These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#121 - 2012-10-02 15:58:07 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
STOP trying to put LSE's on everything.



Waiting on the LSE, tracking enhancer and null/barrage nerf.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#122 - 2012-10-02 15:58:38 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
MIrple wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:
Quote:
Major Killz
Posted: 2012.10.02 14:38

First of all. The dudes complaining about the Rupture getting a boost are p deluded. The ship got 1 mid slot and lost a utility slot. Every other combat cruiser received a significant boost. Either a damage bonus or extra slots. The Vexor is the worse offender and probably, along with other Gallente ships should be near overpowered given Gallente ships lack of versatility.

Only those who understand meta combat aspects of Eve will see the usefulness of a forth mid slot. Most will just think about having an extra shield extender.

In anycase, if the Rupture didn't get a forth mid slot many attack cruisers would overshadow a Rupture close or long range and according to CCP that's not suppose to happen.

So only 3 of the 4 cruisers on that list got boosted. The Rupture is the same ship and all of the combat cruisers got a increase in velocity.

EDIT: Also, to the r3t@rds. The Omen will and does do significantly more damage @ 17km than a shield-Rupture. The new Caracal and Bellicose will also out damage a Rupture @ those ranges with more tank. Infact the shield-Rupture will have as much damage and tnak as a shield-thorax @ 20km.


Omen doing more damage than rupture? What did you smoke?
Yeah all combat cruisers got increase in velocity and rupture is still faster.
Standard Rupture fit is 4 425mm ac T2, medíum energy neut, small energy neut 2, large shield ext, warp dis2, 10mn microwarp, tracking enhancer2, nanofiber2, 2gyrostab 2, damage control, field extender, thermal and em shield rigs.
Does 391fdmg at 26km with drones, 1741m/s and 19k ehp. 465dmg/s with Rep fleet phase plasma m at almost 18km.
NOW we can get rid of the small energy neut and get an invu field.... CCP are you crazy???
That thing is faster than any other T1 non faction cruiser (okay stabber is faster) and kills like hell PLUS tank????
Rofl.



Someone stop this dude before he continues to show how t@rded he really is. @ 20,000m (20k) that shield-Rupture with 2 tracking enhancers is in falloff. I dont include drones when comparing turret damage with regard to specific setups. The Rupture will only start seeing it's maximum damage @ 4,000m (4km)

The shield-Omen will be doing @tleast 300 damage p sec up to 27,000m (27km) and 360 damage p sec @ 9,000m (9km) and lower provided it can track. That is with Focused pulse and not with what will be a reduced heavy pulses.

@ 20km with faction ammunition and 2 tracking enhancers a Rupture will be doing less than 40 360 damage p sec without drones = / A Omen will be doing 300 damage p sec silly...

Now why anyone would try to Kite a shield Omen In a shield-Rupture with close range ammo I don't know. Your only hope is going up close and the shield Omen can prolong that long enough for either ship to lose.

Guess how much a Caracal will be doing after these changes? Right! Guess how much a shield-Thorax will do? About the same as the shield-Rupture. Guess what will out damage them both @ 20 k or morer? The Bellicose...



I love the fact you are leaving drones out of this when the Rupture has them and the Omen does not. Add the Drones and look you are doing more damage at 20k. But then this breaks your argument. Give the Omen drones and I will be ok with what you are saying.



= / Even with 3 Drones the damage would be similar on both ships like it is now...

Omen:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use
5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
Slot layout: 5 H, 3 M, 6 L (+1), 5 turrets
Fittings: 925 PWG (+195), 315 CPU (+65)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1200(+27) / 1700(+137) / 1600(+37)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1475(+225) / 526s(+79.75s) / 2.8
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+44) / 0.51(-0.05) / 11650000 / 5.6s (-0.5)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 40(+25) / 40(+25)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km(+10) / 300(+7) / 6(-1)
Sensor strength: 15 Radar (+2)
Signature radius: 125
Cargo capacity: 400(-50)


@tleast atempt to know what you're on about or atleast read...


Why are you comparing this to an Omen. Sorry I was discussing Combat Cruisers. Not a Combat Cruiser to an Attack Cruiser that CCP stated was about putting out DPS.

Lets compair ships that are in the same class shall we?
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#123 - 2012-10-02 16:01:34 UTC
why the hell did they feel the need to remove a high slot from the rupture :( i had a dam good setup on there and this nerfs the DPS quite a bit

other than that the changes seem fine , but why oh why did you nerf the ruppie
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#124 - 2012-10-02 16:02:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
why the hell did they feel the need to remove a high slot from the rupture :( i had a dam good setup on there and this nerfs the DPS quite a bit

other than that the changes seem fine , but why oh why did you nerf the ruppie


-1 utility high, +1 mid is a boost.

Or do you seriously think that an Invulnerability Field (for shield fits) or a TD (for armor fits) is worse than a second small neutralizer or rocket launcher?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#125 - 2012-10-02 16:03:06 UTC
MIrple wrote:


CCP Stated that it would be hard to fit the highest sized guns on Cruisers. All you need is a 1% PG implant that is cheap. I do agree though that the Utility High should be a Mid slot.


It's funny, then, that the Rupture has more PG than the Moa, despite ACs needing less PG than blasters.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#126 - 2012-10-02 16:03:27 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
why the hell did they feel the need to remove a high slot from the rupture :( i had a dam good setup on there and this nerfs the DPS quite a bit

other than that the changes seem fine , but why oh why did you nerf the ruppie


-1 utility high, +1 mid is a boost.


and the excessive speed boost

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
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#127 - 2012-10-02 16:03:40 UTC
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
why the hell did they feel the need to remove a high slot from the rupture :( i had a dam good setup on there and this nerfs the DPS quite a bit

other than that the changes seem fine , but why oh why did you nerf the ruppie


To the against it is a nerf to the for it is balancing. :) I think it will work out fine in the end with it. Do you think it needed the amount of speed boost it received?
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#128 - 2012-10-02 16:04:41 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
MIrple wrote:


CCP Stated that it would be hard to fit the highest sized guns on Cruisers. All you need is a 1% PG implant that is cheap. I do agree though that the Utility High should be a Mid slot.


It's funny, then, that the Rupture has more PG than the Moa, despite ACs needing less PG than blasters.


I agree with you 100% AC are to easy to fit. They need there PG/CPU looked at.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#129 - 2012-10-02 16:05:06 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
MIrple wrote:


CCP Stated that it would be hard to fit the highest sized guns on Cruisers. All you need is a 1% PG implant that is cheap. I do agree though that the Utility High should be a Mid slot.


It's funny, then, that the Rupture has more PG than the Moa, despite ACs needing less PG than blasters.



This is a projectile thing, I think. ACs are the easiest weapons in the game to fit. Arties are the second hardest. If you give a ship the fitting to use arties, AC configs will have infinite powergrid (see cane and maelstrom). If they closed the gap a bit, things would be less dumb.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#130 - 2012-10-02 16:05:35 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
i would fly this moa

Moa:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
5% bonus to shield resistances
Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M (+1), 4 L, 5 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 820 PWG (+40), 385 CPU (+25)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2100(+225) / 1200(-129) / 1500(-24)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1425(+50) / 475s(-16.25s) / 3 (+0.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+31) / 0.54 / 11720000 / 5.9s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 (+10)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 260(+7) / 7
Sensor strength: 17 Gravimetric (+1)
Signature radius: 135
Cargo capacity: 450 (+200)

edit:

this will give the moa the buffer it needs to apply its potential dps...

i would fit the mids as

mwd
scram
invul (or webber)
2 large shield extenders (or 2 asb)

face it the ship is designed to use the shortest range weapons and is the slowest ship...

so it needs extra tank and more mids to make up for it...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#131 - 2012-10-02 16:06:33 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
MIrple wrote:


CCP Stated that it would be hard to fit the highest sized guns on Cruisers. All you need is a 1% PG implant that is cheap. I do agree though that the Utility High should be a Mid slot.


It's funny, then, that the Rupture has more PG than the Moa, despite ACs needing less PG than blasters.



This is a projectile thing, I think. ACs are the easiest weapons in the game to fit. Arties are the second hardest. If you give a ship the fitting to use arties, AC configs will have infinite powergrid (see cane and maelstrom). If they closed the gap a bit, things would be less dumb.


It has more PG so it can fit a 1600 plate so 500 pg

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
Luc Chastot
#132 - 2012-10-02 16:06:46 UTC
Although I really like the Vexor, me thinks it needs the turret damage bonus to be replaced by a 7.5% drone tracking bonus. Also, remove 25 from its bandwith and add 50m^3 to its bay. You're doing a great job CCP Fozzie.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Aglais
Ice-Storm
#133 - 2012-10-02 16:07:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Aglais
Too many people seem to be interpreting the "Get rid of the Moa's utility high for a medslot" as a cry for a desire to slap on another LSE.

That wouldn't help it much at all. Far more important would be that fifth medslot, no utility highs, four lows. A 5/5/4 Moa could fit some damaging turrets, have flexibility in low slots for damage or tracking, or even nanofibres, and then furthermore you could fit the standard LSE, hardener, MWD and scrambler in mids, AS WELL AS a web if you're going for blasters. Or you could do a tracking enhancer with rails or something, I dunno. Either way, the Moa as a combat cruiser, based on what CCP wants them to be, has NO need for that utility high. It's incredibly hard to fit anything there anyways, so why keep it? It serves no purpose as a high and should be a mid. It also solidifies the Moa as being a definite shield tanker.

It WON'T have too much in common with the Caracal if anyone's worried about something ******** like "Well then these ships will be too similar" or anything. Because the Caracal is also kind of a missile boat. There'd be Kestrel/Merlin symmetry here at the cruiser and frigate level if the Moa gets itself a fifth medslot.

As for Moa drone bay, I strongly suggest keeping it. Three or four drones would be great, but I wouldn't really suggest five light drones.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#134 - 2012-10-02 16:08:26 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
i would fly this moa

Moa:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
5% bonus to shield resistances
Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L, 5 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 820 PWG (+40), 385 CPU (+25)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2100(+225) / 1200(-129) / 1500(-24)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1425(+50) / 475s(-16.25s) / 3 (+0.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+31) / 0.54 / 11720000 / 5.9s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 (+10)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 260(+7) / 7
Sensor strength: 17 Gravimetric (+1)
Signature radius: 135
Cargo capacity: 450 (+200)


add more speed maybe 220 m/s or so and less drones so 10 bandwith and remove launchers

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
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#135 - 2012-10-02 16:11:40 UTC
Aglais wrote:
Too many people seem to be interpreting the "Get rid of the Moa's utility high for a medslot" as a cry for a desire to slap on another LSE.

That wouldn't help it much at all. Far more important would be that fifth medslot, no utility highs, four lows. A 5/5/4 Moa could fit some damaging turrets, have flexibility in low slots for damage or tracking, or even nanofibres, and then furthermore you could fit the standard LSE, hardener, MWD and scrambler in mids, AS WELL AS a web if you're going for blasters. Or you could do a tracking enhancer with rails or something, I dunno. Either way, the Moa as a combat cruiser, based on what CCP wants them to be, has NO need for that utility high. It's incredibly hard to fit anything there anyways, so why keep it? It serves no purpose as a high and should be a mid. It also solidifies the Moa as being a definite shield tanker.

It WON'T have too much in common with the Caracal if anyone's worried about something ******** like "Well then these ships will be too similar" or anything. Because the Caracal is also kind of a missile boat. There'd be Kestrel/Merlin symmetry here at the cruiser and frigate level if the Moa gets itself a fifth medslot.

As for Moa drone bay, I strongly suggest keeping it. Three or four drones would be great, but I wouldn't really suggest five light drones.



You're not getting it, like the Nighthawk, the Cyclone, and other resistnace based brawlers its not designed with a LSE in mind at all, its designed around an ACTIVE tank, burst, like its damage, is this concept foriegn to you?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#136 - 2012-10-02 16:11:45 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:


This is a projectile thing, I think. ACs are the easiest weapons in the game to fit. Arties are the second hardest. If you give a ship the fitting to use arties, AC configs will have infinite powergrid (see cane and maelstrom). If they closed the gap a bit, things would be less dumb.


Yep, and it made sense back in 2009 when ACs weren't great, but were so easy to fit that an AC ship made up DPS deficiencies in neuts, mobility etc. Then in 2009ish people complained about ACs without looking at ships as a complete package, CCP hit the power-creep button and we ended up with people genuinely expecting to be able to fit top-tier guns, MWD, dual med neuts and an 1600 plate on a Hurricane or Rupture...
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#137 - 2012-10-02 16:15:22 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:

Yep, and it made sense back in 2009 when ACs weren't great, but were so easy to fit that an AC ship made up DPS deficiencies in neuts, mobility etc. Then in 2009ish people complained about ACs without looking at ships as a complete package, CCP hit the power-creep button and we ended up with people genuinely expecting to be able to fit top-tier guns, MWD, dual med neuts and an 1600 plate on a Hurricane or Rupture...



ACs have always been great. If you ever heard otherwise, it was a vicious lie perpetuated by bad minmatar pilots. But yeah things have been pretty ******** since the TE/projectile changes a few years back.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#138 - 2012-10-02 16:15:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
Gypsio III wrote:
we ended up with people genuinely expecting to be able to fit top-tier guns, MWD, dual med neuts and an 1600 plate on a Hurricane or Rupture...

That would be a pretty odd expectation given that the typical plated cane and rupture setups use 220s and the rupture uses small neuts on top of that.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#139 - 2012-10-02 16:18:06 UTC
my guess for the bigger powergrid on the rupture is, that thy want to make it able to fit arties.
slap a rack of arties on there and most of the base grid will be gone.
even with the eased pg requirements a T2 650mm artie stil eats ~180 MW times 4 is 720 MW gone, and that is with perfect skills. plus a 800mm plate (rolled tungsten: 200 MW) and you are significantly over the base grid.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#140 - 2012-10-02 16:18:52 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
we ended up with people genuinely expecting to be able to fit top-tier guns, MWD, dual med neuts and an 1600 plate on a Hurricane or Rupture...

That would be a pretty odd expectation given that the typical plated cane and rupture setups use 220s and the rupture uses small neuts on top of that.


Yeah I could have phrased that better. Or, better still, not phrased it at all. Still... there is something of a problem with PG requirements of artillery and ACs, and I don't envy anyone trying to improve it.