Tech 3 -cruisers and the Phantasm would like a word with you…
6 Likes
Aah, the agenda crew arrived.
Answer me this, why not swap a low slot into a mid instead?
Muninn has 6 lows. Plenty to spare without breaking the high slot utility.
You seem to be projecting your own agenda onto others. Thats not healthy.
To be fair, i would have preferred CCP drop a gun and increase damage bonuses. Then youd have 4 guns (1 utility), 4 mids and 6 lows.
Moving a low to a mid gives both a poor shield tank and a poor armor tank. Muninn should be flexible, like a rupture, in either configuration. It needs 6 lows to fill the 2 massive resist holes if going armor. For shield, you have loads of room for damage, application, fitting.
5 Likes
That works for me.
Lets be real. Despite the supposed shield/armor split on Minnie ships for a “surprise” in solo/small gang, no minnie ship is bonused for armor.
Moving a low to to mid on Muninn just helps its native T2 bonus profile in shields at best, and gives them more mid versatility at worst.
TLDR: Armor tanked Minnie ships are a meme. They wreck the speed/sig bonus native to the ships and arent a “thing” except ad a lame surprise.
1 Like
This is a likely needed change. Good reco.
I wasn’t aware that 500MN HICs were an issue. you can really only do it with the broadsword, and with that fit, you’re squishy as all hell. pretty easy to fix, i think. just remove stacking from the generators. heck, i wasn’t even aware that they stacked.
1 Like
That stacking is what wormholers use to close mass-critted wormholes.
1 Like
The intended price tag for a HAC was set at 40 million.
2 Likes
O_o slightly different from 300m hull haha
3 Likes
The Phobos is probably the best at that. The others are better at pinning supers.
All HICs work for closing wormholes. The reason why you use them because fitting 3-4 warp disruption generators and activating them will make your ship weigh less than a frigate… the idea is that you are very unlike to be on the wrong side when the hole closes.
Why are you telling me this? I have closed holes with a corpmates Phobos many years ago.
If you assume I don’t know how wormholes work, you are mistaken. Now apologize.
I think the fact that you are opting into nerfing the Mach & Ferox is great, cause they are clearly the twho by far strongest ships in the game for larger scale warfare at the moment.
However I find that the changed you are proposing for this patch are not really going to change anything.
Lets take them seperately to make it easier:
Ferox:
The reduction to PG / CPU, has a minimal impact on the fitting on the Ferox for a general mwd doctrine, its easy to circumvent this nerf by simply swapping a Magnetic Field Stabilizer (basic fit has 3 and 1 DC2), for a Power Diagnostic System II.
This does indeed “nerf” the ferox’ damage capacity with exactly 60 dps (assuming faction antimatter, max skills etc. and only turret damage), but considering these fleets would consist of more than 50+ ships in general, the overall impact of this reduction is miniscule. This mod change would also make the ship even more tanky than it already is.
My thought to make the ship more balanced would be to do the change you are proposing already, but add a nerf to the 10% optimal range per skill level the ship gets. This nerf I feel is neccesary cause at the current state, the Ferox out matches even a Tengu in range, and has equivalent dps, and considering the price tag scales 1:7ish its rather unbalanced.
Machariel
I like the idea of swapping the module slot from low to mid, but I feel it makes the ship even more of a swiss army knife, since now the ship can have 4-5 ewar modules, making any opposing fleet that isn’t another macharien fleet entirely useless due to the ability to ewar the vast majority of the other fleet to oblivion.
This will stagnate the meta even more than it is, meaning we will see more and more of the “coward” fleets of MJD’ing Rokhs / Ravens, where the fight will only last a few minutes & then one fleet gives up cause it realizes it can’t beat the other fleet, and there won’t be many larger brawls anymore.
I find that just removing the low & not inserting a mid slot would be way more balanced, since the ship is still extremely valid due to the general range, warp speed, alpha & remaining tank all still being in very good places.
Could also make comments on the munin, but that should get its very own post cause I have alot of comments on it 
Post it here because here it will get heard where as on a new post it will drown in a sea of spam.
The extra mid allows it to shield tank as well thou mixing it up, also with an extra mid it will be even more cpu tight than before, I don’t think it will be able to fit an extra ewar mod as those a very cpu intensive.
1 Like
Wasn’t gonna say it myself because it just makes more work for me, but… yeah. Our fit change can swap either of 2 modules over to the PDS, and then the Ferox is tankier than it was.
The Mach changes reduce the armor tank, but a shield tank’s more viable. It’s not horrible. Combined with the Upwell changes, it’s going to see more battleships become viable. With the change to locking range, there’s a lot of options opened up that aren’t immediately apparent.
1 Like
But by going shield you would trade ewar capability for like 30k ehp.
So in a brawl the Armor would still by far beat the shield fleet simply due to the swiss armyness of armor mach
You would, but that’s offset by the increased damage you get from the damage and tracking mods in the lows. And in any fight of any scale, there’s going to be an EWAR group like our FYFs or the ubiquotous ECM Burst Claws. So relying on your main dps ship for ewar isn’t really needed.
1 Like
but its so much more efficient, consider a 100mach V 100mach fight at say 80km.
500 tracking disruptors with range scripts loaded hits your fleet (lets assume they hit 60% of your fleet evenly.
Thats like 7-8 disruptors per ship, and your turrets (due to not having tracking computers to boost range cuz shield) will now not be able to hit anything above 20-30km, and you loose machs leaving you at a disadvantageous scenario instantly.
Your options are now as follows
- Warping off could mean you loose objective, or some of your ships could get caught meaning you loose more mainline ships by doing this.
- Burn in to get in range to apply damage and start trading. - at this point the enemy can swap from range disruption to tracking disruption, meaning your application will be vastly worse & since you are shield your sig is enormously larger & are therefore easier to hit again.
This means you will be trading worse since your enemy will apply perfectly and you will not.
100 v 100? Sounds like 2 sides that failed to bring more than the other guy. Even fights, fair fights… they’re a myth at best, evidence of failure at worst. If those are the fights you’re balancing for, you’re balancing badly.
1 Like
Its a theoretical scenario to compare the ship on a even basis.
so you’re arguing that shield is better if you blob the other fleet?
Ofc if you got 250 machs and the enemy has 100 shield is better but the argument is also mute…
But on a semi even standpoint the armor will ALWAYS out play the shield. I would gladly fight 100armor V 150 shield machs, cause we will trade poorly the first volley, and after that, the armor’ ewar kick in and a large part of your fleet will be crippled.