These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#461 - 2012-09-25 14:06:07 UTC
Martin0 wrote:
Martin0 wrote:

Fozzie.
Give us more powergrid. NOW.


Armor tanking a ship that is supposed to go fast, is stupid.


You dont really gain much from the TE if you change it out for a RCII you can fit Neutrons and have the same range as you did with your Ions plus tracking. You will lose a little in the tracking but you are going to be on top of it so it shouldn't matter.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#462 - 2012-09-25 14:06:57 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Martin0 wrote:

Fozzie.
Give us more powergrid. NOW.


[Thorax, Winter]

Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Damage Control II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II

Heavy Ion Blaster II
Heavy Ion Blaster II
Heavy Ion Blaster II
Heavy Ion Blaster II
Heavy Ion Blaster II

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I

Would work just fine, though 100 PG had to be added if it's supposed to work with Neutrons. LSE II gives enough buffer so you don't have to worry about lower base shield value.


If you are planning to use blasters your effective range will be very low. This means you'll go into brawling range. In that case you could use scram instead of long point. also if you are planningto go for a brawl you might want to check viabiltiy of XL-ASB with electrons here.

If you are planning to dictate range by staying beyond 15k range, you should check the rails.
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#463 - 2012-09-25 14:09:02 UTC
Burn the herectic who suggest actually shield tanking Gallente hulls. Don't bring your tarnished rust and corporate blue paint ships (minmatar and caldari for the slower people Cool) to try and mimic the same in the gallente hulls. Part of the fun is trying to make gallente hulls good where they aren't (i.e. being to slow, less agile, lacking range or projected dps, etc), because I know how pissed each and everyone of you gets when you die to a gallente hull....


I can see everyone now thinking when that vexor or thorax killed you and you thought to yourself, "Did I really just die to that ship? God I suck at eve right now" Don't lie, you know it's true Roll

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#464 - 2012-09-25 15:02:49 UTC
Deerin wrote:
If you are planning to use blasters your effective range will be very low. This means you'll go into brawling range. In that case you could use scram instead of long point. also if you are planningto go for a brawl you might want to check viabiltiy of XL-ASB with electrons here.

If you are planning to dictate range by staying beyond 15k range, you should check the rails.




I don't think I'd be advising ASB's so much now. The general consensus is that *something* about them is overpowered, not that people can seem to agree what (neut immunity, rep amount, rep speed, ease of fitting/oversize, slot allocation, everything listed above), and I don't think it's unlikely to see them nerfed sometime in the future, possibly before the Attack Cruiser buff.

Of course, things might not change and that could very well be a great idea. I just thought I might point that out, because there is still at least 3 months for them to change balance.
Alara IonStorm
#465 - 2012-09-25 15:17:05 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
and I don't think it's unlikely to see them nerfed sometime in the future, possibly before the Attack Cruiser buff.

Threads up they just didn't put it in F&I.

Here.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#466 - 2012-09-25 15:39:39 UTC
Yun Kuai wrote:

I can see everyone now thinking when that vexor or thorax killed you and you thought to yourself, "Did I really just die to that ship? God I suck at eve right now" Don't lie, you know it's true Roll


Two of the best three T1 cruisers, and Ruppie is not #1.

As what comes to PG issues on Thorax, well, Gallente as a race won't fit without fitting implants. I gave up trying long time ago, I just file hardwire costs under running expenses. I'll be hosed when Genolutions are all sold out :D

.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#467 - 2012-09-25 15:51:06 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
and I don't think it's unlikely to see them nerfed sometime in the future, possibly before the Attack Cruiser buff.

Threads up they just didn't put it in F&I.

Here.


Interesting, thanks for that link. I don't see the overall effectiveness going down too much, but it will be interesting to see how prevalent they are when they hold slightly fewer charges.
Alara IonStorm
#468 - 2012-09-25 16:00:09 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:

Interesting, thanks for that link. I don't see the overall effectiveness going down too much, but it will be interesting to see how prevalent they are when they hold slightly fewer charges.

I'm not entirely happy with them. I don't think they are going to stop the trend of XLSB on Cruisers and Battlecruisers.

If you can not XL it you might as well buffer it. They are 1600mm Plates drowning out 800mm Plates. That is what I would like to see addressed foremost.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#469 - 2012-09-25 16:22:41 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:

Interesting, thanks for that link. I don't see the overall effectiveness going down too much, but it will be interesting to see how prevalent they are when they hold slightly fewer charges.

I'm not entirely happy with them. I don't think they are going to stop the trend of XLSB on Cruisers and Battlecruisers.

If you can not XL it you might as well buffer it. They are 1600mm Plates drowning out 800mm Plates. That is what I would like to see addressed foremost.


No, it really doesn't change anything drastically. It only reduces the amount of time one can run the great repper, and that won't change things all too much. I'd rather have seen either fitting, or boost amount addressed as opposed to capacity. Though, maybe they know better than I. I guess we'll see soon enough. And I agree with you on the 1600 drowning out 800 analogy. XL-ASB's became so prevalent on cruisers and BC's because they were easy enough to fit without gimping your damage *too* much, and the same applies to 1600's (in some scenarios).

Personally, I'd like to see the smaller modules buffed a bit, so as to give them a point over the larger (obviously excluding ASB's from this conversation) and possibly the fitting on the larger modules changed, and perhaps battleship fitting adjusted with the changes.

'Course, I could be full of ****, my head's a little foggy right now.
Alara IonStorm
#470 - 2012-09-25 16:31:34 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:

Personally, I'd like to see the smaller modules buffed a bit, so as to give them a point over the larger (obviously excluding ASB's from this conversation) and possibly the fitting on the larger modules changed, and perhaps battleship fitting adjusted with the changes.

Just a random thought I had.

Limit to 1 ASB per Ship. Every Battleship pretty much fits 2 of them.

So increase fitting on XLABS to 1500 PG - 300 CPU then increase the boost amount by 50% That frees up a second slot for say a Boost AMP along with CPU for it bring Battleship ASB's just slightly below where they were.

Increase Large ASB Boost by 50%. That will take away the Co-Pro and maybe an Overclock freeing up fitting for perhaps 1 gun size up and a Dmg Mod. So that will increase your ships DPS around 15-20% and give you little more then half the boost the ship gets currently.

Small nerf to both and ends oversized modules.

Same thought for the 1600mm Plate increasing its Grid to around 1000 PG and bringing the 800mm Plate from 2400 HP to 3000 HP, keep a fair chunk of tank, fit a higher gun size.

I really do hope that whatever CCP does they end oversized modules and useless modules.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#471 - 2012-09-25 16:41:25 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:

Personally, I'd like to see the smaller modules buffed a bit, so as to give them a point over the larger (obviously excluding ASB's from this conversation) and possibly the fitting on the larger modules changed, and perhaps battleship fitting adjusted with the changes.

Just a random thought I had.

Limit to 1 ASB per Ship. Every Battleship pretty much fits 2 of them.

So increase fitting on XLABS to 1500 PG - 300 CPU then increase the boost amount by 50% That frees up a second slot for say a Boost AMP along with CPU for it bring Battleship ASB's just slightly below where they were.

Increase Large ASB Boost by 50%. That will take away the Co-Pro and maybe an Overclock freeing up fitting for perhaps 1 gun size up and a Dmg Mod. So that will increase your ships DPS around 15-20% and give you little more then half the boost the ship gets currently.

Small nerf to both and ends oversized modules.

Same thought for the 1600mm Plate increasing its Grid to around 1000 PG and bringing the 800mm Plate from 2400 HP to 3000 HP, keep a fair chunk of tank, fit a higher gun size.

I really do hope that whatever CCP does they end oversized modules and useless modules.


Y'know, that's an interesting thought. The only issue I can see is that it's widely believed that ASB's boost too much already, and that any increase to boost is... absurd. I do like the thought of that, however if implemented, there would be no reason to fit LSE's, as they have similar fitting requirements, but after this change would only increase your health by about half of what one L-ASB would rep over its full duration.
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#472 - 2012-09-25 16:41:40 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:

Interesting, thanks for that link. I don't see the overall effectiveness going down too much, but it will be interesting to see how prevalent they are when they hold slightly fewer charges.

I'm not entirely happy with them. I don't think they are going to stop the trend of XLSB on Cruisers and Battlecruisers.

If you can not XL it you might as well buffer it. They are 1600mm Plates drowning out 800mm Plates. That is what I would like to see addressed foremost.


No, it really doesn't change anything drastically. It only reduces the amount of time one can run the great repper, and that won't change things all too much. I'd rather have seen either fitting, or boost amount addressed as opposed to capacity. Though, maybe they know better than I. I guess we'll see soon enough. And I agree with you on the 1600 drowning out 800 analogy. XL-ASB's became so prevalent on cruisers and BC's because they were easy enough to fit without gimping your damage *too* much, and the same applies to 1600's (in some scenarios).

Personally, I'd like to see the smaller modules buffed a bit, so as to give them a point over the larger (obviously excluding ASB's from this conversation) and possibly the fitting on the larger modules changed, and perhaps battleship fitting adjusted with the changes.

'Course, I could be full of ****, my head's a little foggy right now.


The problem with the cruiser/BC sized modules is that you're using one module to fit on two distinctly different ships. In the case of having the 800mm and 1600mm, the 800mm fits nice enough on cruisers, but the 1600mm is expected on BC because of their higher PG and the fact that those BC will often take on BS sized targets. It'd be interesting to consider a new BC plate, like a 1200mm plate designed for BC hulls that provide the "75%" area between 800mm and 1600mm plates. By doing so, I think you'd see a decrease in the feeling that you have to fit a 1600mm plate on your cruiser when fighting anything other than another cruiser.

And Fozzie, I'm still waiting to hear if CCP plans to revisit their mini buff on the hybrid platform and finish the job before they move on to the battleships? (check post a page or two back to see what I'm referring to)

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Exterminatus Illexis
Unmarked Discrete Packaging.
#473 - 2012-09-25 17:09:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Exterminatus Illexis
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Exterminatus Illexis wrote:

Drake can get 70% resists across the board making that only around 150 dps and passive recharge can get up to 500hp/s, that's what I'm talking about.

500 hp/s is something over the top, are you sure you are not talking about 500 ehp? Which is still a PvE only number.

Go take a look at some of the passive drake loss mails, some of them have taken more damage than capital ships. Drakes can get absurd levels of tank for a battle-cruiser, my PVE drake gets 90k EHP in just the shields.
Edit: I should probably say that thing is buffer fit. And no I wasn't talking about EHP recharge, that nears 1k if you get the resists right but you have to sacrifice a bit of resists in order to get a point on there.

With love,

Your favorite idiot.
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#474 - 2012-09-25 17:16:38 UTC
Exterminatus Illexis wrote:
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Exterminatus Illexis wrote:

Drake can get 70% resists across the board making that only around 150 dps and passive recharge can get up to 500hp/s, that's what I'm talking about.

500 hp/s is something over the top, are you sure you are not talking about 500 ehp? Which is still a PvE only number.

Go take a look at some of the passive drake loss mails, some of them have taken more damage than capital ships. Drakes can get absurd levels of tank for a battle-cruiser, my PVE drake gets 90k EHP in just the shields.
Edit: I should probably say that thing is buffer fit. And no I wasn't talking about EHP recharge, that nears 1k if you get the resists right but you have to sacrifice a bit of resists in order to get a point on there.



Drake train whine that way --->
wrong forum topic, keep it to balancing crusiers

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Sigras
Conglomo
#475 - 2012-09-25 17:18:37 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Yun Kuai wrote:
For the people who are saying the Thorax will melt the Caracal, you have to remember the thorax is only 10m/s faster than the Thorax, and if I fit an 800mm rolled tungsten + triple trimarks (or better yet, a 1600mm plate and triple trimarks), your caracal is going to be faster than my thorax by a lot.


But Thorax is a Shield ship now. It has no bonuses to deffence and 4 mid slots, that's enough for MSE+Adaptive Invul+Point+MWD, standart issue Shield mids. It can now be fitted with nanofibers.

this brings me to another issue, shield tanking is unbalanced against armor tanking.

even the hurricane which has 4 mids and 6 lows is still usually a shield tanking ship, if it were 5/5 it would be no contest. This says to me that shield tanks are just more desirable and low slot modules are more valuable.

Even if I had a ship with 6 mids and like 10 lows, I would still probably shield tank the thing and use 3 tracking enhancers 3 damage mods, 2 nanofibers, an overdrive injector and a DCU, you cant do the same thing to armor tanking.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#476 - 2012-09-25 18:35:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldensaver
Sigras wrote:

this brings me to another issue, shield tanking is unbalanced against armor tanking.

even the hurricane which has 4 mids and 6 lows is still usually a shield tanking ship, if it were 5/5 it would be no contest. This says to me that shield tanks are just more desirable and low slot modules are more valuable.

Even if I had a ship with 6 mids and like 10 lows, I would still probably shield tank the thing and use 3 tracking enhancers 3 damage mods, 2 nanofibers, an overdrive injector and a DCU, you cant do the same thing to armor tanking.


I can't even begin to fathom why you'd want to do that. A ship with 10 lows (not that the engine can do that) would have to be battleship+ sized, meaning speed doesn't matter. I'd do a 4 plate, 2 EANM +2 damage, 2 tracking mod fit, then put a booster (if using hybrids/lasers), prop, web, point, and 2/3 TD's in the mids. You'd be like a turret, sure, but in plates and trimarks alone, you'd have 30k armor HP, and 60/70+ resist all, giving you a huge tank. Maybe even drop a plate for a DCU. Then the TD's would guarantee that you outrange them. Brick-sniper with ultimate utility man, think outside the box.


Edited to snip quotes.
Sigras
Conglomo
#477 - 2012-09-25 18:41:20 UTC
yeah i guess i was thinking a cruiser or battlecruiser sized ship. yeah, of course it would be totally OP, but the point was any ship in which speed would be important you should basically never armor tank no matter how many low slots it has.

minus reductio ad absurdum of course
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#478 - 2012-09-25 18:46:08 UTC
Sigras wrote:
yeah i guess i was thinking a cruiser or battlecruiser sized ship. yeah, of course it would be totally OP, but the point was any ship in which speed would be important you should basically never armor tank no matter how many low slots it has.

minus reductio ad absurdum of course


True enough. In smaller ships, speed is life. I can see the issues with armor tanking, but I can't think of a way to fix it without breaking things in larger ships. It would have to reach a careful balance, which is definitely a tough thing to do, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to do it. I just wouldn't be able, and I don't envy CCP their job in this situation.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#479 - 2012-09-25 21:02:01 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Sigras wrote:

this brings me to another issue, shield tanking is unbalanced against armor tanking.

even the hurricane which has 4 mids and 6 lows is still usually a shield tanking ship, if it were 5/5 it would be no contest. This says to me that shield tanks are just more desirable and low slot modules are more valuable.

Even if I had a ship with 6 mids and like 10 lows, I would still probably shield tank the thing and use 3 tracking enhancers 3 damage mods, 2 nanofibers, an overdrive injector and a DCU, you cant do the same thing to armor tanking.


I can't even begin to fathom why you'd want to do that. A ship with 10 lows (not that the engine can do that) would have to be battleship+ sized, meaning speed doesn't matter. I'd do a 4 plate, 2 EANM +2 damage, 2 tracking mod fit, then put a booster (if using hybrids/lasers), prop, web, point, and 2/3 TD's in the mids. You'd be like a turret, sure, but in plates and trimarks alone, you'd have 30k armor HP, and 60/70+ resist all, giving you a huge tank. Maybe even drop a plate for a DCU. Then the TD's would guarantee that you outrange them. Brick-sniper with ultimate utility man, think outside the box.


Edited to snip quotes.


Your primary assertion is that a 10 low slot ship would be battleship+ sized. I don't think that's a reasonable assertion given the conversation in question. I know for damn sure that I'd be shield tanking a cruiser with 4 mids and 10 lows. Doing anything else is just stupid.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#480 - 2012-09-25 21:39:26 UTC
I find it interesting that the Thorax is getting a HUGE speed increase and everybody still wants to shield tank it. More speed is always better I guess.