Ships & Modules

I think that the deimos could really use some more pwg and maybe an extra midslot for a dual prop fit that would tear BS's apart as that is what AHACs are best at

The devil is in the details...

The things you are listing are excatly why I dislike the ships. I don't dislike that there are cool ships that are fun to fly, but i do (and quite strongly) dislike the result of their features or design ideal.

You used to love them: You assume HAC's had a problem beside risk-reward appeal.

From my perspective there was nothing wrong with HAC. They were impopular relative BC2, yes, but the real problem back then was the T1 insurance of BC hulls. HAC were, ship performance wise, fairly well balanced to BC and BS.

The problem was never that Muninns and Zealots had trouble killing Drakes and Alphacanes, the problem was that the rewards of using them were not worth the risks. The amount of high-number BC2 gangs running about gradually shifted the LR HAC / CR gangs out of popularity (though not existance).


More on that:

BC3 are trivially cheap, or can be made trivially cheap (meta/ammo) and still remain strong enough to obscure HAC.

We know that groups like Pizza are good with Bombers. Who do we know that's awesome at BC3 or Cruisers? We don't, because none of them have the capacity to deal with a similar gang 1:5, so they can't really engage the 50-man roams most nullsec entities throw around for giggles. Even if they do engage it's just for giggles, no monetary gain or tangible loss. In the days when HAC were still reasonbly good the game was teeming with HAC gangs willing to take 1:5 fights. All those gangs today have joined groups like PL or NCdot that largely consist of disenfranchized small-gang roamers; or are playing in FW, WH or just general "Brosec" (social contract- or, code limited-) themeparks.

Why? Because cheap, accessible ships that can engage anything discourages up-engagement. Cheap, accessible ships that can engage anything make "numbers" the only commodity in contrast to a balance between ISK (risk), SP, extreme tactics and numbers. That balance is largely gone.

I'd go as far as to say: It's the most imbalanced thing in EVE today.

That's the chest-wound: risk-reward.

Good alpha present another problem since alpha (and especially on cheap platforms) is what drive critical mass in EVE at the moment. Get sufficient alpha and that is all you ever need. Alpha is so immensely powerful, compared to many other effects, that the interesting "micro-games" (between various EW, RR, damage, heat etc.) seen at smaller scale quickly disappear as we scale up, and early in the scale-up. Once you hit that critical mass when you can volley anything and everything, the game enter into a "trading blows" scenario that only serve the side with more numbers or forces immidiate escalation to whatever can withstand alpha at the current scale (alpha any subcap and any numerically inferior force will escalate to capitals, to have a reason to fight; alpha any capital and it simply shifts to supers).

That is the same reason why i react against the notion that blowing oneself up easily would be a positive thing. It's trading blows and it only serves a numerically superior opponent. The further we have gone in the direction of "cheap, fun explosions for everyone" we have also gone further from interactivity between differently sized gangs. The more it becomes a question of "trading blows" the less incentive there is for the small to engage the large, because he has more blows to trade. It's really as simple as that. The more time passed from their inception the less the BC3 have been used to up-engage. Instead they have slowly trickled into a cheap gank-tool, or seeded within themeparks (BC3 vs. BC3 gangs in lowsec, gangs that won't go to nullsec and pick fights because it's pointless for them fighting a much larger BC3 gang on a "trade blows" principle). It's only logical, because they stand nothing to gain trading trivial blows.

It's much less "everyone getting better" (affecting cross-scale interactivity) and much more "risk is less of a factor". The old small gangs took more risk and were rewarded more for it, they were not better.

The same goes for the new Cruisers or whatever else, they are all only being used within specific subsets and not in any situation that impact the game. A group like Pizza shape the game infinately more because they interact with more groups, in more places and with impactful results (making people lose ships they care about, or risking ships they care about themselves). They're the old ideal small-gang group, whereas any BC3 or Cruiser roamers are not. No risk-reward.

At the end of the day these cheap, accessible hulls with good alpha that are prone to trade blows simply skewers scale-scale balance and make people up-engage less which means we end up with more situations of people deciding not to interact (blue balls) because interacting over numerical disparities is becomming more and more discouraged. The reason is this "let's make everything more 'fair', beside access to numbers and riches". That situation is far more conservative than any unfair situation in the past.

If you're in meta 3 BC3: Why should i shoot you?
The answer is only for "fun", nothing else. That's a hollow ground to build a game on, "fun" for the sake of "fun".

Then again, make a dual prop gang fit and Deimos wins hands down in tank and dps.

Ishtar is awesome as it is, CPU is tight but nothing is perfect.

So i'm going to assume that Command ships will not be making summer xpack? Originally you had them at a higher priority than t1 BS :/. Guess we can always wait another 6+ months for ccp to fix a ship class that was broken on implementation (like 7 years ago btw)

Lokis are significantly different from HACs. Making a ship with Tech 3 EHP and a resist subsystem (not to mention a web range bonus subsystem) work is a very, very long way from making a Muninn work. Let alone an Eagle...

I'll break it down for you: as long as the "tier 3" BCs can use large rails/beams/arty, snipe HACs aren't coming back. Simple as that.

I think HACs have a viable role, but sniping aint it. Kiting? Yes, sure. Attack ships? Umm hmmm maybe, but possible. Sniping? Get out of town.

I was only using the Lokis in reference to your comments about M-LR weapon systems. As far as I can understand that is still your argument: some sort of disparity between M and L, making HAC undesirable. I don't quite agree with that, at least not beyond the issues revolving around dwindled LR-web (from Loki, Huginns and Rapiers) counters.

With all that in mind, when you say "sniping" you need to define the term properly, especially in times like these when one could argue the environment shifting (HML and L-Pulse losing potential and/or popularity etc.).

I have a feeling that you say "sniping" colloquially and refer to a number of different things that need to be separated and examined one by one. It's a very general term that could be anything from 150-250km warp-oriented Caldari tactics that has been extinct for five years to present day 60-100km S/A HAC hybrid concepts like the arty Lokis. The hybrid nature of those setups makes it even more important to separate the different arguments:

I never implied that old LR Muninns were the same ship class as Loki, used AB's, armor tanked, had buffers reminiscent of Loki or ran the webs themselves, but if we are discussing M-LR and L-LR weapon systems here: they are using the same kind of weapons at similar ranges with similar support. Within that specific discussion the Loki are "living proof" that M-LR weapon systems still have potential in the face of L-LR.

In the same sense that it's hardly the damage, reach, tracking or alpha that send Loki soaring over Muninn... the Tornado does not really out- damage, alpha, track or reach the old Machariels, Nanopests or Nano Fleetpests either. So what is it's defining factor? How did Muninns stay functional in the face of L-LR Machariels in the past?

Isn't the defining factor primarily ISK? That the Muninns cost 1/4 of the Machs and had a performance to match. Isn't the problem the ability to get all these ships and access to their tactical subset without significant investment. The ability to execute those powerful moves on full insurance, Meta 3 weapons and M-rigs, making sure that no one wants to take a risk fighting you with inferior numbers because you take no risk at all flying a ship (-class) that is essentially free.

Is EVE still a hardcore-PvP game when essentially any subcapital tactic can be carried out with essentially free ships and the only real reward for taking a risk is present in the Supercapital classes? Why would you ever take the risk in attempt to up-engage them? They have the odds, risk nothing and you stand to gain nothing.

Please do not forget the few recons that also have problems (like he huggin that is the worse split weapon system in game) or the Laechis that.. werll there is no reason to use one over an arazu.

Where's the love for the Ishtar? It gets 100 pg less than a Vexor! what's up with that/?! I skilled into an Ishtar for a lack of ....everything? lol.

GBC 1 & 2! I swar it dude!!! WHole fleeets full of it. it Was amazing. 300 Insta locking & popping snipe eagles.. or were those zealots... jEez soo long ago 5 years back when BoB was still BoB and PL some renter scrubs.

I recall some scrubs losing 50-70 commandships vs a 200 man sniper fleet... Oh god... where went these guuuudddd epic fights... thesedays fleets are like prostututes, you do all this effort to get to one, have fun for 10 minuts and than your depresed that you went in the first place.

For the amount of time spent on training HACs, seems a massive waste. Like their BS counterparts, they've been left behind by BCs in particular Tier 3 and 2. Gone are the days of nano vagas and snipe zealots. Of their current role, I see only Sacrileges being useful due to outstanding tank and missile. I barely see anyone fly a vaga let alone the other hacs these days, such sadness. I do hope, CCP finds a way to fix their new role.