These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tier 3 BC and HAC's
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Noisrevbus
#1 - 2011-12-11 02:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
I've hinted about this in quite a bitter tone in a couple of threads already; how the new BC will make life difficult for a variety of ships that either had the same role or is see indirect countering by these mobile-reach designs (essentially anything that either rely on some range for effect, or anything that existed as a counter to Drake- or general BC blobs have lost alot of ground, if not rendered obsolete in full).

It may be a bit tricky to figure out what i'm referring to, but i've made similar examples in the past, as in how the Recon range changes indirectly hit the Cerberus. We're looking at a quite large array of ships here that had similar use with more limitation or whose use was countering fotm, that will now just be replaced by tier 3 BC as a new staple fotm (they essentially affect any cruiser-size snipe, rush, reach, kite or control concept).

I'm trying to keep an open mind though, so allow me to pose a more direct question, and let's see if someone else have figured something out that i may have missed:

Ships like the Eagle, Muninn and Cerberus, that lack any larger secondary role beyond mobile sniping - what have CCP envisioned they do now?

The fact that they may have been questionable choices to begin with only reinforce the point.
Alara IonStorm
#2 - 2011-12-11 02:51:22 UTC
From another thread.

Alara IonStorm wrote:
There seem to be 2 Types of HAC's you see.

AB Armor HAC's and Kiting HAC's. The problem brawling HAC's, like the Beagle, Sac, Deimos and Ishtar is that Battlecruisers end up pulling the same EHP and even more Dmg. When a 2x Nano Cane can keep pace with most Cruiser with the same EHP or more, 1.5x the DPS with the same accuracy, 2 Medium Neuts and a ton more Cap at half the cost and insured... Well the uses for HAC's just tend to fade away.

When you look at it outside of Kiting and Sig Tanking Battleships Guns, basically roles eaten up by the Zealot, Vaga and Cynabal, Combat Cruisers have pretty much lost there place in EVE. T2 Support Cruisers have done well since there is no EWAR / Logi Battlecruisers but besides that meh.

If they want to bring back HAC's and even T1 / Faction Combat Cruisers they have to excel in there roles in a way that is not just Tank / DPS. Something the Hurricane and Drake can not do better. Like the Vaga and Zealot do.
SpaceSquirrels
#3 - 2011-12-11 02:58:04 UTC
Pretty sure those were not used before the tier 3's anyway... Sniping as whole eh... not what it could be. Now if you gave them a speed and tracking bonus to make them better and kiting or non stationary sniping... Well that's just a theory.
Noisrevbus
#4 - 2011-12-11 04:38:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
SpaceSquirrels wrote:
Pretty sure those were not used before the tier 3's anyway... Sniping as whole eh... not what it could be.


You're right, they weren't - nore was SHACs overall.

Hm, i might have overdone it with this thread and just complicated things. I wanted one very extreme and easy to understand example to point to, because mentioning how it affect more "on-key" examples one by one become very complicated. Not that SHACs isn't one of those examples, but the point is rather that it affects alot of concepts, not just one. Let me try again and write it out in full with some live examples - so it's not just theory-babble.

Let's assume shaking up BC-gameplay was the chief reason for these ships introduction (with reinforcing mobile sniping as a tactic a secondary ambition).

Everyone already know how the most popular concepts counter your everyday Drakeblob or Darkside-Drake gang. Gankbaddons project as far, with better tanks and shoot into the EM-hole (they can also be potent against close-range sig-tanked by switching tracking scripts, as was laid out by CVA before PL coined the Hellcats). Alpha is potent thanks to overcoming the logistics buffer with similar reach. Tengu-concepts (from 2.0 / 3.0 roots) more or less do everything better than every BC, mobility, sig, buffer, resist-mitigation, reach etc.

SHAC (aka. PL's LR HAC, sprung out of the post-nano NHAC with Pulselots concepts) may be impopular and not as powerful in the same tactic as these new tier 3 BC but they still always had the option to out-run and out-reach LR BC (provided Drake-gangs didn't go PODLA and utilized snakes and/or range-rigs). NHAC themselves definately took a dent with the BC profileration, but groups good at using them could still score wins by blitzing lynchpins (such as LR web Recons) and still enjoy kiting/disengagement tactics (they saw a slight re-popularization with the TE-changes).

AHACs were originally a potent BC-counter (the way CH used them in 2009) with Ishtars matching reach, utilizing resist-mitigation and pulsation (later replaced by AB sig tanking, while Zealots only became staple once PL scaled the concept to fleet sizes where drone mechanics began suffering both server, client and player-side). Similarly we've seen Deimos-rush been used to blitz BC backed by Logis through resist-mitigation, pulsation and drone superiority; and nano-BS (Tempests) by upsizing neuts, drones and reach with equal or better speed to create similar rush-blitz opportunities and smartbomb counters. Nevermind nisched concepts like fire-wall/lines.

You also have (control-) variations on the SHAC with all combat-Recon gangs (eg., Rooks) after the recon changes, or the way Panda Team used cloaky Recons with range-rigged javelin stealth Bombers similarily to surprise, out-pace, out-reach and delay-alpha BC-concepts under heavy EW.

All of those are just interesting adaptions off the top of my head, remembered as they've been captured in movies over the past 2-3 years of BC profileration, that are struck hard by these new BC. Not only in how the Tier 3 BC may counter them on their own, running tactics they are adapted to, but more importantly how these new BC intergrate into existing Drakeblobs. Pop a couple of Tornados in there for alpha-support and you effectively re-counter most of those counters with a numerical advantage. Little to no effort or afterthought. Things like LR-turret BC or BS did/do not have quite the same effect when mixed in, as they have some drawback in either damage, tracking, reach or mobility - while the Tier 3 BC's only drawback is survivability, which is easily overlapped by numbers.

All of those interesting tactics are now for less, and with them an array upward 20 different ships.

This leave tier 3 BC to be countered with the staple Drakes, Baddons, Maels, Tengus or (Super-) Capitals - and the game as a whole is for less.
Kaanchana
Tax-haven
#5 - 2011-12-11 17:05:33 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
SpaceSquirrels wrote:
Pretty sure those were not used before the tier 3's anyway... Sniping as whole eh... not what it could be.


You're right, they weren't - nore was SHACs overall.

Hm, i might have overdone it with this thread and just complicated things. I wanted one very extreme and easy to understand example to point to, because mentioning how it affect more "on-key" examples one by one become very complicated. Not that SHACs isn't one of those examples, but the point is rather that it affects alot of concepts, not just one. Let me try again and write it out in full with some live examples - so it's not just theory-babble.

Let's assume shaking up BC-gameplay was the chief reason for these ships introduction (with reinforcing mobile sniping as a tactic a secondary ambition).

Everyone already know how the most popular concepts counter your everyday Drakeblob or Darkside-Drake gang. Gankbaddons project as far, with better tanks and shoot into the EM-hole (they can also be potent against close-range sig-tanked by switching tracking scripts, as was laid out by CVA before PL coined the Hellcats). Alpha is potent thanks to overcoming the logistics buffer with similar reach. Tengu-concepts (from 2.0 / 3.0 roots) more or less do everything better than every BC, mobility, sig, buffer, resist-mitigation, reach etc.

SHAC (aka. PL's LR HAC, sprung out of the post-nano NHAC with Pulselots concepts) may be impopular and not as powerful in the same tactic as these new tier 3 BC but they still always had the option to out-run and out-reach LR BC (provided Drake-gangs didn't go PODLA and utilized snakes and/or range-rigs). NHAC themselves definately took a dent with the BC profileration, but groups good at using them could still score wins by blitzing lynchpins (such as LR web Recons) and still enjoy kiting/disengagement tactics (they saw a slight re-popularization with the TE-changes).

AHACs were originally a potent BC-counter (the way CH used them in 2009) with Ishtars matching reach, utilizing resist-mitigation and pulsation (later replaced by AB sig tanking, while Zealots only became staple once PL scaled the concept to fleet sizes where drone mechanics began suffering both server, client and player-side). Similarly we've seen Deimos-rush been used to blitz BC backed by Logis through resist-mitigation, pulsation and drone superiority; and nano-BS (Tempests) by upsizing neuts, drones and reach with equal or better speed to create similar rush-blitz opportunities and smartbomb counters. Nevermind nisched concepts like fire-wall/lines.

You also have (control-) variations on the SHAC with all combat-Recon gangs (eg., Rooks) after the recon changes, or the way Panda Team used cloaky Recons with range-rigged javelin stealth Bombers similarily to surprise, out-pace, out-reach and delay-alpha BC-concepts under heavy EW.

All of those are just interesting adaptions off the top of my head, remembered as they've been captured in movies over the past 2-3 years of BC profileration, that are struck hard by these new BC. Not only in how the Tier 3 BC may counter them on their own, running tactics they are adapted to, but more importantly how these new BC intergrate into existing Drakeblobs. Pop a couple of Tornados in there for alpha-support and you effectively re-counter most of those counters with a numerical advantage. Little to no effort or afterthought. Things like LR-turret BC or BS did/do not have quite the same effect when mixed in, as they have some drawback in either damage, tracking, reach or mobility - while the Tier 3 BC's only drawback is survivability, which is easily overlapped by numbers.

All of those interesting tactics are now for less, and with them an array upward 20 different ships.

This leave tier 3 BC to be countered with the staple Drakes, Baddons, Maels, Tengus or (Super-) Capitals - and the game as a whole is for less.


quoted for awesome use of eve acronyms i've ever seen. This makes eve look like a masters degree in MIT. +99.
Minister of Death
Doomheim
#6 - 2011-12-11 18:36:17 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:

This leave tier 3 BC to be countered with the staple Drakes, Baddons, Maels, Tengus or (Super-) Capitals - and the game as a whole is for less.


excellent, excellent, accurate post. (shocking to see on these forums)
Shayden
#7 - 2011-12-11 21:29:16 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:

Ships like the Eagle, Muninn and Cerberus, that lack any larger secondary role beyond mobile sniping - what have CCP envisioned they do now?


well these ships still have some advances to sniping nagas and tornados reguarding faster lock times, better tracking on medium turrets etc.

i havent sniped from a naga yet but i can imagine it to overall be a slower and not to mention weaker buffer ship than say the eagle
Akila Rose
Doomheim
#8 - 2011-12-12 07:41:23 UTC
Fantastic post.. I agree (and surprising understood) everything you wrote. We will see how it all plays out and what happens here sooner or later.
Noisrevbus
#9 - 2011-12-12 14:26:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
First off, thank you for the kind replies - and if you have something interesting to add, keep the thread going.

Shayden wrote:
Noisrevbus wrote:

Ships like the Eagle, Muninn and Cerberus, that lack any larger secondary role beyond mobile sniping - what have CCP envisioned they do now?


well these ships still have some advances to sniping nagas and tornados reguarding faster lock times, better tracking on medium turrets etc.

i havent sniped from a naga yet but i can imagine it to overall be a slower and not to mention weaker buffer ship than say the eagle


That's the thing though: if you compare the new tier 3 BC to old SHAC cookie cutters, they really aren't...

Keep in mind that the BC have a couple of extra slots to compensate and match values.

They are not slower, 1.7-1.8 km/s, 2kms+ with links (with the Naga trailing a bit like the Eagle at 1.3-1.5km/s; though in all fairness it's easier plugging that hole a bit on the Naga today compared to an Eagle at the time). The examples are not to detail, but you should be able to relate span to context.

It's also worth remembering that speed is important in the context, it's the chief reason good groups did not use Eagles for example, it's not that the damage output was trailing beyond repair or that the nische wasn't interesting - when put to the test in a tough environment they simply couldn't keep up.

They are not weaker, we're looking at tanks around 20k EHP in every case, with positive tendencies for the Tier 3 BC (22-24k) and negative for the old SHAC (17-19k), but the HAC's enjoy better mitigation from smaller sig and peak resists when coupled with Logi. It's definately close enough to be similar, and i wouldn't write off either to be weaker per standard.

They don't track worse, while the Eagle may be exempt since that's the nische it's double bonuses allowed it's also the perfect example for how the tracking is fairly equal. The Eagle could downsize to faction ammo thanks to it's rangebonuses, and the extra range on the larget turrets allow the BC to follow suit with various ammo options ranging from 0.01 to 0.02 (eg., CN Talos 0.017r, CN Naga 0.012r, Tremor Muninn 0.011r).

Then i'm even being nice in favour of the HAC since they were popular prior to the TE-changes and setups usually included RCU's and Locus rigs over present-day options with TE and ACR.

As far as the acronyms go i'd suggest newer players read this: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Glossary

I'm glad most people in the thread so far understood what i was trying to point out, but i also understand that it's not on a level for everyone.

If you have trouble following the earlier long post and would like to understand it better, let me know, if there's a demand for it i'll provide some additional explanations to the personal or less commonly known acronyms, as well as the definitions. EVE is meant to be like undergraduate work at MIT Blink.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#10 - 2011-12-12 15:31:16 UTC
The word is "niche".

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Noisrevbus
#11 - 2011-12-12 16:53:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Malcanis wrote:
The word is "niche".


Why thank you, it's spelt with an "s" in my language yet pronounciated the same way - so it's one of them typos that are tough to wash away.
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2011-12-12 20:25:17 UTC
i trained HAC 5. i have been sad for a long time. with the exception of huge armour HAC gangs with logi support, these ships are completely stomped on by BC's. it has been so for a few years.
Asuka Smith
StarHunt
#13 - 2011-12-13 02:38:43 UTC
Vagabond is the only HAC I own. (PVE Ishtar technically but I haven't used it since incursions came out)