These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#141 - 2012-10-02 16:21:31 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:


You're not getting it, like the Nighthawk, the Cyclone, and other resistnace based brawlers its not designed with a LSE in mind at all, its designed around an ACTIVE tank, burst, like its damage, is this concept foriegn to you?



tbh it should be good for both...

the resistance scales pretty good for buffer tank and it carries over rather well for active too...

i would leave fittings open to how they want to be fit...

not how you think they should be fit...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Luc Chastot
#142 - 2012-10-02 16:21:46 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
STOP trying to put LSE's on everything.



Waiting on the LSE, tracking enhancer and null/barrage nerf.


I know of some people who have been trying to put LSEs on freighters, unfortunately to no avail.

Also, some pro Titan pilots fill their meds with LSEs.

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

Aglais
Ice-Storm
#143 - 2012-10-02 16:22:31 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:



You're not getting it, like the Nighthawk, the Cyclone, and other resistnace based brawlers its not designed with a LSE in mind at all, its designed around an ACTIVE tank, burst, like its damage, is this concept foriegn to you?


...When exactly did the Cyclone get a shield resistance bonus per level of battlecruisers? I always thought it was shield boost effectiveness. It's not a "shield resistance based brawler".

Furthermore, I don't know if the Moa has enough capacitor to have any kind of decent active tanking ability. With buffer EHP fits, you can actually get some great survivability that won't be curbstomped by neutralizers (I know ASBs exist, but aren't they getting nerfed? Further, those aren't 'permanent' boosting; once you're out of charges you're utterly out of tank for however long the reload period is). Regardless, the Moa getting a fifth medslot will benefit both active and passive tanking fits, anyways, won't it? Nighthawk only active tanks in PvE as far as I'm aware, though I could be wrong seeing as they're too expensive for me to go and lose on a regular basis, so I don't really consider them much.

Also, another small thing that I'm unsure about with your comparison. Cyclone uses projectiles. Which have no cap usage. Nighthawk uses missiles. Which also have no cap usage. Hybrids use a good deal of capacitor. To me, it doesn't quite feel like you're comparing the same things here.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#144 - 2012-10-02 16:26:40 UTC  |  Edited by: MIrple
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
my guess for the bigger powergrid on the rupture is, that thy want to make it able to fit arties.
slap a rack of arties on there and most of the base grid will be gone.
even with the eased pg requirements a T2 650mm artie stil eats ~180 MW times 4 is 720 MW gone, and that is with perfect skills. plus a 800mm plate (rolled tungsten: 200 MW) and you are significantly over the base grid.


Are you using the new T2 650mm numbers 198 with out skills so 178.2 PG with AWU V its not much but that is 160 PG saved. And if you look at the numbers now T2 650s+800 plate+MWD= 4*178.2+200+150=1062 and with perfect fitting skills the Ruppy has 1075 PG so more then enough.

Edit Sorry my math was off.
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#145 - 2012-10-02 16:28:07 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

You're not getting it, like the Nighthawk, the Cyclone, and other resistnace based brawlers its not designed with a LSE in mind at all, its designed around an ACTIVE tank, burst, like its damage, is this concept foriegn to you?


So when did the cyclone become a resistant based brawler? Also under that assumption the drake should be an amazing active shield tanker. Anyway without the ASB you wouldnt have the mids curently to fit a decent Active tank and tackle. Or is the concept that ASBing all the things should not be the base of all ship designs foriegn to you.
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#146 - 2012-10-02 16:29:24 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Tsubutai wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
we ended up with people genuinely expecting to be able to fit top-tier guns, MWD, dual med neuts and an 1600 plate on a Hurricane or Rupture...

That would be a pretty odd expectation given that the typical plated cane and rupture setups use 220s and the rupture uses small neuts on top of that.


Yeah I could have phrased that better. Or, better still, not phrased it at all. Still... there is something of a problem with PG requirements of artillery and ACs, and I don't envy anyone trying to improve it.


This is the reason why CCP reduced PG grid requirements for artillery (So they could nerf Minmatar PG without making artillery fits impossible). I do agree that Artillery fitting requirements and AC fitting requirements need to be brought more in equilibrium with each other. The Thrasher, Cane and Rupture are all good examples of ships with excess grid (and often better fitting stats in PG and CPU than other racial ships while using less resources for weapon systems when using Auto-Cannons).

As for the ships.

Vexor - Very nice. I am really looking forward to it.
Rupture - Again, it was already good, now it's better, looking forward to it.
Moa - I also have mixed feelings on the utility highslot of the Moa. The other racial ships get 9 lows+mids while it only gets 8. If you fit blasters on it you probably want a scram and a web which leaves you with a very poor active tank. (Just an ASB basically, cannot do a traditional active tank due to lack of cap booster, unless you drop the web but without a tracking bonus and the Moa is kind of sluggish this doesn't seem like a good idea). a 5th mid would help solve this reasonably well.
Maller - With the reduced laser fitting requirements and the new damage bonus this looks promising. Not sure how practical it will be without any drones, no utility highs, and lasers which don't have the best tracking but it's certainly in a good place now.

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Zhephell
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#147 - 2012-10-02 16:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhephell
Shocked I didn't expected some things i've see here. Ok the maller is a rubbish like i expected, if it has no drones it has a hard solution, and change the 10% cap bonus by a 5% more dps would have been nice if you can use a vampire to have some stability, but if your turrets need more cap, you can't use a vampire, and you don't have drones...
It ll be bad as always then, "ok a little better perhaps, but the other cruisers had a better buf, so it is for me a bad cruiser like it was.

The rupture.... ok nice. now it is faster that many attack cruisers, and with a new med slot and more cpu , you can do a realy fast shield tank cruiser, or put a tracking disruptor and be a pain for everyone, yes thats nice Lol

Now i have a question for you Fozzie, if you had a thorax ( an attack cruiser) and an enemy with a rupture (a combat cruiser, with better armor, better range, and faster + a TD) that use at 20km a warp disruptor.... What would be your plan? P (if he use a TD it ll be the same death for an omen)

I see a lot of people that use the rupture and said that they want the 6 H slots, it ll be better a rupture with 6 H slots for everyone 4 med slots = a lot of risck that the ship ll be op using a TD or a shield tank being to fast, and 5 H slots isn't a good idea if it has only 4 turrets.
I think the rupture need 6H (4 turrets +2 missiles), 3M, 5L slots, less drones 20 m3 and be slower (210m/s ) ll be fine, or it can have 6H (5 turrets), 3 M, 5L slots, 15m3 of drones and (210m/s) too, those 2 ways are much more balanced for me that what i've see.

The Moa.. I don't see why it is a combat cruiser, the caracal can use a better tank, it need 5 H slots and 5M slots, 6H and 4 M is not a good idea, and you can increase its speed a bit please, it needs 205 m/s not 195 m/s, ok i ll be a shield tank, but using blasters and tank it need to be as fast as the maller at least, i can understand that many caldari ships are slower because they use a better range and have shield, but if there is some close range caldari ships they need a better speed ( only a bit)

And the Vexor.. ok i don't know much about that ship, but i think it ll need at least 150 m/3 of drone bay to have 2 waves of drones, because 3 heavy drones + 5 small it's a small number for a carrier, 2 waves of heavy drones or 1 wave of H drones + 1 of medium drones and 1 of small drones ll be better.

Thanks for reading Fozzie, i m sry to have wrote more that i expected, but i was very interested writing that Blink
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#148 - 2012-10-02 16:34:31 UTC
So from what I am seeing, the rupture is getting a 25% base speed increase (48/192 = 25%).

That means with a perfect set of Nav skills, which most PvP'er have, this ship will be doing 2833 m/s with an overheated MwD.
If you want to, you park 2 LSE's, and Invuln, and a MwD in the mids(have a tackler along for the ride).
Now lets park a PDS in a low slot, and a 1% PG implant in the pilot's head.

You now have enough room for 4 x 425 autocannons, plus a medium neut. and well over 500 DPS.
Oh, and that speed of over 2800 m /s , and plus a buffer tank EHP well in excess of 30K.

And what do Rupture hulls go for? 6 million?
No, that won't be a ridiculous OP ship in a small gang.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#149 - 2012-10-02 16:35:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Aglais wrote:


(I know ASBs exist, but aren't they getting nerfed? )

AFAIK the talk has been of nerfing multiple ASB's because a single ASB isn't really overpowered at all since its lifespan is finite

Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Or is the concept that ASBing all the things should not be the base of all ship designs foriegn to you.

But the concept of active shield tanking ships having a limited mid selection is a common theme throughout the game, why is that so hard to understand?

You all want the Moa to have as many mids as the Cyclone and Nighthawk, the active tanked battlecruisers a full ship size above the cruiser, thats probably just not going to happen.


Also the active tanked HAM drake works just fine thanks, it tanks REALLY hard as most people who active tank already know, its just a victim of volley like most active tanked ships.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Eckyy
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#150 - 2012-10-02 16:38:32 UTC
I haven't looked at the actual numbers between the ships, but looking just at utility vs slots, it doesn't look perfectly even to me.

Maller:
9 mids + lows
0 utility highs
0 dronebay
^ has 9 mids/lows because it lacks utility.

Vexor:
9 mids + lows
0 utility highs
large bonused drone bay
^ Seems fair because drones have some inherent weaknesses. The Myrm has 1 more mid/low slot than its competitors for this reason.

Moa:
8 mids + lows
1 utility high
Small bonused drone bay
^ Trades a mid/low for the utility of some drones and a utility high.

Rupture:
9 mids + lows
1 utility high
Medium drone bay
Faster than competitors


My suggestion to make these ships more interesting is to take away the Moa's dronebay and give it another highslot. 7 highs might look like a lot in a Cruiser, but remember that it will be 7 highs on a ship that has no dronebay. It can use missiles or neuts to chase off frigs. It doesn't necessarily need this change, I just like the thought of it.

Also, it looks like the Rupture might be slightly out-of-line. Moa has one less slot than the Maller and Vexor because those ships have weaknesses that justify an extra mid/low slot. The Rupture has the same number of mid/low slots as the Maller and Vexor while also being faster, having a utility high, and a goodly dronebay. I'd say it needs to lose ONE of these things - shrink its bay, or take away the utility high, or remove a mid or low to make it like the Moa.

^ Of course, if the Rupture does less damage than the other ships, the extra slot could also be justified, but I doubt that's the case.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#151 - 2012-10-02 16:41:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Aglais
Grath. We're comparing the Moa to the Caracal. Not battlecruisers. The Caracal, an attack cruiser, has five med slots. Both the Merlin and Kestrel have four medium slots, so I fail to understand how taking a high off the Moa and making that it's fifth medium slot is a bad idea. There'd be symmetry between the missile and gun ships on two size classes with this.

I'm going to reiterate here. The CARACAL, another CALDARI CRUISER, has FIVE MED SLOTS. We are NOT CONSIDERING BATTLECRUISERS HERE. AT ALL.
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#152 - 2012-10-02 16:44:26 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:



Vexor:

Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1100(-73) / 2000(+515) / 2000(+515)



real men structure tank

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#153 - 2012-10-02 17:00:24 UTC
MIrple wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
my guess for the bigger powergrid on the rupture is, that thy want to make it able to fit arties.
slap a rack of arties on there and most of the base grid will be gone.
even with the eased pg requirements a T2 650mm artie stil eats ~180 MW times 4 is 720 MW gone, and that is with perfect skills. plus a 800mm plate (rolled tungsten: 200 MW) and you are significantly over the base grid.


Are you using the new T2 650mm numbers 198 with out skills so 178.2 PG with AWU V its not much but that is 160 PG saved. And if you look at the numbers now T2 650s+800 plate+MWD= 4*178.2+200+150=1062 and with perfect fitting skills the Ruppy has 1075 PG so more then enough.

Edit Sorry my math was off.


i was using the new numbers and as you showed much more accurately, you need awu 5 and perfect PG skills to make it happen. awu 5 is quite the requirement, which should not be forgotten.
what i wanted to say was: you need that grid to make arties an option. if you reduce it to put more restriction on autocannon fits, well no arty fits.
if testing shows that the rupture is over top, nerf it around the drones.
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#154 - 2012-10-02 17:00:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Heribeck Weathers
Grath Telkin wrote:
Aglais wrote:


(I know ASBs exist, but aren't they getting nerfed? )

AFAIK the talk has been of nerfing multiple ASB's because a single ASB isn't really overpowered at all since its lifespan is finite

Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Or is the concept that ASBing all the things should not be the base of all ship designs foriegn to you.

But the concept of active shield tanking ships having a limited mid selection is a common theme throughout the game, why is that so hard to understand?

You all want the Moa to have as many mids as the Cyclone and Nighthawk, the active tanked battlecruisers a full ship size above the cruiser, thats probably just not going to happen.


Also the active tanked HAM drake works just fine thanks, it tanks REALLY hard as most people who active tank already know, its just a victim of volley like most active tanked ships.



Heres an interesting thing most people seam to ignore, there is no T1 (none faction) shield ship besides the scorp that has more than 6 mids, the scorp of course has a lack of DPS and a buff to mid slot Ewar to discorage super tanking it. Now its not uncommon for armor ships to have 7 lows and armor BCs to have 6, and even the geddon has 8. Now look at the mauler sitting there with 6 lows, wouldnt you say thats BC sized low slot allowance? 6? yet 5 mids for a cruiser is to much? we will just leave it with the same mids as a vexor, thorax arbitrator, ect.

Also another ignored diferance is that there is no XL shield extender, yet there is a 1600 plate which is the same as 2x LSE. So you have to fit 2x LSE to get near the same hp as an armor tank, and on shield BSs it gets even worse, since most Armor BSs fit 2-3 1600, but shield BSs with lack of mids still can onyl fit 2, which is what shield BCs and even shield cruisers ca fit, makign ravens and shield tempests severly lacking in EHP and slots. Yes their shield regen so should be a bit worse than armor, but it dosent scale well.

So instead of saying a 5 mid slot Moa is to close to large shield ships, maybe you should consider all shield ships above frigs have trouble fitting tackle. and the good shield frigs like the merlin has the same mid slots as the Curent Moa. Under your therry 4 mids would be cruiser shield tanking space and no T1 frig should have over 3 mids.

Now till you can actualy think beyond being scared of cyclones, you should probialy rethink your statements
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#155 - 2012-10-02 17:02:07 UTC
Aglais wrote:
Grath. We're comparing the Moa to the Caracal. Not battlecruisers. The Caracal, an attack cruiser, has five med slots. Both the Merlin and Kestrel have four medium slots, so I fail to understand how taking a high off the Moa and making that it's fifth medium slot is a bad idea. There'd be symmetry between the missile and gun ships on two size classes with this.

I'm going to reiterate here. The CARACAL, another CALDARI CRUISER, has FIVE MED SLOTS. We are NOT CONSIDERING BATTLECRUISERS HERE. AT ALL.


But I am, they've said they intend it to be a brawler, and they've laid its slots out like the other active tanked brawlers.

Nighthawk, 5 mids, Cyclone, 5 mids.

The caracal gets 5 mids but it doesn't get any kind of resistance or repping bonus at all, so active tanking it is a bit harder to do (still viable but arguably so).

The intent here is to turn the Moa into what people have been doing with it in game, which is active tanked brawling. If they were to say give the Caracal any kind of tanking bonus, it would likely end up being shorted a mid slot so as no to be on par with the BC's above it in its ability to fit said active tank.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you understand what I'm saying in return.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#156 - 2012-10-02 17:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Grath Telkin wrote:
Aglais wrote:


(I know ASBs exist, but aren't they getting nerfed? )

AFAIK the talk has been of nerfing multiple ASB's because a single ASB isn't really overpowered at all since its lifespan is finite

Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Or is the concept that ASBing all the things should not be the base of all ship designs foriegn to you.

But the concept of active shield tanking ships having a limited mid selection is a common theme throughout the game, why is that so hard to understand?

You all want the Moa to have as many mids as the Cyclone and Nighthawk, the active tanked battlecruisers a full ship size above the cruiser, thats probably just not going to happen.


Also the active tanked HAM drake works just fine thanks, it tanks REALLY hard as most people who active tank already know, its just a victim of volley like most active tanked ships.



you are being rather odd... quoting two ships that have not gone threw the tiericide washing machine yet... is that not rather superlative of you?

whoes to say that the NH and cyclone both wont get more mid slots? i mean unless you are getting NDA info we common people dont know about... i would say htfu and let us have 5 mids ffs

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#157 - 2012-10-02 17:08:42 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

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): 0 / 0
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)


So you decided to just make the Maller plain bad? Removing the utility high so that you effectively HAVE to fit a cap booster (Even though tbh a nos wouldn't do as much as it should) is pretty ****. Especially since for some bizarre reason CCP have decided that Minmatar shall have the best cap in the game seeing how the only difference between them and amarr is a bit of cap amount....

It means you really only have 2 mid slots so you have no range control what so ever and you also have no cargo space if you ever kill anything and want to scoop the loot. Fantastic.

Not to mention that pretty much the only way to fit it would be a ******** brick setup that hardly moves since CCP have apparently decided that active armor tanking is only for frigates. Seeing how its pretty **** on anything above..

How about a medium rep buff? buff the armor rep and decrease the cap use so that you could run it on a nos.. That is if the ships can fit a nos....



So what we have here is a ship with no range controll, 2 mids, no cargo, no drones, ****** cap and aligns like a freaking battleship. If you're going to make a ship HAVE to carry a cap booster you should at least give them for mids so that it can still mwdwebscram...


And here i've spent the last month trying to convince people that the maller wouldn't be ****.. Sigh..


BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#158 - 2012-10-02 17:09:15 UTC
Heribeck Weathers wrote:


Now till you can actualy think beyond being scared of cyclones, you should probialy rethink your statements


Armor and shield tanks work differently and trying in any way to compare them is silly. Shield tanks allow more mobility, the reps are frontloaded, and the shields themselves will repair slowly over time without any effort from the player. Armor cuts mobility to almost nothing, the rep cycles dont come until the end of the cycle and the armor wont repair itself.

Shield ships can fit for maximum DPS without sacraficing tank, something armor simply can't do, but armor can fit for max tackle while holding max tank, something shields simply can't do.

So maybe I'm not scared of cyclones as much as I understand the general thought process behind the layouts of the ships.

Simply put what you're asking for in ship hulls simply isn't ever going to happen.


Now, grid changes might still be in store, a Moa that can fit NOS to better power its shield tank is something to consider, which currently the Moa can't do (but that most active tanked shield ships CAN do) and that may be something they address.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#159 - 2012-10-02 17:11:03 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
MIrple wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
my guess for the bigger powergrid on the rupture is, that thy want to make it able to fit arties.
slap a rack of arties on there and most of the base grid will be gone.
even with the eased pg requirements a T2 650mm artie stil eats ~180 MW times 4 is 720 MW gone, and that is with perfect skills. plus a 800mm plate (rolled tungsten: 200 MW) and you are significantly over the base grid.


Are you using the new T2 650mm numbers 198 with out skills so 178.2 PG with AWU V its not much but that is 160 PG saved. And if you look at the numbers now T2 650s+800 plate+MWD= 4*178.2+200+150=1062 and with perfect fitting skills the Ruppy has 1075 PG so more then enough.

Edit Sorry my math was off.


i was using the new numbers and as you showed much more accurately, you need awu 5 and perfect PG skills to make it happen. awu 5 is quite the requirement, which should not be forgotten.
what i wanted to say was: you need that grid to make arties an option. if you reduce it to put more restriction on autocannon fits, well no arty fits.
if testing shows that the rupture is over top, nerf it around the drones.


I was not suggesting nerfing the PG on the Ruppy at all I was more of the mind to increase the PG/CPU requirements of AC's so that like all other weapon systems it is hard to fit the highest size on every ship. Either that or further reduce the PG/CPU on Blasters and Pulse Lasers.
sten mattson
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#160 - 2012-10-02 17:15:13 UTC
i like all the new changes , except for one thing: the loss of the utility high on the maller.

if these changes go through , none of the amarr cruisers will have a utility high anymore , making them even more vulnerabe to frigs than they were before. drones are nice , but they wont break an AFs tank on its own if its fitting a local rep.

one another front, this loss of a utility high just made the choice for 3 mid permanently a cap booster because you wont be able to shoot anything if you cap out , and you will if cap level woud be the same as the punisher.

also , this says goodbye to some nice RR tactics too :(

let us keep that utility high on the maller!!

IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!!