These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
 

Strategic cruiser balance pass

Author
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#161 - 2017-04-21 11:36:56 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:

The reason for the rebalance is pvp not pve.

You can do a 5/10 in Cerberus if that's your major worry.


One way or another it will still affect PVE though - ignoring the PVE element when making any changes to T3Cs would be silly.


On another note I'd been pondering interdiction nullification - it shouldn't really change against passive non-targetted interdiction but there should always be a back and forth mechanic in active interdiction - a rough idea but maybe a "remote interdiction augmentor" module that could be fitted to command ships and HICs that when pointed at another HIC made it slower in some way for a nullfied ship to warp out of their bubble giving a chance to burn down and decloak them.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#162 - 2017-04-21 12:00:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Rroff wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:

The reason for the rebalance is pvp not pve.

You can do a 5/10 in Cerberus if that's your major worry.


One way or another it will still affect PVE though - ignoring the PVE element when making any changes to T3Cs would be silly.


On another note I'd been pondering interdiction nullification - it shouldn't really change against passive non-targetted interdiction but there should always be a back and forth mechanic in active interdiction - a rough idea but maybe a "remote interdiction augmentor" module that could be fitted to command ships and HICs that when pointed at another HIC made it slower in some way for a nullfied ship to warp out of their bubble giving a chance to burn down and decloak them.



Maybe I'm wrong but haven't seen anyone doing pve in a proteus (200k ehp, cough, cough).

A command implant and/or charge type useable on commad dessies/cruisers that empowers HICs in fleet is interesting. Let's say 25% delay to align and entering warp time for ships using inter nullification.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#163 - 2017-04-21 12:12:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Gimme Sake wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong but haven't seen anyone doing pve in a proteus (200k ehp, cough, cough).


http://imgur.com/uKC1G8I

You have now :p

We occasionally used them (PVP fit) in wormholes with guardians for PVE but not very often - I've used them for my own tinkering as per the link a bit but that was more just because I could. Still I'm sure there are people out there.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#164 - 2017-04-21 12:17:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Personal experimenting and tinkering is fun but does not constitute mainstream game play. :D

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#165 - 2017-04-21 12:22:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

That T3Cs are prevalent or present in mass combat, is a result of the inordinate wealth/SP of players choosing to field them who can shrug off the loss, not of the class itself.


The problem is the ship class, not the wealth. The ship can do the job better in mass combat than its alternatives, so they spend the wealth on that particular ship. If it couldn't, they would spend the wealth on something else.


Wealth is the differential.
T3Cs cost more to fit, and additionally carry the SP penalty on loss.

If people want to pay for a more expensive ship, and carry the SP loss risk, that is their choice.
Nothing prevents them from flying HACs cheaper, and without SP loss risk, as is.

That (some)T3Cs perform (arguably) better in PvP, depending on fit/skills, in some situations, is offset by the cost ans SP loss.

Pragmatically, its stupid to fly T3Cs in PvP, because you risk an expensive ship and SP loss, vs cheaper opponents with no SP loss risk. I personally wouldnt do that, but people with isk/SP to burn do.

That people choose to do so, is up to them.
Nothing stops them flying a HAC instead.
Salvos Rhoska
#166 - 2017-04-21 12:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Gimme Sake wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Rroff wrote:
I was thinking that in respect to the strategic aspect i.e. IIRC Gallente tangle with Caldari quite a bit who amongst other things use ECM so for strategic purposes ewar resilience on the Prot could be a useful feature - which is why I kind of liked the idea mentioned earlier where it would be possible to adjust a compromise between offensive ewar and defensive ewar resilience on the fly.


Yes. To further define the T3Cs along specialisation it would be good to follow existing faction characteristics.

I think players would understand that more than outright nerfs.

Nonetheless, versatility is the key that must not be broken off in TC3s.

For a nomadic, hostile deepspace player, they need that.
No other ship class comes close.
Not because of stats per se, but because of versatility to refit for different tasks.

NO OTHER SHIP CLASS CAN REFIT SUBSYSTEMS.
This is the fact of the matter currently.
This is what makes T3Cs optimal for this playstyle primarily, not their stats.
This versatility is what makes them an optimum choice, not the stats.

A Tengu does not perform that much better onsite when running PvE than a Gila or Ishtar for there to be an imbalance.
The Tengu needs more training, costs more, and carries the SP loss risk.
Blue locals can run BS/carriers.

The versatility is the key to T3Cs, but that doesnt mean they cant be laterally adjusted so that the differentiation between T3Cs is deeper and more important to the chosen task at hand compared to another T3C (note: to another T3C, not another cruiser).

Having said that, If T3Cs are nerfed across the board so hard that they cant, for example, clear even a 5/10 solo, that versatility will no longer matter. It will kill the nomadic hostile deepspace content overnight. Nor will anybody run Gilas/Rattlesnakes to fulfill that same playstyle, as it would be suicide.

TLDR:
Differentiation of T3Cs, sure.
Outright nerfing of T3Cs, no.



The reason for the rebalance is pvp not pve.

You can do a 5/10 in Cerberus if that's your major worry.


Yes, I can run some 5/10 in a Cerberus, but I cant refit for travel and site running as I can in a T3C.

Read the parts about nomadic life in hostile deepspace.

You are not grasping that T3Cs are the key to this, due to their unique subsystem layout.



PvE and PvP are two sides of the same coin.

I, and many others, prefer to use our T3Cs as PvE runners in hostile deepspace.
I personally avoid PvP atm whenever I can. I am absolutely zero threat to locals, except for the sites.
(though they might perceive me as a threat)
Some others ofc also use T3Cs as PvP solo predators.

I dont dispute that T3Cs may be OP in mass combat.
But I do point out that it comes at a commensurate cost and risk, that I share with each of them in a different activity.

Nerfing one, will nerf the other.

How about instead a lateral nerf, such that losing a T3C means you lose not one, but 2x1 levels in subsystems?

This might help discourage use of T3Cs in active PvP, and leave the largely passive PvE T3C players relatively unscathed, as they avoid ship destruction.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#167 - 2017-04-21 12:36:19 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Rroff wrote:
I was thinking that in respect to the strategic aspect i.e. IIRC Gallente tangle with Caldari quite a bit who amongst other things use ECM so for strategic purposes ewar resilience on the Prot could be a useful feature - which is why I kind of liked the idea mentioned earlier where it would be possible to adjust a compromise between offensive ewar and defensive ewar resilience on the fly.


Yes. To further define the T3Cs along specialisation it would be good to follow existing faction characteristics.

I think players would understand that more than outright nerfs.

Nonetheless, versatility is the key that must not be broken off in TC3s.

For a nomadic, hostile deepspace player, they need that.
No other ship class comes close.
Not because of stats per se, but because of versatility to refit for different tasks.

NO OTHER SHIP CLASS CAN REFIT SUBSYSTEMS.
This is the fact of the matter currently.
This is what makes T3Cs optimal for this playstyle primarily, not their stats.
This versatility is what makes them an optimum choice, not the stats.

A Tengu does not perform that much better onsite when running PvE than a Gila or Ishtar for there to be an imbalance.
The Tengu needs more training, costs more, and carries the SP loss risk.
Blue locals can run BS/carriers.

The versatility is the key to T3Cs, but that doesnt mean they cant be laterally adjusted so that the differentiation between T3Cs is deeper and more important to the chosen task at hand compared to another T3C (note: to another T3C, not another cruiser).

Having said that, If T3Cs are nerfed across the board so hard that they cant, for example, clear even a 5/10 solo, that versatility will no longer matter. It will kill the nomadic hostile deepspace content overnight. Nor will anybody run Gilas/Rattlesnakes to fulfill that same playstyle, as it would be suicide.

TLDR:
Differentiation of T3Cs, sure.
Outright nerfing of T3Cs, no.



The reason for the rebalance is pvp not pve.

You can do a 5/10 in Cerberus if that's your major worry.


Yes, I can run some 5/10 in a Cerberus, but I cant refit for travel and site running as I can in a T3C.

Read the parts about nomadic life in hostile deepspace.

You are not grasping that T3Cs are the key to this, due to their ubique subsystem layout.



They did mention something about the ability to refit rigs without destroying them so you'll have even more options. I think that fits the nomadic life style you mention. Hopefully they'll also ad extra cargo space to make it viable.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#168 - 2017-04-21 12:53:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Gimme Sake wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Rroff wrote:
I was thinking that in respect to the strategic aspect i.e. IIRC Gallente tangle with Caldari quite a bit who amongst other things use ECM so for strategic purposes ewar resilience on the Prot could be a useful feature - which is why I kind of liked the idea mentioned earlier where it would be possible to adjust a compromise between offensive ewar and defensive ewar resilience on the fly.


Yes. To further define the T3Cs along specialisation it would be good to follow existing faction characteristics.

I think players would understand that more than outright nerfs.

Nonetheless, versatility is the key that must not be broken off in TC3s.

For a nomadic, hostile deepspace player, they need that.
No other ship class comes close.
Not because of stats per se, but because of versatility to refit for different tasks.

NO OTHER SHIP CLASS CAN REFIT SUBSYSTEMS.
This is the fact of the matter currently.
This is what makes T3Cs optimal for this playstyle primarily, not their stats.
This versatility is what makes them an optimum choice, not the stats.

A Tengu does not perform that much better onsite when running PvE than a Gila or Ishtar for there to be an imbalance.
The Tengu needs more training, costs more, and carries the SP loss risk.
Blue locals can run BS/carriers.

The versatility is the key to T3Cs, but that doesnt mean they cant be laterally adjusted so that the differentiation between T3Cs is deeper and more important to the chosen task at hand compared to another T3C (note: to another T3C, not another cruiser).

Having said that, If T3Cs are nerfed across the board so hard that they cant, for example, clear even a 5/10 solo, that versatility will no longer matter. It will kill the nomadic hostile deepspace content overnight. Nor will anybody run Gilas/Rattlesnakes to fulfill that same playstyle, as it would be suicide.

TLDR:
Differentiation of T3Cs, sure.
Outright nerfing of T3Cs, no.



The reason for the rebalance is pvp not pve.

You can do a 5/10 in Cerberus if that's your major worry.


Yes, I can run some 5/10 in a Cerberus, but I cant refit for travel and site running as I can in a T3C.

Read the parts about nomadic life in hostile deepspace.

You are not grasping that T3Cs are the key to this, due to their ubique subsystem layout.



They did mention something about the ability to refit rigs without destroying them so you'll have even more options. I think that fits the nomadic life style you mention. Hopefully they'll also ad extra cargo space to make it viable.


I made an extensive addition to my previous post, as I didnt anticipate you'd respond this quickly.
Please review the previous post.

Refitting rigs is an interesting idea, but not one I personally would find equitable, nor think is a good direction for balancing T3Cs.
Most rigs are a poor substitute for subsystems, or even mods.
(PS: Rigs are still a goddam mess)

Its just more fiddling with ship fittings, as if subsystems wherent enough of a pain.
Furthermore, rig refitting has a real potential to lead to even more OP combinations on specific T3Cs.

When I set out, I set out for a specific purpose, with specific rigs, and subsystems for transit.
I dont have interest in carrying rigs aboard and refitting those in addition to subsystems.

Thats why I recommended in my previous posts, that instead the 4 T3Cs be inherently further specialised for specific purposes.

Differentiate the 4 T3Cs further (especially according to faction strengths), rather than some fiddly rig system, or an outright global nerf.

Or, as I said in previous post, institute a 1x2 subsystem level loss, to discourage use of them in PvP and leave the PvE players to carry their own risk in terms of prey rather than predator.
Dracvlad
Tactically Challenged
Tactical Supremacy
#169 - 2017-04-21 13:15:14 UTC
I just need to point out that the nomadic life is made possible by nullification and covert ops cloaks.

They are actually quite slow to align at 8.5 seconds without any nano's or inertias so those people calling for nerfs to align time to make it easy to catch them obviously don't want Eve to be a hard game, at least for them.

I have seen some caught and had one guy manage to decloak me but I warped just before his point hit home, it is doable, but back to the people who want easy definite kills to put forth their hopelessness, so far I have not yet caught one either, but I make the odd effort every now and again.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Salvos Rhoska
#170 - 2017-04-21 13:16:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Rroff wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:

The reason for the rebalance is pvp not pve.

You can do a 5/10 in Cerberus if that's your major worry.


One way or another it will still affect PVE though - ignoring the PVE element when making any changes to T3Cs would be silly.

On another note I'd been pondering interdiction nullification - it shouldn't really change against passive non-targetted interdiction but there should always be a back and forth mechanic in active interdiction - a rough idea but maybe a "remote interdiction augmentor" module that could be fitted to command ships and HICs that when pointed at another HIC made it slower in some way for a nullfied ship to warp out of their bubble giving a chance to burn down and decloak them.


Cloak/nullification is a difficult problem unique to T3Cs.

My overall deduction, is that it is ok as is.
Anyone, if they have the players/SP, can run these fleets.

I dont know how frequent or massive such fleets are, but you can nonetheless engage them once they refit and become active, or field your own into enemy space. There is equilibrium, in this sense.

Some may say that a cloaked/nullified ship is OP for passing through space.
This is perhaps true, but JFs also jump past space (especially in LS) laughing all the way.
Its not unprecedented.

However, unlike JFs, T3Cs will eventually refit and begin activities, at which point they become vulnerable.

Nerfing T3Cs too hard will reduce content in WHs and Null, because there will no longer be the tool for people to incurse into that space to run the sites. Gilas/Rattlesnakes just dont have the versatility except on locally linked daytrips.

You dont catch a solo cloaked/nullified T3C in transit.
You catch it when it refits and engages content.

If T3C cloaking/nullification is made impractical, or refitted dps/ehp is nerfed too far, T3Cs will become a dead duck in terms of PvE exploration. HACs may become more common in PvP, but a whole substantial niche of the game, and content, will have been wiped out as a consequence.

How are you supposed to survive in hostile deepspace in a Gila or a Rattlesnake?
You cant. These hulls lack the versatility to do so.
Stratios remains an option, but without nullification, and is drone specific.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#171 - 2017-04-21 13:48:45 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
I just need to point out that the nomadic life is made possible by nullification and covert ops cloaks.

They are actually quite slow to align at 8.5 seconds without any nano's or inertias so those people calling for nerfs to align time to make it easy to catch them obviously don't want Eve to be a hard game, at least for them.

I have seen some caught and had one guy manage to decloak me but I warped just before his point hit home, it is doable, but back to the people who want easy definite kills to put forth their hopelessness, so far I have not yet caught one either, but I make the odd effort every now and again.


My old nullified link loki warped in 4.1 seconds normal fit or just over 3 seconds with nomads (didn't usually bother with that - especially after I accidentally erased a nomad clone jumping to the wrong clone :( ).

There is definitely a place for that in the game - especially how often I encountered gates bubble spammed to 100 odd km when transversing remote parts of null - usually because they had or once had a rorqual out at the end of the dead end pipe or whatever :(
Salvos Rhoska
#172 - 2017-04-21 13:57:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Im all for a T3C rebalance, but not in the way many here might think.

The cloaking/nullifying is crucial to remain.
The dps is crucial to remain.
IDGAF about swapping rigs. Its a bad idea.

EHP can be looked at.
Tengu vs Sleipnir EHP and resists is pretty funny.
Slap 2 boost amplifiers on a Tengu and you are hitting 600 per cycle.
Tengu can easily match Slepinir dps (albeit with less alpha)
Its about 100m/sec faster and sig is about 100 smaller.
This is doubly hilarious since Minmatar ships should have the sig/speed edge.

That though, just shows how UP BC/Command BCs are.

T3Cs should be rebalanced to diversify the 4 options.


Nascent to that, BCs are still suffering like hell.

People whine about T3C, but what about BCs barely matching faction cruisers/HAC?

Shouldnt we be talking about a BC rebalance instead?
Cade Windstalker
#173 - 2017-04-21 14:08:08 UTC
Coralas wrote:
I spent the almost the entirety of this characters career flying a stratios - the proteus drone fit is the natural extension of the skills trained for the stratios and it is a natural upgrade in firepower and tank, with the trade off of having to depot switch the covert mode off it to fight properly. ie I understand perfectly where the 2 ships fit into and why you choose each for a particular subrole within exploration, and ultimately if you fly about finding things, after you find them, you have to DO them. To suggest that I'm not choosing the right tool for the right area is farcical. The tengu shares fewer skills with the stratios, its essentially a scrap and rework for someone coming naturally up the modern exploration path as laid out by CCP.


I'm not suggesting you're using the wrong tool for the job, I'm saying that the Proteus is not a dedicated exploration ship.

You've said yourself that whatever you're doing drones are not the optimal tool for it. Without more details I can't really comment on the specifics of the sites you're doing beyond your own vague assessment of them. Comparing the Proteus and the Stratios it seems likely that post-update the Proteus will still be an upgrade in overall performance over the Stratios, but it won't be the same night and day difference, especially in tank, that it is now.

Though you may not have to swap the cloak around as much since it's being moved from Offensive to Defensive subsystems.

Coralas wrote:
its a bit over 600 dps at garde II optimal and an active tank It is already below the ishtar in application, range and raw dps. it _has_ to have a bigger tank or its not a trade off, its a heads up lesser ship.

I know where this leads to, this leads to the observation that the rail/buffer fit is dramatically superior to rail/buffer fit deimos, and we know what the correct options are for fixing that, and only half that fix is on the proteus side and does not need to affect how I use the ship. Most races have a good hac and a **** hac and that is generally something CCP could fix.


The Isthar is probably the only HAC currently not directly overshadowed by the relevant T3C competing fit. However considering that the Ishtar can't warp cloaked and doesn't get any kind of bonuses to probing or data and relic analyzers I think calling it a flat out lesser ship is a bit of a stretch.

The problem here isn't that the Deimos is a bad HAC, the problem is that the Proteus is superior to it in virtually every way.

Even the Drone-fit Proteus can pull more raw DPS than an Ishtar, it just gets a large part of it out of guns which makes it less attractive since drone fits tend to be pure drone boats.

Coralas wrote:
Did I, or did I not say, fix the fit that is out of line, and the accusation that I'm focused on a niche is just as easily levelled at you.


Except as has been repeatedly stated here there is not one fit that is out of line. There is, at best, one fit that doesn't directly overshadow its HAC counterpart here, and that's more because the Ishtar is an OP little monster and gets 100% of its bonuses to drones where as the Proteus' drone fits are more of a hybrid setup.

That doesn't mean we should sacrifice overall balance to preserve your snowflake, which is probably *still* kinda OP given how well a Proteus tanks compared to an Ishtar if its puts it mind to it.

Coralas wrote:
Rails don't out damage drones at midfield ranges, and I lived in gurista space for a long time, which has a lot of that, and they also mitigate a lot of ewar and shoot into resistance holes, and you can run ammoless on targets that don't require full dps, since well railgun ammo is a major space hog that will force you to do dull space trucking work if you run railguns for everything, ie drones used well economize on a lot of irritations of exploration. I'm sure tengu pilots view missile bulk as a problem.

and lastly I think that running content in a sea of blue space, supported by jump freighters is a pretty naff concept for an exploration ship or an exploration career, and if the power of this ship is reduced, it utterly must have logistic issues reduced too so that the flexibility can be used to work around the resultant lack of power right there on the spot.


Welcome to the wonderful world of Eve tradeoffs.

I don't think your exploration ship is going to be nerfed into uselessness, at least not objectively. Whether or not you find it as the best option is going to be another thing entirely.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
No, the T3 changes won't encourage players to use the hundreds of other ships currently available in the game.. All it will do is make even more players leave this game. Some players may try to find a suitable replacement for their T3 but most will just leave. There's already been so many nerfs done to this game in the name of " Balance" that it's becoming apparent the only option left for solo and small group players is being another KM stat farmed by roaming PvP blobs.

This game has been suffering a slow painful death due to the endless amounts of nerfs, eventually it will become a ghost town.


DMC


The assertions made here are completely unsupported and ridiculous and you don't even pretend to offer another solution to the current problem of T3C balance.

The only way the claim that nerfing something into a balanced state is bad for the game is if you somehow think that fans of *other* ships that have seen them eclipsed didn't get upset or leave over that state of affairs but that players who see their OP ship nerfed somehow will leave.

Nerfs and buffs are part of balancing a game, every game does them. Claiming that there has been "an endless series of nerfs" is ridiculous and ignores all of the buffs and changes that made those nerfs necessary in the first place.

This whole view is just alarmist nothing.
Cade Windstalker
#174 - 2017-04-21 14:30:56 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Be that as it may at the end of the day HACs are assault ships and their specialisation is (or should be) straight line speed, low sig, damage projection and application (hence the Ishtar having drone range, drone speed and tracking bonuses) and these are the only attributes that should be directly compared - T3Cs are a strategic ship with theater wide application not a HAC variant. Likewise with recons where their tactical bonuses are directly compared - recons should also really warp faster and scan faster than a T3C.

The lack of a proper T2 combat cruiser does skew things a bit.


Saying "well the specialty of HACs should be..." with no reasoning or evidence behind the assertion is a ridiculous statement to make. Regardless of what you think the specialty of HACs should be we can clearly see what HACs are (or at least were) used for and the ways in which T3Cs eclipse them completely.

Oh and for good measure the T3Cs actually beat the HACs in appliction as well as raw damage the vast majority of the time. If you dump the drone-bay on the Proteus it gets the Deimos' falloff bonus as well as a tracking bonus. That the Drone configurations of the Proteus don't get a drone tracking bonus is the exception, not the rule, compared to the HACs.

The only HACs that have a range or appliction bonus that the T3 Cruisers don't get are the Missile Velocity on the Amarr Sacrilege, the Missile Flight Time on the Caldari Cerberus (it does get the missile velocity though), and the drone tracking on the Gallente Isthar. Of those only the Ishtar sees much use and of those only it gets more DPS than its T3 counterpart on the weapon-system in question.

Application is not the issue here.

The HACs *are* the proper T2 combat cruiser, they just don't measure up to where you want a ship like that to perform, which is apparently at the current level of the T3Cs which CCP and a large number of people in the community agree is OP.

Rroff wrote:
One way or another it will still affect PVE though - ignoring the PVE element when making any changes to T3Cs would be silly.


On another note I'd been pondering interdiction nullification - it shouldn't really change against passive non-targetted interdiction but there should always be a back and forth mechanic in active interdiction - a rough idea but maybe a "remote interdiction augmentor" module that could be fitted to command ships and HICs that when pointed at another HIC made it slower in some way for a nullfied ship to warp out of their bubble giving a chance to burn down and decloak them.


The PvE element can be more easily adapted to by the playerbase and all of the content that could be done before T3Cs will certainly be doable after T3Cs. Even in Wormholes the use of T3s in site running has fallen off in favor of the Gila and Rattlesnake.

If absolutely necessary the sites can be tweaked, but that seems unlikely to be required.

The PvE uses of these ships should not have a veto over the PvP balance implications of a change or lack of a change.
Salvos Rhoska
#175 - 2017-04-21 14:39:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Lets be real.

Most HACs are crap.

Even faction cruisers outstrip them, except for a few instances where max HAC skills may slightly improve.

Gila/Cynabal/Orthrus are seriously dangerous and capable ships.

HAC status is not a result of T3Cs.
Its a result of the largely useless universal HAC role bonus and HACs not getting a balance pass.

HACs are largely crap, regardless of T3Cs.
I learned that the hard way.

In some cases even fleet issue cruisers surpass HACs in performance.



T3Cs are the only choice for solo hostile deepspace PvE.

A great deal of T3C pilots live this nomadic lifestyle of refitting in hostile space.
Nerfs to the ship class will potentially make them extinct.
They need the stats and versatility to survive.

Whereas in PvP fleets, those are just players who are prepared to pay for a T3C, and the risk of losing it and SP in engagements.
Kill them, and they are out ~1bil and ~week of SP.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#176 - 2017-04-21 15:01:44 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Saying "well the specialty of HACs should be..." with no reasoning or evidence behind the assertion is a ridiculous statement to make. Regardless of what you think the specialty of HACs should be we can clearly see what HACs are (or at least were) used for and the ways in which T3Cs eclipse them completely.


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.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Oh and for good measure the T3Cs actually beat the HACs in appliction as well as raw damage the vast majority of the time. If you dump the drone-bay on the Proteus it gets the Deimos' falloff bonus as well as a tracking bonus. That the Drone configurations of the Proteus don't get a drone tracking bonus is the exception, not the rule, compared to the HACs.

The only HACs that have a range or appliction bonus that the T3 Cruisers don't get are the Missile Velocity on the Amarr Sacrilege, the Missile Flight Time on the Caldari Cerberus (it does get the missile velocity though), and the drone tracking on the Gallente Isthar. Of those only the Ishtar sees much use and of those only it gets more DPS than its T3 counterpart on the weapon-system in question.


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.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

The HACs *are* the proper T2 combat cruiser, they just don't measure up to where you want a ship like that to perform, which is apparently at the current level of the T3Cs which CCP and a large number of people in the community agree is OP.


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:

Vaarsuvius13 wrote:

The distinction is in base stats. Generally the attack have a weaker base tank with more speed, agility and damage application. They can come with higher damage than the combat, but the DPS/tank is better on the combat generally.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#177 - 2017-04-21 15:17:35 UTC
Rroff wrote:

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:



There are 2 HACs per faction. There is nothing preventing them from splitting a bit so they cover both combat and attack.
Salvos Rhoska
#178 - 2017-04-21 15:22:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rroff wrote:

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:



There are 2 HACs per faction. There is nothing preventing them from splitting a bit so they cover both combat and attack.


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.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#179 - 2017-04-21 15:22:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rroff wrote:

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:



There are 2 HACs per faction. There is nothing preventing them from splitting a bit so they cover both combat and attack.


Sure - but assault ships by definition are more of the attack variety (though CCP tends to blur the lines on most things) - and hence only in terms of specialisation should they be a benchmark for a ship that has a theater wide application and isn't limited to an attack or combat role explicitly.
Dracvlad
Tactically Challenged
Tactical Supremacy
#180 - 2017-04-21 16:00:15 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I just need to point out that the nomadic life is made possible by nullification and covert ops cloaks.

They are actually quite slow to align at 8.5 seconds without any nano's or inertias so those people calling for nerfs to align time to make it easy to catch them obviously don't want Eve to be a hard game, at least for them.

I have seen some caught and had one guy manage to decloak me but I warped just before his point hit home, it is doable, but back to the people who want easy definite kills to put forth their hopelessness, so far I have not yet caught one either, but I make the odd effort every now and again.


My old nullified link loki warped in 4.1 seconds normal fit or just over 3 seconds with nomads (didn't usually bother with that - especially after I accidentally erased a nomad clone jumping to the wrong clone :( ).

There is definitely a place for that in the game - especially how often I encountered gates bubble spammed to 100 odd km when transversing remote parts of null - usually because they had or once had a rorqual out at the end of the dead end pipe or whatever :(


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.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp