Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I dunno!

The proposed Tristan is just BAD. I mean it's worse than the current Tristan. I think CCP should switch the Vexor with the Thorax and then give it the "Tristan treatment" like someone else said in this thread. The Thorax is not a attack cruiser @ all. No one doubts this. The Vexor should be able to keep the forth mid, but lose the extra low slot. @tleast if CCP does more it to the attack cruiser list.

Over the past year I have trained for hybrids and Caldari and Gallente ships. I'm glad I did. Operation TERRIBUBBLE is a go!

ROFL I remember you writing something like that awhile back lol.

Here's a serious question. Do you deny the fact the proposed Thorax and Rupture will have similar defenses; either shield or armor? Do you deny, BOTH ships will have similar velocities? Do you deny that with 2 tracking enhancers fitted. A Rupture (425mm) and Thorax (Neutrons) will have similar damage projection and application @ 15, 20, 24 and 28,000m (km)?

Why does a 'attack cruiser' have so many similarities to a 'combat cruiser'? The only significant differences are a high slot, larger drone bay and one cruiser is using hybrids and the other projectiles. You could argue that a tracking bonus is alot more usefull @ range (shooting frigates) and up close. You could argue the utility of using ECM and damage drones is very usefull. You could also argue that a single neutralizer is very useful.

The Thorax with 1 damage modules does as much damage as a Rupture with its 2 damage related bonuses and 2 damage modules.

So, there's no doubt that my statement about a Thorax being a 'combat cruiser' without the tag is factual. It's based off of the Thorax's values and attributes.

Mind you I have no issues with Gallente having these powerful cruisers. It means less complaining and more reasons to train and fly Gallente ships. However, you no 1 can deny a Thorax has Combat cruisers stats (values and attributes).

Don't p!ss on my feet and call it rain (no you're just p!ssing on my feet)... = /

Have you not been listening to a word I have written. I must have said it 10 times already. The Rupture is to much like an Attack Cruiser, not the other way around.

In fact the Rupture is as fast or faster then the Thorax, Omen and Caracal and that is what should change about the Rupture along with the Ruptures flimsy stats. Comparing the Thorax to the not a real combat cruiser does not prove it should be a combat cruiser at all, it proves that the Rupture should be made into one.

Well, I suppose I don't agree that the lack of use of armor tanking on sub battleship hulls is because of "broken mechanics". I can only look to real world examples why and then look @ words, tactics and strategies like; skirmishing, Guerrilla warfare, hit and run, alpha etc. Light combatants engaging more conventional units. I can fly a armor-Rupture if I'd like and it can be viable, but it doesn't mean a shield-Rupture won't destroy my ship. I can fly a double armor repair Myrmidon and it's viable, but it doesnt mean a Drake won't kite and destroy my ship.

The meta here is between conventional tactics and skirmishing. Large fleet engagements do happen often, but small gang and solo does ALOT. Meaning, having slow and heavly tanked ships are not the most optimal in these situations. Well, because that is the strength of skirmish warfare. With that said, skirmishing can only scale so much before you cannot engage a larger more conventional fleet @ all. I know that for a fact and have to deal with that every day. Once things reach that point. I look for the strength of a conventional fleet to engage another conventional fleet.

This is just meta and you cannot change that. This is something CCP cannot effect without destroying smaller engagements. Something that already happens when eve-onlines player base grows.

QFT

Well that makes sense if CCP does all that ****. I'm not a fan of more active defense setups/ships. That **** can, is and will never be a good thing for small scale engagements. However, I think I remember saying CCP is interested in giving a Rifter a similar active defense bonus. I would be sad to see the armor Rupture go = (

Don't care about the stabber tbh.

Anyway, unless CCP does what you're suggesting. It is and will be overshadowed by most attack cruisers, but more completely without its current velocity. Which isn't all that much of an advantage @ all.

I can switch my argument around a bit and the overall point will still be the same. The Rupture is more of an attack cruiser than a Combat cruiser. In terms of defense and speed and damage. It should have mode tank and more damage, but reduced velocity. So it can better compete with other combat cruisers. The ship excels @ non of the common engagement ranges, unlike the other combat cruisers and even attack cruisers.

So instead of keeping it the same (not good @ anything really). I know the ship needs a overall BOOST in tank and damage or just a sick tank in exchange for a loss in velocity.

Lets not forget though that making it a Missile Platform would leave the Cruiser Laser / Missile Field like this.

Caracal / Maller / Bellicose vs Omen.

I would like to see the Maller get its Drone Bay but at the same time I would like to differentiate the Omen. I would like to see them increase the Capacitor of the Omen and the Maller for that matter, change the RoF Bonus on the Omen to a Dmg bonus cutting 25% Gun Cap and then open up that second Cap Recharge Bonus and let that be the difference. Perhaps 7.5% Increase in Laser Range like the Apoc gets.

I know a lot of people want a HAM Maller but after years of Autocannon Mallers and unused Omens, 2 Solid Laser Platforms would be what laser users deserve.

Yes but fitting 2 extenders gives you more shields then previous fits before the update. With 5 low slots you can not fit 2 dmg mods without your hp falling to a lvl similar to shield hp but slower, less agile and with smaller guns and less dmg mods. Besides giving the Vexor a low for a dmg mod they haven't done much for Gal armor.

The HP loss will do little to discourage shield fittings. That leads into the bigger issue of why they are trying to discourage it. Shouldn't the choice for armor be obvious and shield be the niche on these ships not the other way around? That is the problem they need to look at by making a 4 / 5 layout better for armor on these ships instead of dumping the HP.