Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
786
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 16:31:35 -
[1] - Quote
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?
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Tiberius NoVegas
Stellar Exploration Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 17:00:17 -
[2] - Quote
If they did that then the muninn will suffer from the same issue vs the Claymore as it currently does against the cane.
However the muninn is fine as is. its a cruiser, not a BC and will have less damage output as accordingly. however as a cruiser it has more speed and this gives it better use in certain scenarios over a BC. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
786
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 17:24:23 -
[3] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:If they did that then the muninn will suffer from the same issue vs the Claymore as it currently does against the cane.
However the muninn is fine as is. its a cruiser, not a BC and will have less damage output as accordingly. however as a cruiser it has more speed and this gives it better use in certain scenarios over a BC.
No. The fleet cane costs about 160-170m. Muninn costs 140-180m depending on where you buy it. Claymore costs 220-300m.
Fleet cane has comparable cost (plus insures better) with better stats. Claymore and Muninn do not share the same cost:stats ratio.
Explain to me how the Muninn is fine. Its terrible in fleets, in solo and its ONLY redeeming quality is speed and sig. Which tbf, is only 300m/s faster than my fleet cane. In fleets its fit as a shield fit (2 slot tank) which barely gets it to 25k EHP. Fleet Cane can get a much better shield tank. Armor muninns have no damage and are slow, bad combo for an arty platform.
In case you havent noticed, most of the large groups are using hurricanes or fleet canes in fleets, not muninns. They live longer even though theyre slower with bigger sigs.
So explain to me how the Muninn is fine, and if its fine why is it hardly used outside of gate/station camps?
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4899
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 17:31:14 -
[4] - Quote
Is the problem the muninn, or is the problem medium projectiles? |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
786
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 17:40:09 -
[5] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Is the problem the muninn, or is the problem medium projectiles?
In this case, the muninn. Slot layout isnt good for arty of acs. Hard to brawl with 3 mids, and arty+armor tank is bad combo.
650s being garbage doesnt help, but even then, 720s will fit with a kite setup, its just lack luster for the cost and has low tank. Fitting is tight as well.
My original thought was to drop a turret on the muninn and increase damage bonus from 5% to 10% per level. Then moving a high to a mid. I just dont know if thats enough to make it a better option than the fleet cane.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2555
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 17:41:34 -
[6] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
However the muninn is fine as is.
Do you even play this game?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
531
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 17:42:07 -
[7] - Quote
Many Minnie ship are confused, they are like half/half on everything, but when you split the weapons it kinda kills the DPS. |
Tiberius NoVegas
Stellar Exploration Consortium
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 18:26:27 -
[8] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote: Many Minnie ship are confused, they are like half/half on everything, but when you split the weapons it kinda kills the DPS.
Ive wanted to complain about this in the past but being that its been like that for years i dont see the point anymore.
the muninn does what its suppose to do. there are other ships more effective at what it does but this more of a balance issue as every know Assault Cruisers are not what they use to be anymore. If you change the muninn any argument you make would also apply to the Zealot as it suffers from the Navy Harbringer. Your issue isnt with the muninn, its with Assault Cruisers compared to there fleet issue BC |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
786
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 19:09:47 -
[9] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Piugattuk wrote: Many Minnie ship are confused, they are like half/half on everything, but when you split the weapons it kinda kills the DPS. Ive wanted to complain about this in the past but being that its been like that for years i dont see the point anymore. the muninn does what its suppose to do. there are other ships more effective at what it does but this more of a balance issue as every know Assault Cruisers are not what they use to be anymore. If you change the muninn any argument you make would also apply to the Zealot as it suffers from the Navy Harbringer. Your issue isnt with the muninn, its with Assault Cruisers compared to there fleet issue BC
The only minny ships with split weapons still is the typhoon FI and scyfi.
Every race has 2 weapon systems. Minny is missiles and projectiles, caldari hybrid and missiles, gal hybrid and drones, amarr lasers, missiles and drones. So if anything, amarr are more confused that minmatar.
What exactly does the muninn do? Can you tell me what is its role? If you tell me its an armor arty platform, then think carefully about why that is a very bad idea in almost every way. If you say its a shield alpha doctrine (arguably the only thing it does right, sort of) then why does it only have 3 mids? Its role does not match its slot layout. It is not "fine".
Its underused and its KB proves it. Its underused because its trash in comparison to not only the fleet cane, but other long range HACs. Or other doctrine ships that are available.
I dont compare the zealot to the navy harb, because zealot doesnt get a tracking bonus. The zealot is bad in the current meta because its slow with no utility. Not because the navy harb outperforms it in the same role (hint, it doesnt), but because it also needs updating. The zealot shoots farther, does similar damage and uses less cap with a smaller sig than the harb.
In comparison of the fleet cane and muninn, the muninn tracks less, has the same range, less tank, less alpha/dps, less utility, less payout from insurance and costs the same as a fleet cane (navy harb more expensive than zealot).
So before you put words in my mouth, you should really review what im talking about.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2556
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 19:11:29 -
[10] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Piugattuk wrote: Many Minnie ship are confused, they are like half/half on everything, but when you split the weapons it kinda kills the DPS. Ive wanted to complain about this in the past but being that its been like that for years i dont see the point anymore. the muninn does what its suppose to do. there are other ships more effective at what it does but this more of a balance issue as every know Assault Cruisers are not what they use to be anymore. If you change the muninn any argument you make would also apply to the Zealot as it suffers from the Navy Harbringer. Your issue isnt with the muninn, its with Assault Cruisers compared to there fleet issue BC
This month, per zkill:
Zealot: 3529 kills Muninn: 868 kills. Incidentally, this is last place for standard HACs.
Navy Harb: 1,849 Fleet 'cane: 3,995
It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about wrt to the relative value of different ships in the current meta.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
Deckel
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 19:15:06 -
[11] - Quote
For ships not set up for their role, how about the vagabond? 4 Mid slots and 5 lows for a shield ship? Sure you can fit it for damage and speed, but utility? You may be better to fit it for armor for any sort of pvp. At least with the Munin it is dedicated Armor, and while 4 mids would make it awsome you can get by with three, even for brawling, which is how I see it best being fit. High speed autocannon fit. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
788
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 19:35:48 -
[12] - Quote
Deckel wrote:For ships not set up for their role, how about the vagabond? 4 Mid slots and 5 lows for a shield ship? Sure you can fit it for damage and speed, but utility? You may be better to fit it for armor for any sort of pvp. At least with the Munin it is dedicated Armor, and while 4 mids would make it awsome you can get by with three, even for brawling, which is how I see it best being fit. High speed autocannon fit.
Because first and foremost the vagabond is a kiter. It was always a ship used to kite with autocannons. You dont want a t2 matar resist profile, shield boost bonused ship that goes 2700m/s cold also having 5 or 6 mids. It can already tank 1k dps with certain fits with just 4mids. Having 5 or 6 mids would make it rediculous. The muninn will be slower in comparison.
The current optimal bonus does nothing for acs, the muninn is an arty platform, but it struggles to perform that role. Since armor tank uses lots of grid, and so does artillery, so it struggles to fit decent tank and get good damage/projection.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Tiberius NoVegas
Stellar Exploration Consortium
5
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 19:47:11 -
[13] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Tiberius NoVegas wrote:Piugattuk wrote: Many Minnie ship are confused, they are like half/half on everything, but when you split the weapons it kinda kills the DPS. Ive wanted to complain about this in the past but being that its been like that for years i dont see the point anymore. the muninn does what its suppose to do. there are other ships more effective at what it does but this more of a balance issue as every know Assault Cruisers are not what they use to be anymore. If you change the muninn any argument you make would also apply to the Zealot as it suffers from the Navy Harbringer. Your issue isnt with the muninn, its with Assault Cruisers compared to there fleet issue BC The only minny ships with split weapons still is the typhoon FI and scyfi. Every race has 2 weapon systems. Minny is missiles and projectiles, caldari hybrid and missiles, gal hybrid and drones, amarr lasers, missiles and drones. So if anything, amarr are more confused that minmatar. What exactly does the muninn do? Can you tell me what is its role? If you tell me its an armor arty platform, then think carefully about why that is a very bad idea in almost every way. If you say its a shield alpha doctrine (arguably the only thing it does right, sort of) then why does it only have 3 mids? Its role does not match its slot layout. It is not "fine". Its underused and its KB proves it. Its underused because its trash in comparison to not only the fleet cane, but other long range HACs. Or other doctrine ships that are available. I dont compare the zealot to the navy harb, because zealot doesnt get a tracking bonus. The zealot is bad in the current meta because its slow with no utility. Not because the navy harb outperforms it in the same role (hint, it doesnt), but because it also needs updating. The zealot shoots farther, does similar damage and uses less cap with a smaller sig than the harb. In comparison of the fleet cane and muninn, the muninn tracks less, has the same range, less tank, less alpha/dps, less utility, less payout from insurance and costs the same as a fleet cane (navy harb more expensive than zealot). So before you put words in my mouth, you should really review what im talking about.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2558
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 20:14:03 -
[14] - Quote
Tiberius NoVegas wrote:
I was referring the Zealots damage compared to Harbringer. The Munin does what its suppose to as an Assault Cruiser plain and simple. how ever were the real difference is made is in its tank. because of this players commonly choose the cane over the muninn resulting in the kill board statistical difference. I think the whole Minnie line up should be shield boosters but CCP seems to have no interest in this. I don't know why and I really wish CCP would address this but like I said before, at this point I think its a mute issue.
Oh, my god. This is like watching a blind guy argue with Bob Ross over what a happy little tree should look like.
Support the statement that the Muninn does what it's supposed to do as an assault cruiser. I'll even settle for something anecdotal. Share your effective Muninn fit. Regale us with a story of a hard won battle fought in a Muninn.
Have you ever even undocked a Muninn? Serious question.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1439
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 12:41:27 -
[15] - Quote
Before the minmatar get a ship with a 10% rate of fire and 5% damage bonus per level and have it fit 3-4 ballistic controls and with the shield-resistance that has no weakness, maybe we can have someone take a look at heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles first mkay?
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them.
This is the law
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2567
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 14:08:51 -
[16] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Before the minmatar get a ship with a 10% rate of fire and 5% damage bonus per level and have it fit 3-4 ballistic controls and with the shield-resistance that has no weakness, maybe we can have someone take a look at heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles first mkay?
Maybe. Maybe you could bugger off to a thread about that topic instead of co-opting this one?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Uriam Khanid
New Machinarium Corporation
75
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 15:43:29 -
[17] - Quote
Personally, i like the idea of missile minmatar HAC But bonuses must in line with other HAC's and no better that Cerberus
Current Muninn
Minmatar Cruiser bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage Heavy Assault Cruisers bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
so your 10% ROF must be divided. Something like that:
Minmatar Cruiser bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity (minmatar missile bonus for T2 ships)
Heavy Assault Cruisers bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire 7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
789
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 15:52:11 -
[18] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Before the minmatar get a ship with a 10% rate of fire and 5% damage bonus per level and have it fit 3-4 ballistic controls and with the shield-resistance that has no weakness, maybe we can have someone take a look at heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles first mkay?
Actually there is no 5% damage bonus. Only 10% RoF per level. Fitting can easily compensate your worries. Deimos doesnt really have a weakness, short of just out dps'ing and tanking it. Seems to be ok to me.
HAMS are fine, minus maybe a minor damage buff. Yea HML need some help, but that shouldnt affect adjusting a ship that is underutilized as well as fleshing out minmatar HAC line with secondary weapon system
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
789
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 15:56:58 -
[19] - Quote
Uriam Khanid wrote:Personally, i like the idea of missile minmatar HAC But bonuses must in line with other HAC's and no better that Cerberus
Current Muninn
Minmatar Cruiser bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage Heavy Assault Cruisers bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
so your 10% ROF must be divided. Something like that:
Minmatar Cruiser bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity (minmatar missile bonus for T2 ships)
Heavy Assault Cruisers bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire 7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount
The problem with that setup, is there is no range bonus. Every HAC has a range bonus to its weapon system. Hence why i decided to roll with a 10% bonus for RoF, to free a slot for range bonus.
Deimos = falloff Ishtar = range bonus on sentries (and heavies IIRC) Eagle = optimal Cerb = velocity and flight time Vagabond = falloff Muninn = optimal Zealot = optimal Sacrilege = missile velocity
So, with your recommendation, it would have no range bonuses. Not that id be too terribly concerned, but it wouldnt fit with the HAC line.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Cristl
505
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 16:19:58 -
[20] - Quote
There's no way a ship will get a 10% rate of fire bonus per level unless it is a split-weapon ship, so be realistic. 10% ROF would double the dps at level V for a single weapon system. That isn't going to happen.
I'm not against a Minmatar missile HAC though, and the Muninn is certainly a flawed concept to be honest. Artillery just don't synergise with armour tanking.
For nostalgia, here's a post I made back in 2008. While many changes have made that post inapplicable to the modern game, it's still true (and a shame) that the Muninn hasn't had a single day in the sun for eight years |
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
790
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 16:31:17 -
[21] - Quote
Cristl wrote:There's no way a ship will get a 10% rate of fire bonus per level unless it is a split-weapon ship, so be realistic. 10% ROF would double the dps at level V for a single weapon system. That isn't going to happen. I'm not against a Minmatar missile HAC though, and the Muninn is certainly a flawed concept to be honest. Artillery just don't synergise with armour tanking. For nostalgia, here's a post I made back in 2008. While many changes have made that post inapplicable to the modern game, it's still true (and a shame) that the Muninn hasn't had a single day in the sun for eight years
The muninn originally has a double damage bonus.. its just split between rof and dmg. The claymore has 15% RoF (same number of launchers) at lvl5 skills. The proposed muninn would slot it under the claymore, but still follow the same theme. Giving natural progression in the ship tree.
Yes rof is a slightly higher "dps" boost than a damage bonus. But youre also dealing with missiles, which need an extra kick for them to be decent. The sacrilege for example has a rof and damage bonus, but struggles to break past 340dps with just missiles. The sac has a larger drone bay than the proposed muninn here to compensate on damage. The muninn has a higher rof with a smaller drone bay to bump its damage in the normal HAC range of 400-500dps (unless youre gallente cause theyre special).
Doing some basic math, it looks like it would 400-420dps in just missiles with 3 BCUs. Plus another 80ish from drones. Which places it nicely in the normal HAC dps range, especially for minmatar.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Cristl
505
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 17:11:12 -
[22] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Cristl wrote:There's no way a ship will get a 10% rate of fire bonus per level unless it is a split-weapon ship, so be realistic. 10% ROF would double the dps at level V for a single weapon system. That isn't going to happen. I'm not against a Minmatar missile HAC though, and the Muninn is certainly a flawed concept to be honest. Artillery just don't synergise with armour tanking. For nostalgia, here's a post I made back in 2008. While many changes have made that post inapplicable to the modern game, it's still true (and a shame) that the Muninn hasn't had a single day in the sun for eight years The muninn originally has a double damage bonus.. its just split between rof and dmg. The claymore has 15% RoF (same number of launchers) at lvl5 skills. The proposed muninn would slot it under the claymore, but still follow the same theme. Giving natural progression in the ship tree. Yes rof is a slightly higher "dps" boost than a damage bonus. But youre also dealing with missiles, which need an extra kick for them to be decent. The sacrilege for example has a rof and damage bonus, but struggles to break past 340dps with just missiles. The sac has a larger drone bay than the proposed muninn here to compensate on damage. The muninn has a higher rof with a smaller drone bay to bump its damage in the normal HAC range of 400-500dps (unless youre gallente cause theyre special). Doing some basic math, it looks like it would 400-420dps in just missiles with 3 BCUs. Plus another 80ish from drones. Which places it nicely in the normal HAC dps range, especially for minmatar.
I'm not sure what you mean. At the moment the Claymore, a T2 battlecruiser, has 5 launchers and gets 5% ROF per level of BC and 5% per level of command ships. So a 78% dps bonus if you train command ships V (an epic train). (that's 8.9 launcher equivalents)
Whereas you seem to be proposing a 10% ROF bonus per level of cruiser, so 100% dps bonus at cruiser V, HAC I. That's 10 launcher equivalents for a much shorter train. I just can't see it happening.
Go back and flesh out your idea a bit. It has potential, but the ship can't have a massive dps boost without needing to train the T2 skill. The T1 skill at V is the baseline that all pilots would have to have just to sit in it.
(realtime edit) I'm not writing any more - the forums have eaten too much bloody text (DDoS somewhere?) but I'm sure you know what i mean. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2567
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 18:07:05 -
[23] - Quote
Cristl wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. At the moment the Claymore, a T2 battlecruiser, has 5 launchers and gets 5% ROF per level of BC and 5% per level of command ships. So a 78% dps bonus if you train command ships V (an epic train). (that's 8.9 launcher equivalents)
Ehh. Role-wise, a command ship is NOT just a BC-sized HAC-equivalent, so I don't know if that's the best argument.
The Sacrilege has more effective launchers than a Damnation, for instance. Sure, move the ROF to the HAC skill, perhaps.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Erik Kalkoken
VOLTAGE REGULATORS No Handlebars.
31
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 18:10:53 -
[24] - Quote
I think this is a bad idea. There already are two missile based HACs in the game, the armor based Sacrilege and the shield based Cerberus. Making the Muninn a missile boat would just reduce the variety.
Besides the Muninn is a fantastic PVP boat as it is. No need to change anything.
If you want to fly a shield based HAC with missiles, check out the Cerberus.
Alliance Facebok page - Check out my blog - Find me on zKillboard
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
790
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 18:14:21 -
[25] - Quote
Cristl wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Cristl wrote:There's no way a ship will get a 10% rate of fire bonus per level unless it is a split-weapon ship, so be realistic. 10% ROF would double the dps at level V for a single weapon system. That isn't going to happen. I'm not against a Minmatar missile HAC though, and the Muninn is certainly a flawed concept to be honest. Artillery just don't synergise with armour tanking. For nostalgia, here's a post I made back in 2008. While many changes have made that post inapplicable to the modern game, it's still true (and a shame) that the Muninn hasn't had a single day in the sun for eight years The muninn originally has a double damage bonus.. its just split between rof and dmg. The claymore has 15% RoF (same number of launchers) at lvl5 skills. The proposed muninn would slot it under the claymore, but still follow the same theme. Giving natural progression in the ship tree. Yes rof is a slightly higher "dps" boost than a damage bonus. But youre also dealing with missiles, which need an extra kick for them to be decent. The sacrilege for example has a rof and damage bonus, but struggles to break past 340dps with just missiles. The sac has a larger drone bay than the proposed muninn here to compensate on damage. The muninn has a higher rof with a smaller drone bay to bump its damage in the normal HAC range of 400-500dps (unless youre gallente cause theyre special). Doing some basic math, it looks like it would 400-420dps in just missiles with 3 BCUs. Plus another 80ish from drones. Which places it nicely in the normal HAC dps range, especially for minmatar. I'm not sure what you mean. At the moment the Claymore, a T2 battlecruiser, has 5 launchers and gets 5% ROF per level of BC and 5% per level of command ships. So a 78% dps bonus if you train command ships V (an epic train). (that's 8.9 launcher equivalents) Whereas you seem to be proposing a 10% ROF bonus per level of cruiser, so 100% dps bonus at cruiser V, HAC I. That's 10 launcher equivalents for a much shorter train. I just can't see it happening. Go back and flesh out your idea a bit. It has potential, but the ship can't have a massive dps boost without needing to train the T2 skill. The T1 skill at V is the baseline that all pilots would have to have just to sit in it. (realtime edit) I'm not writing any more - the forums have eaten too much bloody text (DDoS somewhere?) but I'm sure you know what i mean.
Oops. I done goofed those numbers. I could of sworn claymore had 2 7.5% RoF bonuses.
Yeah youre right that is too high. So a 7.5% RoF bonus might be better instead.
Btw, the current muninn gets all of its damage with only the minmatar cruiser skill, its not locked behind the HAC skill. HAC skill only gives tracking/optimal bonuses to current muninn traits. So CCP has already set precedent of having all your damage with just the cruiser skill. Maybe we could move the shield boost to HAC skill to make it more valuable.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
790
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 18:25:29 -
[26] - Quote
Erik Kalkoken wrote:
Besides the Muninn is a fantastic PVP boat as it is. No need to change anything.
The Killboard for it says otherwise. Its the least used HAC in the game and there are very few groups who use them (outside of gate camps). Which gate camps dont count as a proving ground of how good a ship is.
Show me examples of how the muninn is a fantastic pvp boat, and ill show you a fleet cane that does it better.
As far as variety, you didnt read my post. This is a shield brawler that is more about application than range. The sac is an armor brawler, the cerb is a sniper/kiter. Cerbs die quick in a brawling scenario. The revised Muninn is more of a shield brawler, not a kiter. Hence the shield boost bonus and application bonus. It also doesnt have bonuses that apply to RLML, its meant to use HML/HAMs, where as the cerb is 90% RLML.
Also, minmatar HACs are missing minmatars secondary weapon system. All other races have both weapons available in their HACs.
Cerb = missiles Eagle = hybrids
Deimos = hybrid Ishtar = drones
Zealot = lasers Sac = missiles (and drones, kind of. Large drone bay for a non drone cruiser)
Vagabond = projectiles Muninn = projectiles
Minmatar's secondary weapon system is missiles, which is not represented.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Dreadeye
CTRL-Q No Handlebars.
17
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 18:53:08 -
[27] - Quote
I think you guys should take them out in a fleet have some fights with them and come back and tell us what you think. I think a lot dont really know what to do with the Munnins, cerbs have been the easiest kitey fleet comp to get into.
BL exelled at using Munnins at one point and thoose that came across a BL munnin gang was right in fearing it.
it could use an ekstra mid slot and a bit more agility though |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
790
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 19:08:53 -
[28] - Quote
Dreadeye wrote:I think you guys should take them out in a fleet have some fights with them and come back and tell us what you think. I think a lot dont really know what to do with the Munnins, cerbs have been the easiest kitey fleet comp to get into.
BL exelled at using Munnins at one point and thoose that came across a BL munnin gang was right in fearing it.
it could use an ekstra mid slot and a bit more agility though
When BL used Muninns it was a completely different meta. Muninns cant compete against arty machs and canes in the current meta. I fought a muninn fleet when i was in TRI a long time ago. It was hilarious alpha'ing a muninn every few seconds in arty machs. They dont have the tank or damage to be competitive anymore.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Dreadeye
CTRL-Q No Handlebars.
17
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 19:15:50 -
[29] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Dreadeye wrote:I think you guys should take them out in a fleet have some fights with them and come back and tell us what you think. I think a lot dont really know what to do with the Munnins, cerbs have been the easiest kitey fleet comp to get into.
BL exelled at using Munnins at one point and thoose that came across a BL munnin gang was right in fearing it.
it could use an ekstra mid slot and a bit more agility though When BL used Muninns it was a completely different meta. Muninns cant compete against arty machs and canes in the current meta. I fought a muninn fleet when i was in TRI a long time ago. It was hilarious alpha'ing a muninn every few seconds in arty machs. They dont have the tank or damage to be competitive anymore.
Well.. we are having a lot of great fights in them lately and they work very well for what we have engaged and we have taken some fights that was not completely in our favor. with every doctrine you need critical mass for what you are fighting against, its not agument for not using munnins. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
791
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 20:49:42 -
[30] - Quote
Dreadeye wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Dreadeye wrote:I think you guys should take them out in a fleet have some fights with them and come back and tell us what you think. I think a lot dont really know what to do with the Munnins, cerbs have been the easiest kitey fleet comp to get into.
BL exelled at using Munnins at one point and thoose that came across a BL munnin gang was right in fearing it.
it could use an ekstra mid slot and a bit more agility though When BL used Muninns it was a completely different meta. Muninns cant compete against arty machs and canes in the current meta. I fought a muninn fleet when i was in TRI a long time ago. It was hilarious alpha'ing a muninn every few seconds in arty machs. They dont have the tank or damage to be competitive anymore. Well.. we are having a lot of great fights in them lately and they work very well for what we have engaged and we have taken some fights that was not completely in our favor. with every doctrine you need critical mass for what you are fighting against, its not agument for not using munnins.
"We outnumbered our opponents heavily, so the muninn is fine" any ship can be considered fine when you outnumber (having critical mass to alpha) or have a better comp than your opponent (or opponents lack of comp).
I looked through your corps KB and can only find a few cases where you used muninns. You werent fighting a huge corp, but calmil in what looked like a kitchen sink fleet. And i cant find any losses. So 0 lossed muninns and you killed a phantasm, hugginn, lach and 2-3 other ships. Looks more like a gate camp or seal clubbing than an actual fleet fight.
But im willing to admit being wrong, maybe KB is missing kills/losses. I just find it odd i can find 0 losses and only a couple engagements.
Maybe its cause youre in LS. But in null, muninn comps get vollied off field as theyre paper thin tank wise.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |