These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Whisperen
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#641 - 2012-10-11 15:17:14 UTC
Thorax needs more grid.
Alara IonStorm
#642 - 2012-10-11 15:25:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Martin0 wrote:
Doddy wrote:
nomad Raholan wrote:
Wivabel wrote:


it is dumb to need a fitting mod to fit the smallest guns


Well you can always use the fitting mod for less tank and big guns. Not many ships allow for biggest gun and max tank, is always a compromise..


Not that its really dumb to need fitting mods to fit an oversize tank in the first place.


He says it's dumb because CCP Fozzie wrote that those cruisers would have been able to fit a 1600mm aAND the smallest guns but the thorax can't do it.


Whisperen wrote:
Thorax needs more grid.


The only dumbness is that a 1600mm Plate should be considered the norm for Cruiser sized ships. It is and that should change.

The T2 800mm Plate between getting the same 15% decrease in speed from rigs as the 1600mm and the anemic 2400 Armor HP is all but a joke. Give it a solid amount of tank and a good speed advantage over the 1600mm and it would not be an issue. It would end the tired trend of these ships both needing the smallest weapons to fit a plate and needing to fit Frigate sized neutralizers / nos / capboosters on Cruisers.

The fault of Armor Cruisers is not whether or not they can fit a 1600mm Plate, it is that they need to fit such a grid gluttonous mod to compete with both Shields and with Battlecruisers that fit 1600mm's easily. IMO They need to have a plate usable by both Battlecruisers and Cruisers that is separate from a Battleship Plate.

Right now the field looks like this.

50mm / Useless
100mm / Useless
200mm / Frigate
400mm / Destroyer
800mm / Useless
160mm / Cruiser > Battleship

Small Extender / Useless
Med Extender / Frigate > Destroyer
Large Extender / Cruiser > Battleship

Anyone could see that is a little lopsided. Between the 50% Tanking Buff and the introduction of Extender / Trimark Rigs this system like the tier system has fallen apart with age and people have to shove these things wherever they can. CCP buffing ships around a broken and out of date buffer system and that needs to stop.

I would prefer the issue be handled like so.

400mm / Frigate > Destroyer
800mm / Cruiser > Battlecruiser
1600mm / Battleship

Small Extender / Frigate > Destroyer
Med Extender / Cruiser > Battlecruiser
Large Extender / Battleship

50mm \
100mm\
200mm \__Turned into 400mm Plates

With Stat Changes in Fitting and HP Amount to meet the new goals of these modules. (700-1000 HP for Frigates > Dsssie, 2500 / 3000 HP for Cruisers >BC, 3800 / 4500 HP for Battleships)

Some would not like the slight HP Drop for Armor Battlecruisers with a new yet hardier 800mm Plate but the benefits should be self evident in the design. The better weapon and utility fitting and the improved speed should be purpose designed to make up for the loss.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#643 - 2012-10-11 16:22:20 UTC
I think you're pretty much spot on about the "manditoryness" of 1600mm on armor cruisers alara. I however think that the introduction of a new "1200 mm" plate in between the current 800mm along with reductions in fitting and speed pens on the 800mm would spice up the fitting environment for these ships. Dropping the grid req on 800s to 100 or 125 as well as a 25%ish reduction in mass would be a good start for the 800mm. The 1200mm Should be in the 300 grid range with a total mass only slightly less than a 1600.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#644 - 2012-10-11 18:38:10 UTC
Whisperen wrote:
Thorax needs more grid.


And more cpu so I can fit an Xl ASB and still keep decent number of dmg mods. Cool

brb
Alara IonStorm
#645 - 2012-10-11 19:03:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

And more cpu so I can fit an Xl ASB and still keep decent number of dmg mods. Cool

Theletters XL ASB have popped up a lot in this and other threads pertaining to Cruisers. Q. What kept the XLSB off of Cruiser sized ships in the past. A. Cap use, that is no longer an issue.

The same problem with 1600mm on everything is following the XL ASB thanks to its low fitting req and lack of cap use. CCP has sought to look into the ASB by Nerfing the XL one and this is a critical mistake for this reason. The Shield Boosters were created a long time ago and have not been balanced to current use so the ASB is based on a broken system that was kept in check with Capacitor and no longer is.

Medium ASB's are the purview of Frigate and Dessies while the XL ASB's are for Cruiser to Battleships with the Large and Small falling by the wayside. It is bad balance work to try to make the mod fit into the categories of Cruiser, Battlecruiser and Battleship all at the same time.

I think if they want to balance it out they have to draw a line in the sand with four changes.

* Limit one per ship.
* Change the XL ASB to Battleship Fitting and buff it so that instead of using duel ASB's one and a Shield Amp in the now free slot = around current 2x XL-ASB BS setups.
* The Large ASB is half the XL ASB in boost amount essentially 2 = 1. That loses a critical slot over current XL ASB for little fitting while one L ASB on its own does not measure up to the XL ASB. Buff the Large ASB so the single one you can fit is worth it on Cruisers and Battlecruisers providing an appropriate active tank.
* Figure out what to do with the Small ASB or fold it into the Medium as the Frigate / Dessie ASB.

Simply playing with the stats in a broken system is not helping matters much.
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#646 - 2012-10-11 19:22:17 UTC
Simplest change in the whole system would be...

...Limiting them to the apropriate class.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#647 - 2012-10-11 21:47:45 UTC
This is kinda strange because dudes are complaining about the lack of difference between combat and attack cruisers. Why should an attack cruiser have the same amount of hit points as a combat cruiser? I thought (based on what CCP has stated) they focused more on agility and damage, not tank.

Non of these ships should have anyware close to the same amount of EHP as a combat cruiser.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#648 - 2012-10-11 22:06:14 UTC
Morgan North wrote:
Simplest change in the whole system would be...

...Limiting them to the apropriate class.

Hard limit is bad, because it is a denial of the PG/CPU system.
Dato Koppla
Balls Deep Inc.
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#649 - 2012-10-12 03:54:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Dato Koppla
Major Killz wrote:


Non of these ships should have anyware close to the same amount of EHP as a combat cruiser.


However you vehemently support that the Rupture has more speed than all the Attack Cruisers. Roll

Edit//
Just stop posting lol.
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#650 - 2012-10-12 07:10:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Kai'rae Saarkus
Alara IonStorm wrote:


The fault of Armor Cruisers is not whether or not they can fit a 1600mm Plate, it is that they need to fit such a grid gluttonous mod to compete with both Shields and with Battlecruisers that fit 1600mm's easily. IMO They need to have a plate usable by both Battlecruisers and Cruisers that is separate from a Battleship Plate.

*Snip*

I would prefer the issue be handled like so.

400mm / Frigate > Destroyer
800mm / Cruiser > Battlecruiser
160mm / Cruiser > Battleship


I made a similar point earlier. But I think you write off 200mm plates when you shouldn't. 200mm plates add a lower fitting option for buffer fit frigs.

I think:
200mm / Frigate
400mm / Frigate > Destroyer
800mm / Cruiser > Battlecruiser
160mm / Cruiser > Battleship

Works better.

To do this what you need to do is make 200mm and 800mm plates the higher mobility, less EHP option. So, reduce the mass of the 200mm and 800mm down to about the mass of 2 x 100mm and 2 x 400mm, respectively.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#651 - 2012-10-12 08:03:53 UTC
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:

I made a similar point earlier. But I think you write off 200mm plates when you shouldn't. 200mm plates add a lower fitting option for buffer fit frigs.

I think:
200mm / Frigate
400mm / Frigate > Destroyer
800mm / Cruiser > Battlecruiser
160mm / Cruiser > Battleship

Works better.

To do this what you need to do is make 200mm and 800mm plates the higher mobility, less EHP option. So, reduce the mass of the 200mm and 800mm down to about the mass of 2 x 100mm and 2 x 400mm, respectively.


I was thinking something similar. Each plate higher should take 1/2 the slots, and have double mass. Give double the armor and have more than double the fitting requirements. Effectively, I'd like to see 2x 100mm's equal a 200mm in HP and mass, but at the cost of one more slot, but less fitting(10% less overall?). This may be how it is now (I don't know, too lazy to check), but it isn't consistently like that. I'd like to see that passed on all the way up.

You can choose to plate that 1600 for a huge fitting cost, but for massive amounts of health. Or you can choose the 800 for slightly less than half the fitting cost, and half the HP and half the mass.

'Course, I might not know what I'm talking about. Most of my ships don't even have tanks on them. I mean, why bother with Coercers and Executioners. My armour Harb sees limited use... but my Tormentors are fun toys, and my Abaddons will be too.
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#652 - 2012-10-12 09:25:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Kai'rae Saarkus
Goldensaver wrote:


I was thinking something similar. Each plate higher should take 1/2 the slots, and have double mass. Give double the armor and have more than double the fitting requirements. Effectively, I'd like to see 2x 100mm's equal a 200mm in HP and mass, but at the cost of one more slot, but less fitting(10% less overall?). This may be how it is now (I don't know, too lazy to check), but it isn't consistently like that. I'd like to see that passed on all the way up.


It's like that for each 'Class' of plates. But it's an order of magnitude different between classes of plates.
(50,100 are Frig class; 200, 400 are Cruiser; 800,1600 are BS).

You only need 4 plates to give variety (2,4,8 and 16 '00). Make 200's frig mass class (75,000Kg); 800's (750,000Kg) cruiser weight class and you solve most of those size plates problems.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#653 - 2012-10-12 09:58:56 UTC
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:


I was thinking something similar. Each plate higher should take 1/2 the slots, and have double mass. Give double the armor and have more than double the fitting requirements. Effectively, I'd like to see 2x 100mm's equal a 200mm in HP and mass, but at the cost of one more slot, but less fitting(10% less overall?). This may be how it is now (I don't know, too lazy to check), but it isn't consistently like that. I'd like to see that passed on all the way up.


It's like that for each 'Class' of plates. But it's an order of magnitude different between classes of plates.
(50,100 are Frig class; 200, 400 are Cruiser; 800,1600 are BS).

You only need 4 plates to give variety (2,4,8 and 16 '00). Make 200's frig mass class (75,000Kg); 800's (750,000Kg) cruiser weight class and you solve most of those size plates problems.


Well i think the differences should be in the meta variations of each size a 'role' if you will CCP have mentioned something about module tiercide so yeah one plate for each size and then the metas could provide different bonuses/characteristics.
so more HP on some less mass on others etc.

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
Alara IonStorm
#654 - 2012-10-12 10:57:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:

But I think you write off 200mm plates when you shouldn't. 200mm plates add a lower fitting option for buffer fit frigs.

No I just want 400mm Plates to get that low fitting option and low mass of 200mm plates. No need for a 200mm after that.

I also want the Medium Shield Extender to drop in fitting so a MAPC is not need to fit them, then change its name to small shield extender.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#655 - 2012-10-12 15:44:27 UTC
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:


I was thinking something similar. Each plate higher should take 1/2 the slots, and have double mass. Give double the armor and have more than double the fitting requirements. Effectively, I'd like to see 2x 100mm's equal a 200mm in HP and mass, but at the cost of one more slot, but less fitting(10% less overall?). This may be how it is now (I don't know, too lazy to check), but it isn't consistently like that. I'd like to see that passed on all the way up.


It's like that for each 'Class' of plates. But it's an order of magnitude different between classes of plates.
(50,100 are Frig class; 200, 400 are Cruiser; 800,1600 are BS).

You only need 4 plates to give variety (2,4,8 and 16 '00). Make 200's frig mass class (75,000Kg); 800's (750,000Kg) cruiser weight class and you solve most of those size plates problems.


Shows what I know. I've only ever used 400's on my Tormentor, and 1600's on my Cruisers and up. Never even looked at the others.
Dato Koppla
Balls Deep Inc.
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#656 - 2012-10-13 07:16:10 UTC
At this point it's actually entertaining lol.
ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#657 - 2012-10-13 15:55:10 UTC
Thread has been cleaned, off topic and troll posts have been removed. Now back to the main event. Remember folks, post sensibly Big smile - ISD Type40.

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
Shaalira D'arc
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#658 - 2012-10-13 17:41:17 UTC
A lot of our feedback on proposed ship hulls would be much more useful if we knew what Fozzy had in mind for fixing armor tanking.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#659 - 2012-10-14 07:53:39 UTC
Can you please, please, please give the stabber at least 2 drones? In fact I think the minimum for any hull should be 2 drones or no drones. Managing a single drone is just annoying.
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#660 - 2012-10-16 12:36:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Opertone
Alara IonStorm wrote:


I would prefer the issue be handled like so.

400mm / Frigate > Destroyer
800mm / Cruiser > Battlecruiser
1600mm / Battleship

Small Extender / Frigate > Destroyer
Med Extender / Cruiser > Battlecruiser
Large Extender / Battleship




you have pinpointed it! this is the core of the problem

Still, give me a reason - who wants to fly cruisers? they are still paper thin compared to BC.


IMHO BCs need to be slow and bulky and heavy BLUNT DPS but limited to closer ranges, where CRUISERs may have SUPERIOR speed and LONG RANGE+ACCURACY abilities.

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again