These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers

First post First post First post
Author
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2361 - 2013-02-17 15:46:02 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
Harbinger
looks like a nice buff to me, but as i said before pls remove that cap boni its just worthless

The Fozz did explain this one:
If they halved the cap usage of lasers, then nocked 33% off the huge optimal, you could give the harby, (and all the other cap bonused ships,) an optimal bonus and have the same effects.
The weapon system itself has different benefits and problems.


That would hurt Ships like the geddon or maller to much. Thats why i said instead that amarr ships with cap useage boni should get a reduction in the damage boni and get a tracking boni + more standard cap. The reduction in Damage should make up for the boni in delivery.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2362 - 2013-02-17 16:43:05 UTC
I think that the cyclone having only 5 main weapons and 2 utility slots will gimp it unless it's as swift compared to other battlecruisers as the stabber is to the cruisers. Even then it'll still be midway between a cruiser and battlecruiser, and will be loved more as a cruiser that can fit gang links than as an actual battlecruiser. Now I also don't think giving it 6 main weapons is the answer. I like its 3 utility slot setup that it has right now, and I think keeping that will ensure it always has a special niche.

I'd also like to see all of the combat battlecruisers have at least one utility high. The myrmidon I think could use a full complement of drones (125mb/s) and just take away some of the turret hardpoints. Then it'll both feel more like a drone ship and players won't feel bad about filling up the highs with utility items. It should have at least 3 high slots more than its turret hardpoints I think.

And lastly, I'd like to see a bit more flexibility in the attack battlecruisers. I think it wouldn't hurt to allow them to fit other types of turrets. They should all have a powergrid cost reduction to all large turrets, not just the type they have bonuses for. Tech 1 ships are supposed to be flexible. What if I want to fly an oracle with large autocannons? And their ship skill bonuses could extend to medium turrets as well as large, allowing them to fill the role of the medium assault battlecruiser OR the heavy assault battlecruiser. Toss in -25% powergrid cost for medium turrets (because they have low powergrid) and you're golden. The battlecruisers are way more flexible now without anything becoming overpowered at all.

Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Double drone bonus on myrm would be pretty kick ass. The ship flys better as a shield tanker anyway Twisted
That's because it has 11 total mid and low slots and there is no stacking penalty on shield recharge effects, not because of the slot layout. A battlecruiser with 8 low slots and 3 mid slots would be more effective as a shield tanker just because of this.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#2363 - 2013-02-17 17:40:20 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Double drone bonus on myrm would be pretty kick ass. The ship flys better as a shield tanker anyway Twisted
That's because it has 11 total mid and low slots and there is no stacking penalty on shield recharge effects, not because of the slot layout. A battlecruiser with 8 low slots and 3 mid slots would be more effective as a shield tanker just because of this.

I think I'll disagree with you there. The Prophecy's going to be a 4/7 layout and I think we'll still see mostly armour tank on those as opposed to this "much better" shield tank. Sure you could argue that it's just because of the bonus, but I'd say it's because it's probably a better fit for it regardless of the bonus. 3 DDA's, a DCU, and a 3 slot tank (and rigs) would just make for a better armour tank and leave you with a large amount of utility for mids that your shield fits wouldn't give.

Picked the Prophecy because it's the closest any battlecruiser comes to that 8/3 slot layout.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2364 - 2013-02-17 18:07:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
I think the myrmidon is better with an armor tank but that's just because I don't trust a ship that doesn't regenerate capacitor. The people saying that the myrmidon is better as a shield tanker are talking about the passive regen fit, which a drake actually does better for the simple fact that it can run hardeners without draining its capacitor. The myrmidon's passive shield tank still gets high numbers though, and a ship with a 3/8 or 4/7 layout will still get that. And because it can be done, people will do it and say it's better even when it's really not better.

The reason why battleships with 11 mid/low slots don't have this problem ties in with why there are no shield extenders bigger than the LSE. Increasing shield HP grants a proportional increase to shield regen. The shield regen modules do the same. The first one offers a very tiny bonus, not even close to being worthy of the slot it takes up. But the second gives more, and the third even more than that, and it's really the last one that makes all the difference. This is why a battlecruiser with 11 slots can passive tank way better than one with 10 slots, while a battleship needs 11 slots to match a battlecruiser with 10 (the LSE gives it a much smaller bonus due to its high base shield HP and slow shield regen)

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#2365 - 2013-02-17 20:44:49 UTC
So yeah the drake.... it needs another redesign.....

wumbo

Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID
#2366 - 2013-02-17 21:23:24 UTC
Eli Green wrote:
So yeah the drake.... it needs another redesign.....

Well it is an ugly SoB...
The art team should get on that, along with 90% of the other Caldari ships, (except you scorpion, I can never stay mad at you... x)

But stats wise, its looking good compared to the other BC's. And thats the point, they are balanced against each other and other ship classes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, good job Fozzy and the team.

(Also, try putting something useful in your post rather than, "Change It". Normally an explanation is helpful. Thats the whole point about constructive critisism.)
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2367 - 2013-02-18 00:25:53 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
(Also, try putting something useful in your post rather than, "Change It". Normally an explanation is helpful. Thats the whole point about constructive critisism.)
I'm generally all for that, but I have to admit sometimes pointing to a problem is plenty good enough, and it might be better to not post a solution when you don't have one.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#2368 - 2013-02-18 06:38:33 UTC
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
Harbinger
looks like a nice buff to me, but as i said before pls remove that cap boni its just worthless

The Fozz did explain this one:
If they halved the cap usage of lasers, then nocked 33% off the huge optimal, you could give the harby, (and all the other cap bonused ships,) an optimal bonus and have the same effects.
The weapon system itself has different benefits and problems.


That would hurt Ships like the geddon or maller to much. Thats why i said instead that amarr ships with cap useage boni should get a reduction in the damage boni and get a tracking boni + more standard cap. The reduction in Damage should make up for the boni in delivery.


Personally, I prefer the "safe, stable" vs. "unstable, insanely powerful" choice you can make between Amarr ships. It's what makes lasers, otherwise limited to EM/TH, not suck.

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I think that the cyclone having only 5 main weapons and 2 utility slots will gimp it unless it's as swift compared to other battlecruisers as the stabber is to the cruisers. Even then it'll still be midway between a cruiser and battlecruiser, and will be loved more as a cruiser that can fit gang links than as an actual battlecruiser. Now I also don't think giving it 6 main weapons is the answer. I like its 3 utility slot setup that it has right now, and I think keeping that will ensure it always has a special niche.


Cyclone essentially flies like a pimped up original Podla Drake - between 1.4 and 1.5 km/s, 400-500 dps, while remaining (barely) cap stable. It is, as you put it, the Stabber of BCs. As far as I'm concerned, it'll easily be my go-to kiter missile BC now.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2369 - 2013-02-18 07:01:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
That would hurt Ships like the geddon or maller to much. Thats why i said instead that amarr ships with cap useage boni should get a reduction in the damage boni and get a tracking boni + more standard cap. The reduction in Damage should make up for the boni in delivery.


So, reduce Harbinger's damage below other ships and capacitor need automatically drops to the level where lasers can be used.

What? I don't even...

Btw, why people still use "boni"?
And more importantly: why people still think Amarr ships should be cap stable?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2370 - 2013-02-18 10:39:16 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Personally, I prefer the "safe, stable" vs. "unstable, insanely powerful" choice you can make between Amarr ships. It's what makes lasers, otherwise limited to EM/TH, not suck.
Lasers have an excellent range to damage ratio, which is why they cost so much capacitor. Reducing their range and capacitor cost would essentially turn beam lasers into short range railguns and pulse lasers into autocannons that don't have a choice in damage type.

Lasers are a very popular weapon system, despite being absolutely the easiest to prepare for and tank against. They don't need an adjustment to make people use them because people like them just the way they are. But I think it would be nice to add some variation in damage types, maybe make some of the crystals have mostly thermal and others have mostly EM.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Mund Richard
#2371 - 2013-02-18 11:56:37 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Lasers are a very popular weapon system, despite being absolutely the easiest to prepare for and tank against.
Dunno, for T1 ships, I'd say generally hybrids are easier to tank, as both tank systems have it in the middle-way, lasers fall into the shield's weakest.
T2, Minmatar tank lasers fully, Gall/Caldari the Thermal part. Hybrids? Minnie/Amarr tank half of it, Caldari/Gallente head-on.

But then again, if you know what your foe brings and can prepare accordingly...
"If you have a fair fight in EVE, someone messed up"?Roll

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.

Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#2372 - 2013-02-18 12:00:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dav Varan
For the love of god please fix the drakes damage bonus dont make it worse.

8 missile launchers ( to match the model awesomness )

No Kinetic damage bonus.
1 second per level ammo reload bonus. ( faster ammo switch )

133% EM , 133% Therm , 133% Kin , 133% Exp.

Against

6 launchers with 50% kin bonus.

100%EM , 100% Them , 150% Kin , 100%Exp.

Maximum firepower is less than that being proposed.
Players have to use correct ammo to maximise there potential.

Drake is no longer easy mode fit kin and forget about it.

Players now have to make sure there firing into resist holes to max there damage.

Also removes the T2 Cal/Gal invulnerability being proposed to Cal FW fleets.

And if 133% at all resists is too much ( no likelly ) then lose a mid slot.
Too much tank has always been the drakes problem for fleets not its firepower.
Mund Richard
#2373 - 2013-02-18 12:07:03 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
8 missile launchers ( to match the model awesomness ).

Ok.
Since every (non-drone) BC (bar the Ferox) has the same number of slots (7 high, 10 low+mid)
Do you want to lose a low slot?
A mid slot?
And you are also losing the utility high you have.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.

Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#2374 - 2013-02-18 13:52:45 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
8 missile launchers ( to match the model awesomness ).

Ok.
Since every (non-drone) BC (bar the Ferox) has the same number of slots (7 high, 10 low+mid)
Do you want to lose a low slot?
A mid slot?
And you are also losing the utility high you have.


Your question was already answered.
Lose a mid if needed to reduce the tankability.

nm anyway , I see the horse has bolted.
Mund Richard
#2375 - 2013-02-18 14:05:52 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
Your question was already answered.
Lose a mid if needed to reduce the tankability.
nm anyway , I see the horse has bolted.
A new day, a new idiom I learn about.

I'm not disagreeing with your aesthetic btw, I do dislike the Drake having yet another launcher less than the model.
Nor do I like how a weapon system that has "selectable" damage as one of it's fortes gets it taken away even on a BC hull (makes more sense on smaller hulls where plugging a resist hole is argh). A bit as if the Cane would have "+5% rate of fire and damage to medium artillery".

But I wouldn't like a 8-8 / 5 / 4 battlecruiser, even the Ferox is a sore spot for me.
Would rather have 6 launchers with 5% RoF.
And the same for the Cyclone. Heck, make the Drake have 6 launchers with 5% damage, so the Cyclone will be different (and more ganky/mobile but less brick)
But that's just me.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.

Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#2376 - 2013-02-18 14:43:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Valleria Darkmoon
TravelBuoy wrote:
Fjury wrote:
Fu*k you CCP, last couple year you doing nothing than ruining this great game!

Last successful patch was Trinity! since this moment you ...... ...... .. .

And now you came up with that fu*king BC nerf and Only one ship which will be complety fu*ked up will be hurricane.

SHOW ME SOME GOOD BENEFITS!!!! except of lame targating range bonus

Hurricane:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets, 3 Launchers
Fittings: 1125 PWG, 400 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4250(-47) / 4500(-188) / 3500(-16)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(-562.5) / 592s(-158s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12800000 (+300,000) / 8.4s (+0.2)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km (+5) / 220 / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Ladar
Signature radius: 250 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 425 (-50)

+1


Check your fittings, they didn't change but you need one less neut and that's a big buff even if it doesn't have the (+XX) beside it. Open EFT with the new stats and open your Hurricane up, now slap on whatever you like, go ahead i'll wait.

Done? It all fits doesn't it? OK, so you have to have AWU 5 and you have to meta one LSE to F-S9 and your MWD (which you were going to do anyway) to not need a 1% PG implant, or you could just use your free CA-1/CA-2 and not worry about it. 425s, MWD, dual extenders, neut all with zero fitting mods seems better than fine to me. You can also fit a rack of 720s with only a single reactor control and a decent fit if you're so inclined. You also have SO much CPU that you can tech II every single module on the ship and include five gyrostabs in the lows and not run out. In fact I think we deserve an explanation as to why you get so much. You just don't get two utility highs anymore.

Now try to fit the largest possible guns to all the other BCs plus the full tank and see how it goes... You get really high dps (not sure if it's the highest but in excess of 800 with heat is no slouch) set up with a standard fit but I don't resent that bit so much as you also have a thin tank compared to say a 1600 plated Harb but you're much much much faster than it. Your Hurricane by the way is now outpaced by the Cyclone but that's it, so acting as if the mobility loss killed you is a tough sell.

Of all the crying there has been in this thread, it's the tears for the poor poor Hurricane that ring the most hollow, it's still a fine ship, it's just not the stand alone best of the best winning the race by a timezone over the next finisher.

EDIT: The five gyrostabs point is just to illustrate how much CPU you get because it's insane, not that you would want 5 gyros.

Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.

Nova Satar
Annihilate.
#2377 - 2013-02-18 15:18:38 UTC
a t2 HAM drake currently has around 600dps and 16km range.

With all other BC set to be at 650-750 dps, why is the drake losing one of launchers ontop of this? It'll be looking at 520dps tops.

I understand nerfing things, but all you are doing it fixing one totally useless BC (proph) and creating another (drake)

Mund Richard
#2378 - 2013-02-18 15:26:17 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:
a t2 HAM drake currently has around 600dps and 16km range.
With all other BC set to be at 650-750 dps, why is the drake losing one of launchers ontop of this? It'll be looking at 520dps tops.
Please look at it again.
The drake is gaining a bit of kinetic dps with BC skill at V, and doesn't lose any with skill at IV.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.

Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2379 - 2013-02-18 15:43:38 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:
a t2 HAM drake currently has around 600dps and 16km range.

With all other BC set to be at 650-750 dps, why is the drake losing one of launchers ontop of this? It'll be looking at 520dps tops.

I understand nerfing things, but all you are doing it fixing one totally useless BC (proph) and creating another (drake)



considering the other bc's won't do that much damage at 16km...........

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Laura Belle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2380 - 2013-02-18 16:15:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Laura Belle
i think that the myrmidon is nerfed too greatly by removing a turret since drones have the problem of being too vulnerable when increasing in size.

either drones should have slightly reduced sig radius, at least when warping or balance the mrtm by gining it 125BW, a lightly bigger cargohold or anything else

regarding Brutix
its traditional problem was too little pwergrid and you shrink it even more?