open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked T2 Combat, costs, risk-taking and tip-over points
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.12.02 17:21:00 - [1]
 

Ok, so Tech 2 kit is expensive. For one thing it costs a lot up front, which is bad enough. For another, there's a really bad sting when you die, due to unresolvable issues with insurance. This is, of course, old news, but it's still true. The standard refrain is, of course, "if you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it" which is in one respect at least still good advice - if you fly a ship you can't afford to lose and you lose it, well, you're out of luck.

However, scope for discussion doesn't just end with that platitude. Maybe when T2 ships were first introduced it captured the entire argument, but things have moved on. We're no longer just talking about T2 frigates filling niche roles and incurring low-double-figure-million losses on death. Currently, the state of play is that HACs are, for certain classes of combat at least, becoming mission-critical hardware; they're just about affordable enough, available enough and well-enough understood to be viable general-purpose front-line ships. This shifts the paradigm fairly noticably from a state of play where we're just discussing T2 frigates in specialist roles - HACs incur low-triple-figure-million losses, an order of magnitude higher than frigates, and are being used as centrepieces of strike groups. They're strong enough that they can swing combat outcomes decisively, but still sufficiently expensive that it's a serious investment. The dilemma then looms that, in order to be competitive, you need a few HACs in your mini-blob, but very few people can really afford to fly them regularly in combat, due to a combination of limited funds and less-than-perfect skills, both character and player.

Does that dilemma really have any bite yet? It's debatable. However, I suspect that RMR is going to tip us firmly over that question into the realm of real T2 combat, where it's feasible to field proper flexible fleets of T2 kit. T2 destroyers, new T2 cruisers and T2 BCs will, between them and in conjunction with existing HACs, AFs, inties and covops ships, very likely allow you to put together an incredibly expensive fleet that can only be countered by another fleet of a similar level of technology and therefor of investment.

So where does that take us? Well, as soon as such fleets begin to appear, everyone will have two choices: either assemble their own equivalent fleet or basically just hide and avoid combat. Obviously the latter is basically not an option for most, so the situation compels everyone to go for the all-out T2 fleet. And for most of the server, buying the relevant T2 ship won't actually bankrupt them, because the hull prices aren't really astronomical. Where the alternative is hiding and/or surrendering, forking out a hundred, a hundred and twenty mil for a ship that the enemy won't laugh at isn't a huge stretch. However, the vast majority of the server cannot afford to lose such ships more than a few times and all but a very few run a fairly significant risk of dying every time they commit one to battle, unless they can restrict themselves to picking fights which they know they can win. The result? Nobody will actually want to fight. We'll be reduced to a situation where everyone's flying around in T2 fleets, terrified of losing ships because they can't afford to replace them, and therefore spending all their time dancing around each other hoping the enemy will accidentally leave a few ships behind so they can be ganked and refusing point blank to face each other on anything even approximating equal terms.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound much fun to me - I enjoy the pre-battle positioning and jockeying and the psychological warfare and stuff, but it's all meaningless if you go home without a shot being fired. A solution is needed. And due to the nature of T2 ships, it's going to have to follow a fairly specific form. (continued)

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.12.02 17:40:00 - [2]
 

The issue springs from the high prices HACs are commanding now and the new T2 ships will undoubtedly command when they hit TQ. If a move to all-out T2 combat does happen, if anything these prices are going to go up - when everyone's already fair combat by any means necessary and everyone is terrified of losing their ships and thus refuse to take any risks, flying a HAC in combat actually becomes perversely safer. This and the fact that such fleets are going to have very little use for T1 ships means that if you want to fight you're going to need T2 hardware, and because of risk-aversion you're probably not going to lose it, so everyone and their dog are going to want to be flying a T2 ship in combat - and because of the risk-aversion, rather than viewing it as something that will need replacing fairly soon it'll be tempting to think of it as a one-off investment, justifying paying even higher prices for them than people are now because nobody worries about (indeed, wants to even think about) losing them.

Battleships have similar hull prices but don't have the same problem. Why? Insurance - while the price of entry is similar, the repeat fees are very small and thus losing one isn't crippling. For obvious reasons T2 ship insurance is never going to be higher than it is now. However, the repeat fees (net amount needed to replace one) need to come down if players are to be prepared to risk losing them in the way they do T1 ships currently. The only sensible way out I can see is to bring down the buying price significantly. Given the pressures involved and the reasons for current high prices, this means increasing the supply by orders of magnitude.


Now I understand why the supply levels are what they are currently. T2 kit was intended to be, initially at least, rare and expensive stuff. That was good at first. However, things are shifting, and I suspect that RMR may push us firmly over the edge into a scenario where T2 ships are a necessity not a luxury on the battlefield. I don't see this as a bad thing. We're reaching the point where we have something approaching top-to-bottom T2 coverage for all primary combat roles (excluding BS, but I suspect T2 BCs will give T1 BS a run for their money). As such, I think we're reaching the point where T2 ships need to be moved from the "luxury" bracket into the "premium" bracket. Right now there'll be nothing to fill the "luxury" market, although that could probably be handled by T2 faction ships, and in the longer term the inevitable T3 kit. That I suspect is just going to be a necessary condition of the evolution of combat.

In hard and fast terms, materials costs as they are, this means probably inties and covops for 3-5 mil, AFs for 6-7, Inters for 10, HACs for 20-30, recons for 30-40, T2 BCs for 50-60 etc. Those are rough numbers, but they're ballpark. How precisely this is implemented is up to CCP, and basically depends on how much they feel they need to protect the investment of existing T2 BPO owners. At one end of the scale is just chopping right down on the build time for these ships, making prices determined purely by costs rather than demand. At the other end is just dumping a load more BPOs, probably at least a hundred of each and maybe more, into the pool. Personally, I think the former doesn't open the market up enough and the latter is probably unfair on existing producers who, while lucky in the lottery, have by and large done a decent job of logistics etc. A nice compromise might well be to allow all existing owners to upgrade their BPOs to "Faction T2" BPOs (for now slightly enhanced versions of the current ships) and then do a big issuing of new standard T2 BPOs. This keeps existing BPO owners in the luxury market while ensuring a good supply of standard T2 ships for the masses. (Continued)

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.12.02 17:58:00 - [3]
 

Ideally this also needs to be applied to T2 equipment, albeit to a lesser extent. There's already pretty much a top-to-bottom range of T2 kit which isn't astronomically expensive and thus isn't also a massive cash-cow for the BPO owners in bost cases. Here I suspect just adding another big wadge of BPOs to the market will do the job nicely, perhaps also giving existing owners a second one free to offset the devaluation of the first a little; if there are another 50 added to the 20 already around for each piece of kit that'll still see them lose marketshare.

Some caveats:
1) The new BCs will probably give existing HACs a run for their money and it remains to be seen how significant T2 BCs will be given the skill requirements. If Mk2 (not T2) BCs prove to be equal in power to HACs while sticking at their current price points, and if T2 BCs remain very rare, that could go some way to mitigating the above described effects. However, frankly I don't believe this is a desirable outcome, as it just goes back to marginalising the T2 ships. I think making them premium mainstream would make a lot better use of the content and provide a better all-round playing experience.
2) The BPO auctions suggested are an interesting solution but I'm not sure they'll change things nearly fast enough. One a month won't make any real impact on the market and by the sounds of it the intention is to keep T2 products as luxury items and just stabilise and in some cases slightly lower the prices. See my comments in 1) for why I'm not happy with this
3) Improved T2 manufacturing abilities may help in a desirable way but only if they can massively reduce build times, which again I don't suspect they'll do, instead giving advantages big enough to justify using them but small enough not to disturb the status quo
4) What happens to the T1 content? Open question, really. It's going away one way or another; do we want to save it, or leave it for newbies, or just scrap it altogether? I haven't considered this fully yet, but it seems silly not to do something with them, even if it's just slash the build requirements and thus the price on everything and make "T1 cruiser fleets" the new "T1 frig fleet".


What this boils down to is that I think that, with the new ships in RMR and the direction CCP seems to be taking with T2 ships and mid-range content in general, it's just about coming up to being the time to make T2 kit and in particular T2 ships standard gear for the relatively well-off, and achievable for the relatively poor. If you at new content, there is still T1 stuff being introduced but it's all coming with ten-figure price tags - pretty much all the new stuff for "normal" combat we've had in the last six months at least has been T2. We're just about at the point where we can field workable flexible fleets where every ship and component has the yellow triangle in the corner, there's no obvious reason not to embrace that, and it looks like if it's not embraced by CCP it'll happen anyway in a way that's incredibly destructive to the game. Given this, it seems silly to try and maintain the "luxury" status quo on pricing and distribution for stuff that's increasingly becoming a necessity.


As a closing remark, I've long been of the opinion that "T2 Assault BS" are an incredibly stupid idea. In the course of writing these posts I've revised that slightly. Assault BS make a fair amount of sense in a world where T2 combat is the norm - so long as they are to HACs roughly what T1 BS are to T1 cruisers, then once everyone's transitioned to T2 kit as the norm they'll just slot into place at the top of the range without causing any disturbances. This does, of course, require them to cost, if anything, probably less than T1 BS currently do due to insurance differences - but that's a bridge we can cross if and when we get there. Thanks for reading.

Minxella
Posted - 2005.12.02 19:13:00 - [4]
 

Seriously dude, give me one good reason to even bother reading that !

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.12.02 20:06:00 - [5]
 

I'm not asking you to care.

TotensBurntCorpse
Minmatar
Miners of Moria Corp
Posted - 2005.12.02 22:26:00 - [6]
 

Why do you base this discussion on the belief that T2 should become a norm?

T2 is an expensive toy for the highskilled and well off. As long as it stays that way lower skilled less well off players can still attempt to compete.

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.12.02 23:30:00 - [7]
 

Uh. Yeah. Go back and actually read what I wrote, and then get back to me?


/me waits patiently for someone to actually get their head round the above and start an interesting discussion...

Exalia Layada
Posted - 2005.12.03 15:55:00 - [8]
 

What about the skill gap between old and new players?

Even now, a small group of properly outfitted ship piloted by an old, well-trained character can make mincemeat of a small fleet of one year old players.

Widen the gap created by skills and money even further and eventually alliances won't even recruit less skilled pvp characters anymore, because the security risk and benefit don't add up anymore...


So... I think the new, stronger t2 ships should be attainable by the use of implants or specialized clone or simply by not making them depend on skills that take years to learn for new players, when it's not the same for old players.
And yeh, they shouldn't be only available to few, or too expensive to use them for anything but ganking.

Deja Thoris
Invicta.
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2005.12.03 18:02:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Exalia Layada

Even now, a small group of properly outfitted ship piloted by an old, well-trained character can make mincemeat of a small fleet of one year old players.


Theres nothing a year old player cant fly to a TOP level of proficiency if they specialize.

On topic.

Joerd is one of the people who "gets it" in my opinion.

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.12.03 19:31:00 - [10]
 

Yeah, that did occur to me. One response is just to say "specialise", which kinda bypasses the problem. However, it's still not ideal. A better solution would maybe to do something like reduce the rank of cruiser skill and take other steps to make key level 5 skills easier to attain. Rank drops and/or some kind of "magic boost" for newer/all players for the basic skills needed for T2 kit would probably be a viable solution, I guess.

Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
The Initiative.
Posted - 2005.12.04 00:00:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Minxella
Seriously dude, give me one good reason to even bother reading that !

Ricky Baby
NibbleTek
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2005.12.04 11:31:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Exalia Layada
What about the skill gap between old and new players?

Even now, a small group of properly outfitted ship piloted by an old, well-trained character can make mincemeat of a small fleet of one year old players.

Widen the gap created by skills and money even further and eventually alliances won't even recruit less skilled pvp characters anymore, because the security risk and benefit don't add up anymore...


So... I think the new, stronger t2 ships should be attainable by the use of implants or specialized clone or simply by not making them depend on skills that take years to learn for new players, when it's not the same for old players.
And yeh, they shouldn't be only available to few, or too expensive to use them for anything but ganking.



but to swap that aronund a group of new players can make mincmeat of the older guys - as in EVE there is NO one ship pwn mobile (apart from the dominix) unlike in every other MMORPG's.

theRaptor
Caldari
Tactical Operations
Posted - 2005.12.04 13:24:00 - [13]
 

A cheap T1 BS with the proper fittings will grief the **** out of any HAC. Not CCP's problem that 99% of EVE can't fit a ship properly unless shown how (which by the way means the people that can fit a ship can grief the **** out of people who can't). End of discussion.

Exalia Layada
Posted - 2005.12.04 13:40:00 - [14]
 

@Deja: It's not realistic. No one can predict good setups one year ahead and then train optimally, less even if it's a newbie. After one year, very good setups are either nerfed or obsoleted by better ones one has to train for an extended time span again...


@Ricky: Now - yeh, it's not too bad now, maybe two-three times more younger chars can take out an uber equipment old char squad, even with T1 equipment. It's not all domis, deimos', megas, tempests and other uber gank setups, currently. But it's already unlikely the old squad won't manage to run in time...

Anyways, once it's all high dps dealing, well-tanked, and otherwise uber T2 for the old powerful players, and very few of them for the new or poor, even attacking with a vastly superior number of inferior ships and setups to kill them might not be an option, or -like Joerd suggested- even just economicaly viable.

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.12.04 17:03:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Joerd Toastius on 04/12/2005 17:04:25
Originally by: theRaptor
A cheap T1 BS with the proper fittings will grief the **** out of any HAC. Not CCP's problem that 99% of EVE can't fit a ship properly unless shown how (which by the way means the people that can fit a ship can grief the **** out of people who can't). End of discussion.


a) It's unlikely to get the chance because it's so sluggish the HAC's almost certainly dictating the terms of battle, and
b) T2 BCs

Originally by: Ricky Baby
but to swap that aronund a group of new players can make mincmeat of the older guys - as in EVE there is NO one ship pwn mobile (apart from the dominix) unlike in every other MMORPG's.



Sure, if they gang up. The situation I'm worried about is half a dozen HACs, three or four AFs and half a dozen inties attacking a corp of relatively new players. At that point you're basically screwed. Doubly so if you throw in a couple of T2 BCs and interdictors and stuff.

Ryyth
FACTS on EVE
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2005.12.04 18:49:00 - [16]
 

The situation of a HAC running corp declaring war on a smaller, newb corp has probably already occured more times than you like to think. While the HAC corp might run arround in gang attempting to kill off the newb corp, you may be surprised what they can accomplish with a few inovative moves.
1) Change location, and avoid them. Even with tracking agents, a small newer corp can play avoidance games, and minimize contant with the enemy if desired. -RL Reference, Vietnam.
2) Vent/TS. If the newb corp flies together, it is quite possible to take out one of the HAC's with a swarm of Frig's/Cruisers before they get you. Although the bigger&older corp can replace the loss, it's one hell of a demotivator. -RL Reference, The Alamo.
3) Fly your small corp into the territory of another big corp which doesn't care about the small fry, but won't tolerate the HAC corp. -RL Reference, Taiwan.

As far as overall T2 ships, the fleets will appear, but eventually some bored git is going to "Press the button", and T2 fleet engagements will become a reality. Twisted Evil
3)

Tesha Marill
INGEN Industries
Posted - 2005.12.04 22:15:00 - [17]
 

The answer to this whole issue lies not in the hands of CCP, the devs, or any misbalance. It lies with the producers of T2 equipment. The only way to make any money building ships is to get REALLY lucky and obtain a T2 BP. But the people who have T2 BP's know that they hold a monopoly, so therefore charge OUTRAGEOUS prices for ships. But I don't think we're gonna get lower prices by asking nicely.

It is my beleif that configurable manufacturing will be the only way to truely solve the issue. Let players modify the stats for ships that they produce, and you'll get a resurgance in T1 ship use. This will bring down the prices of T2 ships, and will return them to the specialty uses that they were intended for.

And yes...I did read your WHOLE post
BTW T1 BC's get a boost in RMR...HAC's beware

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.12.04 22:47:00 - [18]
 

I mentioned the T1 BC boost, post three point 1 :P


I agree that manufacturing changes are the only really viable way out. I don't think asking for modifiable ships is a viable solution because that's probably a long-term project and we may need these changes within a month or two. As to HAC prices, if they weren't gouged by the producers they'd be gouged by middlemen. That's not to say that the monopolists are necessarily blameless, but I suspect this problem would exist to some extent even if they sold at cost. Probably not as bad for those that sell to order, but eh. Either way, you're not gonna persuade the manufacturers to drop their prices unless you introduce more competition to the point where more HACs can be built than can be sold in a given period.

Slaveabuser
Amarr
House Of Hades
Posted - 2005.12.04 22:50:00 - [19]
 



Problem : booo-hooo I lost my t2 gear and it stings Sad


Solution : Use cheaper mods.

theRaptor
Caldari
Tactical Operations
Posted - 2005.12.05 00:44:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: theRaptor on 05/12/2005 00:46:05
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
Originally by: theRaptor
A cheap T1 BS with the proper fittings will grief the **** out of any HAC. Not CCP's problem that 99% of EVE can't fit a ship properly unless shown how (which by the way means the people that can fit a ship can grief the **** out of people who can't). End of discussion.


a) It's unlikely to get the chance because it's so sluggish the HAC's almost certainly dictating the terms of battle, and
b) T2 BCs


Uh no. If the HAC is within scramble range it is dead. If it isn't then the BS just warps out. And T2 BC's won't change that. Fighting outside scramble range is entirely pointless for solo or small groups of heavy ships vs other heavy ships. Especially after the stacking changes.

Pwyle Kenobi
InterSun Freelance
Posted - 2005.12.05 01:04:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Pwyle Kenobi on 06/12/2005 04:45:42
Originally by: Tesha Marill
The answer to this whole issue lies not in the hands of CCP, the devs, or any misbalance. It lies with the producers of T2 equipment. The only way to make any money building ships is to get REALLY lucky and obtain a T2 BP. But the people who have T2 BP's know that they hold a monopoly, so therefore charge OUTRAGEOUS prices for ships. But I don't think we're gonna get lower prices by asking nicely.

Question: Is it safe to say that it's a strangle-hold on supply that's creating the issue?

Any market without adequate competition is not good for consumers.

Competition should be encouraged and allowed to take care of the market and consumers. Here are some (noobie and possibly dumb) suggestions. Allow reverse-engineering of T2 ships. Alternatively, make it compulsory that for every T2 ship manufactured, a BPC must be made and sold. Possibly, seed T2 faction ship BPCs in complexes. Maybe mission agents should hand out T2 ship BPCs. Just do whatever needs to be done to allow more T2 ship manufacturers into the market (ie. lower the barriers to entry for this market). Just allowing faster or cheaper production of T2 ships will not be an answer. There needs to be more competition with more manufacturers trying to undercut one another for sales in each region. This may not bring prices down quickly but it would allow the market to find another lower-priced equilibrium point.

I don't think it's very realistic to say that people couldn't reverse-engineer a ship or even steal the plans for a ship. In RL it's very hard to keep manufacturing plans a secret for very long, especially after the product is released to market. So why should the T2 lottery be the ONLY source for obtaining plans?

If T2 ships really are supposed to be rare, non-mainstream, luxury play-things for the rich (and that's fine if they are), then I think CCP made a mistake releasing any BPOs at all and only BPCs should have been released. It's not very fair to grant a very lucky few an effective licence to print ISK for the entire duration of the game. I see T2 ships and equipment as the reward for sticking with the game and investing sufficient skill training. This is the icing on top for continuing to pay the monthly subscription price to CCP for long enough (it's in CCPs interests to provide such a reward). I think that extortionate prices should only be able to be charged for ships and items for which only BPCs exist (ie. faction ships and equipment). It would be equitable for CCP to either convert existing T2 BPOs into long-run BPCs or move to make T2 more affordable and mainstream.

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.12.05 02:19:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: theRaptor
Edited by: theRaptor on 05/12/2005 00:46:05
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
Originally by: theRaptor
A cheap T1 BS with the proper fittings will grief the **** out of any HAC. Not CCP's problem that 99% of EVE can't fit a ship properly unless shown how (which by the way means the people that can fit a ship can grief the **** out of people who can't). End of discussion.


a) It's unlikely to get the chance because it's so sluggish the HAC's almost certainly dictating the terms of battle, and
b) T2 BCs


Uh no. If the HAC is within scramble range it is dead. If it isn't then the BS just warps out. And T2 BC's won't change that. Fighting outside scramble range is entirely pointless for solo or small groups of heavy ships vs other heavy ships. Especially after the stacking changes.


Warp-out assumes the BS is aligned. I know very few BS pilots who fit scramblers if that's your implication, and in any case when you're dictating terms of combat you're generally engaging at whatever range you want, which means you're fitted for that range. T2 BCs are a worry because they may potentially be able to head-to-head with short range BS with a reasonable chance of success. And I'm not talking about solo or small groups, I'm talking about a dozen or two dozen mixed T2 vessels.

theRaptor
Caldari
Tactical Operations
Posted - 2005.12.05 02:41:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Joerd Toastius
Warp-out assumes the BS is aligned.


No. After the stacking change it would be very hard to impossible to gank a BS before it can warp out without a large gang. Most BS will be fitting two 1600 plates minimum.

Originally by: Joerd Toastius
I know very few BS pilots who fit scramblers if that's your implication


I know plenty.

Originally by: Joerd Toastius
and in any case when you're dictating terms of combat you're generally engaging at whatever range you want, which means you're fitted for that range.


Dictating range means **** if you can't stop the enemy warping off. This is the reason stealth bombers are so crap. And speed only allows you to increase or decrease range, it does not allow you to set the starting range. Being a fast HAC does jack **** if the enemy BS is 150km off the gate and you don't have a covert ops.

Originally by: Joerd Toastius
T2 BCs are a worry because they may potentially be able to head-to-head with short range BS with a reasonable chance of success.


T1 Cruisers can go head-to-head with a short range BS and win. Proper fitting and numbers always beats ship class.

Originally by: Joerd Toastius
And I'm not talking about solo or small groups, I'm talking about a dozen or two dozen mixed T2 vessels.


Against a dozen T1 BS? In that situation the T1 BS win. All they have to do is warp in at long range, or split into two groups and cover each other at range (which is a common tactic for gate snipers).

Deja Thoris
Invicta.
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2005.12.05 07:16:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Exalia Layada
@Deja: It's not realistic. No one can predict good setups one year ahead and then train optimally, less even if it's a newbie. After one year, very good setups are either nerfed or obsoleted by better ones one has to train for an extended time span again...




Oh rubbish - in a year you can max out your race. All races are reasonably balanced.

It's the flavour of the month training that takes peoples skills all over the map. If a good setup is "nerfed" then theres other ships of that race that can do the job, you dont have to jump from caldari to amarr to gallente at every patch to stay competetive.

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.12.05 12:06:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Joerd Toastius on 05/12/2005 12:10:38
theRaptor, you're missing my point about dictating engagement terms. For one thing I'm talking about a fleet of T2 ships so yes a cloaker can be assumed, and for another the key factor isn't what happens once everyone is on grid, it's about the minutes before hand. The additional mobility of HACs over BS allows them to dictate the terms of engagement, which means who warps in on who at what range. Sniper BS are always going to be on the defensive in this sense because HACs can maneuver faster at a system level.

Anyway, this is getting away from my original point which is that a balanced fleet of T2 ships is likely going to be very very hard bordering on impossible to counter using only T1 ships, even where BS are involved. To throw in a relevant example, a HAC fleet engages a BS and an Interdictor burns in and drops a scramble probe on it, which no amount of stabs will help with. A Matari Recon webs it from 40k and blat, no more BS.

{edit} Also, what Deja said - anyone who trains specifically for FOTM deserves everything they get in the way of nerfs

Minxella
Posted - 2005.12.05 12:38:00 - [26]
 

Tech II is not the replacement for tech 1 the ships just fulfil a different role. Theres a huge difference. And I still havn't read the thread yet, I'm waiting for the clipped notes to come out.

theRaptor
Caldari
Tactical Operations
Posted - 2005.12.05 13:05:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: theRaptor on 05/12/2005 13:07:33
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
Edited by: Joerd Toastius on 05/12/2005 12:10:38
theRaptor, you're missing my point about dictating engagement terms. For one thing I'm talking about a fleet of T2 ships so yes a cloaker can be assumed, and for another the key factor isn't what happens once everyone is on grid, it's about the minutes before hand. The additional mobility of HACs over BS allows them to dictate the terms of engagement, which means who warps in on who at what range. Sniper BS are always going to be on the defensive in this sense because HACs can maneuver faster at a system level.

Anyway, this is getting away from my original point which is that a balanced fleet of T2 ships is likely going to be very very hard bordering on impossible to counter using only T1 ships, even where BS are involved. To throw in a relevant example, a HAC fleet engages a BS and an Interdictor burns in and drops a scramble probe on it, which no amount of stabs will help with. A Matari Recon webs it from 40k and blat, no more BS.

{edit} Also, what Deja said - anyone who trains specifically for FOTM deserves everything they get in the way of nerfs


No. Gang commander skill determines who gets to dictate the terms engagement. I have helped kill plenty of superior fleets whose gang commanders fell for various traps and strategems. T2 doesn't make you smarter.

And seriously webbing a BS at 40km's? Why? Against a BS you are better off being close to it. And your example is flawed, the next thing that happens is that a scorpion warps in, jams the recons up, and a squad of gankageddons warp in and end the HAC's. Which HAC has 600 DPS and 11k armour?

I love HAC's. Nearly all HAC pilots think they are hot **** and take the most ******ed risks. It has been months since a HAC pilot was a serious risk to me, generally I see them running away after I suck their cap dry. Laughing

Exalia Layada
Posted - 2005.12.05 13:23:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Exalia Layada on 05/12/2005 13:53:22
Edited by: Exalia Layada on 05/12/2005 13:51:00
Originally by: Minxella
Tech II is not the replacement for tech 1 the ships just fulfil a different role. Theres a huge difference. And I still havn't read the thread yet, I'm waiting for the clipped notes to come out.


The current T2 sure DO replace their T1 counterparts.
And the new ones didn't look to be "constrained" to their new role only so far, since they had lots of resistances, slots and power/cpu, as well as their specialities to make them the ships-o-the-gank... Maybe that's subject to rather dramatic change, but I can't really imagine that with most of the RMR T2 ships, especially the larger ones.
They just can't be armored weakly or have little firepower, else they'll end up like the current logistics ships, which no one uses.

Originally by: Deja Thoris

Oh rubbish - in a year you can max out your race.


A powergamer (that acquires the isk and stuff) can probably succeed in maxing out ONE setup.
Maybe it's not like that in your part of 0.0, but some already require you to be master of many skills across the board, and to have a very good setup, should you think of going out alone or with a small gang. You just can't neglect perfecting weapon specialization, tracking/sig boosting, speed enhancenments and what not, there.

And really. if you just rely on larger numbers in such areas, you don't even get to fight anymore... Rolling Eyes


Originally by: theRaptor

No. Gang commander skill determines who gets to dictate the terms engagement. I have helped kill plenty of superior fleets whose gang commanders fell for various traps and strategems. T2 doesn't make you smarter.


True in many ways. But your strategies and traps basically seem to mean you only engage when you have the local superiority of force, at least that's how I percieve it.
Well, anyone with some brains and patience can and will do that, even though that's probably not all of Eve. Razz
(I still think that your strategy might work better if you used AFs or HACs if your enemy is also clever, well-organized, determined and has got lots of ressources and strong pilots. That's VERY unlikely to be the case tho, but it's still a way to neutralize virtually all the possible counter-measures...)


What the inital poster and I really fear is - well, will YOU engage that fleet/gank squad of insanely well-rounded T2 BS and T2 BC in RMR with your squad if you can't afford a similar force, or to replace some of your T2 ships?

Northius Starius
Posted - 2005.12.05 13:52:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Northius Starius on 05/12/2005 13:55:33
I maybe wrong but:

Tech2 ships shouldnt be GOD craft.
They have tougher shields, longer targetting range, better everything.

They should still killable by tech1 ships in 1v1 combat.
e.g. By making tech2 kit range shorter than tech1 kit.
Giving tech2 ships alot bigger signuture radius.


If not. Tech1 might as well be deleted because it will become useless


Tatsue Nuko
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2005.12.05 14:16:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Tatsue Nuko on 05/12/2005 14:24:42
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
Anyway, this is getting away from my original point which is that a balanced fleet of T2 ships is likely going to be very very hard bordering on impossible to counter using only T1 ships, even where BS are involved. To throw in a relevant example, a HAC fleet engages a BS and an Interdictor burns in and drops a scramble probe on it, which no amount of stabs will help with. A Matari Recon webs it from 40k and blat, no more BS.


You're not making an adequate comparison, Toastius. If you want to talk about combat survivability and ability to fullfill combat objectives ("kill the enemy" being the most common one ofc) in a context where you are worried about the prices of the best hardware out there, then you should use a comparison that utilizes the same costs for both sides of a scenario. Pitting a HAC fleet against a sole BS = a gank like any other gank and is not a good argument in the realm of actual fleet battles.

If you have 5 HACs purchased at current open market averages and pit them against a BS-using enemy, the fair economic circumstance here would be that the enemy would be using 5 Battleships.

Yes, the HACs -can- murderize the battleships. The Battleships -can- also murderize the HACs. It all depends on what kind of setups, tactics and skills (both character and player) the two sides have.

Furthermore, in any drawnout engagement scenario (like RAZOR vs JF in PB), the corporation using the cheaper battleships will have virtual immunity against attrition. The HAC users won't (though it's still easy as heck to make the money needed to afford losing a HAC every other day, you just need to know what you're doing).

Categorizing t2 as a combat necessity because a billion-ISK fleet of HACs can gank a BS is just plain wrong. 100 million ISK of Raxes will force any battleship to run or die. A gank is a gank, whatever ships are involved. 20 t1 frigs can gank a BS.

Nowadays I pretty much only fly HACs, ofc, I love the buggers. They're durable, fast, and hit well. But I still would not go up solo against a battleship, since a single Heavy Nos will end my life, and if I try a long-range fit (though I hate the Eagle for it's looks) I won't be able to force the kill. In fleet engagements of several dozen ships each, where one fleet is battleship-centric and the other is HAC-centric, with both fleets being of equal monetary value, the HACs do -not- win by default. They -can- win, but it will not be easy for them.

Similarly, when talking about possible t2 battleships, any fair comparison in the context of the prices of those t2 ships would be made against equal value of t1 ships. Going by what seems to be the general cost of t2 ships versus the t1's, a t2 battleship would be around a billion ISK. So while a fleet of 10 such would quite likely sweep the floor with 10 t1 battleships, how would they fare against an equal value force of 100 t1 battleships?

I suspect not too well, just like 10 HACs most likely would have difficulties when faced by 100 t1 cruisers.

Though of course, as long as a corp is rich it is easier to field a fleet of 10 t2 ships than a fleet of 100 equal-size t1 ships, but that's the nature of things - some do it with ace hardware, some with pure numbers, most with a mix of the two.

Originally by: Northius Starius
Tech2 ships shouldnt be GOD craft.
They should still killable by tech1 ships in 1v1 combat.


They are.
It's difficult to kill a HAC with a cruiser, but it -is- possible.
So all is as it should be.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only