These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#401 - 2012-10-05 16:50:04 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
The rorqual has a 20% per level currently. Drone bays were removed from all dreads and titans for being way too good at destroying sub cap ships. Also the moros got 5 large drones, the vexor is a medium ship, so medium drones.

Garviel Tarrant wrote:
You, are talking nonsense.
Indeed! It seems that I am. Still.... ain't gonna happen.

Just because it has not happened does not mean it can not happen, it would all around improve the effectiveness of the ship keepint it inline with the "Gallente" standard of high damage, and would strengthen the drones HP so that they could sustain some damage enabeling them to be used in pvp greater small gang.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Kithian Hastos
Divinum Immortalis Unlimited
#402 - 2012-10-05 19:18:44 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
Kithian Hastos wrote:


Would an ECM heavy drone with +50% increase in strength be overpowered?


yes, ridiculously


You're probably right. But if it were, then the base strength of the ECM drones could be adjusted to compensate, or the bonus on the drone boat.

Also don't forget that every time a drone boat would field one of those "overpowered" heavy ECM drones, it is reducing the heavy combat drones it can field. So it's potentially not simply a matter of "OMG crazy powered ECM drone and crazy damage", but more of a trade-off between the two.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#403 - 2012-10-05 19:53:08 UTC
Kithian Hastos wrote:
...Also don't forget that every time a drone boat would field one of those "overpowered" heavy ECM drones, it is reducing the heavy combat drones it can field. So it's potentially not simply a matter of "OMG crazy powered ECM drone and crazy damage", but more of a trade-off between the two.

That old argument Big smile

As long as EC-XXX drones are as good as they are, the abuse of them is a no brainer. They will always land at least one jam per fight (way more if toggled) and are thus essentially impervious to enemy retaliation which damage drones are not .. one practically needs a smartbomb to clear EC-XXX but add one of those and your whole fit will be walking with a limp.

The only two ways I see to make EC-XXX fit into Eve is to either remove them entirely or change them into lock-breakers instead of jammers
FistyMcBumBasher
State War Academy
Caldari State
#404 - 2012-10-06 13:09:11 UTC
I want to start this post off by saying that I think you guys are doing a great job, and that I really appreciate the effort of trying to rebalance all of the ships and make them useful in one way or another.

I fear that being only able to utilize 14 slots these ships are just too similar and will end up competing for the same niche. They are both 5H 3M and 6L, and have relatively similar powergrid and CPU, so the large difference between the hulls is that the Omen has a 40/40 drone bay, therefore setting it up to be the better and more versatile ship when a brick tank/no dps ship is needed. Compare these two ships differences to the Moa and Caracal, Thorax and Vexor, Stabber and Rupture. How come the Maller is the slowest ship (Moa is shield tanked) with the fewest number of mids and no drone bay? This will make it easy prey for frigates (with the frigate buff they are everywhere in lowsec at least). Sure, it is still a brick, but the drone dps of the Omen will allow it to devote an extra low to a tanking mod, bringing the tanks closer in line with eachother.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
The Omen must be one of the most frustrating ships to fit so we are going to look at it. Like CCP Guard, it should be a mean miniaturized version of the Armageddon, not a public target for bad-taste midget tossing jokes.


CCP Ytterbium wrote:
sad Maller, your whole existence is a tragedy. Please let us put an end to this travesty by properly turning you into a mini-Abaddon, with an armor resistance and laser damage bonus to actually serve as something else than bait.


If you are set on turning the cruisers into mini battleships, my suggestion would be to turn the Omen into a mini Apoc by replacing one of the bonuses for an optimal range bonus. This would give it a way to project it's damage similar to the other attack cruisers (falloff on stabber, flight time on caracal). Giving the Maller some form of dronebay would also go a long way into helping it not just be the brick bait and having some form of frigate defense. Hell, it is the only t1 cruiser without a dronebay. How does that make sense considering that you devs have stated that you want drones to be the secondary weapon system of Amarr? Replace the turret damage bonus with a 50/150 drone bay with a drone bonus similar to the arbitrator/vexor and now the maller is a brick able to defend itself.

Also, isn't it a little boring and a bit monotonous that almost every single t1 Amarr damage ship has one of it's ship bonuses to capacitor use of energy turrets? A problem easily solved by fitting a cap booster.

Thanks for your time,
-Fisty
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#405 - 2012-10-06 13:16:34 UTC
Personally, I believe the Vexor should lose or move the mid slot (put back the high slot). This ship is too much. The low slot can remain and any other changes. The ship doesn't require 4 mid slots to still be powerful.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#406 - 2012-10-06 17:11:01 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
Personally, I believe the Vexor should lose or move the mid slot (put back the high slot). This ship is too much. The low slot can remain and any other changes. The ship doesn't require 4 mid slots to still be powerful.


Neither does the Rupture, IMO.

It still boggles my mind about how the Moa, Rupture and Vexor all have the SAME amount of medslots- And due to how the layouts are set up, the Moa is the only 'pure' shield tanker.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#407 - 2012-10-06 17:21:36 UTC
Posting to support the fact that the Moa, Rupture, Vexor, Thorax all having 4 med slots is ridiculous -- especially when the latter three are all "armor" tankers. The Moa needs at least another mid slot if it is to be a mini-Rokh and not fade into oblivion under the shadows of the other cruisers.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#408 - 2012-10-06 17:23:34 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
FistyMcBumBasher wrote:
I

If you are set on turning the cruisers into mini battleships, my suggestion would be to turn the Omen into a mini Apoc by replacing one of the bonuses for an optimal range bonus. This would give it a way to project it's damage similar to the other attack cruisers (falloff on stabber, flight time on caracal). Giving the Maller some form of dronebay would also go a long way into helping it not just be the brick bait and having some form of frigate defense. Hell, it is the only t1 cruiser without a dronebay. How does that make sense considering that you devs have stated that you want drones to be the secondary weapon system of Amarr? Replace the turret damage bonus with a 50/150 drone bay with a drone bonus similar to the arbitrator/vexor and now the maller is a brick able to defend itself.

Also, isn't it a little boring and a bit monotonous that almost every single t1 Amarr damage ship has one of it's ship bonuses to capacitor use of energy turrets? A problem easily solved by fitting a cap booster.

Thanks for your time,
-Fisty



Pleaase god no... II've already proposed the Prophecy should get a 15% optimal per level, 5% resist per level at the BC class to make it a unique build that doesn't overlap with the BS, Cruiser, BC, or Hac platforms in any significant way while having an actual role.

Making a cruiser fill this role too diminishes the concept.

All the justification there:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=157299&find=unread
Marchejita
NRDS What Else
Goonswarm Federation
#409 - 2012-10-07 07:21:01 UTC
For Maller it's perhapas possible to use them in heavy assault missile

Structure : 5 launcher
Bonus ship : +5 resistance, +10% flight time on assault missile
FistyMcBumBasher
State War Academy
Caldari State
#410 - 2012-10-07 11:18:53 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
FistyMcBumBasher wrote:
I

If you are set on turning the cruisers into mini battleships, my suggestion would be to turn the Omen into a mini Apoc by replacing one of the bonuses for an optimal range bonus. This would give it a way to project it's damage similar to the other attack cruisers (falloff on stabber, flight time on caracal). Giving the Maller some form of dronebay would also go a long way into helping it not just be the brick bait and having some form of frigate defense. Hell, it is the only t1 cruiser without a dronebay. How does that make sense considering that you devs have stated that you want drones to be the secondary weapon system of Amarr? Replace the turret damage bonus with a 50/150 drone bay with a drone bonus similar to the arbitrator/vexor and now the maller is a brick able to defend itself.

Also, isn't it a little boring and a bit monotonous that almost every single t1 Amarr damage ship has one of it's ship bonuses to capacitor use of energy turrets? A problem easily solved by fitting a cap booster.

Thanks for your time,
-Fisty



Pleaase god no... II've already proposed the Prophecy should get a 15% optimal per level, 5% resist per level at the BC class to make it a unique build that doesn't overlap with the BS, Cruiser, BC, or Hac platforms in any significant way while having an actual role.

Making a cruiser fill this role too diminishes the concept.

All the justification there:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=157299&find=unread


The post you linked is discussing the balancing of Battleships. My suggested proposal was about the Omen and Maller because I feel they are a bit too similar and are not distinguished enough from each other.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#411 - 2012-10-07 14:48:02 UTC
@ CCP Fozzie how about a EHP boost to help close the gap a little to bc's?
say 20% on combat cruisers and 10% on attack cruisers aswell as a little more speed and less mass on the attack cruisers as the attack cruisers are actually heavier than the combat cruisers strangely enough.

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
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#412 - 2012-10-07 15:29:54 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
@ CCP Fozzie how about a EHP boost to help close the gap a little to bc's?



Better plan would be to nerf the hp, fitting, slots and mobility on tier 2 and 3 BCs.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#413 - 2012-10-07 15:30:42 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
@ CCP Fozzie how about a EHP boost to help close the gap a little to bc's?



Better plan would be to nerf the hp, fitting, slots and mobility on tier 2 and 3 BCs.


Both would be better

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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#414 - 2012-10-07 16:34:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
its a shame that that drone ships are always given guns/secondary weapons bonuses/slots.
But i guess CCP don't think their viable without the extra dps.
Just thinking that carriers get a rep bonus instead of guns in their highs...
Maybe if we had more options for drone upgrades in the highs we might not need the guns that and drones need to not die as much with decent drone-bays to replace them and even repair them.

it would be nice to know if they have any plans to overhaul drones in general or 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
Tal Jarcin
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#415 - 2012-10-08 01:35:20 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Kithian Hastos wrote:
...Also don't forget that every time a drone boat would field one of those "overpowered" heavy ECM drones, it is reducing the heavy combat drones it can field. So it's potentially not simply a matter of "OMG crazy powered ECM drone and crazy damage", but more of a trade-off between the two.

That old argument Big smile

As long as EC-XXX drones are as good as they are, the abuse of them is a no brainer. They will always land at least one jam per fight (way more if toggled) and are thus essentially impervious to enemy retaliation which damage drones are not .. one practically needs a smartbomb to clear EC-XXX but add one of those and your whole fit will be walking with a limp.

The only two ways I see to make EC-XXX fit into Eve is to either remove them entirely or change them into lock-breakers instead of jammers


Or make the current ecm drones able to be flown only by dedicated ECM boats, and give the rest of us a ECM "burst" drone designed to allow us to break lock and exit as a last ditch effort to save our ship...

Just a suggestion. ;)
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#416 - 2012-10-08 03:02:05 UTC
Tal Jarcin wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Kithian Hastos wrote:
...Also don't forget that every time a drone boat would field one of those "overpowered" heavy ECM drones, it is reducing the heavy combat drones it can field. So it's potentially not simply a matter of "OMG crazy powered ECM drone and crazy damage", but more of a trade-off between the two.

That old argument Big smile

As long as EC-XXX drones are as good as they are, the abuse of them is a no brainer. They will always land at least one jam per fight (way more if toggled) and are thus essentially impervious to enemy retaliation which damage drones are not .. one practically needs a smartbomb to clear EC-XXX but add one of those and your whole fit will be walking with a limp.

The only two ways I see to make EC-XXX fit into Eve is to either remove them entirely or change them into lock-breakers instead of jammers


Or make the current ecm drones able to be flown only by dedicated ECM boats, and give the rest of us a ECM "burst" drone designed to allow us to break lock and exit as a last ditch effort to save our ship...

Just a suggestion. ;)



Or make your ship spontaneously explode if you try to undock with ECM drones in your bay

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#417 - 2012-10-08 03:07:22 UTC
After reading replies here and on FHC, I think I'm inclined to agree that the Maller should be a Heavy Assault Missile Ship, or just a Medium missile ship and the Sacrilege would be the specialized Heavy Assault Missile ship.

I think 5% per level armor resistance and 5% + explosion velocity or damage to Medium Missiles

I also think one of the frigates should go missiles, and the Prophecy. The Battles ships are ok as they are, just even them up a little stat wise. Then add a Torpedo specialized Amarr ship. Make the Geddon the Ewar one, Apoc stays sniper, and Abbadon stays tanky but gets more cap stable.
Sycotic Deninard
Basgerin Pirate
#418 - 2012-10-08 06:15:35 UTC
Kethry Avenger wrote:
After reading replies here and on FHC, I think I'm inclined to agree that the Maller should be a Heavy Assault Missile Ship, or just a Medium missile ship and the Sacrilege would be the specialized Heavy Assault Missile ship.

I think 5% per level armor resistance and 5% + explosion velocity or damage to Medium Missiles

I also think one of the frigates should go missiles, and the Prophecy. The Battles ships are ok as they are, just even them up a little stat wise. Then add a Torpedo specialized Amarr ship. Make the Geddon the Ewar one, Apoc stays sniper, and Abbadon stays tanky but gets more cap stable.



Don't wish that curse on those ships! The upcoming HML/HAM nerf will make those ships total crap!

A person that does'nt use his intelligence is no better than an animal that does'nt have any and thus are steaks on the table by choice and consent.
Alara IonStorm
#419 - 2012-10-08 06:34:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Sycotic Deninard wrote:

Don't wish that curse on those ships! The upcoming HML/HAM nerf will make those ships total crap!

Well he wants it to be a HAM Boat pretty much exclusively and you seem to include HAM's in the being nerfed category.

Missile Rebalance Thread. wrote:

Winter, including the already announced buff to light missiles, a buff to unguided missiles especially HAMs.

Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles

Reduce HAM launcher PG requirements by 10%

Javelin: Just remove ship penalties

Tracking disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit

Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius)

Not seeing to much of a nerf here for HAM's. Except for Rages Dmg Buff coming with an accuracy decrease which is mitigated by GMP it seems to be a full and complete HAM Buff.

Not that I want the Maller to be a HAM Boat personally. Just a 25m3 Drone Bay added to the current stats.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#420 - 2012-10-08 10:22:32 UTC
The EHP on cruiser is okay as long battlecruisers end up somewhere between the current tier 1 and 2 battlcruisers (but closer to tier 1 battlecruisers)...

If the battlecruisers gets stronger the cruisers wont stand a chance in msot scenarios.

Pinky