These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#281 - 2012-10-03 10:26:20 UTC
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:
Let the Rupture simply like it is now.
Anything else is overkill. Rupture is already the most overpowered Tech1 not faction cruiser.
With these changes the new Omen, Maller and Moa are dead before they are born. Rupture is simply completely superior to them.
Skip one high on the moa and give it another mid. Maller needs drones. Minimum 20mb bandwith. Let the Rupture like it is now (I mean NOW and not the crazy buffed stuff you presented us).
Even then I am not sure if the actual Rupture would´t be superior to NEW Moa and Maller.


It would help if the nerfed TE's they are such an advantage to autocannons it's untrue

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
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#282 - 2012-10-03 10:57:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
ok, some more posts have been made now to bomb fozzie with another patented wall'o'text.


the moa...

sadly fozzie i think more needs to be done here. while we understand that the moa isn't all that an attractive ship there are a small core of people, such as myself, who enjoy flying our lovable dinosaur with a suitcase and honestly? it needs a lot more love.

specifically, it needs midslots.

as i'm sure people have mentioned previously the moa really has a short stick at the moment. the 6/4/4 layout really doesn't let it do... anything. now people can talk about how it does TONS OF DEEPS! which lets be fair... it can. people can talk about the MASSIVE SHIELD TANK it can field which again... it can. people can even talk about the massive ranges it can pull out of railguns which, at the moment it can. the problem is while it can do any of these things it can't do more than one of them at any time. why might some people ask? midslots.

the moa in addition to looking like a bloated whale with some strange growths suffers from having no idea what its meant to do, something which already applies to its updated version. while the 5% damage bonus is very much welcome (VERY much welcome) the moa find its self unable to really take advantage of it due to a few factors all of which can be solved, in my mind at least, by an alteration of the slot layout.

what i would personally propose as a solution to this problem is a rather... radical alteration of the moa's slot layout. rather than 6/4/4 I would personally suggest a 5/6/3 layout.

now before people start screaming and shouting at me lemmie explain a bit.

firstly i think we can all agree that the moa's biggest weakness is its inability to fit a tank AND bring tackle to allow it to actually engage opponents. in the case of a blaster moa... well people are just plain faster than the moa and without a web the moa can't really get its teeth into a target. on the flip side on a more long range platform the moa has no real way to hold that range against an opponent. the result? either the blaster moa gets left in the dust or the rail moa has to warp off or get caught and ripped to bits by significantly faster yet just as good tanking, opponents.

so why 5/6/3? mainly so the moa isn't simply a "hybrid caracal" like the situation the eagle and cerberus currently find themselves in. firstly, it would permit the moa which is all told meant to be a "slow but tanky" cruiser to fit a 4 slot tank without crippling its ability to fit some tackle, the balancing point of fitting said tank (which lets be fair would be rather hefty in terms of PG and CPU) would in my mind stop MASSIVE TANK MASSIVE DEEPS moas from dominating the field as a particularly tanky moa (50k+) would be more limmited to using either electron blasters (very short ranged) or attaching fitting mods in order to attach ion blasters (meaning either rigs, implants or lowslots) and restrict the use of the more dangerous neutron blasters to much more fragile and cap intensive fits double invuln, microwarp, point and web all running kind of nom the cap along side 5 blasters).

so why 6 mids and 3 lows rather than 5 and 4? well a lot of it has to do with the amount of 4/5 and 5/4 fits we've seen so far honestly and something more polarised would be interesting. a damage control and 2 magstabs fit fairly nicely in the current moa layout and combined with the new damage bonus would provide more than enough dps to stop the moa stepping on the feet of the higher damage gallente hulls while sporting much more tanking ability, around 300-400 dps with a 50k tank on most extreme fittings (to be specific that would be 5 ion blasters, 2 magstabs, a 2LSE, 1 invuln II and DC tank and 3 shield rigs, it would require a 6% pg implant or a pg implant/genolution combo to fit that all told)

its just a proposal of course but i think it would solve a lot of the issues inherent with the moa without having to alter too many values, at least in terms of PG/CPU, while giving the moa a distinct and individual flavour compared to its counterparts.

the moa is an ugly duck, i'm not going to deny that but in compensation surely it should be allowed to be a tanky caldari duck? :D

ideal moa layout for me...

[Moa, Ideal]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Damage Control II

Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
J5b prototype phased warp scrambler I
X5 prototype engine enervator

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hobgoblin II x3

just a loose framework of course but i would think that the relatively low speed and short range on the weapons would work reasonably well and stopping it getting too out of hand. I'd much rather see a moa with some utility than a moa which spends its days as a 600 dps gank platform :/

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#283 - 2012-10-03 11:15:40 UTC
I think the general consensus is that you should take this all back to the drawing board and give it quite a lot more thought.

Especially the maller, stop hating on amarr <.<

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#284 - 2012-10-03 11:18:56 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I think the general consensus is that you should take this all back to the drawing board and give it quite a lot more thought.

Especially the maller, stop hating on amarr <.<

I agree it seemed quickly slapped together, the moa is also weird in regards to slot layout. An on a cruiser I do feel that the vex or can be much more drone focused than it currently is.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#285 - 2012-10-03 11:27:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Callduron
Are Faction cruisers being adjusted? With the buffs to the basic cruisers most of the faction ones seem pretty redundant. Just to take Caldari as an example:

Osprey Navy Issue - 4 launchers, rof and velocity bonuses, 4-5-3 layout, 1407 shield hit points, 256 m/s speed. Completely outclassed in its niche by Rupture and Stabber.

Caracal Navy Issue - 6 launchers, kinetic damage and velocity bonuses, 6-5-4 layout, 2813 shield hit points, 164 m/s speed. Barely better than a regular Caracal and would die to a Moa which will now be faster.

The Fleet Stabber seems to be still just about better than a normal one but many of the others (eg Exequror Navy Issue) have now moved from borderline to ridiculously bad. None of the new cruisers are as weak as Exequrors Navy Issue and all cost a fraction of the price.

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#286 - 2012-10-03 11:28:56 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I think the general consensus is that you should take this all back to the drawing board and give it quite a lot more thought.

Especially the maller, stop hating on amarr <.<

I agree it seemed quickly slapped together, the moa is also weird in regards to slot layout. An on a cruiser I do feel that the vex or can be much more drone focused than it currently is.


mm.. you could give vexor armour rep bonus drop a mid to low drop a turret and double its drone bonus and drop its drones to 50/100. And do buff its cpu you realise all drone upgrades use lots of cpu and rigs compound it even more by taking away cpu?.

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
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#287 - 2012-10-03 11:32:10 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I think the general consensus is that you should take this all back to the drawing board and give it quite a lot more thought.

Especially the maller, stop hating on amarr <.<

I agree it seemed quickly slapped together, the moa is also weird in regards to slot layout. An on a cruiser I do feel that the vex or can be much more drone focused than it currently is.


mm.. you could give vexor armour rep bonus drop a mid to low drop a turret and double its drone bonus and drop its drones to 50/100. And do buff its cpu you realise all drone upgrades use lots of cpu and rigs compound it even more by taking away cpu?.

Yeah drone rigs suck cpu alot, and with a rep bonus and the improved cap, you might be able to put other rigs on it besides tank rigs.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#288 - 2012-10-03 11:34:09 UTC
dat moa! Shocked

so can we expect a hybrid damage bonus for the ferox and Rokh too?

loving the rest, especially the improvements to the vexor.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#289 - 2012-10-03 11:38:43 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
dat moa! Shocked

so can we expect a hybrid damage bonus for the ferox and Rokh too?

loving the rest, especially the improvements to the vexor.


ferox i certainly hope so it makes sense but the rokh is fine it gives it a greater versatility without much dps drop.

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
JamesCLK
#290 - 2012-10-03 11:52:55 UTC  |  Edited by: JamesCLK
I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that the mass stat hasn't been altered, as it plays a significant role in the effectiveness of propulsion modules and agility on these ships.

-- -.-- / -.-. .-.. --- -. . / .. ... / - --- --- / . -..- .--. . -. ... .. ...- . / - --- / ..- -. -.. --- -.-. -.- / ... - --- .--. / .--. .-.. . .- ... . / ... . -. -.. / .... . .-.. .--. / ... - --- .--.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#291 - 2012-10-03 11:54:58 UTC
I've compared the Rupture to All combat and attack cruisers and even 1 electronic warfare cruiser. The Rupture is being overshadowed in close and long range combat area by 3 - 4 other cruisers.

To date there has been no comparison made between all these cruisers. There's only 1 off statements with nothing substantive.

IMO, here are strongest combat cruisers rank as so:

Close range

1. Vexor
2. Moa
3. Rupture
4. Maller

Long range

1. Rupture
2. Maller (you're able to nano and use shield extenders)
3. Vexor
4. Moa

Attack and Combat cruisers ranked.

Close range

1. Vexor
2. Moa
3. Rupture
4. Thorax
5. Maller
6. Omen
7. Caracal
8. Stabber

Long range

1. Caracal
2. Omen
3. Stabber
4. Rupture
5. Thorax
6. Maller (you're able to nano and use shield extenders)
7. Vexor
8. Moa

That list can be backed up with setups and facts. Could go into silly variables of they could encounter all day (solo or small gang).

All but 1 attack cruiser is superior to the Rupture @ range and 2 cruisers are superior close range. If it wasn't for the forth mid slot the Thorax would have a decisive advantage close range, but now it's a toss up

There's 1 more cruiser that's left off that list because it's a electronic warfare cruiser. The Bellicose will also become better @ range compared to the Rupture.

I've also gone into the strength of the Vexor and stated it's somewhat unique ability to engage ships well above its class. Unlike most of the other cruisers. The Moa is also really strong and because of the ASB issue its some what of a HAC, but even with shield extenders alone that would be the case. There's nothing wrong with it the way it is now. 1 more mid slot would only mean it would completely overshowed the Maller and have insane tank for tech 1 cruiser. It already does thanks to asb's...

When these changes take effect I will be rocking the Bellicose, Caracal, Vexor, Thorax and Rupture solo. The Stabber will make alot more sense to fly in gangs. Which is where I plan to use it. I don't have anymore characters that can fly anything Amarr so I won't be able to fly the new Omen, but I sure as well won't fly the Maller lol. Although a tech 1 logistics and Maller fleet seems p powerfull. I hope to try that. I've already done it with guardians and Mallers...

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#292 - 2012-10-03 12:05:09 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
I've compared the Rupture to All combat and attack cruisers and even 1 electronic warfare cruiser. The Rupture is being overshadowed in close and long range combat area by 3 - 4 other cruisers.

That list can be backed up with setups and facts. Could go into silly variables of they could encounter all day (solo or small gang).


Please back it up with some fits and numbers. So far the consensus is that the Rupture is excellent.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#293 - 2012-10-03 12:22:39 UTC
I don't think dropping the Moa's optimal range bonus is a good idea. I feel that the Cadari rail boat philosphy will be lost for pure blaster boats.

I think a better idea would have been to give the ship an extra turret (total 6) and the required fittings for it and to keep 10% per level optimal bonus. This would essentially build into the hull a 20% damage increase and allow the ship to retain range advantages. This fix would also work for the Ferox and would keep the Caldari turret ships in line with the Rokh (Optimal and Resist bonused hulls) instead of mixing up the line with damage and resist hulls.
Yuri Intaki
Nasranite Watch
#294 - 2012-10-03 12:25:51 UTC
Callduron wrote:
Are Faction cruisers being adjusted? With the buffs to the basic cruisers most of the faction ones seem pretty redundant. Just to take Caldari as an example.


This is definetely something which should be adjusted at the same time as other cruisers. Otherwise we will be waiting for update a long time I fear.

At the very least faction hulls should get some changes to speed, shield, etc. that vanilla versions get. However, that still does not address the imbalance of slots. For example Nosprey has 12 slots compared to 14 of attack cruisers and Nosprey is supposed to be the fastest caldari boat out there. Right now Nosprey can be surprisiginly effective but come winter, it's going to be laughed at by pretty much anything.

Nosprey would probably need increase to drone bay and +1 high/mid with one more launcher to make it worthwhile. And PG/CPU to go with it of course.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#295 - 2012-10-03 12:28:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
I've compared the Rupture to All combat and attack cruisers and even 1 electronic warfare cruiser. The Rupture is being overshadowed in close and long range combat area by 3 - 4 other cruisers.

That list can be backed up with setups and facts. Could go into silly variables of they could encounter all day (solo or small gang).


Please back it up with some fits and numbers. So far the consensus is that the Rupture is excellent.


I've already compared the Rupture with the Omen, Thorax and Caracal in terms of damage in this thread. The damage is the same as it is now except with alot more CPU and powergrid and since I've flown both solo I'm very aware of thier strength and weaknesses. The fact you're asking me something you should investigate yourself instead of throwing out random words. Suggest you don't know what you're on about.

Those with sense and experience know that list is correct for the most part. Many of the future damage increases can be graphed now with EFT. You can compare the damage projected and applied of the Omen, Thorax, Caracal and Rupture now with "common setups". Otherwise you can use substatutes like the Osprey Navy Issue or Caracal Navy Issue to get a good idea of what the Bellicose and Caracal will look like.

The rest is just throwing in changes to hit points, velocity, capacitor and other factors. Overall, CCP will be forced to boost Navy Faction cruisers because that's what these new tech 1 cruisers are.

I find it ammusing when someone just randomly brings up velocity without looking @ other factors. A shield-ac-Hurricane is alot faster than a hml-Drake. However, it doesn't matter. There are other factors that make that higher velocity mute. One of those is damage projection and overall hp. Compare a Talos versus a Hurricane etc. A ship that has alot less tank compared to a shield-hurricane, but has insane damage application and projection. That is the same comparison that can be made with the proposed Omen and Rupture. About the only thing that can be said is that a shield-Rupture may escape. I prefer using a armor-Rupture. A shield-Omen will school it provided it can maintain range (nano).

EDIT: also I tend not to give away my setups or chat to much about them anymore. Figure the rest out.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#296 - 2012-10-03 12:28:39 UTC
Yuri Intaki wrote:
Callduron wrote:
Are Faction cruisers being adjusted? With the buffs to the basic cruisers most of the faction ones seem pretty redundant. Just to take Caldari as an example.


This is definetely something which should be adjusted at the same time as other cruisers. Otherwise we will be waiting for update a long time I fear.

At the very least faction hulls should get some changes to speed, shield, etc. that vanilla versions get. However, that still does not address the imbalance of slots. For example Nosprey has 12 slots compared to 14 of attack cruisers and Nosprey is supposed to be the fastest caldari boat out there. Right now Nosprey can be surprisiginly effective but come winter, it's going to be laughed at by pretty much anything.

Nosprey would probably need increase to drone bay and +1 high/mid with one more launcher to make it worthwhile. And PG/CPU to go with it of course.


Or make it a rail boat as Navy caracal will prob end up being faster and what not

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
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#297 - 2012-10-03 12:34:40 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
I've compared the Rupture to All combat and attack cruisers and even 1 electronic warfare cruiser. The Rupture is being overshadowed in close and long range combat area by 3 - 4 other cruisers.

That list can be backed up with setups and facts. Could go into silly variables of they could encounter all day (solo or small gang).


Please back it up with some fits and numbers. So far the consensus is that the Rupture is excellent.


I've already compared the Rupture with the Omen, Thorax and Caracal in terms of damage in this thread. The damage is the same as it is now except with alot more CPU and powergrid and since I've flown both solo I'm very aware of thier strength and weaknesses. The fact you're asking me something you should investigate yourself instead of throwing out random words. Suggest you don't know what you're on about.

Those with sense and experience know that list is correct for the most part. Many of the future damage increases can be graphed now with EFT. You can compare the damage projected and applied of the Omen, Thorax, Caracal and Rupture now with "common setups". Otherwise you can use substatutes like the Osprey Navy Issue or Caracal Navy Issue to get a good idea of what the Bellicose and Caracal will look like.

The rest is just throwing in changes to hit points, velocity, capacitor and other factors. Overall, CCP will be forced to boost Navy Faction cruisers because that's what these new tech 1 cruisers are.

I find it ammusing when someone just randomly brings up velocity without looking @ other factors. A shield-ac-Hurricane is alot faster than a hml-Drake. However, it doesn't matter. There are other factors that make that higher velocity mute. One of those is damage projection and overall hp. Compare a Talos versus a Hurricane etc. A ship that has alot less tank compared to a shield-hurricane, but has insane damage application and projection. That is the same comparison that can be made with the proposed Omen and Rupture. About the only thing that can be said is that a shield-Rupture may escape. I prefer using a armor-Rupture. A shield-Omen will school it provided it can maintain range (nano).

So you are merely speculating about things, if not then please provide some fits.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#298 - 2012-10-03 12:37:05 UTC
I'm also rather saddened by the fact that not a single cruiser was made with active tanking in mind.

Why not?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

MisterNick
The Sagan Clan
#299 - 2012-10-03 12:48:38 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I'm also rather saddened by the fact that not a single cruiser was made with active tanking in mind.

Why not?


I thought they might just do it to the Vexor, but was glad to see they didn't - both it's bonuses were already ideal Smile

"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."
Yuri Intaki
Nasranite Watch
#300 - 2012-10-03 12:51:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuri Intaki
Harvey James wrote:
Or make it a rail boat as Navy caracal will prob end up being faster and what not


Works for me but I think the whole point of Nosprey was that's supposed to be "the attack cruiser" of Caldari cruisers. Fast, long range, not that tanky and bit less dps than other boats of it's size.

Problem though is that heavy missile nerf will hit Nosprey fairly hard. HAM fit might have become worthwhile option if the te/tc boost to missiles would have happened but right now Nosprey will become a really bad boat instead of it's current "meh" status since it's grid/cpu and slots will be lacking compared to other boats and whether it uses hybrids or missiles is beside the point.