These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Do the T2 ships need any love, HAC's that is?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Veronica Kerrigan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2013-04-14 00:47:38 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Angelina Joliee wrote:
Yeah, please fix the caldari hacs - they are so bad atm.
All other hacs do not need any urgent changes - they are ok.


Erm... not really. The Caldari ones have just been the worst for longest.

The advantages HACs have over their competitors are T2 resists.


Perhaps it predates me, but why do the resists have no consistency. For example the massive EM resist on minnie shields.

Seems bizarre.

Tech 2 resists are based on lore.
Minmatar : EM primary, Thermal secondary. Counters the Matari enemies, the Amarr
Amarr : Explosive primary, Kinetic secondary. Counters the damage of the Glorious republic.
Caldari : Thermal Primary, Kinetic Secondary. Counters the heavy damage of both blasters, as well as Gallente drones.
Gallente : Kinetic Primary, Thermal Secondary. Counters the primarily Kinetic damage of the State, as well as hybrid damage.
Dato Koppla
Balls Deep Inc.
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#42 - 2013-04-14 03:04:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Dato Koppla
I'd say Ishtar, Zealot, Sacrilege and Deimos are the HACs that are at least decent.

edit
and vaga too of course, although the cynabal really steps on the vagas toes
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#43 - 2013-04-14 11:28:40 UTC
Dato Koppla wrote:

and vaga too of course, although the cynabal really steps on the vagas toes


the poor man's cynabal.
Noisrevbus
#44 - 2013-04-14 13:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Equus wrote:
Honest question here, I am just very slowly returning and getting my feet wet, and the more I think about it when I left, at least for minmatar ships, HAC's were seldom used. Lots of fleet stabbers out, no vagabonds, and munin (sp?), I can't remember the last time I have seen one of those. As for other ships, unfortunately my views are lopsided as currently I really only fly minmatar.

Is my viewpoint and experience too limited, or do some of the T2 ships out there need some loving as well?


Well, it's mostly due to the general power creep CCP decided to implement going back to around 2011.

A partial history of HACs:

Granted, there were alot of people who argued that HAC had issues even back then, carrying over from the changes in 2008, and there were definately alot of individual ships within the class that had adaption issues back then too; but the overall class still had some appeal and it was more a question of tweaking ships rather than finding new entire roles for the entire class.

In 2011 i still argued "for" the HAC (and Combat Recon) class saying it still had an overall appeal in the face of BC2 and BS profiling, and an appeal that stretched beyond "just Zealots for AHACs". Vagas were in dire times but the ships were still useful. Muninns had been overtaken by Alphacanes, Alphamels and Nanopests but they still had a niche inbetween them (between reach, sig-speed and field control), both the Deimos and Ishtar were functional yet underrated and even if the Caldari ships were underwhelming even in their bonused roles or trait: a niche within the niche if you may, that only needed some tweaks to become appealing (the Eagle had interesting tracking, the Cerb had the ability to extended over hostile gangs into their support and also had good fitting options with some potential utility mids).


An overview of ships today:

Today it's a different story and i'd argue that it's more an overall thing, if you can follow my logic: eg., the Vaga losing an overall appeal wasn't a problem as long as the Muninn remained functional and Huginns were profiling - but now that there's little incentive to fly any of them the ship class(es) have broad issues and there's little you can do with them that is interesting; they've just been clamped down from every direction (BC3, T3, Cruisers, AF and Frigs, ontop of Faction Cruisers, BC2 and BS). Each of those do not represent a problem each, but together they have just encroached on the roles too much.

These issues have also affected certain Faction Cruisers, CS, BC2, AF, BS1 and BS2 as well as the HAC and CR of crouse, so it's not like the HAC is the only loser. It's just a question or result of a general streamlining that have left many ships, modules and tactics behind.


A larger perspective:

I'm not sure if those that follow my posts have figured it out already or not, but the first and foremost reason why i am very critical of the current direction of CCP doesn't really have to do with ship balance or racial balance as many other players posting on these forums concern themselves with: my concerns tend to revolve around the design and decisions one step back, with the balance of tactics and overall vision.

I am more concerned with the core set of strategies, that each race represent, disappearing from the game (when i say "rush" today, most players have no idea what i'm talking about and look at me funnily; while "rush" is one of the core strategic concepts of the Gallente race; similarily Caldari have actually lost part of their racial traits, so most people today probably don't know why they have better align-time in general, and such details). They have/had it for a reason.

I am more concerned with that than i am with whatever race adapt the best into current meta. The fact of the matter is that we are losing more and more alternatives to interact with the game in different ways in favour of a popular, tried and proven approach - that makes the game very stale, conservative and imbalanced (because alot of the old mechanics that still exist were designed with the old tactical variety in mind) overall. Some of these racially bound strategies are being transplanted to special classes of ships, but far from all so we have an overall loss of variety, which is a shame to see.


A concluding primer on effort:

In a game like EVE you can't simply streamline some things and be done with it, everything is related which means that once your start poking you force yourself to commit and re-commit. That's why these new ships and ship-changes are such a massive undetaking that i believe alot of players and developers alike underestimate.
Noisrevbus
#45 - 2013-04-14 19:34:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
If the above is unclear...

Another, somewhat blunt, way of putting it would be (and this ties into the resist-argument made at the top of this page):

Caldari were based around "sniping", Gallente based around "rushing", Minmatar based around "kiting" and Amarr based around "push-pull". Each race was balanced to have a general competence within each core strategy, not necessarily to be the best in every detail, every aspect or be the only option.

This is why Gallente and Minmatar are fast with alot of utility, while Caldari and Amarr are more tanky where Caldari is agile but slow in order to facilitate warp-tactics. It's why their EW was based around keeping things off range (ECM), crushing range (Damps, Points), controlling distance and sig-speed (Webs, Painters) and pushing off, pulling in or breaking through (Capwar, Trackwar). It's meant to provide alternatives relative their "enemies" and upholding "traits".

This is also why, while push-pull strategies have become much more powerful and popular than the other with the direction of scaling and certain key changes made to the game, Amarr is not necessarily the best in every regard. It is their core strategy that has become the ideal though and most ships deemed good by the playerbase is powerful in that paradigm. The Drake was not a sniping ship, it was a push-pull ship (same as the Baddon, Capitals or Mael).

Many other Caldari ships are still sniping ships. When the Rokh was improved recently, what happened was not that it's sniping-potential improved but rather that the allround changes and trends occuring allowed it to better compete in the push-pull meta (it's buffer-projection balance suddenly hit ideal breakpoints relative other ships and environment effects).

Sniping and Rushing took initial hits with changes around 2008 that involved buffs to probing, LR-R turrets (ie., "the Tachyon buff") and nerfs to certain EW (NOS, Damps and ECM). Their demise lead to Sniping resurfacing as Mobile sniping (or Kite-sniping) and an era of general Kiting. Kiting was later overtaken by Push-Pull gameplay (introduction of HIC, bottom-out pricing leading to the popularization of lynchpins etc.), and even Mobile sniping took a backseat role.

When certain "rush" and "sig-speed" concepts began to repopulate in 2010 it had alot to do with the popularity of kinetic-based push-pull overtaking mobile sniping and kiting.

If you look at recent changes, the MJD is an attempt at reviving certain Sniping strategies, by enabling on-grid warps, escapes and traps. The BC3 was an attempt at reviving the Mobile sniping strategy (sadly, with opposite effects, if you ask me). Other attempts have been the nullifier subsystem, or player ingenuity such as 100mn or anti-probe ECCM. What distinguish all of those things is that they pay homage to old ideals and core strategies that have become impossible, impractical or just fallen out of practise. The continued improvement to cloaky strategies could similarily be seen as an attempt at counteracting the push-pull paradigm by providing, at least some, options to deal with grid-push.

Special class- or tier bonuses overall can be seen as attempts to shift some racial variety over to class variety; with "attack" ships, cloaky ships and so forth.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#46 - 2013-04-14 20:27:56 UTC
Kali Omega wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Yep, tech2 ships definitely are on our to-do list. While Command Ships, Black Ops and Heavy Assault Cruisers are quite in dire need of attention, we'll most likely go over them all one class at a time to make sure they fit with what we've done so far with the tiericide.



Please Please don't touch my Redeemer its fine the way it is.

Edit: If you put laucnher hard points on it like its t1 counter part...so help me :P


Are you kidding? I am praying that the Redeemer gets those bonuses. Oh god please yes yes yes :puppyeyes:

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#47 - 2013-04-14 20:32:20 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
The BC3 was an attempt at reviving the Mobile sniping strategy (sadly, with opposite effects, if you ask me).


Not sure what you're saying here - the tier 3 BCs have revitalised the mobile sniper meta. They're basically almost everything I used to love about sniper HACs, but with good alpha and T1 insurance.

I hear a lot of complaints about the tier 3s, but they're exactly what we need more of: ships that are fun to fly, accessible*, affordable without being trivially cheap, great at blowing things up and very prone to blowing up themselves.

*OK T2 large guns are an arse to skill, but you can use meta arty with the nado just fine.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2013-04-14 21:56:52 UTC
Most T2ships have fairly clear roles like inties and just need a few stat tweaks.

HACS are a little different, while assault ships can be said to be competitive with the faction frigates and even T1 and T2 destroyers the balance at the cruiser/BC level is a little different and with a possible command ship revamp into more combat roles and with recent battlecruiser revamps and even faction BC on the horizon the spot for HACS as a just under T1 cruiser speed medium weapon DPS platform seems crowded.

While I can see a safe solution in stat buffs or faction specific role bonuses I would perhaps opt for a role bonus to the overheat effect of propulsion modules. Say 100% doubling the 50% overheat bonus.

This would allow HACs a good turn of speed allowing them to catch tier 3 BC or run from others, but this speed boost would be for limited time only. Always having the turn of speed to run down other ships could give them a clear differentiating ability, even a 800 mm plate Diemos with trimarks would push towards 3kms for a period.
Spr09
Reign of Steel
Brave Collective
#49 - 2013-04-14 23:01:42 UTC
Hakaimono wrote:
Ishtar could even stand a little cpu buff when the balance hammer falls.


CPU upgrade is mandatory, which is really annoying since you're losing a low or rig slot right off the bat.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#50 - 2013-04-15 15:58:35 UTC
As I see it, most HAC's have got caught in a crush between Battlecruisers (primarily the Tier 3's) and Strategic Cruisers, which has only been further mashed by Tiericide bringing standard cruisers up from behind.

Most roles a HAC had is now done better in one of the other directions. The sniper HAC's are straight-out supplanted by the Tier 3 BC's, the high-resist, low-sig role is taken by the Strat Cruisers, and the good all-rounders are now not enough better than there equivalent T1 hull to justify the price tag (if they are even better at all). And of course, some HACs never had a hope due to ****** weapons (ho, ho, medium rails), or ****** ships (don't take that Cerb into a system with a warp over 70 Au). A couple can still hold open a role (Zealots, Muninns and Vagas are still used commonly by certain group), but how much of that is nostagia beating out reality?
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2013-04-15 16:07:43 UTC
They need to give all sniper HACs a role tracking bonus in addition to their current ones. Cerb can get a missile explosion radius reduction.

HAC niche should be the ability to pop small ships even when they're not in approach, T3s can only realistically hit stuff on approach with MWD on or with 0 transversal.

As for the brawling HACs I'm not sure how to make them usable without making T3s obsolete.

Art of Explosions
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#52 - 2013-04-15 16:48:06 UTC
My poor cerberus got made fun of in fleet last time I brought it out :(
Needs work lol...

Every day I'm wafflin!
Steve Spooner
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2013-04-15 19:30:48 UTC
Why HAC when you can use a tengu loki legion proteus?
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#54 - 2013-04-16 00:20:03 UTC
Incindir Mauser wrote:

Cerberus isn't fast enough to kite.


It's description has always given me the impression that it was meant to sit at range and snipe.
Alabugin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2013-04-16 19:41:49 UTC
I hope CCP reads this:

While we are on the discussion of HAC's - it essentially boils down to T1 cruisers and their counterparts. I think it is wonderful CCP has buffed the T1 cruisers, as they are very strong now. However, they completely overshadow other cruisers (t2 and faction in almost every way) (Not including pirate faction here - cynabal always OP)

Now - for example, lets look at the Caracal - and compare it to the caracal navy issue. While the navy issue appears to have more powergrid and CPU, it also has to fit an extra launcher to make up the difference, this always cripples it in terms of tank when trying to fit HAMS.
Its also SLOWER than the regular caracal - by a **** ton. The navy issue can fit no tank, yet it cannot get away from even t1 cruisers - this is sad sad sad.

The stabber fleet issue is in a good boat i think, doesnt need any buffs
The omen navy issue could use either an optimal range increase, or a damage increase - the cap isnt too neccessary.
The vexor navy is kinda meh, I still prefer the regular vexor to it currently in most situations

Lets not even talk about how ******* bad the navy frigates are (including all pirate except daredevil)..

TL;DR - CCP buffs T1 cruisers...and leaves their counterparts untouched - thereby producing a powercreep which pushes the higher end ships (even t2) off the playing field. We dont need NEW faction battlecruisers, you need to FIX what we have currently.

/rant over
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#56 - 2013-04-17 11:48:23 UTC
Well Zealot is still being good because of very little things, scorch of course makes it for 50% of these little things but the fact it can actually fit decent guns and tank just makes it a bit over the others.

Diemost got better but still terrible overall, it's a suicide run ship in a pvp environment that isn't that friendly for solo pvp, it doesn't have the DPS it should bring for such a hull cost and skills, it's tank got better but still close to mediocre and mobility while better after new skills (plates) Deimos is a blaster ship, this means MWD but it can barely fit everything it needs to be interesting over new Thorax even with Elite fitting certificates.

Ishtar is a drones ship, I don't like drones so I will not comment on this one.

Cerberus is a ridiculous paper thin extreme long range missile spewer, while not bad on paper doesn't fit on anything of current Eve, overall is a bad ship. T1 is way better

Eagle, on top of being really ugly uses med rails so everything is said about Eagle = bad ship overall. T1 slightly better but rails...

Vagabond, why use it when you can do the same and even more for a fraction of the cost with the T1 version? -new SFI changes will make the current Vagabond an unwanted item to speculate on the long term. Plus for some more isk you can use Cynabals that are way way much better in every aspect.

Munin, arty fit and in groups are an extreme danger but can use some love still when using autos. Slot layout and ship fittings are "awkward". T1 version is way worst.

Personal opinion of course about these ships but yes, they're definitively in need of quick "take-a-look-at", if this can be done for newt expansion it would be fantastic since this ship class was recently and probably amongst the most used ships in the game for their intended role and purpose, today easily replaced by T1 hulls with the obvious advantages but also the less obvious downsides this revamp massively increased.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Andrea Griffin
#57 - 2013-04-17 18:16:04 UTC
I would like to bring up again a new capability that I've proposed in the past that would provide the Assault line of ships something new and different: EWar resistance. These ships are supposedly tough, hardened things that are supposed to take a lot of abuse, so why should the internal systems be any different?

Every level of ship skill would reduce the effectiveness of enemy EWar by X percent. Tracking disruptors, dampeners, webs, etc., anything which affects the ship's capabilities by an amount or percentage would be affected by this.

It would give these ships something extra above and beyond the very boring and very tired "it does more damage and tanks better".

CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2013-04-18 10:53:42 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Have you ever seen an eagle?


how to fix the eagle.

step one. boost medium rails damage by 5%

step two. increase base pg of the eagle

step three: add a mid slot

step 4: replace the second optimal range bonus for a rate of fire bonus.




OTher much more flavoful change. Increase max lock range in eve to 300 km. Done.. eagles can now engage outside the range of any non caldari ships.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Darius Brinn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2013-04-18 13:09:06 UTC
Dato Koppla wrote:

T2 resists are derived from lore, Minmatar get EM to combat Amarr lasers, Caldari get Thermal to combat Gallente Blasters, Amarr get explosive to combat Minmatar projectile ammo, and so on.


In this case, "so on" being "And Gallente also get Thermal because **** Gallente" Sad
Darius Brinn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2013-04-18 13:13:02 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:



OTher much more flavoful change. Increase max lock range in eve to 300 km. Done.. eagles can now engage outside the range of any non caldari ships.


Of course. Engaging from 300Km in a sluggish hull with anemic guns which need two volleys to scratch the paintjob of its target. I see absolutely no problems for that prospective Eagle pilot.

No sir. That's EXACTLY the Eagle's problem: range. Yes it is.