| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
Utility highs being removed from some of the HACs, wonder how that'll affect their performance. Cerb is a weird spot. They want it to kite but have the Navy version already. Maybe they should change it to be a tankier brawler with HAMs spewing crazy kinetic damage? | ||
|
Johnny Business
Sweden1251 Posts
| ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
|
Johnny Business
Sweden1251 Posts
On July 20 2013 00:59 Skilledblob wrote: how far would it be able to shoot with HAMs? 45 with cn 68 with javelins 38 with rage | ||
|
Ramiel
United States1220 Posts
In the current meta, All Navy cruisers, and T1 cruisers (barring the vexor / maller) can achive 2400m/s unlinked, unsnaked and with only 1/2 nanos. Cerb / MWD tengu are just too slow to keep up, and are un able to kite anything. The new HAC changes have not adressed this problem with the cerb, and again it will be simply outclassed by a platform that actually has the speed. Cerb will never kite with HAM's or HML's. Both weapon systems take up so much grid that the cerb gimps itself fitting other things, and of course the damgae application is abysmal. HAC's are a complete fail at the moment. Vaga is boring, and OP as all hell. Demios is actually ok when rail fit, but could use some more speed. Zealot recieved no changes, and again fails completely when compared to the Nomen. Sacrilage, eagle are both horrible, ishtar is a good fleet sentry boat, or brawler, and muninn is well.... meh. Overall- not impressed. | ||
KwarK
United States44299 Posts
| ||
|
Ramiel
United States1220 Posts
| ||
|
Nyvis
France284 Posts
On July 20 2013 01:32 Ramiel wrote: New cerb is pretty useless, like most of the new HAC's I made a few long detailed posts about how shit most of them are on the EVE-O forums. The cerb / tengu already have amazing RLM damage. However that is pointless when you look at the fact that both of those ships fit with an MWD, HG snakes, and a mindlinked skirmish loki- struggle to break 2400ms with dual nanos. In the current meta, All Navy cruisers, and T1 cruisers (barring the vexor / maller) can achive 2400m/s unlinked, unsnaked and with only 1/2 nanos. Cerb / MWD tengu are just too slow to keep up, and are un able to kite anything. The new HAC changes have not adressed this problem with the cerb, and again it will be simply outclassed by a platform that actually has the speed. Cerb will never kite with HAM's or HML's. Both weapon systems take up so much grid that the cerb gimps itself fitting other things, and of course the damgae application is abysmal. HAC's are a complete fail at the moment. Vaga is boring, and OP as all hell. Demios is actually ok when rail fit, but could use some more speed. Zealot recieved no changes, and again fails completely when compared to the Nomen. Sacrilage, eagle are both horrible, ishtar is a good fleet sentry boat, or brawler, and muninn is well.... meh. Overall- not impressed. Maybe because hacs are designed for larger fleets where T1 cruisers aren't meta (because they go pop too easily)? I don't know if it's a good idea from CCP, but it at least feels like it. For example, zealots are inferior to nomen in solo/smal gangs, but they larger buffer and higher resists make them usable in large fleets where nomens would just die too easily. Not every ship should be designed for small gang. | ||
Antoine
United States7481 Posts
| ||
|
Ramiel
United States1220 Posts
On July 20 2013 03:39 Antoine wrote: problem is after a certain fleet size the damage you put out matters more than the marginally better tank on hacs, so you just go up to t3 bcs. hacs have a really narrow band of usefulness, so generally they aren't worth the price. Pretty much this. Tier 3 BC's can do the job Sniper HACs once did so much better. HAC's should be the final word in kiting IMO. Cruisers really have no place inside of big fleet fights in the current Tier 3, BS meta. Recons / Logi will be used, but besides that- cruiser platforms are build for speed / mobility for the most part, and should do well at that role. | ||
|
Nyvis
France284 Posts
On July 20 2013 03:39 Antoine wrote: problem is after a certain fleet size the damage you put out matters more than the marginally better tank on hacs, so you just go up to t3 bcs. hacs have a really narrow band of usefulness, so generally they aren't worth the price. Do you see non snipers t3 BCs in large fleets? I don't. They're way too easy to kill. Sig tanking hacs are still used in fleets (mostly zealots), even with t3 BCs and t1 cruisers around/buffed. Yes, they're narrow, but that's what T2 ships should be about. If they were not narrow (like they were before T3 BCs and T1 cruisers buff), they would just invalidate T1 cruisers like before. And this is as bad as having mostly useless hacs. Shield hacs are a problem, though, because they don't have the signature advantage over T3 BCs. CCP have been trying to push them as snipers, but that role is also taken by T3 BCs. To me, the problem isn't ahacs. The problem is T3 BCs (and to a lesser point, caracals. I'm pretty sure CCP didn't expect such an use out of RLM, and still doesn't realize they're the real deal since one of the cerberus bonus doesn't work with them while the two others do). RLM are the new heavy missiles. Without the fitting requirements for cruisers. HAC's should be the final word in kiting IMO. Cruisers really have no place inside of big fleet fights in the current Tier 3, BS meta. Recons / Logi will be used, but besides that- cruiser platforms are build for speed / mobility for the most part, and should do well at that role. Hacs should not all be focused on kiting. I think CCP should go with one for kiting and one for brawling for each race. For now, we're far away from that, and the most of those with the range for kiting are awfully slow (eagle, cerberus...). I think the best way to fix long range hacs (cerb, eagle, munnin ...) would be a slight nerf on tier3 BCs mobility. So that the long range hac could be the more mobile and agile kiters/snipers, and the tier3 BCs the one with more damage. For brawler hacs (vagabon, deimos, sacrilege, zealot), I think we're going in the right direction. The mwd sig bonus really helps, since hacs advantage compared to other compositions is their low signature (and pretty decent tank). The problem for hacs is their position between t1 cruisers, tier3 BCs, and Tech3 cruisers. Personally, I think tier3 BCs were a massive error from CCP, and doing a hac rebalance instead of their introduction would have been more interesting. Now that they're here, CCP need to give hacs something really special to distinguish them, both from tier3 BCs and from their t1 cruiser counterparts. Without stepping too much on Tech3 cruisers. Too much ships for the same niche, I think. | ||
|
Invol2ver
United States330 Posts
On July 20 2013 03:39 Antoine wrote: problem is after a certain fleet size the damage you put out matters more than the marginally better tank on hacs, so you just go up to t3 bcs. hacs have a really narrow band of usefulness, so generally they aren't worth the price. I really disagree with this. They fill two very different roles. Not all HACs are snipers and being able to tank up on a very small sig and catch reps is something that is a really big deal in large fights. I agree that not every ship should be made for small gang, I think you guys are tunneling in on "how does this effect me" a little too much. I don't think you're right about HACs having little value. In small gangs, sure, but HACs have traditionally been used in large fleets and I don't think its bad for that role to exist. I think in terms if medium/large engagements HACs are a great middle ground between T1 cruisers and a full-on T3 cruiser fleet. Obvious there's still problems, the Cerb still looks like balls and the Vaga changes are wtf but still moving in the right direction. | ||
|
Antoine
United States7481 Posts
| ||
|
Invol2ver
United States330 Posts
On July 20 2013 04:25 Antoine wrote: Even the new HACs don't measure up to them, though. This is a good point as the new HACs could really suck. But really we've just seen paper stats so far, it will be interesting to see what people do with them. I think now that the formerly irrelevant HACs are now at least flyable now. That's something. On July 20 2013 04:15 Nyvis wrote: Too much ships for the same niche, I think. Agree 100% | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3373 Posts
:D | ||
|
artynko
Slovakia86 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44299 Posts
| ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On July 18 2013 20:30 Nyvis wrote: The problem with results is that you need people to make them. A way to motivate people requiring to already have people doesn't sound like the ideal solution. Propaganda and other forms of moral boost can be created out of thin air. People won't show up to an op they know is in conjunction with other factions and gives them a real chance of a victory, but they'll show up if you make a funny meme? You need to apply the same situation to both our arguments if you want to compare them directly. + Show Spoiler [Nyvis, on HACs] + On July 20 2013 03:32 Nyvis wrote: Maybe because hacs are designed for larger fleets where T1 cruisers aren't meta (because they go pop too easily)? I don't know if it's a good idea from CCP, but it at least feels like it. For example, zealots are inferior to nomen in solo/smal gangs, but they larger buffer and higher resists make them usable in large fleets where nomens would just die too easily. Not every ship should be designed for small gang. The only situation where a Zealot is better than a Nomen right now is in an armor HAC fleet. And that's really only because of its superior cap stability. With better pilots/command, the Nomen is a better armor HAC since the Zealot only goes 80% as fast and has 25% larger signature. On July 20 2013 04:15 Nyvis wrote: Do you see non snipers t3 BCs in large fleets? I don't. They're way too easy to kill. Sig tanking hacs are still used in fleets (mostly zealots), even with t3 BCs and t1 cruisers around/buffed. Yes, they're narrow, but that's what T2 ships should be about. [1] I think the best way to fix long range hacs (cerb, eagle, munnin ...) would be a slight nerf on tier3 BCs mobility. So that the long range hac could be the more mobile and agile kiters/snipers, and the tier3 BCs the one with more damage. For brawler hacs (vagabon, deimos, sacrilege, zealot), I think we're going in the right direction. The mwd sig bonus really helps, since hacs advantage compared to other compositions is their low signature (and pretty decent tank). [2] The problem for hacs is their position between t1 cruisers, tier3 BCs, and Tech3 cruisers. [3] [1] Maybe you could tell me about some those other sig tanking HACs. 'Armor HACs' in EVE translates directly to 'Zealots'. [2] Your definition of brawling must be weird as fuck if Vagas and Zealots are brawler HACs. Nerfing ACs doesn't make Vagas into brawlers, it just makes them really bad ships. [3] The problem for HACs is that they're all individual ships and each have their own specific problems - not some kind of overarching design issue that can be fixed by CCP waving a magic design wand. CCP changing their 'philosophy' is not going to fix these ships. People have discussed the Cerberus already so I won't go into that. The Eagle is a joke ship and has been since I started playing the game, and probably will remain that way a long time. Vagabonds are victims of constant power creep. Their damage was always so low that their speed couldn't really be utilized to do anything special. With the introduction of Tier 3 BCs and the consistent buffing of lower tier ships, they are just plain junk. Giving them a shield boost bonus is just silly because it will radically change the role of the ship, but it will at least be interesting. This incredibly stupid change is ironically the best of the bunch. Deimos might actually be totally legit with the new rail buffs coming in, but the question is whether it's fast enough for the job. It'll be capable of doing over 600 DPS at ~20km with a nice long falloff. Zealot is just a worse Nomen except for its DPS advantage and its superior cap. Those are hardly worth fighting over considering the extreme speed advantage and the drone advantage the Nomen has. It's nice that CCP buffed the Nomen, but these two ships are too similar not to have one just be plain better than the other. The Zealots keeps its very tiny armor HAC niche mostly from momentum and because it's easier for mindless drones to orbit and F1 things with its superior cap. Sacrilege is such a joke ship, particularly after losing its armor resist bonus. Oh cool it will now work with HML, har har har. CCP is throwing big buffs at it (PG and mass loss) - it needs them to even be relevant. You can't take these individual ships with their individual problems and come up with some "philosophy" they should follow. This is the mistake CCP is making, it's the mistake everyone on the forums is drawn into making. You can't paint a whole class of ships with the same brush because you'll end up buffing ships that don't need it and nerfing ships that are garbage. It's funny because it's the only change in the bunch that is going to make a big difference - by wholesale redefining the role of a ship. Couldn't agree more precisely with Chessur's take on it. | ||
|
DiracMonopole
United States1555 Posts
Cerb is still too slow for effective nano work- compare it to the t1 or faction cruisers, which are all way faster Eagle- why does caldari need 2 long range hacs? Change eagle to a blaster brawler. Give it back its utility slot and swap 1 range bonus for a tracking bonus. Keep the extra mid slot. Vaga- shield boost bonus is basically just playing into a single fit that a friend of kil2 uses, and its a very strange addition to a long range 4 mid ship. Instead, give it 5% mwd sig bloom reduction per level, so at level 5 it gets -75% sig (compared to the -50% the rest get) Sac needs a reason to use it over a hamdrake (or ham navy drake) Ishtar is doing like twice the dps of any other hac with more range. Sure drones have their own problems, but still, its doing 800 dps with with ogres that track cruisers easily. (or like 750 with gardes) | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On July 20 2013 13:10 DiracMonopole wrote: Zealot has the resists over the nomen, which also help make it more effective for ahacs. [1] Vaga- shield boost bonus is basically just playing into a single fit that a friend of kil2 uses, and its a very strange addition to a long range 4 mid ship. Instead, give it 5% mwd sig bloom reduction per level, so at level 5 it gets -75% sig (compared to the -50% the rest get) [2] [1] If you're fighting against BS or Tier 3 BC, Nomen is gonna end up better assuming it's flown/commanded properly. A Zealot is a 25% bigger target and goes only ~80% of the speed. A Nomen will take far less damage than a higher resist profile + Guardian rep equivalent, and taking fewer hits is more important the more alpha the other fleet has. Against more varied fleets, taking fewer hits vs. repping more damage is not as easily comparable and is highly dependent on the details of the other fleet. I think the most appealing factors of the Zealot for big armor HAC fleets are higher DPS and foolproof cap management. It's better for brainless flying and blaming everything on logi pilots. [2] Kil2's friend is the EVE metagame. Get on his level. Next week Kil2's friend will fly a Scorch S Daredevil, and CCP will revolutionize their philosophy on the matter, giving it a laser cap use bonus and armor rep speed bonus. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs EffOrt
OSC
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
GSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
