These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Winter] Combat Cruisers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2012-10-03 14:47:45 UTC  |  Edited by: The VC's
Changing the Rupture at this stage is a mistake imo. Balance the other ships against it first, then tweak it after. Just like I suspect you are going to the Rifter. The Rupture is best kept as a reference/control.

I think it's as good as it needs to be right now. Fitting the biggest guns in class, a mwd and a 1600mm plate is a cakewalk. With the Maller (new and old) that's just not possible. Fitting FMPL's, a mwd and a 1600mm will only just be possible on the new Maller, which brings it in-line with the current Ruppy.
On the old Maller you need a +3 PG and an ACR. If you want the neut as well, you need to drop down to a 800mm. The Rupture never has to make those sort of compromises.

And on top of that, the Ruppy gets a neut and 3 Hammerheads. Those drones add a hell of a lot to the Ruppys effectiveness.


Personally, I'd like to see the Ruppy get the Hurricane treatment, so that it will have to choose between big guns or big tank. It'll still be good. It'll just need some piloting skills, as you do when flying the fast 'hit and run' stuff.
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
#322 - 2012-10-03 14:48:38 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
ColdCutz wrote:


- I would also recommend the 5H, 6M, 3L layout for the Moa. It needs enough mids for adequate Tank and Tackle - Staying power.



I'd rather have a 6H (6 turrets), 5M, 3L layout with a 10% optimal range bonus over a 5% damage bonus
I wouldn't be opposed to that either. At a very minimum 5 mids; it's a shield-tanking combat cruiser for crying out loud.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#323 - 2012-10-03 14:56:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
The VC's wrote:
Changing the Rupture at this stage is a mistake imo. Balance the other ships against it first, then tweak it after. Just like I suspect you are going to the Rifter. The Rupture is best kept as a reference/control.

I think it's as good as it needs to be right now. Fitting the biggest guns in class, a mwd and a 1600mm plate is a cakewalk. With the Maller (new and old) that's just not possible. Fitting FMPL's, a mwd and a 1600mm will only just be possible on the new Maller, which brings it in-line with the current Ruppy.
On the old Maller you need a +3 PG and an ACR. If you want the neut as well, you need to drop down to a 800mm. The Rupture never has to make those sort of compromises.

And on top of that, the Ruppy gets a neut and 4 Hammerheads. Those drones add a hell of a lot to the Ruppys effectiveness.


Personally, I'd like to see the Ruppy get the Hurricane treatment, so that it will have to choose between big guns or big tank. It'll still be good. It'll just need some piloting skills, as you do when flying the fast 'hit and run' stuff.




You R P r3t@rded. The Rupture cannot fit 425mm with a 1600mm plate and a mwd. You lit have no idea what you're on about. I can hardly fit 220mm on a armor-Rupture. Get out!


The Moa is fine and just needs to be able to field more drones. Could say the same about the Maller. Maybe all combat cruisers should be able to field a full flight of small drones @ a minium.

Also, if kiting is the concern of most in this thread. Well guess what? Many cruisers will be able to do it better than the Rupture and do more damage too. Infact all combat cruisers can be nano'ed and shield tanked. Same with the attack cruisers and they're all viable @ it.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#324 - 2012-10-03 15:00:14 UTC
If the thorax is the 'attack' cruiser and the vexor is the 'combat' one, why are their speeds so similar? For shield tanked setups with no speed-affecting mods, the thorax MWDs at 1.99 km/s while the vexor does 1.91. That's hardly a decisive difference.
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#325 - 2012-10-03 15:00:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kai'rae Saarkus
ColdCutz wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
ColdCutz wrote:


- I would also recommend the 5H, 6M, 3L layout for the Moa. It needs enough mids for adequate Tank and Tackle - Staying power.



I'd rather have a 6H (6 turrets), 5M, 3L layout with a 10% optimal range bonus over a 5% damage bonus
I wouldn't be opposed to that either. At a very minimum 5 mids; it's a shield-tanking combat cruiser for crying out loud.


Anybody with any love for the Rax would be opposed to it.

Also: the Shield bonus is effectively another mid. So 6, 4, 4 allows you to fit a gank:

Lows: Nano, 3x Mag Stab
Mids: MWD, LSE, Scram, Web
Highs: 5 Blasters, Sml Neut

Or, Tank

Lows: Nano, 2x Mag Stab, TE
Mids: MWD, LSE, Invuln, Scram
Highs: 5 Blasters, Sml NOS
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#326 - 2012-10-03 15:19:08 UTC
The proposed Moa will do @tleast 500 damage p second with turrets alone, with faction navy ammunition. @ the moment it's only capable of 380 damage p second or something.

That's a big leap in damage and I'm not going to go into how fast the ship is. The Cynabal, Vagabond and Deimos wont offer much over these ships in shield configuration anymore. The relm of speed has be increased significantly; with to many players, but here we are.

Things are so skewed I have no idea where CCP is going with these changes. Doubt they do. The Interceptor class was ruined by there changes so far and that was a very popular class of ship.

I assume these changes will do the same for heavy assault cruisers, with 1 or 2 exceptions (Zealot).


One thing I did find interesting was something said in another thread "Why are so many tech 1 cruisers faster than destroyers?"

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#327 - 2012-10-03 15:31:14 UTC
I think you'll find if you're patient that the t2 frigs and cruisers will be changed up sarting in the spring maybe after they do the BC's.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#328 - 2012-10-03 15:36:10 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
You R P r3t@rded. The Rupture cannot fit 425mm with a 1600mm plate and a mwd. You lit have no idea what you're on about. I can hardly fit 220mm on a armor-Rupture. Get out!



220mm/1600mm is a piece of pish to fit. Fmpl/1600mm needs an ACR and a +3pg.

425mm/1600mm fits with a RCU. Hmpl/1600mm needs 3 RCU. That's just a dumb fit.


And the rupture does more damage, projects well with a comparable tank. Just saying, the ruppy's a good performer. It doesn't need a buff right now. The maller definitely does.
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
Doomheim
#329 - 2012-10-03 15:44:21 UTC
Quote:
Major Killz
Posted: 2012.10.03 15:19

The proposed Moa will do @tleast 500 damage p second with turrets alone, with faction navy ammunition. @ the moment it's only capable of 380 damage p second or something.

That's a big leap in damage and I'm not going to go into how fast the ship is. The Cynabal, Vagabond and Deimos wont offer much over these ships in shield configuration anymore. The relm of speed has be increased significantly; with to many players, but here we are.

Things are so skewed I have no idea where CCP is going with these changes. Doubt they do. The Interceptor class was ruined by there changes so far and that was a very popular class of ship.

I assume these changes will do the same for heavy assault cruisers, with 1 or 2 exceptions (Zealot).


One thing I did find interesting was something said in another thread "Why are so many tech 1 cruisers faster than destroyers?"


Okay okay. We now know you are the mastertroll here.
Moa with 500dps is a kiting victim for every Rupture.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#330 - 2012-10-03 15:48:47 UTC
the more I look at the ships the more I am ok with how they are. I only have 2 questions. 1 way does the Maller have such a large cargo bay? It only has 3 mid slots and the fitting is so tight it cant fit a cap booster If it was changed over to missiles I could see the need for such a large bay. 2 why does the ruppy go faster then all the other races attach cruisers. I am ok with it being faster then the combat cruisers but not faster then the attack cruisers.
Reticle
Sight Picture
#331 - 2012-10-03 15:51:11 UTC
Why aren't these threads advertised? No dev blog, no news item. I learned about it through eve news 24.
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#332 - 2012-10-03 15:54:38 UTC
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:
Quote:
Major Killz
Posted: 2012.10.03 15:19

The proposed Moa will do @tleast 500 damage p second with turrets alone, with faction navy ammunition. @ the moment it's only capable of 380 damage p second or something.

That's a big leap in damage and I'm not going to go into how fast the ship is. The Cynabal, Vagabond and Deimos wont offer much over these ships in shield configuration anymore. The relm of speed has be increased significantly; with to many players, but here we are.

Things are so skewed I have no idea where CCP is going with these changes. Doubt they do. The Interceptor class was ruined by there changes so far and that was a very popular class of ship.

I assume these changes will do the same for heavy assault cruisers, with 1 or 2 exceptions (Zealot).


One thing I did find interesting was something said in another thread "Why are so many tech 1 cruisers faster than destroyers?"


Okay okay. We now know you are the mastertroll here.
Moa with 500dps is a kiting victim for every Rupture.


A blaster boat is a kiting victim for a Rupture. Moa's arn't exception in that regard.
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#333 - 2012-10-03 16:06:09 UTC
The VC's wrote:
Changing the Rupture at this stage is a mistake imo. Balance the other ships against it first, then tweak it after. Just like I suspect you are going to the Rifter. The Rupture is best kept as a reference/control.


I think all Cruisers are supposed to be stronger than the Rupture currently is. So it need a buff aswell but it might turn out to be a too big buff.

And about the Rifter. I don't think they had planned to buff it as their goal was to get all frigs up on Rifter level. Though I can't say if they are actually gonna buff it.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#334 - 2012-10-03 16:13:52 UTC  |  Edited by: The VC's
Mizhir wrote:
The VC's wrote:
Changing the Rupture at this stage is a mistake imo. Balance the other ships against it first, then tweak it after. Just like I suspect you are going to the Rifter. The Rupture is best kept as a reference/control.


I think all Cruisers are supposed to be stronger than the Rupture currently is. So it need a buff aswell but it might turn out to be a too big buff.

And about the Rifter. I don't think they had planned to buff it as their goal was to get all frigs up on Rifter level. Though I can't say if they are actually gonna buff it.


Posted in a 'The Rifter's crap now' thread sometime after the first buffs.

CCP Fozzie

"We have fun things in mind for that minmatar shield boost bonus and tech one frigs. More information will come once we get the design a bit more polished."

"To be clear, the shield boost bonus isn't for the Rifter. We have something special in mind for it. "


Can't find the specific thread.
And lets be honest. The Rifter still needs a bit of something.

The buffing strategy on the first round of combat frigs was pretty spot on imho. I don't think the ruppy's going to be gimped if it's left out of this round.


Edit. Rifter thread link https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=136282


Edit 2. Maybe not then. Poor Rifter
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:

Didn't you say you had something special in mind for the Rifters' second bonus?

Any word on that?


I phrased it ambiguously, my bad. I meant that we had something special in mind for the minmatar active tank bonus on frigates. That was the Breacher.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#335 - 2012-10-03 16:32:47 UTC
Yeah! Guess what?

A Stabber, Omen, Caracal, Bellicose, and shield-Thorax will alll victimized a Moa. congratulations with your astutue observation of something that's been going on in this game for a long time.

There are ships that kite and those that can get kited. Amazing, grats for all of your informative inputBlink

It's not like I haven't been stating over and over again what ships are capable of kiting and those who excel @ close range. Roll

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#336 - 2012-10-03 16:39:23 UTC
Anyway, I was thinking about using Reinforced Bulkheads II on the Vexor Smile Use the midslot for dual propulsion and a tracking disruptor. Lol wanted to try something new v0v

You know! I really believe CCP could make hull tanking alot more viable.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Kesthely
Mestana
#337 - 2012-10-03 17:08:01 UTC
Poor maller:

No room for ewar, no drones, only viable for armor setup and such becomming the slowest ship of all cruisers, with no damage. No backup weapon systems means any ship fitting a tracking disruptor will be able 1 vs 1 it without danger of dying.

In its current form it has no use in PVP and with the arbitrator and Omen changes i doubt anyone will use it for pve either.

Strange Moa:

You look so odd, you fly so odd. i don't get a good vibe of this ship, i think it should get a midslot more for either a high or low slot less.

Damage to the Max Vexor

880 dps on a t1 cruiser, and still deliciously tough and reasonably fast. This thing will outperform most short range bc's till they get rebalanced

Love it or hate it Rupture

Hmmm personally i don't like it... i don't like to fly it, i don't ike to face it.

Rupture and vexor look incredible. Moa and maller need a little bit more attention
Aphatasis
Free Carpenters Union
#338 - 2012-10-03 17:12:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Aphatasis
Third time i mention this:

Combat Cruiser:
Maller -> T2: Devoter + Sacrilege
Moa -> T2: Onyx + Eagle
Rupture -> T2: Broadswoard + Muninn
Vexor -> T2: Ishtar

Attack Cruiser:
Omen -> T2: Zealot
Caracal -> T2: Cerberus
Stabber -> T2: Vagabond
Thorax -> T2: Phobos + Deimos

Do u get what's wrong here?
Again: Bad Idea!

And: I Hope u "switched" the mineral-needs for the Thorax and Vexor if u stay with this idea!
Thorax cost about 60% more in production than a Vexor.

Edit:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1908100#post1908100
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1940848#post1940848
Wivabel
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#339 - 2012-10-03 17:47:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Wivabel
Aphatasis wrote:
Third time i mention this:

Combat Cruiser:
Maller -> T2: Devoter + Sacrilege
Moa -> T2: Onyx + Eagle
Rupture -> T2: Broadswoard + Muninn
Vexor -> T2: Ishtar

Attack Cruiser:
Omen -> T2: Zealot
Caracal -> T2: Cerberus
Stabber -> T2: Vagabond
Thorax -> T2: Phobos + Deimos

Do u get what's wrong here?
Again: Bad Idea!

And: I Hope u "switched" the mineral-needs for the Thorax and Vexor if u stay with this idea!
Thorax cost about 60% more in production than a Vexor.

Edit:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1908100#post1908100
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1940848#post1940848



It makes more sense to have drone boats as the slower tankier versions of ships and blaster boats the faster gankier ships. They will adjust build costs just like they have done with the frigs.

I am not sure if I am going to log in anymore.......
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#340 - 2012-10-03 17:56:08 UTC
the vexor does seem to have the wrong priorities really it needs a rethink.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using