These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mehall
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#261 - 2012-09-19 15:10:20 UTC
Roime wrote:
Rayner Vanguard wrote:


Well, I was wrong
In fact, whole Thorax defends is nerfed

Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1200(-324) / 1600(-41) / 1700(-175)

Thorax current hull is 1875

I don't want Thorax to be another Diemost (Deimos if you don't know what I meant)

And, Thorax's price is also higher than other attack cruiser due to the mineral requirement


It looks like a nerf because it's currently a tier 2 hull with higher base stats than the other three here. And check Fozzie's post above about the mineral issue.

I'm burning to fly an Exequror+Thorax gang with Celestis support Twisted





So tiericide means stripping everything back to the tier 1? The tier that (almost) NEVER gets used?
Aiifa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#262 - 2012-09-19 15:17:56 UTC
I hope these changes are reworked totally before being pushed. They're in the right direction, but they're not quite right. The answer to difficult to fly and flimsy ships isn't to throw more slots and fitting at them. It's to balance everything around them. Including gameplay.


I've already whined about this here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=692924#post692924
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#263 - 2012-09-19 15:28:46 UTC
Mehall wrote:

So tiericide means stripping everything back to the tier 1? The tier that (almost) NEVER gets used?


No it means balancing the ships around their roles instead of tier, which made ships never being used.Blink
LAlpha
BLACK STUMP AU INC
#264 - 2012-09-19 16:04:55 UTC  |  Edited by: LAlpha
Seldom ever post anything. But this round I am going to have to say something.

First of all I do not think Tweaking Existing Game Mechanics can be considered an Expansion. I think Expansions should be about better Graphics (e.g. Update to Existing Ship Models) new Ships, new and improved Game assets and Infrastructure (e.g. POS rework), improved Missions and so on.

Second, these changes to HMLs (which to me is a complete Nerf) makes solo and very small fleet PVE activities extremely difficult. I do not know what is CCP reason behind such an obvious nerf but whatever their intention, it will impact a sizable portion of EVE players in obtaining in game assets. These players may be silent and invisible in the forums but they are a part of what makes EVE a viable business. By removing a useful weapon system without replacing it with an alternative makes EVE (Pay to Play game) into a game style similar to that found on Mobile Platforms. This in the long run may spiral EVE into business difficulty.

Finally, I have to say that CCP should be very well aware that a small group of dedicated players like myself, no matter how may accounts we own, cannot keep CCP alive as a business. I hope that CCP considers its every action very carefully. Because, I like EVE and I want to be able to play this game decades into the future.
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#265 - 2012-09-19 16:23:34 UTC
On first glance the Caracal changes looked a bit flacid. Where other already exceptional cruisers become still more epic, the Caldari joke boat would only become useable.

After reading the proposed missile changes I see now that this initial impression was in error. The Caracal will end up worse off than it is today -- a cruiser pushing the DPS of a T1 frigate.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#266 - 2012-09-19 16:29:40 UTC
LAlpha wrote:

First of all I do not think Tweaking Existing Game Mechanics can be considered an Expansion. I think Expansions should be about better Graphics (e.g. Update to Existing Ship Models) new Ships, new and improved Game assets and Infrastructure (e.g. POS rework), improved Missions and so on.


In a very real way, these ships are new ships. These ships are new content. This is not your average themepark MMO - and should not be thought of as such, nor held to the same "new space, new graphics, new whatever" standard you held WOW to. Furthermore, it's a free expansion and the Winter expansion is shaping up to be one of the best they've ever had.

And you complain about it? WTF?

Quote:

Second, these changes to HMLs (which to me is a complete Nerf) makes solo and very small fleet PVE activities extremely difficult. I do not know what is CCP reason behind such an obvious nerf but whatever their intention, it will impact a sizable portion of EVE players in obtaining in game assets. These players may be silent and invisible in the forums but they are a part of what makes EVE a viable business. By removing a useful weapon system without replacing it with an alternative makes EVE (Pay to Play game) into a game style similar to that found on Mobile Platforms. This in the long run may spiral EVE into business difficulty.


Do you actually solo or small gang PVP or are you just teasing? Because from my perspective the changes are either a well deserved nerf to something that's obviously overpowered (I have 2-3x more kills in a Drake than all other ships combined...) or a massive boost to Caldari PVP. What are you complaining about?

Quote:

Finally, I have to say that CCP should be very well aware that a small group of dedicated players like myself, no matter how may accounts we own, cannot keep CCP alive as a business. I hope that CCP considers its every action very carefully. Because, I like EVE and I want to be able to play this game decades into the future.


Yes, and that's exactly why CCP should prune overpowered ships and modules before they get out of hand. That way it doesn't hurt so much when literally every single person joining the game is told something like: "Train HML, Train Drake, Train Tengu, Congrats you've trained everything worth training in the game". Does that not tell you something is massively out of whack here?

Anyway, talk about the HML changes in the HML thread.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#267 - 2012-09-19 16:29:50 UTC
LAlpha wrote:

First of all I do not think Tweaking Existing Game Mechanics can be considered an Expansion. I think Expansions should be about better Graphics (e.g. Update to Existing Ship Models) new Ships, new and improved Game assets and Infrastructure (e.g. POS rework), improved Missions and so on.


If those changes will make so many ships viable then it can be considered as a new content.Blink

LAlpha wrote:

Second, these changes to HMLs (which to me is a complete Nerf) makes solo and very small fleet PVE activities extremely difficult. I do not know what is CCP reason behind such an obvious nerf but whatever their intention, it will impact a sizable portion of EVE players in obtaining in game assets. These players may be silent and invisible in the forums but they are a part of what makes EVE a viable business. By removing a useful weapon system without replacing it with an alternative makes EVE (Pay to Play game) into a game style similar to that found on Mobile Platforms. This in the long run may spiral EVE into business difficulty.


Funny thing is that most of those missile users think that missiles are only viable form of pve.
The only missile ship I ever used in pve was Tengu and I have been using it for maybe three months before getting terribly bored with it ( using Blasterengu now ).
I use only turret or drone ships for all my pve activities ( low, null and wh ) and I don't seem to have any problems with that.
Sure they require some actual effort and tactics but they work as well as missiles. In many cases they are even better if you put your mind to it and actually think how to engage those rats more efficiently.

LAlpha wrote:

Finally, I have to say that CCP should be very well aware that a small group of dedicated players like myself, no matter how may accounts we own, cannot keep CCP alive as a business. I hope that CCP considers its every action very carefully. Because, I like EVE and I want to be able to play this game decades into the future.


First and foremost they should focus on balancing the game so that ALL ships/modules/weapons/tanks are viable.
Keep in mind that they haven't done T2 cruiser and BC balancing yet.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#268 - 2012-09-19 16:30:07 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
On first glance the Caracal changes looked a bit flacid. Where other already exceptional cruisers become still more epic, the Caldari joke boat would only become useable.

After reading the proposed missile changes I see now that this initial impression was in error. The Caracal will end up worse off than it is today -- a cruiser pushing the DPS of a T1 frigate.


Try putting HAMS on this and see if it is still a Joke. With the HM on it you can hit out to 90k with ~250 DPS in any damage type. This is not the DPS of a T1 frig.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#269 - 2012-09-19 16:31:22 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
On first glance the Caracal changes looked a bit flacid. Where other already exceptional cruisers become still more epic, the Caldari joke boat would only become useable.

After reading the proposed missile changes I see now that this initial impression was in error. The Caracal will end up worse off than it is today -- a cruiser pushing the DPS of a T1 frigate.


The Caracal's DPS is gone into earlier in the thread. It's able to fit a 3 BCU setup with HML, MWD, and LSE and come away with a very reasonable tank and copious amounts of ewar. Furthermore, its DPS difference is pretty minor. You're making a big deal about nothing.

IMO the Caracal and the Thorax are THE standouts of this boost, the Stabber is coming out alright, and the Omen is a steaming pile of **** in practical PVP.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#270 - 2012-09-19 16:32:01 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

Do you actually solo or small gang PVP or are you just teasing?


I think he meant solo/small gang PvE only.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#271 - 2012-09-19 16:40:47 UTC
[Caracal, future]
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile

Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
Medium Ionic Field Projector I

heh. just enough cpu. 50% TDs even without links.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#272 - 2012-09-19 16:47:45 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:

Snipped


Still not enough TD's, once the missile patch goes live. I mean, ultimate EWar man, they ruin everybody's day. Kinda like the ECM of today, but they don't suffer from chance based mechanics.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#273 - 2012-09-19 16:48:20 UTC
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

Do you actually solo or small gang PVP or are you just teasing?


I think he meant solo/small gang PvE only.


What the ****. Is that even a thing?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#274 - 2012-09-19 16:55:32 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

Do you actually solo or small gang PVP or are you just teasing?


I think he meant solo/small gang PvE only.


What the ****. Is that even a thing?

-Liang


Different people, different prioritiesBlink
Dan Carter Murray
#275 - 2012-09-19 17:48:55 UTC
how to make 800 plates slightly worth using?

increase mass addition of 1600 plates to at least 2x 800 plate mass (2,750,000 kg current, 3,750,000 kg proposed).

http://mfi.re/?j7ldoco 50GB free space @ MediaFire.com
Alara IonStorm
#276 - 2012-09-19 18:30:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Dan Carter Murray wrote:
how to make 800 plates slightly worth using?

increase mass addition of 1600 plates to at least 2x 800 plate mass (2,750,000 kg current, 3,750,000 kg proposed).

Yes because what EVE needs is slower armor cruisers fit with 1600mm plates.

If they removed or made unfittible the 1600mm plate the effect would be no one using 800mm plates as current or the armor ships they go on unless they can jigger up a shield fit.

The problem is not 1600mm plates being too good, it is a mix of armor balance and 800mm giving low HP.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#277 - 2012-09-19 18:51:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Dan Carter Murray wrote:
how to make 800 plates slightly worth using?

increase mass addition of 1600 plates to at least 2x 800 plate mass (2,750,000 kg current, 3,750,000 kg proposed).

Yes because what EVE needs is slower armor cruisers fit with 1600mm plates.

If they removed or made unfittible the 1600mm plate the effect would be no one using 800mm plates as current or the armor ships they go on unless they can jigger up a shield fit.

The problem is not 1600mm plates being too good, it is a mix of armor balance and 800mm giving low HP.


1600mm plates are oversized. Oversized modules are often the cause of various problems that we have come to accept as the norm.

However 1600mm plates cannot be brought in line until armor tanking in general stops being bad for everday PvP where speed usually is very important. And by bringing in line I mean disallowing oversized modules.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#278 - 2012-09-19 18:54:33 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Dan Carter Murray wrote:
how to make 800 plates slightly worth using?

increase mass addition of 1600 plates to at least 2x 800 plate mass (2,750,000 kg current, 3,750,000 kg proposed).

Yes because what EVE needs is slower armor cruisers fit with 1600mm plates.

If they removed or made unfittible the 1600mm plate the effect would be no one using 800mm plates as current or the armor ships they go on unless they can jigger up a shield fit.

The problem is not 1600mm plates being too good, it is a mix of armor balance and 800mm giving low HP.


1600mm plates are oversized. Oversized modules are often the cause of various problems that we have come to accept as the norm.


There is much truth in this. If it was harder to fit oversized plates on every ship more ships would be used because the EHP differences wouldn't be as large between ships and make more ships viable.
Alara IonStorm
#279 - 2012-09-19 19:00:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

1600mm plates are oversized. Oversized modules are often the cause of various problems that we have come to accept as the norm.

And I have written positively everywhere that that is the case. I did not say 1600mm Plates should stay as Cruiser Mods, just that as current removing them from the equation will not help 800mm plates get put into practical use period.

MIrple wrote:

There is much truth in this. If it was harder to fit oversized plates on every ship more ships would be used because the EHP differences wouldn't be as large between ships and make more ships viable.

Yes because Cruisers that are fit with 1600mm plates being terrible the obvious solution is to nerf them further, that will make them more used.

Cutting their HP close to in half is not the solution. Making 800mm Plates worth it to fit and fixing the core tanking imbalance is.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#280 - 2012-09-19 19:14:40 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

1600mm plates are oversized. Oversized modules are often the cause of various problems that we have come to accept as the norm.

And I have written positively everywhere that that is the case. I did not say 1600mm Plates should stay as Cruiser Mods, just that as current removing them from the equation will not help 800mm plates get put into practical use period.

MIrple wrote:

There is much truth in this. If it was harder to fit oversized plates on every ship more ships would be used because the EHP differences wouldn't be as large between ships and make more ships viable.

Yes because Cruisers that are fit with 1600mm plates being terrible the obvious solution is to nerf them further, that will make them more used.

Cutting their HP close to in half is not the solution. Making 800mm Plates worth it to fit and fixing the core tanking imbalance is.


I am agreeing with you there have been numerous times when people say you cant join cause that ship cant fit a 1600 plate. This needs to be changed. Now maybe 800 need a boost to HP I'm not sure but 1600 works well on BS so I don't think they need to be changed.