These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#561 - 2012-10-01 11:41:35 UTC
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:
Quote:
wtf dude !?
caldari & gallente got V3'ed 6 months or more before minmatar (which was btw the last race to get V3'ed)
as you not seem to have noticed, there are different factional paint jobs to be seen in the market for the catalyst, which is a hint of beeingV3'ed as subtle as a punch in your face.
caldari already got 2 ships redesigned, amarr got 1 and this by good measure beforehand of any changes to minmatar ship design.


on the topic of attack cruisers; please make them testable like now? :D


Okay our level is already sinking here....
Then compare the "remodeled" drake with the old drake and you will see almost no difference. Then compare old stabber and new stabber. WOW!!!!! Awesome model.
And if caldari really already has v3...erm then ccp has really screwd sth.
It never looks as good like amarr or minmatar ships.


you really have no clue what you are talking about....
i wasn't even counting the drake in, because it was only a small overhaul.
raven and scorpion. both remakes are awesome. maybe google a little bit to find the old models. maybe in general look at pics from gallente and caldari ships shortly after the graphic overhaul introduced in "trinity" expansion and compare them to the ships now ingame. especially T2 ships. you will notice a big difference. it kind of makes me wonder why you haven't noticed until now (hint, hint look in the crucible change log ifyou do not believe me. key word: ships )
http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?newpatchlogID=3219




Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
Doomheim
#562 - 2012-10-01 11:54:18 UTC
Quote:
you really have no clue what you are talking about....
i wasn't even counting the drake in, because it was only a small overhaul.
raven and scorpion. both remakes are awesome. maybe google a little bit to find the old models. maybe in general look at pics from gallente and caldari ships shortly after the graphic overhaul introduced in "trinity" expansion and compare them to the ships now ingame. especially T2 ships. you will notice a big difference. it kind of makes me wonder why you haven't noticed until now (hint, hint look in the crucible change log ifyou do not believe me. key word: ships )
http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp?newpatchlogID=3219


Okay okay.
But tbh caldari ships and galente ships look like.... erm. Especially the hookbill is such an ugly piece of....
Merlin and Kestrel are okay. Caracal, blackbird...... erm....
Super shader update that you do not even see it.
Yes the scorpion and raven look great but some others.... Blackbird is....whats that????
Especially galente could really need some love. Their ships look like frogs after a car accident.
But the new minmatar and amarr ships look really great. I have to admit.

To the stabber critics guys: I think CCP wants to get the stabber in the REALLY fast attack ship role. So kite blaster cruisers to hell or I suppose main role: Kill frigs.
I mean: This ship will be more a BIG frig instead of a cruiser and that is cool too. It will simply eat T2 frigs.
The new model is really awesome.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#563 - 2012-10-01 13:05:02 UTC
Hey guys. Don't worry I have not forgotten this thread. I just finished reading all the posts I had missed over the weekend.

We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#564 - 2012-10-01 13:11:38 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Don't worry I have not forgotten this thread. I just finished reading all the posts I had missed over the weekend.

We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet.


so CCP Fozzie what is the solution you're working on?

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
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#565 - 2012-10-01 13:16:13 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Don't worry I have not forgotten this thread. I just finished reading all the posts I had missed over the weekend.

We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet.


so CCP Fozzie what is the solution you're working on?


Changing all the things.

Also heat. Lots and lots of heat.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#566 - 2012-10-01 13:18:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Don't worry I have not forgotten this thread. I just finished reading all the posts I had missed over the weekend.

We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet.


so CCP Fozzie what is the solution you're working on?


Changing all the things.

Also heat. Lots and lots of heat.


lol... is this a jest or a hint maybe some work on overheating mods for longer ?

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
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#567 - 2012-10-01 13:25:00 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Don't worry I have not forgotten this thread. I just finished reading all the posts I had missed over the weekend.

We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet.

Wohoo.

I will still be flying gank Thorax tho

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#568 - 2012-10-01 13:53:23 UTC
Using EVE HQ I was able to put the new ship stats in and have a peek at the new Caracal. I really like how it all works out the only question I have is. Will there be a CPU PG change on the HAM system and will there be any increase in the DPS of HAMS as well. A dual BCU HAM Caracal tops out at 350 DSP. This is a little anemic compared to the other close range weapon systems.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#569 - 2012-10-01 13:59:57 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:


so CCP Fozzie what is the solution you're working on?


Changing all the things.

Also heat. Lots and lots of heat.


inb4 super OP vengeance

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#570 - 2012-10-01 16:27:54 UTC
Sigras wrote:

I disagree, right now, any idiot can kite a gallente ship:
1. Turn Guns On
2. Set "Keep At Range" or "Orbit At Range"
3. ???
4. Profit

If the gallente ships were faster but less agile than the matari ships, it would at least take intelligence and a quick eye to kite instead of just using one of the CCP prescribed buttons.

No ship should be fastest and most agile and longest ranged, and thats what the hurricane is right now (if you count the HAM drake not the HML drake)

This wouldnt make gallente ships totally OP, but it would make them more powerful than they are now, and would add some interesting risk/reward ideas for fitting IE do you want to lose some hull and a low slot for a nanofiber to counteract your agility?


Agility is one of the most important attributes for both kiting and catching kiters. The fact that you don't know this is depressing and helps kill my faith in humanity. How, exactly, do you hope to sling shot someone without great agility? You literally have no idea what you're talking about here.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#571 - 2012-10-01 16:30:17 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Don't worry I have not forgotten this thread. I just finished reading all the posts I had missed over the weekend.

We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet.


Until you fix armor tanking, the Omen and all other ships which are expected to armor tank are at an extreme disadvantage. Please remember that the key reasons that people are shield tanking is damage mods and mobility. Frankly, even if you fix armor tanking I think you should give build that cap bonus into the Omen and give it an optimal + damage bonus. :)

Yes, I'm looking for a bigger Slicer.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Ashriban Kador
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#572 - 2012-10-01 16:44:28 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Frankly, even if you fix armor tanking I think you should give build that cap bonus into the Omen and give it an optimal + damage bonus. :)

Yes, I'm looking for a bigger Slicer.

-Liang


Mmm, yes please!

Your goals may align with some ... and with others, collide with the force of suns.
Alara IonStorm
#573 - 2012-10-01 22:04:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet.

I was thinking about the Thorax and how to make it more Armor Friendly besides the base shield nerf.

Most Cruisers can not use NOS / Neuts and many of the Frigates can not either. Cruisers especially find themselves dropping to small Neuts or Small Cap Boosters.

So I think you should drop the fitting req down to 5 Small, 50 Medium for Energy Warfare Modules. I know your Cane Nerf was around their fitting but giving it 7 Guns - Dmg Bonus would fix that and leave the second bonus open to a real role.

Anyway point of that is I think you should make the Thorax more like this.

Thorax:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff
Slot layout: 5 H, 3 M, 6 L (+1), 4 turrets
Fittings: 820 PWG, 330 CPU (+30)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1200(-324) / 1600(-41) / 1700(-175)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1450(+75) / 490s(+25.25s) / 2.8
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 235(+55) / 0.49(-0.0658) / 11280000 / 5.2s (-0.7)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 52.5km(-2.5) / 280(+21) / 6
Sensor strength: 15 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 130(-10)
Cargo capacity: 465(+200)

That would give it slightly less base Dmg then before + second slot for a Mag Stab, the free high lets you mount a Nos without killing your fitting for fighting larger targets with more Cap to run Neuts or a Neut for smaller or equal targets. A slight falloff bonus that isn't great for Blaster kiting with and while most ships run 5% Dmg / 7.5 or 10% secondary stat the loss of a turret lets you reverse that to the Dmg effect the lesser second bonuses hit is a tradeoff for the utility slot. The Drone space helps define it above the rest as a Gallente Drone Boat letting hold Frig and Cruiser Drones without increasing current Dmg potential.

This would nerf the Shield Tank and Duel Web but for an Armor Dmg Brawler I think it would make better over all.
Lord Calus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#574 - 2012-10-01 22:54:50 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Don't worry I have not forgotten this thread. I just finished reading all the posts I had missed over the weekend.

We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet.


Until you fix armor tanking, the Omen and all other ships which are expected to armor tank are at an extreme disadvantage. Please remember that the key reasons that people are shield tanking is damage mods and mobility. Frankly, even if you fix armor tanking I think you should give build that cap bonus into the Omen and give it an optimal + damage bonus. :)

Yes, I'm looking for a bigger Slicer.

-Liang



I have to agree. It seems like every other race is getting 2 nifty useful flavorful (adjective)ful bonuses, and amarr get the same old, "OMG I CAN ACTUALLY USE MY WEAPON SYSTEM!!" bonus. If you want to look at why minmattar is so popular, look at the ship bonuses. falloff + tracking, tracking + damage, speed + tracking. Simply put, you are giving a pair of useful bonuses on every ship, while they maintain the obvious advantage shield tanking has. So you are stacking imbalance upon imbalance.

To fix? Give amarr better base cap and increase the cap regen amount. It is frankly silly that the race whose weapons are pure energy have the same ship power technology as the rust bucket, "my guns don't use cap and have selectable damage types el oh el smiley face", race does.

Armor tanking vs shield tanking fix? You screwed the pooch on this one guys. ASB is too powerful. No ifs ands or buts. It is the single most powerful module I have seen in YEARS. And the armor tanking mod? Something that has less utility and draws more cap than another rep. I am astounded. The crap armor mod also has a skill, which makes it suck up MORE cap, doesn't boost effectiveness any, and still does nothing to bring equity between the two tank types.

There is a reason I tell EVERY new person to train mattar, shield tanks, projectile weapons. You have created through the various inexplicable buffs upon buffs to this very select group of ship, weapon, and tank type which forces a homoginzation of skills and equipment used. Until such time as there is a VALID and not COMEDY reason to use anything but the preferred and frankly overpowered "winmattar" combination, you are just deluding yourself that you are actually balancing anything.
Serwenta
TOHA Heavy Industries
Blades of Grass
#575 - 2012-10-02 13:37:51 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Thorax:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed


Wouldn't it be more in line with how you have reshaped the Atron to make the Tracking bonus a fall-off bonus? It'd also make sense when you consider the Deimos's fall-off bonus too ...

If there is a reason why you have done it this way round could you please explain?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#576 - 2012-10-02 14:38:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Serwenta wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Thorax:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed


Wouldn't it be more in line with how you have reshaped the Atron to make the Tracking bonus a fall-off bonus? It'd also make sense when you consider the Deimos's fall-off bonus too ...

If there is a reason why you have done it this way round could you please explain?


yes attack cruisers are meant to be like T1 HACS surely. So kiting being the theme so a healthy 10% falloff makes more sense as blasters already have strong tracking close range the only issue is getting into range.
Especially now the moa is a brawler it makes more sense. Also buff its shield HP a little.

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
#577 - 2012-10-02 14:51:44 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Serwenta wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Thorax:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed


Wouldn't it be more in line with how you have reshaped the Atron to make the Tracking bonus a fall-off bonus? It'd also make sense when you consider the Deimos's fall-off bonus too ...

If there is a reason why you have done it this way round could you please explain?


yes attack cruisers are meant to be like T1 HACS surely. So kiting being the theme so a healthy 10% falloff makes more sense as blasters already have strong tracking close range the only issue is getting into range.
Especially now the moa is a brawler it makes more sense. Also buff its shield HP a little.


Dont you dare touch how they have this ship set up. I have 2 fits that work perfectly with the bonuses. If you don't believe me put together a Shield 200mm Rail Rax. It can kite at 2200m/s and hit for around 400 dps. It is going to own :)
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#578 - 2012-10-02 15:41:13 UTC
Stabber could definitely do with another turret and remove drones or add some.

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
Lavitakus Bromier
WTF Bunnies
#579 - 2012-10-02 17:08:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Don't worry I have not forgotten this thread. I just finished reading all the posts I had missed over the weekend.

We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet.


Well omen should just be buffer tanked anyways.
What IM worried about is the maller doing dam near the same damage as the omen. And it's got more cap to.
Could we remove cap turret bonus and replace it with a damage bonus.
Or to counter heavy armor tanking draw back. remove cap bonus and replace it with a slight damage and speed bonus instead.
This would make it do more alpha then the maller. And make it more agile thus increasing survivability.
Meldorn Vaash
State War Academy
Caldari State
#580 - 2012-10-03 05:09:47 UTC
I like the direction the Stabber is going but I think it needs a little bit more:

1 more turret (Puts it inline with the others in this class)
+50 Base grid (For the additional turret)
Drone bay and bandwidth for 5 light drones... (Shooting for the moon here. Only having 1 drone is laughable at best. Maybe 2 or 3? )
Ditch the split weapons (I personally don't see the point of the guns/missiles combo. Call me a purist) 
"Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes."