Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Anyway. So the proposed Omen (shield omen setup) will be doing 500 (scorch) dps @ 28k with drones, 1900m/sec. Around the same amount of damage as the proposed Caracal. However, a Caracal will have more ehp.

Like I said; i cant wait to rock Vexor, caracal, omen, Thorax and Rupture solo;

on the fleet side ill focus on caracals and moas. Although, Mallers interest me because of thier cost, range and damage output to a lesser extent.

1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Internal Force Field Array I
Adaptive Nano Plating II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

10MN Afterburner II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script

Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M

Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I

I wish this thing did have a optimal range bonus. Would be nice to engage shield-bc's with them. Good way to counter nano/skirmish/guerilla is just to have mad damage projection v0v

Why in gods name would you ever fit a new Maller like that when an Omen would be better in every way.

[Omen, Retribution Stats]
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I

Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
10MN Afterburner II

Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M

Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I


Warrior II x5
EC-300 x3

* Higher resists then that fit
* 90% EHP
* Longer Capacitor Run Time
* Smaller Sig
* Higher Scan Res
* Longer Targeting Range
* Multi + 59 more DPS with Warriors, + 78 with Hobgoblins, + 109 with Hammer / Hob Mix, only -21 DPS with no Drones
* Scorch+ 65 more DPS with Warriors, + 95 with Hobgoblins, + 124 with Hammer / Hob Mix, only -15 DPS with no Drones
* Anti Frig / ECM Drones available
* 75 m/s Faster and more Agile

Literally -1 Sensor Strength and about 10% EHP more are the only improvements that Maller fit has here vs All that. Even if you replaced a sink with a ENAM without the 3rd Heatsink the Maller DPS drops very low, around 260 Scorch. If anything the Omen makes a much better AB Armor Cruiser then the Maller on pretty much every front unless you dump the Mallers DPS out. Even then Resist wise the Omen can still near match the AB Maller with 3 Active hardeners at 80% the EHP and Higher DPS / Speed.

Not really impressed with the current Maller.

Well now you don't have to look into them as Armor AB Cruisers because the Omen is wholesale better at it. That is one use ticked off your list, you're welcome.

If you thought a Maller would be interesting like that, why don't you think the better at it Omen will not be used as such?

Well, I tend to fly or have flown everything and the point is to gain knowledge and experience v0v

I'll fly whatever even if I know its subpar and i'll atempt to find setups that work for that ship. Also! You haven't help me in the least. Nice of you to believe so, but No

I suppose I could throw out all the setups Ive been looking @, but why bother. As I write this I was going threw the new and old destroyers and being annoyed by the changes to the Hurricane. Along with puttings hams on ERRY THANG (cerberus and rook for example). Also looking @ most ships that use medium lasers, because of the changes there.

I'm not going to use a armor-Omen over a shield-Omen, but I will find a way to use a armor-Maller. Although I have used ab-armor navy omens in AHACS fleets and they r better than using stabber fleets atm. Mind you I could shield tank a Maller and have thought about it alot

And now, compare a 5 med slot Moa to other cruisers.

It's blasters, of course they are short range, but a cruiser, and moreover a shield one, have the mobility to go on close.

Everything is not always solo 1v1, and this cruiser could sport an amazing tank if it had a fifth slot, like a shield nano BC class tank, on top of a top of its class dps. Yes, armor cruisers can have more ehp than the 4 med slot Moa, but they will definitly be way more slower. Thing is, when going for large plate setup, it's not that you *can* go for full tackle, it's you *require* full tackle, because you have th mobility of a sick whale.

Even if you drop the high slot for the fifth mid, you would have a better thorax. Remember, "some" thorax are shield tanked. Why do you think they are ?

The proposed Moa (four mid slot) will already be deadly for anything foolish enough to go on close range. A 5 mid slot Moa would just kill any cruiser coming too close.

It will not be slowest especially not versus armor tanked cruisers neither will it have the worst damage projection. In tanking it already has the advantage you mentioned and should have to mitigate some of it's weaknesses. If that gets any more significant it will turn into the realm of the imbalanced. That's what the current discussion about 4-5 med slot Moa boils down to.

Most of the players who want a 5 slot Moa say they need it for a web. Others are saying that it can and will be used for tank as well and a Moa does just fine without a web or can already fit one without too much pain. If you had been following the thread or done some theorycrafting you might have gotten a better impression of what is being talked about.

Wow. 650 DPS (out of a Thorax, while being MUCH faster) sure is pretty close to 557 DPS (Moa, same range as Thorax, far slower). People are saying, "Yeah well the Moa is going to deliver instant death to anything that gets too close so it's totally balanced!!!1"

You're forgetting that kiting is a thing. Ok, so the ship is ludicrously deadly at short range. Then don't get too close and take advantage of the fact that the Moa has awful range and moves slow. Don't get too close, but still be able to engage, which is what pretty much any Minmatar ship is going to be able to do. Maybe even rail thoraxes or something odd like that. The neut/nos is NOT a solution to anything. It is a single one, and it will probably be a small neut/nos. I fail to see any utility other than driving away frigates. Which could be achieved BETTER with a web/scram combo, which would occur with the Moa getting a fifth medium power slot, taken from the sixth useless high.

Furthermore, people who are proposing a 6/5/3 Moa: That'll wreck it's ability to do anything remotely resembling damage. It doesn't have a sizable drone bay so you're relying far more on guns themselves for damage. Removing the ability to fit damage mods will further kill the Moa and probably turn it into little more than the shield edition of the current Maller. And nobody likes the current Maller.

Even then, a 5/5/4 Moa isn't going to be the last word in solo fighting, again, because it's slow. At least if it's 5/5/4 it'll have additional small gang utility by not having to choose between having crap defense but a web and scram, good defense and a web but no scram and good defense and a scram but no web. Nothing else save really the Caracal and maybe Stabber necessarily have to make choices like this, and they also have entirely different setups that still allow the ships to work if they lack tank. A combat cruiser, which is supposed to capitalize on survivability, as opposed to speed like attack cruisers, that has to sacrifice survivability to fit something everything else can if it so desires? This doesn't seem right.

Yep the Maller and the Moa are definitely the weak links in this class. I would like to see fittings restrictions on the Maller such that if it goes 1600 plate and heavy pulse it has to sacrifice (too) many mod or rig slots to do it. But at the same time It should have the ability to fit beams and an 800 without too many sacrifices of mod of rig slots.

I suppose if the 554 Moa were also restricted on fittings such that it had to choose between tanky mids with lower tier blasters, or higher tier blasters with less tanky but more ganky mids. Or Rails without a full tank. That would be worth supporting. Or even as has been suggested giving it an optimal bonus instead of damage. (as long as that bonus is not 10% while a maller might only get 7.5. If both got an optimal bonus it should be 7.5).

Neither ship should get everything they want. But as they are currently proposed they clearly are the losers in this category of ships. Which is sad because someone put a lot of work into the Maller hull redesign, that could go to waste. And we all know the current Moa hull is on the list for redesign (and if not then that is a crime ).

And lastly, I'll state (shout) again, for Fozzie and the balancing team GIVE THAT POOR MALLER A FRIGING DRONE BAY

Also I'm going to add, the guns of choice on the Moa I wish to be using are Ions, not Neutrons. Definitely, tank should be downgraded if you want neutron blasters, and you should be able to fit very heavy tank with electrons, but I've been using the example of an ion blaster Moa. If the Moa goes 5/5/4, I've never campaigned for it also gaining any additional grid: It doesn't need any to pull off a pretty respectable tank but also fit ion blasters, which might take a slight bit of the edge off of being slow due to the additional range over electrons. 5/5/4 ion blaster Moa with adequate tank and a web is going to be a solid ship.

You have become my favorite dev forever.