These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Talos needs to be nerfed. Long live the Vagabond!

First post
Author
Why SoMad
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-12-11 15:24:36 UTC
Sister Lumi wrote:
HACs didn't need anything to kill them, most of them are obsoleted by their own terribleness

Still, no battlecruiser should be faster than cruisers.


Talos carries big guns, only makes sense for it to be slow.

But for some reason they are faster than anything that isn't a frig.

wat.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#22 - 2012-12-11 16:07:17 UTC
Sister Lumi wrote:
HACs didn't need anything to kill them, most of them are obsoleted by their own terribleness



Hacs really are not as bad as this forum community makes them out to be. Hacs have some of the strongest "fleet level" tanks in the game through the usage of their high resistances, lowish sig, moderate speeds, and of course logi bros repping you. The impending hac buff should highlight this strength even more.





Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-12-11 17:20:03 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

Hacs really are not as bad as this forum community makes them out to be.







Hardly anything is.
Maeltstome
Academy of the Unseen Arts
The Potato Alliance
#24 - 2012-12-11 17:34:28 UTC
Denuo Secus wrote:
Vaga eats frigs, Talos dies to frigs. So, what was the issue again? ^^


Talos has the same tracking as the vagabond, and 5 light drones. More EHP and DPS too.

So either they both suck at killing frigs or they both rock?
Maeltstome
Academy of the Unseen Arts
The Potato Alliance
#25 - 2012-12-11 17:35:09 UTC
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

Hacs really are not as bad as this forum community makes them out to be.







Hardly anything is.


Flying a zealot in an AHAC gang does NOT mean HAC's are fine. The zealot is a pwnmobile and has been for years.
Maeltstome
Academy of the Unseen Arts
The Potato Alliance
#26 - 2012-12-11 17:35:53 UTC
Why SoMad wrote:
Sister Lumi wrote:
HACs didn't need anything to kill them, most of them are obsoleted by their own terribleness

Still, no battlecruiser should be faster than cruisers.


Talos carries big guns, only makes sense for it to be slow.

But for some reason they are faster than anything that isn't a frig.

wat.


Doesnt have the fitting or tank of a battlecruiser. Infact, they have similar fitting to old tier 2 cruisers once their guns are on.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#27 - 2012-12-11 17:46:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Maeltstome wrote:
Denuo Secus wrote:
Vaga eats frigs, Talos dies to frigs. So, what was the issue again? ^^


Talos has the same tracking as the vagabond, and 5 light drones. More EHP and DPS too.

So either they both suck at killing frigs or they both rock?


Question

This has got to be a troll post. Neutron Talos does not have the same tracking as a 220mm vaga. Also sig res on medium guns is a bit better than sig res on large guns... And by a bit i mean more than 3 times better...Roll
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
I Will End Your Whole....
#28 - 2012-12-11 17:50:26 UTC
Notice the BATTLE part in the name "battle cruiser." They're suppose to do more damage than JUST "cruisers." FFS people it's in the name.

Also Buff my ship that I use, nerf all others!
Voi Lutois
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2012-12-11 17:58:59 UTC
no don't hurt my talwos Sad
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#30 - 2012-12-11 18:04:44 UTC
The funny thing is, the very same arguments for CCP deciding against a Torp Naga are the exact same things being said of the Talos. 1,800dps Talos is pretty facemelt. And even then, a Torp Naga would not have even approached that (and only one LARGE targets at that)...RIP Torp Naga.

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#31 - 2012-12-11 18:07:10 UTC
Panhead4411 wrote:
The funny thing is, the very same arguments for CCP deciding against a Torp Naga are the exact same things being said of the Talos. 1,800dps Talos is pretty facemelt. And even then, a Torp Naga would not have even approached that (and only one LARGE targets at that)...RIP Torp Naga.


Torp naga was not OP, torp naga was bad. This is the reason ccp changed it to an all gun ship... Believe it or not but a shield tanked blaster naga is allot better than the baddies on these forums think it is.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#32 - 2012-12-11 18:56:04 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Panhead4411 wrote:
The funny thing is, the very same arguments for CCP deciding against a Torp Naga are the exact same things being said of the Talos. 1,800dps Talos is pretty facemelt. And even then, a Torp Naga would not have even approached that (and only one LARGE targets at that)...RIP Torp Naga.


Torp naga was not OP, torp naga was bad. This is the reason ccp changed it to an all gun ship... Believe it or not but a shield tanked blaster naga is allot better than the baddies on these forums think it is.



Torp naga with the recent missile changes would be ******* boss..

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#33 - 2012-12-11 19:02:47 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:



Torp naga with the recent missile changes would be ******* boss..


Now this is quite true.
Denuo Secus
#34 - 2012-12-11 23:04:19 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
Denuo Secus wrote:
Vaga eats frigs, Talos dies to frigs. So, what was the issue again? ^^


Talos has the same tracking as the vagabond, and 5 light drones. More EHP and DPS too.

So either they both suck at killing frigs or they both rock?


Troll post? If not:

- Vaga with 425mms and Phased Plasma tracks 0.132 rad/s. With Barrage it tracks 0.099 rad/s. In worst case a Vaga could load Dep. Uranium and would have a tracking of 0.158 rad/s.

- a Neutron Talos tracks 0.089 rad/s with Antimatter and 0.067 rad/s when using Null.

- all without even counting in sig resolution of med vs. large turrets.

- Vaga has the same drone bay as the Talos. In addition the Vaga could fit neuts or rapid launchers without gimping it's main DPS (to fight equally sized targets).

- more DPS is useless when not applicable.

- more EHP only means dying a longer death (in this case).
Isabelle Humphrey
Doomheim
#35 - 2012-12-11 23:17:34 UTC
Frankly if the frigate manages to tackle you, you're toast, if not, you can kill it with some fancy flying to drop transversal in pretty much anything.
Noisrevbus
#36 - 2012-12-11 23:30:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
I don't know Denuo... you should look at the larger picture.

All those statements can be turned around: eg., more dps is useful when you can apply it, etc.

The Talos is incredibly powerful inbetween it's relative speed, reach, damage and effective application of damage. Don't forget that being fast is a very strong advantage when using turrets. A slower ship can track alot better but still effectively track worse. What the Talos do is not tracking better than a Vaga, but tracking very well relative it's speed, reach and damage volume; and it's ability to further exploit that from things like Links or webs from friendly support. It works on the same principles that made Vaga so good against frigates.

Basicly, it can kill Vagas like Vagas kill Frigates - with good piloting and support it deals well enough with Frigates too.

The discussion isn't really how much better Tier 3 BC are than HAC anyway.

The discussion is that they are better or even comparable (at all) at basicly a free price (especially considering how the BS-turrets come with the quite nifty option of performing well even with lower meta modules).

It's the same discussion we can hold regarding Tier 2 BC when compared to HAC.

I've noted it on several occassions: It's not like Tier 2 BC were much better than HAC prior to Crucible. Most things they did where the two classes converged, the BC performed just under the HAC. The actual balance was alright. The problem was that the BC didn't cost 1/2 the price of a HAC (or w/e), but closer to 1/10 and with that had a replacement pricetag similar to Cruisers and something most pilots can chump-change within an hour (ie., nothing). HACs would beat most BC in a levelled engagement, but taking the risk against ships that give little reward wasn't very appealing to most.

Additionally, when there were larger gangs around, they could be twice as many, and you still risked more in the ship-ship performance the discouragement all of a sudden became unsurmountable. You fought against numerical odds spurred on by cost-effect, and the cost-effect itself. It always had little to do with the actual ships and their balance; when utilizing their actual bonuses all the HAC would beat their equivalent BC - assuming relatively leveled gangs. The cost disparity just either deleveled the gangs and/or made them pointless to fight with HAC based on risk-reward.

None of the issues with HAC popularity, alone, is responsible for the demise - but rather how they pile on.
Denuo Secus
#37 - 2012-12-12 01:03:40 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
I don't know Denuo... you should look at the larger picture.

All those statements can be turned around: eg., more dps is useful when you can apply it, etc.

The Talos is incredibly powerful inbetween it's relative speed, reach, damage and effective application of damage. Don't forget that being fast is a very strong advantage when using turrets. A slower ship can track alot better but still effectively track worse. What the Talos do is not tracking better than a Vaga, but tracking very well relative it's speed, reach and damage volume; and it's ability to further exploit that from things like Links or webs from friendly support. It works on the same principles that made Vaga so good against frigates.

Basicly, it can kill Vagas like Vagas kill Frigates - with good piloting and support it deals well enough with Frigates too.

The discussion isn't really how much better Tier 3 BC are than HAC anyway.

The discussion is that they are better or even comparable (at all) at basicly a free price (especially considering how the BS-turrets come with the quite nifty option of performing well even with lower meta modules).

It's the same discussion we can hold regarding Tier 2 BC when compared to HAC.

I've noted it on several occassions: It's not like Tier 2 BC were much better than HAC prior to Crucible. Most things they did where the two classes converged, the BC performed just under the HAC. The actual balance was alright. The problem was that the BC didn't cost 1/2 the price of a HAC (or w/e), but closer to 1/10 and with that had a replacement pricetag similar to Cruisers and something most pilots can chump-change within an hour (ie., nothing). HACs would beat most BC in a levelled engagement, but taking the risk against ships that give little reward wasn't very appealing to most.

Additionally, when there were larger gangs around, they could be twice as many, and you still risked more in the ship-ship performance the discouragement all of a sudden became unsurmountable. You fought against numerical odds spurred on by cost-effect, and the cost-effect itself. It always had little to do with the actual ships and their balance; when utilizing their actual bonuses all the HAC would beat their equivalent BC - assuming relatively leveled gangs. The cost disparity just either deleveled the gangs and/or made them pointless to fight with HAC based on risk-reward.

None of the issues with HAC popularity, alone, is responsible for the demise - but rather how they pile on.


Granted, at the moment many HACs are overshadowed a bit by tier3 BCs. But CCP already stated they want to reduce the mobility of all tier3 BCs. In addition tech2 ships aren't rebalanced yet. At the end I could imagine both classes (while still overlapping a bit) have their own role. Tier3 BCs are a hammer while HACs can be a scalpel.

Having said that, I think even now a Vaga is more flexible compared to the Talos. I see it from a solo PvP perspective. With better speed, tracking and utility the Vaga can come out top in much more difficult situations. When fighting outnumbered it becomes difficult quite often (which isn't a bad thing imo ^^). The Talos offers more raw power but less finesse and margin of error.
Byzan Zwyth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-12-12 01:56:02 UTC
ok maybe I'm wrong if so pelase correct me.

How is the Talos faster than a vaga? it's clearly not!!!? Even fit a nano II on the Talos and it's still slower?

it also has less defense due to lower resists and larger signature and less EHP/buffer.

And while the Talos does more damage it has less tracking and range (blasters vs. AC's)

the way I see it, talos has more damage, vaga wins pretty much all other aspects. What am I missing?

I'd say in contact where DPS is king the Talos is better but the Vaga still has more versatility.
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2012-12-12 05:25:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
Noisrevbus wrote:


Basicly, it can kill Vagas like Vagas kill Frigates - with good piloting and support it deals well enough with Frigates too.

.

Competent vagabond pilot should kill a competent talos pilot.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#40 - 2012-12-12 05:56:09 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:

The discussion isn't really how much better Tier 3 BC are than HAC anyway.

The discussion is that they are better or even comparable (at all) at basicly a free price (especially considering how the BS-turrets come with the quite nifty option of performing well even with lower meta modules).

It's the same discussion we can hold regarding Tier 2 BC when compared to HAC.

Exactly. The same applies to command ships. They are not good enough for their price. And yes, price is a balancing factor, the only thing we should never forget is that it's a somewhat limited factor, but it is still there, otherwise the very existence of modules of metalevel above 5 would be moot. Sometimes price vs performance is utterly broken and in that case we get something like titans.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.