These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#561 - 2012-10-17 19:43:04 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Besides giving the Vexor a low for a dmg mod they haven't done much for Gal armor.

Hull has been increased by quite a bit - even though the Hull Tanking Certificate says only fools hull tank. Big smile

CCP wrote:

This certificate represents an elite level of competence in the infamous practice of "hull tanking". It certifies that the holder can fully use all modules relating to hull tanking. The holder is aware that "real men hull tank", and also that hull tanking is really dumb. With this certificate, you've maximised your ability to rely on your structural systems to absorb damage, although hopefully you're smart enough to know what a daft idea that is.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#562 - 2012-10-17 19:45:38 UTC
Give Gallente Pilots base hull resists problem solved. Lol
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#563 - 2012-10-17 19:52:25 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:

Gallente are supposed to be Armor Tankers. This has less to do with my preference and more to do with overall balancing implications.

If you try to balance things against what is wrong with the game I.E Shield on everything then you are balancing only around the current broken mechanics. If the only way to make an Armor Ship Good means shoehorning shield fits then it is time to change the Armor / Shield Balance. I would rather have ships balanced towards that then trying to bash a puzzle piece that doesn't fit into the middle of a puzzle.

If CCP isn't going to fix that issue then they should stop pretending and give all the ships Shield Layouts, until then Armor Friendly Gallente and a Drone Centric Vexor is what I am looking for in this rebalance. Even if I have to wait until the next expansions balancing for them to be up to be completely up to par.


The issue is not CCP or ship design, but player tactical choices. Shields and Armor both have their advantages, and neither is objectively "better" than the other overall. They are only better or worse in any one encounter. Nor is CCP leading the players when they modify ship designs and slot layouts to support either choice. For example, the additional mid-slot in the Rupture does not mandate or even encourage shield tanking unless that is what the player prefers. It offers just as many new options to eh armor tanker. For example, the armor tanking fan can now run dual prop; he can run dual webs or a web and a tracking disruptor; he can run dual prop, scram, and a cap booster -- and active armor tank the ship.

Options. The same choices offered by the new super Vexor.

The two ships lacking those options are the Moa and Maller. The Moa has the same number of mids as the Rupture and Vexor, but lacks the lows to armor tank effectively. It's stuck as a shield ship and forced to fit prop, tank, point, and any ewar into only four slots. This is compounded by it's starting stats (the slowest and heaviest hull, the lack of drones, the lowest starting tank, etc).

The new and improved Vexor is going to be a powerful, versatile, and deadly ship. It will be fully capable with either a shield or armor tank. It's up to you how you want to do it, but either way it's going to be devistating to anything it goes up against.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#564 - 2012-10-17 23:17:19 UTC
This Moa can fit 5 (five, like a Thorax) bonused blaster PLUS a HAM. On top of that, it has a bonused shield (25% resist is HUGE for tank). On top of all this, it have plenty of low slots for MFS/TE. I'm affraid it can be brutal in fact and even obsolete the Thorax... Only advantage of the Thorax over this Moa is the speed, though Thorax will need to armor tank to keep it, and the Moa then will have the tank advantage.

Give it a fifth mid slot, and then the Thorax is pointless.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#565 - 2012-10-18 01:22:49 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
This Moa can fit 5 (five, like a Thorax) bonused blaster PLUS a HAM. On top of that, it has a bonused shield (25% resist is HUGE for tank). On top of all this, it have plenty of low slots for MFS/TE. I'm affraid it can be brutal in fact and even obsolete the Thorax... Only advantage of the Thorax over this Moa is the speed, though Thorax will need to armor tank to keep it, and the Moa then will have the tank advantage.

Give it a fifth mid slot, and then the Thorax is pointless.


Even with a fifth mid slot, the Moa's going to be a slow brick of slow. It might be able to fit a good tank, and it'll be capable of decent damage.

The Thorax on the other hand, is a substantial amount faster, going 300m/s or more faster than the Moa (I'm leaning toward the "more"), and it has a much larger dronebay. Despite the fact it'll have a smaller shield tank compared to the Moa, it has the same amount of slots, one more lowslot meaning more damage mods, and isn't that much weaker. It should also outrange the Moa, assuming that the Thorax pilot decides to put a tracking enhancer in the extra low-slot. And as for the Moa out-damaging the 'Rax with a single extra bonused HAM, the Moa can't have a full flight of light drones to kill the 'Rax's, and then apply extra DPS, and it can't have a full flight of light ECM's. Which can also make the 'Rax a better solo ship.

But it in no way renders the Thorax pointless. Different roles entirely, despite similarities in ships.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#566 - 2012-10-18 02:51:47 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
This Moa can fit 5 (five, like a Thorax) bonused blaster PLUS a HAM. On top of that, it has a bonused shield (25% resist is HUGE for tank). On top of all this, it have plenty of low slots for MFS/TE. I'm affraid it can be brutal in fact and even obsolete the Thorax... Only advantage of the Thorax over this Moa is the speed, though Thorax will need to armor tank to keep it, and the Moa then will have the tank advantage.

Give it a fifth mid slot, and then the Thorax is pointless.


Thorax does about a hundred more raw DPS than the Moa using the same class of guns (Heavy Ion Blaster II). Thorax is also faster than the Moa and can, as pointed out, field more than three drones, and can carry a full flight of ECM ones if it wants. So if a Moa pilot wants to be less squishy they have to forego a web. Which then means that they can't web a Thorax back when it comes in to attack them. Instead, the Moa, with it's lack of medslots and comparatively poor DPS due to not having as many drones, gets locked down and likely destroyed in almost any solo fight against Thorax, Vexor and Rupture (and perhaps Maller as well). I'm not even going to get into Moa vs. Attack Cruisers, because they're all even faster than the other combat cruisers (except the Rupture), so a Moa without a web doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against them in a 1v1 I don't think due to the kite factor.

Without that fifth med slot, the Moa cannot compete with any of the combat cruisers, nor the attack cruisers. Even if you build it as a rail platform, which it looks like CCP is trying to typecast the Moa into being. Which is an awful idea, because that makes it the most overspecialized T1 cruiser, and very comparable to a panda whose bamboo forest just got torched by someone wanting to build a mini-mall.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#567 - 2012-10-18 03:38:26 UTC
Aglais wrote:

Thorax does about a hundred more raw DPS than the Moa using the same class of guns (Heavy Ion Blaster II). Thorax is also faster than the Moa and can, as pointed out, field more than three drones, and can carry a full flight of ECM ones if it wants. So if a Moa pilot wants to be less squishy they have to forego a web. Which then means that they can't web a Thorax back when it comes in to attack them. Instead, the Moa, with it's lack of medslots and comparatively poor DPS due to not having as many drones, gets locked down and likely destroyed in almost any solo fight against Thorax, Vexor and Rupture (and perhaps Maller as well). I'm not even going to get into Moa vs. Attack Cruisers, because they're all even faster than the other combat cruisers (except the Rupture), so a Moa without a web doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against them in a 1v1 I don't think due to the kite factor.

Without that fifth med slot, the Moa cannot compete with any of the combat cruisers, nor the attack cruisers. Even if you build it as a rail platform, which it looks like CCP is trying to typecast the Moa into being. Which is an awful idea, because that makes it the most overspecialized T1 cruiser, and very comparable to a panda whose bamboo forest just got torched by someone wanting to build a mini-mall.

Moa has same damage bonus as Thorax, so it's going to put out AT LEAST the same amount of damage. Being a shield tank, it will also have 40-45% more EHP than the Thorax. Moa: dps*EHP. Thorax dps + speed.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#568 - 2012-10-18 03:48:45 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Aglais wrote:

Thorax does about a hundred more raw DPS than the Moa using the same class of guns (Heavy Ion Blaster II). Thorax is also faster than the Moa and can, as pointed out, field more than three drones, and can carry a full flight of ECM ones if it wants. So if a Moa pilot wants to be less squishy they have to forego a web. Which then means that they can't web a Thorax back when it comes in to attack them. Instead, the Moa, with it's lack of medslots and comparatively poor DPS due to not having as many drones, gets locked down and likely destroyed in almost any solo fight against Thorax, Vexor and Rupture (and perhaps Maller as well). I'm not even going to get into Moa vs. Attack Cruisers, because they're all even faster than the other combat cruisers (except the Rupture), so a Moa without a web doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against them in a 1v1 I don't think due to the kite factor.

Without that fifth med slot, the Moa cannot compete with any of the combat cruisers, nor the attack cruisers. Even if you build it as a rail platform, which it looks like CCP is trying to typecast the Moa into being. Which is an awful idea, because that makes it the most overspecialized T1 cruiser, and very comparable to a panda whose bamboo forest just got torched by someone wanting to build a mini-mall.

Moa has same damage bonus as Thorax, so it's going to put out AT LEAST the same amount of damage. Being a shield tank, it will also have 40-45% more EHP than the Thorax. Moa: dps*EHP. Thorax dps + speed.





Drone bay. Don't ignore it. Moa has maximum three hobgoblin IIs. Thorax can, if it wants to, field five Hammerhead IIs.

There's also the novel idea of attempting to armor tank the Thorax, which I'm sure it has adequate grid for. Hell, why not give the Thorax an extra bonus that reduces the mass addition of armor plates by some percentage? Incentivize armor tanking on armor ships, and shield tanking on shield ones. Instead of this ugly muddled situation with 'armor boats' being used entirely as shield gank ships.
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#569 - 2012-10-18 07:35:38 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
This Moa can fit 5 (five, like a Thorax) bonused blaster PLUS a HAM. On top of that, it has a bonused shield (25% resist is HUGE for tank). On top of all this, it have plenty of low slots for MFS/TE. I'm affraid it can be brutal in fact and even obsolete the Thorax... Only advantage of the Thorax over this Moa is the speed, though Thorax will need to armor tank to keep it, and the Moa then will have the tank advantage.

Give it a fifth mid slot, and then the Thorax is pointless.


Webs are pretty useful on a blaster boat, particularly one as slow as the Moa. Unfortunately, the Moa doesn't have the mid slots to fit them.

The Thorax is going to be potentially much faster. It will do more dps, at greater range, and with better tracking. It supports either a full flight of medium drones (for an additional 160 dps) or the option of running a full flight of warriors and a full flight of ecm drones. Where the Thorax is a BMW, the Moa is a scooter, and you are complaining that your leather seats are too soft and the climate control system filters out all the truck exhaust.

The Moa not only needs a fifth mid, it needs a full flight of light drones and potentially more grid to fit a medium neut. Lacking these it's going to rely on a whole lot of help from it's victims to kill anything -- including frigates.
Misspi en Divalone
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#570 - 2012-10-18 08:46:09 UTC
Thorax, especially the shield version is great for solo or very small gang, Moa is great when having it run with some support ships especially logistics. The Moa isn't even that slow, without prop mods, only running an mwd it will go around 1600+ m/s. That is without overheating or any gang link bonus. If you don't think that's fast enough I'd compare it to dual prop armor tanked deimos currently occasionally used. The new Moa will be much faster then those.

You also do not need or want extra PG to fit a medium neut. If you want to fit one you can already but at the cost of having to use fitting mods or downgrade guns. It can easily run a small nos or neut just fine. Good enough to keep the ship running or mess with frigs trying to get under it's guns. Extra pg will only make it too easy to tank with a second LSE and create disproportionate tanks compared to other ships in it's class without using at least one or two fitting mods. For this very same reason it also doesn't need a fifth med slot. We all know how that will end up. It will be used for tank in gangs. One thing it does not need is even better resists or tank.

If Eve was all 1 v 1 and nothing else you might have a point but it's a multi player game and the Moa will be a good asset in gangs properly supported by tacklers and 1 or more logi. Personally I see the Thorax and Moa as both having different uses and roles.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#571 - 2012-10-18 09:05:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
None of the aforementioned proposed combat cruisers in anyway, will be "a brick" or in anyway shape or form be considered slow. Even a armor plated Maller will have a significant difference in velocity compared to a Rupture with a armor plate, NOW.

Also, you CAN shield tank a Maller and kite with it and do significantly more damage @ range compared to a Ruptre. You won't have drones, but you'll be FAST; as fast as a shield-Rupture is currently.

With that said. The only ship anyone can honestly consider slow is a Maller with armor plates and that's comparatively. All combat and attack cruisers will be just as fast as HACs are currently and very much out pace a Hurricane or Cyclone. That's NOT slow. How a proposed Moa can be considered slow; when a Moa will be capable of outpacing most of current and future destroyer hulls is SILLY.

Edit: Also, because CCP BOOSTED hybrids. All none tracking bonused ships that use blasters track as well as a Stabber Fleet Issue. While a stasis webifier can help. A ship with blasters will have an ALOT better time tracking frigates with a stasis webifier compared to similar fitted ship using autocannons.

I find hard if NOT impossible to abuse the tracking of a blaster ship NOW, unlike in the past with a dual-propulsion cruiser (Stabber Fleet Issue). Also, I small or medium neut can be a good sub for a stasis webifier. The Moa is going to be a BEAST and a cheap one @ that. Nano-battlecruisers are going to be hunted down by packs (2 - 4) of these and eaten for lunch. The Moa more so than the rest, although a shield Vexor may be able to do it solo v0v

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#572 - 2012-10-18 09:35:04 UTC
These are the changes I would make:

Maller:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
5% bonus to all Armor Resistances
Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 3 M, 6 L, 5 turrets
Fittings: 1000 PWG (+100), 280 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1200(-168) / 2100(+225) / 1700(-19)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1550(+50) / 515s(-22.5s) / 3 (+0.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 205(+41) / 0.56(-0.045) / 11550000 / 6.1s (-0.4)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 47.5km / 280(+10) / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Radar (+2)
Signature radius: 130
Cargo capacity: 480 (+200)

I've just added a flight of light drones to this hull as the ship just seemed a little lame without them.

Moa:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Optimal range
5% bonus to shield resistances
Slot layout: 6 H, 5 M, 3 L, 6 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 900 PWG (+20), 400CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2100(+225) / 1200(-129) / 1500(-24)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1425(+50) / 475s(-16.25s) / 3 (+0.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+31) / 0.54 / 11720000 / 5.9s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 20 / 20
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 260(+7) / 7
Sensor strength: 17 Gravimetric (+1)
Signature radius: 135
Cargo capacity: 450 (+200)

I've added a 6th turret here and moved a low to a mid. I've also changed the Hybrid damage bonus for an optimal. This is to keep the Moa in line with Caldari doctrines and creates a "mini Rokh" feel to the ship. Moving the low to a mid allows for better use of needed mid slot modules and the ship can now be used as either a rail boat or a pure blaster brawler. To compensate for the loss in damage (+1 turret doesn't cut it) I've added an extra light drone.

Vexor:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
10% bonus to drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield
Slot layout: 4 H (-1), 4 M (+1), 5 L (+1), 4 turrets
Fittings: 800 PWG (+125), 300 CPU (+30)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1100(-73) / 2000(+515) / 2000(+515)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1450(+200) / 482.5s(+36.25s) / 3 (+0.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+46) / 0.6(+0.03) / 11310000 / 5.8s (+0.3)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 100
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 52.5km / 280(+4) / 6(+1)
Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric (+2)
Signature radius: 145 (-5)
Cargo capacity: 480

The only problem with the Vexor was it's mass. I've bumped it's mass up here to be more in line with the other combat cruisers.

Rupture:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret firing speed
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 4 M (+1), 5 L, 4 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 860 PWG, 350 CPU (+25)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1500(-63) / 1800(+159) / 1600(+37)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1275(+25) / 425s(-21.25s) / 3(+0.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225 / 0.54 / 11650000 / 5.9s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km(+5) / 290(+8) / 6(+1)
Sensor strength: 15 Ladar (+3)
Signature radius: 125 (-5)
Cargo capacity: 450 (+150)

The Rupture was very good. It was just too fast. I've reduced it's max velocity to bring it more in line.
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#573 - 2012-10-18 09:39:07 UTC
Misspi en Divalone wrote:
Thorax, especially the shield version is great for solo or very small gang, Moa is great when having it run with some support ships especially logistics. The Moa isn't even that slow, without prop mods, only running an mwd it will go around 1600+ m/s. That is without overheating or any gang link bonus. If you don't think that's fast enough I'd compare it to dual prop armor tanked deimos currently occasionally used. The new Moa will be much faster then those.

You also do not need or want extra PG to fit a medium neut. If you want to fit one you can already but at the cost of having to use fitting mods or downgrade guns. It can easily run a small nos or neut just fine. Good enough to keep the ship running or mess with frigs trying to get under it's guns. Extra pg will only make it too easy to tank with a second LSE and create disproportionate tanks compared to other ships in it's class without using at least one or two fitting mods. For this very same reason it also doesn't need a fifth med slot. We all know how that will end up. It will be used for tank in gangs. One thing it does not need is even better resists or tank.

If Eve was all 1 v 1 and nothing else you might have a point but it's a multi player game and the Moa will be a good asset in gangs properly supported by tacklers and 1 or more logi. Personally I see the Thorax and Moa as both having different uses and roles.


I fundamentally agree with this.
A Moa achieves a similar tank to a Shield Thorax for less DPS, less Speed but with a web; or achieves a much greater tank by sacrificing the web.
A Moa (w/ Web) achieves a similar DPS and Speed to an Armour Thorax for less EHP but better damage projection (assuming a 2 x MFS, 1 x TE fit). Or similar EHP, by sacrificing the Web.

A Moa will be kited by anything with a Web. This is also true of a Thorax.
A Moa is able to fit a Nos to keep everything running. Only an Armour Thorax can fit a Cap Booster to keep everything running.
They're pretty well balanced.

But... trading a low on the Moa for the 5th mid will not make it OP. It will allow an approx 33K EHP tank with LSE, Invuln, DCU or 26K with just LSE, Invuln. With three lows this forces you fit either DCU, 2 x Damage mods or 3 x Damage mods. This will satisfy the whiners, at the result of making the 6-5-3 Blaster Moa a cookie cutter fit with no real fitting decisions.

The 6-4-4 Moa forces fitting decisions. Which is why I like it.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#574 - 2012-10-18 16:33:12 UTC
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:

The 6-4-4 Moa forces fitting decisions. Which is why I like it.


Whoa. There's a big difference between "fitting decisions" and "being gimped by a horrendous slot layout". Making 'fitting decisions' involves whether or not you want to go with a webifier or a tracking computer, or sacrifice some tank for bigger guns, or some damage mods for nanofibres in the case of Caldari ships or something, or choosing an unconventional tanking method because that actually does give you an advantage not currently present over your current defensive doctrine (Sacrificing tank for a utility that all of the other ships can exploit in conjunction with having pros in other fields the Moa doesn't have doesn't count as 'choosing an unconventional tanking method' by any stretch). All of the other combat cruisers have choices that involve them being able to use webs, and also pull off having solid EHP (In fact, you can get a 30k EHP Armor thorax, which still hurts more than the Moa, by about a hundred DPS, AND WEBS), and then if you want you could also shield fit the Thorax, Vexor and Rupture, building them with far, far more speed than the Moa, more damage in the case of the Thorax and Vexor, and unimaginable kiting skills with the Rupture especially, while sacrificing EHP. THESE are fitting decisions. The Moa is just poorly planned.

I'm going to reiterate, the Moa is more or less locked into being a shield tanker. And I'm also going to restate that having to sacrifice tank for a module that is VITAL to the proper operation of blasters is idiotic, especially when it's the only ship in it's class that needs to really make this sacrifice.
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#575 - 2012-10-19 10:04:36 UTC
The Rupture is the only cruiser that looks strange to me.
The Moa looks gimped with its 6-4-4 layout, but loldari ships are always gimped (apart from Drake and Tengu, because of tank and a OP weaponsystem).

Comparing these four ships the Rupie stands out as the king of speed, the king of cap, the king of tank and shared first place in utility.
It's base speed is crazy high and the other ships need two low-slot speed modules (overdrives) to keep up with it. Despite having the smallest total cap, the regen is identical for all ships and the rupie won't need any cap for its weapons which means it will have the most cap available to it in a combat situation, and even if drained it will keep on shooting. The Rupie have the smallest signature size, which makes it harder to track and harder to hurt with missiles, with 6 low slots and a good PG pool it can also achieve a solid armor tank. Four utility med slots and one high, and a full flight of drones, means it will be on par with the Vexor for utility. With the new and improved sensor strength (15, compared to 16 and 17 of the other ships) it will also be harder to jam then before.

The Rupture has no weakness (when compared to the other combat cruisers).
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#576 - 2012-10-19 13:08:47 UTC
One day Fozzie told us how,
The combat cruiser rebalancing will go,
He posted on the EvE-O forums,
The things that we should know,

We studied them in depth,
And theory crafted their roles,
Some argued and some debabted,
And some just fed the Trolls,

Though we came to a conclusion,
The Maller needs some drones and the Rupture's too fast,
The Moa needs a mid slot
and the Vexor will be a blast,

We posted this feedback,
So Fozzie could reply,
But little did we know,
To Austin Fozzie did fly,

But now he is back,
And to this task he has been set,
The CSM has been informed,
So what are we going to get?

So please Fozzie pretty please
An update could you make,
I'm sure we will all "like" it,
and then we can eat some cake!
Lili Lu
#577 - 2012-10-19 15:29:08 UTC
Aglais wrote:
There's also the novel idea of attempting to armor tank the Thorax, which I'm sure it has adequate grid for. Hell, why not give the Thorax an extra bonus that reduces the mass addition of armor plates by some percentage? Incentivize armor tanking on armor ships, and shield tanking on shield ones. Instead of this ugly muddled situation with 'armor boats' being used entirely as shield gank ships.

Actually, that reduction in the addition of mass with plates bonus idea is quite novel. I'm not sure exactly how it would mesh with current bonuses. Esentially armor tanking ships would have to give up something in it's place. But it could be used as a replacement for the current Gallente armor repper bonus which while helping the Incursus, is not going to help any larger class ships pvp effectively. But having a brutix, myrm, hyperion that instead gets a mass reduction on plates bonus is more attractive imo. Of course it would all depend on the numbers.

Also, the shield gank of what would otherwise be armor tanker phenomenon is twofold. The sig penalty with extenders not mattering for much since everyone has a mwd on while the mobility hits with plates is a big deal. However, with changes to missiles and missile skills and the eventual TC/TE those very usally shield tanked sig-bloated missile boats may very much not want to see another missile boat targeting them. Some of those smaller gank shield ships are going to have more to fear from larger ships sporting HAMs or torps.

It will be interesting when all the coming changes get on the test server. Shocked
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#578 - 2012-10-19 17:42:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
The Rupture is the "king of tank" and has "no weaknesses"? What are you smoking? I have no idea what you're on about. What is the reasoning behind those statements? Nothing! You're literally speaking out of your @55.

Anyway.

The Maller is a victum of the current shield/armor meta like all sub-battleships. Using a light unit in conventional battle is stupid. be like the Huns getting off their horses and engaging the Romans close range = /

However, the Maller can pull it off because it can field a SICK defense, but I do believe it needs a optimal range bonus and not a damage bonus. Kinda like a Zealot.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#579 - 2012-10-19 18:09:07 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:

Actually, that reduction in the addition of mass with plates bonus idea is quite novel. I'm not sure exactly how it would mesh with current bonuses. Esentially armor tanking ships would have to give up something in it's place. But it could be used as a replacement for the current Gallente armor repper bonus which while helping the Incursus, is not going to help any larger class ships pvp effectively. But having a brutix, myrm, hyperion that instead gets a mass reduction on plates bonus is more attractive imo. Of course it would all depend on the numbers.

I'd prefer to see active armor tanking fixed.
Yankunytjatjara
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#580 - 2012-10-19 18:49:04 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
However, the Maller can pull it off because it can field a SICK defense, but I do believe it needs a optimal range bonus and not a damage bonus. Kinda like a Zealot.

I disagree, but it should be able to fit FMBeamLs and a 1600 without any fitting mod at least.
It could also benefit from a change in QLBL that no one uses as they are now:
Yankunytjatjara wrote:
Only one word

QUAD LIGHT BEAM LASERS

Well ok 4. It's time they receive a buff. They should be the amarr equivalent of RFMLs

The easiest way, but not only one, is to make them medium pulse lasers, with the tracking buff pulse lasers received years ago, and the relative increase in dps. They would work perfectly with the new maller!



My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors