These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Dolan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#761 - 2012-10-26 13:19:50 UTC
Removed some off-topic posts.

CCP Dolan | Community Representative

Twitter: @CCPDolan

Gooby pls
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#762 - 2012-10-26 14:02:53 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We have plans. Can't attach dates to those plans quite yet though, but when we're ready this forum will be the best place to see them.

Thank you.


Armor boats being faster is a good idea to balance them, however, they shouldn't be faster than shield boats.

Also if the speed penalty on armor rigs gets removed, the sig radius penalty on shield boats should be at least reduced a bit. Low sig armor boats zipping around would be unfair if shield boats were only a bit faster and had 2x the sig radius.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Alara IonStorm
#763 - 2012-10-26 14:12:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:

Armor boats being faster is a good idea to balance them, however, they shouldn't be faster than shield boats.

Also if the speed penalty on armor rigs gets removed, the sig radius penalty on shield boats should be at least reduced a bit. Low sig armor boats zipping around would be unfair if shield boats were only a bit faster and had 2x the sig radius.

That is why I don't think rigs should have penalties. The penalties of the modules are enough without the need of double dipping, plates slow Armor Ships down, Shield Extenders raise Sig.

What is more the other penalties do not do much good for the game. Electronics nerfing shield, they had to change the CPU Rig to recharge just to avoid its damaging effects near entirely, Astronautics nerfing Armor, that does nothing but take away armor boats option to realistically use them. Weapons Rigs messing with fitting, to what end do things need to be harder to fit as if the PG and CPU of the modules are not enough.

If anything Sig Penalties for instance suck. They are very apparent on Cruisers, Frigates and Destroyers but next to useless in 95% of practical circumstance on BC's and up.

Best thing they could do for tanking besides weeding out the sizes that have become obsolete and adjusting the ones that have not been updated through the multitudes of buffs is simply change the 10% to 20% on the skills that remove the penalty neutralizing it in its entirety at Lvl V. It would be a small boost to Armor Buffer while ensuring Plated ships never reach Shield Speeds outright.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#764 - 2012-10-26 14:23:46 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:

Armor boats being faster is a good idea to balance them, however, they shouldn't be faster than shield boats.

Also if the speed penalty on armor rigs gets removed, the sig radius penalty on shield boats should be at least reduced a bit. Low sig armor boats zipping around would be unfair if shield boats were only a bit faster and had 2x the sig radius.

That is why I don't think rigs should have penalties. The penalties of the modules are enough without the need of double dipping, plates slow Armor Ships down, Shield Extenders raise Sig.

What is more the other penalties do not do much good for the game. Electronics nerfing shield, they had to change the CPU Rig to recharge just to avoid its effects entirely, Astronautics nerfing Armor, that does nothing but take away armor boats option to realistically use them. Weapons Rigs messing with fitting, to what end do things need to harder to fit as if the PG and CPU of the modules are not enough.

If anything Sig Penalties for instance suck. They are very apparent on Cruisers, Frigates and Destroyers but next to useless in 95% of practical circumstance on BC's and up.

Best thing they could do for tanking besides weeding out the sizes that have become obsolete and adjusting the ones that have not been updated through the multitudes of buffs is simply change the 10% to 20% on the skills that remove the penalty neutralizing it in its entirety at Lvl V. It would be a small boost to Armor Buffer while ensuring Plated ships never reach Shield Speeds outright.


This makes the most sense TBH. Just change the skill from 10% to 20% or make it so jurry rigging gives you 10% per level and then the sub rigging skill would get them the rest of the way to 100%
Yankunytjatjara
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#765 - 2012-10-27 12:55:08 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maller: +150 PG, +20 CPU

Fantastic that's half my idea there!! <3

Have you perhaps considered the other half - boosting quad light beam lasers?

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
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#766 - 2012-10-28 01:35:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
I still think the maller needs a Nos..

People hate on the Harbinger for being not having enough cap and "needing a booster" and it lasts for 9 minutes with tackle and guns.. The maller barely brakes 2.. Just tackle, and guns.. =/

If you put even one medium neut on it the cap is just gone.. So you really have to use a cap booster for a viable fit.. Which makes the whole ship rather gimpy, not to mention what you have to sacrifice to make an injector fit.. =/

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#767 - 2012-10-28 11:36:14 UTC
Yankunytjatjara wrote:
Have you perhaps considered the other half - boosting quad light beam lasers?...

Hope they consider my request instead and introduce a medium pulse gatling (and large for that matter) Big smile
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I still think the maller needs a Nos.....

Increase damage bonus so that damage potential is middling for the class when using only 4 guns and remove the superflous drones again. Gives it the ability to function as a sledgehammer in gangs or as a proper brawler solo/duo (nos) while keeping it nice and vulnerable to things that can abuse the poor'ish tracking of lasers.
Manfred Hideous
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#768 - 2012-10-28 13:40:55 UTC
The original post still has the Ruppy getting four mids but it's only three on Duality atm. Is this a change or was this just not reflected in the duality build?
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#769 - 2012-10-28 13:50:54 UTC
Manfred Hideous wrote:
The original post still has the Ruppy getting four mids but it's only three on Duality atm. Is this a change or was this just not reflected in the duality build?


Fozzie forgot to add the new combat cruisers to the build. So they aren't on Duality.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Alara IonStorm
#770 - 2012-10-28 14:21:09 UTC
Okay my thoughts on the Moa and Rupture. I would like to see the Moa as I have stated become a Rail Ship and I would like the Rupture to have a different role then missing turret plus second Dmg Bonus.

Moa:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M (+1), 4 L, 5 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 950 PWG (+170), 400 CPU (+40)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2300(+425) / 1000(-329) / 1600(+76)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1500(+125) / 475s(-16.25s) / 3.15 (+0.35)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 190(+26) / 0.52 (-0.02) / 12220000 (+500000) / 5.9s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
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)


Rupture:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile tracking speed
Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M (+2), 4 L (-1), 5 turrets, 0 launchers (-2)
Fittings: 1060 PWG (+200), 375 CPU (+50)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1900(+337) / 1400(-241) / 1500(-63)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1275(+25) / 425s(-21.25s) / 3(+0.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+18) / 0.5 (-0.04) / 12200000 (+550000) / 5.7s (-0.2)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
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)

I would like to see these ships become full one gun ships with no Drones. Tracking speaks to Minmatar with both Artillery and Autocannons but the main point of the Ship would be a small fast high volley Artillery Ship with the option of being a more tanky in close fighter. The Moa of the other hand was already considered a passable at most blaster platform and with 37.5% Dmg added and the combination of a fifth tanking mid and more shield HP it would still be a deadly blaster boat but with the higher fitting and rails could deal some pretty good damage at range with rails. It doesn't have the weakness of the previous Moa IE more then a third more Dmg and better fitting while not losing much of the defense.

Second to that I think CCP should make the following changes to attack cruisers.

Omen - Optimal Range Bonus and increased fitting for Beam Lasers.
Caracal - 20m3 Drone Space making it a bit better of a fighter with HAM's in regards to Frigates.
Stabber - Decrease in speed by 30m/s putting it 20m/s faster then the Thorax(next highest). Removal of 1 High Slot, + 30m3 Drone Bay.

This would give the Stabber the dedicated kiting role instead of splitting it between the Rupture (DPS) and the Stabber (Speed) to a more moderate platform that handles both well enough allowing the Rupture to move on to a full Gun Ships.

Overall since they are being tested those are my final thoughts on Cruiser balance for Dev consideration. I hope you take a second look at the Moa and switch it back to Rail Platform that works well instead of backing away from Cruiser Rail Platforms entirely.
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#771 - 2012-10-28 14:30:04 UTC  |  Edited by: The VC's
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Yankunytjatjara wrote:
Have you perhaps considered the other half - boosting quad light beam lasers?...

Hope they consider my request instead and introduce a medium pulse gatling (and large for that matter) Big smile


Veshta, I think that's actually what Yank is suggesting. You're on the same page. The cruiser gatling pulse.


They'd could have a scorch range around 15km and track at 0.12-0.13 with low fitting req's. They would also throw a bone to the guys that can't give up their brick tanked Mallers.


They could be savageTwisted, it would look cool as feck too!
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#772 - 2012-10-28 15:17:05 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:

Moa:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M (+1), 4 L, 5 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 950 PWG (+170), 400 CPU (+40)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2300(+425) / 1000(-329) / 1600(+76)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1500(+125) / 475s(-16.25s) / 3.15 (+0.35)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 190(+26) / 0.52 (-0.02) / 12220000 (+500000) / 5.9s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
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)


This Moa would be completely OP with blasters (I mean, even more than it is in the Original post). Come on, 7,5%/lvl, on a blaster hull ? Seriously ?
Alara IonStorm
#773 - 2012-10-28 15:32:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

This Moa would be completely OP with blasters (I mean, even more than it is in the Original post). Come on, 7,5%/lvl, on a blaster hull ? Seriously ?

... 578 DPS with Neutron II's and 3 Mag Stabs vs 585 currently with Neutron II's and 3 Mag Stabs and 3 Hobgoblin II's Drones and it loses 25% Base Resist.

Completely OP no. In reality you are looking at a 12.5% Dmg Increase over current at the loss of three drones which equals it out pretty well and allows the Dmg to be applied in Rails. If anything it is a slight nerf to the Moa in a Blaster fit with the loss of some tank but not near a crippling one while making rails much more appealing with the Opt Bonus.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#774 - 2012-10-28 15:49:12 UTC
Drones don't apply full damage unless you use an omnidirectional tracking link.

I'm all for an optimal bonus on the Moa to save it's railgun capabilities, but a more than 5% bonus on weapons is only seen on faction ships usualy. Remember it's a T1 cruiser. And extended PG will allow it to fit neutron blasters with anything it need without any sacrifice to do.

And why this cruiser should have a better damage bonus than than the others on top of its full second bonus ?
Alara IonStorm
#775 - 2012-10-28 15:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Drones don't apply full damage unless you use an omnidirectional tracking link.

They apply Dmg to Cruiser sized targets fine and apply more Dmg to Frigates in most fights then Blasters.

Bouh Revetoile wrote:

I'm all for an optimal bonus on the Moa to save it's railgun capabilities, but a more than 5% bonus on weapons is only seen on faction ships usualy. Remember it's a T1 cruiser. And extended PG will allow it to fit neutron blasters with anything it need without any sacrifice to do.

Usually is not an excuse for anything. Faction ships getting this bonus have plenty of other advantages, the Moa is losing several things to equal it out. All the so called fitting sacrifices would be tank related and losing the 25% Tank bonus makes them moot.

Bouh Revetoile wrote:

And why this cruiser should have a better damage bonus than than the others on top of its full second bonus ?

Lack of drones. Roll The Dmg is about exactly the same and no Drones don't apply less. Back to your origional point, no a 7.5 % bonus would not be OP for Blasters, it would be better for Rails then Drones and nothing is imbalanced about this design.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#776 - 2012-10-28 16:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
@ CCP Fozzie are you still open to changes with these ships?

Moa
Surely it should be quicker and lighter than the maller having infinitely less range with blasters and maller being a armour tanker it seems a bit odd also moa can target 7 and has 2 launchers still and has the worst scan res i think some is related to being the old sniper and hasn't been fully updated to a brawler yet in all areas..

Maller
More cap i suspect is needed and perhaps consider giving it a stronger drone capacity than the moa surely caldari should be worst in drone capacity.

Vexor
quicker and lighter than the moa why? also forcing it to use bs drones makes little sense on a cruiser where is the progression from lights to mediums here?
maybe it needs a stronger drone bonus to boost there dps enough say 15% or replace hybrid dmg with drone dmg bonus.
Or more radically fix medium drones as-well as all other drones.

Rupture
should have the worst cap recharge
has the second best dronage for some reason surely that should be the amarr trait.
looks like it will be versatile can be shields or armour perhaps its armour should be more defined though and is setup as a smaller cane it seems not having a full rack of guns.
I'm actually surprised that its no longer much faster than the vexor which is nice :) i think the moa should be the fastest here.
Also comparing its tank to attack cruisers it has the same shields as a stabber and 100 more armour than the omen.

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
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#777 - 2012-10-28 16:21:46 UTC
Harvey James wrote:

Maller
More cap i suspect is needed and perhaps consider giving it a stronger drone capacity than the moa surely caldari should be worst in drone capacity.


Screw drones.

I just want it to work without a cap booster so that i can use point/web/mwd >_<

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Koujjo Dian
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#778 - 2012-10-28 16:32:04 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Harvey James wrote:

Maller
More cap i suspect is needed and perhaps consider giving it a stronger drone capacity than the moa surely caldari should be worst in drone capacity.


Screw drones.

I just want it to work without a cap booster so that i can use point/web/mwd >_<


I really wonder if the better optimal range of lasers is worth the crappy tracking and huge cap issues. I believe I read somewhere that CCP is supposed to revisit weapon balance in regards to lasers?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#779 - 2012-10-28 16:36:50 UTC
Koujjo Dian wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Harvey James wrote:

Maller
More cap i suspect is needed and perhaps consider giving it a stronger drone capacity than the moa surely caldari should be worst in drone capacity.


Screw drones.

I just want it to work without a cap booster so that i can use point/web/mwd >_<


I really wonder if the better optimal range of lasers is worth the crappy tracking and huge cap issues. I believe I read somewhere that CCP is supposed to revisit weapon balance in regards to lasers?


perhaps as-well as a slight tracking boost they also need a third med pulse laser that gives a stronger tracking boost.

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
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#780 - 2012-10-28 16:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: The VC's
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Harvey James wrote:

Maller
More cap i suspect is needed and perhaps consider giving it a stronger drone capacity than the moa surely caldari should be worst in drone capacity.


Screw drones.

I just want it to work without a cap booster so that i can use point/web/mwd >_<


+1

The Punisher took a slight hit in the cap department with its rebalance. In practice it's not much of an issue but it did make some fits unworkable.

With medium lasers the cap hit will be more pronounced. Dropping to four turret hardpoints and having a +10 damage bonus should mitigate losing the cap usage bonus somewhat. It would also keep the Mallers generous PG under control, which as it stands with the current proposal is in danger of getting abused even more than the existing ship.