| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nikita Alterana
Gallente
Executive Outcomes
   |
Posted - 2008.07.27 01:51:00 -
[1]
I'm curious, what do we do with HACs now? the only reason anyone flew them before was because you could nano them.
The Ishtar is essentially a faster version of the Domi. What's the point of the Ishtar if you can do everything it can with the domi without paying nearly as much.
What is the point of flying a Deimos when you can get a harder tank and deal more DPS with a Mega? Why fly a sacrilege when the Geddon does more damage and tanks better for far less.
What is the point to HACs now?
__________________________________________________
|
Mankirks Wife
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 01:52:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Mankirks Wife on 27/07/2008 01:54:08
Don't troll! -Taera
OK.. OK..
*troll mode off*
For real though, speed tanking will still be viable on most HACs, they'll still be good for lolz lv. 4 missoin running, they just won't be the be-all-end-all ship anymore. Sheesh.
---
|
Sweet Laylah
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 01:53:00 -
[3]
Agility.
A HAC doesn't need be uber-nanoed to run rings around a BS and escape if the blob comes.
|
Nikita Alterana
Gallente
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 01:53:00 -
[4]
I'm not whining.
I honestly want to know, why would anyone fly a hac after these changes go through? Would different Hacs become better? would any be used? The Cerb and the Zealot didn't nano so their probably alright, but the Ishtar, and the vaga...ouch.
__________________________________________________
|
DubanFP
Caldari
Out of Order
Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 01:53:00 -
[5]
none, actually... Like I said in another thread. Battlecruisers are better then HACs in a strait up fight. The point of HACs was not to have a strait up fight.
_______________
CCP Atropos > I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 01:54:00 -
[6]
You can do everything with the Domi as you can with the ishtar?
Speed nerfed the deimos?
Are you playing the same game as me? Or do you just suck at EVE?
--
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Splagada
Minmatar
Tides of Silence
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 01:54:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Splagada on 27/07/2008 01:56:06
well its a BS cost or less, what do you expect, cookies?
if you're at HAC skills you're almost at command ships. skill up for those if you want a pwnmobile, or use the HACs as they're designed
pretty sure Eagle pilots wont complain about the nano nerf :p
------
Tides of Silence |
DubanFP
Caldari
Out of Order
Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 01:56:00 -
[8]
Edited by: DubanFP on 27/07/2008 01:57:16
Edited by: DubanFP on 27/07/2008 01:56:29
 Originally by: Splagada
Edited by: Splagada on 27/07/2008 01:54:32
well its a BS cost or less, what do you expect, cookies?
Don't know what you're talking about. Battleships are cheaper then HACs and can also be insured. Tier 2 Battleship, 30 mil after insurance. T2 HAC, 60-100 mil uninsurable. Also Vaal should read the latest Dev blog.
_______________
CCP Atropos > I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears. |
Splagada
Minmatar
Tides of Silence
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 01:57:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Splagada on 27/07/2008 01:56:58
i edited a bit above :p
edit : hac aint 70M at all if you produce them
------
Tides of Silence |
Tzujeih
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 01:57:00 -
[10]
Roaming gangs. And they'll continue to be the best at that afterwards.
Drakes the kings of pvp? Ok, lets see you roam with drakes.
|
|
|
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 02:04:00 -
[11]
New point of nanoHACS:
Warp in, orbit battleship at 2km/s, kill battleship.
New purpose for tank HACs:
Kill nanoHACs.
Eve is much more rock paper scissors now, nanoHACs are still viable, but they're not useful against everything that isn't also a nano, or one of the very small group of non-nano counters. Only real difference is you no longer have that nearly guaranteed safety of being able to run away.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 02:07:00 -
[12]
I'm as curious as the Op. I know how HAC's are used now and have been used for awhile. But to me, something about having a 'Heavy Assault Cruiser' just doesn't make me think it's a speed boat. Maybe a cruiser version of interceptor. But I thought a HAC was a cruiser version of an assault ship.
The real problem is that speed is the only viable method for cruisers. What's the deal here? I like the changes the devs are proposing, but it still doesn't fix the problem: the only way to survive with a cruiser is to nano.
Look at AF's. Some T1 Frigs. Destroyers. Most cruisers. These things are often suicide to get in. Without speed boosts, a frigate is essentially useless in combat. Tanking is a laugh.
Where a frigate's true defense should be it's near invulnerability from heavy weapons fire, and small weapons shouldn't even dent battleship armor, we have a system in place that leaves you with either 'go fast' or 'die.'
Give AF's and HAC's super defenses. Bump to 80% resists. Aren't they supposed to be tough?
But if your going to have something going 3k/s+, it better have weak armor. Just my take.
Genesis Project |
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 02:10:00 -
[13]
Assault frigs are useless tbqfh 
A nanoHAC is still viable against battleships, a tanked HAC is now viable against nanoHACs, a battleship is good against a tanked HAC.
If HACs has omgwtfbbqpwn resists then there would be no reason to fly battleships, so a resist buff is most definitely not the answer.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Vincent Gaines
Avis de Captura
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 02:11:00 -
[14]
People used HACs effectively before the nano craze, and they will after.
Just like when people stacked MWDs and that was nerfed, the galaxy didn't implode.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 02:18:00 -
[15]
Dont mouth off - vote - either way
VOTE AGAINST THE NERF
VOTE FOR THE NANO NERF
Its the best way weve got of garnering opinion - and surely much better then "IM QUITTING" / "YOUR TEARS PLEASE" type posts.
Dont forget to tick the thumb box.
What a great way to
a) Judge what people really thinkl
b) Give the CSM an opportunity to prove its worth to the sceptics
c) test CCPs commitment to the CSM
SKUNK
|
Stab Wounds
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 03:26:00 -
[16]
HEAVY Assault ships
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 03:27:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 27/07/2008 03:27:50
Originally by: Ruze
Look at AF's. Some T1 Frigs. Destroyers. Most cruisers. These things are often suicide to get in. Without speed boosts, a frigate is essentially useless in combat. Tanking is a laugh.
Originally by: Cambarus
Assault frigs are useless tbqfh
You guys didn't read the dev blog, did you?
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Mr Siman
Spawn More Overlords
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 03:29:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Cambarus
New point of nanoHACS:
Warp in, orbit battleship at 2km/s, kill battleship.
New purpose for tank HACs:
Kill nanoHACs.
Eve is much more rock paper scissors now, nanoHACs are still viable, but they're not useful against everything that isn't also a nano, or one of the very small group of non-nano counters. Only real difference is you no longer have that nearly guaranteed safety of being able to run away.
This
|
FlameGlow
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:00:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Nikita Alterana
I'm not whining.
I honestly want to know, why would anyone fly a hac after these changes go through? Would different Hacs become better? would any be used? The Cerb and the Zealot didn't nano so their probably alright, but the Ishtar, and the vaga...ouch.
Why anyone flew a non-nano HAC before then? Or you'll be saying that every single HAC you saw up till now was nanoed? 
_____________
I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button. |
doctorstupid2
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:08:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Nikita Alterana
I'm not whining.
I honestly want to know, why would anyone fly a hac after these changes go through? Would different Hacs become better? would any be used? The Cerb and the Zealot didn't nano so their probably alright, but the Ishtar, and the vaga...ouch.
For the same reasons I fly HAC's now.
HINT: I don't nano a damn thing.
Abusive | Deadspace2 | Deadspace |
|
|
Upright
Amarr
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:12:00 -
[21]
Im sorry the but op is right.
There is no reason to fly many HACS post nerf.
Most peeps know a Tier 2 BC will out tank, and out DPS a HAC.
Why should i now pay 3 times the price for a un-insurable ship that doesnt perform as well as BC?
HACS only benefit over BC's were there speed...now that benefit will be hugely decreased. (BTW according to the graph CCP gave out BC's are getting a slight speed boost)
If u see someone fly a HAC post nerf they are either a idiot, or have to much ISK....if things go the way they are planned atm.
|
Lt Angus
Caldari
Lt Angus Corp
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:20:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Splagada
Edited by: Splagada on 27/07/2008 01:56:58
i edited a bit above :p
edit : hac aint 70M at all if you produce them
and BS are free if you mine the mins 
Shhhh, Im hunting Badgers |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:24:00 -
[23]
Wow at least people in this thread agree with me :)
they will still go fast it's just stupid speed that will be gone.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:27:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Ruze
I'm as curious as the Op. I know how HAC's are used now and have been used for awhile. But to me, something about having a 'Heavy Assault Cruiser' just doesn't make me think it's a speed boat. Maybe a cruiser version of interceptor. But I thought a HAC was a cruiser version of an assault ship.
The real problem is that speed is the only viable method for cruisers. What's the deal here? I like the changes the devs are proposing, but it still doesn't fix the problem: the only way to survive with a cruiser is to nano.
Look at AF's. Some T1 Frigs. Destroyers. Most cruisers. These things are often suicide to get in. Without speed boosts, a frigate is essentially useless in combat. Tanking is a laugh.
Where a frigate's true defense should be it's near invulnerability from heavy weapons fire, and small weapons shouldn't even dent battleship armor, we have a system in place that leaves you with either 'go fast' or 'die.'
Give AF's and HAC's super defenses. Bump to 80% resists. Aren't they supposed to be tough?
But if your going to have something going 3k/s+, it better have weak armor. Just my take.
o be honest I'd rather see HUGE sig radius deceases on these ships, to make so the effect hp is the same to bigger ships as having 80% resistances. However smaller ships can tear them like nomral.
with the web change you could keep an afterburner on to much longer.
in other word rp wise give them built in tracking disruptor systems that make them harder to hit.
|
Upright
Amarr
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:30:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Upright on 27/07/2008 04:31:56
Originally by: MotherMoon
Wow at least people in this thread agree with me :)
they will still go fast it's just stupid speed that will be gone.
No i dont agree with you.
Snakes, Polycarbs, and Gang bonuses need to be rebalanced.
All the other changed nerf ships Recons and HACS that do around 2.5-3.5k
These ships do not need to be slowed down as at these speeds that can EASILY be killed.
Yes a guy with full skills, high grade snakes, T2 polies, and a claymore in system with him, while he is in a vaga.....is wrong. These speeds break the game and associated items that let them achieve this speed should be re-balanced.
Lowering the base speeds of HACS and Recons will just make most HACS unusable, and nerf some Recons while hugely boosting two....
|
Upright
Amarr
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:31:00 -
[26]
Just because you said BC's will go slower doesnt make it so mate.
Go look at CCP's graph and come back to me.
|
Frug
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:37:00 -
[27]
Originally by: MotherMoon
o be honest I'd rather see HUGE sig radius deceases on these ships, to make so the effect hp is the same to bigger ships as having 80% resistances. However smaller ships can tear them like nomral.
A sig radius decrease on HACs sounds like a good place to enhance the difference between them and BCs.
The slight agility and slight speed advantage doesn't seem like it justifies the huge cost increase.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - -
If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO
BOOO!! - Ductoris
Neat look what I found - Kreul
Hey, my marbles |
Artemis Rose
Eleckrostatik
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:41:00 -
[28]
What were HACs used for when they were 400 million ISK plus? Roughly a battlecruiser's firepower in a cruiser package.
__________________________________________________
Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space
Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine. WTB Purple Nerf Bat. |
Upright
Amarr
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:42:00 -
[29]
Well this is just a example in my mind of many other things will need to be nerfed/boosted for this new nerf to work.
As im sure the Devs know Eve in all interconnected, you change one small thing in one place it has dramatic effects on another part of the game. Now try re-balance all base ship speeds.....
|
Ekrid
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 04:42:00 -
[30]
this is a troll.
HACs are tech two cruisers. That means they get more armor, resists, move slightly faster, and have more slots for more modules on the ship, not to mention multiple bonuses.
If this isn't enough for you nanotards, then GTFO of eve.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |