Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Red Thunder
Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 09:51:00 -
[61]
i dont see a use either
from what i can see, hac speeds will drop far enough for cruise missiles to hit them, which means nanoing them is pretty much pointless.
and as for agility, a domi cloak / mwd domi can be more agile than an ishtar, deal more damage, and tank more, so i dont see a need for the ishtar anymore
Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines |
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 09:56:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 27/07/2008 09:57:02 Don't forget that a HACs signature radius is less than half of a Tier 2 BC, it probably gets a very decent damage reduction versus BS turrets while packing very serious firepower. All that has changed is that you are no longer untouchable. Besides have you even considered an AB layout? If you have a head full of snakes and speed implants anyway, you might aswell give it a go. Using the Vaga as an example, it should still be quite fast even with that. (even if you are probably better off dropping some of the speed modules since they'll stack nerf) You'll be slower, yes, but still pretty fast and with a tiny sig-radius compared to the MWDing nano version, not to mention you'll have more grid for weapons/shields/whatever. You'll be hell to track for a larger vessel like that, especially in close. Webs don't slow you down nearly as much as they used too. You can certainly adapt to what is happening, all it takes is some experimentation. Yes there will be risks involved, but that is what EVE is all about.
|
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 09:57:00 -
[63]
HACs were useful and expensive before the nano-fad. They will be useful afterwards.
Don't panic.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Euriti
Gallente SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 10:05:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Stab Wounds HEAVY Assault ships
Because heavy infantry are fat people in the army, amirite?
|
Euriti
Gallente SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 10:15:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Meiyang Lee Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 27/07/2008 09:57:02 Don't forget that a HACs signature radius is less than half of a Tier 2 BC, it probably gets a very decent damage reduction versus BS turrets while packing very serious firepower. All that has changed is that you are no longer untouchable. Besides have you even considered an AB layout? If you have a head full of snakes and speed implants anyway, you might aswell give it a go. Using the Vaga as an example, it should still be quite fast even with that. (even if you are probably better off dropping some of the speed modules since they'll stack nerf) You'll be slower, yes, but still pretty fast and with a tiny sig-radius compared to the MWDing nano version, not to mention you'll have more grid for weapons/shields/whatever. You'll be hell to track for a larger vessel like that, especially in close. Webs don't slow you down nearly as much as they used too. You can certainly adapt to what is happening, all it takes is some experimentation. Yes there will be risks involved, but that is what EVE is all about.
This is all fine in theory. HACs do have a smaller sig radius. This is true. As it is today, it's no use with webs since battleships will do full damage to a 90% webbed nanohac. With the new web it might not be so but this new web breaks alot of things imo. Second you suggest using close range nanos. This is a fine idea in a utopia, but in the utopia said victim does not have friends. Said victim does on TQ. Your scenario is a clean fair 1v1 which is hard to find in modern eve. You might find gank 1v1s. Balance should be around teamplay and in this sitaution with team v team people will be bringing many webs and then this theory goes out the window.
|
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 10:18:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Euriti
Originally by: Stab Wounds HEAVY Assault ships
Because heavy infantry are fat people in the army, amirite?
No, they are the guys in the Mach 3 tanks overtaking the jet-fighters...
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Wild Rho
Amarr Silent Core
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 10:25:00 -
[67]
Hacs did fine before the nano era and they'll be fine afterwards. In fact the hacs that couldn't be well nano'd now are more viable and new tactics will open up because of it. Some people really have become very limited when they don't know how to operate without nano fits.
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 10:27:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Euriti This is all fine in theory. HACs do have a smaller sig radius. This is true. As it is today, it's no use with webs since battleships will do full damage to a 90% webbed nanohac. With the new web it might not be so but this new web breaks alot of things imo. Second you suggest using close range nanos. This is a fine idea in a utopia, but in the utopia said victim does not have friends. Said victim does on TQ. Your scenario is a clean fair 1v1 which is hard to find in modern eve. You might find gank 1v1s. Balance should be around teamplay and in this sitaution with team v team people will be bringing many webs and then this theory goes out the window.
True, I was thinking from a 1v1 scenario, but that's mainly because gang-vs-gang gets complicated fast. My brain doesn't like that much of a workout early in the morning. I honestly don't know how the changed situation would impact a gang fight, lots has changed, and only testing on SiSi is going to give any clarity on the matter. The hit-and-run shark tactics used by current nano gangs won't work nearly as well as they do now, which was the point of these changes if I understood correctly. Only testing will tell what does work, and if other aspects are deeply affected or not.
|
HC MasiEEE
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 10:27:00 -
[69]
If you cant fit a Hac without speed stuff, you dont deserve to fly one
______________________________________ HC MasiEEE - Proud Member of DICE
|
Gajowy
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 10:35:00 -
[70]
If you cant defend yourself against nano you dont deserve to play this game
|
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 10:49:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Nikita Alterana 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?
Are you that obtuse?
HACs will be great at doing all the things they're good at when not nanoed to hell: killing stuff on gates, killing mission runners, all sorts of stuff. Get a clue. The plated Sac is a favorite of mine on gates for ripping apart battlecruisers. The Ishtar is great for killing mission running BS. The combo of speed and firepower in HACs is just amazing. The Zealot is awesome. Stop being a baby.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:23:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 27/07/2008 11:24:27 Once upon a time there was no nano***gotery abound yet, and still HACs were popular. The better ones costing 3 times as much as they do currently, and still people were taking them into PvP on a regular basis. They are still smaller and faster than Battleships, have a lot better agility and respectable dps. They won't be almost indestructible anymore like the current nanocrap, but they will still be good. If you are such a carebear PvPer that you absolutely require your ride to come back home intact with a 90% chance, well, tough luck. And who knows, the things might get cheaper now too when the lamers find something new to focus on. And if you are reading this, you have arrived at the signature without noticing...
|
HC MasiEEE
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:26:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Gajowy If you cant defend yourself against nano you dont deserve to play this game
At least some people post with their mains
______________________________________ HC MasiEEE - Proud Member of DICE
|
Kelron Queldine
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:28:00 -
[74]
Why would anyone fly a Thorax or a Vexor now you can't nano them
Now there is just no point flying them when BCs have more tank and more damage. And really, why bother with BCs when BS have more tank and damage? This nanonerf is going to ruin Eve, I loved my Thorax before because it could go 6km/s and catch up with some of the slow Vagas and Inties, but now it will just be useless. |
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:32:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Kelron Queldine Why would anyone fly a Thorax or a Vexor now you can't nano them
Now there is just no point flying them when BCs have more tank and more damage. And really, why bother with BCs when BS have more tank and damage? This nanonerf is going to ruin Eve, I loved my Thorax before because it could go 6km/s and catch up with some of the slow Vagas and Inties, but now it will just be useless.
/sarcasm?
|
Melor Rend
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:33:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Nikita Alterana 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?
All I can say is LOL you obviously never flew any HAC except the vaga and ishtar ey? Try nanoing an Eagle or Deimos for example... their primary role is one that is not combinable with nano and just because you're afraid to undock without the i-win-button (nano) doesn't mean that it's the only option in the game. Yes you may lose your ship (ZOMG TEH LOSSZ IN EVE!?!?!?!?!) but thats the way the game was intended... Nanostabs ftl -.-
|
Myra2007
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:34:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Once upon a time there was no nano***gotery abound yet, and still HACs were popular.
You mean back before the hp buff (which boosted bc the most) and the introduction of tier2 bcs?
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
The better ones costing 3 times as much as they do currently,
Back when there was no invention and a hulk would cost over 4 times as much as today?
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
and still people were taking them into PvP on a regular basis. They are still smaller and faster than Battleships,
They are small battlecruisers at best. Neither their tank nor their gank compare to a decent bs.
|
Siberys
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:39:00 -
[78]
Now, I'm reasonably confused, but if they're nerfing nanos does that mean I'll have to do something else with my curse? Like shield tank it?
|
Yukisa
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:46:00 -
[79]
HACs have to nano to be competitive, since their tank is extremely weak and without speed they are very vulnerable to BS class fire. BS-turrets and missiles will destroy slow HACs.
I suggest a chance to cruiser and frig sized ship SIG Radius. Reduce it a lot so BS class weapons are less effective against them. A BS should not be able to counter its own class and all the smaller ship class as well. With the speed nerfs, light drones will own frigs of any type, and big weapons will own cruiser size targets.
Something like this..
HAC sig radius = 70 Cruiser = 60 Destroyer = 30 AF sig radius = 20 Other frigate sig = 15 Ceptor sig radius = 10
Changes to the frig class sig radius = They can evade a lot of fire from light drones (not all, just some to give them a "chance"), and take much less dmg from regular light/heavy missiles but still have a weakness against precision light/heavies. Destroyers = Their current sig is too large, and they get owned by cruiser/BCs/BS so much it aint funny. Cruiser/HACs = Take much less dmg from cruise missiles/torps and evade some fire from heavy drones and with good flying make them hard for BS turrets to hit.
The current system is too much "hit or miss" affair. You fly faster than drones/light missiles as a frig and they can't hurt you. You fly slower than them, and you die. There's no inbetween.
Speed and ship size should be a viable method of "tanking" via evasion. Otherwise it just leads to these class of ships being worthless and everyone going for "bigger is better". With the current nano, you go fast enough, you are invunerable to many weapons and have few counters. I understand why players do it, because with the current system in Eve, you have no chance as a frig/cruiser size ship if you are slow. The big ship have weapon systems that can counter smaller ships too effectively.
If it is CCP's intent to encourage mix fleets, then the sig reduction of frig/cruisers is required. |
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:48:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 27/07/2008 11:52:33
Originally by: Myra2007 Edited by: Myra2007 on 27/07/2008 11:40:45
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Once upon a time there was no nano***gotery abound yet, and still HACs were popular.
You mean back before the hp buff (which boosted bc the most) and the introduction of tier2 bcs?
Yes of course. And I will agree that the tier2 BCs made some HACs rather obsolete (Mainly the Cerb and Muninn, but tbh the Muninn has always been rather obsolete). But that doesn't really have much effect on HACs working or not working without nano...
Quote:
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
The better ones costing 3 times as much as they do currently,
back when there was no invention and a hulk would cost over 4 times as much as today?
No, back when there was neither invention NOR hulks at all And the reasons for the prices once again don't change the fact that people were willng to shell out even larger amounts of money (and I am not even counting inflation here, those 250 mil for a ***abond back then were a lot more than 250 mil are today) for HACs before there was nano.
The one really big thing going against HACs currently is the cheapness of battleships. Losing one with full insurance is only like a 5 million loss these days, and THAT is something that needs fixing imho. And if you are reading this, you have arrived at the signature without noticing...
|
|
Yukisa
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:49:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 27/07/2008 11:24:27 Once upon a time there was no nano***gotery abound yet, and still HACs were popular. The better ones costing 3 times as much as they do currently, and still people were taking them into PvP on a regular basis. They are still smaller and faster than Battleships, have a lot better agility and respectable dps. They won't be almost indestructible anymore like the current nanocrap, but they will still be good. If you are such a carebear PvPer that you absolutely require your ride to come back home intact with a 90% chance, well, tough luck. And who knows, the things might get cheaper now too when the lamers find something new to focus on.
That time was before BCs.
The leap in terms of mobility from HAC - BS is considerable. The leap between HAC/Cruiser - BC - BS is not so. Plus many other game mechanic changes have occurred since those times. |
Upright
Amarr Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:52:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Avon HACs were useful and expensive before the nano-fad. They will be useful afterwards.
Don't panic.
Yeah they were useful because there wasnt Tier 2 BC's at the time. Now there is.
|
Nexus Kinnon
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:55:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Stab Wounds HEAVY Assault ships
I see your extremely well thought out and valid argument and raise you a "You're pretty stupid aren't you?".
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 11:57:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Upright
Originally by: Avon HACs were useful and expensive before the nano-fad. They will be useful afterwards.
Don't panic.
Yeah they were useful because there wasnt Tier 2 BC's at the time. Now there is.
And is not the actual build cost of a tier2 BC higher than that of a HAC? At least it used to be like that, maybe this whole thing will bring HAC prices closer to their production cost, or stop the price hike of T2 components, whichever is responsible for the inflated T2 ship prices. And if you are reading this, you have arrived at the signature without noticing...
|
Euriti
Gallente SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 12:02:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Wild Rho Hacs did fine before the nano era and they'll be fine afterwards. In fact the hacs that couldn't be well nano'd now are more viable and new tactics will open up because of it. Some people really have become very limited when they don't know how to operate without nano fits.
I can agree with what you say but EVE has changed since then:
* Titans * Massive Blobs * Caps Online * More players then ever * Jump bridges
etc.
You can't really compare it with what it was before the nano era because it was a different playing field.
|
Yukisa
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 12:02:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Upright
Originally by: Avon HACs were useful and expensive before the nano-fad. They will be useful afterwards.
Don't panic.
Yeah they were useful because there wasnt Tier 2 BC's at the time. Now there is.
And is not the actual build cost of a tier2 BC higher than that of a HAC? At least it used to be like that, maybe this whole thing will bring HAC prices closer to their production cost, or stop the price hike of T2 components, whichever is responsible for the inflated T2 ship prices.
Given how they are made, the prices can't go much lower else ppl will not bother making them at all. Invention costs (and limited T2 bpo) and T2 component logistics means a lot of items cost more than they "should".
But the point really is to help CCP figure out how to rebalance their game.. because without their speed, not just HACs, but cruisers/frigs/af in general are really pointless factoring in speed, tank, gank, cost and performance. |
Euriti
Gallente SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 12:03:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Upright
Originally by: Avon HACs were useful and expensive before the nano-fad. They will be useful afterwards.
Don't panic.
Yeah they were useful because there wasnt Tier 2 BC's at the time. Now there is.
And is not the actual build cost of a tier2 BC higher than that of a HAC? At least it used to be like that, maybe this whole thing will bring HAC prices closer to their production cost, or stop the price hike of T2 components, whichever is responsible for the inflated T2 ship prices.
The price will not go down by much since the raw materials needed are needed for about every other t2 component out there. It won't change a thing.
|
Kelron Queldine
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 12:15:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Yes of course. And I will agree that the tier2 BCs made some HACs rather obsolete (Mainly the Cerb and Muninn, but tbh the Muninn has always been rather obsolete). But that doesn't really have much effect on HACs working or not working without nano...
How exactly did Tier 2 BCs make long range HACs obsolete? |
Gimpb
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 12:23:00 -
[89]
HACs will still pack the most punch of anything with their size and speed, they just won't eclipse interceptors anymore.
Now that MWD delay thing... that's a real problem, but HACs will still be fine.
I think people are looking at it like HACs are going to be the new AFs but keep in mind that the biggest thing that made AFs suck was that their speed was way low for their size. Both HACs and AFs are getting brought in line.
|
MenanceWhite
Amarr Red Light Navy
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 12:26:00 -
[90]
I remember back even before the HP boosts, HACs were so tankable people would be asked how the hell did you lose that deimos when someones deimos got popped.
Now with the HP boosts, people complain about HACs tank? bull. ---
Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses
Originally by: Oveur
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |