These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Alara IonStorm
#281 - 2012-09-19 19:30:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
MIrple wrote:

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.

A small HP boost would be good, right now they get a very anemic 2400 HP T2 with severe mass penalties.

If their HP was driven up to say 2800-3000 for T2 that would put them into the realm of viable on ships that currently need an ACR but no longer would. The excess fitting allowing a combination of higher guns and a 3rd Trimark giving them a respectable middle. Still would not make them good though, lowering the mass of 800mm's to a static 137500o like Meta 4's get and changing Armor Rig Penalties or removing them would.

The end result would be reasonable HP buffers around 30-35k EHP with speed and Dmg making up the difference while being slower then Shield Ships they would have a good mix of tank, tackle and Dmg.

But that is just my take on it.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#282 - 2012-09-19 19:46:38 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
MIrple wrote:

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.

A small HP boost would be good, right now they get a very anemic 2400 HP T2 with severe mass penalties.

If their HP was driven up to say 2800-3000 for T2 that would put them into the realm of viable on ships that currently need an ACR but no longer would. The excess fitting allowing a combination of higher guns and a 3rd Trimark giving them a respectable middle. Still would not make them good though, lowering the mass of 800mm's to a static 137500o like Meta 4's get and changing Armor Rig Penalties or removing them would.

The end result would be reasonable HP buffers around 30-35k EHP with speed and Dmg making up the difference while being slower then Shield Ships they would have a good mix of tank, tackle and Dmg.

But that is just my take on it.


I don't know, I always imagined buffer tankers as slow and clumsy and lifting those penalties is something I don't agree with.
Active tank on the other hand really needs a rework. Lifting rig penalties for it and making it plain better than it is now is the way to go I think.

slow buffer without cap reliance
vs
fast active with cap reliance

Both options should be viable ( just with different setups )


But that is just my take on it.Blink
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#283 - 2012-09-19 20:06:27 UTC
I dont think a slight buff to HP and a little lowering of mass on the 800's would be that game breaking while still making them more attractive then the current situation.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#284 - 2012-09-19 20:11:00 UTC
There is nothing wrong with the HP bonus from each plate, the T2 plates each offer 3x the thickness in HP bonus and each plate is 2x thicker than the last, the problem comes in where the mass addition from each "group" of plates. 50mm 100mm frigate size plates mass addition is OK, 200mm and 400mm cruiser size plates need 1,000,000 kg added to each, 800mm and 1600mm each need 10,000,000kg added to the as they are battleship size plates. The fitting requirements are OK for what they do.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#285 - 2012-09-19 20:13:17 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the HP bonus from each plate, the T2 plates each offer 3x the thickness in HP bonus and each plate is 2x thicker than the last, the problem comes in where the mass addition from each "group" of plates. 50mm 100mm frigate size plates mass addition is OK, 200mm and 400mm cruiser size plates need 1,000,000 kg added to each, 800mm and 1600mm each need 10,000,000kg added to the as they are battleship size plates. The fitting requirements are OK for what they do.


Your joking right? If you are serious then what about shield extenders they must be severely broken as they can be fit multiple times to cruisers and it is difficult to fit 1 1600 to most cruisers. 800 mm are cruiser sized plates.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#286 - 2012-09-19 20:17:32 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the HP bonus from each plate, the T2 plates each offer 3x the thickness in HP bonus and each plate is 2x thicker than the last, the problem comes in where the mass addition from each "group" of plates. 50mm 100mm frigate size plates mass addition is OK, 200mm and 400mm cruiser size plates need 1,000,000 kg added to each, 800mm and 1600mm each need 10,000,000kg added to the as they are battleship size plates. The fitting requirements are OK for what they do.


Now you've done it. You have single handedly killed armour tanking.Lol

Seriously mate, you should stop drinking, it's making you say stupid things.
Deen Wispa
Sheriff.
United Caldari Space Command.
#287 - 2012-09-19 20:24:33 UTC
CCP- I'd like to see some out of the box thinking with Gallente ships. As someone else mentioned, adding a dronebay to other ships where they simplly add their Hornet ECM drones only negates the uniqueness of Gallente ships which are known as drone boats.

Why not consider giving Gallente drone boats a bonus to utility drones? Eg; 10% bonus per level to utility drones like webbing drones or neuting drones?

Why not also consider giving a bonus to webbing or scram range to a ship like the Thorax? But don't make it so overpowering that it competes with the Vigilant or T2 ships

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#288 - 2012-09-19 20:26:20 UTC
so CCP Fozzie I'm curious if the stabber fleet issue will get the same bonuses but with its armour layout intact and if you have looked at the faction cruisers yet or if that's something for once the you have done bc's?

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
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#289 - 2012-09-19 20:26:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Caracal:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire
10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity
Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers
Fittings: 630 PWG (+100), 430 CPU (+80)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1700(+137) / 1200(+145) / 1500(+171)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 57.5km / 270(+28) / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric (+1)
Signature radius: 135 (-10)
Cargo capacity: 450


Question

I'm not seeing any recharge information on the shields.

Will the Caracal still be retaining the ability to passive shield tank, or is the shield recharge rate being dropped, thus suggesting an active shield tank?
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#290 - 2012-09-19 20:35:12 UTC
MIrple wrote:
I dont think a slight buff to HP and a little lowering of mass on the 800's would be that game breaking while still making them more attractive then the current situation.


Maybe small buff to eight-hundreds would be fine but what about sixteen-hundreds then?

I feels like this is the same situation like with HMLs vs other medium LRs.
You are forced to buffer tank everything if you want to use armour because active is so terrible on most platforms in most cases.
The problem being that some hulls simply have no synergy with armour buffer because of huge mobility loss.
Making active viable could really change that picture for good and give us real options in that area.

But I'm just biased. I active tank almost everything on armour and then die in flames few seconds after.Lol
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#291 - 2012-09-19 20:36:16 UTC
HML nerf

♥ you long time!!!

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#292 - 2012-09-19 20:42:51 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
HML nerf

♥ you long time!!!


HML well wishes, condolences, tear extraction and gathering are that way >> Poor Fozzie takes beatings and evils
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#293 - 2012-09-19 20:46:22 UTC
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
MIrple wrote:
I dont think a slight buff to HP and a little lowering of mass on the 800's would be that game breaking while still making them more attractive then the current situation.


Maybe small buff to eight-hundreds would be fine but what about sixteen-hundreds then?

I feels like this is the same situation like with HMLs vs other medium LRs.
You are forced to buffer tank everything if you want to use armour because active is so terrible on most platforms in most cases.
The problem being that some hulls simply have no synergy with armour buffer because of huge mobility loss.
Making active viable could really change that picture for good and give us real options in that area.

But I'm just biased. I active tank almost everything on armour and then die in flames few seconds after.Lol


What could be done to make active tanking more attractive is giving active tanking ships resist bonuses so we can have fewer actual HP but still more EHP that way we can still broadcast in time for reps. While the passive or buffer tanking ships could get a bonus to HP so they have more HP to buffer to allow for reps. You would need to lower the pg on active tanking ships so they couldn't add the plates to make up for this and still keep them fast and agile while the HP bonuses ships could have more PG to fit the plates as they are slower already. Probably not a good idea but this makes more sense to me as in fleets local tank is just not realistic.
Wivabel
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#294 - 2012-09-19 20:54:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Wivabel
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
MIrple wrote:

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.

A small HP boost would be good, right now they get a very anemic 2400 HP T2 with severe mass penalties.

If their HP was driven up to say 2800-3000 for T2 that would put them into the realm of viable on ships that currently need an ACR but no longer would. The excess fitting allowing a combination of higher guns and a 3rd Trimark giving them a respectable middle. Still would not make them good though, lowering the mass of 800mm's to a static 137500o like Meta 4's get and changing Armor Rig Penalties or removing them would.

The end result would be reasonable HP buffers around 30-35k EHP with speed and Dmg making up the difference while being slower then Shield Ships they would have a good mix of tank, tackle and Dmg.

But that is just my take on it.


I don't know, I always imagined buffer tankers as slow and clumsy and lifting those penalties is something I don't agree with.
Active tank on the other hand really needs a rework. Lifting rig penalties for it and making it plain better than it is now is the way to go I think.

slow buffer without cap reliance
vs
fast active with cap reliance

Both options should be viable ( just with different setups )


But that is just my take on it.Blink



Damnit forum ate my post

TLDR removing rig penaltiies (using skills) would allow player skills and fit to decide the performance of a ship. shield is already faster and more agile with better damage projection. If I want to fit my armor ship with speed rigs don't penalize me 2 times first by me not fitting trimarks and then by having a darn penalty.

LOL penalize

I am not sure if I am going to log in anymore.......
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#295 - 2012-09-19 21:04:57 UTC
MIrple wrote:
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
MIrple wrote:
I dont think a slight buff to HP and a little lowering of mass on the 800's would be that game breaking while still making them more attractive then the current situation.


Maybe small buff to eight-hundreds would be fine but what about sixteen-hundreds then?

I feels like this is the same situation like with HMLs vs other medium LRs.
You are forced to buffer tank everything if you want to use armour because active is so terrible on most platforms in most cases.
The problem being that some hulls simply have no synergy with armour buffer because of huge mobility loss.
Making active viable could really change that picture for good and give us real options in that area.

But I'm just biased. I active tank almost everything on armour and then die in flames few seconds after.Lol


What could be done to make active tanking more attractive is giving active tanking ships resist bonuses so we can have fewer actual HP but still more EHP that way we can still broadcast in time for reps. While the passive or buffer tanking ships could get a bonus to HP so they have more HP to buffer to allow for reps. You would need to lower the pg on active tanking ships so they couldn't add the plates to make up for this and still keep them fast and agile while the HP bonuses ships could have more PG to fit the plates as they are slower already. Probably not a good idea but this makes more sense to me as in fleets local tank is just not realistic.


Yeah I'm afraid that local tank in fleets will never really work when logis are around. Buffer will always dominate here no matter how hard you buff local tank on armour ( can't overbuff it, keeping in mind other forms of engagements ).
Also, the Amarr ships get this bonus so placing it on Gallente boats would bring those races too close to each other for my taste. Variety is a good thing to have.

I think it would be better to limit practical applications of active tank to smaller engagements. That way it could be actually balanced properly. Trying to balance something like that in the whole spectrum of applications will never work and we will be left with something that is just as broken as before this kind of 'rebalancing'.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2012-09-19 21:09:28 UTC
MIrple wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the HP bonus from each plate, the T2 plates each offer 3x the thickness in HP bonus and each plate is 2x thicker than the last, the problem comes in where the mass addition from each "group" of plates. 50mm 100mm frigate size plates mass addition is OK, 200mm and 400mm cruiser size plates need 1,000,000 kg added to each, 800mm and 1600mm each need 10,000,000kg added to the as they are battleship size plates. The fitting requirements are OK for what they do.


Your joking right? If you are serious then what about shield extenders they must be severely broken as they can be fit multiple times to cruisers and it is difficult to fit 1 1600 to most cruisers. 800 mm are cruiser sized plates.

I know this, fact is if you want to use 1600mm plates then ppl shouls just accept that if you are going to, then you will lose offensive capabilities, 800mm HP is fine in the respect that if doubles the raw HP of cruisers from one module, that is pretty good. As far as shields go there is no true battleship size module, as u stated the LSE is a cruiser size module.

So yes i was joking.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#297 - 2012-09-19 21:09:38 UTC
Wivabel wrote:
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
MIrple wrote:

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.

A small HP boost would be good, right now they get a very anemic 2400 HP T2 with severe mass penalties.

If their HP was driven up to say 2800-3000 for T2 that would put them into the realm of viable on ships that currently need an ACR but no longer would. The excess fitting allowing a combination of higher guns and a 3rd Trimark giving them a respectable middle. Still would not make them good though, lowering the mass of 800mm's to a static 137500o like Meta 4's get and changing Armor Rig Penalties or removing them would.

The end result would be reasonable HP buffers around 30-35k EHP with speed and Dmg making up the difference while being slower then Shield Ships they would have a good mix of tank, tackle and Dmg.

But that is just my take on it.


I don't know, I always imagined buffer tankers as slow and clumsy and lifting those penalties is something I don't agree with.
Active tank on the other hand really needs a rework. Lifting rig penalties for it and making it plain better than it is now is the way to go I think.

slow buffer without cap reliance
vs
fast active with cap reliance

Both options should be viable ( just with different setups )


But that is just my take on it.Blink



Damnit forum ate my post

TLDR removing rig penaltiies (using skills) would allow player skills and fit to decide the performance of a ship. shield is already faster and more agile with better damage projection. If I want to fit my armor ship with speed rigs don't penalize me 2 times first by me not fitting trimarks and then by having a darn penalty.

LOL penalize


Yes this should take away hull points not armor points. It would go more inline with nanos that way also.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#298 - 2012-09-19 21:12:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tomcio FromFarAway
Wivabel wrote:

Damnit forum ate my post

TLDR removing rig penaltiies (using skills) would allow player skills and fit to decide the performance of a ship. shield is already faster and more agile with better damage projection. If I want to fit my armor ship with speed rigs don't penalize me 2 times first by me not fitting trimarks and then by having a darn penalty.

LOL penalize


Personally I wouldn't mind if ALL rig penalties were removed with evel 5 riggings skills and compensated somewhere else.

In case of plates - they could have their mass addition altered to influence that change so that we won't end with heavily buffer tanked and still mobile ships ( that would be simply wrong ).

Maybe tinkering with calibration values could also help. Making it so that you can't fit some combinations of rigs like 3x trimarks for instance.
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#299 - 2012-09-19 23:01:26 UTC
The fact that its better to shield tank the thorax than it is to armor proves that the gallente armor blaster philosophy is broken.

The shield talos is one of the best blaster ships in the game. Fast, mobile, and does lots of damage.

While the failtastic active armor tanking Hyperion is rare used compared to the megathron and its variants.

"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."

 Kahlil Gibran
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#300 - 2012-09-20 00:29:09 UTC
With all these fitting changes it's so hard to know what will be possible to fit after patch and therefor give feedback, any chance you could post a few examples?