them down. You'd probably have to dig into eve-search to find the older info and to be frank I really can't be bothered to try and drag it up.

Purifier, stratios, pilgrim.

Do you know what "nomad life" mean? It's not roam for a day. Stratios? outside hisec? SB? for what? data site? DED?

I spend weeks at a time in a purifier.

And you seem to have missed my point entirely, you say "those ships should" but there's no *reason* they "should" have that application advantage. As I showed, with sourced evidence, they never had it, they've never needed or wanted it, and there's no significant benefit to it beyond it relegating the HACs to the garbage bin so T3Cs can keep being over-tanked little monsters.

What HACs are supposed to be is tanky. The MWD bonus is entirely a tank bonus, the base hulls aren't even *that* fast to begin with. The Deimos, for example, loses in base speed to a Vigilant and the only HAC hull that isn't beaten by at least one pirate Cruiser is the Vagabond.

As to what you're saying about HAC hulls, considering they were originally introduced in 2003, there was no forum thread for them, and the web pages where such information might have lived are long gone there is no source for this. That was also so many changes and itterations of the game and its mechanics ago that it's a moot point and any argument based on that is ridiculous. Personally I'm going to go with CCP Rise on this one, considering that he was hardly the only one working on that design and he has access to whatever notes and people are left from the early days of Eve when considering how the ships should be reworked.

We're 14 years on, the game has changed massively, and how HACs have actually been used is as tanky high DPS Cruisers. That's also what they've been tiericided to be. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous, and it's almost certain that they're the ship that CCP is going to be using as a baseline for the combat stats of the T3 Cruisers.

You flow megathron in frigates fleets, you are not good statistics example.

HAC are suffering from the T3 plague just like AF do. Their role is better done by another ship so they see really low usage. The way to correct the HACs problem is not to buff them. You have to move away what flat out stomped them out of their designed role.

LOL just noted him in a fleet of T3's flying a Megathron, that is classy...

No the best way forwards is to make them the generalists they were always supposed to be.

It is pointless having any discussion with baltec1, because he spent time in a Purifier he understands the nomad existence., I think that says it all in terms of any input from him... Roll

I don't think it's pointless because he just don't understand what "nomad life" means. He is just missunderstainding it I presume. I can be for a week in the Venal then take a break in hisec, short time in Aridia, take some wormholes into diffierent regions. Never know where next gate will take me. What do I need for that? Mobility. Cloak. Probes. In the same time I'm a target for any entities that are living in given space.

HACs are suffering cos they are crap, as are AFs

You flow megathron in frigates fleets, you are not good statistics example.

EDIT: Actually lost all interest in this now and regardless of what we think it won't have any impact on what CCP do with them anyhow.

Some of that is the result of power creep. Faction ships like pirate hulls were meant to be fairly rare and outrageously expensive as a result. However they have become common as shuttles with entire Sov fleet doctrines being based on them (ie, expected to be lost and replaced en masse).

I remember when seeing a Cynabal in low sec meant a dangerous and probably successful pirate that had earned his -10 and felt confident enough to risk what was at the time considered a shiny ship. Now they are the Toyota Camry of cruisers. Everywhere.

T2 ships are in a good place as far as being very good at their specialist roles. The problem seems to be that there are too many ships that can do just as well or better at more than one role, making the specialists obsolete. The limiting factors of rarity and cost have been overcome.