These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

T2 Cruiser Revamp Inquisition

Author
Wu Phat
311. Bomber squadron
GaNg BaNg TeAm
#1 - 2013-01-03 07:54:21 UTC
If you could ask CCP one thing to think about when they look at revamping T2 cruisers what would it be and why?

For me it would be fix recons so that they can be Omni tanked better (Armor or Shield). Specifically on the armor side of things. The Rapier and Arazu do a very poor job right now at armor tanking that is why Armor fleets use Loki’s and Proteuses over them. Which I think sucks that I have to jump over T2 to T3 just to get a hull that can proprerly support armor fleets.
Signal11th
#2 - 2013-01-03 08:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Signal11th
I think alot of the problems with ships are not actually much to do with the ships themselves but the amount of isk you,me corps and alliances have at the moment.

The fact that alot of 0.0 players can afford a decent fitted T3 and get it reimbursed when it goes pop makes it pointless to use a ship that on paper may be a little less useful but 1/4 of the price.

The fact that T2 ships may or may not be useful is down to the fact why bother with a ship thats cheaper when you can afford a ship that usually better in every respect.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!

Wacktopia
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-01-03 09:39:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Wacktopia
The answer lies in specialisation. The T2 cruiser line-up should be really, really good at their intended role but poor if you try to create a generalised setup.

Some quick ideas off the top of my head....

HACS - Assault vessels, should be masters of hit-and-run? So perhaps some more agility and speed would work. There's even the possibility of a prop mod bonus like the AF's got - dunno. There are also some specific cases where the fitting requirements are very tight, Ishtar comes to mind. Perhaps some of the slots could be looked at to remove a few utility slots in place of something else.

RECON - Again should probably be more slippery with higher agility. Perhaps more capacitor as that seems to be an issue and I think is an out-dated limitation. Gallente Recons it might be nice to see a better damp bonus. I actually don't think Force Recon need a tank change if they get the right boosts to agility and cap. Combat recon tanks could do with looking at a little, for example the Lachesis has only 3 low slots, meaning fitting for armor logi support is tough. I think some Combat recons could lose a high slot in place of another mid/low.

LOGI - Probably less of an issue because there is not really a T3 version of it. However, the T1 revamp may have pushed T2 logi to the side a little, I have not had the experience since the Retri patch to see if this is true or not.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com

0wl
Hailbird
#4 - 2013-01-03 10:07:31 UTC
Tbh I hope they don't give these ships crazy buffs...I like the fact people are out flying in T1 cruisers most of the time, it feels right, it gets people flying instead of worrying about loss mails or their ISK balance, its great.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-01-03 10:17:38 UTC
Wu Phat wrote:
If you could ask CCP one thing to think about when they look at revamping T2 cruisers what would it be and why?

For me it would be fix recons so that they can be Omni tanked better (Armor or Shield). Specifically on the armor side of things. The Rapier and Arazu do a very poor job right now at armor tanking that is why Armor fleets use Loki’s and Proteuses over them. Which I think sucks that I have to jump over T2 to T3 just to get a hull that can proprerly support armor fleets.



You're still able to fit an 80K+ EHP shield Lachesis with fleet bonus (without implants or boosters) and point at over 100km for 1/3rd of your Proteus price, but at the cost of one of it's main roles (Damp).
Lachesis is one of these ships you look at and you ask yourself why it's designed to do whatever when every single mechanic/mod slots layout and ship stats make it clearly undesirable or impossible to fill it's role.

I get it now, it's a smart player ship! -tsk tsk tsk, I really need to improve my opinion...

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2013-01-03 10:23:06 UTC
T2 are supposed to be specialized, that's normal. They're not supposed to be good at everyything.
The problem is that T3 can outperform them in their specialty.
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7 - 2013-01-03 10:32:15 UTC
I would say that the t2 cruiser rebalance depends vastly on the BC rebalance. Recons are fine. I hate logi because they are so boring to fight but they are fine. People prefer BCs to HACs because a BC can do most if not all of the HAC role for a fraction of the price.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-01-03 10:45:19 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
T2 are supposed to be specialized, that's normal. They're not supposed to be good at everyything.
The problem is that T3 can outperform them in their specialty.


Well I have a problem with that word "specialization" currently, I'm not expecting my lachesis to be T3 like but at least fill it's role and be able to fit it decently with all mods required for it's intended role which is point and damp the shift out of targets...but it can't because it dies as fast as the T1 version, so what's the point?

Gallente Reccon design:
  • active/passive armor race ->check
  • sensor damp main role ->check
  • long distance propulsion jamming ->check
  • drones ability ->check
  • weapon bonus ->check

  • In game:
  • can't fit decent armor tank and it's very slow ->check
  • can't fit decent armor tank+damps+long point+propulsion without becoming a pain to use ->check
  • guns+drones "versatility" option looks like a very bad 1week old scamer story -> check
  • fit with shield is able to have a decent tank, fit long point, lolguns/drones and keep decent maneuverability ->check

  • My conclusion is that damps are wasting database space, doesn't need weapon hard points so take those 4 high slots and put 3 in lows and another in mid to add either a scram or a shield rep. Or just delete it and make a new one better looking and able to fit it's intended role properly.



    removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

    James Amril-Kesh
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #9 - 2013-01-03 10:56:53 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
    Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
    T2 are supposed to be specialized, that's normal. They're not supposed to be good at everyything.
    The problem is that T3 can outperform them in their specialty.

    You are referring to HACs specifically, right?
    Because there is no T3 that can outperform a logistics ship at remote repair, or a recon ship at ewar. Not to mention there's no T3 setup that allows you to perform as a heavy interdictor.
    Even if you're referring to HACs, this isn't universally true. The Vagabond, Muninn, Zealot, Deimos, and Ishtar all have roles distinct from their counterpart T3s and are effective in their own right. In many cases they're sometimes better to use because they're cheaper.

    I'm not saying HACs don't need to be rebalanced, after all every ship in this game needs to be rebalanced which they are. I'm merely saying that HACs aren't as obsoleted by T3s as you seem to think they are.

    That would be like saying the Hawk is obsolete because the Harpy is so much better.

    Enjoying the rain today? ;)

    Wacktopia
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #10 - 2013-01-03 11:43:30 UTC
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    I'm merely saying that HACs aren't as obsoleted by T3s as you seem to think they are.


    Yeah, I think this is pretty-much true.

    The thing which (apparently) is obsoleting HACs is the fact that T3 can be made into a better 'HAC' combined with the opinion that there is enough ISK floating around that T3 is the default choice.

    I'm not entirely sure how true it is that T3 is proliferating in place of HACs universally. I still use and see a good number of HACs.

    Be interesting to see some cold facts from perhaps EVE-Kill or similar on the number of HACs used, lost, etc vs T3.

    Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com

    Celestra Doxaila
    MinTek Tactical Division
    #11 - 2013-01-05 06:01:30 UTC
    I wasn't expecting some sort of Amarrian Inquisition!

    Though to be honest, your complaint about the force recons does not make sense. They are not supposed to tank, they are ewar support. If you want a ship that can tank, you want a HAC. Nobody is complaining that the Falcon is a poor shield tanker, even though it cannot fit much of a tank and fill its primary role as an ewar ship.