These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Changing the Muninn to a Missile ship
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Uriam Khanid
New Machinarium Corporation
#41 - 2016-11-18 23:05:20 UTC
Ascension updateBig smile
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2016-11-19 03:27:27 UTC
OP- tried an armour AC Muninn yet? I'll grant you that it is somewhat behind the other HACs but it's not a bad ship-- and yes, even as an arty sniper it gets the job done by virtue of (you said it) speed, agility and sig.

A better armour resist profile (1 hole instead of 2) would go a long way to free up a slot; so would an extra mid for that matter. So no, I do not believe it's beyond redemption in its current state. Merely changing the weapon system to another weapon system that applies equally well at the same range would fix neither tank nor slot layout issues imho.

As a missile boat however, it'd have to outperform a Caracal without throdding on the Cerb's range-- I don't see a niche for that.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#43 - 2016-11-19 17:02:24 UTC
I have come around to your position, Stitch. I'd really like this shield brawler missile Muninn. I'd be happy with a 5-6-4 layout. With five missile hardpoints, application bonus, etc.

You could also maybe give it a weird bonus like decreased fitting cost for shield boosters. This would help it fit a large enough shield booster without giving it super generous fitting stats that could be abused.

Possible fit:
5x HAM's

1x MWD
1x Scram
1x Web
1x shield booster or ASB
1x hardener
1x cap booster or hardener

3x BCU
1x DCU

Polycarbons / Active shield tank rigs

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2016-11-20 20:14:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tusker Crazinski
I really don't like this on the grounds there are only a handful of hulls that make good artillery platforms and ever fewer that are appropriately bonused for arty.

Bonused arty hulls

Cane Fleet- 10 damage and tracking awsome
Sleip - double damage awsome, though the hull favors ACs
Sviple - for obvious reasons
Thrasher - although generally better with ACs

viable arty platforms

Nado - can fit 1400s....ish it just has all the wrong bonuses
Mael - exact same issue
Pest- see above
Broadsword - lol sniper HICs

after that lol to any frig feilding artillery

So sure make the muninn a rapid cancer **** boat, because more of that needs to be flying around. in exchange I'd like to see all the fleet issue gunboats look to the Cane FI as a role model and at least ONE OF THE ******* BATTLESHIPS.

of and for the love of god and we drop the fitting reqs for arty so the T1 lineup can actually fit it's race specific weaponry.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#45 - 2016-11-21 00:24:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
OP- tried an armour AC Muninn yet? I'll grant you that it is somewhat behind the other HACs but it's not a bad ship-- and yes, even as an arty sniper it gets the job done by virtue of (you said it) speed, agility and sig.

A better armour resist profile (1 hole instead of 2) would go a long way to free up a slot; so would an extra mid for that matter. So no, I do not believe it's beyond redemption in its current state. Merely changing the weapon system to another weapon system that applies equally well at the same range would fix neither tank nor slot layout issues imho.

As a missile boat however, it'd have to outperform a Caracal without throdding on the Cerb's range-- I don't see a niche for that.


I have tried an armor a/c muninn, many times. It gets meme'd on because frigs get under its guns and can barely hit them. Even with the help of a medium neut, if they have a cap booster, you can't hit them. This is mainly due to slot layout for an active armor tank. No web.

If you read my post, it does fill a niche, it applies better than a caracal or a cerb with the explosion velocity bonus. Caracal and cerb both do not have an application bonus, they only have range bonuses.

Tusker Crazinski wrote:
I really don't like this on the grounds there are only a handful of hulls that make good artillery platforms and ever fewer that are appropriately bonused for arty.

Bonused arty hulls

Cane Fleet- 10 damage and tracking awsome
Sleip - double damage awsome, though the hull favors ACs
Sviple - for obvious reasons
Thrasher - although generally better with ACs

viable arty platforms

Nado - can fit 1400s....ish it just has all the wrong bonuses
Mael - exact same issue
Pest- see above
Broadsword - lol sniper HICs

after that lol to any frig feilding artillery

So sure make the muninn a rapid cancer **** boat, because more of that needs to be flying around. in exchange I'd like to see all the fleet issue gunboats look to the Cane FI as a role model and at least ONE OF THE ******* BATTLESHIPS.

of and for the love of god and we drop the fitting reqs for arty so the T1 lineup can actually fit it's race specific weaponry.


You laugh at the broadsword, but its a far better arty fleet doctrine than the Muninn, and gets the same damage as the muninn, with similar range (falloff bonus instead of optimal). The only thing it doesn't have is the tracking bonus. But the Broadsword takes advantage of minmatar T2 resist plus has another 20% on top of it and 6 mids to play with. And if you're clever with fitting, can even squeeze a bubble on there. Maybe not realistic to have everyone in your alliance flying arty broadswords, but is possible.

Nado and mael bonuses are fine for arty, nado has a range bonus and RoF bonus. Bringing the 20s+ cycle time of 1400's down to like 14s with some gyros. Plus, from a PVE standpoint (not the main focus of the topic, but still relevant), arties plus shield boost bonus is useful.

You forgot the mach, it has 7 guns, damage and RoF bonus and a range bonus. It also works quite well with 1400's. Before battlecruiser changes, i made non bonused T1/Fleet canes work with 720's, so its possible to use artillery on "non-bonused" hulls, you just have to be creative. Ruptures can also fit 720's and are viable as a cheap doctrine.

Also, nice how you glaze over frig artillery when it just got a buff, making almost every minmatar frig with artillery viable. Jaguar got a nice buff, and can fit 280's, MSE, scram, web and make a mean scram kiter with about 9k EHP and 200dps out at the edge of scram. The thrasher and sabre can both kite with 280's, and the sabre is 100m/s slower than the jag. Slasher can fit 280's and use tracking/speed. Same as claw. Wolf got a little help in a kite setup as did the rifter. Hell even the dram got a minor buff.

Also, if you read the post, you'd see that the missile bonuses would only apply to HAM/HML, not RLML. I mean you could put RLML on it, but it wouldn't get the damage/velocity/application bonus. I don't want it to be another RLML boat, i want it to be a brawler that uses HAMs, or a doctrine that uses HML (missile explosion velocity bonus helps HM apply), combined with a high RoF bonus, they might not suck terribly (big might, heavies still need a lot of help).

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2016-11-21 02:11:33 UTC
Yeah. The Muninn definitely needs a tackler buddy or it's toats- that is true.
Darkwing Fiftytwo
Hookers N' Blow
#47 - 2016-11-21 16:00:25 UTC
Medium AC's buff incoming as mentioned at eve vegas.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2016-11-21 16:04:50 UTC
Autocannons?? Ummm .... off topic and all but did they happen to mention 650s as well at Vegas? Those are the sad turrets imho; Article links, sauce, a timeframe would be appreciated if you have it handy mr. Darkwing.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#49 - 2016-11-25 17:38:07 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Autocannons?? Ummm .... off topic and all but did they happen to mention 650s as well at Vegas? Those are the sad turrets imho; Article links, sauce, a timeframe would be appreciated if you have it handy mr. Darkwing.



None that ive seen. Ive brought it up numerous times, will probably get addressed if amd when weapons go through tiercide.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2016-11-26 14:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: James Zimmer
I don't mind the idea of a Minmater missile HAC, but I think the Vagabond, not the Muninn would be the best candidate. Right now, as a kiter, the Vaga has to compete with Orthruses, where it just doesn't really have many, if any, advantages. It has to deal with tracking issues and falloff, and doesn't have a super-point either.

What if you gave the Vaga 4 missile slots, and a missile application bonus? This will allow the Vaga to apply decently with only 4 mids, while also avoiding the broken combination of Minmatar T2 shield resists, shield rep amount bonus and 5 mids. It will also give it good utility in a fast missile boat, or allow it to go to super-DPS mode with two unbonused weapons on top of a full rack of missiles. This doesn't really exist outside of an Osprey Navy Issue, and the Osprey Navy lacks the powergrid to make it work.

Making the Muninn a shield-tank ship with more mids should have been done a long time ago. However, it needs something more to distinguish it from Fleet Canes. I'm not sure what that is, but I don't think short-range, good application missiles on a slow shield ship are really a good option. It'll just get kited to death by Cerbs, and heavy missiles with an application bonus won't do any better than rapid lights with a range bonus.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#51 - 2016-11-29 14:56:53 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
I don't mind the idea of a Minmater missile HAC, but I think the Vagabond, not the Muninn would be the best candidate. Right now, as a kiter, the Vaga has to compete with Orthruses, where it just doesn't really have many, if any, advantages. It has to deal with tracking issues and falloff, and doesn't have a super-point either.

What if you gave the Vaga 4 missile slots, and a missile application bonus? This will allow the Vaga to apply decently with only 4 mids, while also avoiding the broken combination of Minmatar T2 shield resists, shield rep amount bonus and 5 mids. It will also give it good utility in a fast missile boat, or allow it to go to super-DPS mode with two unbonused weapons on top of a full rack of missiles. This doesn't really exist outside of an Osprey Navy Issue, and the Osprey Navy lacks the powergrid to make it work.

Making the Muninn a shield-tank ship with more mids should have been done a long time ago. However, it needs something more to distinguish it from Fleet Canes. I'm not sure what that is, but I don't think short-range, good application missiles on a slow shield ship are really a good option. It'll just get kited to death by Cerbs, and heavy missiles with an application bonus won't do any better than rapid lights with a range bonus.


CCP have noted theyre going to look at medium acs. Assuming they fix them, then the vaga will be fine with its current layout. We really dont need another super kitey missile ship.

Also, the only ships that get dual weapon bonuses are some of the fleet variants, which the only good one is the scyfi. Fleet phoon is arguably only good with missiles, as t1 pest is a better gun platform than fleet phoon. Anyway, minmatar used to have many ships with dual weapon bonuses, but they were terrible and CCP has stopped doing that to minmatar. Besides, HACs are specialized, giving them 2 bonuses for different weapon systems goes against the core principle of a HAC. If youre proposing putting a single launcher ontop of projectiles for "max dps mode", then have at it, but its a terrible idea. If you think adding another high to get a second launcher is a good idea, then that means youre moving a low or a mid for a worthless launcher slot just for max paper dps.

"Idk how to make the Muninn different than the fleet cane, but im going to ignore the obvious change that was proposed". You cant make the muninn better than the fleet cane, unless you buff it into being OP in every other category, as far as making it a turret ship. I find it pretty funny you think a muninn would get kited by cerbs. Cerbs are slower than muninns. With the proposed changes, a Muninn would be tankier and faster than a cerb, both in solo fit or fleet fit. It would apply better with HML, still have decent range and wouldnt have a reload like RLML cerbs do. Plus its not kinetic locked like a cerb is. Just put a kinetic hardener+invuln on the muninn with 2 LSEs and tank cerb fleets all day. Or go XLASB and brawler fit with HAMs or kite with HML and run down RLML cerbs as your EHP could easily tank a cerb magazine.

Like i said, a tankier, application bonused Muninn would fill the hole that exists in the HAC line-up. It would represent minmatars secondary weapon system in the line-up, give us an appication bonused missile hull (which there are no application bonused HACs) and give the muninn a role not currently occupied by the fleet cane.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
John Delta Futch
Doomheim
#52 - 2016-11-29 22:13:29 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
After thinking a bit about the Muninn. I dont know if i would ever use it for artillery while the fleet cane is around. Fleet cane will always have more alpha, tracking, tank, utility, drones (and MJD) than the Muninn will have, even if they fix the slot layout.

I was thinking on what if we changed it to a mini claymore?

Was thinking something like this:

Minmatar cruiser bonus:
10% launcher heavy assault and heavy missile RoF per level
7.5% Shield boost amount per level

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonus
5% bonus to missile explosion velocity per level
10% bonus to missile flight time per level (range bonus in alignment with all HAC bonuses)

Highs = 6
Mids = 5
Lows = 4

5 launcher hardpoints, plus one utility high

Drone bay/bandwidth = 25-40m3

Currently, there are no HACs with a missile application bonus. This separates the munnin from the cerb. Its not a missile sniper, but something that would apply damage without relying on RLML. It would also have the ability to brawl and face tank an enemy, instead of trying to kite around like its brother, the vagabond.

Thoughts?


there are too many ships with missle cancer bonus .. i think what both minmatar ship should get slot layout right such more mid slot then low slot . thats the reason u cant fit munin right . i like ur slot lay out except the missile bonus it should keep its projectile bonus and instead of optimal range bonus should receive fall off bonus
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2016-11-30 00:30:56 UTC  |  Edited by: James Zimmer
Stitch Kaneland wrote:

CCP have noted theyre going to look at medium acs. Assuming they fix them, then the vaga will be fine with its current layout. We really dont need another super kitey missile ship.

Also, the only ships that get dual weapon bonuses are some of the fleet variants, which the only good one is the scyfi. Fleet phoon is arguably only good with missiles, as t1 pest is a better gun platform than fleet phoon. Anyway, minmatar used to have many ships with dual weapon bonuses, but they were terrible and CCP has stopped doing that to minmatar. Besides, HACs are specialized, giving them 2 bonuses for different weapon systems goes against the core principle of a HAC. If youre proposing putting a single launcher ontop of projectiles for "max dps mode", then have at it, but its a terrible idea. If you think adding another high to get a second launcher is a good idea, then that means youre moving a low or a mid for a worthless launcher slot just for max paper dps.

"Idk how to make the Muninn different than the fleet cane, but im going to ignore the obvious change that was proposed". You cant make the muninn better than the fleet cane, unless you buff it into being OP in every other category, as far as making it a turret ship. I find it pretty funny you think a muninn would get kited by cerbs. Cerbs are slower than muninns. With the proposed changes, a Muninn would be tankier and faster than a cerb, both in solo fit or fleet fit. It would apply better with HML, still have decent range and wouldnt have a reload like RLML cerbs do. Plus its not kinetic locked like a cerb is. Just put a kinetic hardener+invuln on the muninn with 2 LSEs and tank cerb fleets all day. Or go XLASB and brawler fit with HAMs or kite with HML and run down RLML cerbs as your EHP could easily tank a cerb magazine.

Like i said, a tankier, application bonused Muninn would fill the hole that exists in the HAC line-up. It would represent minmatars secondary weapon system in the line-up, give us an appication bonused missile hull (which there are no application bonused HACs) and give the muninn a role not currently occupied by the fleet cane.


So, I'll grant you that the Vaga may have not been the best thought out thing, particularly with the highslot layout, but I'll still say that a missile Vaga will be better and more interesting than a missile Muninn. It would distinguish itself from the Orthrus by being shorter range and not having a disrupt/scram range bonus, but compensating by being considerably faster and tankier. Improved A/Cs could also help a Vaga, but 4 mids for a shield-tanked ship where frigates can get under your guns is pretty rough.

A missile Muninn wouldn't be bad per-se, but think it would struggle to find a role, at long range, it would be outclassed by Cerbs. It would be a little faster, but not fast enough to make up the 47 km shorter range (at all level 5 skills) in any timely manner, not to mention the loss in range due to being in a tail chase. It would be a bit tankier, but not tanky enough to compete with a Sacrilege's equally impressive tank+utility mids. Maybe a HML Muninn beats a RLML Cerb when you're fighting against cruisers, but that's hardly a fair comparison.

As I've thought about it some more, I think the real issues with the Muninn are:;
1. The Muninn has too few mids to give it a tolerable shield tank
2. The Minmatar T2 armor resist profile is aweful

Fix one of those two things, and I think you'll have an attractive high-alpha ship that out-performs a Hurricane Fleet Issue when sig radius matters (I.E. when you're fighting battleships or carriers), but still winds up a bit weaker when fighting battlecruisers or smaller.
sisterofeve6
Doomheim
#54 - 2016-11-30 00:51:57 UTC  |  Edited by: sisterofeve6
Muninn is one my favorite ship hulls, i just love the design, however for it to remain my favorite i believe it needs to stay an artillary ship, otherwise it kills half the fun of flying that ship.. I just have hard time imagining it being a missile boat, although ironically if it were a missile boat then i would probably fly it more often for obvious reasons
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#55 - 2016-11-30 01:44:35 UTC
I kinda prefer to see cruiser application bonuses usually, mainly so that a HAM cruiser can apply good damage to another cruiser. Alternately, it would be kinda fun to screw around with 425mm ACs with the intent of making them into a HAM equivalent with high damage multiplier and poor tracking and a sig res of 200m instead of 125m. You know what we could do with 180mm ACs then, right?Pirate

I really liked the projection changes for BCs, mainly because that feels like their ecological niche, which is to be cumbersome and lure BS onto the battlefield. Someday they might even be a deterrent to cruiser gangs, roughly around the time I can start drawing SSI. What I would like to see from HACs is a good brawler option with an afterburner bonus, although, realistically, heavy ships can "brawl" outside of scram range easily enough. It would be fun to brawl closer to optimals though, like with Hail loaded for a change.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#56 - 2016-11-30 14:57:08 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:

CCP have noted theyre going to look at medium acs. Assuming they fix them, then the vaga will be fine with its current layout. We really dont need another super kitey missile ship.

Also, the only ships that get dual weapon bonuses are some of the fleet variants, which the only good one is the scyfi. Fleet phoon is arguably only good with missiles, as t1 pest is a better gun platform than fleet phoon. Anyway, minmatar used to have many ships with dual weapon bonuses, but they were terrible and CCP has stopped doing that to minmatar. Besides, HACs are specialized, giving them 2 bonuses for different weapon systems goes against the core principle of a HAC. If youre proposing putting a single launcher ontop of projectiles for "max dps mode", then have at it, but its a terrible idea. If you think adding another high to get a second launcher is a good idea, then that means youre moving a low or a mid for a worthless launcher slot just for max paper dps.

"Idk how to make the Muninn different than the fleet cane, but im going to ignore the obvious change that was proposed". You cant make the muninn better than the fleet cane, unless you buff it into being OP in every other category, as far as making it a turret ship. I find it pretty funny you think a muninn would get kited by cerbs. Cerbs are slower than muninns. With the proposed changes, a Muninn would be tankier and faster than a cerb, both in solo fit or fleet fit. It would apply better with HML, still have decent range and wouldnt have a reload like RLML cerbs do. Plus its not kinetic locked like a cerb is. Just put a kinetic hardener+invuln on the muninn with 2 LSEs and tank cerb fleets all day. Or go XLASB and brawler fit with HAMs or kite with HML and run down RLML cerbs as your EHP could easily tank a cerb magazine.

Like i said, a tankier, application bonused Muninn would fill the hole that exists in the HAC line-up. It would represent minmatars secondary weapon system in the line-up, give us an appication bonused missile hull (which there are no application bonused HACs) and give the muninn a role not currently occupied by the fleet cane.


So, I'll grant you that the Vaga may have not been the best thought out thing, particularly with the highslot layout, but I'll still say that a missile Vaga will be better and more interesting than a missile Muninn. It would distinguish itself from the Orthrus by being shorter range and not having a disrupt/scram range bonus, but compensating by being considerably faster and tankier. Improved A/Cs could also help a Vaga, but 4 mids for a shield-tanked ship where frigates can get under your guns is pretty rough.

A missile Muninn wouldn't be bad per-se, but think it would struggle to find a role, at long range, it would be outclassed by Cerbs. It would be a little faster, but not fast enough to make up the 47 km shorter range (at all level 5 skills) in any timely manner, not to mention the loss in range due to being in a tail chase. It would be a bit tankier, but not tanky enough to compete with a Sacrilege's equally impressive tank+utility mids. Maybe a HML Muninn beats a RLML Cerb when you're fighting against cruisers, but that's hardly a fair comparison.

As I've thought about it some more, I think the real issues with the Muninn are:;
1. The Muninn has too few mids to give it a tolerable shield tank
2. The Minmatar T2 armor resist profile is aweful

Fix one of those two things, and I think you'll have an attractive high-alpha ship that out-performs a Hurricane Fleet Issue when sig radius matters (I.E. when you're fighting battleships or carriers), but still winds up a bit weaker when fighting battlecruisers or smaller.



As far as a missile vaga goes, having a 4 mid shield tanked missile ship isnt great either. Almost all vagas currently dont fit a web with autocannons. Not an issue because you have speed/transversal and a neut to kill tackle ships. A missile ship needs a web to apply damage. You dont kite in a missile ship (HML or HAM anyway) without a web. Or as an alternative, a missile computer or target painter. The Vaga's 4 mids would mean you cant actually apply anything, regardless of an application bonus. You need those application mods. Missile TEs are also very low % changes and wouldnt be enough to help application without a web. 5 mids is the minimum for a shield missile ship.

HML Muninn has the same range as RLML cerb (most common cerb fit, if fighting HML cerb, then reposition to be in range). The new muninn is designed around HML/HAMs (its up to CCP if they want to allow the RoF bonus and velocity bonus apply to RLML). So a HML muninn would have better application, high RoF and no reload with a better tank. That would be its role, i am telling you this niche` exists, idk why you keep repeating it wont have a role or niche`. Not every fight is going to start 100km away from each other, proper positioning is key to success, like any ship.

It may not be as tanky as a sac, but it would be faster, do more damage (since it could fit multiple BCUs and not sacrifice damage for tank, like the sac) potentially smaller or same size sig and APPLY its damage better. That is the selling point of this Muninn, application. No other missile HAC has an application bonus, nor are they as fast as the Muninn.

You can see my earlier proposal in this thread to "fix" the Muninn by removing a turret amd moving a high to a mid, while buffing damage bonus from 5% to 10%. That might make it usable, but would still have less tracking, alpha, dps, utility than a fleet cane and insure worse. Fleet canes are cheaper than Muninns atm and insure better. Id rather welp fleet canes than a HAC as payout for line members is better.

You cant fix minmatar t2 armor resist. Thats the racial bonus and the muninn cant be the special snowflake HAC that gets better armor resists that dont match up with its racial resist

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2016-12-01 02:10:02 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


As far as a missile vaga goes, having a 4 mid shield tanked missile ship isnt great either. Almost all vagas currently dont fit a web with autocannons. Not an issue because you have speed/transversal and a neut to kill tackle ships. A missile ship needs a web to apply damage. You dont kite in a missile ship (HML or HAM anyway) without a web. Or as an alternative, a missile computer or target painter. The Vaga's 4 mids would mean you cant actually apply anything, regardless of an application bonus. You need those application mods. Missile TEs are also very low % changes and wouldnt be enough to help application without a web. 5 mids is the minimum for a shield missile ship.

HML Muninn has the same range as RLML cerb (most common cerb fit, if fighting HML cerb, then reposition to be in range). The new muninn is designed around HML/HAMs (its up to CCP if they want to allow the RoF bonus and velocity bonus apply to RLML). So a HML muninn would have better application, high RoF and no reload with a better tank. That would be its role, i am telling you this niche` exists, idk why you keep repeating it wont have a role or niche`. Not every fight is going to start 100km away from each other, proper positioning is key to success, like any ship.

It may not be as tanky as a sac, but it would be faster, do more damage (since it could fit multiple BCUs and not sacrifice damage for tank, like the sac) potentially smaller or same size sig and APPLY its damage better. That is the selling point of this Muninn, application. No other missile HAC has an application bonus, nor are they as fast as the Muninn.

You can see my earlier proposal in this thread to "fix" the Muninn by removing a turret amd moving a high to a mid, while buffing damage bonus from 5% to 10%. That might make it usable, but would still have less tracking, alpha, dps, utility than a fleet cane and insure worse. Fleet canes are cheaper than Muninns atm and insure better. Id rather welp fleet canes than a HAC as payout for line members is better.

You cant fix minmatar t2 armor resist. Thats the racial bonus and the muninn cant be the special snowflake HAC that gets better armor resists that dont match up with its racial resist


As I look at the numbers, you're right, a missile Vaga with anything other than RLMLs wouldn't be great as a solo kiter. HAM application sucks worse than I thought. I still think the Vaga is too vulnerable to things getting under its guns, but you're right, this particular solution with this slot layout wouldn't work very well.

I had no idea that a RLML Cerb was the most common. I've personally seen far more HML Cerbs than anything else, so maybe the niche exists there. However, I still really don't see it. Even with the application bonus, heavies and HAMs are still going to have poor application without help (webs, paints etc), and if you have that help, why not just fight RLML Cerbs with HML Cerbs, which have the range to be untouchable, unlike the Muninn? Not every fight will start at 100km, but it's a lot easier to force a fight to start at long range than it is to force a fight to start at 0, and having significantly less range is a serious drawback, especially when you don't have the speed to make up the difference quickly.

The Muninn you propose will probably out-DPS a Sac (though the drones may get it close). However, and Sac has three utility mids which can all be used for application, so if a Sac pilot wants to out-apply this Muninn, it can do so easily without sacrificing tank. Alternatively, the Sac can use those mids for other things, which makes it far more flexible than the Muninn.

Like I said before, fixing the slot layout would only make the Muninn better than the Fleet Cane in fights where battleships or capitals are on the field. It's a limited role that doesn't stomp on BCs. However, I don't think it's nearly as worthless as you make it out to be. I can personally think of a few doctrines I've seen recently where a properly-slotted Muninn would be distinctly better than a Fleet Cane.

When I said fix Minmatar T2 armor resists, I meant fix them for ALL Minmatar ships. Maybe chop 10% off the EM resist to add 5% to the kinetic and explosive resists. I know it would break from the current scheme for T2 resistance bonuses, but nothing is saying that the scheme can't be tweaked as needed.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#58 - 2016-12-01 15:45:00 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:


I had no idea that a RLML Cerb was the most common. I've personally seen far more HML Cerbs than anything else, so maybe the niche exists there. However, I still really don't see it. Even with the application bonus, heavies and HAMs are still going to have poor application without help (webs, paints etc), and if you have that help, why not just fight RLML Cerbs with HML Cerbs, which have the range to be untouchable, unlike the Muninn? Not every fight will start at 100km, but it's a lot easier to force a fight to start at long range than it is to force a fight to start at 0, and having significantly less range is a serious drawback, especially when you don't have the speed to make up the difference quickly.

The Muninn you propose will probably out-DPS a Sac (though the drones may get it close). However, and Sac has three utility mids which can all be used for application, so if a Sac pilot wants to out-apply this Muninn, it can do so easily without sacrificing tank. Alternatively, the Sac can use those mids for other things, which makes it far more flexible than the Muninn.

Like I said before, fixing the slot layout would only make the Muninn better than the Fleet Cane in fights where battleships or capitals are on the field. It's a limited role that doesn't stomp on BCs. However, I don't think it's nearly as worthless as you make it out to be. I can personally think of a few doctrines I've seen recently where a properly-slotted Muninn would be distinctly better than a Fleet Cane.

When I said fix Minmatar T2 armor resists, I meant fix them for ALL Minmatar ships. Maybe chop 10% off the EM resist to add 5% to the kinetic and explosive resists. I know it would break from the current scheme for T2 resistance bonuses, but nothing is saying that the scheme can't be tweaked as needed.


The RLML spam is real. Especially when roaming solo, its almost always RLML cerbs that come out. But some areas have different doctrines sitting hangars. Just quickly browsing zkill, the recent pvp cerb losses are all RLML.

HML with proper application fit (missile comp or rigor, maybe crash booster) would apply to most things cruiser and up.i dont expect the Muninn to single handedly fix HML, but it should make them more viable than what is currently available.

The reason you dont fight cerb vs cerb is because youre kinetic locked and caldari t2 resist has high kinetic resist. You could switch to another damage type, but then lose out on damage. Not to mention the muninn has a smaller sig. So if we are talking about HM application, the Muninn would apply better to the cerb, than the cerb could apply to it. Not to mention it has the option to use selectable damage types without any loss in dps. And with the application bonus, even fury missiles are viable, giving it a dps bump over the cerb. Assuming youre in range to use it of course.

Well we are talking armor vs shield, so yes there are always trade offs. Especially in fleet fits where your ship doesnt need tackle. However, fleet is not the only form of combat that exists. Solo or small gang sac would use 2 of those mids for point/mwd at least. Then its either web for defense or doubling down on missile comp or tp. However, you have stacking penalties on missile comp/rigors. Muninn has it built in application+adding bonus from missile comp, rigor or MTE. I think youd find they would be about even in application, but the muninn would edge it out still in dps. Drone dps is a factor, but drones can be killed.

Short of lowsec nostalgia gangs running muninn comps on gatecamps, ive yet to see any recently effective doctrines that dont get blapped off the field. When i was in Tri. awhile ago, we fought against muninn comps. There EHP was so laughably low, they were getting blapped on every gun cycle. This was against a battleship doctrine (1400 machs) as well, which had no issues with dealing with their low sig/speed.

Currently on the muninn you fit shield+720s for a whopping 30k EHP if youre lucky and decent damage. Or go with armor for about 38k EHP with no damage, slow, and meh range. Muninn in its current format is not competitive. Can you get kills, or is it usuable in certain niche scenarios? Sure, but that doesnt make it good. Even if we fix the slot layout, i still dont think itll make any better of an arty platform than a fleet cane. Sig/speed difference is moot in a fleet setting when there is a huginn/rapier webbing and tp'ing you. Short of completely revamping everything about the muninn, like a 6 mid, 5 low and 4 high layout, i cant see it being more effective than a fleet cane in tank, dps, utility, cost etc.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Previous page123