These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Changing the Muninn to a Missile ship

Author
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#21 - 2016-10-28 16:31:17 UTC
Cristl wrote:
There's no way a ship will get a 10% rate of fire bonus per level unless it is a split-weapon ship, so be realistic. 10% ROF would double the dps at level V for a single weapon system. That isn't going to happen.

I'm not against a Minmatar missile HAC though, and the Muninn is certainly a flawed concept to be honest. Artillery just don't synergise with armour tanking.

For nostalgia, here's a post I made back in 2008. While many changes have made that post inapplicable to the modern game, it's still true (and a shame) that the Muninn hasn't had a single day in the sun for eight years Sad


The muninn originally has a double damage bonus.. its just split between rof and dmg. The claymore has 15% RoF (same number of launchers) at lvl5 skills. The proposed muninn would slot it under the claymore, but still follow the same theme. Giving natural progression in the ship tree.

Yes rof is a slightly higher "dps" boost than a damage bonus. But youre also dealing with missiles, which need an extra kick for them to be decent. The sacrilege for example has a rof and damage bonus, but struggles to break past 340dps with just missiles. The sac has a larger drone bay than the proposed muninn here to compensate on damage. The muninn has a higher rof with a smaller drone bay to bump its damage in the normal HAC range of 400-500dps (unless youre gallente cause theyre special).

Doing some basic math, it looks like it would 400-420dps in just missiles with 3 BCUs. Plus another 80ish from drones. Which places it nicely in the normal HAC dps range, especially for minmatar.
Cristl
#22 - 2016-10-28 17:11:12 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Cristl wrote:
There's no way a ship will get a 10% rate of fire bonus per level unless it is a split-weapon ship, so be realistic. 10% ROF would double the dps at level V for a single weapon system. That isn't going to happen.

I'm not against a Minmatar missile HAC though, and the Muninn is certainly a flawed concept to be honest. Artillery just don't synergise with armour tanking.

For nostalgia, here's a post I made back in 2008. While many changes have made that post inapplicable to the modern game, it's still true (and a shame) that the Muninn hasn't had a single day in the sun for eight years Sad


The muninn originally has a double damage bonus.. its just split between rof and dmg. The claymore has 15% RoF (same number of launchers) at lvl5 skills. The proposed muninn would slot it under the claymore, but still follow the same theme. Giving natural progression in the ship tree.

Yes rof is a slightly higher "dps" boost than a damage bonus. But youre also dealing with missiles, which need an extra kick for them to be decent. The sacrilege for example has a rof and damage bonus, but struggles to break past 340dps with just missiles. The sac has a larger drone bay than the proposed muninn here to compensate on damage. The muninn has a higher rof with a smaller drone bay to bump its damage in the normal HAC range of 400-500dps (unless youre gallente cause theyre special).

Doing some basic math, it looks like it would 400-420dps in just missiles with 3 BCUs. Plus another 80ish from drones. Which places it nicely in the normal HAC dps range, especially for minmatar.


I'm not sure what you mean. At the moment the Claymore, a T2 battlecruiser, has 5 launchers and gets 5% ROF per level of BC and 5% per level of command ships. So a 78% dps bonus if you train command ships V (an epic train). (that's 8.9 launcher equivalents)

Whereas you seem to be proposing a 10% ROF bonus per level of cruiser, so 100% dps bonus at cruiser V, HAC I. That's 10 launcher equivalents for a much shorter train. I just can't see it happening.

Go back and flesh out your idea a bit. It has potential, but the ship can't have a massive dps boost without needing to train the T2 skill. The T1 skill at V is the baseline that all pilots would have to have just to sit in it.

(realtime edit) I'm not writing any more - the forums have eaten too much bloody text (DDoS somewhere?) but I'm sure you know what i mean.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#23 - 2016-10-28 18:07:05 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Cristl wrote:



I'm not sure what you mean. At the moment the Claymore, a T2 battlecruiser, has 5 launchers and gets 5% ROF per level of BC and 5% per level of command ships. So a 78% dps bonus if you train command ships V (an epic train). (that's 8.9 launcher equivalents)



Ehh. Role-wise, a command ship is NOT just a BC-sized HAC-equivalent, so I don't know if that's the best argument.

The Sacrilege has more effective launchers than a Damnation, for instance. Sure, move the ROF to the HAC skill, perhaps.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Erik Kalkoken
The Congregation
420 MLG TWINTURBO 3000 EMPIRE ALLIANCE RELOADED
#24 - 2016-10-28 18:10:53 UTC
I think this is a bad idea. There already are two missile based HACs in the game, the armor based Sacrilege and the shield based Cerberus. Making the Muninn a missile boat would just reduce the variety.

Besides the Muninn is a fantastic PVP boat as it is. No need to change anything.

If you want to fly a shield based HAC with missiles, check out the Cerberus.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#25 - 2016-10-28 18:14:21 UTC
Cristl wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Cristl wrote:
There's no way a ship will get a 10% rate of fire bonus per level unless it is a split-weapon ship, so be realistic. 10% ROF would double the dps at level V for a single weapon system. That isn't going to happen.

I'm not against a Minmatar missile HAC though, and the Muninn is certainly a flawed concept to be honest. Artillery just don't synergise with armour tanking.

For nostalgia, here's a post I made back in 2008. While many changes have made that post inapplicable to the modern game, it's still true (and a shame) that the Muninn hasn't had a single day in the sun for eight years Sad


The muninn originally has a double damage bonus.. its just split between rof and dmg. The claymore has 15% RoF (same number of launchers) at lvl5 skills. The proposed muninn would slot it under the claymore, but still follow the same theme. Giving natural progression in the ship tree.

Yes rof is a slightly higher "dps" boost than a damage bonus. But youre also dealing with missiles, which need an extra kick for them to be decent. The sacrilege for example has a rof and damage bonus, but struggles to break past 340dps with just missiles. The sac has a larger drone bay than the proposed muninn here to compensate on damage. The muninn has a higher rof with a smaller drone bay to bump its damage in the normal HAC range of 400-500dps (unless youre gallente cause theyre special).

Doing some basic math, it looks like it would 400-420dps in just missiles with 3 BCUs. Plus another 80ish from drones. Which places it nicely in the normal HAC dps range, especially for minmatar.


I'm not sure what you mean. At the moment the Claymore, a T2 battlecruiser, has 5 launchers and gets 5% ROF per level of BC and 5% per level of command ships. So a 78% dps bonus if you train command ships V (an epic train). (that's 8.9 launcher equivalents)

Whereas you seem to be proposing a 10% ROF bonus per level of cruiser, so 100% dps bonus at cruiser V, HAC I. That's 10 launcher equivalents for a much shorter train. I just can't see it happening.

Go back and flesh out your idea a bit. It has potential, but the ship can't have a massive dps boost without needing to train the T2 skill. The T1 skill at V is the baseline that all pilots would have to have just to sit in it.

(realtime edit) I'm not writing any more - the forums have eaten too much bloody text (DDoS somewhere?) but I'm sure you know what i mean.



Oops. I done goofed those numbers. I could of sworn claymore had 2 7.5% RoF bonuses.

Yeah youre right that is too high. So a 7.5% RoF bonus might be better instead.

Btw, the current muninn gets all of its damage with only the minmatar cruiser skill, its not locked behind the HAC skill. HAC skill only gives tracking/optimal bonuses to current muninn traits. So CCP has already set precedent of having all your damage with just the cruiser skill. Maybe we could move the shield boost to HAC skill to make it more valuable.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#26 - 2016-10-28 18:25:29 UTC
Erik Kalkoken wrote:


Besides the Muninn is a fantastic PVP boat as it is. No need to change anything.


The Killboard for it says otherwise. Its the least used HAC in the game and there are very few groups who use them (outside of gate camps). Which gate camps dont count as a proving ground of how good a ship is.

Show me examples of how the muninn is a fantastic pvp boat, and ill show you a fleet cane that does it better.

As far as variety, you didnt read my post. This is a shield brawler that is more about application than range. The sac is an armor brawler, the cerb is a sniper/kiter. Cerbs die quick in a brawling scenario. The revised Muninn is more of a shield brawler, not a kiter. Hence the shield boost bonus and application bonus. It also doesnt have bonuses that apply to RLML, its meant to use HML/HAMs, where as the cerb is 90% RLML.

Also, minmatar HACs are missing minmatars secondary weapon system. All other races have both weapons available in their HACs.

Cerb = missiles
Eagle = hybrids

Deimos = hybrid
Ishtar = drones

Zealot = lasers
Sac = missiles (and drones, kind of. Large drone bay for a non drone cruiser)

Vagabond = projectiles
Muninn = projectiles

Minmatar's secondary weapon system is missiles, which is not represented.
Dreadeye
F.U.N. Inc.
The Ancients.
#27 - 2016-10-28 18:53:08 UTC
I think you guys should take them out in a fleet have some fights with them and come back and tell us what you think. I think a lot dont really know what to do with the Munnins, cerbs have been the easiest kitey fleet comp to get into.

BL exelled at using Munnins at one point and thoose that came across a BL munnin gang was right in fearing it.

it could use an ekstra mid slot and a bit more agility though
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#28 - 2016-10-28 19:08:53 UTC
Dreadeye wrote:
I think you guys should take them out in a fleet have some fights with them and come back and tell us what you think. I think a lot dont really know what to do with the Munnins, cerbs have been the easiest kitey fleet comp to get into.

BL exelled at using Munnins at one point and thoose that came across a BL munnin gang was right in fearing it.

it could use an ekstra mid slot and a bit more agility though


When BL used Muninns it was a completely different meta. Muninns cant compete against arty machs and canes in the current meta. I fought a muninn fleet when i was in TRI a long time ago. It was hilarious alpha'ing a muninn every few seconds in arty machs. They dont have the tank or damage to be competitive anymore.
Dreadeye
F.U.N. Inc.
The Ancients.
#29 - 2016-10-28 19:15:50 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Dreadeye wrote:
I think you guys should take them out in a fleet have some fights with them and come back and tell us what you think. I think a lot dont really know what to do with the Munnins, cerbs have been the easiest kitey fleet comp to get into.

BL exelled at using Munnins at one point and thoose that came across a BL munnin gang was right in fearing it.

it could use an ekstra mid slot and a bit more agility though


When BL used Muninns it was a completely different meta. Muninns cant compete against arty machs and canes in the current meta. I fought a muninn fleet when i was in TRI a long time ago. It was hilarious alpha'ing a muninn every few seconds in arty machs. They dont have the tank or damage to be competitive anymore.



Well.. we are having a lot of great fights in them lately and they work very well for what we have engaged and we have taken some fights that was not completely in our favor. with every doctrine you need critical mass for what you are fighting against, its not agument for not using munnins.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#30 - 2016-10-28 20:49:42 UTC
Dreadeye wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Dreadeye wrote:
I think you guys should take them out in a fleet have some fights with them and come back and tell us what you think. I think a lot dont really know what to do with the Munnins, cerbs have been the easiest kitey fleet comp to get into.

BL exelled at using Munnins at one point and thoose that came across a BL munnin gang was right in fearing it.

it could use an ekstra mid slot and a bit more agility though


When BL used Muninns it was a completely different meta. Muninns cant compete against arty machs and canes in the current meta. I fought a muninn fleet when i was in TRI a long time ago. It was hilarious alpha'ing a muninn every few seconds in arty machs. They dont have the tank or damage to be competitive anymore.



Well.. we are having a lot of great fights in them lately and they work very well for what we have engaged and we have taken some fights that was not completely in our favor. with every doctrine you need critical mass for what you are fighting against, its not agument for not using munnins.


"We outnumbered our opponents heavily, so the muninn is fine" any ship can be considered fine when you outnumber (having critical mass to alpha) or have a better comp than your opponent (or opponents lack of comp).

I looked through your corps KB and can only find a few cases where you used muninns. You werent fighting a huge corp, but calmil in what looked like a kitchen sink fleet. And i cant find any losses. So 0 lossed muninns and you killed a phantasm, hugginn, lach and 2-3 other ships. Looks more like a gate camp or seal clubbing than an actual fleet fight.

But im willing to admit being wrong, maybe KB is missing kills/losses. I just find it odd i can find 0 losses and only a couple engagements.

Maybe its cause youre in LS. But in null, muninn comps get vollied off field as theyre paper thin tank wise.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#31 - 2016-10-28 20:59:11 UTC
I agree that the Muninn needs help, but I don't think making it a missile ship is the solution. It just needs to become an effective artillery ship.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#32 - 2016-10-30 02:13:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
So, lets say we do make it an effective artillery ship. Or even just fix the issue it has now.

-1 turret
move a high to a mid
increase 5% damage bonus to 10% damage bonus

So great, now its relatively unchanged (slight loss in alpha as compared to before) in damage, is easier to fit, and has a semi-flexible layout.

What does it do though, that the fleet hurricane can't, at least as far as artillery is concerned?

Maybe shoot a little bit farther with tremor? Its tank still won't be as effective as the hurricane's (though in shield form, will be an improvement over current stats). Yes, i expect a BC to field a bigger tank and more damage than a HAC to some extent (though some HAC's do more damage than BCs, such as the deimos/cerb/ishtar). However, looking at cost, the fleet cane is 160m roughly, and the muninn is 140-180m. So for 20m more, you can get something that has way more pro's than con's in comparison. Plus it insures better. And if you somehow have a militia hook-up, then fleet canes are cheap as chips (70m).

The argument could be made that it would move, align, warp faster. But that is literally all it would have going for it. It also doesn't have the option to reposition with MJD like the fleet cane.

Now going back to the fact that minmatar are missing their secondary weapon system in the HAC line-up (unlike every other race), it kind of makes sense to change the muninn into a missile ship.

As someone who flies a lot of artillery ships, i don't like the idea of taking an artillery ship away, but the Muninn (even when fixed) doesn't bring anything new to the table that other ship don't already do.
Uriam Khanid
New Machinarium Corporation
#33 - 2016-10-30 11:22:30 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
So, lets say we do make it an effective artillery ship. Or even just fix the issue it has now.

-1 turret
move a high to a mid


armour vagabond? Big smile
may be the problem is not a slot layout. may be problem in ships line of bonuses?
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#34 - 2016-10-30 20:08:33 UTC
Uriam Khanid wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
So, lets say we do make it an effective artillery ship. Or even just fix the issue it has now.

-1 turret
move a high to a mid


armour vagabond? Big smile
may be the problem is not a slot layout. may be problem in ships line of bonuses?


Na, bonuses work fine for artillery. Its designed around artillery. Its just the slot layout is terrible, because its forcing it into an armor role.

With only 3 mids, it really limits what an armor fit can do. For example, lets say you wanted to turn it into a armor kiter (like ONI), you would have to go point/mwd/cap booster and then rep in the low. Problem is, its not fast/agile like an ONI, so its easy for something to get under your guns and kill you. Plus you don't have 7 lows to do nano/tank/damage etc, and the muninn has some pretty big resist holes to fill, since its t2 resists do nothing for armor tanks.

Ok, so fit a plate. Great, now you're slower and its even harder to fit artillery. Oh, and you do no damage since you needed to use fitting rigs/mods just to get your fit on there in the first place.

with 4 mids, you do a kite setup+web, or even a light shield kite setup. Fleet shield fits would improve too, plus it would be easier to fit as an armor tank too (with only 4 turrets instead of 5) and still giving more mids for more utility (tracking computers).

But that still comes back to the base issue. Lets say thats how we fix the muninn, remove a gun, add a mid, increase damage. Does it still fill a role that isn't already filled by the hurricane/sleipnir? Again, the argument could be made that it has a smaller sig and slightly faster, but its still fairly flimsy.

A missile muninn would be something that would both flesh out the minmatar HAC's, and be something new in the HAC line (there are no missile ships with application bonus, only range bonus).
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2016-10-31 01:14:14 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


But that still comes back to the base issue. Lets say thats how we fix the muninn, remove a gun, add a mid, increase damage. Does it still fill a role that isn't already filled by the hurricane/sleipnir? Again, the argument could be made that it has a smaller sig and slightly faster, but its still fairly flimsy.


Actually that's not flimsy. Fixed that way it would make an excellent skirmisher, which is not a role that the Cane can do effectively since, as you note, it's bigger and slower. It would have a fundamentally different role than the Cane, with one being a light long range skirmisher, which the other serves as more of a ship of the line platform.

All of that aside, the Munnin does need some kind of help. But I have to agree that swapping it to a missile platform may not be the way to do it.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#36 - 2016-10-31 04:36:46 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


But that still comes back to the base issue. Lets say thats how we fix the muninn, remove a gun, add a mid, increase damage. Does it still fill a role that isn't already filled by the hurricane/sleipnir? Again, the argument could be made that it has a smaller sig and slightly faster, but its still fairly flimsy.


Actually that's not flimsy. Fixed that way it would make an excellent skirmisher, which is not a role that the Cane can do effectively since, as you note, it's bigger and slower. It would have a fundamentally different role than the Cane, with one being a light long range skirmisher, which the other serves as more of a ship of the line platform.

All of that aside, the Munnin does need some kind of help. But I have to agree that swapping it to a missile platform may not be the way to do it.


To an extent. The fleet cane (as that is the primary competitor of the muninn) has a better tracking bonus and more damage. So, in a brawling role, it can brawl/skirmish the same (if not better since it has 2 utility highs for neuts).

Yes, the Muninn is faster, but that is minor in the scheme of things. Muninn is 1913m/s with MWD cold, where as the fleet hurricane is about 1461 cold. So.. about 500 m/s faster, which is significant i know, but hear me out. The fleet cane can do something the Muninn cannot, which is MJD.

It can bring targets to it from range and hold them, it can intercept targets that try to flee. Yea 1900m/s muninn is fast enough to F1 approach into targets, but is slow if you ever hope to catch anything that is trying to get away. Here is the perfect example of this, where i'm on the verge of killing an orthrus but he burns away (at 4k/s), a Muninn has no way to kill him before he gets away, even if i'm burning after him OH at 2800m/s. I'm able to intercept with MJD.

Maybe if they buff the Muninn speed more? Bring its cold speed up to 2100m/s or so, that could make it more viable with the proposed turret change. But, it still feels like its competing with the fleet cane too much. And minmatar's secondary weapon system is still not utilized in the HAC line-up, like every other race is. If it was a missile platform as proposed it would still be just as much of a skirmisher as you're stating, it will just be using missiles instead, with a slot layout that is unique and has no other competition with other ships.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#37 - 2016-10-31 10:39:07 UTC
So, what's the role for this missile HAC? In a world that already has the Scythe Fleet Issue, Cerberus, Claymore, Drake, Navy Drake, Sacrilege, Navy Caracal, Nighthawk, etc....

I'm not opposed to your idea. Eve just has too many ships.

I like the idea of moving a high to a mid. I think the Muninn you proposed could work really well with a 5-5-5 layout (no utility high, five turrets). Or do it as a 5-5-5 missile boat.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#38 - 2016-10-31 12:45:54 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
So, what's the role for this missile HAC? In a world that already has the Scythe Fleet Issue, Cerberus, Claymore, Drake, Navy Drake, Sacrilege, Navy Caracal, Nighthawk, etc....

I'm not opposed to your idea. Eve just has too many ships.

I like the idea of moving a high to a mid. I think the Muninn you proposed could work really well with a 5-5-5 layout (no utility high, five turrets). Or do it as a 5-5-5 missile boat.


The role for the missile muninn would be more focused on application and RoF. A dps focused ship with no damage bonus (bonuses do not synergize with RLML, only HAMS/HML).

So in comparison to scyfi/cerb/naracal, they are all heavily biased to rlml. And the naracal does not have drones, nor can it brawl effectively. Same as the cerb. Scyfi/cerb do not have an application bonus, and the scyfi has a missile damage bonus, not RoF. Plus the proposed Muninn has a range bonus combined with application bonus. Making it feasible to kite with HAMS, assuming you use the proper fit setup for application.

Navy drake is similar, but also cannot fit an active tank unless going with RLML, which is not what the proposed Muninn is focused on. Its a get in your face brawler (like deimos), face tank and get out.

T1 drake is kinetic lock with no application bonus, plus it cannot fit an active tank without heavy gimping.

Claymore is a CS, the inspiration of the new Muninn. They would be similar, but the muninn would have a range bonus, be faster, smaller sig and be easier to sit in (natural progression to claymore).

Nighthawk doesnt have range and also cannot active tank effectively. Sacrilege is an armor brawler, and also does not have an application bonus.

Its not that we are adding a new ship, just repurposing an underutilized ship. Im willing to move a high to a mid or low on the missile ship, as missile boats arent quite as susceptible to frigs, but minmatar theme tends to have a utility high. However, a 5/5/5 layout would keep it quite flexible. Even a 5/6/4 layout could be very interesting, though i suspect that would be too strong.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#39 - 2016-10-31 21:12:04 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Is the problem the muninn, or is the problem medium projectiles?

It's the Munin. The thing is just awful, the slot layout makes no sense and it's heavily constrained in terms of fitting.

If it lost it's completely pointless utility high in favor of an additional med it would be much more viable both as an armor brawler and as a shield tanked skirmish thing.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#40 - 2016-11-01 05:22:46 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Is the problem the muninn, or is the problem medium projectiles?

It's the Munin. The thing is just awful, the slot layout makes no sense and it's heavily constrained in terms of fitting.

If it lost it's completely pointless utility high in favor of an additional med it would be much more viable both as an armor brawler and as a shield tanked skirmish thing.


To be fair, the utility high isn't useless, a medium neut fits well there and is good for disabling frigates or some cruisers. Muninn's base cap is one of the few redeeming qualities, as its got a fairly large cap pool/regen (for a cruiser).

If you get rid of the utility high and keep the current gun bonuses, it just becomes a T2 stabber fleet issue. Which i guess isn't terrible, but the utility high gives it something the stabber fleet doesn't have. In my opinion, gun boats without utility highs (at least minmatar) are quite vulnerable.

I'd be more willing to lose the utility high if it went missiles, since no tracking concerns.

Is far easier to keep utility high and drop a turret, and then increase damage bonus to compensate. Best of both worlds (assuming CCP sticks to the Muninn as a gun boat).
Previous page123Next page