The New Meta: 1+1 > 2

Avatar
Yes.
Avatar
Obviously.
Avatar
This is an excellent analysis. While I love the cruiser upgrades it does make one wonder why you would bother with a HAC. Just a tweak to the HACs to make them worth the cost and training over a T1 cruiser would be a great next step.
Avatar
CCP is on record as having said that the boost you get out of T2 ships is not and should not be linear. The relationship between the two tiers right now is out of whack thanks to tiericide, but it's not like they're going to stay there. CCP will make their pass, and we'll be back to double the effectiveness for 10x the cost or whatever "balance" is going to be.
Avatar
In classic "themittani" fashion:"Muninns and Zealots are seen in nullsec fleets, but what about the other six HACs? Virtually never."Begin by saying something that is totally, demonstrably, and unconditionally untrue, then write an entire article based on the statement.
Avatar
CCP already said the tiericide is going to eventually touch all the ships. This is T1 turn, be patient and the T2 one will come (probably sooner than the /capital/ turn...).In my wicked way to see things, I envision a T2 ship as being roughly the same as T1, but with:o) Dramatically higher resists. The ship has a "built in tank", so to speak. And not just a buff to the racial enemy damage - the one filling the EM hole for shield Minmatars and EXP hole for Amarrs, while leaving Caldari with an inordinate TH resistence, and Gallente with the EM hole in shield *and* EXP hole in armor. But an across-the-board raise in base resists.o) Unquestionably better fitting resources. To fit top of the line weaponry on a T1 should be challenging, or reserved to top skill players. To fit the same gear on T2 should leave AMPLE CPU/PG to play and experiment with.o) An additional hull bonus - to further specialize roles, as opposed to tiers.o) General stats (speed, sig, base values of shield/armor/hull) slightly better than T1, and on par with faction.Remember, with diminishing returns, EVE itself is designed from the ground up to give a marginal, yet distinguishable increase in performance, with a vast increase in resource invested, with the progression from meh to better to best.Just think of the skill system, with a linear increase in bonus from level to level, and a fifth-fold (and change) increase in time needed to train subsequent levels. Or the prices of the medical clones. Or the increase in performance across the meta levels (1 ~ 2 < 3 <<< 4, when there are all four variants of the T1 item) related to availability and thus price.Just hold tight. Fozzie can do a lot, but not everything at once.
Avatar
In the last 7 months I've been from Querious, to Branch to Cobalt Edge, from Curse to Catch, Syndicate and beyond; to Delve and Kalevala Expanse, Tribute and environs and have never seen any of the other 4 hacs in any organized fleet.Except the couple times Elo Knight tried Ishtars and they died horribly. I think either agony or R&K have a token Deimos doctrine that they use to dunk on CVA and make a video.
Avatar
"Demonstrably"?Challenge accepted!Demonstrate it's untrue.
Avatar
If you absolutely, completely need to win that timer, or take down that cynojammer, or save that tackled mothership, they are already worth the cost.That shits and giggles roam into Syndicate ? Not so much.By the way - you know the tech nerf everyone and their dog is calling for ... this is it. T1 cruisers are made out of trit, and T2 cruisers are made out of tech.
Avatar
Quite.
Avatar
Personally I like where Logistics ships are right now, with tech 1 variants operating at about 70% effectiveness of the t2 variant for perhaps a quarter of the cost. It leaves you in a situation where you still absolutely want tech 2 in strategic engagements or any other fight you *need* to win, while lowering the barrier of entry to small gang warfare and giving new players a chance to gain experience in their eventual roles with cheap ships.
Avatar
I agree. It seems as if the logistics are already mostly there. Perhaps a bit of a buff to make sure they are shiny, but I feel that any more buffing to the T2 logistics would be a bit overboard.
Avatar
I think it would be easier to prove that the OP is totally, demonstrably and unconditionally retarded, assuming he actually believes his moronic trolling...
Avatar
Indeed.
Avatar
Let's name HACs for 3 of the 4 available races in eve that are used in fleet. We will conveniently leave the Cerberus out of it because PL never used it, and all we know how to do is copy PL. We'll then say that we never see HACs in fleet, despite the kill stats and battle reports on any of a dozen public killboards.Sheesh....
Avatar
what the christ!? cerberus? are you serious? I think I saw a cerberus once in IRC space before it promptly blew up, never a fleet of cerbs- theres a reason why people use the ships that they do and dont use others like the cerberus.
Avatar
Definitely
Avatar
You picked the one HAC that is superior to the others and still fully worth the price difference against its t1 counterparts. Two average pilots of equal skill and pvp ability facing off, one with stabber and one with vaga...the vaga is winning. That's the real comparison and settles this silly dispute.
Avatar
The 'missing' HACs have not been in any way made obsolete by the buffs to tech-1 cruisers for fleet work. Most of them were not used in fleets well before then. For example, the Cerberus and the Eagle are not bad ships per se. But their intended roles are done better by cheaper ships.The Eagle can be fit as a close-range blaster brawler, or as a long-range sniper. The brawler role is better performed by AHACs, specifically the Zealot, which as an armor-tanked boat doesn't suffer from signature radius bloat. As a sniper, it's thoroughly eclipsed by the rail Naga, which is cheaper, has superior range, and superior damage output and alpha.The Cerberus is outclassed by the Drake and to a lesser extent by the Caracal if fit for mid-range engagements, and can't make much use of its excellent range when fit with Heavy Missiles, since sniping with missiles is usually a silly notion.
Avatar
What the christ? Can you fill an entire post without making a point? Tard.The only thing that you have right is that there are 3 reasons we don't see the cerb in mouth-breather fleets. 1: The drake's shield resistance bonus. 2: The Tengu's prior awesomeness and pilot availability. 3: PL never did it.
Avatar
Verily.
Avatar
Hmm kicked from amok. and denied by PL.. there couldnt possibly be an agenda here. I made my point repeatedly that for you to disparage the article as putting forth something that was untrue was an un-winnable position. Keep flying that cerberus though if you like v0vver
Avatar
I'm sorry, but your buffs to t2 cruisers are out of line... In EvE, you ALWAYS pay a premium for that extra few percent. T2 Cruisers don't need to be faster, with extra slots, better resists, and extra bonuses... this, after the current re-balancing just leads to power creep. T2 Cruisers should be "different," and selectively better at certain roles, rather than generally better at everything.p.s. Price is NOT an appropriate "balancing" tool... I don't care if you pay 10x more for a HAC than a t1 cruiser... that doesn't mean the T1 Cruisers should be generally inferior..
Avatar
I said that in this article. What's your point again?
Avatar
"In EvE, you ALWAYS pay a premium for that extra few percent."and"Price is NOT an appropriate "balancing" tool"So which is it? Should T2 ships be specialized (or different) and no more expensive, or more expensive but better?
Avatar
These aren't mutually exclusive... You pay a premium for that extra few percent. This is not strictly an isk-cost, but a design philosophy. Advanced skills give only a small bonus increase; faction mods are only a little better (in general) than there t2 or meta counterparts, but are harder to ascertain (which is why they are expensive).And it's not the isk-cost that justifies the "extra" bonuses a HAC receives, its the added skillpoint cost. The additional SP being applied to the hulls allow them to specialize into roles... and the extra bonuses don't need to make them universally better than t1, but should be aimed at specializing them...
Avatar
Maybe you're right to a hypothetical extent, but a T2-fit Vagabond is eight times more expensive than a T2-fit Stabber yet is only a few percent better. A 700% premium for 20% better performance is pretty laughable.But I'm not saying that we should drive down the price of T2 Cruisers, just give them some bang for the buck.
Avatar
The Stabber-Vagabond comparison is probably the worst you can use to make your point.Tiericide, until they approach T2 ships, just messes up balance. I enjoy being able to use new ships, but this article is a commentary on a particular phenomenon.
Avatar
Let me copy the title here for you:The New Meta: 1+1 > 2 Notice it doesnt say 1>2How will 2 with stabbers do against the one vaga?
Avatar
Even if the Vagabond is "just" 20% better than the Stabber you will still kill the Stabber reliably every single time you choose to engage.The Stabber pilot can console himself with his ship being cheap but the Vagabond pilot won't care about pricetags as he won't have to replace his ship in the first place.Of course this mindset only applies to small gang pvp - but no war between large alliances has been decided by one side going broke before the other through some war of attrition, pricetags of subcaps have ceased to matter years ago.The only reason to fly cheap is because you don't have FCs who are familiar with the more expensive fleet compositions, because your pilots don't have the SP & experience to fly them or because you plan on using isk efficiency ratios in an attempt to demoralize the enemy.
Avatar
I doubt that. One of the explicit goals of CCP with the cruiser tiericide was to close the gap to t2 cruisers [citation needed].Widening that gap again with the next balance pass would be completely counter-intuitive.
Avatar
Considering the vaga is faster, has twice the dps and more than twice the active tank, probably still the vaga. Especially when you consider the stabbers tank against EMP.
Avatar
Except that a good deal of that DPS comes from drones, which either Stabber can smartbomb off, and the Vaga won't have the cap to run its AB with two medium neuts on it, so the Stabbers are going to be sigtanking more incoming damage and meanwhile delivering most of their own to the Vaga.One Stabber might die, but realistically the Vaga will too.
Avatar
Or make the costs of the HAC a less. Seriously, is a HAC 1600% better than a Stabber? It costs 1600% more. (158M vs. 9.5M Jita on eve central)
Avatar
Unfortunate business right now is that T2 ships are at their low-point in EVE history.
Avatar
I'm not sure how I feel about the changes yet.. however if you buff the t1 and then buff the t2, aren't we back where we started??
Avatar
I agree that Golem should have smaller signature radius, better scan resolution and better sensor strength than Raven.Or op, you are initially wrong.
Avatar
I like CCP's vision of moving T2 ships into specialized roles. I believe the T1 ships should be very good in their own right, and their T2 counterparts should augment a couple of these abilities or tweek them slightly. Take the new Thorax with its Megathron-esque bonuses, for example. The Tech 2 variants should trade dps for tank and a special ability (Phobos) or trade tank for more dps and a speed ability (Deimos). But both should not be immensely better than their base ship as face value, that's where the extra training should play a bigger role. While cruiser V should count towards bonuses on the hulls that are nice to have, the HIC/HAC bonuses should augment the role most directly, while the ship stats (fitting and slots included) shouldn't be drastically different than the base ship. If the ship should fit heavier guns, it should get a role to reduce the powergrid of guns, making them specialized in guns.
Avatar
Only if you think of the buffs as generic buffs. If you specialize the role of a ship (and with tiericide, they're doing just that), you can put a specific ship in a specific niche - or even create new ones, like the logistic frigates - and excel at that role more than any other class of ships may do.In the end, I hope we will have a lineup of ships that are all inherently viable for the role they have, without any generically better in any conceivable way. FCs and military experts should have a lot of tools to experiment with, not just the FOTM after that PL or RnK exploits a fleet concept and everyone else copies them.The added bonus of T2 performance (once re-balanced) should not ecplise any other option, but just give the slight edge when you absolutely, positively have to win that timer, or field the best setup available for that s/cap support.
Avatar
I have a hard time getting on board with arguments like this. What I would like to see is someone compare the gaps in T1/T2 ships with T1/T2 modules. Where we are now may not be to bad. I believe they do need some help but not as much as the popular opinion seems to be. The vagabond is better than one stabber but not two, same goes for T2 modules, and if there is an edge people will use it IE T2 ships. I think small role and hull tweaks with a price adjustment is all we need. Thanks for the article.
Avatar
You would never use a HAC for that these days, you would use a foxcat or a sheildcat. HACs are in every way not as useful as BS or Cruisers in large extended fights. Cruisers are way cheaper, foxcats have stupid tank and range, and sheild cats cost the same as a HAC with decent fittings, whilst having more alpha and a larger tank.
Avatar
What? I said nothing about T2 BS or T2 BCs or T2 anything but Cruisers. Stop making arguments for me.
Avatar
Its not just that easy of just fixing T2 cruisers its a freaking elephant walking on a spiders line hopeing it will not break.we got several ships "competing over the same turf"Lets look at the mimatar tree for awhileT1 Assult Cruiser: Stabber Navy Cruiser : Navy Stabber T2 HAC : Vagabond Pirate Cruiser : Cynabalall compete for the same job. that of fast moving skirmisher.I just hope CCP is looking at all the same "roles" at the same time and give a decent "Progression" for them all.and I don't envy the job they have ahead of them.
Avatar
I lost a shitfitted, ratting Sacrilege to an overtanked Maller that used autocannons. That in itself tells me everything about how useless T2 ships are now. Especially when you consider the fact that HAMs are shit DPS against a Maller.
Avatar
What the fuck alliance are you in that still suffixes every doctrine with -cat?

Since Retribution, I've spent at least a few hours per day being an armchair EFT warrior.  Now, it's one thing to concept-fit ships on EFT with Officer mods, T2 rigs, max level boosts and high grade implant sets to see what they're truly capable of.  But my latest pet project has been putting together T1 cruisers on a budget.

How far does 25 million get you?  Let's ask the Stabber:

[]

While it doesn't do all the things perfectly - it's bound to get alphaed by Tornadoes, it will lose in a brawl versus a Cynabal, and the lack of drones is somewhat discomforting - for 25 million ISK you get a taste of what it's like to be a Cynabal.  That's less than an Assault Frigate hull, far less than a Dramiel, and about 1/8th of a similarly fit Vagabond:

[]

Before I go into a comparison, I'd like to note that I would prefer to fit a C-type MWD and a faction point, but since we're talking about working on a budget, I went cheap.  The Vagabond does some things better, some worse, and some relatively the same.  For example, the buffer on the Stabber would be much less than the Vagabond except that the Stabber has double the structure, a fact that most would write off as unimportant if not for the Damage Control.  As a result, both hulls have similar buffer - or roughly the same odds of surviving a large alpha. 

Where does the Stabber exceed the Vagabond?  The second utility high serves to fit a medium neut, which is most useful against brawling frigates since there's not enough capacitor to run it indefinitely.  It also has more capacitor, a smaller base signature radius and more cargo. 

The Vagabond exceeds the Stabber in nearly all other relevant metrics, however.  The XLASB gives the Vagabond a massive active tank for no capacitor which doesn't increase signature radius - nearly 750 DPS overheated - and the extra Autocannon combined with an extra damage bonus plus drones gives it nearly twice the Stabber's DPS.  The Vagabond goes over 4km/second with an overheated MWD, about 15% faster than the Stabber, and has a much better align time.  It also has slightly better damage projection, scan resolution, and sensor strength, but only by a small degree.  Unlike the Stabber, the Vagabond has a chance of surviving an encounter with a BC, possibly even a Drake.

The Power of Numbers

But even though the Vagabond is unambiguously better than the Stabber, is it baller enough to take on two Stabbers?  Probably not.  Yet in terms of ISK, we're talking 50 million versus 190 million. 

The same appears to apply to every T1 cruiser and its HAC counterpart.  While the difference is still there, as Ripard Teg observed, the gap is narrowed to the point that quantity trumps quality.  Few nullsec entities have problems filling up their fleets with T2 cruisers, but reducing the SP and ISK burden of flying a particular fleet comp means new recruits can fly sooner and more often.

A valid example of this is the Rupture.  Since the Retribution buffs, the Rupture can be fit almost identically to an Arty Muninn, the flagship of Black Legion.  Sure, it's an inferior facsimile in terms of range, tank and alpha, but not by a great deal; meanwhile, a brand-new character can be ready to fly a T1 Arty Rupture in a matter of days.  If a player can be taught to add an anchor to watchlist, orbit this anchor, lock up broadcasts and hit F1, they are roughly as valuable as 75% of a T2 Muninn for 25% of the price.

But Will It Blend?

I haven't presented this as a 'good' or 'bad' thing yet.  That's mostly because I'm undecided.  On one hand, I'm excited that I can go out and PVP with relatively reckless abandon.  And if T1 cruisers are almost functionally identical to HACs, why bother losing several hundred mil in one go when I could lose eight or ten Stabbers for the same price?  I also like that the T1 cruisers feel well-rounded.  Most of them have utility highs and enough fitting for medium neuts and/or smartbombs.  Having a plethora of options gives each hull what video game critics would call 'Replay Value' - if one fit didn't work, there's bound to be a dozen others worth trying with entirely different strategies in mind.

But on the other hand, I believe these buffs are drawing out the shortcomings of T2 cruisers.  Muninns and Zealots are seen in nullsec fleets, but what about the other six HACs?    Virtually never.  The Ishtar and Deimos are sometimes seen in 'concept' AHAC fleets; the Sacrilege and Vagabond are nice for solo but aren't made for the alpha meta; the Cerberus and Eagle need a lot of reworking to be viable for anything. 

It's not enough that HACs have better fitting space and extra bonuses anymore, especially those with useless bonuses (the Eagle's second Optimal Range bonus is fairly pointless, for example.)  What they need is superior base stats.  Why would the Stabber have a lower signature radius than the Vagabond?  Why would it have more cargo, more capacitor, and an extra utility high?  Shouldn't the Vagabond have all these things and more?

What I want to see in the next iteration of Tiericide is for T2 cruisers to at least be identical to T1 in every way and better in some if not most ways.  This means the Vagabond should have two utility highs, the Muninn should have four mids, the Zealot should have a drone bay, and all of the HACs should be faster than their T1 models.  Will this make T1 cruisers weaker by comparison?  Certainly.  But having 3/4ths of the power for 1/4th of the cost is obviously a balancing choice that favors those dirty blobbers and doesn't reward the additional risk of flying bling; in fact, flying a T2 cruiser attracts more attention and draws more resistance from people hungry to pad their killboards while ensuring more potential targets avoid a fight altogether. 

It has also been suggested that HACs receive a role bonus similar to that enjoyed by AFs, namely to reduce the signature bloom associated with an active MWD.  I wouldn't be opposed to this, but I also don't think it should necessarily be combined with an across-the-board attribute buff to HACs.  If T2 Cruisers are too good, then we'll end up right where we started.

Mostly though, I want to fly an Eagle that has enough powergrid to fit Heavy Neutrons and a tank.  Is that too much to ask?

The blackest member of Kugutsumen.com.