Isn’t that a player run problem, this is NOT something CCP should do anything about because players are the one’s who flood markets and specifically it’s null and maybe some low to blame, without them these items cannot be made.
its a byproduct of the moon minerals being so overwhelmingly available now that CCP increased the amounts in them (i believe the figure was 10x the old amount), T2 prices dropped like a stone across the board after that change not just marauders
Not on jump freighters.
true, but they are the only t2 capital ship so it has different building requirements
What about diminishing returns for homogenous fleets in general as a way to mix up the meta/doctrine? Not even in fleet, but acting on the same target with the same module etc.
When can we expect to see a battle ship with bonuses to remote shield reps ? we have the nestor and leshack now which provide armor rep bonuses ?
Bummer. Looks like the Eagle’s getting sold or recycled. Targeting range was a standout feature on that, borderline useless now.
for large nullsec fleets, perhaps, but now it can be a small gang nano kite fit that doesn’t have to be scared to death of frigates burning at it… well, not as much anyway.
Cruiser hulls having BS range always led to meh fights. Ranges being toned down is not bad at all for the game.
Want to sit at 100km to shoot? Go get some 425mm rails, or 1400mm artys.
Having long projection AND being able to run away doesn’t result in fun fights.
Ships changing drastically after patches has also been a stable in EVE for ages.
Sure it sucks for a few, but it mixes things up for everyone.
I very much like the pruposed changes.
It gives some identity to ships, that prevously only differed in weapon types.
Muninn being missile sounds good, Cerbs having local tank bonus opens up options for abyssals.
I just think, that the Ishtar needs to loose range.
Every HAC lost long range application.
Just thr Ishtar has 5km per level control range and sentry range bonuses.
Seems kinda odd, since the nerf can easily be reverted by SeBo or Info links.
The issue here is that the drones typically get assigned to a drone bunny. I like many of the changes, but I feel the change to the Ishtar won’t really achieve its aim. Removing the control range bonus (5000m bonus to Drone operation range per HAC skill level) would be a great way to bring this ship in line with the others.
2 Likes
Brilliant 3 brain cell response. It still has the highest projection baseline of all the HACs and in a fleet setting with links remains a tanky, better tracking, version of itself. Not being able to target and shoot like a brain dead f1 monkey from 160km doesn’t mean the ship is now obsolete. With perfect skills and links the base targeting range is still greater that 100, and with 1 rig can eclipse 120km.
Instead of making baseless claims on the forums, give your balls a tug and undock with some inherent risk.
Accept in a fleet fit you would need 1 bunny for every 10 ships. Then need every fleet member to perfectly assign those sentries to said bunnies, and if a bunny drops, those 10 Ishtars now have 50 useless drones. Without manifesting a new bunny. Will a small, coordinated group be able to pull it off with 20 dudes…sure, in some instances. Will major coalition blocks with 100 to 256 member fleets…no.
Ishatar gonna be strong after those changes, ability to assist drones to drone bunny battlecruiser with 130km optimal sound quite too strong.
2 Likes
Not exactly. There is no major difference between spamming drone assist on one of drone bunny from the watchlist list and spamming f1.
2 Likes
There is a problem though with alot of these changes. It creates a new series of issues.
Personally I think CCP should have split hulls for a test.
Muninn I - Projectile Weapons
Muninn II - Missile Weapons.
Did you guys not see the post on Reddit where one could possibly fit a Cruise or Torpedo launcher on the old Muninn. Well thank you now because this ship is going to become HAC Torpedo/Cruise Launcher. Do you want that? Because your PG set up is going to allow that very very easily.
CCP needs to back up really fast on these changes. Because I see several major problems that can escalate outside of the plans.
Also this range nerf to targeting range really doesn’t stop players from going full on out. You guys are whining about 100km ranges. Pfft did you know the Eagle can get to 300? [Which is maximum range for sensor and firing for most ships?] What surprises me is FCs in Null haven’t figured out staggered wing warp. 100km base assault fleet. 100km support wing. 100km sniper wing. 300km grid. Your assault team can keep up pressure, while the other groups all they have to do it warp to a designate fleet member 100km. Keeping within range. Complain about kiting now.
The range nerf for HACs will not change anything. There are work arounds already in place. MILINT fit and non-MILINT fit. Even if they go after modules etc trying to nerf the problem that will have ramifications in game especially for the PVE crowd which will not be popular. Actually this change will make the HAC meta more problematic, why? You have now added a whole slew of new potential ways to make HACs even more irritating to deal with.
You swapped the Muninn from a Turret ship to a Missile ship. You do realize there are alot of problems with implants [Especially Hydra which buffs both missiles and drones at the same time?] Turret ships are fairly tame compared to missile ships when it comes to range. Missiles can be tweaked to go even longer ranges than 300km. And this has even further ramifications in Blackhole Wormholes since their bonuses affect missile range even further as well as speed. So you guys might be unintentionally creating a Cavalry Muninn issue.
Also, the fact this new Muninn can be possibly fitted with Cruise Missiles or Torpedoes and an Assault Damage control needs to make alot of players cheering this change pause in their support. Because if you take your current blob tactics and apply it to a HAC sporting Torpedoes or Cruise missiles this means you have a new really annoying Punch Up Doctrine. Remember the old Muninn with alot of tweaking could only fit 1 Cruise or 1 Torpedo. This new Muninn opens alot of options from the get go with missiles, which might further suppress deployment of heavier ships. And because they are cheaper than most ships. These could be aggressively used to Yolo Roam hunting. [Do you want that?]
Also factor in the reality that missile ships really prefer range, the further away the more heavy the strike can be delivered. So lets say a group of Muninn attacks you with missiles. Lets say they have all the missile types from Heavy Assaults to Cruises [range wise] If you get a volley strike on a single target that its going to be a rather impress stack hit. And again because Muninns now are missiles. They are going to have a much more bewildering set of options to play with. That may break the situation into a worse HAC meta. Besides the Vagabond just stepping in and replacing the Muninn on turret duty.
Maybe the correct step in nerfing the Muninn would have been to review turret tracking and signature size to range variables? Minmatar Projectile weapons are rather weird for doing more damage at extreme ranges than any other weapon system. Even in falloff. Rails which go further than Projectile weapons hit more regularly even outside of falloff but the damage is lackluster until you arrive inside falloff then inside optimal. Although rails critical damage rate seems to spike more the closer you get inside optimal.
So probably the correct change should have been looking at the weapon system and its mathematical formula to see if its overperforming in game. [Which with skills/implants/system-storm bonuses/boosters/abyssal modules it will] Now that would have to be more carefully tinkered with because such weapon changes would have larger game affects to larger community than a single hull.
Your base powergrid changes will only make things a bit more problematic for HACs as well. Because the larger the powergrid is, the higher the skill bonus is and implant effect will be. I have argued that fitting PG/CPU needs to be tweaked upward across the board for all ships. Because as of this moment even with full fitting skills its still too tight even with rigs and engineering modules on some ships.
Please do a major overhaul of the concept and test, because I see some major problems coming out of these changes.
Personally, I think the Muninn and Vagabond need to mirror lower tier Navy and T1 ships. Look at the Stabber and Fleet Stabber. They are gun ships. But have 2 slot for launchers and 3 slots for launchers. [Fleet] Why not if you change the Muninn to Missiles do 5L -2T [turret] It allows for some interesting fits. Only having one Turret slot makes no sense. [About as worthless as the Fleet Vigil] Or during testing make a variant of the Muninn with 2 Launchers and its 5 Turret set. You also need to make a Fleet Rupture to prepare players for the changed Muninn. If you are going to do this change. It will have to be a Mixed Hull Missile/Turret.
The problem with the HAC meta isn’t the ships themselves it the players. The player strategy and concepts have been hardened due to Scarcity. And HACs were the best way to “fight” and not lose alot of isk and resources. But its stale gameplay if both sides are mirroring each others play style. Which also brings up problems with CCPs balancing technique. Nullsec wants rock paper scissors. Personally I think an Asymmetrical balance option is possible. But that would require CCP to carefully go through and revise equipment and weapon modules to allow some ways to counter the HAC meta.
Technically Battleships and Battlecruisers should be able to fight HACs [on paper] in reality the BS/BC can not compete because they are fighting an opponent that can “pause” incoming fire via a module mechanic. Battleships do have Signature Reduction modules that work in a similar way. If your signature is a bit lower incoming fire does seem to drop drastically. But that is not feasible versus a swarm of HACS. So the uncomfortable question becomes do we make a Battleship/Battlecruiser class that can use an Assault Damage Control? We could argue Marauders would work, but they have to be stationary with their siege module and it means they will eventually succumb to the massed HAC fire. Or do we start giving Missile weapons like cruise missile AoE [Area of Effect] blast effects to allow larger ships to take on blobs and at least thin them out?
This is where the HAC meta has ended up. Blobs are effectively the only way to fight, but there is no counter play against them. There is mechanics that could be used to split a blob. [Area of Effect “Booshing” IE command destroyers with their jump field modules] you can possibly outrange them but then we hit a wall with max range cap on grid being 300km for sensors and firing engagements. Kind of like being in a pickle barrel with a claymore and the other guy has a claymore as well not exactly effective. The other problem is certain HACs have different damage resist profiles and levels of EHP. This might need some looking into especially with the Muninn. Because its a Mixed Shield/Armor Tank Ship.
And as one player has noted the nerf will not really stop players who have high skills, implants, sensor boost/remote sensor boosts in their arsenal.
4 Likes
I like a lot of the changes proposed here, almost all of them but when I look at the ishtar nerf I’m a bit confused, in fleet fights ishtars main plan of attack is to drop sentries in a ball 130 or 140 off your target and assign to a ship in fleet with high lock range and a target painter for aggro, nerfing their lock range really does nothing to shorten their range of engagement. With HACs being the mainstay of eve fleet gameplay as it currently stands, I fear nerfing the other HACs and leaving ishtars range of engagement as is would be detrimental. Maybe instead of a default lock range reduction, remove the bonus to sentry drone optimal range? Or the 5000m control range bonus per HAC skill level could go, or both to be honest. Maybe replace them with a tank bonus? To the ship not the drones, it might give the ishtar more of an identity as a brawling boat, in line with the themes of the vexor and vexor navy while still leaving it possible for people to do combat anomalies in them since those fits rarely rely on such far control ranges
1 Like
You spend a lot of time writing out detailed posts about some of the most baseless garbage. Single unbonused Torpedo Muninns…yea that’s going to become real problematic. What a joke.
1 Like
The old Muninn could only fit one torpedo due to the slots only being one. With its change its possible to do more. And with specific implants it can go higher.
That same Torpedo Muninn was designed also as a close range brawler within Nullsecs requirements of minimum fitting. Even had AC for getting in close and personal.
This new Muninn will only allow for more experiments in this regard and can cause some problems for “balance” if your skills and implants and modules are fitted right almost anything is possible. Especially if you combine it with the blob.
1 Like
If large groups can do things such as re-adjusting cap chains, then it wouldn’t be a problem to cycle through a set of drone-bunnies at all.
We’re talking about reducing this ship to be in line with other HACs, but the proposed change does very little, and these still going to be hitting out to ~130km with almost perfect application due to the tracking bonus.
1 Like
Love these changes!
Only thing I’d like to call out is that Ishtar’s range is still left largely untouched by these nerfs, but the rest of the HACs lost theirs. I’m not excited about seeing the 2014 Ishtar fleets returning to be top of the meta! Maybe a change here is needed?