These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Missile Cyclone - I dont like it - If you do Reply here
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Denson022
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2013-01-31 13:24:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Denson022
As i mentioned it here

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=191595&find=unread

For me the Cyclone is a oversized Thrasher, not a bellicose.

While HAMS in a Bellicose is a Win change because of its Target painter bonus synergy with missiles i cant see its use on a Cyclone.

I spent a whole day on Sisi server trying to figure out what good it can do.
And still think AC are better in general use

The HAM:
It can deal good DPS vs other BC

Cruisers can be killed but the dps is diminished by cruisers speed

Frigs and AF are barely scratched, AF can tank long enough to kill drones.


With AC i had a chance to kill small target before they get under my guns, missiles dont have such option.

Switching Invul Field / Boost Amp for a Web hurts its tank.

And i cant say that the rebalanced Cyclone has become a DPS powerhorse, it never really meant to be.
With AC i could deal with no having a web, i could fit 3 Rocket launcher that did the job for small targets.
With the new one having a web is mandatory, i tried it... while it 's handy with smaller targets and the dps is constant the burst tank and overal EHP is not impressive for a Tanking BC.


What do you think about it?
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2013-02-04 07:15:25 UTC
Personally, I like the change. With hams, you see better damage application, within the range of your weapons. With Autocannons for example, you might deal 350 dps, but that is only at up to 2km optimal. Then, for the other 18-24km of your range, your falloff range, you are seeing reduced damage, accuracy, etc. With the heavy assault missiles, while your max range is a bit shorter, in the 14-20km range depending on skills and mods, IIRC, you are still applying the same dps at 16km, as at 2km.

Additionally, I do not think the cyclone should neccessarily be an anti frigate platform, but rather, an anti cruiser to battleship platform, and as such, hams do the job just fine (with the exception of certain very fast cruisers, in which case, you wouldn't kill them with ACs anyways, without proper tackle.)

By taking the Cyclone down from a mixed gun platform, to a single weapon type, they have reduced the required skillpoints to pilot it effectively, have freed up lowslots as there is no longer any reason to fit a) tracking enhancers or b) multiple damage mod types.

Overall, I think this is a greatly beneficial change, and I eagrely look forward to the similar change coming to the typhoon.

Oh, I also support this change, as the hurricane and tornado are already turret platforms, as are most of the cruisers, and both the heavy assault ships. Since the minmatar are supposed to be a mix of armor and shield, turrets and missiles, they need a missile battlecruiser to maintain that quo.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#3 - 2013-02-06 01:10:34 UTC
It's a good change because the Tornado and Hurricane have already filled all the design space of "projectile turret battlecruiser". Keeping the Cyclone a gunboat gives you three choices, all of them bad:

1) Make it a better Hurricane/Tornado, in which case you kill off one (or, worse, both) of the other ships and still only have two BCs.

2) Make it a worse Hurricane/Tornado (as it is right now), in which case nobody flies it because they're too busy with the good ships.

3) Make it a subtle variation of the Hurricane/Tornado, in which case nobody cares because the difference between the Cyclone and the other ship is so small that it has no real impact on ship choice and you effectively have only two BCs (but with a choice of skins for one of them).

The fourth option, make it equal but different, doesn't really work because anything that would make it distinctive would probably just end up replacing either of the existing ships. It might be possible if you try really really hard, but even if you succeed you still aren't adding much to the game since the existing ships already do such a good job.

Redesigning it into a missile ship, on the other hand, is at least different. You can argue about whether it's a good ship or not (IMO, it is a very good ship and I won't be surprised at all if it gets nerfed once people figure it out), but at least it gives Minmatar three different ships.
Nian Banks
Berserkers of Aesir
#4 - 2013-02-06 01:49:45 UTC
Not a big fan of the changes, doesn't bode well for the Command Ships.

Most players chose Minmatar because of the mixed weapon systems, CCP are determined to turn our ships into one trick ponies and I think its because they are lazy, its about how its easier for them to balance a missile ship vs a gun + missile ship.

If CCP want to make a missile Cyclone, then why not have a Cyclone MKI and MKII, Leave us with both ships. Heck they should do that with every ship they completely change (not tweak/rebalance).

But CCP as I said are lazy.


Poor effort. Not happy.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#5 - 2013-02-06 02:04:08 UTC
Nian Banks wrote:
Most players chose Minmatar because of the mixed weapon systems


Really? I would think that most people picked Minmatar for their awesome speed, not the ability to fit garbage mixed-weapon setups on garbage mixed-weapon ships. It might be "fun" in theory, but any ship cursed with mixed weapons is never going to be used for anything other than reprocessing to build ships that don't suck.
Nian Banks
Berserkers of Aesir
#6 - 2013-02-06 02:33:52 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Nian Banks wrote:
Most players chose Minmatar because of the mixed weapon systems


Really? I would think that most people picked Minmatar for their awesome speed, not the ability to fit garbage mixed-weapon setups on garbage mixed-weapon ships. It might be "fun" in theory, but any ship cursed with mixed weapons is never going to be used for anything other than reprocessing to build ships that don't suck.



Oh right, this is also along the lines of how everyone is a leet pirate and carebears are of the minority, I forgot to write that down in my "101 things to know about EvE Online"


People like to have guns, missiles and drones. Its variety and multifunction. Projectile weapons have been balanced to overcome the issue of dps on un-bonused weapons. Speed was nice addition but don't assume that every minimatar pilot was a speed freak.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#7 - 2013-02-06 03:01:05 UTC
Nian Banks wrote:
People like to have guns, missiles and drones. Its variety and multifunction.


No, it's garbage. A ship split between missiles and guns will always be worse than a ship that picks one or the other and specializes in it unless CCP does something stupid like give it a 20% per level ROF bonus to both weapons. These ships are nothing more than newbie traps, people who don't understand how the game works think they're "versatile", but as they learn more they realize that the "versatility" is an illusion and the fatal drawbacks (mixed engagement ranges, weapon upgrades only apply to half your weapons, etc) are severe enough to cripple the ship. Real versatility is finding a single weapon that works in all situations and basing your entire ship around it.

And drones are a separate issue, any ship benefits from them and having a drone bay isn't the same as having a full additional weapon type.
Nian Banks
Berserkers of Aesir
#8 - 2013-02-06 03:04:19 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Nian Banks wrote:
People like to have guns, missiles and drones. Its variety and multifunction.


No, it's garbage. A ship split between missiles and guns will always be worse than a ship that picks one or the other and specializes in it unless CCP does something stupid like give it a 20% per level ROF bonus to both weapons. These ships are nothing more than newbie traps, people who don't understand how the game works think they're "versatile", but as they learn more they realize that the "versatility" is an illusion and the fatal drawbacks (mixed engagement ranges, weapon upgrades only apply to half your weapons, etc) are severe enough to cripple the ship. Real versatility is finding a single weapon that works in all situations and basing your entire ship around it.

And drones are a separate issue, any ship benefits from them and having a drone bay isn't the same as having a full additional weapon type.



The issue is that EvE is a game, min/maxing out anything may be effective if the game mechanics are flawed, but it certainly leads to a boring game. Games should be fun, remember!?!? So wouldn't it be better to fix the broken mechanic and keep versatility? Oh and I dare say that carebear nubs who want fun, outnumber you and your ilk by a good %.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#9 - 2013-02-06 03:14:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
Nian Banks wrote:
So wouldn't it be better to fix the broken mechanic and keep versatility?


No, because the mechanic is impossible to fix. The drawbacks of a split weapon ship are so severe that "fixing" it would require changing fundamental limits (for example, making a BC with 10 high slots), weird limited-role modules (a split BCU/gyro damage mod) that only apply to a very few ships, or making massive changes to fundamental game mechanics (limiting the number of weapons per ship that can fire at a single target, for example). Anything less is just making the useless ships slightly different but still useless.

So, what "keep the split weapon ships" really means is "continue to have bad ships that nobody uses rather than fix them and make them useful". That might be "fun" for you, but it's a waste of art assets and design space for the rest of us.

Quote:
Oh and I dare say that carebear nubs who want fun, outnumber you and your ilk by a good %.


Hint: carebears who aren't clueless newbies are flying optimized single-weapon-type ships and making maximum isk per hour. "Carebear" and "flies bad ships" are not the same thing.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-02-06 13:14:07 UTC
Denson022 wrote:
What do you think about it?


Mid range nano fit. It's faster and lighter than the Drake, with better cap, but worse tank. I expect them to more or less replace the PODLA Drakes and considering how easy it is to get a cap stable perma-MWD fit, I'd say the ship has a bright future in null fleets too. There's the added bonus of double the Drake's drone bay, which you can use either for medium drones for more dps, or for a flight of lights and a flight of ewar/web drones, giving it a bit extra versatility.

Overall, I love it. It's not a brick, but then, it's not ment to be one either.