These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#581 - 2012-10-19 19:08:46 UTC
Yankunytjatjara wrote:
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!





1600 Were never supposed to be cruiser sized mods.

1600's and LSE need a serious looking at but maybe its just me.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#582 - 2012-10-19 19:21:32 UTC
Maybe CCP should increase 1600mm plates fitting requirements. To make sure only battlecruisers and above can fit them.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Alara IonStorm
#583 - 2012-10-19 19:31:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Major Killz wrote:
Maybe CCP should increase 1600mm plates fitting requirements. To make sure only battlecruisers and above can fit them.

I would prefer it if Battlecruisers could not fit them either if they go down that road. I don't think Battlecruisers should be paired with Battleships when it comes to what mods they can fit except for the specially bonused low tanked gunships. They should be IMO Heavy Cruisers or Big Sig'd Cruisers with Heavy Guns.

If they make 800mm Plates a viable option I would want them to be a viable option on Battlecruisers as well as Cruisers like the LSE is and leave the 1600mm Plate to Battleships. I would also like them to make an XLSE with similar high Battleship only fitting.

Keep a clear difference between Small, Medium and Large Modules. That said I would also like to see some of the fitting lowered on Cruiser Modules as well, Medium Cap Boosters, Medium NOS and Neutralizers primarily. To many Cruisers have to go with smalls.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#584 - 2012-10-19 19:41:50 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
Maybe CCP should increase 1600mm plates fitting requirements. To make sure only battlecruisers and above can fit them.

I would prefer it if Battlecruisers could not fit them either if they go down that road. I don't think Battlecruisers should be paired with Battleships when it comes to what mods they can fit except for the specially bonused low tanked gunships. They should be IMO Heavy Cruisers or Big Sig'd Cruisers with Heavy Guns.

If they make 800mm Plates a viable option I would want them to be a viable option on Battlecruisers as well as Cruisers like the LSE is and leave the 1600mm Plate to Battleships. I would also like them to make an XLSE with similar high Battleship only fitting.

Keep a clear difference between Small, Medium and Large Modules. That said I would also like to see some of the fitting lowered on Cruiser Modules as well, Medium Cap Boosters, Medium NOS and Neutralizers primarily. To many Cruisers have to go with smalls.


I agree with all of your points. What would you do with the odd ball items though?

The micro shield extender, small shield extender, 50mm plate, 100mm plate.

I am going to leave the 200mm plate out as I have some fitting on EFT I would like to try out. Or they need to reduce the PG of 400's to 20 that would make it easier IMO.
Alara IonStorm
#585 - 2012-10-19 19:54:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
MIrple wrote:

I agree with all of your points. What would you do with the odd ball items though?

The micro shield extender, small shield extender, 50mm plate, 100mm plate.

I am going to leave the 200mm plate out as I have some fitting on EFT I would like to try out. Or they need to reduce the PG of 400's to 20 that would make it easier IMO.

I would rename L Shield Extenders to Medium Shield Extenders. Fold the Small and Micro into the current Medium Extender and then create a new Large.

For Armor everything below 400mm gets folded into 400mm.

Like this for T2 Stats.

Shield T2

S: 10 PG 25 CPU / 850 Shield HP / +5 Sig
M: 120 PG 40 CPU / 2650 Shield HP / +25 Sig
L: 1250 PG 75 CPU / 3750 Shield HP / + 100 Sig

Armor T2

400: 12 PG 18 CPU / 950 Armor HP / +200000
800: 225 PG 24 CPU / 3000 Armor HP / +1000000
1600: 1750 PG 36 CPU / 4250 Armor HP / +5000000

Something along those lines.
Luc Chastot
#586 - 2012-10-19 20:04:48 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
[quote=MIrple]Armor T2

400: 12 PG 18 CPU / 950 Armor HP / +200000
800: 12 PG 18 CPU / 3000 Armor HP / +1000000
1600: 12 PG 18 CPU / 4250 Armor HP / +5000000

Something along those lines.


1600mm Velator! Woooo! Cool

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Alara IonStorm
#587 - 2012-10-19 20:06:45 UTC
Luc Chastot wrote:

1600mm Velator! Woooo! Cool

Eep...
Zhephell
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#588 - 2012-10-19 20:32:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhephell
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
Maybe CCP should increase 1600mm plates fitting requirements. To make sure only battlecruisers and above can fit them.

I would prefer it if Battlecruisers could not fit them either if they go down that road. I don't think Battlecruisers should be paired with Battleships when it comes to what mods they can fit except for the specially bonused low tanked gunships. They should be IMO Heavy Cruisers or Big Sig'd Cruisers with Heavy Guns.

If they make 800mm Plates a viable option I would want them to be a viable option on Battlecruisers as well as Cruisers like the LSE is and leave the 1600mm Plate to Battleships. I would also like them to make an XLSE with similar high Battleship only fitting.

Keep a clear difference between Small, Medium and Large Modules. That said I would also like to see some of the fitting lowered on Cruiser Modules as well, Medium Cap Boosters, Medium NOS and Neutralizers primarily. To many Cruisers have to go with smalls.



They could also put a 2400mm or a 3200mm armour plates for bs, and put a small powergrid augmentation for the battle ships that must use plates to tank and have power problems in its fittings, i think it ll be easier to do it, and it ll have a similar result
Alara IonStorm
#589 - 2012-10-19 20:34:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Zhephell wrote:

They could also put a 2400mm or a 3200mm armour plates for bs, and put a small powergrid augmentation for the battle ships that must use plates to tank and have power problems in its fittings, i think it ll be easier to do it and it ll have a similar result

Not really. It would still leave half of the plates useless. Cruisers would still be dumping half their grid for an effective tank with large mass penalties not helping them at all. It would give more uneeded HP to Battleships instead of actually solving the core issues with them.

Piling more on top of a broken system is not the answer, fixing what is broken with the current system is.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#590 - 2012-10-19 21:23:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
CCP needs to sit down, decide on an approximate desired "effect" and crunch the numbers.

Frigates/Dessies f.ex. should not expect to be alive for long in medium+ fights regardless of support, their survival should come primarily from piloting.
- 200mm maximum at a high cost. 400's should be downright crippling.
Cruisers should not expect to live long in large+ fights regardless of support, their survival should come primarily from gang/fleet composition (ie. ewar, range options etc.) with piloting as a secondary.
- 800mm maximum at a high cost. 1600's should be downright crippling.
BC (depending on what is done to the class)/BS should not expect to survive in massive+ fights without support (note the difference from above), their survival should hinge on what can be done for them not by them (read: RR, eWar).
- No maximum, burn your grid if you want and don't trust your logistics. Good 'target' is 1x1600 for BC's and 2x1600 for BS.

* Adjust attributes of all extenders, plates and ships to fit whatever desired effect is settled upon.
* Rework local tank mechanics to allow for prolonged large and down fights when properly managed (read: 100% dps will lose 10% RR/ 90% dps).
* Add modules to take the place of buffer/active module that increases the benefit of remote tanks.

Bottomline:
Accept that solo pew is dead. We are too damn many online and have too damn many alts at any one time for it to be prudent to maintain that particular fantasy .. balancing anything to function 'solo' at this point will balloon out of control with numbers added.
Instead balance based on ship size in conjunction with 'viable'/'normal' engagements for said ship size. Include RR/eWar in the deliberations as we are getting T1 frigates/cruiser logistics as well as survivable eWar ditto plus a revision of the entire range so the landscape is going to change dramatically Soon™.

Final word: Say no to oversizing!
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#591 - 2012-10-20 11:10:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
CCP needs to sit down, decide on an approximate desired "effect" and crunch the numbers.

Frigates/Dessies f.ex. should not expect to be alive for long in medium+ fights regardless of support, their survival should come primarily from piloting.
- 200mm maximum at a high cost. 400's should be downright crippling.
Cruisers should not expect to live long in large+ fights regardless of support, their survival should come primarily from gang/fleet composition (ie. ewar, range options etc.) with piloting as a secondary.
- 800mm maximum at a high cost. 1600's should be downright crippling.
BC (depending on what is done to the class)/BS should not expect to survive in massive+ fights without support (note the difference from above), their survival should hinge on what can be done for them not by them (read: RR, eWar).
- No maximum, burn your grid if you want and don't trust your logistics. Good 'target' is 1x1600 for BC's and 2x1600 for BS.

* Adjust attributes of all extenders, plates and ships to fit whatever desired effect is settled upon.
* Rework local tank mechanics to allow for prolonged large and down fights when properly managed (read: 100% dps will lose 10% RR/ 90% dps).
* Add modules to take the place of buffer/active module that increases the benefit of remote tanks.

Bottomline:
Accept that solo pew is dead. We are too damn many online and have too damn many alts at any one time for it to be prudent to maintain that particular fantasy .. balancing anything to function 'solo' at this point will balloon out of control with numbers added.
Instead balance based on ship size in conjunction with 'viable'/'normal' engagements for said ship size. Include RR/eWar in the deliberations as we are getting T1 frigates/cruiser logistics as well as survivable eWar ditto plus a revision of the entire range so the landscape is going to change dramatically Soon™.

Final word: Say no to oversizing!


Solo pvp cannot die and that's a silly statement. While I do use alts SOMETIMES; I can honestly say I do solo\no scouts/no links very successfuly. I personally do that for a challenge. Most everything else you've posted I agree with though.

CCP has to accept that sub battlecruisers are not in practice capable of being used in strategic large engagements. Those are to important to rely on such paper tanks in comparison to battleships, strategic cruiser, command ships, interdictor,logistics, tier 3 and tier 2 battlecruisers.

That leaves those not listed to focus on hit and run/skirmish tactics and strategies. You also cant NERF "blobing" a term I dont like to use because that's a effective and obvious tactic. Why shouldnt u "blob" someone for strategic purposes? Would you think to defend billions in isk per month with t1 frigates and destroyers?

CCP has not looked @ this game or isnt effectively able to do so on a MACRO level. This thing needs a serious road map and acceptence that certain ships and ship classes wont be used. Like tech 1 ships. Tech 1 ships are transitional untill someone is able to fly a higher clas or tech 2 ships. That means you cannot stop the move from ok to good to better to best. There will always be something/ship/module bad because that's a comparative exercise. Something has to be good for something else to be bad unless both things are near exactly the same.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#592 - 2012-10-20 11:57:09 UTC
Major Killz wrote:

CCP has not looked @ this game or isnt effectively able to do so on a MACRO level. This thing needs a serious road map and acceptence that certain ships and ship classes wont be used. Like tech 1 ships. Tech 1 ships are transitional untill someone is able to fly a higher clas or tech 2 ships. That means you cannot stop the move from ok to good to better to best. There will always be something/ship/module bad because that's a comparative exercise. Something has to be good for something else to be bad unless both things are near exactly the same.

You can have role for the different ship classes. Of course, BS are and will always be the fleet ship of choice, and BC can make the light fleet ship of choice, but frigates and cruisers may have their role too : frigate are fast and nimble and can actually survive on a battlefield and provide the safe spots for example, and cruiser, as their name imply, should be the cruise ship of choice for roaming and allowing to pick your fights. Problem is that there is no low size gang strategic objectives in nullsec for this, and BC make effective cruise ships.

On the other side, if something have to be better than something else, the power margin between the two don't have to be huge.

I think this is the path they are taking with cruisers : making them faster to be better at cruising and more powerful to reduce the gap between them and the working T2 cruisers.

PS : and yes, solo pvp cannot die.
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#593 - 2012-10-20 17:20:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kai'rae Saarkus
Alara IonStorm wrote:
MIrple wrote:

I agree with all of your points. What would you do with the odd ball items though?

The micro shield extender, small shield extender, 50mm plate, 100mm plate.

I am going to leave the 200mm plate out as I have some fitting on EFT I would like to try out. Or they need to reduce the PG of 400's to 20 that would make it easier IMO.

I would rename L Shield Extenders to Medium Shield Extenders. Fold the Small and Micro into the current Medium Extender and then create a new Large.

For Armor everything below 400mm gets folded into 400mm.

Like this for T2 Stats.

Shield T2

S: 10 PG 25 CPU / 850 Shield HP / +5 Sig
M: 120 PG 40 CPU / 2650 Shield HP / +25 Sig
L: 1250 PG 75 CPU / 3750 Shield HP / + 100 Sig

Armor T2

400: 12 PG 18 CPU / 950 Armor HP / +200000
800: 225 PG 24 CPU / 3000 Armor HP / +1000000
1600: 1750 PG 36 CPU / 4250 Armor HP / +5000000

Something along those lines.


The issue with this is that you buff shield BS HP, but nerf Armour BS HP. And universally buff EHP below Battleship size. This creates more balance issues than it solves.

ATM 400mm plates are reasonably balanced (difficult to fit, v good EHP for Frigs), 1600mm plates are balanced (require reducing weapon size, losing speed for Cruisers; working well on BS). Leave these the same.

Fix 200mm plates and 800mm plates. They actually give enough EHP (A 800mm, 1 x EANM, 3 x Trimark Thorax gets roughly the same EHP as a 2 x LSE, 1 x Anti-EM, 2 x CDFE Thorax) but cost too much as a fitting choice. If you drop their mass to 2x100mm and 2x400mm respectively you get these stats:

200mm Plate II > Frigates > 17 PG 12 CPU +600 Armour + 75,000 Kg
400mm Plate II > Frigates / Destroyers > 35PG 23CPU + 1200 Armour + 375,000Kg
800mm Plate II > Cruisers > 230PG 28CPU +2400 Armour +750,000 Kg
1600mm Plate II > CC/BC/BS > 575PG 33CPY +4800 Armour + 3,750,000 Kg

Or Best Named
200mm RRT Plates > Frigates > 13 PG 10 CPU +525 Armour + 55,000 Kg
400mm RRT Plates > Frigates / Destroyers > 30PG 18CPU + 1050 Armour + 275,000Kg
800mm RRT Plates > Cruisers > 200PG 23CPU +2100 Armour +550,000 Kg
1600mm RRT Plates > CC/BC/BS > 500PG 28CPY +4200 Armour + 2,750,000 Kg

This has the effect of making 200mm and 800mm plates the balanced choice for "mobile" armour hulls. (I'd probably concede an argument that 200mm + 400mm plates fitting requirements are marginally too high, but not so much as to justify 12PG for 950 Armour).

However, this change needs to be combined with a change to Rigs, whereby Astronautic rigs do not affect armour (or at least some do not) but rather effect another attribute (personnaly, I like a "10% Increase in the amount of Heat damage absorbed by modules").

Hint: You can model these changes in EFT by fitting 2 x 400mm Plates (or 100mm) in place of a 800mm Plate (or 200mm) to establish EHP and manoeuvrability, then replace with a damage mod to establish DPS.
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
#594 - 2012-10-21 18:51:13 UTC
Why are there no Gallente cruisers getting an armor repair amount bonus? The Incursus gets it, so does the Myrm and Hyperion. Why not a cruiser for fans of active armor setups?
Martin0
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#595 - 2012-10-21 19:53:16 UTC
Shiroh Yatamii wrote:
Why are there no Gallente cruisers getting an armor repair amount bonus? The Incursus gets it, so does the Myrm and Hyperion. Why not a cruiser for fans of active armor setups?


Because medium armor reps are terrible if you don't use 3 on a myrmidon.

CCP FIX ARMOR TANKING PLEASE
Alara IonStorm
#596 - 2012-10-21 21:28:43 UTC
Martin0 wrote:
Shiroh Yatamii wrote:
Why are there no Gallente cruisers getting an armor repair amount bonus? The Incursus gets it, so does the Myrm and Hyperion. Why not a cruiser for fans of active armor setups?


Because medium armor reps are terrible if you don't use 3 on a myrmidon.

CCP FIX ARMOR TANKING PLEASE

Lets also not forget that Cruiser Capacitor is so low that a couple of Neuts can tank it before you consider that half of the cap will be gone from Warping, MWD's, Guns and Tackle. Cruisers are expected to run with about 80% the Cap Using Modules of a Battlecruiser and half the Capacitor. Having to fit 2 Reps, a Medium Cap Booster and a MWD with Guns is no picnic either.

I was a little sad they didn't redue the way Cruiser sized craft handle Capacitor and fitting.

I would have liked to see Micro Warp Drive Penalties removed in the following way.

MWD Cap Penalty Removed
Battlecruisers negative around 15% Capacitor same as having a MWD.
Frigate MWD use slightly more Capactior to make up for the penalty.
Battleship MWD cap use goes down to around -40 cap consumption.

Battleship MWD use up a bit to much cap anyway and tend to run dry in a couple of min.

I also would like to see medium Cap Booster go down to about 50 Grid, 20 CPU and Medium Neutralizers / NOS go down to around 50 Grid as well. To many Cruisers fit small Neuts and Cap Boosters. Battlecruiser / Cruiser fitting would be adjusted where needed of course.

Another change I would like is Cap Booster charges.

Small T2 / 4 - 200 or 5 Navy 200
Medium T2 / 4 - 400 or 5 Navy 400
Heavy T2 / 4 - 800 or 5 Navy 800

Duration moved to 10 sec each, no other charges fit.

I really think CCP should look into the modules they use for Cruiser ships. Especially the Grid of the modules often replaced with Frigate sized ones.
Sedul Masterson
Commonwealth Militia
Commonwealth Vanguard
#597 - 2012-10-22 01:00:43 UTC
I have to laugh at the fail changes to the Moa. (the bonuses are on the money, but...) Once again, CCP is making a ship for a specific purpose, and not giving it the ability to fill that purpose. For crying out loud this shield based "combat cruiser" has the same mid slots as the armor tanking Thorax and Vexor..... If it is supposed to be a shield tanker, give it 5 mid slots, or it will continue to be FAIL. -> BTW, if you didn't notice the "attack cruiser" that is shield based does have 5 mid slots.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#598 - 2012-10-22 01:39:00 UTC
Sedul Masterson wrote:
I have to laugh at the fail changes to the Moa. (the bonuses are on the money, but...) Once again, CCP is making a ship for a specific purpose, and not giving it the ability to fill that purpose. For crying out loud this shield based "combat cruiser" has the same mid slots as the armor tanking Thorax and Vexor..... If it is supposed to be a shield tanker, give it 5 mid slots, or it will continue to be FAIL. -> BTW, if you didn't notice the "attack cruiser" that is shield based does have 5 mid slots.


The bonus to damage rather than range cripples the Moa, actually. I've made some arguments in favor of an additional medium slot at the expense of that pointless sixth high earlier in the thread. But yes, the Moa's proposed new role doesn't really work unless the Thorax, Vexor and Rupture all decide they want to be armor tankers that day.

Which they won't, because having a weaker but still substantial shield tank, moving entirely too fast and piling on damage mods is superior to being slow and unagile but having decent defense, apparently.
Sedul Masterson
Commonwealth Militia
Commonwealth Vanguard
#599 - 2012-10-22 01:54:32 UTC
Aglais wrote:
Sedul Masterson wrote:
I have to laugh at the fail changes to the Moa. (the bonuses are on the money, but...) Once again, CCP is making a ship for a specific purpose, and not giving it the ability to fill that purpose. For crying out loud this shield based "combat cruiser" has the same mid slots as the armor tanking Thorax and Vexor..... If it is supposed to be a shield tanker, give it 5 mid slots, or it will continue to be FAIL. -> BTW, if you didn't notice the "attack cruiser" that is shield based does have 5 mid slots.


The bonus to damage rather than range cripples the Moa, actually. I've made some arguments in favor of an additional medium slot at the expense of that pointless sixth high earlier in the thread. But yes, the Moa's proposed new role doesn't really work unless the Thorax, Vexor and Rupture all decide they want to be armor tankers that day.

Which they won't, because having a weaker but still substantial shield tank, moving entirely too fast and piling on damage mods is superior to being slow and unagile but having decent defense, apparently.


You are right, the bonus cripples it for what we are used to doing with it. If they are trying to make it a short range brawler, the bonuses are spot on, but it is useless as a short range brawler with only 4 mid slots. I should have been more specific.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#600 - 2012-10-22 08:38:49 UTC
Sedul Masterson wrote:

You are right, the bonus cripples it for what we are used to doing with it. If they are trying to make it a short range brawler, the bonuses are spot on, but it is useless as a short range brawler with only 4 mid slots. I should have been more specific.

The bonuses are just fine for what it's supposed to do. As a close range brawler, it is in its favor to be a tanky, high damage ship. It's one of two things that does cripple it for its role.

Either:
A) A lack of utility granted by the midslots, so as to allow it to dictate range,
or
B) A lack of speed, so as to allow it to dictate range.

In close range, it performs extremely well. However, in ranges outside of web and scram, it's not in its element, and it has no way to engage, or to force the enemy to get into its range and engage.

The 'Rax is a lot faster then the Moa, while sharing the same amount of mids, and even more lows for potential speed mods, should it choose to use them. In this way, it doesn't suffer the same issues as the Moa. It can also match the Moa for damage. But the equalizer here is the significantly lower tank.

I think the 'Rax will be a better choice then the Moa in most situations post patch, but there will still be uses for the Moa.

However, it would be nice to see either another midslot, for tank, or other Ewar/utility, or more speed. As it is, the ship that most requires speed in order to engage properly is the slowest (aside from a plated Maller).