EVE Search - Sticky:[Winter] Combat Cruisers

Check My IP Information

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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 12 post(s)
Reticle Sight Picture 23	Posted - 2012.10.03 15:51:00 - [331] - Quote Why aren't these threads advertised? No dev blog, no news item. I learned about it through eve news 24.
Kai'rae Saarkus Ganja Labs Exodus. 2	Posted - 2012.10.03 15:54:00 - [332] - Quote Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote: Quote: Major Killz Posted: 2012.10.03 15:19 The proposed Moa will do @tleast 500 damage p second with turrets alone, with faction navy ammunition. @ the moment it's only capable of 380 damage p second or something. That's a big leap in damage and I'm not going to go into how fast the ship is. The Cynabal, Vagabond and Deimos wont offer much over these ships in shield configuration anymore. The relm of speed has be increased significantly; with to many players, but here we are. Things are so skewed I have no idea where CCP is going with these changes. Doubt they do. The Interceptor class was ruined by there changes so far and that was a very popular class of ship. I assume these changes will do the same for heavy assault cruisers, with 1 or 2 exceptions (Zealot). One thing I did find interesting was something said in another thread "Why are so many tech 1 cruisers faster than destroyers?" Okay okay. We now know you are the mastertroll here. Moa with 500dps is a kiting victim for every Rupture. A blaster boat is a kiting victim for a Rupture. Moa's arn't exception in that regard.
Mizhir Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 114	Posted - 2012.10.03 16:06:00 - [333] - Quote The VC's wrote: Changing the Rupture at this stage is a mistake imo. Balance the other ships against it first, then tweak it after. Just like I suspect you are going to the Rifter. The Rupture is best kept as a reference/control. I think all Cruisers are supposed to be stronger than the Rupture currently is. So it need a buff aswell but it might turn out to be a too big buff. And about the Rifter. I don't think they had planned to buff it as their goal was to get all frigs up on Rifter level. Though I can't say if they are actually gonna buff it.
The VC's Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 29	Posted - 2012.10.03 16:13:00 - [334] - Quote Mizhir wrote: The VC's wrote: Changing the Rupture at this stage is a mistake imo. Balance the other ships against it first, then tweak it after. Just like I suspect you are going to the Rifter. The Rupture is best kept as a reference/control. I think all Cruisers are supposed to be stronger than the Rupture currently is. So it need a buff aswell but it might turn out to be a too big buff. And about the Rifter. I don't think they had planned to buff it as their goal was to get all frigs up on Rifter level. Though I can't say if they are actually gonna buff it. ]CCP Fozzie "We have fun things in mind for that minmatar shield boost bonus and tech one frigs. More information will come once we get the design a bit more polished." "To be clear, the shield boost bonus isn't for the Rifter. We have something special in mind for it. " Can't find the specific thread. And lets be honest. The Rifter still needs a bit of something. The buffing strategy on the first round of combat frigs was pretty spot on imho. I don't think the ruppy's going to be gimped if it's left out of this round.
Major Killz Chaotic Tranquility 75	Posted - 2012.10.03 16:32:00 - [335] - Quote Yeah! Guess what? A Stabber, Omen, Caracal, Bellicose, and shield-Thorax will alll victimized a Moa. congratulations with your astutue observation of something that's been going on in this game for a long time. There are ships that kite and those that can get kited. Amazing, grats for all of your informative input It's not like I haven't been stating over and over again what ships are capable of kiting and those who excel @ close range.
Major Killz Chaotic Tranquility 75	Posted - 2012.10.03 16:39:00 - [336] - Quote Anyway, I was thinking about using Reinforced Bulkheads II on the Vexor Use the midslot for dual propulsion and a tracking disruptor. Lol wanted to try something new v0v You know! I really believe CCP could make hull tanking alot more viable.
Kesthely Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings 16	Posted - 2012.10.03 17:08:00 - [337] - Quote Poor maller: No room for ewar, no drones, only viable for armor setup and such becomming the slowest ship of all cruisers, with no damage. No backup weapon systems means any ship fitting a tracking disruptor will be able 1 vs 1 it without danger of dying. In its current form it has no use in PVP and with the arbitrator and Omen changes i doubt anyone will use it for pve either. Strange Moa: You look so odd, you fly so odd. i don't get a good vibe of this ship, i think it should get a midslot more for either a high or low slot less. Damage to the Max Vexor 880 dps on a t1 cruiser, and still deliciously tough and reasonably fast. This thing will outperform most short range bc's till they get rebalanced Love it or hate it Rupture Hmmm personally i don't like it... i don't like to fly it, i don't ike to face it. Rupture and vexor look incredible. Moa and maller need a little bit more attention
Aphatasis Evoke. Ev0ke 3	Posted - 2012.10.03 17:12:00 - [338] - Quote Third time i mention this: Combat Cruiser: Maller -> T2: Devoter + Sacrilege Moa -> T2: Onyx + Eagle Rupture -> T2: Broadswoard + Muninn Vexor -> T2: Ishtar Attack Cruiser: Omen -> T2: Zealot Caracal -> T2: Cerberus Stabber -> T2: Vagabond Thorax -> T2: Phobos + Deimos Do u get what's wrong here? Again: Bad Idea! And: I Hope u "switched" the mineral-needs for the Thorax and Vexor if u stay with this idea! Thorax cost about 60% more in production than a Vexor. Edit: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1908100#post1908100 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1940848#post1940848
Wivabel Exanimo Inc Anger Management. 38	Posted - 2012.10.03 17:47:00 - [339] - Quote Aphatasis wrote: Third time i mention this: Combat Cruiser: Maller -> T2: Devoter + Sacrilege Moa -> T2: Onyx + Eagle Rupture -> T2: Broadswoard + Muninn Vexor -> T2: Ishtar Attack Cruiser: Omen -> T2: Zealot Caracal -> T2: Cerberus Stabber -> T2: Vagabond Thorax -> T2: Phobos + Deimos Do u get what's wrong here? Again: Bad Idea! And: I Hope u "switched" the mineral-needs for the Thorax and Vexor if u stay with this idea! Thorax cost about 60% more in production than a Vexor. Edit: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1908100#post1908100 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1940848#post1940848 It makes more sense to have drone boats as the slower tankier versions of ships and blaster boats the faster gankier ships. They will adjust build costs just like they have done with the frigs. If you like to pew small gang style check us out.-á http://exanimo.enjin.com/page/150364/recruitment-á
Harvey James Prospero's Sight 53	Posted - 2012.10.03 17:56:00 - [340] - Quote the vexor does seem to have the wrong priorities really it needs a rethink.

JamesCLK Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners 195	Posted - 2012.10.03 17:57:00 - [341] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: If the thorax is the 'attack' cruiser and the vexor is the 'combat' one, why are their speeds so similar? For shield tanked setups with no speed-affecting mods, the thorax MWDs at 1.99 km/s while the vexor does 1.91. That's hardly a decisive difference. The Vexor has a lower mass than the Thorax, ergo it gains more from a prop mod, ergo mass needs to be re-balanced as much as the rest of the stats. Unfortunately, ship mass seems to be one of those overlooked stats. Essentially, the 20 m/s base speed advantage of the Thorax over the Vexor isn't enough to overcome the increase in speed that a Vexor gains from a MWD compared to a Thorax due to ship mass. This is also the reason why the Vexor will be roughly as fast as the Rupture post change. I'd like to see Gallente ships have the lowest ship mass across the board, so that they are the fastest ships under the use of a prop mod, but don't accelerate or orbit as fast as say, the Minmatar. It would provide good synergy with Hybrid weapons without dethroning the Minmatar.
Wivabel Exanimo Inc Anger Management. 38	Posted - 2012.10.03 18:20:00 - [342] - Quote Sure many people love the 800 paper dps that the proposed ship will do shield ganked with void and a 2-2-1 one drone setup. 1900 m/s is pretty nice but you just are not going to be able to consistantly apply that DPS. Without tracking enhancers null will have a hard time reaching far outside scram range and ogres hammers and hobs don't apply damage well without webs. Inside scram range your tank is rubish. A shield Deimos has a better tank and DPS, it still wtf dies inside scram range. Shield Myrms and Domis get wtf barbecue DPS still Nobody flies em. I see this ship being more effective armor tanked well atleast at applying dps. Shield tanked it will fall more inline with other cruisers because of damage projection. It actually may be able to armor tank and not be totally gimped. Stop trying to pre gimp the ship because of EFT theoretical DPS and perceived ability. If you like to pew small gang style check us out.-á http://exanimo.enjin.com/page/150364/recruitment-á
Ruareve Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective 87	Posted - 2012.10.03 18:36:00 - [343] - Quote 4 mids on the Moa is bad. It needs 5 minimum. I'd drop the utility high and put it in the mid slot. While some argue the high slot has value I'm of the opinion I'd rather have my utility in the mids and drop some dps if I want a neut ship. Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/
I'm Down Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities 110	Posted - 2012.10.03 19:04:00 - [344] - Quote MOA is highly unoriginal and defeats the purpose of Caldari rail boats. I would sugguest the following to make it more original: 10% Optimal per level 5% resistance per level 6/5/2 slot layout: 6 Turrets +250 Powergrid This allows the ship to get a damage boost w/o requiring the ship bonuses to change, and it gives it a more desired mid slot layout for range/tank boosting depending on the build you go. It keeps it's damage boost for the most part as 6 turrets would be 20% damage boost, but does not lose it's optimal bonus, which is the whole allure of Rails.
Major Killz Chaotic Tranquility 76	Posted - 2012.10.03 19:40:00 - [345] - Quote I too want Caldari ships to go back to thier optimal range bonus. Including the Merlin. CCP seems intent on abandoning the optimal range bonus to overlap bonuses with Gallente for some reason. Gallente have always focused on damage bonuses for thier turret ships and Caldari focused on optimal range.
Alara IonStorm 3243	Posted - 2012.10.03 19:45:00 - [346] - Quote I'm Down wrote: 10% Optimal per level 5% resistance per level 6/5/2 slot layout: 6 Turrets +250 Powergrid This allows the ship to get a damage boost w/o requiring the ship bonuses to change, and it gives it a more desired mid slot layout for range/tank boosting depending on the build you go. It loses said Dmg boost with only have 1 slot sans Dmg Control for Dmg while current Moa has 3. What is more it has 1 less slot then current and 1 less then the Rupture and Maller withou the large Drone Bay of the Vexor. If anything it should have a third low.
I'm Down Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities 110	Posted - 2012.10.03 20:32:00 - [347] - Quote Nah, giving it 3 lows and 4 mids would make it too much tank and gank with the option for 2 Mags and a DCU. Choice needs to be made, 2 Mags or 1 Mag/1 DCU b/c with 6 turrets, the blaster fit would be way too much tank and gank for that combo. giving it 2 lows with a 6/5/2 layout allows it to do decent rail damage/range and still solid blaster damage up to 501 with void/perfect skills... all the while giving it unique caldari bonuses and not just making it a shield thorax. My choice is to do what the devs seem incapable of, make unique ships with actual choices rather than stale ships that all look identical on paper.
Alara IonStorm 3243	Posted - 2012.10.03 20:40:00 - [348] - Quote I'm Down wrote: Nah, giving it 3 lows and 4 mids would make it too much tank and gank with the option for 2 Mags and a DCU. Choice needs to be made, 2 Mags or 1 Mag/1 DCU b/c with 6 turrets, the blaster fit would be way too much tank and gank for that combo. Noooooo... It really would not. I'm Down wrote: giving it 2 lows with a 6/5/2 layout allows it to do decent rail damage/range and still solid blaster damage up to 501 with void/perfect skills... all the while giving it unique caldari bonuses and not just making it a shield thorax. Your decent rail Dmg is less Dmg then a Thorax does with Rails. 304 Dmg CM Antimatter with 250mm eating all the Grid and that is with no DCU. So no your Moa would never be Rail Fit.
I'm Down Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities 110	Posted - 2012.10.03 20:42:00 - [349] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: I'm Down wrote: Nah, giving it 3 lows and 4 mids would make it too much tank and gank with the option for 2 Mags and a DCU. Choice needs to be made, 2 Mags or 1 Mag/1 DCU b/c with 6 turrets, the blaster fit would be way too much tank and gank for that combo. Noooooo... It really would not. I'm Down wrote: giving it 2 lows with a 6/5/2 layout allows it to do decent rail damage/range and still solid blaster damage up to 501 with void/perfect skills... all the while giving it unique caldari bonuses and not just making it a shield thorax. Your decent rail Dmg is less Dmg then a Thorax does with Rails. 304 Dmg CM Antimatter with 250mm eating all the Grid and that is with no DCU. So no your Moa would never be Rail Fit. you didn't see the massive PG boost I gave the ship? and of course the rax does slightly more damage, but at much shittier optimals, hence, tradeoffs.
Alara IonStorm 3243	Posted - 2012.10.03 20:45:00 - [350] - Quote I'm Down wrote: you didn't see the massive PG boost I gave the ship? I did. It would be enough to fit now that I remember the engineering bonus but would still have terrible DPS.

Alticus C Bear University of Caille Gallente Federation 85	Posted - 2012.10.03 21:01:00 - [351] - Quote Drone Speeds Valk II 3150m/s Infiltrator II 2850m/s Vespa II 2400m/s Hammerhead II 2100m/s Most of the cruisers on overheat, especially the attack cruisers are going to be able to outrun Hammerheads and probably Vespas as the medium sized drone weapon system do these speeds need adjusting in line with the new cruisers?
Harvey James Prospero's Sight 57	Posted - 2012.10.03 21:04:00 - [352] - Quote Alticus C Bear wrote: Drone Speeds Valk II 3150m/s Infiltrator II 2850m/s Vespa II 2400m/s Hammerhead II 2100m/s Most of the cruisers on overheat, especially the attack cruisers are going to be able to outrun Hammerheads and probably Vespas as the medium sized drone weapon system do these speeds need adjusting in line with the new cruisers? Amongst a million and one things they need to do to drones
Alara IonStorm 3243	Posted - 2012.10.03 21:06:00 - [353] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Alticus C Bear wrote: Valk II 3150m/s Infiltrator II 2850m/s Vespa II 2400m/s Hammerhead II 2100m/s Amongst a million and one things they need to do to drones For starters what are these.
Omnathious Deninard Extrinsic Operations 205	Posted - 2012.10.03 21:51:00 - [354] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: Harvey James wrote: Alticus C Bear wrote: Valk II 3150m/s Infiltrator II 2850m/s Vespa II 2400m/s Hammerhead II 2100m/s Amongst a million and one things they need to do to drones For starters what are these. Check out the link in my signature, it has a lot of "things" that would help drones Ideas for Dorne Improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1658683#post1658683 Updated 9/21/12
I'm Down Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities 110	Posted - 2012.10.03 21:52:00 - [355] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: I'm Down wrote: you didn't see the massive PG boost I gave the ship? I did. It would be enough to fit now that I remember the engineering bonus it would not eat up the grid but it would still have terrible DPS. it would be 5% less dps than the thorax w/o drones.... i don't get your definition of terrible dps
Alara IonStorm 3243	Posted - 2012.10.03 22:02:00 - [356] - Quote I'm Down wrote: it would be 5% less dps than the thorax w/o drones.... i don't get your definition of terrible dps That is an incredibly vague statement, like you think I have a psychic window into your preferred Thorax Fit vs your Moa fit.
Aglais Liberation Army BricK sQuAD. 107	Posted - 2012.10.03 22:28:00 - [357] - Quote I'm Down wrote: 6/5/2 slow railgun ship with no damage bonus and fitting problems ...I can't even. I literally cannot even BEGIN to fathom how utterly terrible this idea is. A cruiser? With TWO LOW SLOTS? WITH THE LOWEST DPS WEAPONS IN THE GAME? ARE YOU HIGH? Please, give me a hit of whatever you're on so I can expand my mind to comprehend the nature of your "improvement" here. The ONLY real option for slot shuffling for the Moa is 5/5/4. If you get rid of a lowslot you're going to make it far less capable when compared to the other three combat cruisers in terms of damage application, grid improving or mobility improvement (which the Moa will need ALOT if it wants to even think about fighting in close range). All of you people are also getting rather sidetracked by thinking that the Moa is utterly banned from using Blasters despite both of these weapons being hybrid turrets. A 5/5/4 Moa has easily the most adaptability for fitting, meaning you can easily build a decent long range or short range cruiser. Another possible but incredibly unlikely option. By default, give the entirety of the Merlin, Cormorant, Moa, Ferox, Rokh line the benefit of, by default, having a 5% bonus to shield resistance per level built into the hull (meaning that by default they have the +25% resists). Then give them both a 10% optimal range to hybrid turrets per level of Caldari X, and a 5% damage bonus as well. This, in addition to the Moa having a 5/5/4 layout. You have a solid combat cruiser that adheres to Caldari design principles. Naturally strong shield tank, better application of damage at range, and, thanks to that damage bonus there, maybe they'll actually hurt when using railguns, who knows.
Alara IonStorm 3243	Posted - 2012.10.03 22:35:00 - [358] - Quote Aglais wrote: By default, give the entirety of the Merlin, Cormorant, Moa, Ferox, Rokh line the benefit of, by default, having a 5% bonus to shield resistance built into the hull. Then give them both a 10% optimal range to hybrid turrets per level of Caldari X, and a 5% damage bonus as well. This, in addition to the Moa having a 5/5/4 layout. You have a solid combat cruiser that adheres to Caldari design principles. Naturally strong shield tank, better application of damage at range, and, thanks to that damage bonus there, maybe they'll actually hurt when using railguns, who knows. I would prefer they just Naga the bonuses. Moa with 5 Mids would have an acceptable tank without the extra resists. Same with a 6th mid Ferox and 7th mid 4 low Rokh. They don't really need the extra resists to fight in the close range, but would be better as a long range boat as it should be. Preferred Moa design. 6 Highs 6 Turrets 5 Mids 3 Lows Opt Bonus + Dmg Bonus / No Drones / Lower Medium LR Gun Fitting and Cap Use to around Short Range Weapons.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 52	Posted - 2012.10.03 22:43:00 - [359] - Quote Aglais wrote: and, thanks to that damage bonus there, maybe they'll actually hurt when using railguns, who knows. My moa already does 300 dps at 20km and has 30k ehp + hot resists. It would actually be really good if cruiser gangs were hip and its cap less bad.
I'm Down Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities 110	Posted - 2012.10.03 23:34:00 - [360] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: I'm Down wrote: it would be 5% less dps than the thorax w/o drones.... i don't get your definition of terrible dps That is an incredibly vague statement, like you think I have a psychic window into your preferred Thorax Fit vs your Rail Moa fit. It's a statement based on base statistics of 6 guns w/o a bonus vs 5 with a 25%. Basic math is hard?



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.