EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-04-10 22:19
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-20 17:35
  • Number of Posts: 633
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0


Security Status 2.8
  • V0LTA Member since
  • WE FORM V0LTA Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Daichi Yamato wrote:
    SMT008 wrote:
    Daichi Yamato wrote:
    And when you are (like alliance tournies) you do see more AC's.

    What AC ships are you talking about ?

    Except Sleipnirs (which are very much used as high-tank brawling ships), I haven't seen many AC ships.

    Vargurs, Jaguars, slashers, thrashers, sabres, dramiels, machariels, stilletos, AC Ferox's, huginns, AC Herons, Lokis, stabber fleets, stabbers, rapier, ruptures, canes, rifters, vagas, cynabals etc

    but you dont see that many turrets in general, more missiles and drones. Lasers seem to be the least used.

    Vargurs : Good because it's a Marauder.

    Jaguar : AC fit because Arties won't really fit. But alright, decent ship.

    Slashers : Mostly there for tackling purposes. Can fit token guns, they do some damage, they're alright.

    Thrashers/Sabres : Yep, works, they're pretty decent because high-DPS, and comparable to other destroyers/dictors in terms of usefulness.

    Dramiels : They're fast, not too squishy and do some DPS. I'd rather use a Worm/Garmur at that point, but if you want to fly a hipster ship, feel free to hop in a Dramiel.

    Machariels : Good because it's the fastest battleship out there. If it wasn't for that, I doubt many would fly it.

    Stilettos : Yeah no, those don't shoot. Not an AC ship.

    AC Ferox : Relic of the past. Last Ferox I saw on TQ in nullsec was a couple months ago iirc ? No really. No one uses that. Not an AC ship.

    Huginns : Utility guns. Huginns don't shoot much in general. Not an AC ship.

    AC Herons : Really ? What about AC Mammoth. Not an AC ship.

    Lokis : Most AC-Lokis are Armor Lokis in T3 fleets or any other armorfleets, purely there for their webbing range. I've seen plenty of ArtyLokis (and even fleets of them) but I didn't see many AC Lokis around.

    Stabber Fleet : Yep, the first effective armor-cruiser of the Minmatar line-up. Ruptures could be considered "effective armor cruisers", but they're not on the same level as the stabber fleets. There is no T2 armor HACs for Minmatars. They are used not because they're better than other ships at a specific task, they are used because nothing else in the Minmatar line-up does what they do.

    Stabbers : Considered inferior to other races' cruisers. Squishy, a bit hard to fit, pathetic DPS at very unimpressive ranges.

    Rapier : Don't fit weapons, and when they do, they fit 3 arties because their engagement range is 30+ due to webs. Not an AC ship.

    Ruptures/Canes : Are you kidding me ? Ruptures are mostly arty-fit those days, it's the poor mans' Muninn. I haven't seen an actual combat Cane in a while.

    Rifters : One of the worst frigates those days.

    Vagas : Outclassed at brawling by any brawler, outclassed at kiting by pretty much everything at every ranges. It's a bad ship now that everything else got buffed.

    Cynabals : It was in the same state the Vagabond was. Then it got nerfed. Then it got some warp-speed boost, which makes it alright at ganking ratters, I suppose.

    AC basically are only usable on ships that have falloff bonus. On all the others, the blaster ships outdps them isnide tackle range, and outside tackle range both do so little dps that long range weapons should be the choice.

    Yep. And even then, on falloff-bonused ships, their range is so poor you can't reliably enough DPS to be useful in most situations. That applies mostly to Medium-sized ACs, Large ACs are a bit better in that regard.

  • [Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    X Gallentius wrote:
    SMT008 wrote:
    At short-range, there is simply no reason to use them when blasters are better at everything.
    except applying dps while neuted, and putting applied damage on T2 Gallente and Caldari hulls.

    Every ship can apply DPS while neuted, some better than others.

    Droneboats/Missileboats/ACboats can without a trouble in the world.

    Blasterboats can with some help.

    Laserboats...do have troubles with that, that's true.

    Cap-boosters/NOS are common sights on cap-reliant ships.

    As for putting applied damage on T2 Gallente and Caldari hulls, yep, they can indeed apply damage to those hulls' resist holes.

    Except that both T2 Gallentes and Caldari hulls can apply more (if not twice in some cases) damage to Minmatar hulls, and they do that at better ranges.

  • [Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Daichi Yamato wrote:
    And when you are (like alliance tournies) you do see more AC's.

    What AC ships are you talking about ?

    Except Sleipnirs (which are very much used as high-tank brawling ships), I haven't seen many AC ships.

  • [Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sigras wrote:

    I think you might be fitting your ship wrong bro... my vagabond does 250 DPS at 23 km before factoring in drones which twice what the proteus can put out at that range with blasters.

    Yep, it projects damage better than a Blaster-Proteus, it's already outrageously bad as it is, if blasters were to project damage better than a bonused medium AC boat...

    Your Vagabond does 250 DPS at 23km. Yep, that's fantastic.

    A Cerberus projects its 475 DPS at 45.6km. Selectable damage, cap-less guns.

    A Navy Omen projects its 330 DPS at 41km. Alright, not selectable and not cap-less. Use the capbooster, it will be just fine.

    An Ishtar projects its 661 DPS at 83km. Selectable damage, cap-less guns.

    And I can keep going. The Vagabond simply doesn't compete at all. It's not even REMOTELY close.

    All the ships I've mentioned have a solid 100 DPS (400 DPS for the Ishtar !) more than the Vagabond at twice the range, except maybe for the Navy Omen which is a bit inferior to the other two HACs when it comes to DPS.

    The other "advantages" ACs have are moot when you can't actually hurt the target.

    Sigras wrote:
    The fact of the matter is that speed and range dictation rule the battle... If your vagabond sees something it doesnt like, it leaves... If my deimos sees something it doesnt like, it dies. The fastest ships have to have the worst weapons to compensate for the fact that they usually have the ability to disengage, an ability my deimos almost never has.

    When my Deimos sees something it doesn't like, it doesn't engage it and it warps out. I don't know why would you get within scramble-range of something you don't want to engage but alright.

    Your Active-tanked Armor Deimos goes 2km/s, 2.7km/s overloaded. Don't act like you're flying a brick-tanked Bhaalgorn in Deklein.
    Sigras wrote:
    The point is that you get to choose, if you meet a blaster ship, you kite it to death, if you meet a laser ship you brawl it to death. The key to autocannons is their versatility.

    When you meet a blaster-ship, you pray to god he isn't active tanked, because if he is, you won't have enough ammo to bring it down with your pathetic DPS.

    Also, you better be good at range-control. Because with my 2km/s Deimos, I can without a doubt slingshot you or slingshot and leave your point range. You absolutly don't have room for error. 20km is too close and an OL MWD pulse might get you within tackle range. 24km is your upper limit.

    If you meet a laser ship, you brawl it to death if it's a kiting laser ship. Because if it's not a kiting ship, it's a brawling ship. And it will kill you unless you're in a Vagabond maybe. Or the brawling ship doesn't have a web for some dumb reason.

    Sigras wrote:
    The only thing that says to me is that you're a fool if you get within 15 km of a thorax. That's too close to overheated web range anyway, kiting range is more like 18-20 km.

    Yep, kiting range is more like 18-20km. Which is a very small gap from 15km. A very small gap from blaster territory.

    When your medium-ranged weapon system is inches away from the super-short-ranged weapon system, you know something is wrong.

  • [Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Daichi Yamato wrote:

    all you know is that hes going to see you and what youre flying first. And with that information will build a fleet comp with the purpose of making it as easy as possible to beat your fleet comp.

    @ stitch

    yep AC's are medium range weapons, and that is exactly what they do right now.

    Dude, you can fumble around with words all you want, but it's pretty clear everything takes a dump on AC boats at pretty much every purposes.

    If it wasn't the case, you'd regularly see AC-based doctrines all around nullsec and lowsec. But it doesn't happen.

    It would happen more if ACs weren't bad.

    You're telling us ACs are medium range weapons but everything else performs better than ACs at medium range.

    HAM Cerberus, most RLML ships, most serious droneboats etc.

    Unbonused AC ships have ranges comparable to brawling ships, so there is no point trying to fight anything as you'll be either outgunned at close-range, or out-ranged in every other situation.

    Bonused AC ships...well there are 3 of those, and they all get **** on by their counterparts in other races except for the very very few situations where they perform just marginally better.

    If you want versatility, just don't take ACs, they are simply not versatile, most fleets will dunk you any time of the day.

    EDIT : Yeah ask Omega CrendRaven about "versatile ACs". The Sleipnir is probably the only AC boat worth flying now.

  • [Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Sigras wrote:
    The OP would be right if we were just looking at the weapons in a vacuum, but we arent.

    You have to take into consideration the ships that these weapons get fit to as well.

    First thing, autocannons are usually fit to shield ships meaning they can fit more tracking enhancers and or damage mods than their hybrid/laser counterparts which are generally armor tanks.

    Most ships fit 2 damage mods. Vagabonds fit 2 Gyrostabs/2 TEs, Cynabals do the same, Hurricanes do the same in order to have DC II + Nano aswell, and so on. Some battleships have enough lows to fit more than 2 Gyrostabs, but that's it.

    Blasterships don't really need tracking enhancers/computers because they brawl at web/scramble range and will almost always hit their target at the range they're supposed to be at.

    Sigras wrote:
    Secondly, autocannons are usually fit to ships with a speed advantage. This means they get to dictate range and use their versatility to exploit their opponent's weakness. Did you know that a vagabond using hail trades damage favorably at 0km with a zealot using conflag?

    Yep, that is true, autocannons are usually fit to ships with a speed advantage. They get to dictate range (unless they encounter droneboats/heavy neuts/RLMLs/Huginns or any combination of those) and use their versatility (200 DPS with cap-less guns and selectable damage, woohoo !) to exploit their opponents' weakness.

    Yep, a Vagabond can outbrawl a Zealot, this is nothing new. That doesn't make it a good ship, a lot of things can outbrawl a Zealot.

    Sigras wrote:
    Lastly, you are sadly mistaken about blasters with null being able to match autocannons at kiting range... an unbonused blaster ship has a range of 6.3+8.8 while an unbonused autocannon ship has a range of 3+18

    That means at the kiting range of 18, the autocannon ship is still doing 51% of its damage while the blaster ship is down to 20.9% each having two damage mods, rupture vs thorax, at 18 km the rupture does roughly twice as much damage.

    Rupture vs Thorax

    Thorax with Heavy Ion II and Null Ammo, Rupture with 425mm II and RF EMP

    Yes, I know, the Thorax is using his long-range ammo while the Rupture is using his short-range one.

    A Thorax using his long-range, low damage ammunition with size 2 blasters get similar DPS as a Rupture with short-range, high-damage ammunition in the biggest sized ACs.

    What that tells me is that autocannons arent for static defense, theyre for a kiting offense.

    Big slow armor boats are great for sitting in one place and defending something but when is the last time you saw an abaddon gang roaming anywhere without their titan to teleport them around?

    Consider using the weapon for its intended purpose instead of trying to make it do something it wasnt designed for and then complaining when it doesnt work.

    Dude, the doctrines I've listed here are for pretty much every purpose you can think of.

    Shield Ishtars/Cerberus/Caracals/Muninns for small-gang kiting as well as sov-level kiting. All the battleships doctrine were/are designed for sov-fights. Some are used as medium-sized gang workhorses with triage and blingy fits. T3/Sacrilege/Augorors/NavyVexors/Prophecies/Legions for either armor brawling or armor-semi-kiting.

    I'm not re-listing all those ships again. They are used for everything, offense, defense, hotdrop, you name it.

    Why is there no AC ships here ? They're for kiting offense but they simply suck at it.

  • [Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Daichi Yamato wrote:

    again youre thinking of 1v1 situations.

    many, MANY ships fit neuts. there is a very healthy neut vexor navy/ishtar/geddon/prophecy meta out there. And when your fighting for territory rather than a 1v1 you dont always have that luxury of 'Oh well i can see on D-scan you've countered my ship so ill just leave now'.

    Many ships fit neuts, but which of these ship ACTUALLY NEUTS ?

    I mean, yeah, Ishtars have the usual medium neut. Cynabals and Orthrus have a neut too.

    Do you encounter a Zealot and go "HEEEEYYY, I'VE GOT A NEUT, There is nothing that Zealot can do to me because he'll be out of cap, heh !" ? No.

    You encounter a Zealot, and shoot the hell out of him. You'll shoot the whole time, he'll shoot the whole time, and unless you have an ACTUAL neuting ship, with more than one utility neut that is there because you can't fit an additionnal weapon in that highslot, you won't really change the outcome of the fight.

    You'll tell me "But that's 1v1 situations !". Yep, that is.

    What would happen in a bigger fight ? Well, capacitor warfare is even less important, as there are many ships spread around rather large areas, neuts have rather low range and will easely be countered by capboosters.

    Daichi Yamato wrote:
    The sheer versatility the autocannon provides, that sweet spot middle ground and robust resistance to neuts is an excellent conservative choice when you cant always pick your fights and dont know what youre coming up against.

    You come with brawlers? ill pull range, i dont need to refit nor even swap ammo save to poke your resist hole

    Yep, you pull range and then what ? You go back home because you can't break his tank with your pityful DPS. Or you get caught because brawling HACs are pretty fast themselves and will scramble you at the slighest mistake at range control.

    Lasers ? You suggest I get in close-range and brawl ?

    You'll close range, taking nicely applied DPS the whole time, brawl down that single ship, then move on to another target, still taking the whole gangs' full DPS because lasers can hit well farther than 10km.

    That's versus a laser-kiting gang. What would happen versus a laser-brawling gang ? It's simple !

    They have a lot more tank than you, and will apply more DPS most of the time because tracking isn't really that much relevant when you have tons of hardtackle on the field. Yep, can't use that mobility anymore, you're pinned down now.

    Shield Ishtar ? You suggest I try chasing a Shield Ishtar gang with AC boats ?

    Not really no. Ishtars are a special thing. I'd say that most of the time, they'll tear you down with nicely applied 600 DPS sentries, doesn't matter if you poke a resist hole (that they can plug with rigs anyway). AC boats are also more fragile than most other races' ships, you'll get killed even faster. Against Ishtars, I would take RLML Caracals over "super versatile Stabbers".

    Heavy on neuts ? Yep, your prop-mod turns off, and so does every active module on your ship including tackle and resistances.

    True, if the enemy gang is heavy on neuts, and I mean REALLY heavy on neuts and you have absolutly no way to counter the X Bhaalgorns/Ashimmus/Neuting Legions/Curses, then alright, I suppose ACs have an advantage here. If I encounter an enemy gang that is heavy on neuts, I probably won't engage it unless I have a special trick up my sleeve too.

    Daichi Yamato wrote:
    other weapons dont have these 'on the fly' answers. so yeah, if you know what youre fighting and can pick those fights, by all means pick the right weapon for the job.

    Oh but they do have these "On the fly" answers.

    Brawlers are best at brawling, is that right ? So the point is to get within brawling range of the hostiles ? Well, against the most common fleets, you can either brawl it down because you're faster than them, trap them and force them to engage at a gate, or pull them with a well placed bubble and brawl them down. That's an "on the fly" answer. Sure, some specific fleets will be hardcounters to yours and you should just avoid them, but that's the same with every weapon system in EVE. Yes, even projectiles. Sometimes you just can't do ****.

    Daichi Yamato wrote:
    But if you dont know what the enemy are bringing before you have a chance to refit or reship, and you dont have a choice as to whether you take the fight or not because youre needed to defend something more meaningful than your killboard, then auto-cannons (along side missiles) are an excellent choice for being a jack of all trades, master of none.

    Have you seen a fleet defending something by using autocannons ? Because in the last months, I have not. I've seen RailTengus, Ishtars, Dominixes, Apocs/NavyApocs, Sacrileges, T3 fleets, Cerberus, Harpies, Hawks, Navy Augorors sometimes, Navy Vexors, Prophecies, Deimoses, some Munnins too, Legion fleets, Megathrons, Blackops fleets, Bomberfleets, Thoraxes, Caracals, ArtyRuptures, RailRokhs, ArtyMaelstroms, PulseBaddons, Armageddons, Drakefleets...

    I have not seen a single doctrine with neither small, medium or large Autocannons as the main weapon of the fleet.

    Except for one doctrine, welpcanes/welppests. Used because they have 2 neuts on each ship, not because they had autocannons.

    Can't use the Canes anymore because it got nerfed to one neut. I haven't seen a WelpPest fleet in a while too.

    That should tell you that something is kinda off somewhere.

  • [Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Daichi Yamato wrote:
    SMT008 wrote:

    At short-range, there is simply no reason to use them when blasters are better at everything.

    Bearing in mind blasters are meant for brawling, AC's stiil give you better damage against most AF's, HACs and T3's, give you more choice in ranges to engage in and immunity to neuts is more than cool when youre not in a 1v1. It becomes a big deal and in fact a counter to neuts in gang and fleet fights.

    Indeed, you have more choice in ranges to engage in.

    You can engage at close range, and you get killed because well, blasters are king at that kind of thing.

    You can engage at point-range, and unless you have a falloff bonused ship, you're not hitting anything. And if you do, you barely do enough damage to actually matter. Should have taken a ship that actually does DPS at range and not a lousy Vagabond.

    There goes the choice.

    When I say immunity to neuts, what I'm saying is that few ships fit neuts, and the ones that do are easy to recognize. You can just stay out of their range, which aren't really impressive compared to weapon ranges.

    So yeah, in theory, you're immune to neut. In reality, not so much.

    A blastership is under neut pressure from whatever ship you want. It has a capbooster most of the time, and can mitigate the effect of neuting so that it isn't really a problem. If it's an Ashimmu or a Bhaalgorn neuting you, well, you'll die like you would have died with most AC ships.

    An AC ship under neut pressure loses his prop, which is about 80% of the ship. He can't point, can't get his hardeners/invuls/whatever module he has and quickly gets killed. Sure, he can shoot for the whole 15 seconds his ship will take to die.

    You can shoot while being neuted, but it isn't the super important thing that will make me choose ACs over Blasters.

    Shooting at targets happens 100% of the time. How much of that time are you under neut pressure ?

    So yeah, I'd pick the weapon that is the best at killing the enemy.

  • [Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Harvey James wrote:
    despite them being a little weak on damage .. the ability too cater what damage type you like can often make up for any raw dps lost .. being immune too neuts is also very powerful.. they still track better than lasers so they fine on that score..

    i think they have the most choice with ammo .. perhaps a 6 second reload timer might offer a nice useful buff.

    Being able to choose damage type is great, that's for sure. It doesn't really make up for any raw DPS lost due to pathetic ranges, but it does at short-range.

    Being immune to neuts is cool. Not very powerful, but cool.

    Neut-ranges are pretty short, and in the kiting meta, you basically don't care at all about neuting. In the brawling meta, Blasters supported by a heavy cap-booster are usually better than ACs.

    They track better than the weapon that tracks the least, true. Thank God for that Straight

  • [Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Small Projectiles are mostly fine.

    Large Projectiles could use some help, MAYBE.

    Medium Projectiles are sub-par and don't fit in the current meta at all.

    At short-range, there is simply no reason to use them when blasters are better at everything.

    At kiting-range, they are massively outgunned by all the newly-buffed medium-sized weapons, and they're so close to blasters in terms of damage projection that they shouldn't be considered kiting weapons at all.

    Sub-par in pretty much every situation, and not versatile enough to warrant their use.

    Needs more falloff, as more damage would be problematic vs Blasters.

    Also, about the ammo, optimal modifier should matter for arties, and there should be a falloff modifier too, that should apply to ACs.

    Currently, AC boats only use Fusion, EMP and Barrage.

    Hail could use some help too, the DPS buff doesn't warrant their use against RF Fusion because of the tracking nerf.

    Basically, no one uses Hail unless that's all they have in cargohold for short-range Explosive damage.

  • [Phoebe] Higgs Anchor Rigs in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Now that I'm thinking about it...

    Mass is the main component when it comes to bumping efficiency, right ?

    So an exhumer with an Anchor rig fitted will be more difficult to bump.

    What if the bumper, instead of using a Machariel, uses a Machariel with an Anchor rig too ?

    The effect is basically nullified if I'm not mistaken.

    And if the bumper uses a Machariel with an anchor rig against a miner without an anchor rig...that will get funny very fast Big smile

  • Polarized weaponry (affectionately known as glass cannons) in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Slevin-Kelevra wrote:
    For the people saying the will be to expensive to use for ganking. Cost is relative, people already spend isk on battlecruisers to gank with, whats to stop them spending isk on these guns?

    When your target is carrying several billion in loot then it becomes worth it.

    There is "spending ISK" and "spending ISK stupidly".

    Sure, people will spend ISK on Taloses because of their ability to deal tons of DPS.

    Do you see many people spending ISK on Vindicators for suicide-ganking purposes ?

    Also, CCP :

    I've seen the database logs for Blighted Autocannons : Pastebin

    I assume that those values are correct, but I'll check tomorrow on SiSi.

    Based on those values, I can assure you Blighted weapons are 100% useless.

    Unless you severely upgrade the damage/ROF boost and reverse the nerfs to range and tracking, those weapons won't be used at all.

    Honestly, trash the idea completely, I don't see anything good coming out of this.

    Instead run a quick script on Faction weapons :

    Now affected by specialisation skills

    Can now use T2 ammo

    Now drop in stacks of X (They are atrociously expensive, too expensive to be used even if they become slightly superior to T2 weapons). X could be 4-5-6, I don't know.

  • The great T3 rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kagura Nikon wrote:

    CHECK the agility. Tengus are quite agile. At least more agile than ANYTHIGN with remotely the same EHP.

    Yep, 17s align time. Totally agile.

    But if your literally transposing module for module a fit from a HAC to a T3 and not liking the results your missing what T3s are about.

    I'm not taking a Cerberus fit and throw it on a Tengu.

    I'm trying to make a MWD T3 that reaches cruiser-level speeds. Guess what, no matter which subsystems you use, no matter how many nanos you use, you can't.

    The only T3 that reaches 2km/s is the Loki. That's with crappy agility (For a nano-ed Minmatar cruiser), and a 600m/s advantage for the Vagabond.

  • The great T3 rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    My tengu moves almost 3 km/s, just learn how tengus are REALLY fit for speed. And in fact how any of the non proteus t3 are really fit when on kiting mode.

    I'm not talking about snaked/linked things. I'm comparing ships as they are. If you add Snakes and links, of course everything becomes possible, you can fly a kiting Apocalypse if you want. Is it realistic ? No.

    Thank you, I know about 100MN AB super-tanker-agility T3s.

    That doesn't change the fact that T3s aren't agile nor fast in regular kiting setups. They are among the slowest cruisers around no matter which subsystem you use. Only exceptions are 100MN ABs, but you get a stupidly high align time. Woohoo.

  • The great T3 rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rroff wrote:

    You can very easily get cruiser like speeds and agility or better out of a t3 - it comes at some compromise but thats a good thing, on the flip side I don't think that the configurations with augmented plating, etc. are close enough to the penalties to sig, speed and mobility for that level of EHP.

    A Proteus with the best sub for speed and agility gets 1750m/s, 7.5s align time.

    A Deimos similarly fit gets 2106m/s, 7.3 align time.

    Very easily ? I think not.

    A shield Loki with the best sub for speed gets 2061m/s, 8.5s align time.

    A Vagabond similarly fit gets 2683m/s, 6.6s align time.

    A Tengu with the best sub for speed gets 1488m/s (That's terrible), and a nice suprising 5.9s align time.

    A Cerberus gets 1893m/s (6.5s), a Caracal gets 2058m/s (6.3s)

    Do I need to go further ?

    T3s have horrible mobility in general and that should be fixed at the same time as the outrageous EHP bricktank setups.

  • The great T3 rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    M1k3y Koontz wrote:

    The problem with comparing the T3 to the HAC on just DPS and EHP is that it overlooks key points. That T3 is going to move with the mobility of a cement mixer, meanwhile that Diemost will run circles around it, with its tiny little sig.

    The key points are EHP, DPS, Mobility.

    Those are the main values that dictate if a ship is good or not, in terms of pure combat (I'm not talking about Recons or special roles here).

    Combat T3 and T2 HACs should be comparable. Different, but comparable considering they're both combat ships, ruled by the 3 main points, being Firepower, Defense and Mobility.

    Let me add a few things to James Baboli's list :

    All :

    Cov ops = Ok

    Interdiction Nullifier = Ok

    Supplemental coolant Injector = Needs an interesting additionnal/different bonus, or a serious buff to the current "Heat damage reduction" bonus. I was thinking "Buff to overheating effectiveness", to replicate Red Giant effects, that would be interesting ? As long as the bonus is powerful enough to warrant not using the other 2 good engineering subs.

    + Adaptive Augmenter/Adaptive Shielding = Logistic subsystems are terrible. Nothing to add to that. It really needs a range bonus to be effective. I think something can be done with a 25-35km range.

    + Warfare Processor = As long as the Boosting subsystem wrecks the whole ship by requiring Command Processors, it will be either off-grid boosting, or no boosting at all. Allow 2 links online without Command Processors and add +1 Highslot to those subs. It will still be worse than Command-ships in terms of boosting, but at least it will be usable with a combat-fit, like CS, as opposed to constantly hiding in safes.

    + All mobility/speed subsystems = T3s in general have the agility and speed of a cement truck. There should be subs designed to bring regular cruiser levels of agility and speed (I'm talking +1.8km/s speeds to the slowest T3s, 2-2.2km/s speeds to the fastest T3s). If T3s keep their current BC-level agility and speed...well, it will be a shame for T3 "versatility" if not a single T3 can have cruiser-like speeds.


    Augmented Plating = Too much EHP
    Friction Extension Processor = Mhmm, yeah maybe a bit over the top.
    Drone Synthesis Projector = Yep, sucks big times. It needs more bandwith, more drone-bay, and a drone-related bonus instead of the 5% damage bonus for 3 guns...Like a drone-velocity or drone-tracking bonus maybe ?

    + No damping sub ? Could be interesting to convert one of the least used Electronic subs to a damping sub.

    + I'd like to see a shield subsystem for the Proteus. Gallente ships can be shield fit, why not the Proteus ?

    Rifling Launcher Pattern = You say it's too powerful, I'm not so sure about that.
    Obfuscation Manifold = Working along with the Rifling Launcher Pattern, it brings a "Combat ECM boat" feel to the Tengu, which means a ship that can actually tanks and deal damage, while being able to jam reasonably well. I like that, it's versatility. DPS is subpar, Jamming power isn't Falcon-like of course. But the mix of the two works (or should work decently when T3 mobility/agility issue is fixed).

    Amplification Node = It's a regular active tanking bonus. I don't see what's wrong.
    Supplemental Screening = Too much EHP probably. Less than Proteus/Legions, but it's still a bit over the top.

    + Power Core Multiplier = This sub, bonused for PWG, gets less PWG than the Capacitor Regeneration Matrix. Needs a nice PWG boost obviously, so that 100MN fits will use this one and have to deal with capacitor issues (More vulnerability to neuting too)

    + Gravitationnal Capacitor = Uninteresting bonuses tbh. The Tengu could use a good MWD-bonused sub. This one brings the most max velocity, but even with it being the most MWD oriented sub, A MWDing Tengu with a nano gets 1488m/s. That's terrible.

    + Magnetic Infusion Basin = Maybe 20% Optimal per level is a bit too much. I would rather see 10% per level along with a 5% damage per level. Better DPS, lower range. That way, it doesn't step too much on the Eagles' toes.

    Augmented plating = Too much EHP
    Drone synthesis projector = It's horrible, period.
    Liquid Crystal magnifiers = I disagree, it's basically Zealot-style bonuses. I don't really see what's wrong here.

    + Assault Optimization = Might want to change "HAM Damage bonus" to "Missile Damage bonus". More versatility, and I don't see how it would wreck the current meta

    + Wake Limiter = Mhmm, that subsystem really doesn't shine. Could use a nice mass-reduction bonus (or an agility bonus), a speed buff to bring a bit closer to the pure MWD subsystem.

    Loki :

    Adaptive augmenter = Nope, I don't really see what's wrong. If anything, add an Armor RR bonus to that one, when RR subs are fixed it will make the Loki the only T3 that can be a logi for both shield and armor (Not at the same time ofc, that would be terrible).

    Hardpoint Effeciency Configuration = Totally agree, this sub needs to be the top brawling sub for the Loki (ie the Max DPS one). It doesn't have damage projection bonus, which should be kept that way. The issue is, you absolutly need the maximum amount of highslots available. And for that, you need to get rid of the good active tanking subs. This is why the dual-weapon sub isn't used much. The DPS is alright, but the required subs to reach it wreck the ship.

    Projectile Scoping Array = Yep, but it's not the sub, it's the weapon system. Medium ACs and ACs in general are subpar, and that makes the Loki subpar despite being a pretty good gunboat

    Augmented Capacitor Reservoir = Mhmm, 1677 GJ instead of 2228 GJ with the Cap-Regen-Matrix. Nah seriously, Cap-Regen Matrix subs aren't balanced with other Engineering subs for each race. This needs fixing.

  • The great T3 rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rroff wrote:
    That 70k, 800dps deimos should have 4 significant advantages over a 150k, 900dps prot - signature should be a lot smaller, mwd sig bloom and cap use reduced, base speed quite a bit higher, agility quite a bit better. (part of that does mean making adjustments to both t3 and t2).

    If you want more like hac levels of mobility out of your t3, etc. then you'd have to choose other sub-systems and take the tank hit.

    Yeah well, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

    You can have a 70k EHP 800 DPS Deimos, you can have a 150k EHP 600 DPS Proteus, you can have a 70k EHP 900 DPS Proteus with HAC-like agility (but no MWD sig bloom reduction or no HAC-like ECCM strenght etc).

    Mobility = reduced EHP
    EHP = reduced mobility and damage
    Damage = reduced tank

    It's all a trade-off. I want T3s to be able to compare to their races' T2 ships in terms of stats (if not a bit higher stats than the T2 ships) but without the special things T2 ships get (like the smaller sig, MWD sig bloom, cap use reduced, ECCM strenght and so on).

  • The great T3 rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
    They arent better than t2's at any specific role

    Sorry but...they are. T2 fitted Proteus gets a MUCH stiffer tank than a T2 fitted Deimos for a rather small cost upgrade (compared to "billions of expensive modules".

    What people don't want to see anymore are T2 150k EHP Proteus with 910 DPS.

    That's a T2 fit. Not a single faction/officer/deadspace module.

    Now compare that to a Deimos. At most, you get something around 800 DPS with half the tank. That's what's wrong, there is no denying that. Heavy Assault Cruiser really are subpar at being heavy assault cruiser compared to most T3s.

    What I want to change with the things I've proposed is exactly that.

    Have the massive EHP upgrade compared to HAC bring a DPS loss (Can't have both, you know ?)

    Upgrade T3s mobility so that they reach HAC levels in HAC-tanks configurations while keeping current DPS (Yes, they'll be HAC+, but considering the upgrade in cost and the fact that it's not really a MASSIVE DPS upgrade, It's fine)

    T3 versatility should be top notch (Refitting/changing subs without exterior help, no rigs, etc)

    T3s won't replace T2, they'll still be quite a lot more expensive, they won't have special advantages T2s have (like sig-radius reduction, amazing capacitor life, fantastic ECCM strenght) or at least not all of them at the same time like HACs.

  • The great T3 rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Jeremiah Saken wrote:

    SMT008 wrote:
    Removed rigs is a good start, a Proteus without trimarks isn't all that impressive anymore. I think that removed rigs + rebalancing subs will bring a good result.

    Maybe overheating to reach T2 role level?

    Mhmm, I don't really know. I'd say let T3s match T2 stats more or less. Considering their price, and considering their current stat, I'm not sure about giving them sub-T2 stats.

  • The great T3 rebalance in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Jeremiah Saken wrote:
    SMT008 what are the drawbacks of your T3's after rebalance? removed rigs? anything else? SP loss?

    Removed rigs is a good start, a Proteus without trimarks isn't all that impressive anymore. I think that removed rigs + rebalancing subs will bring a good result.

    SP Loss should be removed, I really don't see the point of that "drawback".