EVE Search - Sticky:[Winter] Combat Cruisers

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Winter] Combat Cruisers

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 12 post(s)
Gypsio III Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 377	Posted - 2012.10.02 14:23:00 - [1] - Quote Just echoing that it sounds absurd for the Rupture to be faster than all the attack cruisers.
Gypsio III Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 382	Posted - 2012.10.02 16:03:00 - [2] - Quote MIrple wrote: CCP Stated that it would be hard to fit the highest sized guns on Cruisers. All you need is a 1% PG implant that is cheap. I do agree though that the Utility High should be a Mid slot. It's funny, then, that the Rupture has more PG than the Moa, despite ACs needing less PG than blasters.
Gypsio III Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 382	Posted - 2012.10.02 16:11:00 - [3] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: This is a projectile thing, I think. ACs are the easiest weapons in the game to fit. Arties are the second hardest. If you give a ship the fitting to use arties, AC configs will have infinite powergrid (see cane and maelstrom). If they closed the gap a bit, things would be less dumb. Yep, and it made sense back in 2009 when ACs weren't great, but were so easy to fit that an AC ship made up DPS deficiencies in neuts, mobility etc. Then in 2009ish people complained about ACs without looking at ships as a complete package, CCP hit the power-creep button and we ended up with people genuinely expecting to be able to fit top-tier guns, MWD, dual med neuts and an 1600 plate on a Hurricane or Rupture...
Gypsio III Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 382	Posted - 2012.10.02 16:18:00 - [4] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: Gypsio III wrote: we ended up with people genuinely expecting to be able to fit top-tier guns, MWD, dual med neuts and an 1600 plate on a Hurricane or Rupture... That would be a pretty odd expectation given that the typical plated cane and rupture setups use 220s and the rupture uses small neuts on top of that. Yeah I could have phrased that better. Or, better still, not phrased it at all. Still... there is something of a problem with PG requirements of artillery and ACs, and I don't envy anyone trying to improve it.
Gypsio III Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 399	Posted - 2012.10.23 12:52:00 - [5] - Quote Bouh Revetoile wrote: The proposed Moa (four mid slot) will already be deadly for anything foolish enough to go on close range. A 5 mid slot Moa would just kill any cruiser coming too close. I haven't really been following this thread, but... given that the Moa will probably be the slowest cruiser (Maller?) and will have the worst damage projection, then surely it should have a significant advantage if it can actually get to optimal?
Gypsio III Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 400	Posted - 2012.10.24 09:31:00 - [6] - Quote MeBiatch wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Garviel Tarrant wrote: One question, do you have any plans about buffing Nos's? ATM they are largely considered worthless for ships larger then frigates. It would be nice if you could run guns + 1 repper reasonably under one nos. I have ideas, but no specific release plans attached to them yet. easy solution if your cap percentage is greater then what you are targeting then you only get 50% efficancy for cap consumption... then if you go less then 50% of the target you get 100% cap consumption rate for the mod... not a hard fix tbh... Terrible idea, really awful. All this does is turn Nos back into its old version, obsoleting neuts and leading to a "Nos on everything" effect even more pronounced than the current "neuts on everything". At least with current neuts you have to pay cap to activate them - your future Nos would simply be a free lunch. Or half a free lunch, anyway. The mechanic of Nos is perfect - it's an entirely defensive module that sits opposite the offensive neuts. Don't blur those lines. Instead, improve Nos by making it easier to fit and increase the drain amount. Say halve the PG and double the drain amount? It might also be worth introducing a module that gives resistance to neut/nos too. I know we have cap batteries that provide that effect, but cap batteries are far too hard to fit, both in terms of medslots and PG/CPU, and the resistance effect is far too small. A better neut/nos-resistance module would be a highslot mod that gave around a 30-40% reduction in neut/nos drain amount, subject to normal stacking penalties. This would give a useful degree of protection against neuting and work well in conjunction with Nos. There might be a problem with cap/supercaps fitting full racks of these neut-resist mods, but what use is, say, a triage Archon that has four neut-resisters fitted? It can't remote repair anything. Exchanging RR power for cap defense seems like it should be a reasonably self-balancing mechanism.
Gypsio III Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 400	Posted - 2012.10.24 12:50:00 - [7] - Quote Reppyk wrote: Gypsio III wrote: The mechanic of Nos is perfect That's why nobody (but some bears on high spare slots) are using them. Well, come up with a better mechanic then - and make sure that this mechanic doesn't intrude into Neuts' role. I don't think you can do this, so we're stuck with making the module more useful within the current mechanic. Anyway, I like Nos. They're fantastic for keeping tackle running under neuts, in fact I prefer a med Nos to an injector on a WH tackle Proteus. They're unpopular because they're too hard to fit and because the drain amount isn't enough. There's scope for cutting the cycle time too.
Gypsio III Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 400	Posted - 2012.10.24 16:15:00 - [8] - Quote Garviel Tarrant wrote: Suitonia wrote: Small NOS 3 second duration -> 2 second duration Medium NOS 6 second duration -> 4 second duration Large NOS 12 second duration -> 8 second duration. This is a 33% buff to current NOS, and now each one cycles 3x in the same time a neut cycles once. So much more effective at capping up. I like it.. Seems very sensible. I still think that PG requirements need altering though. Take the first Moa iteration here - a Moa with a med Nos in that utility high would have been able to keep tackle and possibly guns (depending on severity ofc) running under neuting. Given the ubiquity of neuts on Hurricanes and Ruptures, this is a useful ability, but is it really worth 175 MW? Would halving the PG of Nos be excessive? It's also odd that they take about 25% more CPU than neuts, I don't see how that can be justified.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.