These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[April] Battlecruiser Warp Speed and Warp Rig Tweaks

First post First post
Author
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#21 - 2015-04-02 05:30:18 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Warp speed was the least of BC issues and improving it has absolutely no effect on the sad state of BCs.

It's a start.


As much a start as increasing Imicus cargo bay would be. People stopped flying BCs long before warp speed changes, mostly because they are space garbage with no role or purpose or advantages over any other ship class, only weaknesses.
Felter Echerie
Profit Prophets
#22 - 2015-04-02 05:32:20 UTC
defense against bombs= low sig+speed
also bombers are alergic to drones and frigates/dessys
Felter Echerie
Profit Prophets
#23 - 2015-04-02 05:34:06 UTC
mix yer fleet of huge ships with some smaller ones; that way the new guy can be useful and u have more tools to counter every ship size... gee guys... yall cray
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2015-04-02 06:20:25 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Warp speed was the least of BC issues and improving it has absolutely no effect on the sad state of BCs.

It's a start.


As much a start as increasing Imicus cargo bay would be. People stopped flying BCs long before warp speed changes, mostly because they are space garbage with no role or purpose or advantages over any other ship class, only weaknesses.



However with individual ship balancing more or less complete the new balancing plan is far more strategic.

What I mean by this is that all the ships are fairly well balanced within their class if you ignore all other ship classes (there are one or two which aren't though).

Now the balancing is looking at the balance relationship between ship classes and seeing where things fall short.

So that means the relationship between cruisers and battlecruisers then battlecruisers and battleships.

I think we will probably see some very "strategic level" balance passes in the future
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#25 - 2015-04-02 06:25:32 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Warp speed was the least of BC issues and improving it has absolutely no effect on the sad state of BCs.

It's a start.


As much a start as increasing Imicus cargo bay would be. People stopped flying BCs long before warp speed changes, mostly because they are space garbage with no role or purpose or advantages over any other ship class, only weaknesses.


This lady is korrekt.

Correct ship usage/damage by "type" is this - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

It is what it is, don't hide it people. vOv
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#26 - 2015-04-02 07:05:46 UTC
It isnt my beloved battleships but its a step in the right direction!

END TO CRUISERS ONLINE...
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#27 - 2015-04-02 07:56:06 UTC
FireFrenzy wrote:
It isnt my beloved battleships but its a step in the right direction!

END TO CRUISERS ONLINE...


Introducing a Lesser version of the Bastion Modules, which is employed by Marauder battleships, for Tech 1 battleships could greatly influence the coming new meta with regards to Entosis Link mechanics.

Trollceptor you say? I raise you a mobile gang platform that has great locally-powered tanks with the capacitor to sustain it. Blink

Please,

Please,

CCPlease. Big smile
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2015-04-02 09:19:11 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Aiyshimin wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Warp speed was the least of BC issues and improving it has absolutely no effect on the sad state of BCs.

It's a start.


As much a start as increasing Imicus cargo bay would be. People stopped flying BCs long before warp speed changes, mostly because they are space garbage with no role or purpose or advantages over any other ship class, only weaknesses.


It was rather more the T1 cruiser buff that nailed the coffin shut. They really got far too carried away there.

They can fill an extremely narrow niche role still, but I don't have any solid ideas to help them that are not going to result in crushing cruiser nerfs or extreme power creep(*).


(*) But perhaps in a wider scale that would be marginally ok, if taken in the context of altering the battleship and dread landscape as well as dreads are looking less and less useful.





@Fozzie - is this also applying to ABCs?

Edit: Sig radius penalties which are percentage based always hurt shield more (makes sense on the resist and extender types but less so for this) - has any consideration been to using absolute values for these rigs as opposed to percentages? This would also help "larger" ships in the same size class e.g. BCs using medium rigs.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#29 - 2015-04-02 10:39:00 UTC
how common are fleets where ships are rigged with warp rigs instead of actually useful rigs?
Inggroth
Harbingers of Reset
#30 - 2015-04-02 11:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Inggroth
Changes per se are p. cool

However they dont do a whole lot to give BCs a niche.
In my opinion boosting base lock range would be a start here, so it'd be possible to prelock and MJD onto people without making ridiculous fitting tradeoffs
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#31 - 2015-04-02 11:21:38 UTC
My mega get a buffBig smile
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#32 - 2015-04-02 11:41:57 UTC
Here's a suggestion, especially in conjunction with the posted Entosis Link stats from your other thread:

Give Combat Battlecruisers a role bonus to Medium MJD activation times. Something on the lines of 50-70% or so, like Marauders. Do not include this bonus for Command Ships.

This would give the CBCs some very, very unique abilities and open up a whole lot of new gameplay options for them. While their on-grid speed would be a lot slower than existing doctrines, and their ability to avoid instalock gatecamps would similarly be poor, they'd have some AMAZING ability to reposition on grid and counter sniping / kiting doctrines. They'd retain some vulnerability to bombing runs, but would retain the ability to GTFO to another spot on grid. Combined with their large existing powergrid, they'd become ideal platforms for using the larger T2 Entosis Links with their 250km lock range, while the heavy cap use of the T2EL and the MMJD would require careful management.

Add this to the warp speed tweaks, and CBCs become rather interesting again I'd think. Someone might even let you bring your Drake.

Thoughts?

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#33 - 2015-04-02 11:48:49 UTC  |  Edited by: PinkKnife
so, here's how to solve this issue for battle cruisers and battleships.

Change the warp acceleration and warp speed for each ship to correlate to their mass. Have battleships have really slow warp accelerations (they have huge mass,this makes sense) but give them high warp speeds so they can still get around quickly. They have huge engines they shouldn't be that slow both to get into warp, and then through warp.

Likewise, have smaller ships like cruisers have smaller warp speeds, but better accelerations.

Y'no, sort of like how small light cars accelerate fast but have a lower top speed, while a big engine sedan might accelerate slower but have a higher top speed.

It solves the issue of bigger ships being so god damn lethargic, while not making them overpowered.

Smaller ships will still get around damn fast and get into warp real fast, while big ships will be faster through systems, but still probably landing a big after the faster ships. But not so much that it cripples the usage.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2015-04-02 11:51:33 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Here's a suggestion, especially in conjunction with the posted Entosis Link stats from your other thread:

Give Combat Battlecruisers a role bonus to Medium MJD activation times. Something on the lines of 50-70% or so, like Marauders. Do not include this bonus for Command Ships.

This would give the CBCs some very, very unique abilities and open up a whole lot of new gameplay options for them. While their on-grid speed would be a lot slower than existing doctrines, and their ability to avoid instalock gatecamps would similarly be poor, they'd have some AMAZING ability to reposition on grid and counter sniping / kiting doctrines. They'd retain some vulnerability to bombing runs, but would retain the ability to GTFO to another spot on grid. Combined with their large existing powergrid, they'd become ideal platforms for using the larger T2 Entosis Links with their 250km lock range, while the heavy cap use of the T2EL and the MMJD would require careful management.

Add this to the warp speed tweaks, and CBCs become rather interesting again I'd think. Someone might even let you bring your Drake.

Thoughts?


I quite like this, as long as a lock range increase was had.

Although I think I misread it as REactiviation timer and made me think of marauders. Did you mean cycle time, or cooldown reduction? The latter I like, the former would be too good.
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#35 - 2015-04-02 12:07:51 UTC
GORSKI4CSMXI

❤️️💛💚💙💜

Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2015-04-02 13:28:55 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Warp speed was the least of BC issues and improving it has absolutely no effect on the sad state of BCs.


Don't think you have flown a BC in ages. Part of the reason that roaming in frigs and cruisers is so much more preferable to BCs is the speed of getting around. While the warp speed change isn't huge, it does help close the gap and make BCs slightly more viable.

However, the penalty change from CPU to sig radius is incredibly disappointing. My ship fits with warp speed rigs (like my raptor) work fine around the cpu penalty, but are now punished worse by the sig radius change.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2015-04-02 13:29:18 UTC
By the way.....the lack of responses to this thread from players tells you more about BC popularity (or lack thereof) and use than your stats ever will.....
Cade Windstalker
#38 - 2015-04-02 13:39:30 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
However, the penalty change from CPU to sig radius is incredibly disappointing. My ship fits with warp speed rigs (like my raptor) work fine around the cpu penalty, but are now punished worse by the sig radius change.


This helps balance out the bonuses though, since the warp-speed rigs are already far more beneficial on smaller ships than they are on larger ones.
Elenahina
No.Mercy
Triumvirate.
#39 - 2015-04-02 14:21:10 UTC
afkalt wrote:
By the way.....the lack of responses to this thread from players tells you more about BC popularity (or lack thereof) and use than your stats ever will.....


Actually this is one of the problems with F&I - when an idea is generally well received, few people comment on it, so it looks like no one cares. Looking at the 1300 views the thread has garnered, however, leads me to believe that more people care than are posting.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2015-04-02 14:40:51 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
afkalt wrote:
By the way.....the lack of responses to this thread from players tells you more about BC popularity (or lack thereof) and use than your stats ever will.....


Actually this is one of the problems with F&I - when an idea is generally well received, few people comment on it, so it looks like no one cares. Looking at the 1300 views the thread has garnered, however, leads me to believe that more people care than are posting.



To a point, but it's still less than even the garage door cynos. Something mostly the prevail of cap pilots only. Well them and the "HAH! SUCK IT!" mobs...

I just don't think many people care because we're all rolling about in cruisers (and caps, apparently :) )