Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 13:44:00 -
[601] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:The Thorax is already as powerful as a Rupture. Which isn't suppose to be the case, based on what CCP has said. Apparently, a Combat cruiser has more defense and does significantly more damage compared to an attack cruiser.
The Thorax is an anomaly and is more of a Combat cruiser, instead of a attack cruiser. It has non of the weakness of attack cruisers. The only other attack cruiser that comes close to Combat cruiser damage is a Omen, but it has a pretty weak tank by comparison.
Both a Rupture and Thorax do around the same damage @ 20,000m (20km). Both have around the same effective hit-points with any close range setup. The velocity of both ships is similar too.
Gallente tech 1 cruisers have been boosted far beyond the rest and they SHOULD because of blaster range limitations. Which kinda got delt with in another boost, by making them more inline with Minmatar falloff. However, I believe the Vexor may have been boosted TOO much.
well the solution is to change the tracking bonus into a falloff and design it for null range |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 13:59:00 -
[602] - Quote
Ok now on to the more anticipated cruisers in this rebalance pass. These are the faster and lighter of the fighting cruisers. They're mostly made from the former tier II cruisers, with the exception of the Thorax.
yet the combat cruisers are lighter whats up with that CCP Fozzie? |
Martin0
Maximum-Overload
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 15:25:00 -
[603] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Harvey James wrote:mm... perhaps reducing the base mass of armour boats would help negate the speed/agility loss as-well as adding a little more speed, but i definitely think they need to sort out the use of over-sized mods in the game cruisers and bs shouldn't share the same tank/prop mods any day of the week.
Seconding the post above: it's not Armour Boats mass that is the problem, it's the mass of plates. 1600mm plates are balanced. Right sized for BS/BCs; oversized for Cruisers so you trade big tank for big mass increase. 400mm plates are balanced. Too little EHP to be worth it on Cruisers; oversized for Frigs so you trade a big tank for fitting issues and a big mass increase. 200mm plates are barely balanced. Good enough EHP buff to be worth it and not too difficult to fit but does hurt your maneuverability. The rest aren't really worth it, unless fitting means you have no other option. Look at the mass and volume of the T1 and T2 plates: Plate | Mass | Volume 50mm | 18,750Kg | 5m3 100mm | 37,500Kg | 5m3 200mm | 187,500Kg | 10m3 400mm | 375,000Kg | 10m3 800mm | 1,875,000Kg | 20m3 1600mm | 3,750,000Kg | 20m3 It's apparent 50 and 100mm are Frigate sized, 200 and 400mm are Cruiser sized and 800mm and 1600mm are BS sized. However, it's just not worth fitting a 50 or 100 mm on a Frigate, a 400mm on a Cruiser or a 800mm on a BS. So at present; 200 and 400mm are used on Frigs and Destroyers, 800 and 1600mm on Cruisers and BCs, and 1600mm on BSs. I'd suggest modifying plates to something like this as a baseline (leaving their EHP and volumes unchanged): Plate | Mass 50mm | 9,375Kg 100mm | 37,500Kg (honestly, you could probably get rid of this and the 50mm: they're just included for completeness) 200mm | 93,750Kg 400mm | 375,000Kg 800mm | 937,500Kg 1600mm | 3,750,000Kg This means that for Frigs and Cruisers you have 2 real options for Armour tanking: fit a heavy mod for more tank but drastically less manoeuverability; or a light mod for decent tank (one 800mm Plate II adds similar EHP to a LSEII) and only a (noticable) but minor hit to manoeuvreability. The result of this, is that armour fit Attack Cruisers are more viable than at present and balancing them should be easier.
Do this pleeeeease CCP. And cut in half the speed malus on atcive tanking armor rigs. |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 01:36:00 -
[604] - Quote
Sorry if I'm unwilling to read through 30something pages of this, but will Navy ships also get a buff?
Eg. Omen is getting buffed; so will Omen Navy Issue also be buffed? Otherwise, the ONI will be pretty much useless... less drone bay, less bandwidth, less this, less that, and all you retain is one or two more slots for about 10x the price of a normal Omen. How does this make sense? |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
70
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 13:55:00 -
[605] - Quote
Since there's been abit of settling since the whole load of announcements of changes, I decided to take a look at the upcoming patched HAM Caracal, albeit with my ****** math skills hopefully I've done it right (I considered the 10% reduction in HAM PG, Caracal changes in this thread, Guided missile precision changes)
[Caracal, New HAM Caracal]
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x2 NOTE: These are rough calculations and I'm no math whiz, but they shouldn't be too far from the mark.
Speed: ~1.8km/s DPS: CN Ammo ~400 dps (selectable) @ ~28km Explosion radius 79m, which with conjunction with a web, scram & 2 drones should be pretty deadly to frigs I couldn't be bothered to calculate Rage/Javelin cause of all the changes. EHP: ~25k with decent resists.
I can see how a long point can be good as that would allow you to kite slower short ranged targets (BCs/Slower Cruisers) while maintaining very good dps out to long point range but its very tight on CPU and would require some finagling but can be done. |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
70
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:16:00 -
[606] - Quote
That fit has a serious EM resistance problem. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
497
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:26:00 -
[607] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Since there's been abit of settling since the whole load of announcements of changes, I decided to take a look at the upcoming patched HAM Caracal, albeit with my ****** math skills hopefully I've done it right (I considered the 10% reduction in HAM PG, Caracal changes in this thread, Guided missile precision changes)
[Caracal, New HAM Caracal]
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x2 NOTE: These are rough calculations and I'm no math whiz, but they shouldn't be too far from the mark.
Speed: ~1.8km/s DPS: CN Ammo ~400 dps (selectable) @ ~28km Explosion radius 79m, which with conjunction with a web, scram & 2 drones should be pretty deadly to frigs I couldn't be bothered to calculate Rage/Javelin cause of all the changes. EHP: ~25k with decent resists.
I can see how a long point can be good as that would allow you to kite slower short ranged targets (BCs/Slower Cruisers) while maintaining very good dps out to long point range but its very tight on CPU and would require some finagling but can be done.
You definitely want a long point, no question about it. This looks like a great ship otherwise. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
252
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:29:00 -
[608] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:That fit has a serious EM resistance problem.
To be fair he just needs to swap an extender rig for an em resist rig
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
225
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:48:00 -
[609] - Quote
Replace a BCS for a nanofiber and you will have plenty cpu AND the speed to kite a lot of things... I hope tier 2 and tier 3 battlecruisers will get toned down a bit and all these cruisers might become popular again!! |
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
119
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 17:56:00 -
[610] - Quote
As an Amarr pilot I'm still a bit disappointed in the Omen. I've found that the primary shortcoming of the ship is it's somewhat lackluster DPS compared to the Thorax and Rupture, and the bonuses really don't lend well to take advantage of the laser turrets. Sustaining damage over the course of a fight due to the cap usage from lasers has rarely come into play (at least in PvP), so on the whole the cap reduction bonus is somewhat lost in many situations. A tracking or optimal range bonus would really do wonders for the ship, and allow it to contribute to a T1 cruiser battle in a unique way with some very nice medium range projected DPS (15-20km), with an option to close for some higher dps in a brawl. ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 18:01:00 -
[611] - Quote
Fidelium Mortis wrote:As an Amarr pilot I'm still a bit disappointed in the Omen. I've found that the primary shortcoming of the ship is it's somewhat lackluster DPS compared to the Thorax and Rupture, and the bonuses really don't lend well to take advantage of the laser turrets. Sustaining damage over the course of a fight due to the cap usage from lasers has rarely come into play (at least in PvP), so on the whole the cap reduction bonus is somewhat lost in many situations. A tracking or optimal range bonus would really do wonders for the ship, and allow it to contribute to a T1 cruiser battle in a unique way with some very nice medium range projected DPS (15-20km), with an option to close for some higher dps in a brawl.
how about if they gave it a 7.5% ROF and improved its cap recharge?
|
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
119
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 19:29:00 -
[612] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Fidelium Mortis wrote:As an Amarr pilot I'm still a bit disappointed in the Omen. I've found that the primary shortcoming of the ship is it's somewhat lackluster DPS compared to the Thorax and Rupture, and the bonuses really don't lend well to take advantage of the laser turrets. Sustaining damage over the course of a fight due to the cap usage from lasers has rarely come into play (at least in PvP), so on the whole the cap reduction bonus is somewhat lost in many situations. A tracking or optimal range bonus would really do wonders for the ship, and allow it to contribute to a T1 cruiser battle in a unique way with some very nice medium range projected DPS (15-20km), with an option to close for some higher dps in a brawl. how about if they gave it a 7.5% ROF and improved its cap recharge?
I think the whole cap recharge/savings management is best determined by module selection rather than the base ship bonus. A 7.5% ROF would help the Omen compete a bit better against its counterparts, however, I think it might have some issues from a balance perspective given the bonus is untested. A cap recharge bonus is also a little lacking given the common usage of neuts. ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 19:39:00 -
[613] - Quote
Fidelium Mortis wrote:Harvey James wrote:Fidelium Mortis wrote:As an Amarr pilot I'm still a bit disappointed in the Omen. I've found that the primary shortcoming of the ship is it's somewhat lackluster DPS compared to the Thorax and Rupture, and the bonuses really don't lend well to take advantage of the laser turrets. Sustaining damage over the course of a fight due to the cap usage from lasers has rarely come into play (at least in PvP), so on the whole the cap reduction bonus is somewhat lost in many situations. A tracking or optimal range bonus would really do wonders for the ship, and allow it to contribute to a T1 cruiser battle in a unique way with some very nice medium range projected DPS (15-20km), with an option to close for some higher dps in a brawl. how about if they gave it a 7.5% ROF and improved its cap recharge? I think the whole cap recharge/savings management is best determined by module selection rather than the base ship bonus. A 7.5% ROF would help the Omen compete a bit better against its counterparts, however, I think it might have some issues from a balance perspective given the bonus is untested. A cap recharge bonus is also a little lacking given the common usage of neuts.
I'm more worried about the Omen Navy Issue. The expansion will render it utterly useless and overpriced. I'd rather CCP spend time to update Faction ships along with these. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 19:55:00 -
[614] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Major Killz wrote:The Thorax is already as powerful as a Rupture. Which isn't suppose to be the case, based on what CCP has said. Apparently, a Combat cruiser has more defense and does significantly more damage compared to an attack cruiser.
The Thorax is an anomaly and is more of a Combat cruiser, instead of a attack cruiser. It has non of the weakness of attack cruisers. The only other attack cruiser that comes close to Combat cruiser damage is a Omen, but it has a pretty weak tank by comparison.
Both a Rupture and Thorax do around the same damage @ 20,000m (20km). Both have around the same effective hit-points with any close range setup. The velocity of both ships is similar too.
Gallente tech 1 cruisers have been boosted far beyond the rest and they SHOULD because of blaster range limitations. Which kinda got delt with in another boost, by making them more inline with Minmatar falloff. However, I believe the Vexor may have been boosted TOO much. well the solution is to change the tracking bonus into a falloff and design it for null range
No no NO! >_<
Why do people try to kite ******* everything.. ****..
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 21:17:00 -
[615] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Harvey James wrote:Major Killz wrote:The Thorax is already as powerful as a Rupture. Which isn't suppose to be the case, based on what CCP has said. Apparently, a Combat cruiser has more defense and does significantly more damage compared to an attack cruiser.
The Thorax is an anomaly and is more of a Combat cruiser, instead of a attack cruiser. It has non of the weakness of attack cruisers. The only other attack cruiser that comes close to Combat cruiser damage is a Omen, but it has a pretty weak tank by comparison.
Both a Rupture and Thorax do around the same damage @ 20,000m (20km). Both have around the same effective hit-points with any close range setup. The velocity of both ships is similar too.
Gallente tech 1 cruisers have been boosted far beyond the rest and they SHOULD because of blaster range limitations. Which kinda got delt with in another boost, by making them more inline with Minmatar falloff. However, I believe the Vexor may have been boosted TOO much. well the solution is to change the tracking bonus into a falloff and design it for null range No no NO! >_< Why do people try to kite ******* everything.. ****.. Also there is no rule that says that attack cruisers should lose to combat cruisers in a fair fight. Just that Combat are supposed to be tankier and attack faster.. The true stupid thing is that the rupture is actually faster.
It should be a bit like a HAC vs BC fight the HAC is designed to keep range and whittle the bc down. Now the T1 attack cruisers should be able to do the same thing but to a lesser degree to combat cruiser as it would be less efficient but same theme..... Rupture would be able to beat all the attack cruisers that is the problem
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 03:21:00 -
[616] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:[quote=Garviel Tarrant][quote=Harvey James][quote=Major Killz]
Rupture would be able to beat all the attack cruisers that is the problem
You have nothing behind this statement and it's plain false and if a Caracal or shield-Omen is losing to a shield-Rupture, That dude is TERRIBUBBLE and so are you if you believe otherwise. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
70
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 04:39:00 -
[617] - Quote
Honestly I'm starting to think that Major Killz is just a Minmatar die-hard. You went nuts and said I was terrible because I suggested a mere 20m/s drop in the Ruptures speed in the Combat Cruiser thread, here you are telling this guy he's terrible is he thinks that a Rupture will beat a Caracal or Shield Omen, sure they both stand a chance to win against a Rupture, but the Rupture also stands a very good chance to win against both of them depending on the situation (so its roughly equal there) but the Rupture is still faster than both of them with far better utility which defeats the purpose of flying the Caracal or Omen in the first place. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 08:12:00 -
[618] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Harvey James wrote:[quote=Garviel Tarrant][quote=Harvey James][quote=Major Killz]
Rupture would be able to beat all the attack cruisers that is the problem
You have nothing behind this statement and it's plain false. If any Caracal or shield-Omen is losing to a shield-Rupture after these propose changes are implemented, That dude is TERRIBUBBLE and so are you if you believe otherwise or you're just a h8er. And if you didn't know. H8ings BAD...
A shield omen will still be a terribad tankless piece of crap that dies the moment anything catches it.
And a rupture will be more then a fair fight for any of the attack cruisers while being able to kite all the combat cruisers. I don't mind the ruptures power really, i just don't think it should have attack cruiser stats
|
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 09:01:00 -
[619] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Dato Koppla wrote:Since there's been abit of settling since the whole load of announcements of changes, I decided to take a look at the upcoming patched HAM Caracal, albeit with my ****** math skills hopefully I've done it right (I considered the 10% reduction in HAM PG, Caracal changes in this thread, Guided missile precision changes)
[Caracal, New HAM Caracal]
You definitely want a long point, no question about it. This looks like a great ship otherwise.
I see 2 of your long point HAM Caracals and raise you a HML Caracal (post HML-nerf) and frigate tackle.*
*Assumes both sides are using Loki boosts, and a competent Frigate pilot. |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 09:26:00 -
[620] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Mike Whiite wrote:That fit has a serious EM resistance problem. To be fair he just needs to swap an extender rig for an em resist rig
Though that will reduce your EHP.
Not that that does say everything |
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 10:34:00 -
[621] - Quote
One of the MOST SERIOUS problems in this game is uninformed players giving thier TERRIBUBBLE opinions about things they know next to nothing about. This has an issue for a long time now and I've watched it happen over and over again, ever since the "projectile/Winmatar boost".
Either way, whatever CCP decides to do is whatever to me.
Don't really care about most pilots opinions in this thread or forums, because they're TERRIBUBBLE. CCP's changes never really effect me because I always adapt and innovate and I'm not TERRIBUBBLE. These "changes/BOOST/NERF" are a hand holding excercise for TERRIBUBBLE's, who cry alot and want to get thier way because they FAIL and want things easier. So, yeah! I like Ruptures, Caracals and Osprey Navy Issue = / What of it? [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 11:05:00 -
[622] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:One of the MOST SERIOUS problems in this game is uninformed players giving thier TERRIBUBBLE opinions about things they know next to nothing about. This has an issue for a long time now and I've watched it happen over and over again, ever since the "projectile/Winmatar boost".
Either way, whatever CCP decides to do is whatever to me.
Don't really care about most pilots opinions in this thread or forums, because they're TERRIBUBBLE. CCP's changes never really effect me because I always adapt and innovate and I'm not TERRIBUBBLE. These "changes/BOOST/NERF" are a hand holding excercise for TERRIBUBBLE's, who cry alot and want to get thier way because they FAIL and want things easier. So, yeah! I like Ruptures, Caracals and Osprey Navy Issue = / What of it?
After reading a few of your recent posts I realise you must be, or have a mental age of, five years old. Maybe five and three quarters. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 16:39:00 -
[623] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Major Killz wrote:One of the MOST SERIOUS problems in this game is uninformed players giving thier TERRIBUBBLE opinions about things they know next to nothing about. This has an issue for a long time now and I've watched it happen over and over again, ever since the "projectile/Winmatar boost".
Either way, whatever CCP decides to do is whatever to me.
Don't really care about most pilots opinions in this thread or forums, because they're TERRIBUBBLE. CCP's changes never really effect me because I always adapt and innovate and I'm not TERRIBUBBLE. These "changes/BOOST/NERF" are a hand holding excercise for TERRIBUBBLE's, who cry alot and want to get thier way because they FAIL and want things easier. So, yeah! I like Ruptures, Caracals and Osprey Navy Issue = / What of it? After reading a few of your recent posts I realise you must be, or have a mental age of, five years old. Maybe five and three quarters.
True! Congratulations... [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Anger Management.
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 17:38:00 -
[624] - Quote
Meta-gaming in a balance thread, for shame........
Dear CCP-Claus/Fozzie
Please give me a Thorax with all the things. Make it like a space shark with LaZoRs.
Ok thanks Bye.
With space-man love Wiv? If you like to pew small gang style check us out.-á
http://exanimo.enjin.com/page/150364/recruitment-á |
Tal Jarcin
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 18:47:00 -
[625] - Quote
First a definition of what I think an Attack Cruiser should be. Mainly a light fast cruiser that foregoes tank to go faster. Another words, less tank, more gank. An attack cruiser is a military based creation designed to perform a distinct military mission of ambushing and attacking high value enemy assets deep behind enemy lines. Get in, destroy and leave before reinforcements arrive.
The more generic Combat Cruiser is the fleet brawler, more heavily buffer armored, its designed to take a punch, and hit back hard. It should be slower, but tougher with more staying power. Designed to function as part of fleet, and not as a general rule by itself.
Based on the definition above for Attack Cruisers, the last thing one should do with an attack cruiser is hang heavy slabs of metal on the thing. Not that you canGÇÖt do it, but if you do, it should invoke the same look as usually reserved for the Noob mixing his gun sizes on his fit, i.e, that is not a good idea, it will make you slow, and you will probably die, horribly. Active tanking of Armor based Attack Cruisers is the way to go. One suggestion I would make is for Attack Cruisers, design one mid slot as a dedicated shield slot for ships designed to be shield tanked, or a cap booster dedicated slot with power bonus for active armor tanked Attack Cruiser. Nothing else can fit in the dedicated mid slot. For active armor tanked Attack Cruisers consider granting a bonus similar to the 7.5% bonus to armor repair the Myrmidon gets.
Next is the speed issue. There is not enough difference between the proposed Attack Cruisers and Combat Cruisers. I think there should be at least a 10% to 20% difference between the slowest Attack Cruiser and Fastest Combat Cruiser. Yes, IGÇÖm looking at the Rupture. Attack Cruisers should always be able to outrun a Combat Cruiser, otherwise its just a suicide ship.
While we are on speed, I also want to say that one gives up EHP for speed, not DPS. The attack Cruiser needs to be able to kill the target before reinforcements arrive. Thats the design criteria that would have been used by any Navy. So whatever the mean cruiser DPS is at basic minimum skills, meta level 0 equipped vessel, add 50 DPS above, and 50 below that mean to give us a range of DPS, and Attack Cruisers should be in the upper range, Combat Cruisers should be in the lower half, and long range Attack cruisers should be in the lower range, in my opinion anyway. That should be for any Attack Cruiser, including the Stabber. The faster the ship, the lower the EHP it can produce should be the guiding rule.
Concider making the Vexor the Gallente Attack Cruiser and return the Thorax to rightful place as a Combat Cruiser. The Vexor is fast, can produce 700DPS easily now, even before getting another mid and low slot you have planed for this Winter expansion, and can be easily shield fitted or armor fitted. It is in my opinion a perfect choice as an Attack Cruiser, which I cannot say about the Thorax. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:12:00 -
[626] - Quote
Tal Jarcin wrote: First a definition of what I think an Attack Cruiser should be. Mainly a light fast cruiser that foregoes tank to go faster. Another words, less tank, more gank. An attack cruiser is a military based creation designed to perform a distinct military mission of ambushing and attacking high value enemy assets deep behind enemy lines. Get in, destroy and leave before reinforcements arrive.
The more generic Combat Cruiser is the fleet brawler, more heavily buffer armored, its designed to take a punch, and hit back hard. It should be slower, but tougher with more staying power. Designed to function as part of fleet, and not as a general rule by itself.
Based on the definition above for Attack Cruisers, the last thing one should do with an attack cruiser is hang heavy slabs of metal on the thing. Not that you canGÇÖt do it, but if you do, it should invoke the same look as usually reserved for the Noob mixing his gun sizes on his fit, i.e, that is not a good idea, it will make you slow, and you will probably die, horribly. Active tanking of Armor based Attack Cruisers is the way to go. One suggestion I would make is for Attack Cruisers, design one mid slot as a dedicated shield slot for ships designed to be shield tanked, or a cap booster dedicated slot with power bonus for active armor tanked Attack Cruiser. Nothing else can fit in the dedicated mid slot. For active armor tanked Attack Cruisers consider granting a bonus similar to the 7.5% bonus to armor repair the Myrmidon gets.
Next is the speed issue. There is not enough difference between the proposed Attack Cruisers and Combat Cruisers. I think there should be at least a 10% to 20% difference between the slowest Attack Cruiser and Fastest Combat Cruiser. Yes, IGÇÖm looking at the Rupture. Attack Cruisers should always be able to outrun a Combat Cruiser, otherwise its just a suicide ship.
While we are on speed, I also want to say that one gives up EHP for speed, not DPS. The attack Cruiser needs to be able to kill the target before reinforcements arrive. Thats the design criteria that would have been used by any Navy. So whatever the mean cruiser DPS is at basic minimum skills, meta level 0 equipped vessel, add 50 DPS above, and 50 below that mean to give us a range of DPS, and Attack Cruisers should be in the upper range, Combat Cruisers should be in the lower half, and long range Attack cruisers should be in the lower range, in my opinion anyway. That should be for any Attack Cruiser, including the Stabber. The faster the ship, the lower the EHP it can produce should be the guiding rule.
Concider making the Vexor the Gallente Attack Cruiser and return the Thorax to rightful place as a Combat Cruiser. The Vexor is fast, can produce 700DPS easily now, even before getting another mid and low slot you have planed for this Winter expansion, and can be easily shield fitted or armor fitted. It is in my opinion a perfect choice as an Attack Cruiser, which I cannot say about the Thorax.
Makes sense if CCP nerfs attack cruisers ehp ALOT. Otherwise, you will have p much everyone on the same page just different names (attack as oppose to combat). There are Attack cruisers that are comparable to Combat cruisers and every combat cruiser seems as fast as a attack cruiser.
P sure CCP is more focused on battlecruisers in comparesion to tech 1 cruisers. Instead of tech 1 cruisers compared to each other. You know! In a vacumm. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:38:00 -
[627] - Quote
Still no word on how Navy or T2 ships will be buffed in response to these buffs?
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
143
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:43:00 -
[628] - Quote
Nyancat Audeles wrote:Still no word on how Navy or T2 ships will be buffed in response to these buffs?
Soon. They have said they will get to them after BC and BS are done hold your cookies. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
71
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 22:42:00 -
[629] - Quote
Yeah we'll have a whole range of redundant Navy Cruisers after this patch but once they're balanced I imagine they will be pretty badass. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:03:00 -
[630] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Yeah we'll have a whole range of redundant Navy Cruisers after this patch
Don't we already have that? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |