By “Hacking”, I mean coming up with a long term solution to elevate HACs from their vanishingly small niches and move them into the realm of viable fleet doctrines.
THE PROBLEM
To be blunt, there is no good reason for flying a HAC over other vessels now. There roles were already precarious prior to Inferno, and the advent of the Pocket Battleships with their decent agility and high firepower combined with Retribution’s vastly improved Tech 1 cruisers have squeezed the gap so much that paying 160 million ISK for a Vagabond hull seems ludicrous when Stabbers go for 6 million and Tornadoes go for 60 million. Why would you pay 100+ million ISK for a ship that has only slightly better survivability and damage?
The answer is, of course, you wouldn’t. Unless you have the ISK to waste (and a lot of people do) or you need a rare specific role filled (like an Eagle sniping to 200 km), generally speaking the Tech 1 cruisers and battlecruisers are going to do the job.
THE OBVIOUS “SOLUTION”
“So?” you say. “Increase the damage and tank to a point where its worth spending the extra money and call it a day.”
Well, that is one approach… but it has some serious drawbacks. For one thing, you get a huge jump in the power creep curve. Boosting the Tech 1 cruisers made them viable alternatives in PvP; boosting the Tech 2 a similar amount would thus negate all the work done on the cruisers and put you back in the situation where in order to be competitive a players needs to upgrade to be in a Tech 2 ship. That runs counter to the long term goal of tiericide and rebalancing ships where every ship has a good reason to be used.
For another thing, you create a ripple effect where Tech 2 logistics, command ships, heavy interdictors, and recons also need to climb the power curve to remain relevant in the new meta that would manifest itself in the environment the improved HACs would create. This would completely undo all the work done so far in Tech 1 ships.
Long story short, significantly boosting the damage and tank of the HAC class is not desirable and would create more issues than it would create.
A BETTER APPROACH
We’ve established that the Tech 2 cruisers cannot be boosted in tank and damage to far beyond that of their Tech 1 counterparts. That’s not to say they can’t have more damage and more tank; indeed, I think 15%-25% more damage and up to 25% more EHP is not unreasonable (numbers subject to change) and most of this bonus will typically come from some of the four bonuses that Tech 2 cruisers receive.
I think that we should look at other stats to mildly boost as well. For instance, the Deimos speed with a MWD is slower than that of a similarly fit Thorax (1900 m/s to 2200 m/s) and has one less mid slot (but extra high and low slot) making a shield tank harder (read: impossible). With some minor changes, we can make it so that the Deimos is as fast and tanks better to go along with its ability to fit the bigger weapons easier.
But is it enough? I say “no”, its not enough to justify the price tag. Thus, I turn to Assault Frigates.
Assault frigates are in a very similar position: you don’t want them to massively outperform Tech 1 combat frigate or else the latter will become obsolete in PvP, but you do want to justify their increased cost so that players have a choice to make between cheap and effective Tech 1 frigates and expensive but more powerful Tech 2 Assault Frigates.
The solution that CCP hit upon this past year was simple and effective. Assault frigates got a role bonus of 50% decrease to signature bloom from MWD. This made them superior to Tech 1 frigates in the role of heavy tackle and damage from a frigate based platform. We also know that CCP has reinforced in their efforts the concept that Tech 1 is general purpose ships, Tech 3 are super flexible, and Tech 2 is highly specialized. This is aptly demonstrated in the dev blog that discussed ideas for Battlecruisers, Tech 2 Command Ships, and Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers with the Warfare Link Processing subsystem.
Back to HACs. We know that being Tech 2 they should be more specialized than their Tech 1 counterparts when performing their specialized role. What is the specialized role? Well, the name gives it away now doesn’t it? Heavy Assault Ships: like Assault Ships, but heavier.
Therefore I’m going to propose that along with making the Tech 2 cruisers slightly beefier and harder hitting versions of the current Tech 1 cruisers, they should receive a role bonus to reduce their MWD bloom by 50% just like the Assault frigates. This will help to make them very specialized at hitting harder and faster while surviving longer.
CONCLUSION
I do not envy the next phase of CCP Fozzie and co’s job. Rebalancing cheap frigates and cruisers that hardly anyone uses is easy compared to changing some of the most loved ships in the game, especially considering one design philosophy misstep can undo the work of the past year. But the excellent and well received work done so far has given me hope that the future of PvP in Eve is in the right hands.
There is 300 dps, 0.8 agility, 9k ehp, 7km falloff, 300 m/s of difference between a stabber and a vagabond. In a blob you might not see the difference, but there is still some guys over there that still play in small gang.. and even X-Small gang. And then it can makes the difference between winning or dying.
Wrong analyze and solution, HAC doesn't need a boost for now
Small pvp gang are made of cynas not vagas.
Maybe allow only T2 and T3 ships to equip T2 Modules?
Discuss…….
bad idea
Terrible, end of discussion.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but Zealots and Muninns are still used in fleets. Deimos and Vagabonds are excellent for small gang roams. Cerberus is a great alternative to Tengus in fleets. You know that video of Shedoo raging on coms because a Jr. FC made a retarded mistake and was about to whelp a fleet? He wasn't screaming "BATTLECRUISERS!!!!!!!!!!11!" that's for sure. Stop commenting on things you know very little about. Granted, some ships are used very little in fleets (Read: EAGLE IS TERRIBAD), but that's no reason to give them all a buff. MOST of them are good where they are.
do you know how long ago that Armour hacs rage was?
The price of a ship dos not indicate the usability of it. It's a free market, prices vary based on demand. The Vaga has always been more of a solo ship then a gang ship. I have yet to see a fleet comp where it really fits in. It could fit into a nano gang np but then again a Cyna would do way better in that role and gang and cost's only a fraction more then the vaga. But that's not my whole problem with your story either. You say hacs are losing there place in eve? what the shit m8 you mentioned 1 hac which has always been a bit of a loner in the hac department imo the vaga. You touched on deimos which quiet honestly still has a significant role in fleet comps especially abhac gangs.
The t1 variants have got a buff and are great, they have opened up some excellent gang pvp and allowed lower sp players to fill out some very cool roles. But stacking a t1 variant cruiser gang vs a t2 of the same size, I would bet my isk on the t2 variant any day. The only thing I see happening is that over the next several months the demand for t2 hac's will go down which "hopefully" means a drop in prices and the demand for t1 variants has and will continue to go up as well as the price. Most mods for these cruisers have already spiked and continue to spike and so are the hulls for them. It's a re-balancing of the market and it will be a volatile market for some time to come. You made no point in you're article and wasted my time thank you.
you sad it your self, you don't see a fleet role for the hac ships!
- Vaga/ Munin – maybe anty tackler in a nado / naga fleet, but we use to have a sniper fleets of hacs
- Zealot – yeah the armor hacs ! But will u go 100 zealots vs 100 t1 armor crusers, sure u will probably win the fight, but you will gain 0… There used to be a thing in this game "risk / reward"
- Sacrelige – do they even exest
- Deimos has only been good in small gangs, and its not used becuase medium blasters are SHIT!!!
But even for small gang you can do it with a t1 crusers, same numbers, much cheaper.
Cheaper means, you can afford to lose more ship, in teory have more fun
But the problem is that the young players, that CCP focus on, have to be compleate retard to aim for the t2 crusers!
It was not that hard to get in a hac before, but it was worth it!
Because obviously the main role of any ship should be to form 200 man blops…
Muninn fleets can be quite powerfull in small gangs and hit far beyond their numbers. Vaga is mainly a soloboat as are the Sacrilege and the Ishtar (not to mention it´s versatility in pve) and incredibly fun to fly. Though i admit that the Deimos could need some love it can still be a perfect anti tackle plattform in small nanobased gangs. I honestly don´t see whats wrong with them. They still outperform there respective t1 variants by far and the price was never an indication for the abilities of a ship.
You make it sound like in even engagemets the one side should not lose any ships because they payed 5 times the price for it. Gladly that is not how eve works and hopefully never will.
Where did I say that I don't see a role for the hac ships? Point it out, in fact fucking quote it you idiot. You can't cause I did not. I said that the vaga has always been mostly a solo ship as there are other ships that do the same thing for less in gangs. The vaga got a buff from the ASB and became quite deadly for a time (I think it still can be even after the asb nerf though I have not played around with it yet) but then this was the realm of solo, something you seem to have no experience with.
Now back to the fucking point, Why your a idiot, and how it comes across in spades.~
Lets do this take a basic abhac gang which normally consisted of zealots/guardians/SFI's/Deimos (it can fit in quite well for anti tackle and up close blasters do a shit ton of dmg), usually you have a web loki mixed in there and possibly a dual long point or long point/long scram proteus or 2. Now this gang type can get pretty bling and expensive but is fucking fun to fly. Lets compare that to what my corp calls "CheapHacs", based around t1 armor cruisers like the Rupture/Thorax/Vexor with the augoror (naturally all being AB fit as per ABhac). While decidedly much much cheaper and pretty fun to fly as well (and effective). They simply do not stack up to what a full fledged ABHac gang can do. Why you ask? for several reasons, 1.) resists there t1 resists and that makes a ton of difference (can be mitigated a bit with legion links) 2.) The difference between a t1 logi cruiser and a guardian is still massive, you lose about half the hp, again the resists are not comparable and you can only fit 3 not 4 reps. There is more but I'm not going to go on about it, I hope you get the point by now.
Now on to your sac comment. Yes they exist, I see people solo'ing in them, no I can not comment on how effective they are cause I don't fly them nor am I planning to any time soon.
Muninn gangs work and not only that they recently got a fitting buff from the changes to the arty. Looking at Elo Knight here!!!
The rest of you're comment is garbage and I hope you never try teaching any new player to this game. I feel you will seriously damage that poor pilot to the point of no return.
All that has changed is that t1 variants have become relevant and t1 cruiser logi has become relevant, therefore opening up some epic pvp for lower sp players and allowing them to have longer more fun engagements. Which when there done training for that shinny t2 hac or tech 3 ship that they want to throw it into a full fledged ABhac gang or similar cruiser gang, they will have the experience backing them to fly that shit like ballers. This is absolutely great for the game and I am excited and thrilled that ccp has pulled it off. I guess you gona get haters every time no matter what.
Apparently you're using medium blasters wrong… Also, T2 cruisers for the most part do not have a high enough bang for their buck in a blob situation. When you're working with 50+ ships that extra 10-20% (when you already have enough DPS) damage at almost 10x the cost doesn't make sense in a lot of cases. The A-Hac Zealots do well because of the survivability factor they provide. Where the T2 cruisers shine is in the small gang and solo where that extra DPS/Tank/Slot Layout make a significant difference. Not every ship needs a spot in the Blob.
If I am soloing and I want the maneuverability and signature radius of a cruiser a HAC is an excellent choice over a T1 ship. The extra benefits the T2 ship provides drastically increase my potential to win fights over the T1 variant. Sure my DPS only went up by 20% but that 20% increases my ability to win an engagement by 10x.
Vaga is fine if you play Solo since it has much better falloff and resist than a Stabber. The only area I'd improve is maybe give it more drone space so you could carry a set of damage drones and a set of ecm drones . . . and maybe improve its agility to match the fleet issue stabber's.
And it DEFINITELY needs a fitting boost.
One reason to using a Cynabal (other than the extra set of light drones) is the fact you can fit 425s, a medium neut, and all T2 mids (with a Vaga you HAVE to use 220s, or use an ancil, and can't fit a medium neut without fitting an ancil or meta 4 LSE)
Buff HAC fitting, tank, and DPS
- the 50% sig bloom sounds good
flawed premise = doomed conclusions.
It is apparant that you do not fly these ships often, I was recently in a fleet of two dozen hacs w/ 4 guardians and mostly zealots and a few t3s taking on a fleet of 40 t1 cruisers with 6 augs and we came out on top after a prolonged fight that had them reshiping and coming back on multiple occasions. The truth is the greatest bonus that t2 cruisers have is the resistances as well as dps projection or flat dps bonuses. Overall they are a lot better and well worth the price to have. You do not truly understand the concept, you are trying to fix a problem where there is not a problem. Hac teams are commonly used and very powerful in the world of eve today.
the amarr and minmatar hac are good. but the gallente and caldari are not. ishatar is a great pve ship but need a very complx strategy to work in larg fleets and the deimos is rubbish… need to rebalance them.
And you are smoking something ! The Ishtar is still the recon's worst nightmare. You can't neut an entire pack of drones… you can't jam a pack of drones plus the ship (no, jamming the ship after the drones engage doesn't stop em, they each have their own targeting system), can't weapon disrupt em, and tackling them from a distance only puts their fire on you. The Ishtar is definitely a PvP ship also ! Couple a small gang of Ishtars, with a Latch and a bubbler, you get a nasty little gate camp.
Yeah, the ishtar is great. But try the cerberus, its not good for anything but additional dps, and even at that there is so many ships that comes out on top of it with a smaller price tag.
This article is a joke right? All t2 ships got nerfed to the t1 to give a warm welcome to our new Dust comrads who want to try goon online for their first time. ccp wants some new customers from Dust to goons online, thats why they send out their pl bh es to help test to change the whole 0.0 into a blue desert. The new players from Dust are the reason for the skillpointnerfs, are the reason, that t1 ships for newbs are almost as strong as t2 ships (heavy assault and t2 loggis for instance) and the reason for this blue desert in 0.0. Why should ccp change this overpowert t1 ships, why should ccp take away this gifts from our new brothers comming from Dust to try goon online? Hope that dust will be a success otherwise we all will suffer, because a great amount of our money was invested in this Dust thingy, sigh***
very interesting but im not convinced T2 needs a buff of 20% dam they would rule the skies if they got a 20% buff maybe some changes to there ship bonus would work but its very hard to change
The Zealot rocks, and far superior to its T1 cousin…
destroyer makes moare damage as a zealot .. yap yap zealot roxxxx o0
One has to look at the entire package, low sig radius great tank reasonable damage and cap stable, you bring a fleet of destroyers against a fleet of Zealots you die easily.
To play devil's advocate a little here…
Sure, your fleet of dessies will all DIAF, but how many zealots will you be taking out in the process? 50 dessies v. 50 Zealots. I'd say once you kill 5-6 zealots, it's op success.
The Observer,
Only if you're looking to Win The Isk War, as opposed to Save The Cynojammer.
Guy who wrote this article do you play eve online hacs are very commen in null sec the expense is the inlet problem
Armour HACs (mostly Zealots) still see regular use in fleet lines of battle due to their combination of low sig, high resists, and good damage projection over flexible ranges that is simply impossible for any t1 ship to match. The Muninn is an excellent anti-light support platform due to its high alpha, long range, good tracking, and lightness of handling. A Hurricane can also do the job, sure, but it lacks the range and tracking and thus is distinctly inferior. The Vagabond is kind of eclipsed by the Cynabal, but that's less a statement on the poverty of the Vagabond than one of the wild superiority of the Cynabal. The Sacrilege is a very high-tier solo platform in the hands of a capable pilot, and the recent changes to HAMs have only improved it further.
The biggest problems are with the Caldari and Gallente HAC lineups, and the Ishtar's problems have more to do with the general trend of the metagame than the Ishtar itself. The Deimos remains the Diemost due to its squishiness, inadequate speed, suboptimal slot layout, tight fitting, and lack of DPS compared to competitors. It has been one of the weaker HACs ever since the damned things have rolled out. The Cerberus is not fundamentally bad but simply underwhelming, and the Eagle…well, the Eagle has the same problems that any long-range medium rail platform does. Unfucking med rails would go a long way to making the Eagle a viable platform.
Anyway, HACs are still in a pretty good place. The need for aHACs and/or fleet anti-bomber coverage is not growing any smaller by the day, and some of them (namely the Sacrilege) still fill roaming roles not adequately filled by battlecruisers. Yes, they aren't the final word in roaming like they were during the nano days, but…those aren't coming back. And a lot of the underlying principles as to what made them so good as nano platforms (good damage/range combined with superior mobility) are still deeply desirable traits on the field.
damage of the zealots is a JOKE mauifeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mo…
name 1 alliance besides -A- (lol 100mn ab zealtos) who still effectively use AHACS as in the zealot fleet.
Nulli & Co. vs CFC Drakes during the Tribute campaign.
In other words 'Everyone who is (a) better than adequate, and (b) wants to kill CFC'
IRC as a counter to CFC Mael fleets
Also PL
killboard2.nullisecunda.com/?a=kill_relate… um we still use them alot lo this was today
You said what I failed to say clearly. Thank you for posting a straight up and informative comment. +1 to you good sir.
The Zealot DPS on a per-ship basis may not be that fantastic. However, there's DPS then there's DPS that actually hits targets. Huge #s are fine but where the rubber meets the road you'll see not all big-deeps boats actually put the lead on target (Most fall well short). The Zealot's medium guns do a really good job of keeping the dmg where it belongs….
Sac. pilots I've run into seem to be like myrm pilots – totally fail-pilots or really good. The fact that there is a 'really good' at all should tell you something.
Maybe some improvements could be made…. Don't let the fact that -A- hasn't been able to permanently hold off 4-6 times their #s fool you into thinking the zealot fleets don't work. I DO think the Vaga needs work and the Cerb is still right out but it always has been…
The Ishtar is a great PVE boat, I run one in curse running level 4 missions to buy my cynabols. It's easily cap stable and it's drone bay is enormous. Cap stable with good resists and I can salvage while killing stuff and still have cloak and repair ability with remote reps to keep drones up with the new Npc boosts
how is that drone thing working with the new AI ?
it works fine if your not a lazy afk mission bot wannabe
scooping sentries with the hit of a button/keystroke is too hard right ?
i find flying t2 stuff more stressful as it simply costs more, but there are many others like me, when i say, you get a special feeling when you see yourself on a killmail with your shiny vagabond. It is something you can show off to your friends, rather than showing the wolf you killed in a vexor.
I might be alone on this.. i don't know, but that is why i fly HAC's and not the t1 equivalent. I agree that they are falling behind a little, but if you know how to fly them, there can be no stopping you!
failing behind a little LOL
LOL, a vagabond is still a very capable ship in teh right hands, I guess you are not the right hands!
Imo, Match the DPS to that of battlecruisers (so as to not obsolete them), increase the tank over the T1 variant by 25-50% (depending on how tanky the T1 variant is)
And the 50% sig bloom would definitely give them a chance
AND FFS, BUFF THEIR FITTINGS
You can't fit heavy pusle on a zealot with plate w/o an ancillary rig!
Or 425s & med neut on a vaga (which the cynabal does)
Or Ions & plate on a Diemost w/o ancil
TL;DR = Better PG/CPU, the 50% sig bloom thing, more DPS & (Maybe?) a bit more tank
To quote the article about that solution "Well, that is one approach… but it has some serious drawbacks. For one thing, you get a huge jump in the power creep curve. Boosting the Tech 1 cruisers made them viable alternatives in PvP; boosting the Tech 2 a similar amount would thus negate all the work done on the cruisers and put you back in the situation where in order to be competitive a players needs to upgrade to be in a Tech 2 ship. That runs counter to the long term goal of tiericide and rebalancing ships where every ship has a good reason to be used."
It wouldn't negate work done on T1 cruisers because of one faction that the article doesnt consider: Cost
Cruiser w/ T2 fit and T1 rigs? ~30m
HAC w/ T2 fit and T1 rigs? ~200m+
Thats 1/7th the cost, which mean that T1 cruisers would remain viable, but so would HACs.
One of hte main problem with HACs is you can't the best guns without gimping the tank, or a full tank without gimping the DPS (Compared to T1 cruisers & BCs which can fit a full tank AND use the highest tier guns availible.)
M1k3y,
The market will do that anyway, as much of that T2 fit is tech (some T2 manufacturer will advise us, but my guess is half of that 200m is tech, a quarter is blueprint and a quarter is everything else).
As people shift to T1 for shits and giggles fights and T2 for When We Really Need To Win, then the market will respond to the lower demand for tech and the price of the moon mins that are wrapped up in the HAC will fall.
Therefore, as people use fewer of the, HACs get cheaper, and it gets more viable to use them.
That's true but HACs do have a price floor of about 80 mil if the eagle was anything to go by, simply because of the resources needed to build one. I'm not sure if cheaper tech would bring this floor down even further? At 60 – 70 mil HACs really would start to look more attractive for small gang players at least.
Guy.
Ive said it on a number of threads, but buffing T1 cruisers *is* the tech nerf.
People will still use the t2 ships for important objectives or if they have the isk to throw around.
"You can't fit heavy pusle on a zealot with plate w/o an ancillary rig! "
Au contraire…
Just buy an EG-603 implant and if you have AWU5 it fits 1600mm meta 4 and 2x trimarks.
I agree though the CPU and PG of these ships needs the same treatment that the cruiser line got. The Zealot did very well out of the Heavy Pulse power reduction but it still shouldn't be as tight a fit as it is. The Deimos and Vaga are the same story.
@ M1k3y
"Or 425s & med neut on a vaga (which the cynabal does) "
Yeah but remember the Cynabal is double a faction Cruisier. It's suppose to be better than a T2. That's why you pay the big I$K
Just saying…
Don't fix it if it ain't broken comes to mind here, T1 Frigs & Cruisers were fine as they were and should never been fixed to be even remotely close to there T2 counter parts. Everytime you buff something you break something else. CCP never learns.
agree .. and ask why they did this changes to overpower the t1 ships .. that are almost as strong as the t2 .. ask, why they made this skillpointnerf
Gunny,
Because you know the tech nerf everyone is calling for ? This was the tech nerf.
t1 ships ..as strong as t2 ships .. destroyers that make moar damage as a zealot .. i did not ask for it and dont know peeps who aks for it .. oohhh wait ..
the methani and his testfriends want overpowered ships for their hordes of new players … and methani prommissed thats what i belive, he prommissed to give the newbies of Dust a warm welcome, if he gets more love for his skill free armadas of spaceships
Father Gabriel,
Kindly engage your brain – the biggest advantage Mittens has is most of his enemies are idiots.
CFC and Test are trit importers, and export Tech and other moon minerals.
T1 cruisers are made from trit. T2 cruisers are made from tech.
If PvPers move away from T2 and towards T1, then what happens to the relative price of trit and tech ?
If unreasonable price difference between T1 and T2 is a problem, then adjust the material requirements for building HACs, leaving stats the same.
I think this is the best approach. To justify the current price difference between t1 and t2, HACs would need a significant buff that would rapidly return many t1 cruisers to obscurity. A reduction in min requirements that led to an approximate reduction in price between 25-30% seems the most logical approach to maintaining their viability.
Unique bonuses over T1 are the way to go. HACs should all be about tiny sig.
Zealots are still amazing ships with both Pulse and Beam [BADCATS]
Also now that HAM`s are so much better at tracking Cerbs are Actually a Viable faster Ham drake that uses Range as its Buffer as they can get up to 45-60 KM with 550 DPS and great tracking now.
i do agree Hacs are to expensive compared to there T1 counterparts, but besides that Have you ever really ran a new fleet of Ishtar, they are amazing Damps+Drone DMG Mods= Sentry City and they kill everything like Domis but way way faster. Also the Vaga has seen no drop in use except for the Cynabal which is double its cost and Stabberfleet which was always my favorite vs a Munnin.
Anyways its very simple they are fleet ships 90% of the time. Now Allie`s are so rich they use Loki`s as the anti Support Roles for BS gangs but Munnins do just Fine and are 1/4th the cost.
I think if we wanna blame anything its that Alliances want either extremely expensive or dirt cheap setups now a days and nothing in between. But Hacs on there own are very effective, they just cant beat T3`s which is Fine TBH.
If they cost 65 mil hull and 90 mil fitt that would be ideal.
hmm… just give t2 ships third rig slot, nothing else is necessary IMHO
I highly dislike the new changes…
I have been in this game for 3 years now. I remember stuff like learning skills.
Back in the days when we had learning skill it’s was impossible to progress in the game for the 1st 4 mounts, yet so many have done it.
I liked Eve because is haven't been easy!
Now 3 years later I feel cheated. 50 mil sp for what?
CCP plan is to make the game easier and more appalling to the new players. However all there changes seem to remove all that was good in this game.
Eve Online has lost its charm, has lost what made it better than all the rest….
What will drive a young rifter pilot to get in a Vagabond or in a Rapier?
What will drive a young amar pilot to get in Zelot or in a Curse?
etc…
What made this game great, what made us drive thru all the challenges, planning mounts ahead, waiting and waiting?
It was not that those ships were overpowered!
It was the idea, what can you do with em!
And Even when you finally got those sweet T2 ships, that you had wet dream for mounts… It was not easy to fly them.
It’s not easy to fly Curse for example: week tank, not very fast, pilot has to be able to control his ship and to know his env.
Now what?
Why should I fly t2 ship if the t1 one are faster and cheaper and has the same role?
Where is the challenge in the battle to understand who is neuting, pointing, jamming you?
Where is the challenge to control range, speed, and transversal?
All this stuff gone or they will be gone in the next few mounts.
And the Blobs, are they a problem? No they are not the problem; they are intentional feature, created by CCP. Created how? By simple content design, or the lack of it!
What is strange is, that back in the days when it was harder for young players, when they needed that support of the BLOB, we did not have it!
Today the game is much easyer, yet we have Cluster F* stuff…
Fights with 1000 people in local are hard to call fun! The TiDi is constant. Even other regions in eve have TiDi, because some 1k dudes decided to fight somewhere! Why?
Where are the transversal, speed, range, tracking and electronic warfare?
What difference does it make, that you can do 100 dps more, then the pilot next to you, because you have better skills?
The answer is simple and can be found in all the young players! Simply ask them, what they like in Eve Online! I am sure you will be surprised, how much the focus of the game has changed.
Does anyone remember this Trailer: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq2oxt7Nrxo
"Why should I fly t2 ship if the t1 one are faster and cheaper and has the same role? "
Because the T2 ship does it better.
When its a slosh op, when its a random fight, when its a concequences free bit of PvP, yeah, I'll bring the T1.
When we need to win, thats when I bring T2.
And thats the way it should be.
Personally I hardly ever fly T2, they are not worth the cost. I would rather fly around in a Cane than a Vaga.
Vaga is t2 Scrub learn to spaceship
than implies comparison or preference
Scrub learn to english
this is not the pl propaganda board screw you
Stop your ccp propaganda .. Zealot that does less damage as a t1 cruiser is NOT what you call "Because the T2 ship does it better"
Because resists are worthless to keep you in a fight, amirite ?
GTFO of EVE if it's really this bad to you, or stop bitching for attention. Pick one.
fuck you test goon bastard
Aaaaabsolutley right bro, game has changed to easy skillles goon test online, skillles pilots get the honey, ccp changes the game into easy mode, destroys the 0.0 and works together with methani and pl to interfere, to influence and form the game to bring in hordes of kiddos, that will find a goon test universe. eve is brogen, face the truth
I think most tech2 cruisers are fine atm , the cerb may need some love its hard to fit hams on it with a decent tank , esp with the heavy miss nerf. Blaster eagle rocks atm in my opinion. (i prolly says this cause im flying them lols)
The article and comments make a couple points that relate to what I do:
1: The Cynabal is more effective, in almost every way, than the vagabond, for an additional 50m iso. The only thing that it lacks are T2 resists.
2: Most people do not know how to fly a HAC outside of fleet.
3: While the power-gap between T1 and T2 cruisers has gotten smaller, the price gap has remained around the same.
#3 is working as intended. Large price increase for marginal improvement in effectiveness.
3: While the power-gap between T1 and T2 cruisers has gotten smaller, the price gap has remained around the same.
T1 is almost as good as t2 … this is good for goon test, but on the other side makes the t2 cruisers rather senseless and because of this redunant, there is almost no reason left to fly t2 cruisers thank you ccp, we all know you have to satisfy test goon methani who promised to keep the new eve online players from dust in the game. Well planed ccp … made us a chinese server thank you and your pl bitches
I think for assault frigs and hacs, they should instead give the ships a bonus to ab speed to be equal of an mwd on that particular ship (feel free to limit the bonus to ship class size.) This way they'd be slower than the t1 ships, but they'd be immune to scram's effect of turning off the prop mod. Slower, but more resilient.
one way to make hacs more viable again is to lower the production costs… even a 25% reduction in moo goo mins would make them more affordable
The fact that basic speed of Thorax is 240 m/s and Deimos 208 m/s is ridiculous. Why is Deimos so much slower than Thorax? The only thing where difference is smaller is Stabber (290 m/s) vs Vagabond 298 m/s. But Vaga speed includes the bonus given by one of the four role bonuses, making the difference insignificant is like Vaga just lost one bonus.
At least what CCP needs to do is adding 3rd Rig slot and make speed the same.