Zealot, eagle and cerb cant fit a probe launcher either…
4 Likes
Cynabal.
touché, although I think a vaga or munnin would beat a cyna in a 1v1.
yes, yes.
That was intended. Double the alpha, make it a long-range alpha
I mean, obviously it’s not supposed to do exploration with no remaining high. make it something more akin to the “hit n run” : same DPS, more alpha. A smaller and more agile tornado.
3 Likes
Depends on fits. An arty muninn would stomp a typical ac kite cynabal. A dual prop, scram cynabal would beat an arty muninn. Arty cyna vs arty muninn would be close. Muninn has more alpha and tracking, cyna might have more buffer/speed. Though muninn has the ADCU which would give it 15s to turn the tide.
1 Like
An arty cyna is better than an arty muninn, at 1/3 the cost.
Full V AB Muninn is just short of 800km, a full V AB Cyna is just short of 1000km and has twice the drone bandwidth.
Cyna has too much PG to bother with AC. Its an arty kiter, as Muninn is supposed to be, but isnt.
1 Like
Only a goon would start ranting on about mining BS.
1 Like
an asteroid would, too.
3 Likes
Not at all the cyna doesn’t have a tracking bonus, which doesn’t suit arties at all, it has just enough pg to fit a good auto + buffer shield tank and it lacks enough cap to kite for long periods of time. Cyna is not an arty ship.
2 Likes
Cynabal was originally an ac kiter, it was not built for artillery. After TE nerf and other weapons being buffed, medium acs fell into a poor position. It wasnt until CCP reduced medium artillery grid that people found the arty cynabal to be a good replacement for ac cynabal. CCP then nerfed cynabal PG to fix some high tank fits with arty. It was never a dedicated arty ship, its just acs suck so much in the current meta for kiting that it became an arty kiter.
The muninn on the other hand is more artillery focused (optimal+tracking bonus), but an armor artillery ship is pretty dumb. With these changes itll open up a lot more fits to make it competitive.
Muninn has better tracking, more alpha and optimal pairs better with artillery. Also, i dont much care about an AB fit muninn or cynabal. MWD fits are how most will be flown. Muninn will have a smaller sig and can shoot way farther and lock farther than a cyna. After speed/mass changes, cyna will be faster, but the muninn wont be a slouch either and through the tracking bonus will hit you consistently. Yes, it costs more but i feel that is temporary until t2 mats stabilize from moon mining.
1 Like
Out of curiosity how long do you think that would take and what is your expectation on the settling value compared to now?
2 Likes
I dont moon mine or speculate, but its only a matter of time. Theres money to be made, so people are going to rush to get setup and start cashing in. The more that do so will start to increase supply and eventually bring prices down. I dont feel this is a permanent issue, industry guys are most likely surveying moons and calculating their profits before committing.
Worst comes to worst, and we dont have enough t2 supply, CCP may drop requirements on t2 mats, but that would not be anytime soon.
Hmm might be better for ccp to drop the requirements now a bit and raise them later if price’s fall to low, else people are not going to really give the hac’s a try until the changes have become old.
1 Like
Tracking is good (Muninn), RoF is better (Cynabal).
Cynabal moves 300m faster, and has a smaller sig, even after this change.
A Muninn only makes itself a bigger target with MWD and wrecks its own tracking.
A Muninns lock distance grossly exceeds its optimal, whereas a Cynabal locks faster.
Both Cynabal and Muninn in arty will want to operate within 50km, at max.
Neither are AC vessels.
There are far better options for brawling.
Muninns real advantage, is in T2 resist profile.
But at +100mil more, can it really supplant Cynabal that flies 30% faster, with equivalent DPS applied at higher RoF?
Um, cyna and muninn RoF are both 25%. After this change, cyna and muninn have the same base sig radius (115). You will be shield tank and have an unbonused mwd sig bloom. Muninn will be armor with 50% reduction, so it will have a considerably lower sig than the cynabal. Will that matter as far as medium weapon tracking is concerned? Not by much, but it means a lot against larger guns/missiles.
A muninns lock range with a couple TEs or locus rigs can shoot depleted uranium/sabot out to 70km (with even more tracking) or tremor out to 80-100km (its lock range). The muninn can pick off tackle at 50-70km, where the cyna cannot. You may lock faster, but thats irrelevant when i can start locking you from 100km and start shooting around 70km.
I wont argue on the ac brawling side when there are good fits for both, if you dont want to use them, thats fine. You can remain restrained by your own thoughts.
Cynabal is still 30% faster using AB, and in most practical engagements, we are talking <50km.
If an AC Muninn uses a MWD to close range with a kiting AB Arty Cynabal, they will suffer from the bloom, greatly, on approach. If they try to maintain range beyond Cyna arty, the Cyna will just warp off (at faster alignment and warp speed)).
And all that, at -100mil less cost for the Cyna, than a Muninn.
TLDR: This change doesnt help Muninn in any way that matters.
All it does, is make them incapable of Combat Exploration.
1 Like
Why are you discussing an AB arty cyna? No one kites in an AB cynabal, unless youre talking fleet comps. We are talking about mwd kite arty cyna and mwd arty kite muninn. Muninn wins in the points discussed.
If youre talking fleet settings, muninn has the high resistances to counter laser fleets and now a smaller sig against missile fleets. It also has higher alpha and better range than the cyna, along with the ADCU.
Youre creating very strange scenarios that arent realistic. How bout you tell me what your fit is used for so we are both on the same page. An AB solo cynabal sounds very dumb. An AB fleet cynabal is less dumb, but the muninn is a better fleet ship in shield config due to resists, tracking, range and alpha (500 more alpha than a cynabal).
Ab arty is not as bad as it sounds but you need scram web + tracking, only the muninn could really pull that off, where as the cyna would still miss small ships. Kind of resembling arty 10mn svipuls
Why the ■■■■ would a Cyna use an MWD when it the fastest AB boosted cruiser in the entire game?
No, I am not.
I am talking about removing the high slot, which renders Muninns incapable of using a probe launcher for Combat Exploration.
Your massive fleet settings are not the entire game.
Even with this change, its still cheaper/efficient to field Loki.
I understand your ulterior motive, of making Muninns fleet doctrine, but you cant do that if you wreck the ship for other activities.
Redact the high slot swap to the low on Muninn, and implement the rest.
If anything, move a low slot (of which Muninn has plenty) to mid and leave the ultility high alone.
Actually the phantasm is fastest AB cruiser in the game. Cynabal is, or used to be the fastest mwd cruiser in the game. You should probably check these things before spouting off inaccuracies and accusations.
Also, lol at accusing me of being an f1 monkey (hint, im solo and in FW). I can just look around and see there are numerous uses for a single ship other than “omg my probe slot reee”.
Youre the one crying about losing a hi-slot and demanding it change back. You have the agenda, im simply calling out all your false statements and hyperbole about the muninn changes having no effect.
2 Likes