Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Just because you can balance something doent means you have to, Moa is a pretty sweet ship right now, but go ahead make it EFT Warrior ship that wont get used anymore because it can't apply all those insane dmg numbers when you actually fly it.

There are things spreadsheets not nessesarily reflect, you Moa numbers might have looked fine but the ship is **** now. It's either no tank or no dmg or no tackle right now, a job well done EFT warrior.

I personally dont want to change the slotlayout right now, the spare high is a good for a probe launcher. Moa needs the range in order to be able to hit something, as the tracking of the guns will **** it otherwise, and there is no mid slot to spare for a web. The dmg bonus will make it do less dmg then before.

So just leave it as it is.

also , omen and maller have the exact same slot layout , but the maller has 35 less cpu......

stop that

I'm sorry but I still don't understand why you're comparing a T1 cruiser, to a T1 battlecruiser, and a T2 battlecruiser that uses a fundamentally different kind of weapon system (and up to this point, to my knowledge, primarily has used LONG RANGE weapons, heavy missile launchers, to boot, unless you've apparently been using HAM spewing active tanked nighthawks in PvP or something; the argument is purely about brawlers). The general slot layout and stats of cruisers and battlecruisers are different enough that who cares if the Ferox (Or cyclone, if you insist) and Moa have the same amount of medslots? The Ferox (or Cyclone) fields more guns, has more base HP, is slower (though maybe not in the case of the Cyclone), whereas cruisers deal less DPS due to less turrets, less drones, somewhat less EHP but more manueverability. The Moa can have the same amount of medslots as other ships and still perform the combat role uniquely compared to a battlecruiser. There'd be a fundamental difference between a cruiser and a battlecruiser. Without need to have vastly differing slot layouts. The differences between ship classes like Cruiser and Battlecruiser to me seems like it should be more in base stats and bonuses than slot layout, which it sounds to me like you're adhering to.

Having five med slots will still benefit both active and passive shield tanking, too, so people will still be able to fit good active tanking brawling Moas or whatever.

So what about the fact that the Hawk has the same number of medium slots as the Sleipnir? Unacceptable, because it's a frigate, which active tanks, which means it should have only three, maximum four slots? :\ This makes about as much sense to me as your argument.

Not to mention, that battlecruisers haven't been touched by the rebalancing efforts yet and probably won't be until may or so next year. Which has also been pointed out.

I believe they said that the cruiser bonuses will be transfered to the t2 ships right? So say you got your wish and the Moa got its 5th mid, whats the difference between it and the eagle that likely wont see its revamp until mid summer next year?

Also WITH the bonus transfer you now have a REASON to chose the eagle over the Moa.


The extra slot plus the added bonus of the Eagle currently will show progression and a reason to move from the cruiser to the Hac.

CCP has flatly stated that they dislike the buffer shield tank trend happening in EVE and the lot of you ignore that and continue to cry out for the ability to do it on all shield tanked ships.

The Moa will be an active tanked brawler, the Eagle will likely now be a better version of that.

Its ok that you dont like it but you should try to at least understand it.

Ruptures drone bay needs nerfed, maller needs a little drone bay added other than that it looks fine. make them both 15m3 and we are just about there.

Rupture could use a slight tone down on speed a bit. It's currently faster than every other racial attack cruiser (aside from the Stabber). Vexor also has the least mass out of every cruiser in the game (aside from Cynabal) so its get a pretty big propulsion boost despite it's lower m/s. It could maybe use a small tweak downwards to the 18xxm/s range.

Moa needs more base speed, it has a huge mass and as such, by my calculations will only go around 1511.25 m/s with MWD on.

You can't be serious the rupture was the best and only usable tech 1 cruiser and now youre making them faster than most attack cruisers?

The maller is terrible you took its utility high gave it no additional slots and it has no drones!

Why does the maller have
the same capacitor recharge as the rupture whose guns use no cap?

You did the same thing to the punisher this is sloppy work you do not give same capacitor recharge to all races.

Make minmatar have weakest cap including recharge amount and make amarr the strongest!

*rubs temples* The same could be said about the new T1 logis or any of the buffed ships that the T2 havent been buffed yet almost EVERY one will make the T2 less apealign till the T2 is fixed, not just the Moa. also the eagle will get better resists and range, thats something.



yeah they so dont like buffer shield tanks, thats why all armor cruisers are getting a shiny new mid and more speed so that armor tankign looks even sillyer in comparison to their new buffer shield tank.

tho CCP Fozzie has stated they are workign on fixign armor tanking buffer and active all together, tho no ETA, yay!



Moa wont be able to hit the broad side of a barn without a web, only way to fit a web is with a single ASB, but there is a good chance ASBS even single ones will be nerfed, good luck with your brawling.

Most of these threads are all over the place but there seems to be general consensus on most points here:

Moa - needs another mid. More PG.
Rupture - too much
Maller - underwhelming.