There are some pilots on the rampage against Warp Core Stablisers, both on Epithals in wormholes, and on faction warfare ships.
I will try to be perfectly clear. I believe that a properly fit T2 hunter should be able to gank a properly fit T1 hauler. I also believe that the proper fit to take down a T1 hauler should NOT be a standard PVP fit. You are ganking, not fighting.
I run PI based wormholes, using WCS fit Epithals. We lose them, time and time again. Sometimes we get away, some times we lose our ship.
Hunters want Epithals to make compromises when they fit WCS. I have sympathy for that view (but not a lot). There are currently two correct lowslots fits for a wormhole Epithal. 4 WCS, or 3 WCS and 1 DCU. If you removed 3 of the lowslots and built in the 3 points of WCS it would only make a difference to the morons of highsec, as the rest of us are doing it better.
Here are losses that I pulled out of our corp's killboard.
1 hunter
https://zkillboard.com/detail/35931269/
https://zkillboard.com/detail/34205249/
2 hunter
https://zkillboard.com/detail/37091589/
https://zkillboard.com/detail/37243941/
Every single one of these Epithals had a pilot at the keyboard. We made mistakes. We then paid for them. This is as EVE should be. The lack of PI in holds on most of these kills is because we train our pilots to dump PI back into the customs offices when under attack.
I know very little about proper fits. Below you will find some 'teribad' fits, that I would use for hunting Epithals. No faction or officer modules will be harmed in the building of these ships.
As a service to the hunting community, I wish to remind you of a new item you might have missed. It is called a mobile depot. It might help.
[Arazu, goo catcher]
Damage Control II800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Warp Scrambler II
Warp Scrambler II
Warp Scrambler II
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script
10MN Microwarpdrive II
Stasis Webifier II
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Medium Hybrid Collision Accelerator I
Hammerhead II x4
Does 407 dps overheated (according to EFT)
For giggles, even this ship would eat an Epithal.
[Helios, goo catcher]
Damage Control IIMagnetic Field Stabilizer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Warp Scrambler II
Warp Scrambler II
Warp Scrambler II
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
1MN Afterburner II
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
Light Electron Blaster II, Void S
Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator I
Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Damage dealing is an underwhelming 78 DPS overheated but would still destroy an Epithal (eventually).
For a faction warfare pilot, I have the ship for you (though it does require a faction hull):
[Astero, StabCatcher]
Damage Control IIEnergized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I
Small Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste
Warp Scrambler II
Warp Scrambler II
Warp Scrambler II
1MN Microwarpdrive II
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
Light Ion Blaster II, Null S
Small Processor Overclocking Unit I
Small Processor Overclocking Unit I
Small Targeting Systems Stabilizer I
Warrior II x5
All fits are theoretical only, to be taken with a dose of WTF were you thinking?
TLDR; if you can't catch an Epithal, you are not properly prepared.
I also believe that the proper fit to take down a T1 hauler should NOT be a standard PVP fit.
ReplyDeleteThis is where we differ. I believe there is nothing inherently special about a T1 hauler that enables it to be capable of evading a standard PvP-fit ship. It is a completely ordinary, non-combat ship.
A basic hauler should not be expected to survive in the most hostile of environments. If you think otherwise, that's your prerogative.
I already expect our ships to to be destroyed. It happens.
ReplyDeleteIn one wormhole post the Epithal introduction: 10 lost Epithals in 5 months.
Same wormhole before the Epithal introduction: 7 lost industrials in 9 months.
https://zkillboard.com/system/31000619/group/28/. Yes there is a strong resemblance between corp name and this blog.
Hunters willing to adapt are getting the kills that old school hunters dream about.
At the moment, the best ship is a basic hauler. I would like to see armed merchant ships being introduced into the game, lets say it is 1/2 as good at hauling as the dedicated ships. A bigger topic for another day.
However. lets say that I have a t1 cruiser that I was wanting to move around wormhole space, and put 4 stabs on it. You could no more catch it than my hauler, with the sole reason being that the hunter is unwilling to adapt. It would be dumb to do for anything other than a travel fit, but no different to your ships.
OK lets reword my position slightly: I also believe that the proper fit to take down an evasion fit T1 ship should NOT be a standard PVP fit.
At the moment, the best ship is a basic hauler.
ReplyDeleteThis is the misconception that's causing disagreement. No, the best ship isn't the basic hauler. The basic hauler is a basic hauler.
It's the best ship for non-hostile space, because it has the capacity without having to compromise its fit for survival. There are better ships for surviving, the T2 haulers, but they can't carry as much. Of course they can't, and it's unreasonable to expect the same carrying capacity with greater capability. You already realise this, with your idea for an armed merchant ship.
As for your travel-fit T1 cruiser: what else can the cruiser do? Can it do all the cruiser things that cruisers normally do, and just as well as a normal cruiser? Of course not. It doesn't have damage or armour mods. Your cruiser is good for travel and travel only. The Epithal, by contrast, is still just as capable of carrying goo even in your 'evasion' fit, therefore it is not actually flying an evasion fit. It is fit normally. That is the problem I am addressing.
The Epithal's redesign resulted in an oversight. The specialised bays were added, and I'm almost certain the lows were kept as a legacy and not specifically to let it fly an evasion fit as standard. You only need to look at the other redesigned ships without specialised bays to understand this. They are no more designed to survive in hostile space than those haulers with specialised bays. They need to compromise capability for survivability, just as they did before the redesign. The Epithal got lucky, and it is this oversight that I am addressing.
I must agree with pjharvey. The revamp of the hauler line was botched on a very basic level. EVE always operates on "trade off", you can warp-core stab your cruiser but you would not want to fight in it. Before the haulers were changed you had the same choice, you could warp stab your Iteron IV and make it into a PI hauler. But then you can't fit cargo expanders, means, more trips and more exposure.
DeleteThe Epithals now changed the fundamental tenet of EVE, no trade-off required. You can warp stabilize it and still do your job 100%. Dumb fits and pilots aside, it is very, very hard to catch an Epithal now, to a point where I may not even try.
I don't understand why the haulers were specialized as ships rather than introducing mods (e.g. special low slow cargo expanders) which would allow us modify any ship into a PI hauler. EVE is built on flexibility, trade-offs and choices based on the tactical situation. The haulers took all of that away.
I wish there was a something akin to a "player council"., dedicated, knowledgeable players who would represent the different playstyles to CCP who evidently knows little about their own creation. These voted-in volunteers should have stopped this nonsense in its tracks.
Oh wait....
"Dumb fits and pilots aside, it is very, very hard to catch an Epithal now, to a point where I may not even try."
Deletebomber make it easy, sorry.
"The Epithals now changed the fundamental tenet of EVE, no trade-off required."
This is nonsense; unless the epithal is now the ONLY ship you fly in EVE, for all kinds of combat fleets, scouting, etc. You've lost all perspective.
"EVE is built on flexibility, trade-offs and choices based on the tactical situation. The haulers took all of that away."
"All" of that away? You only fought against haulers, ever? Perhaps you should try branching out.
Again, I state that we have lost more epithals in a shorter time than we lost other industrials in a much longer time pre the introduction of Epithals. We do not 'expect' to survive, we just want, sometimes, to have a chance to escape.
ReplyDeleteThere are some hunters, Penny included, that want Epithal pilots to make compromises, yet do not want to make any compromises with their own fits.
I propose a word for a fit / setup that is always superior in every situation : Overpowered.
I know that 1 on 1, in a wormhole environment, a fully stabbed Epithal does not always survive.
The 'easy way' to determine if the number of lowslots was oversight or by design is to get a CCP comment. It might be worth either/both of us posting on eve forums and/or asking a CSM rep.
Penny sees that the current state of warp core stabilsers is a "Problem for the game", needing a CCP solution. I see it as a "Problem for the hunter", needing the correct fit.
Assuming those seeing it as a problem 'for the game' have some sway (and Eve is a PVP dominated game), I have some proposals.
What appears to me to be a relatively simple proposal is to reduce the size of the specialised holds, but to allow cargo expanders to apply. Lets say with a full set of t1 cargo expanders the size is as it is now; with a full set of t2 expanders it is larger. I don't intent to spend much time on the exact cargohold size, but in essence allow a choice between cargo and escape again.
Another possible solution (as I also offered on Penny's site) is giving an align time penalty to WCS, allowing an epithal (or faction warfare stab fit farmer) to be alpha'd by a high DPS ship.
I was chatting with another hunter tonight, and apparently he can alpha an epi with a T2 fit/faction ammo nemesis, with t1 dps rigs. The same pilot cant do the same (has difficulty?) with his t3 fit. I have poked him to add his 2 isk on the topic.
In summary, there are many ways to kill an Epithal. I support that we sometimes get away. Our safest option still is to not get caught.
Some hunters, including Penny, seem to resent that we can get away from some (not all) of them and want further changes to buff hunters and penalise the hunted.
Yes, a bomber is unsurpassed as a hunter of PI haulers. When roaming in my T3 with a friend in a bomber, I have barely gotten onto killmails, the bomber alphas the hauler before I can lock him. But in my Nemesis, I once ran into a heavily tanked badger who ate 7 volleys of torpedoes and was still > 1/2 shield. I had to run away when their friend landed in an assault frigate.
DeleteThe issue is tradeoffs, you can tank a hauler fairly well, but it will be big and slow. You can generate tons of alpha with your bomber but you have no tank. You can have tank and DPS in your T3 but it is expensive and has a decloak delay. Tradeoffs is what makes EVE, EVE. But Epithals and Miasmas are exempt. No tradeoff required.
"But Epithals and Miasmas are exempt. No tradeoff required."
DeleteThe tradeoff is, if you want to fit a covert cloak, you have to trade off to a different ship. If you want to carry anything but 1 very limited cargo type, you have to trade off to a different ship. If you want decent agility and speed, you have to trade off to a different ship. If you want to shoot things, you have to trade off to a different ship. How many trade offs do you want??
I think it's unlikely that it was an oversight on CCPs behalf, all the specialised T1 industrials have 4 low slots, and no way to expand the specialised hold via modules.
ReplyDeleteThe 4 low slots means there's an opportunity to setup your haulers for a variety of different situations, which in other contexts would probably be addressed through the use of T2 ships.
With your epithal and the low slots you're choosing between pure speed (nanofibers and the like), evasion (WCS) and tank.
If there's an issue here with one option (WCS) then that's an issue irrespective of whether there's an option to expand the specialised holds or not.
On that front I tend to agree with Foo in that if you're going after an unguarded hauler then you should expect WCS and set up your ship appropriately, and it should be noted their that warp scramblers are more slot efficient than than stabilisers.
Haulers as opposed to combat ships don't really have to consider the drawbacks of fitting stabilisers, which also means that there's little reason to go beyond the basic cheap WCS I. For this reason it would perhaps make sense to add a drawback to the basic ability to warp like Foo suggests.
the third option is to remove some or all of the low slots. Of course if you do this you'd need to give the ship something to compensate, like they did with the Venture when they built in 2 points of stability. Such a solution would make it easier for the hunter to determine how many points they'd need, but ultimately would do little to change whether or not the WCS are over-powered on t1 industrials.
"Such a solution would make it easier for the hunter to determine how many points they'd need, but ultimately would do little to change whether or not the WCS are over-powered on t1 industrials."
DeleteWCS are hard countered by bubbles and infinipoints. The reason that these whiners think that WCS are OP is that they refuse to fly anything that isn't covert cloaked...i.e., they refuse to make tradeoffs themselves.
so sure, take WCS away, and make all my ships easily covert cloaked. Add an extra high slot and ability to fit a covert cloak to my freighter, my epithal, and my skiffs; and take away WCS. Sounds fair to me.