These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
#41 - 2015-04-02 14:56:41 UTC
Voicing my approval of these as well. Good work CCP. I love to pretend I'm a Thukker, so warp speed and agility are on pretty much all my vessels. Those CPU penalties were painful. So glad to see them go. I'll take the hit to sig radius any day.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#42 - 2015-04-02 15:00:14 UTC
Mizhir wrote:
GORSKI4CSMXI


Is kil2 running too? I'd vote for him. Smile

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#43 - 2015-04-02 15:09:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Firstly, we're planning to adjust the warp speed of Battlecruiser sized ships to bring the Battlecruiser-Cruiser relationship in line with the Destroyer-Frigate relationship.
This will mean an 8% increase in Battlecruiser warp speed, to 2.7au/s for T1 BCs and 3au/s for Command Ships.


Love this, personally ive been utilising a warp speed rig on my instanado because of how slow it lands on grid, it makes it very susceptable to being probed and warped on top of. i may still keep the warp speed rig on actually as time to land is a big factor in modern space combat since the introduction of warp speed to hull size.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

We are also making some tweaks to warp rig penalties. At the moment the two sets of warp rigs have -CPU penalties, which are among the most harsh penalties that rigs in EVE can have.

We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs).


one of the main areas of concern with regards to usage of bc hulls in nullsec is the fact their tank is sub bs level yet for the most part they take considerably more damage to bombs then cruisers. having the penalty of the warp speed rigs affect sig radius is like giving with one hand whilst taking away with the other. if it affected something related to what its changing then not only would it be somewhat logical but would also not further widen the usage gap of shield vs armor in nullsec.

Consider the fact bc hulls dont have the fitting resources to utilise large smartbombs and the range increase they give to neutralising bombing runs and you will see that bc's (especially shield bc's) are in a really bad place in terms of practical utilisation.

so please change the warp speed rig penalty to ship agility or ship speed rather than sig radius.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#44 - 2015-04-02 15:23:12 UTC
Mmmm, yummy changes, an both counts.

Love it.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#45 - 2015-04-02 15:24:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Mizhir wrote:
GORSKI4CSMXI


Is kil2 running too? I'd vote for him. Smile


kil2 = CCP Rise iirc.

edit: Putting warp speed rigs no your BC is kinda... meh. Not sure which penalty is worse. But for shield tank ships that already have hugely inflated sigRads, this will make them even more vulnerable for a marginal gain. I still wouldn't bother putting a warp speed rig on a Drake for example.

This change will benefit mostly armor ships since a few percent of 250m is a lot less than a few percent of 350m.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#46 - 2015-04-02 15:26:47 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Mizhir wrote:
GORSKI4CSMXI


Is kil2 running too? I'd vote for him. Smile


kil2 = CCP Rise iirc.

I think that was a joke, I'm not sure though.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#47 - 2015-04-02 15:46:21 UTC
Great changes, proof that gorski car was a great CSM representative for fun and balanced solo/small gang PVP. Wish he would have gotten re-elected but he does have a great blog now at least so hopefully you devs will continue to consider his feedback from there.

However, I would still like to see BS warp speed slightly improved.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#48 - 2015-04-02 16:29:18 UTC
afkalt wrote:
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.

Reactivation timer, in line with the Marauder bonus. The intent would be to allow CBCs specifically to use MMJDs more often.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#49 - 2015-04-02 17:00:29 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Reactivation timer, in line with the Marauder bonus. The intent would be to allow CBCs specifically to use MMJDs more often.

I like the idea of a special role bonus just for Combat Battlecruisers.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#50 - 2015-04-02 17:57:02 UTC
Now to fix the other half of why people don't use cbcs.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#51 - 2015-04-02 18:05:30 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Now to fix the other half of why people don't use cbcs.

Because they still suck?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#52 - 2015-04-02 18:08:42 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Now to fix the other half of why people don't use cbcs.

Because they still suck?


That would be it.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#53 - 2015-04-02 18:27:18 UTC  |  Edited by: SFM Hobb3s
Maybe this would be too much to ask the hamsters, but wouldn't it be nice if fleet warp was actually an average of all the combined participants warp speed? You could mix in a small number of big ships with a bunch of small ships and still not get hugely bogged down. It would also provide a bit more freedom on what bigger ships you wanted to select.

Edit: Nope. Probably a bad idea, since people will just use two-man fleets with leopards or some other fast ship along with their supers.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#54 - 2015-04-02 18:39:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Mizhir wrote:
GORSKI4CSMXI


Is kil2 running too? I'd vote for him. Smile


kil2 = CCP Rise iirc.

I think that was a joke, I'm not sure though.


Smiley implies a joke, but the reality deeply saddens me beyond words, as once a Free and Roaming Soul is now bound by reasonable, but still very strict, corporate guidelines and goals. Cry

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
LtauSTinpoWErs
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#55 - 2015-04-02 22:31:48 UTC
I would rather see the cpu penalty remain than an increase in signature radius.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#56 - 2015-04-03 00:02:50 UTC
4.2AU/sec Hurricane. MMJDs. AARs.

♥ Pirate
Wanda Fayne
#57 - 2015-04-03 01:16:22 UTC
+1 to any buff for BCs

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2015-04-03 01:22:01 UTC
Sir Livingston wrote:
battlecruiser usage must be low



Any Reason?

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#59 - 2015-04-03 02:49:17 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Any Reason?

I can think of a few, but basically it comes down to not being cost effective. You're effectively paying a premium for a heavy cruiser that in actuality performs worse than most cruisers.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Cade Windstalker
#60 - 2015-04-03 03:17:40 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Any Reason?

I can think of a few, but basically it comes down to not being cost effective. You're effectively paying a premium for a heavy cruiser that in actuality performs worse than most cruisers.


That's... just not correct. BCs compared to the closest bonuses Cruiser trade speed for being more effective in DPS, tank, fitting, and basically everything except speed and maneuverability.

For example comparing the Rupture and the Hurricane, the Cane has two more turrets, the same number of Utility highs, an extra low, 50 more base CPU, 265 more base Powergrid, and almost three times the base hit-points of the Rupture.

The Drake has an extra launcher, a utility high, an extra mid, 170 more base powergrid, 70 more base CPU, almost three times the base HP, and the Resistance bonus.

In both cases the BCs are around 5 times more expensive than their Cruiser counterparts, but still easily affordable as hulls, especially compared to the other available Cruiser upgrades, namely Battleships, and anything Tech 2. They only lose out on speed and, in the case of the Caracal/Drake trade off some damage application ability and a Light Missile bonus.

So, in short, BCs perform different from Cruisers, but it's very hard to make a case for them being out-right worse than Cruisers. For example you can do some Level 4 missions in a well-fitted BC hull but trying to do the same thing in a T1 Cruiser hull is generally a recipe to lose the ship.