Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Whos bright idea was it to let this man roam lose?

Would someone at CCP please chain him to his desk so that he does not wander about?

The Rupture seems fine to me, could be a bit more diversified, the Vexor is awesome. The Maller...I'm not sure... 400dps/ 50k ehp is pretty much unrivaled amongst any other cruiser, but it screams do not use me in skirmishs and I doubt anyone is using cruisers for anything else (especially after the upcoming FW-plex size changes ).



Moa however is still pretty bad.

I hereby advocate giving the Moa a wtf-ewar-caldari treatment by upping its cpu and moving one lowslot as well as a highslot to the midslots, leaving it with a 5/6/3 slot layout.

After thinking it over earlier today, I have come to some conclusions regarding the new Moa.

It seems quite clear to me that CCP has actually nerfed the Moa, while buffing everything else (which in the case of the Rupture is utterly unnecessary). "But it got a damage bonus and more PG and stuff how is that a nerf???" you may be asking. Well, the fact that it's 10% optimal bonus (which makes it hit out to some decent ranges with null) is now a 5% damage bonus, the following is true:

1) The Moa is by far the easiest combat cruiser to kite with short range weapons for the reasons of
i) Blasters have awful range
ii) The Moa is by far the slowest combat cruiser

2) The Moa must sacrifice tank to be able to compete with the Vexor and Rupture in terms of being useful in PvP, while the others don't necessarily have to (But then again who is going to armor tank the Vexor and Rupture when they can just slap on two LSE's or something and fill the lows with damage mods and nanofibres?) At the same time, these two ships have the same quantity of medium slots, meaning they COULD pull off a similar though not identical shield tank. There's also having to drop damage mods for mobility, which the Moa may need in order to actually be able to apply any blaster damage- I sense that many shortcomings of Gallente ships might, to some extent, turn up in the new Moa. And this time it's not because armor tanking has problems, it's because the hull's stats and bonuses are poorly thought out.

3) The Moa has a very lackluster slot layout, and as such it's fitting options are far more limited than the Rupture, or Vexor, and also perhaps the Maller as well. What it seems like, is that the choices are almost-tanky, slow as molasses "brawler", or glass sniper with underpowered guns.

So what this looks like to me, is that CCP is trying to pigeonhole the Moa into being a railgun platform. But this also will fail, because the Vexor will have the exact same range as the Moa, as well as being able to most likely fit a heavier armor tank, and further, also pack some sentries for additional damage. So automatically, due to being able to armor tank, the Vexor could (depending on what sorts of guns are used) be made into a better sniper than the Moa. The Rupture (AND Vexor) are going to be better brawlers, and the Rupture is just going to laugh at both because it's ungodly fast for no reason other than "hurr durr winmatar superiority every updafe and paftch". Moa vs. Rupture: If the Rupture even chooses to actually engage, I'd declare Rupture victory. If the Moa is fit in a way that it could actually hit the Rupture, it could just leave.

Honestly, a fifth medium slot (achieved through removing a high- DO NOT TAKE OFF A LOW SLOT FROM THIS SHIP) enabling the Moa to fit a web is going to take some of the sting out and make it unique as a very burly (albeit slow) hybrid brawler cruiser, and also have the choice to either further improve it's range (but still be a slow glass cannon with awful guns) or be a moderately solid long range ship (that still has awful guns). And it will also not be laughed at by Vexors and Ruptures who have theoretically almost the same shield tanking capability as the combat cruiser that belongs to the pure shield tanking faction. I do realize there's the resist bonus, but the Rupture especially is just too fast for that kind of defense and not receiving even a minor speed penalty. The Rupture's base speed should be cut to 225m/s, which is also in line with the other Combat Cruisers, and doesn't make it faster than every attack cruiser that isn't the Stabber.

Still, the Moa is going to have a tough time engaging the other cruisers because honestly, Vexors and Ruptures I think are just going to be nano-gank fit. So I don't know what's going to happen with it, really. I'm seeing my future involving alot of killmails involving me being in HAM Caracals rather than Moas of any sort (Hell, even maybe Omens or Vexors or something).

Oh, and get rid of those dumb missile hardpoints, too. They have no place on a dedicated hybrid platform. You'll notice the Merlin doesn't have any anymore either. It's like putting torpedoes on a Rokh.

So that's my final refocusing of my argument I guess. Some people may think me an overly vocal tool, but I really don't care. Balance is at stake.

It seems to me most people commenting in this thread are underwhelmed with the Maller and Moa. Maller needs a dronebay. Moa needs another mid for the loss of a high slot.

Vexor and Rupture are where we would expect a "combat cruiser" to be.

Although I think the speed advantage of the Rupture is a little excessive.

+1. Not an empty quoting reply.

Yep the fact they have same range as torps tells you they are too long range and the T1 ammo aswell as the T2 ammo needs to be looked at much more.
Aswell as missile skills having 10% bonus on many of them is too much. in particular the missile velocity and flight time skills.

Uniform complaints or not. The same was done with regard to the Minmatar and TE BOOST. Which I was against and stated as much in those threads back then. Other than myself and 7 other players who were in that thread. Every TERRIBUBBLE pilot ingame who flew Minmatar were on about how they SUCKED. When infact they were just TERRIBUBBLE pilots.


The Moa shouldn't get another mid slot and I've outlined why that's the case. I agreed about the Maller, but alot of that is regarding our current enviroment (meta). The Rupture should be left as is because everything else has multiple ships that outclass a Rupture in a certain engagement range; a Moa is an example of a ship that will outclass the Rupture in warp scrambler range. The other issue is that the attack cruisers are p much on the same level as combat cruisers. While being faster, so for a Thorax not to completely overshadow a Rupture. The Ruptures velocity should be maintained because it's weak in everyarea. It's only advantage is it's velocity and it's a minute one @ that. I doubt I'd be able to keep range against a competent Thorax pilot after these changes as it is. I also know that in a Rupture I would get my face ripped off by the changed Caracal and Omen @ range. Trying to catch them before they do ALOT more significant damage to me than I can to them is going to be an issue.


If the Moa gains another mid slot or not I'll still benifit. I've been a long time Caldari advocate and done so threw pvp and have complete understanding of every caldari ships viablity, in terms of pvp. I also like Minmatar ships (not as much as caldari though), but unlike the sheep. I was flying them when they were considered the worse and wining with them.

I know for a fact Caldari has made it threw all these changes on TOP. Time for Gallente to have it with the Vexor. Every other t1 cruiser will be more than capable of esploding a Rupture. It's time of having a near complete advatange, along with the Vexor, is over. The Vexor is clearly the best and when it comes to nanoing the Thorax is on par with a Rupture, but with a flight of ecm and warheroes.

The Omen and Caracal will become top dog in terms of nanoing. I've almost completely replaced my Hurricane with a Talos and Drake. Sooner or later it will be the same for the Rupture by choosing a Caracal, Omen, Bellicose, Thorax and Vexor over it. I'm p sure I'll be using the Caracal or Bellicose the most. The Moa isn't in there because even if it did get another mid slot. I would choose a Vexor over it. However, in fleets they would become cheap battlecruisers and I would use them as such (only in fleets).

Since I don't 1 v 1, ask for them (like most l0sers who can't pvp otherwise) or expect them when I roam solo or want them solo or think or care about 1 v 1ing.

I would say all the above still stands and if someone was not ******** and noticed the reference to "current enviroment and (meta)". They would descern there are other considerations/factors. Even though some in this thread want to build in ignorance of them by removing a mid slot from a Vexor because that person doesn't want anyone to even think about shield tanking it.

Since I know most others in this thread think in terms of (gang) v BLOB (gang) and 1 v 1 and words like "fair". Don't paint me with the same brush as weaklings (sheep). I don't expect fair and dont want it. That's not reality even in a game about spaceships. There are players who are good @ somethings and bad @ other things. Same with some spaceships being terrible and others good. Except it and stop crying you ********. No one will ever hear or see anything written or said by me referring to "fair". Wouldn't it be nice if everyone won and no one lost? Where every ship is good and everything was on a level playing field? I suppose someone could create a game like that, but I wouldnt play it. What would be the point? No challenge. I rather play real life (ROFL)...

Are you implying that the tristan is going to be good?

Are you applying that their is absolute equivalence between a ship with a Drone Dmg bonus and room for 2 DDA's and one that has neither?

But yes I think the Tristan will be pretty good as is, although I would like to see 1 high slot dropped for a low and 2 Grid / 20 CPU added.