These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#821 - 2012-10-30 21:02:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
Id give up a bit of the Maller's vaunted damage for a bit more cap time. As slow as it is, there will rarely be in 1v1 fights with it, and when it is, most of the time the opponent can just run away, letting them dictate weather the fight even happens (Poor mid slots, and / or forced need of cap battery will limit chances of locking down the opponent). The ships that will try to fight it will namely be any and every ship with a neut on board, which will strip down the Maller's ability to do anything other than drone damage amazingly fast.

*DISCLAIMER* I am going by what I see on paper, eft, and some feedback from others since I can not currently get myself onto test. So if in application this is not how it is panning out, fantastic.


~Z


With reduced damage the fight will draw out longer, meaning more total cap required to destroy the opponent and more time for the opponent to destroy your cap. It's better to give up hitpoints for cap life and you can do that with cap and elutriation rigs (instead of trimarks). I'm not sure if it's worthwhile but it's at least a theoretical option.
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#822 - 2012-10-30 21:05:47 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I know the idea was basically a mini abaddon but the idea sadly is faulty, it isn't a battleship and it doesn't have the slots to be able to pull it off...


I agree. You can't blame them for using the Abaddon as a model, but it is a battleship and they tend to fight a completely different sort of fight.

Maybe a maxi-punisher would be a better model. Their tactics would be more similar.
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#823 - 2012-10-30 21:12:20 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
Id give up a bit of the Maller's vaunted damage for a bit more cap time. As slow as it is, there will rarely be in 1v1 fights with it, and when it is, most of the time the opponent can just run away, letting them dictate weather the fight even happens (Poor mid slots, and / or forced need of cap battery will limit chances of locking down the opponent). The ships that will try to fight it will namely be any and every ship with a neut on board, which will strip down the Maller's ability to do anything other than drone damage amazingly fast.

*DISCLAIMER* I am going by what I see on paper, eft, and some feedback from others since I can not currently get myself onto test. So if in application this is not how it is panning out, fantastic.


~Z


With reduced damage the fight will draw out longer, meaning more total cap required to destroy the opponent and more time for the opponent to destroy your cap. It's better to give up hitpoints for cap life and you can do that with cap and elutriation rigs (instead of trimarks). I'm not sure if it's worthwhile but it's at least a theoretical option.



4 turrets would ease the cap problem too Big smile
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#824 - 2012-10-31 00:52:37 UTC
Am I the only one who noticed the 500k mass addition to the cruisers (1 mil to the vexor) to make them slower? The ruppy will be rendered unviable for nano work after this, especially against the new attack cruiser stats...
Shocked
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#825 - 2012-10-31 00:54:04 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Am I the only one who noticed the 500k mass addition to the cruisers (1 mil to the vexor) to make them slower? The ruppy will be rendered unviable for nano work after this, especially against the new attack cruiser stats...
Shocked


ah what a shame for the ruppy maybe people might want to plate it instead wouldn't that be a crime Smile

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
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#826 - 2012-10-31 00:58:53 UTC
Harvey James wrote:

ah what a shame for the ruppy maybe people might want to plate it instead wouldn't that be a crime Smile


Balance is good. On the subject of the moa, its BONUSES look awesome, but the ship itself looks like the unholy love child of a giraffe and trash compactor. I seriously hope ccp gives it a new model like they did the stabber. Plz moar moa love? Cry
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#827 - 2012-10-31 02:46:44 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Harvey James wrote:

ah what a shame for the ruppy maybe people might want to plate it instead wouldn't that be a crime Smile


Balance is good. On the subject of the moa, its BONUSES look awesome, but the ship itself looks like the unholy love child of a giraffe and trash compactor. I seriously hope ccp gives it a new model like they did the stabber. Plz moar moa love? Cry


It's likely. If they bung it up and give it a visible cockpit/bridge with glass like the Drake got I'm going to be mad though.

Still it's nowhere near as fugly as the Blackbird or Bellicose. Or Arbitrator. Or Celestis.

Hey, I'm noticing a pattern here.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#828 - 2012-10-31 02:59:25 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
...but the ship itself looks like the unholy love child of a giraffe and trash compactor. I seriously hope ccp gives it a new model like they did the stabber. Plz moar moa love? Cry
I would rage if they did. Unless of course they made it even more god-awfully ugly. It's horrific appearance is part of it's charm. Really, do want another lame flying lego-block? Moa has character!
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#829 - 2012-10-31 04:21:27 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Am I the only one who noticed the 500k mass addition to the cruisers (1 mil to the vexor) to make them slower? The ruppy will be rendered unviable for nano work after this, especially against the new attack cruiser stats...
Shocked


...and what is wrong with it? The only thing that out of place is that vexor is faster than rupture. Other than that it is ok. Attack cruisers should be faster than combat ones.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#830 - 2012-10-31 04:29:25 UTC
Aglais wrote:

Still it's nowhere near as fugly as the Blackbird or Bellicose. Or Arbitrator. Or Celestis.

Hey, I'm noticing a pattern here.



Oi! I love the Arbitrator look. ;)

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#831 - 2012-10-31 04:31:24 UTC
Deerin wrote:


...and what is wrong with it? The only thing that out of place is that vexor is faster than rupture. Other than that it is ok. Attack cruisers should be faster than combat ones.


Oh no. A ship that needs to be fast in order to actually utilize it's extreme close range weapons is actually fast. This makes too much sense. Nerf the Vexor until it's top speed with plates is 82.6m/s with max skills. Mind you this is also it's top speed with a 10mn MWD on.

But to be serious, maybe people will actually armor fit the armor combat cruisers. Then suddenly the Moa isn't as slow, and everything is that much more balanced.
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#832 - 2012-10-31 06:49:52 UTC
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
Id give up a bit of the Maller's vaunted damage for a bit more cap time. As slow as it is, there will rarely be in 1v1 fights with it, and when it is, most of the time the opponent can just run away, letting them dictate weather the fight even happens (Poor mid slots, and / or forced need of cap battery will limit chances of locking down the opponent). The ships that will try to fight it will namely be any and every ship with a neut on board, which will strip down the Maller's ability to do anything other than drone damage amazingly fast.

*DISCLAIMER* I am going by what I see on paper, eft, and some feedback from others since I can not currently get myself onto test. So if in application this is not how it is panning out, fantastic.


~Z


You can choose to do this. Eve allows you to fit less than the maximum turrets. Bingo utility high.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#833 - 2012-10-31 12:54:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
Id give up a bit of the Maller's vaunted damage for a bit more cap time. As slow as it is, there will rarely be in 1v1 fights with it, and when it is, most of the time the opponent can just run away, letting them dictate weather the fight even happens (Poor mid slots, and / or forced need of cap battery will limit chances of locking down the opponent). The ships that will try to fight it will namely be any and every ship with a neut on board, which will strip down the Maller's ability to do anything other than drone damage amazingly fast.

*DISCLAIMER* I am going by what I see on paper, eft, and some feedback from others since I can not currently get myself onto test. So if in application this is not how it is panning out, fantastic.


~Z


You can choose to do this. Eve allows you to fit less than the maximum turrets. Bingo utility high.



And now you have a Brick tanked ship with no dps and slightly better cap..

Joy..

Seriously though a Maller with tackle guns running with one med neut and one small neut on him (shield rupture) lasts 44 seconds. Which is enough time to take down about Half of the ruptures tank.... and that is assuming you start at 100% cap which NEVER happens, so it would be more like 25 seconds.

The reason the Abaddon works is because it has a fuckton of pg and 4 mids. The fact is that for most sub bs ships, lasers without cap reduction are unusable.. 5 heavy pulse lasers take MORE cap than running a bloody MWD...

I don't even think a extra high slot would be enough, i think you would need the extra high + buff nos to make it usable like this..

Even then i'm sceptical... I'm not someone who thinks lasers should be homogenized down to using way less cap and losing their flavor.. But its clear that THIS doesn't work.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc.
Rogue Caldari Union
#834 - 2012-11-01 09:07:27 UTC
So I have to ask, what's with the vexor having 13 total slots and the other 3 cruisers having 14?
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#835 - 2012-11-01 09:39:21 UTC
Torei Dutalis wrote:
So I have to ask, what's with the vexor having 13 total slots and the other 3 cruisers having 14?


Drone ships always get one less slot
Wivabel
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#836 - 2012-11-01 10:25:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Wivabel
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Torei Dutalis wrote:
So I have to ask, what's with the vexor having 13 total slots and the other 3 cruisers having 14?


Drone ships always get one less slot



And it is always terrible...

Wivabel

I am not sure if I am going to log in anymore.......
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#837 - 2012-11-01 13:52:39 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Seriously though a Maller with tackle guns running with one med neut and one small neut on him (shield rupture) lasts 44 seconds. Which is enough time to take down about Half of the ruptures tank.... and that is assuming you start at 100% cap which NEVER happens, so it would be more like 25 seconds.

*Snip*

Even then i'm sceptical... I'm not someone who thinks lasers should be homogenized down to using way less cap and losing their flavor.. But its clear that THIS doesn't work.


A) Rupture only has 5 highs (only 1 utility slot).. so you're OK with Rupture sacrificing a Turret to for a utility mid (to fit the two neuts)? Or, you made a mistake?

B) fit a Med Booster.

That gives you a Cap stable, Neut resistant fit that has >40K EHP, >1200m/s, >300 DPS to >20Km.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#838 - 2012-11-01 14:15:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldensaver
Wivabel wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Torei Dutalis wrote:
So I have to ask, what's with the vexor having 13 total slots and the other 3 cruisers having 14?


Drone ships always get one less slot



And it is always terrible...

Wivabel

I dunno. Some drone ships are doing quite well for themselves, regardless of missing slots. The Arbitrator, Curse, Pilgrim, and Sentinal are all fantastic ships, I hear. And the Myrmidon and Domi can work pretty well if flown in the right situations.

Edited so as not to double post:

Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Seriously though a Maller with tackle guns running with one med neut and one small neut on him (shield rupture) lasts 44 seconds. Which is enough time to take down about Half of the ruptures tank.... and that is assuming you start at 100% cap which NEVER happens, so it would be more like 25 seconds.

*Snip*

Even then i'm sceptical... I'm not someone who thinks lasers should be homogenized down to using way less cap and losing their flavor.. But its clear that THIS doesn't work.


A) Rupture only has 5 highs (only 1 utility slot).. so you're OK with Rupture sacrificing a Turret to for a utility mid (to fit the two neuts)? Or, you made a mistake?

B) fit a Med Booster.

That gives you a Cap stable, Neut resistant fit that has >40K EHP, >1200m/s, >300 DPS to >20Km.


Sorry, fit a Med Booster in which slot? The one that's used for prop, the one that's used for point, or the one that's used for web, lest the enemy decide to orbit you at close range, and get under your guns? Because I don't know if you've heard, but Pulses are the WORST tracking close range weapon system.

Also, I'm not totally sure why he said medium neut and small neut, he must have been looking at todays Rupture as opposed to the post-patch one, but the point still stands that the Maller is going to be extremely suceptible to to cap warfare, and even a single medium neut will hurt hard after only a few seconds (~30), especially after running the MWD to get into range.
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#839 - 2012-11-01 14:28:53 UTC
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:


A) Rupture only has 5 highs (only 1 utility slot).. so you're OK with Rupture sacrificing a Turret to for a utility mid (to fit the two neuts)? Or, you made a mistake?.



I think he meant a med neut on the Maller and a small neut coming from the Rupture.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#840 - 2012-11-01 14:38:24 UTC
The VC's wrote:
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:


A) Rupture only has 5 highs (only 1 utility slot).. so you're OK with Rupture sacrificing a Turret to for a utility mid (to fit the two neuts)? Or, you made a mistake?.



I think he meant a med neut on the Maller and a small neut coming from the Rupture.

Probably not, because the Maller's losing its utility spare after the patch, and I don't know many people who are going to pull off a turret for a neut. Especially not on a ship that needs all the cap it can get, and a neut will only hurt that more.