EVE Search - Heavy interdictors: the end of transport ships?

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Heavy interdictors: the end of transport ships?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Rogerano Minmatar Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.11.14 02:05:00 - [61] Edited by: Rogerano on 14/11/2007 02:07:56 This seems like an exaggeration. No ship is unkillable, which is what your sensationalist viewpoint appears to be. The following broadsword setups (fresh off the EFT press) may or may not be ****e. I don't care. But they do have good tanks for a cruiser. No unkillable tanks though. 2x Gyrostabilizer II, Co-Processor II, Internal Force Field Array I 10MN MWD II, Invul II, 'Copasetic' boost amp, boost amp II, large booster II, electrochem cap boost 5x 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Warp Disruption Field Generator I (Focused) 2x Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Resists are all 80%+ Tanks about 650 DPS with all skills to lvl V. It'll do that for as long as there is capacitor because it's an active tank. The cargo is only 450m3. It's sig radius is 142m2. 3x Shield Power Relay II, Internal Force Field Array I 10MN MWD II, 4x Large Shield Extender II, kin deflection amp (passive kin) 5x Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Warp Disruption Field Generator I (Focused) 2x Core Defence Field Purger I Resists are all 72%+ Totally passive tank (550-600 DPS depending on damage type). Impressive but not unkillable. Sig radius is much larger; 252m2. Can you show us these unkillable tanks? --- Not happy with something in EVE? An emo whine will doubtless help your cause.
sai'l et SWING KINGS	Posted - 2007.11.14 06:35:00 - [62] ok, these ships should not be able to speed tank or even move when using the damn script. thats stupid. i cant believe these ships would be able to speed tank vs a carrier. 1.2 bill ship (or something like that) vs a ship that costs what??? 100mill ... maybe 200mill when they first come out. and fighters cant catch up to it. drones u say???? oh yeah, these HIC's have pretty damn good tanks. so they can probably tank a carrier until backup arrives and there u go.. What about moms??? will they be able to scram a MOM?? 25bill ship + super expensive fit.. lets say...40 bill. ok. and it can be scram by a 100mill ship. maybe 200mill ship in lowsec. what about all the time spent learning carrier/mom skills???? 1 1/2 yr training minimum. and these HIC's take what...4 months, 6maybe to train. lets just recycle all our sht and be done with it. CCP what are u doing??? the minnie HIC can speed tank pretty good when using those ******* script things.
Bentula	Posted - 2007.11.14 08:27:00 - [63] Edited by: Bentula on 14/11/2007 08:32:31 And again people cant look further than 5 feet. So HICs cant lock fast enough and cant tank a marauder? These are not solo ships guys, so please stop it with your 1vs1 theories it makes me sick. These ships are way faster in lowsec than anything that can take them down, even if your 5km away from him after jumpin you still wont get to lock them before they burned out of webrange in your marauder. In any halfdecent pirategang that is camping a gate these things will be remote sensorboosted and remote repaired. I dont care how many n00bs you can kill that didnt even spent 5 mins thinking about how to use this ship in a gang, but the combination of lots of tanking slots, hac resists and extra resistance bonus will mean these ships get a tank that screams remoterep to me. And with how the module currently works they are always remote repable if in lowsec. Not saying these ships are OP, tackling alone doesnt win you fights, just pointing out how arguments are flawed. Its like pointing at a logistics ship and going "lol he cant even rep himself with all those large reps/boosters in his highslots, what a useless ship". Originally by: sai'l et ok, these ships should not be able to speed tank or even move when using the damn script. thats stupid. i cant believe these ships would be able to speed tank vs a carrier. 1.2 bill ship (or something like that) vs a ship that costs what??? 100mill ... maybe 200mill when they first come out. and fighters cant catch up to it. drones u say???? oh yeah, these HIC's have pretty damn good tanks. so they can probably tank a carrier until backup arrives and there u go.. What about moms??? will they be able to scram a MOM?? 25bill ship + super expensive fit.. lets say...40 bill. ok. and it can be scram by a 100mill ship. maybe 200mill ship in lowsec. what about all the time spent learning carrier/mom skills???? 1 1/2 yr training minimum. and these HIC's take what...4 months, 6maybe to train. lets just recycle all our sht and be done with it. CCP what are u doing??? the minnie HIC can speed tank pretty good when using those ******* script things. Have you lived under a rock the last year? Any speedtanked ship can scram a carrier, dont need a HIC for that, and i give you a hint, there are ships costing far less than 100mil, that are far faster, and they can keep moms down even better. Cause if you go bubblemode you cant speedtank anymore, if you use script you get vulnurable to EW. Dictors however can even die, aslong as they managed to drop the bubble outside smarty range the mom isnt going anywhere.
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.17 10:27:00 - [64] Originally by: Cosmo Raata You are clueless. I've been on sisi testing these since day 1. The shield tanking versions of these have tanks that just plain cannot be broken with any type of ship. Post above you were showing how kronos and paladin (skill lvl4) cant break dictor. Next time use ship which deals more damage: geddon. Anyways if they passive tank and "cant" be broken - just mwd/slowboat away. Damage is pretty bad anyways and they can keep "cant kill it mode" only in full passive (bye bye MWD/web).
Nomme Mugen Shipyards	Posted - 2007.11.17 11:37:00 - [65] If CCP are going to allow these things to Interdict in low-sec,and able to scram anything,then maybe they need to release those Covops blockade runners.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2007.11.17 11:38:00 - [66] Blockade runners should be able to use blackops jump bridges. But really? Your defense has _always_ been MWDIng away quick, and getting out of range, then warping. (or back to the gate, and jumping). 2 points really isn't anything to write home about - any 'real' gatecamp does more than that, simply because of stabbed haulers. But the Crane still needs more powergrid. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2007.11.17 11:41:00 - [67] Originally by: Cosmo Raata Originally by: Gaogan Oh, and a HIC can NOT tank a maurauder. With a double injector, double repper tank, my Phobos was just barely able to tank a Deimos until cap booster charges ran out. A marauder would eat the Phobos for lunch, between the 99% web and the 700 dps damage output, and the nos/neuts. A phobos can't tank a maurader, but the broadsword & the caldari one CAN!!! Yes, i've tested this on Sisi people. I used a kronos & a paladin at level 4 and max skills in ever other sense. These things can tank too well. T'Amber was the Nyx pilot scrammed by a broadsword that he couldn't kill. These ships are overpowered, period. I dont care if you dont listen to what I have to say about them, as you'll regret it later and be complaining to CCP how overpowered they are later. To be fair, that's pretty much what these ships were intended to do - make it WAY more hazardous to gatecamp in motherships, without an escort. But seeing a 5km/sec broadsword, orbiting at 26km with that point running, does make me ... concerned. Onyx tanks good, but is just plain slow. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP
Nomme Mugen Shipyards	Posted - 2007.11.17 12:20:00 - [68] Originally by: James Lyrus Blockade runners should be able to use blackops jump bridges. But really? Your defense has _always_ been MWDIng away quick, and getting out of range, then warping. (or back to the gate, and jumping). 2 points really isn't anything to write home about - any 'real' gatecamp does more than that, simply because of stabbed haulers. But the Crane still needs more powergrid. Not disputing the cranes powergrid needs or the warp core strength. From what I see its the small/smaller corps who try and populate low sec,with the HIC abilites in low-sec it would make sense to add a covops class,and allow them to decloak-warp-cloak around heavy gate camps,whilst their cargo hold could be sufficiently adjusted to carry your most precious cargo.
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.17 14:38:00 - [69] Originally by: James Lyrus But really? Your defense has _always_ been MWDIng away quick, and getting out of range, then warping. (or back to the gate, and jumping). In 0.0, yes. No one is saying HICs will make 0.0 more dangerous for blockade runners. (One could, though - right now, you can MWD out of a dictor bubble, and then warp off, because the dictor can only get one pt on you. The Broadsword is faster than you and and keep an infinite-strength scram on your ship, so no running anymore except for back to the gate.) In low-sec, gate camps have a two-fold problem: First, no bubbles with infinite strength, so WCS work nicely. Second, to get a blockade runner or other small ship, you need a fast locker, which means you need a cruiser or frig-sized ship for that - both being quite in peril due to the sentries. Which right now results in gate camps consisting mostly of either BS/CS with sensor boosters, or including some tech 2 cruisers (lach, HACs) for fast tackling. Even big gate camps usually do not have many fast tacklers. In low-sec, you can usually just warp out with a ship that aligns suitably fast and has 2-4 points like the typical blockade runner. No one is saying you were totally safe in low-sec so far. You were not. Good gate camps could get you. If you jump into a huge gate camp, the mwd/cloak/align/uncloak/warp trick is useful (and yes, more pg for the crane if it can't do that). But in general, for the typical low-sec gate camp, blockade runners were ok. You pay for using the blockade runner by having a small cargo hold compared to the industrials. More safety, less profit. With the HIC, it's possible for every other common 2-3 ship gate camp to get a blockade runner without too much trouble. So the blockade runners will have to utilize the cloak-trick much more often, or mwd back to the gate. Low-sec becomes much riskier for the blockade runner. And that's the main problem: Low-sec (LOW SEC, not zero) becoming riskier, thus making the little rewards you can get there even less interesting. As a solution for this, multiple things have been proposed. The easiest is to just make the HIC scram be 1pt like others, too. If their bubble would be 1pt, too, then interdictors would have one advantage over HICs (compared to many disadvantages). I'm not sure why this doesn't happen. The stats originally included the note that the disruption field has a warp scramble strength of 1. I do think the infinite strength is actually not a game design decision, but a technological decision based on how supercaps work. I would prefer a different solution :-)
Atsuko Ratu Caldari Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2007.11.17 22:13:00 - [70] I has you bubbled, wait I can't moves! It's called LOWSEC not HIGHSEC. Get some friends or join a corp. This thread is made of fail.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.17 22:43:00 - [71] Originally by: Cosmo Raata Originally by: Gaogan Oh, and a HIC can NOT tank a maurauder. With a double injector, double repper tank, my Phobos was just barely able to tank a Deimos until cap booster charges ran out. A marauder would eat the Phobos for lunch, between the 99% web and the 700 dps damage output, and the nos/neuts. A phobos can't tank a maurader, but the broadsword & the caldari one CAN!!! Yes, i've tested this on Sisi people. I used a kronos & a paladin at level 4 and max skills in ever other sense. These things can tank too well. T'Amber was the Nyx pilot scrammed by a broadsword that he couldn't kill. These ships are overpowered, period. I dont care if you dont listen to what I have to say about them, as you'll regret it later and be complaining to CCP how overpowered they are later. As much as I hate to admit it, the solution to this will be stack nerfing shield recharge. Liang -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
Skraeling Shortbus Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.17 22:54:00 - [72] Hics are made of fail, not the thread. Love to the Assault Frigate!
Traddox	Posted - 2007.11.18 02:28:00 - [73] If you think this is a nerf to Transport ships you are an idiot, nuff said. A transport ship can warp faster than a cruiser classed ship with sensor boosters in the mids can target.
Tek'a Rain Gallente Isis Technologies	Posted - 2007.11.18 04:20:00 - [74] Originally by: Traddox If you think this is a nerf to Transport ships you are an idiot, nuff said. A transport ship can warp faster than a cruiser classed ship with sensor boosters in the mids can target. are you sure? taking into account the so-far published info on Hactors? taking into account remote sensor boosting?
Thomina Yorke GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.18 05:31:00 - [75] Originally by: Tek'a Rain Originally by: Traddox If you think this is a nerf to Transport ships you are an idiot, nuff said. A transport ship can warp faster than a cruiser classed ship with sensor boosters in the mids can target. are you sure? taking into account the so-far published info on Hactors? taking into account remote sensor boosting? Taking into account that you can BURN BACK TO THE GATE IF YOU DON'T TRUST THE SITUATION AFTER YOU LOAD GRID? You might not "run" the blockade, but you won't die if you're not an idiot. Just burn back to the damn gate if you see a Hactor. How hard is this to understand?
Jar'cana Brig	Posted - 2007.11.18 06:51:00 - [76] how 'bout we just make titans and motherships 0.0 only? Solves the low-sec issue. Story-wise, I have a hard time believing a huge empire would allow a supercap in it's space anyway. A blockade runner is a 20mil ship with t2 defenses that may as well be paper against a gatecamp. The only way it (or any other cargoship) can beat a gatecamp is with a cloak, a rack full of WCS, and speed. And because of it's small cargospace, it'll have to beat that gatecamp 3,4,5 or more times. I can do it, but every once in awhile I screw up or they get lucky. Oh well - I congratulate the pirates, not whine at them. But in the "big picture" I'm not sure CCP really knows what low-sec is for. Is it a transition/training area to get players into 0.0? Is it just that alley you walk past on the way to the bar? Low-sec ores are crap, trade-runs arn't worth the risk, and the rats aint that great. For 0.0, a titan/MS scrambler is great! For low-sec an infinite scram is overpowered.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.18 11:18:00 - [77] Edited by: Verite Rendition on 18/11/2007 11:21:28 Originally by: Thomina Yorke Originally by: Tek'a Rain Originally by: Traddox If you think this is a nerf to Transport ships you are an idiot, nuff said. A transport ship can warp faster than a cruiser classed ship with sensor boosters in the mids can target. are you sure? taking into account the so-far published info on Hactors? taking into account remote sensor boosting? Taking into account that you can BURN BACK TO THE GATE IF YOU DON'T TRUST THE SITUATION AFTER YOU LOAD GRID? You might not "run" the blockade, but you won't die if you're not an idiot. Just burn back to the damn gate if you see a Hactor. How hard is this to understand? Clearly you've never flown a Crane. Originally by: Jar'cana Brig how 'bout we just make titans and motherships 0.0 only? Solves the low-sec issue. Story-wise, I have a hard time believing a huge empire would allow a supercap in it's space anyway. Unfortunately, they need low-sec access for mobility. Prior to Dreads being able to enter .4 space, you couldn't move a Dread between the North and the South, and 0.0 would be even worse. Most 0.0 regions are separated by a large expanse, while titans realistically aren't able to go farther than 7ly (technically they could do 7.875ly on JC V, but that's a ton of training time for an extra .875ly). ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.18 11:27:00 - [78] Originally by: Verite Rendition Clearly you've never flown a Crane. Implant slot6, PG2/4/8 adds 1/3/5% powergrid to ship.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2007.11.18 13:34:00 - [79] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Verite Rendition Clearly you've never flown a Crane. Implant slot6, PG2/4/8 adds 1/3/5% powergrid to ship. PDS IIs, RCUs and ancillary current routers also increase powergrid. Or you could fit a 100mn Digital booster rockets to it. But the point remains, that the Crane is the only blockade runner that has to do so, despite being already the slowest, heaviest, and with the fewest midslots. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP
Thomina Yorke GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.18 22:47:00 - [80] Then the Crane needs a buff. But as far as the Prorator/Viator/Prowler go, the Hactor won't be any more dangerous than instalocking an Lachesis, which can be avoided.
Lt Angus Caldari the united	Posted - 2007.11.19 00:00:00 - [81] not like we werent using 6point 2200 scan lachs before hand Shhhh, Im hunting Badgers
Exlegion Caldari New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.19 00:35:00 - [82] This is a nerf to low-sec piracy. Some just haven't realized it yet. But soon enough you will. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru
Incantare Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.19 01:06:00 - [83] Originally by: Liang Nuren As much as I hate to admit it, the solution to this will be stack nerfing shield recharge. Liang If there is a problem with the passive tanks of the hics it can be solved by increasing their recharge times. A stacking nerf on sprs would be overkill.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.19 02:07:00 - [84] Originally by: Incantare Originally by: Liang Nuren As much as I hate to admit it, the solution to this will be stack nerfing shield recharge. Liang If there is a problem with the passive tanks of the hics it can be solved by increasing their recharge times. A stacking nerf on sprs would be overkill. No, extender tanks could still survive. Most (reasonable) completely passive ships only have 5 or 6 modules devoted to shield reharge (3 CDFP I, 2-3 SPR II). 2-3 SPR II + 0-1 CDFP + 0-3 CDFE would work somewhere between half and three quarters as effective for most ships. The only truly hurt ships would be those that are both completely filling all their lows with SPR II's and have lots of lows (Eos and Myrmidon come to mind). Liang -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
Incantare Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.19 03:02:00 - [85] Originally by: Liang Nuren No, extender tanks could still survive. Most (reasonable) completely passive ships only have 5 or 6 modules devoted to shield reharge (3 CDFP I, 2-3 SPR II). 2-3 SPR II + 0-1 CDFP + 0-3 CDFE would work somewhere between half and three quarters as effective for most ships. The only truly hurt ships would be those that are both completely filling all their lows with SPR II's and have lots of lows (Eos and Myrmidon come to mind). Liang Obviously hp based passive tanks wouldn't be affected. For such a nerf to be justified requires that they cause an imbalanced situation, not just on the HICs as that can be solved with by increasing their recharge time, but for all ship classes for which they are viable. I'm unconvinced. Full blown passive tanks give up mobility, pvp utility, damage, the prolonged use of any cap intensive module and the ability to warp multiple times in rapid succession. For all those sacrifices they gain one thing: superior tanking ability. I consider that a fair tradeoff. I can understand wanting to encourage balanced builds but your suggestion would effectively make them worse when they are in no case in need of a nerf. A better way to achieve that would be to buff sprs while adding a stacking nerf so their strength with two or three fitted is either unchanged or better and anything beyond would be worse off.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.19 05:09:00 - [86] Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Verite Rendition Clearly you've never flown a Crane. Implant slot6, PG2/4/8 adds 1/3/5% powergrid to ship. PDS IIs, RCUs and ancillary current routers also increase powergrid. Or you could fit a 100mn Digital booster rockets to it. But the point remains, that the Crane is the only blockade runner that has to do so, despite being already the slowest, heaviest, and with the fewest midslots. It's the fewest low-slots (not mid-slots) but the point still stands. The Crane needs a serious buff, both to fit MWDs and to balance out the lack of low-slots with the high mass. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.19 06:30:00 - [87] Originally by: Incantare Obviously hp based passive tanks wouldn't be affected. For such a nerf to be justified requires that they cause an imbalanced situation, not just on the HICs as that can be solved with by increasing their recharge time, but for all ship classes for which they are viable. I'm unconvinced. Full blown passive tanks give up mobility, pvp utility, damage, the prolonged use of any cap intensive module and the ability to warp multiple times in rapid succession. For all those sacrifices they gain one thing: superior tanking ability. I consider that a fair tradeoff. I can understand wanting to encourage balanced builds but your suggestion would effectively make them worse when they are in no case in need of a nerf. A better way to achieve that would be to buff sprs while adding a stacking nerf so their strength with two or three fitted is either unchanged or better and anything beyond would be worse off. I would have no problem with increasing the viability of both the CDFP and the SPR if they implemented a stacking nerf. The real issue comes from being able to fit 7+ modules to shield recharge. Full passive Myrmidon uses [PDU/SPR II] + 5x SPR II + 3x CDFP I = 9 Full passive Drake uses 4x SPRII + 3x CDFP I + Shield Recharger I = 8 Sure, they gain superior tanking - but at what cost? They're slightly mobile bricks with tanks better than most battleships. Active tanking (even if you devoted the same slottage to it) simply can't keep up - and has additional vulnerabilities to nos/neut. Liang -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
Ricco Lonestar Minmatar xtort Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.11.19 09:08:00 - [88] Will we have more use of the ingame voice? Maybe instead of the usual is it safe.(highsec>lowsec). Personally I would not ask the neutral looking guy on the empire gate. you never know maybe he will even make baby Jezus cry.
Ottman	Posted - 2007.11.19 12:39:00 - [89] well combine that ship with huggin and ceptor means insta death for transport ships, scramed and webbed to hell, even mwd dont work then. means that was it with blocade running. MfG ottman
Ricco Lonestar Minmatar xtort Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.11.19 18:51:00 - [90] Originally by: Ottman well combine that ship with huggin and ceptor means insta death for transport ships, scramed and webbed to hell, even mwd dont work then. means that was it with blocade running. MfG ottman In 0,0 yes , but a large bubble + above mentioned ships did already.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: 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.