EVE Search - [Balance] Moa proposal

All Channels

Ships and Modules

[Balance] Moa proposal

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
welsh wizard Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.09.08 17:04:00 - [1] New slot layout: 5 highs (5 turret hardpoints instead of 4) 5 mids 4 lows And a further 10m3 drone bay to make up for the damage lost from its 6th high. This way it can utilise its bonuses across its high slot range and mount an acceptable tank. A 5:6:3 slot layout is worth considering too. What does everyone think?
Blind Man Angel Deep Corporation	Posted - 2007.09.08 17:06:00 - [2] they gotta so something, nobody uses it (or the eagle)
welsh wizard Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.09.08 17:19:00 - [3] Edited by: welsh wizard on 08/09/2007 17:19:52 Not sure why I bothered posting this with the other thread going tbh. Vain effort to get noticed by making the topic title a bit different :/ Be interesting to know how many of these threads are even looked at by anyone who has the facility to make a difference.... :P
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.09.08 17:54:00 - [4] Originally by: welsh wizard New slot layout: 5 highs (5 turret hardpoints instead of 4) 5 mids 4 lows And a further 10m3 drone bay to make up for the damage lost from its 6th high. This way it can utilise its bonuses across its high slot range and mount an acceptable tank. A 5:6:3 slot layout is worth considering too. What does everyone think? I think 6/4/4 with 5 turrets and a 25 cube drone bay is enough. That will put its DPS in the electron/ham setup to 486 and make training it easier. It will also increase DPS in the long range by 25%. More mids and you risk making the thing an ewar demon while it does its thing, or giving it an absolultly ridiculous passive tank. Since it has got to have PG to for 5x250s, you would be able to run that 468 DPS setup i mentioned above with two LSEs. It would tank between 35 and 86 DPS permanently with just a DC while having 27,000 effective hit points[to compare, a Maller with a 1600 rt plate and a DC has 26,000 effective hit points, but is slower, and does a whole lot less DPS]
Lisento Slaven Amarr Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.08 18:21:00 - [5] I say leave the slot layout as it is but decrease the shield recharge time to make it a more viable passive tanked cruiser. --- Put in space whales!
Jan Ars The Thrill Kill Clique	Posted - 2007.09.08 18:24:00 - [6] But it's damage is just so paltry. Increasing the passive tank (unless it's rather substantial) won't turn this puppy into a war dog. Er, in my opinion. I still feel it needs at least one more Turret point and one more Mid slot (at the cost of either Highs or Lows) to be competitive. Due to the boni, it seems like the Moa doesn't seem to understand itself. I don't know. . . ECM Specialist
Lisento Slaven Amarr Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.08 18:35:00 - [7] I think any ship with a tanking bonus + sniper role doesn't understand itself. If the moa could get a much better shield recharge so that it can forego a booster all together, it already has a resist bonus. Would be nice if you could put on 1 - 2 extenders, then a scrambler + whatever and that would be an "ok" fit for it. Any ship with a tanking bonus should be in a position to use a scrambler and that means this ship really only has 3 mids (speaking from a low-sec pvp point of view). Anyone want to get a Moa fleet together and start killing people in Amamake? --- Put in space whales!
Grant Miller	Posted - 2007.09.08 18:40:00 - [8] in addition to all this, can we get a petition going to change the Moa graphic so it doesnt look like it was based off a Lego?
Jan Ars The Thrill Kill Clique	Posted - 2007.09.08 18:45:00 - [9] Originally by: Lisento Slaven Anyone want to get a Moa fleet together and start killing people in Amamake? I just bought one to test it out. I'm down. I call sniper! (my tanking skills suck, even with the bonuses). ECM Specialist
Jhagiti Tyran	Posted - 2007.09.08 18:46:00 - [10] If the Moa has an extra turret what about the Ferox? surely that deserves 1 extra turret and PG/CPU to run it.
Jan Ars The Thrill Kill Clique	Posted - 2007.09.08 18:49:00 - [11] Originally by: Jhagiti Tyran If the Moa has an extra turret what about the Ferox? surely that deserves 1 extra turret and PG/CPU to run it. Absolutely. I'd love a sniping BC. Would be a nice change of pace for the Caldari. Eh, how about 1 turret point, 5 Turret/Missile points, 1 Missile point. Read that carefully, it's still 6 turrets/1 missile, or 6 missiles/1 turret. A slight change. Just a thought. ECM Specialist
welsh wizard Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.09.09 00:42:00 - [12] Edited by: welsh wizard on 09/09/2007 00:42:03 Nah the Ferox needs 7 turret hardpoints and 2 or none missile hardpoints (7 total still). It's a gunboat, it should be used as one. Even with 7 turrets it still won't come anywhere close to the Brutix in terms of damage and its range isn't that great with a typical sniping fit.
Chainsaw Plankton	Posted - 2007.09.09 00:50:00 - [13] think i blew up an armor tanked moa in like 4-5 volleys with a drake... did i mention my missile skills are crap. wonder how the think is shield tanked. although any sort of shield tank ruins the idea of using web/scram.... extra turret, extra mid, and a bit more pg would be decent. either - a low or a high
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.09.09 02:31:00 - [14] I'd like to see the resist bonus swapped for a tracking bonus (on top of an extra turret). That'd help immensely when T2 ammo is loaded, same for the eagle. I was in a fight tonight, where no less than 3 eagles were shooting at my standard T2 fit crow at their optimal range, and between them, they landed a single hit, when i went straight towards them. When the specialised sniping anti-support ships can't hit the support, you know something is wrong.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.09.09 05:56:00 - [15] Originally by: welsh wizard Edited by: welsh wizard on 09/09/2007 00:42:03 Nah the Ferox needs 7 turret hardpoints and 2 or none missile hardpoints (7 total still). It's a gunboat, it should be used as one. Even with 7 turrets it still won't come anywhere close to the Brutix in terms of damage and its range isn't that great with a typical sniping fit. The real trick is comparing it to compare it to the HAC snipers. A 7 Turret Ferox will outsnipe all the battlecruisers pretty handily. A 7 Turret Ferox wont outsnipe the HAC snipers fairly easily[5 guns+2 dmg bonus=8.33 effective guns + 1 optimal, Ferox = 7 guns + 1 optimal], but still puts in in about the same area as the Zealot and Muninn[Assuming the Zealot gets 5 guns] In the close range it means about 100 more DPS for the ferox. The real issue is that all the tier 1 BCs need to be loooked at, not just the Ferox /shameless self promotion.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.09.09 05:58:00 - [16] Originally by: Elmicker I'd like to see the resist bonus swapped for a tracking bonus (on top of an extra turret). That'd help immensely when T2 ammo is loaded, same for the eagle. I was in a fight tonight, where no less than 3 eagles were shooting at my standard T2 fit crow at their optimal range, and between them, they landed a single hit, when i went straight towards them. When the specialised sniping anti-support ships can't hit the support, you know something is wrong. Only something wrong with their setups, unless you were flying a snaked out interceptor, but then again, speed mod stacking is another broken issue
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.09.09 06:04:00 - [17] Originally by: Goumindong Only something wrong with their setups, unless you were flying a snaked out interceptor, but then again, speed mod stacking is another broken issue Yay for reading. Originally by: me my standard T2 fit crow 8.6km/s T2 fit crow. Not a single implant in sight. I was 190km from the trio of drakes, laughing at them as they tried to hit me.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.09.09 06:31:00 - [18] Edited by: Goumindong on 09/09/2007 06:31:57 Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 09/09/2007 06:07:12 Originally by: Goumindong Only something wrong with their setups, unless you were flying a snaked out interceptor, but then again, speed mod stacking is another broken issue Yay for reading. Originally by: me my standard T2 fit crow 8.6km/s T2 fit crow. Not a single implant in sight. I was 190km from the trio of eagles, laughing at them as they tried to hit me. edit for early morning total balls up :P A crow wont go 8.6km without polycarbons.. An eagle with tech 1/faction ammo will hit you well to about 6-7km/s transversal. If they werent using tech 1/faction ammo, its their own fault. They ought to have been hitting you about 50-60% of the time with 8.6km/s trans, 165 sig, and tech 1/faction ammo.
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.09.09 06:56:00 - [19] Originally by: Goumindong A crow wont go 8.6km without polycarbons.. Wow. Your genius is really shining to the fore this morning. Quote: An eagle with tech 1/faction ammo will hit you well to about 6-7km/s transversal. Except T1/Faction ammo won't hit effectively at 190km. Even if through some stroke of luck it does, it'll be an "ooh, that tickles" moment. Dropping to DG Iron from spike is approximately a 30% DPS loss. Operating in your falloff is a further dent in your DPS. You're actually plummeting quickly towards the dps dealt by the crow they're shooting at.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.09.09 07:22:00 - [20] Tech 1 ammo on an eagle has an optimal range of 183km with 15km falloff. At 190km, an eagle will hit, assuming no tracking problems, about 90% of the time. So yea, tech 1/faction ammo it will hit just fine. Also, keep in mind, that tech 2 ammo hits so infrequently at these velocities that a tracking bonus would be wasted. But it would make the ship even worse in the short range[where it needs help] 3 Eagles using CN Iron will kill a crow at 190km assuming 165 sig, and 8.6km/s transversal in about in 10.8 seconds give or take locking time and adjusting for hit quality problems dealing with tracking an inty at such velocities.
Spaced Skunk D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.09 08:23:00 - [21] Originally by: welsh wizard Edited by: welsh wizard on 08/09/2007 17:19:52 Not sure why I bothered posting this with the other thread going tbh. Vain effort to get noticed by making the topic title a bit different :/ Be interesting to know how many of these threads are even looked at by anyone who has the facility to make a difference.... :P Although clearly Caldari rail boats need to be looked at you shouldnt dilute the threads welsh. Keep your 'Caldari Problem' thread bumped, like the Deimos one was, that thread goes over the key points that conclude why Caldari in PvP need tweaking. Keep your thread in your signature, and keep it bumped up.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy	Posted - 2007.09.09 12:02:00 - [22] I wouldn't mind - ferox and eagle would still need a 6th turret though... What is crucial to the Moa is the damn 5th medslot... and if we got rid of the split weapon system It would only strengthen the Moa. 6 medslots should be a no... Im also still in favor of 6/5/3 layout with minimum 5 guns. - I'm a nice guy!! MOA is NOT UGLY!!! It's A FREAK SHOW!!!!
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.09.09 12:33:00 - [23] Now Moa : 6(4\|2)/4/4, 15m bay Eagle : 6(4\|2)/5/4, 0m bay Ferox : 7(5\|5)/5/4, 25m bay Vulture : 7(5\|5)/6/4, 25m bay Should be Moa : 6(6\|2)/5/4, 0m bay Eagle : 7(7\|2)/6/4, 0m bay Ferox : 7(7\|3)/5/4, 0m bay Vulture : 8(8\|3)/6/4, 0m bay _ EVE GOLDEN RULES \| Char creation guide \| Stack-nerfing explained
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.09.09 13:41:00 - [24] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 09/09/2007 12:43:07 Now Moa : 6(4\|2)/4/4, 15m bay Eagle : 6(4\|2)/5/4, 0m bay Ferox : 7(5\|5)/5/4, 25m bay Vulture : 7(5\|5)/6/4, 25m bay Should be Moa : 6(6\|2)/5/4, 0m bay Eagle : 7(7\|2)/5/4, 0m bay Ferox : 7(7\|3)/5/4, 25m bay Vulture : 8(7\|1)/6/5, 0m bay What the **** is wrong with you?
Lisento Slaven Amarr Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.09 14:03:00 - [25] Moa should be passive shield recharge tanker. Think about it. Ferox is...only fitting that the Moa can be too! I have never used one so I do not know what numbers would be appropriate, but there HAS to be some reason the current layout is "acceptable" unless the devs are secretly looking at it behind the curtain. Today I will buy a moa, tech 1 it up with rails, scram, 3 damps, and go out to murder people in low-sec. WHO'S WITH ME?! --- Put in space whales!
Spaced Skunk D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.09 14:34:00 - [26] Originally by: Lisento Slaven Moa should be passive shield recharge tanker. Think about it. Ferox is...only fitting that the Moa can be too! I have never used one so I do not know what numbers would be appropriate, but there HAS to be some reason the current layout is "acceptable" unless the devs are secretly looking at it behind the curtain. Today I will buy a moa, tech 1 it up with rails, scram, 3 damps, and go out to murder people in low-sec. WHO'S WITH ME?! Passive Moa is a bad idea. Guns use cap unlike missiles.
Lisento Slaven Amarr Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.09 17:33:00 - [27] Originally by: Spaced Skunk Passive Moa is a bad idea. Guns use cap unlike missiles. Which is why if you COULD passive tank a moa (I'm calling for a boost to its recharge time so it is viable) your cap can be devoted to other things. I don't understand what you said has to do with what's going on. Moa is a gunship not a missile ship...it has missiles but that isn't its focus. Passive moa would saaave cap since it wouldn't have to use a shield booster. --- Put in space whales!
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy	Posted - 2007.09.09 17:52:00 - [28] Im sure they are looking at them... I believe the initial plan was to create a hybrid platform with guns and some missiles as support. The problem with that is the moa's lack of medslots (shieldtanking gunboats need more meds than a missile ship like caracal) and the long range gunbonus only being applied to 4 turrets while the missiles serve none or little purpose. Giving the Moa very little versatility, very little dps and almost no role in pvp unless you are sadistic bringing that low dps into a fleet... It's a ship being pulled into multiple directions (sniper bonus but only 4 guns and missiles with lower range, shield bonus but only 4 medslots, 4 lowslots for what?, 6 hi-slots but split and no real bonus... - I'm a nice guy!! MOA is NOT UGLY!!! It's A FREAK SHOW!!!!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.09.09 18:15:00 - [29] 4 low slots for 3 damage mods and a damage control. 4 meds for doing whatever you want. Is the arbitrator a bad ship? It has 4 meds and 4 lows too, and it has less highs and less turret/missile hard points. The answer is clearly no, any problem with the moa are not steming from its med/low slot layout, these are fairly standard for a cruiser, you do not need more meds to tank than an armor tanking ships does, what you do need is some creativity and understanding of how your ship interacts in a gang. The Moas problem is that is simply doesnt do enough DPS with its primary wepon system. Many cruisers have this problem[Omen(needs another turret), Maller(needs drones or a different weapon system), Caracal(needs another low slot, and some mroe drones)], and fixing it is fairly easily without completly upsetting balance by messing with the slots. Despite what people seem to think, passive shield tanks are fairly strong even when they are not recharge based. We do not need to make the Moa into anything but competent. Looking at the ships at the moment, the Thorax, Vexor, and Rupture are the only ships that can put out over 400 DPS with the kind of passive tank the eagle can fit. A thorax fitted as 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Reactor Control Unit II Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Stasis Webifier II Heavy Electron Blaster II Heavy Electron Blaster II Heavy Electron Blaster II Heavy Electron Blaster II Heavy Electron Blaster II [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] does 510 DPS and has 22,000 hit points, travels 1400m/s The Moa hit 415, with 19,900 hit points, going 1450m/s. Similar with this Vexor: 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Reactor Control Unit II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive [empty med slot] [empty med slot] Heavy Electron Blaster II Heavy Electron Blaster II Heavy Electron Blaster II Light Neutron Blaster II [empty high slot] [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] 19,800 hit points, 524 dps[2 ogres, 2 hammerhead, 1 hobgoblin], and goes 1300m/s. This rupture with 21,300 hit points, 443 DPS and 1600m/s 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Reactor Control Unit II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Dual 180mm AutoCannon II Dual 180mm AutoCannon II Dual 180mm AutoCannon II Dual 180mm AutoCannon II [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] ---------------------- And in the long range, the Moa is very strong against these ships. But it is still subpar, pretty much only doing that gank/LSE setup competently in the short range. Is this bad? No, but it needs a bit of a boost. If you simply give it the extra turret it wont have really any problems, not only will it be the king of the roost for range, but it will at least compete in the "big ol" passive gank setups in terms of tank and gank.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.09.10 07:37:00 - [30] Edited by: Akita T on 10/09/2007 07:38:34 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Akita T Now Moa : 6(4\|2)/4/4, 15m bay Eagle : 6(4\|2)/5/4, 0m bay Ferox : 7(5\|5)/5/4, 25m bay Vulture : 7(5\|5)/6/4, 25m bay Should be Moa : 6(6\|2)/5/4, 0m bay Eagle : 7(7\|2)/5/4, 0m bay Ferox : 7(7\|3)/5/4, 25m bay Vulture : 8(7\|1)/6/5, 0m bay What the **** is wrong with you? I don't know, but I think you will definetely try to make some guesses. Both Moa and Vulture don't need a dronebay either, just like the Eagle. So, they lose it. Simple logic. You don't keep what you don't need, and you get something useful instead. On top of the "sorely needed" turret slots addition, they either get an extra turret slot (Eagle) or an extra slot (Moa mid, Vulture low) while still keeping the midcount>lowcount Caldari rule, to somewhat compensate for the "missing" drone bay's potential. Now, let's see... out of the 975 MW and 450 tf a Moa can have... say 1023.75 MW with a PG8 implant... ...try to fit 6x 250mm Rail II, that's already 1274.4 MW and 198 tf... and that with AWU level 5 ! 3 damage mods, that's another 90 tf and 3 MW. Trying 2x LSE-II ? Well, another 247.5 MW and 92tf at max skills. You can easily limit the fiting choices on the Moa (especially the passive tank choices) via CPU/grid limits. And really, the exact same argument stands for the Eagle too. The Ferox, I don't see a problem, the only change presented was -2 launchers +2 turrets. As for the Vulture... almost the same as with the Ferox, but more restrictive (-4 launchers, +2 turrets), and an extra highslot. Not that you'd fit a Vulture THAT often with 7 guns and one launcher instead of 5 guns and 3 gang mods, but the possibility exists. So, yeah, what the bleep is wrong with me ? I can't see anything fundamentally wrong. You tell me. _ EVE GOLDEN RULES \| Char creation guide \| Stack-nerfing explained

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.