|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 15:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:[b]VAGABOND
... The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.
Good luck with that. Cynabal and vaga are almost identical ships that are currently stuck in the same exact role. The vaga, due to its reisists, was the one that could have more easilly broke out of the mold to allow it a brawler role. Now cynabals are obsolete until they are buffed to make vagas obsolete. If you try to buff cynabals to the point they can break out of that role they will just be op.
Other than that these ships are looking really good. Finally they are worth the isk. Yes even the vaga now that it is a better cynabal for less isk. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95 Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue. Not really, they (AFs) are borderline OP against other T1 frigates - but their slowness gives T1 frigates an area to be competitive. AFs (and HACs) should shine in logi situations - especially against ship hulls that are larger than they are. AFs do that really well, and their slowness makes sure they do not completely crush the engagement envelope of other frigates.
I think when we see people actually using hacs we can then decide that they need their speed nerfed. But the fact that they cost a 150 mill more than t1 should provide them with some additional benefit. Otherwise they will remain in the hangar. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:I think when we see people actually using hacs we can then decide that they need their speed nerfed. But the fact that they cost a 150 mill more than t1 should provide them with some additional benefit. Otherwise they will remain in the hangar. 1. If we're supposed to wait until the ships are flown before giving our opinion, then why is anybody posting in this thread? 2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve. 3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support.
1) fair enough
2) The cost of these ships is only a bit less than faction bcs. E.g., Navy harb going for about 180mil. Its unclear that these ships will even compete with plain vanilla BCs that cost 1/4 what these ships cost.
3) I don't think they survive better than plain bcs which cost 1/3 the price, or faction bcs for a bit more.
Again I think these changes are pretty good. But for 155-170 million I'm not still not sure they are going to be competitive.
Only comparing them with t1 hulls that are 150 mill cheaper is not really helpful. If you want to compare them to a cheaper hull at least compare them to the navy cruisers that cost about half as much.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 01:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote: If CCP are so adamant about keeping the same total number of slots then.....
This is really the problem. They are not balancing the ships in diverse ways. First they make all the bonuses about the same (eg, nerf the 5% resist bonus) and then give the same number of slots.
Eve used to be interesting with some ship having some really great bonuses but maybe not as many slots, or combined with another not so great bonus. Now they are just trying to make every minutia equivalent. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 02:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:DeadDuck wrote:Diesel47 wrote:For their price, HACs kinda suck. So continue flying tec1 cruisers or faction ones. I will be flying Hacs again. No thanks. I'd rather fly a solo battleship than a solo hac. So much more power and options, HACs aren't really "specialized" like CCP claims. Just a big waste of isk.
solo battleship?
If you mean pvp I don't know about that.
I tend to agree with you and everyone saying hacs may still not be worth the cost. But battleships aren't really a decent comparison any more than t1 cruisers are on the other side of the coin.
I think hacs will make better solo ships than battleships unless you just want to fit smarties. Also although BSes insure better (assuming they are not the old tier1 ships with extra materials) their mods and rigs also cost more.
IMO hacs should be compared with navy and pirate cruisers as well as bcs and navy bcs.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1027
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:baltec1 wrote:
The dumbest things I have seen so far is you. Ships should never be balanced on how much they cost ever because no matter how much that cost is we can afford it.
Spoken by someone who has not paid for a ship in years, or has a personal cash flow measured in the hundreds of millions / day, at the very least.
I think its just a troll. He is well aware his alliance dropped the tempest fleet issue doctrine because it wasn't cost effective. He may have even been the one who made that decision. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1028
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 15:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Cearain wrote:
I think its just a troll. He is well aware his alliance dropped the tempest fleet issue doctrine because it wasn't cost effective. He may have even been the one who made that decision.
Actually I was they guy in the navy Megathron.
Did goons use a navy megathron doctrine or a regular megathron doctrine, in fountain? Are regular megas better than the navy megas?
Goons always post to nerf any ships that can't easilly be flown by noobs because getting noobs into large blobs is how they win. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
The dumbest things I have seen so far is you. Ships should never be balanced on how much they cost ever because no matter how much that cost is we can afford it.
Except we find that ships aren't used as evidenced by your own alliance decline to use tempest fis due to cost and as indicated below using regular megas instead of the better navy megas that cost more.
Dumb is when people say cost is not a balancing factor.
baltec1 wrote:Cearain wrote:
Did goons use a navy megathron doctrine or a regular megathron doctrine, in fountain? Are regular megas better than the navy megas?
Goons always post to nerf any ships that can't easilly be flown by noobs because getting noobs into large blobs is how they win.
Navy mega are better than normal mega at most things but not by a lot. Also you should look up our cruiser doctrines, the celestis is a very well like ship indeed. Easy to fly ships are very much wanted by the CFC. We aim out nerf requests towards things that need the bat for the wellbeing of the whole game. Why else would we demand tech nerfed?
CFC are always trying to nerf high sp and high cost ships. Just like when some cfc noob flew his rifter directly at a titan, got blapped, and cried that titans be nerfed.
Goons can't keep saying they are out to ruin the game for everyone but goons, and then hope to have credibility when they say the changes they want are not just good for goons but for the game as a whole. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 19:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:Why... why is the Ishtar packing over 200 less PG than the Vexor navy issue...?
There are decent trade offs for that. Ishtar has more turrets, and better bonuses and resists. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them.
I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 15:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Cearain wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them. I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine. Not until the Vaga changes fix the Vaga... Not to repeat myself or anything.
I think the main problem with the vaga is not the vaga but the te nerf.
Vaga recieved another bonus out of thin air. It is definitely improved. Will it beat out a cynabal for the kiting role when it fits a shield extender, asb, point and mwd in the mids? I am not sure but I think it probably will. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 16:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Cearain wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Enough with the HACs. Really. There are plenty of other ships in need of rebalancing. Time to wrap this, test and have the devs make some minor tweaks. HACs are some of the worst ships in the game right now in terms of having an actual role, they should take as much time as they need with them. I think these changes are decent and we should see how they work. If they are still not used then they can do another pass. But these ships are decent and their price on the market is already shooting up so I think they are fine. Another pass won't happen. Has to be done right the first time.
I just think they did a decent job here. No not everyone will be satisfied but, but there is no consensus on what more needs to be done. These ships are clearly better than the t1 version. Are they worth the extra cost over vanilla bcs? Probably not, but maybe. The recent ewar resistance bonuses are really nice subtle but I think powerful changes that will give both the fleet and the small gangs using these ships. Plus most ships are getting extra fitting space to mess around with. I think they are ready for tq.
In the meantime there are still some ships really need a buff like the succubus and worm and some of the pirate cruisers, eg even the cynabal will likely be useless after the vaga change let alone the Phantasm. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Vagabond I'm not happy with the Shield Boost Bonus, BUT, there is a way to make it workable. Give it more powergrid. With more powergrid (5-10% more) It will be able to fit 425s (making it a better kiter with added range so that way it can compete with the Cynabal, but not make it outright better and therefore continuing the arms race) OR fit 220s and an ASB without an ancillary rig (because honestly, nobody fits 180s for a reason) More PG, then ill be happy
Drop a low for a mid would help too. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:04:00 -
[14] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote: So its terrible DPS will be replaced with Mediocre DPS and it will lose tracking and a Medium neut as a result.
Oh that makes me so happy.
I'm sure the Vaga is the second most used HAC in the game atm because of it's terrible dps.
It might be more of a comment about the other hacs than it is about the vagabond.
BTW: where do you get that statistic? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
Thanks. That posts suggests that the vaga is used about as much as the omen in pvp. I knew the vaga wasn't used often but I didn't think it was that bad. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1029
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 19:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Cearain wrote:Thanks. That posts suggests that the vaga is used about as much as the omen in pvp. I knew the vaga wasn't used often but I didn't think it was that bad. You underestimate the usage of those ships. The Omen is incredible
I haven't seen an omen in a pvp setting since the changes so I couldn't really over or underestimate it.
Where is everyone flying omens in pvp these days? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1034
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:04:00 -
[17] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Oh My Boobs wrote:-1 low +1 med for the vagabond -1 low +1 med for the muninn
DONE That will again, make the Vaga worse, as it relies on those lows for DPS and projection.
No it will make it much better and more veratile. Worst case: use a tracking computer in a mid instead of a te in lows. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 21:39:00 -
[18] - Quote
Krissinator wrote:Quote:If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only.
INDEED!
They could also make it so the bonus only applies to the 10 mn afterburners. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
|
|