Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Dri Kulsane
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:00:00 -
[31]
HAC's still serve a different purpose than COM's. Price has very little to do with deciding what you will fly and when.
I would still say HAC hands down for PVP. But, COM's interest me for other reasons
|
Dash Ripcock
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 12:28:00 -
[32]
Originally by: LWMaverick
Originally by: Rodj Blake Edited by: Rodj Blake on 05/05/2006 08:21:09
The Absolution outclasses the Zealot in pretty much every category except maneuverability and sig radius.
The sig and the maneuverability is not its biggest problem... The missing range bonus is
Yup - I fly both Gallente and Amarr HACS (namely the Zealot, I don't like the Sacrilege much) and when I looked at the bonuses I noticed that whilst the Astarte has the Deimos bonuses bar MWD - replaced with a repair bonus - the Absolution has a Sacrilege style resistance bonus and capacitor bonus, and skips the optimal range bonus on the Zealot. Considering Multifrequency and Conflag have optimals just outside of webbing range on a Zealot, I didn't fancy taking such a cumbersome ship that close to the enemy when I could do that in an Astarte and do even more damage.
The Firing Range |
SiLeNCel2
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 12:59:00 -
[33]
i don¦t understand why everybody compares HACs with Command ships here... isn¦t a COMMAND SHIP supposed to do COMMAND STUFF, for example fitting warfare modules?? i guess it¦s most valuable in big fleets...
Originally by: Al Thorr
Originally by: Yith Solarius oh and ps the word you'll looking for is obsoleat not absolute
Err isnt it Obsolete. ?
it¦s obso1337! ____ no matter what you say...
|
Dash Ripcock
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:02:00 -
[34]
The Fleet Commands are, the Field Commands have all damage and defence bonuses so naturally people will treat them as heavy-duty sluggers.
The Firing Range |
Johnny Twoshoe
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:09:00 -
[35]
I'm with the OP... I'm not 100% convinced that Command Ships are all that and a bag of chips.
I'm planning to train for an Absolution, but before I do, I'd like to know if it's really worth it. I fly a Zealot regularly and love it. What's attractive about the Absolution is the insane resistiances and the crazy damage output it's capable of - even higher than a Zealot (!). Since I've already got Gallente Cruiser 5, I could just as easily jump into an Astarte (I simply lack Medium Hybrid 5) if someone manages to talk me out of an Abso. ~~~
Credits to Kilrock for this awesome sig. |
Dash Ripcock
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:44:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Johnny Twoshoe I'm with the OP... I'm not 100% convinced that Command Ships are all that and a bag of chips.
I'm planning to train for an Absolution, but before I do, I'd like to know if it's really worth it. I fly a Zealot regularly and love it. What's attractive about the Absolution is the insane resistiances and the crazy damage output it's capable of - even higher than a Zealot (!). Since I've already got Gallente Cruiser 5, I could just as easily jump into an Astarte (I simply lack Medium Hybrid 5) if someone manages to talk me out of an Abso.
As mentioned, my main reservation on the Absolution is no optimal range bonus. With HAC V I get a 50% bonus on the optimal of my Heavy Pulse IIs, bringing the highest damaging crystals outside of webbing range. If I am going to be getting within webbing range to do meaty damage, I figure I should just get an Astarte, MWD upto them and hit them in the face as hard as I can instead.
The Firing Range |
Troubadour
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:46:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Troubadour on 05/05/2006 13:46:12 if all you are interested in is damage, stay with hacs. if you actually want to be more useful in a gang and don't mind sacraficing a small amount of firepower, go Command ships.
there is more to ships in pvp then damage output.
|
smallgreenblur
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:53:00 -
[38]
As has already been said, but people still don't seem to get it, there are two types of Command Ship (henceforth CS, till i think of a better abbreviation).
The Field CS is a BC version of the HAC, with damage that reaches and in some cases outstrips that of a BS (800+ dps easily), and tanking to match. Other advantages include BC HP and cruiser gun tracking, however disadvantages include cap problems for tanking, a sig radius a dreadnought could hit, and a half hour align to warp.
The Fleet CS is a step up from the Gang Warfare setups on BCs. The tanks on these things are amazing, personally i can happily tank 2 normal battleships till I run out of injectors on my claymore, and that's before faction mods. They can also run 3 Warfare Link modules at a time, and have a slight bonus (3% per level) to this ability. Disadvantages include all the above, plus the damage output of a wet paper towel (roughly 120 dps on my arty setup).
I hope that clears a few misconceptions up, and will stop people complaining that Field CS aren't used as Gang Warfare ships. It's because they're not.
sgb
C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details. |
Dash Ripcock
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:53:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Troubadour Edited by: Troubadour on 05/05/2006 13:46:12 if all you are interested in is damage, stay with hacs. if you actually want to be more useful in a gang and don't mind sacraficing a small amount of firepower, go Command ships.
there is more to ships in pvp then damage output.
CCP gave us two Tech 2 Battlecruisers. One type has the same damage and defence bonuses as a HAC with more gun-slots and hitpoints, the other can use three gang modules at the same time and is even tougher. The first is absolutely about brute warfare, the latter about gang warfare. People are allowed to choose between the two.
The Firing Range |
Troubadour
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 14:05:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Troubadour on 05/05/2006 14:07:20 frigging double post my bad.
|
|
Troubadour
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 14:07:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Troubadour on 05/05/2006 14:07:36
Originally by: Dash Ripcock
Originally by: Troubadour Edited by: Troubadour on 05/05/2006 13:46:12 if all you are interested in is damage, stay with hacs. if you actually want to be more useful in a gang and don't mind sacraficing a small amount of firepower, go Command ships.
there is more to ships in pvp then damage output.
CCP gave us two Tech 2 Battlecruisers. One type has the same damage and defence bonuses as a HAC with more gun-slots and hitpoints, the other can use three gang modules at the same time and is even tougher. The first is absolutely about brute warfare, the latter about gang warfare. People are allowed to choose between the two.
I would of never known, having 2 characters that fly them.
Explain to me the nighthawk then. why is it outdamaged, even with a 6th launcher, by a cerb.
|
Dash Ripcock
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 14:16:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Troubadour Edited by: Troubadour on 05/05/2006 14:07:36
Originally by: Dash Ripcock
Originally by: Troubadour Edited by: Troubadour on 05/05/2006 13:46:12 if all you are interested in is damage, stay with hacs. if you actually want to be more useful in a gang and don't mind sacraficing a small amount of firepower, go Command ships.
there is more to ships in pvp then damage output.
CCP gave us two Tech 2 Battlecruisers. One type has the same damage and defence bonuses as a HAC with more gun-slots and hitpoints, the other can use three gang modules at the same time and is even tougher. The first is absolutely about brute warfare, the latter about gang warfare. People are allowed to choose between the two.
I would of never known, having 2 characters that fly them.
Explain to me the nighthawk then. why is it outdamaged, even with a 6th launcher, by a cerb.
It's probably something to do with the Nighthawk, rather than something wrong with the other Tech II BCs and/or the people flying them
The Firing Range |
Captin ShadowHawk
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 15:53:00 -
[43]
Originally by: SiLeNCel2 i don¦t understand why everybody compares HACs with Command ships here... isn¦t a COMMAND SHIP supposed to do COMMAND STUFF, for example fitting warfare modules?? i guess it¦s most valuable in big fleets...
Originally by: Al Thorr
Originally by: Yith Solarius oh and ps the word you'll looking for is obsoleat not absolute
Err isnt it Obsolete. ?
it¦s obso1337!
Maybe the word your looking for is obnoxious Signature removed due to incorrect size (400X120px and 24000 bytes). Please review the forum rules or e-mail us with any questions. You can view you signature here - Petwraith |
da bankman
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 16:53:00 -
[44]
Ok, after reading the replies and after some thinking I guess this is my conclusion; HAC's still have exactly the same purpose as before. High damage CRUISERS wich can tank really well and get out fast in sign of trouble. Command ships (absolution/astarte) are bigger/slower but with more damaga/tank. Like someone posted you can look at them as mini battleships except faster, more agile and can carry the command module. Guess it's just a matter of what you are facing wich ship you will undock in. Isn't it even logical to say: To leave HAC for a command ship is like leaving your assault frig for a HAC
|
SiLeNCel2
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 17:02:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Dash Ripcock The Fleet Commands are, the Field Commands have all damage and defence bonuses so naturally people will treat them as heavy-duty sluggers.
oooops, should have kept my mouth shut then! i never looked at them close enough, since i don¦t fly battlecruisers...
Quote: Maybe the word your looking for is obnoxious
lol, no didn¦t even know the word, but the first thing google found out was that it¦s the name of a metal band, yeaaaaahh! *bangin¦head ____ no matter what you say...
|
smallgreenblur
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 17:04:00 -
[46]
Originally by: da bankman Ok, after reading the replies and after some thinking I guess this is my conclusion; HAC's still have exactly the same purpose as before. High damage CRUISERS wich can tank really well and get out fast in sign of trouble. Command ships (absolution/astarte) are bigger/slower but with more damaga/tank. Like someone posted you can look at them as mini battleships except faster, more agile and can carry the command module. Guess it's just a matter of what you are facing wich ship you will undock in. Isn't it even logical to say: To leave HAC for a command ship is like leaving your assault frig for a HAC
No, because there's 2 types of CS. Your post is accurate for Field Command, to an extent, but not for Fleet command. Yet again i would advise reading this thread before posting in it.
sgb
C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details. |
da bankman
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 20:47:00 -
[47]
yeah im only talking about the field command ships here (astarte/absolution) if thats what you mean
|
Corphus
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 22:22:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Al Thorr
Originally by: Yith Solarius oh and ps the word you'll looking for is obsoleat not absolute
Err isnt it Obsolete. ?
morons its called Ubzool33t3 !
|
Yeux Gris
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 22:18:00 -
[49]
main reason i went for absolutions was , zealot prices were stupidly insane.
dont get me wrong i love them to death and hope i get another one day.
I am loving the fact my absolution kiks ass. 85%+ resis accross the board or near 90% if npc tanked.
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2006.05.06 22:24:00 -
[50]
command ships have fat arses on them so if your looking for a fast moving manoverable gang then look elsewhere to HAC's.
Else, if you got the isk to spend, and like battlecruisers or a heavy version of a hac, then sure go for it, but remember they have the same weaknesses as cruisers just with more hitpoints really.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |