These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Harbinger 7th Turret....

Author
Sithus
Evil Objects In Space
#1 - 2012-01-18 23:09:27 UTC
Please position that last turret that is on the back top side to the empty left side underneath the face of the harbinger. It looks stupid when there are seven guns.
1-Up Mushroom
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2012-01-18 23:25:45 UTC
+1
5 Senses In A Person... 4 Seasons In A Year... 3 Colors In A Stoplight... 2 Poles On The Earth... ONLY 1-UP MUSHROOM!!!  If You Like My Sig, Like Me!   Remember EVE is EVErything!
Aamrr
#3 - 2012-01-18 23:29:45 UTC
Have you tried moving your guns around your slots? Every ship now has as many turrets as it does high slots, even if it doesn't have that many hardpoints. Your module locations influence where your guns show up.

If this doesn't fix your problem, I apologize. Best of luck.
Sithus
Evil Objects In Space
#4 - 2012-01-18 23:34:11 UTC
yeah, there are only seven turret hardpoints but eight high slots. If seven guns are used there will always be one gun under the face of the ship and one on the back. Just doesn't look correct.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#5 - 2012-01-18 23:34:18 UTC
Way back in the day... when Tier 2 BCs were first introduced... the Harbinger used to have 8 turrets. Not sure whether it was just before or just after they were released... but CCP realized how OP the Harbi was with 8 turrets and chopped one off.

Hopefully this will be fixed with the V3 re-skins... but I wouldn't hold your breath. It's one "detail" among hundreds of other details that other ships have that are MUCH more visually offensive.
Sithus
Evil Objects In Space
#6 - 2012-01-18 23:36:23 UTC
Yeah, I know about that. Wish it still had it's 8th turret.
Aamrr
#7 - 2012-01-18 23:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Aamrr
Quite frankly, I'm not sure why it was removed. The Drake and Hurricane both outclass the Harbinger by a fair margin. Even with an 8th hardpoint, the Harbinger would still only have 10 turrets -- which is precisely what the Hurricane has.

Edit: I think the Myrmidon does too, but it's really too different to do a fair comparison. The Hurricane and Harbinger compete for more or less the same niche, being ganky 8-4-6 slot gunboats, which is why I'm picking on the Hurricane in particular.

An 8-gun Harbinger would be extremely limited by fitting constraints and would need to give up a utility high slot to benefit from the change. Meanwhile, an autocannon-fit hurricane has enough powergrid and CPU left to comfortably accommodate two energy neutralizers, and its capless guns ensure that it will have the juice to put them to good use.

I'm not sure who made that decision, but I hope they're not in still in the balance department.
Kagan Storm
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-01-18 23:45:06 UTC
you ideas are stupid... it should have 9 turetts.Bear

My ego is the the size of my carriers jump range.

Palladias
Doomheim
#9 - 2012-01-19 00:13:36 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Quite frankly, I'm not sure why it was removed. The Drake and Hurricane both outclass the Harbinger by a fair margin.


Assuming either of those ships actually comitted to the fight, the harb would win hands-down. The reason the harbinger is "outclass"ed by the cane and drake is both (with appropriate fits) can simply disengage from a plated harb if need be. Call that a tactical disadvantage if you like, but the word "outclassed," doesn't fit at all. I have no experience with the shield-gank variety of harbs, so no comment on that variant.
Linda Shadowborn
Dark Steel Industries
#10 - 2012-01-19 00:36:06 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Have you tried moving your guns around your slots? Every ship now has as many turrets as it does high slots, even if it doesn't have that many hardpoints. Your module locations influence where your guns show up.

If this doesn't fix your problem, I apologize. Best of luck.



^^ that is how i do with my pvp harbs. so it has 4 and 3 rows on the side and 2 underneath. looks muuuuuch better
Aamrr
#11 - 2012-01-19 00:36:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Aamrr
Justify it however you like, but the ability to pick your battles is a fundamental factor behind game balance. The Pilgrim is quite obviously an inferior combat vessel to the Curse, but the cloak lets it choose its engagements in a way that still gives it a niche. This is why the Curse gets a range bonus and the Pilgrim does not.

The fact that a Harbinger "would win hands-down" is quite irrelevant, because it can't force the engagement. And against any opponent which it can engage (read: Battleships), it loses outright.

Edit: Incidentally, I'm not convinced that the fight would be so clear-cut as you say. An armor-fit hurricane would still have superior mobility to the armor fit-Harbinger, so would be able to dictate engagement range. By closing range, the Hurricane could simultaneously reduce damage loss to falloff and start causing tracking issues for the Harbinger.

Furthermore, the Hurricane could use Fusion ammo to fire right into the Harbinger's explosive hole, while the Harbinger is stuck firing EM into a 60% EM resist. That is to say, if it could fire while under the energy neutralization pressure that the Harbinger can bring with its utility highs. When the Hurricane gets to deal 80% of its damage and the Harbinger only gets to shoot 40%, the fight becomes a little more interesting...
Sithus
Evil Objects In Space
#12 - 2012-01-19 00:39:05 UTC
Linda Shadowborn wrote:
Aamrr wrote:
Have you tried moving your guns around your slots? Every ship now has as many turrets as it does high slots, even if it doesn't have that many hardpoints. Your module locations influence where your guns show up.

If this doesn't fix your problem, I apologize. Best of luck.



^^ that is how i do with my pvp harbs. so it has 4 and 3 rows on the side and 2 underneath. looks muuuuuch better



hmm, well I guess i'll take another go at it. If you can actually make it look correct than I was doing something wrong.
Berendas
EVE University
Ivy League
#13 - 2012-01-19 00:47:35 UTC
Or just give it an 8th turret to balance things out Twisted
Palladias
Doomheim
#14 - 2012-01-19 00:53:50 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Justify it however you like, but the ability to pick your battles is a fundamental factor behind game balance. The Pilgrim is quite obviously an inferior combat vessel to the Curse, but the cloak lets it choose its engagements in a way that still gives it a niche. This is why the Curse gets a range bonus and the Pilgrim does not.

The fact that a Harbinger "would win hands-down" is quite irrelevant, because it can't force the engagement. And against any opponent which it can engage (read: Battleships), it loses outright.


The ability to pick your battles solo is more important when roaming alone, fair point, but that doesn't make it outclassed in general. The same poorly worded arguments are made about the hype being a bad fleet bs. So what if it is? It is not designed to fill that role.

If not being able to catch the target automatically made ships worse than their opponents, covert ops frigates and nullified t3's would be the best pvp ships in the game.
Linda Shadowborn
Dark Steel Industries
#15 - 2012-01-19 00:55:53 UTC
Sithus wrote:
hmm, well I guess i'll take another go at it. If you can actually make it look correct than I was doing something wrong.


open fitting and put in 3 guns, empty slot (or neut or whatever) and 4 guns and looks right.
Sithus
Evil Objects In Space
#16 - 2012-01-19 00:57:10 UTC
Linda Shadowborn wrote:
Sithus wrote:
hmm, well I guess i'll take another go at it. If you can actually make it look correct than I was doing something wrong.


open fitting and put in 3 guns, empty slot (or neut or whatever) and 4 guns and looks right.


oh ok, yeah I was just thinking that actually. Can't wait to do it now.
Aamrr
#17 - 2012-01-19 01:28:52 UTC
Palladias wrote:
The ability to pick your battles solo is more important when roaming alone, fair point, but that doesn't make it outclassed in general. The same poorly worded arguments are made about the hype being a bad fleet bs. So what if it is? It is not designed to fill that role.

If not being able to catch the target automatically made ships worse than their opponents, covert ops frigates and nullified t3's would be the best pvp ships in the game.


You've taken my argument and turned it into a straw man. In no way did I ever state that fight selection was the only important attribute to a PvP ship. My argument merely questioned the value of winning a fight that you can't make happen.

We've essentially got four scenarios:

  1. I can force the engagement and will win if I do so.
  2. I can force the engagement, but it would be suicide.
  3. I can't force the engagement and if my opponent does I will lose.
  4. I can't force the engagement but would win if I could.


You've postulated that the Harbinger engagement is type 4. As I explained earlier, I'm not convinced that's the case. If that is the case, it's going to be irrelevant, because the Harbinger doesn't get to force the engagement and the fight doesn't happen. In game balance, we generally ignore type 4 matchups because they represent pilot error. Someone screwed up and they should die in a fire for it.

Similarly, most covert ops engagements are of type 2. They can choose to fight almost whoever they please, but it's generally going to be a losing battle. An intelligent pilot won't engage, so it's not generally going to happen. We can ignore these matchups, because they are uncommon and represent pilot error. Someone screwed up and they should die in a fire for it.

Essentially, it's the balance of type 1 and type 3 engagements that determine whether a ship is good for PvP. It's really not a hard thing to understand -- if you can get fights you can win and avoid the fights you can't, you're in good shape. The problem is that people ignore this and try to justify bad ships on the grounds of engagements that should never happen.
Palladias
Doomheim
#18 - 2012-01-19 01:58:33 UTC
Aamrr wrote:

My argument merely questioned the value of winning a fight that you can't make happen.


If "solo," isn't the unconditional requirement, and I have admitted that picking engagements lands the harbinger at a disadvantage solo, then you most certainly can make the fight happen. You get someone else to tackle the target for you.

Aamrr wrote:

We've essentially got four scenarios:

  1. I can force the engagement and will win if I do so.
  2. I can force the engagement, but it would be suicide.
  3. I can't force the engagement and if my opponent does I will lose.
  4. I can't force the engagement but would win if I could.



Chances are good you can't force an engagement in a plated ship, aside from perhaps a cane, but that would depend on your target. True enough, but you can force any engagement you like if someone tackles the target first. Hopefully said tackler won't pick things that would be suicide for you to engage.

Aamrr wrote:

You've postulated that the Harbinger engagement is type 4. As I explained earlier, I'm not convinced that's the case. If that is the case, it's going to be irrelevant, because the Harbinger doesn't get to force the engagement and the fight doesn't happen. In game balance, we generally ignore type 4 matchups because they represent pilot error. Someone screwed up and they should die in a fire for it.


If you aren't convinced that a harb can win engagements where the target cannot escape, you're simply wrong or fitting your habinger poorly. Per the second point, I've gone over that bit in detail, but just to re-iterate: get a tackler. Not every ship is balanced for speed and the ability to dictate engagements just like not every ship is balanced on having buffer and applying dps to a given distance.

Aamrr wrote:

Similarly, most covert ops engagements are of type 2. They can choose to fight almost whoever they please, but it's generally going to be a losing battle. An intelligent pilot won't engage, so it's not generally going to happen. We can ignore these matchups, because they are uncommon and represent pilot error. Someone screwed up and they should die in a fire for it.


You proposed to me that a ship able to opt in or out of an engagement was automatically superior ("outclass," was the word you used) to it's opponent. I just took that to it's logical conclusion, which happened to be absurd. I'm glad you recognize that much.

Aamrr wrote:

Essentially, it's the balance of type 1 and type 3 engagements that determine whether a ship is good for PvP. It's really not a hard thing to understand -- if you can get fights you can win and avoid the fights you can't, you're in good shape. The problem is that people ignore this and try to justify bad ships on the grounds of engagements that should never happen.


Well, I could repeat myself for the third time about how that's necessarily wrong, unless you literally have no friends or alts, but i'll save my fingers the exertion.
Aamrr
#19 - 2012-01-19 02:02:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Aamrr
Palladias wrote:
You proposed to me that a ship able to opt in or out of an engagement was automatically superior ("outclass," was the word you used) to it's opponent. I just took that to it's logical conclusion, which happened to be absurd. I'm glad you recognize that much.


Actually, I was speaking more to the fact that the Hurricane has more effective hardpoints, easier fittings, better mobility, better neutralization, superior tracking, capless guns, and the ability to select damage type. But we can throw on the ability to choose fights to that, sure.

I love how you're justifying the Harbinger by saying it just needs a tackler. I think I've been hearing that about the Retribution and Coercer for a while, now, too...

Edit: And if the target's already tackled, why am I using something with the crap damage of a Harbinger? Bring something that can actually do damage. The Talos comes to mind.
Palladias
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-01-19 02:22:22 UTC
Aamrr wrote:

Actually, I was speaking more to the fact that the Hurricane has more effective hardpoints, easier fittings, better mobility, better neutralization, superior tracking, capless guns, and the ability to select damage type. But we can throw on the ability to choose fights to that, sure.


Your entire premise was based on the latter point, but feel free to mewl on about tertiary points, which coincidentally don't hold water in a harb on cane engagement where the cane can't simply duck out.

Aamrr wrote:

I love how you're justifying the Harbinger by saying it just needs a tackler. I think I've been hearing that about the Retribution and Coercer for a while, now, too...


The difference being, you can fit a scram and web on a harb, which means it's tackler doesn't actually need to hang around or is free to go pin your target's friend who just arrived to "save," him.

Aamrr wrote:

Edit: And if the target's already tackled, why am I using something with the crap damage of a Harbinger? Bring something that can actually do damage. The Talos comes to mind.


Oh look, now we get to compare the harb to a tier3 bc (probably the best one at that). Feel free to use the talos instead. Just don't expect it to come out alive when backup arrives. Unlike a harb the fotm shield talos cannot take a beating, at all, and has no mids to cap boost it's way out of neuting issues. Assuming you're speaking of an armor talos, it's still fragile by comparison and let's not forget the harb has 2x the drone bay and bandwidth.
12Next page