These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#361 - 2015-09-15 01:26:02 UTC
Since you CCP folks are working on optimal/falloff bonuses, which really affect the gun modules, would it also make sense to do the module tiericide pass on guns now, too?

And, I don't know when you are thinking about doing ammo tiericide, but this is something worth looking at. I'm sure that a statistical plot of ammo usage by type would prove that only a relatively few types are commonly used - and several are probably never used.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#362 - 2015-09-15 02:38:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Sizeof Void wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships....

Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter.

I guess that I'm wondering if a BS *can* counter a BC, after these changes.

Seems to me that a BC should be able to more easily kite a BS, with the buffs to both speed and weapon range. Maybe a drone or missile BS would still be ok, but anything with large guns is probably going to do less damage.
I don't see how that's possible. A 25% bonus to medium turrets doesn't get them anywhere near the ranges of their large turret counterparts. Not to mention that many PvP battleships field heavy neuts that stretch out to 25km (even longer if you're in an armageddon). There's no way any of the proposed Battlecruiser projection bonuses will help them avoid damage from Battleships. What it does do is stop Battlecruisers from getting kited by Cruisers as easily.


As for the balances in general. I love them and they're pretty much spot on to the suggested numbers I proposed a while back. As for Command Ships, I think some of them need a look at as well. I think several Command Ships like the Sleipnir and Eos are perfectly fine and that giving them the same role bonuses would be overkill, but I think passing on some of the agility/speed changes to Command Ships would be a good idea.

Edit: Regarding the Cyclone. Hear a lot of people saying the Cyclone needs an extra launcher slot. Not sure. I find the two utility highs pretty useful. I would welcome a +25 to drone bay so I can field a set of light drones on top of the medium drones. Cyclone is definitely a solo/small gang BC so it's no surprise that it sees less use than the Drake. I would still take a Cyclone for a small gang/solo roam over a drake any day.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#363 - 2015-09-15 03:34:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships....

Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter.

I guess that I'm wondering if a BS *can* counter a BC, after these changes.

Seems to me that a BC should be able to more easily kite a BS, with the buffs to both speed and weapon range. Maybe a drone or missile BS would still be ok, but anything with large guns is probably going to do less damage.
I don't see how that's possible. A 25% bonus to medium turrets doesn't get them anywhere near the ranges of their large turret counterparts. Not to mention that many PvP battleships field heavy neuts that stretch out to 25km (even longer if you're in an armageddon). There's no way any of the proposed Battlecruiser projection bonuses will help them avoid damage from Battleships. What it does do is stop Battlecruisers from getting kited by Cruisers as easily.


As for the balances in general. I love them and they're pretty much spot on to the suggested numbers I proposed a while back. As for Command Ships, I think some of them need a look at as well. I think several Command Ships like the Sleipnir and Eos are perfectly fine and that giving them the same role bonuses would be overkill, but I think passing on some of the agility/speed changes to Command Ships would be a good idea.


Sleipnir not so much as the others, but it still needs a MMJD bonus and an increase in cargo space at least.

An increase in Sensor strength would be helpful also.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#364 - 2015-09-15 03:47:14 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships....

Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter.

I guess that I'm wondering if a BS *can* counter a BC, after these changes.

Seems to me that a BC should be able to more easily kite a BS, with the buffs to both speed and weapon range. Maybe a drone or missile BS would still be ok, but anything with large guns is probably going to do less damage.
I don't see how that's possible. A 25% bonus to medium turrets doesn't get them anywhere near the ranges of their large turret counterparts. Not to mention that many PvP battleships field heavy neuts that stretch out to 25km (even longer if you're in an armageddon). There's no way any of the proposed Battlecruiser projection bonuses will help them avoid damage from Battleships. What it does do is stop Battlecruisers from getting kited by Cruisers as easily.


As for the balances in general. I love them and they're pretty much spot on to the suggested numbers I proposed a while back. As for Command Ships, I think some of them need a look at as well. I think several Command Ships like the Sleipnir and Eos are perfectly fine and that giving them the same role bonuses would be overkill, but I think passing on some of the agility/speed changes to Command Ships would be a good idea.


Sleipnir not so much as the others, but it still needs a MMJD bonus and an increase in cargo space at least.

An increase in Sensor strength would be helpful also.
Even bonused how many people would fit an MMJD on a shield tanked CS that's already very fast with good damage projection? A typical brawl Sleip needs scram + web + mwd. That leaves 2 mids for tank (usually dual XLASB). With MMJD that's 1 slot for tank... For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#365 - 2015-09-15 04:35:40 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless.


Someone can attempt to burn in to scram range on arty sleip. I have an arty sleip fit that was good and used MJD. MJD, XLASB, 720's, MWD, was good kite combination. I also had dual neuts, so most small tackle could get neuted out semi-quick. MJD is more to escape things faster than you that hold a point. Like garmur.

MMJD is far from useless on CS though. I've actually had a number of CS with MJD as its too useful not to use. Vulture has over 100km long range, making MJD dunks easy. Damnation can get over 100km lock range with single range rig. So there are definitely fits that could benefit from a MJD bonus.



Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#366 - 2015-09-15 06:20:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless.


Someone can attempt to burn in to scram range on arty sleip. I have an arty sleip fit that was good and used MJD. MJD, XLASB, 720's, MWD, was good kite combination. I also had dual neuts, so most small tackle could get neuted out semi-quick. MJD is more to escape things faster than you that hold a point. Like garmur.

MMJD is far from useless on CS though. I've actually had a number of CS with MJD as its too useful not to use. Vulture has over 100km long range, making MJD dunks easy. Damnation can get over 100km lock range with single range rig. So there are definitely fits that could benefit from a MJD bonus.

I'm not talking about herp derp frig pilots burning into a double neut Sleipnir, in most cases those are dream kills for the Sleipnir pilot. I'm talking more like hard tackle double LSE/double nos stabbers or cap boosted Svipuls. Keeping an arty Sleipnir long pointed without dying isn't exactly a cakewalk without dying or letting it slip out unless you're in a linked garmur.

Also didn't say MMJD is useless on CS in general, on slow brawl fit CS it's very useful, just that an MMJD bonus on the Sleipnir won't really make it any more or less viable than it currently is, on slow brawl fit CS (particularly armor fit ones) it's very useful, but my opinion it's hardly the go-to option for a Sleipnir, I mean how often do you plan to get perma pointed and not be able to shake it off that you need a Marauder cooldown bonus for it? Passing on the agility/speed buffs to Command Ships will help them farm more in those situations than an MMJD bonus.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#367 - 2015-09-15 06:35:25 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
[quote=Daniela Doran][quote=Iyacia Cyric'ai] Even bonused how many people would fit an MMJD on a shield tanked CS that's already very fast with good damage projection? A typical brawl Sleip needs scram + web + mwd. That leaves 2 mids for tank (usually dual XLASB). With MMJD that's 1 slot for tank... For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless.



The MMJD bonus will eliminate the need for a dual-prop on the Sleip that only has 5 mids. And when I began using the Sleipnir for PVP, it will be dual web fitted so anything within scram range will have to fight it at it's strength, which is brawling (assuming 180s can still get the job done).
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#368 - 2015-09-15 08:31:07 UTC
I would rather the MJD skill be buffed than the ship having a MJD bonus.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#369 - 2015-09-15 11:07:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
CCP Fozzie, I realize this isn't exactly the right thread for this but it is somewhat related. I would like you guys to reduce the jump range for the medium MJD to 75km. My reason for this request is two fold:

1. BC can naturally target ships at around 75km so this change to the MJD would allow it to be used within the ships operational range. Yes i know you can increase your targeting range but that is only needed for sniping setups.

2. Dropping it to 75km means that they can still be pointed by ships with the bonus to point range. This provides a counter to using the MJD simply as an escape tool.

I think the large MJD is fine as it is but i think the MJD skill should have a cool-down reduction bonus added to it.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#370 - 2015-09-15 11:35:53 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
CCP Fozzie, I realize this isn't exactly the right thread for this but it is somewhat related. I would like you guys to reduce the jump range for the medium MJD to 75km. My reason for this request is two fold:

1. BC can naturally target ships at 75km so this change to the MJD would allow it to be used within the ships operational range. Yes i know you can increase your targeting range but that is only needed for sniping setups.

2. Dropping it to 75km means that they can still be pointed by ships with the bonus to point range. This provides a counter to using the MJD simply as an escape tool.

I think the large MJD is fine as it is but i think the MJD skill should have a cool-down reduction bonus added to it.


No. Then the MJD becomes useless. All it takes is a garmur/orthrus and they can point you indefinitely, even after you jump. Thats not balancing, it ruins the entire concept.

Are you a garmur/orthrus pilot? That sounds like something a garmur/orthrus pilot would say when he keeps losing kills.

Sarcasm aside, Its the only way to escape those cancerous ships. Even with the 100km jump range, they can still sometimes burn in that direction that you're jumping to and still manage to get point on you since they have some ridiculous 70km point range.

Also voting no on the 75km range. Activating MJD can be obvious to a pilot if they use the "look at" feature, warping in at 70km is useless if they see it coming. Warping in at 100km and burning a few KM back so they can't see you, and then activating makes MJD dunking a little harder to predict.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#371 - 2015-09-15 11:37:30 UTC
Poranius Fisc wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Poranius Fisc wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
some nice buffs too certain ships especially harbinger, but some big overbuffs too the navy bc's i mean a drake that has more tank than a raven, smaller sig aswell, with only 25% less range on HAM's than torps, really?? .. when are HAM's getting that range nerf? and better mobility than a navy brutix WTF???? .. its either a brawler or a kiter.. pick one

Ferox changes are interesting, more of a shield brutix now .. ish, would expect it too be quicker than the drake though, tiny mass difference isnt good either, i would also expect a lower sig as it's basically an attack bc now, now you removed resist for damage, you could have simpler swapped the 50% range for the damage, does it even need 75% range bonus, which also begs the question why not just move the current ABC's too T2 and make the 4 more speedy bc's proper attack bc's.. this would open up a greater range of stats, being speed lower sig better agility etc.. more variety of sig radius is needed at least here.


Ham's don't need a nerf. Last I checked they were only viable on 2-3 ships.


HAM's a medium weapon has the same range as torps a large weapon... need i go on??

so you want hams to have the same range as small missiles or rockets?
Torps need a range buff. not Hams need a range nerf.


well the natural development would mean rockets being nerfed in range too, they have as good range as medium guns do.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#372 - 2015-09-15 11:41:24 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless.


Someone can attempt to burn in to scram range on arty sleip. I have an arty sleip fit that was good and used MJD. MJD, XLASB, 720's, MWD, was good kite combination. I also had dual neuts, so most small tackle could get neuted out semi-quick. MJD is more to escape things faster than you that hold a point. Like garmur.

MMJD is far from useless on CS though. I've actually had a number of CS with MJD as its too useful not to use. Vulture has over 100km long range, making MJD dunks easy. Damnation can get over 100km lock range with single range rig. So there are definitely fits that could benefit from a MJD bonus.

I'm not talking about herp derp frig pilots burning into a double neut Sleipnir, in most cases those are dream kills for the Sleipnir pilot. I'm talking more like hard tackle double LSE/double nos stabbers or cap boosted Svipuls. Keeping an arty Sleipnir long pointed without dying isn't exactly a cakewalk without dying or letting it slip out unless you're in a linked garmur.

Also didn't say MMJD is useless on CS in general, on slow brawl fit CS it's very useful, just that an MMJD bonus on the Sleipnir won't really make it any more or less viable than it currently is, on slow brawl fit CS (particularly armor fit ones) it's very useful, but my opinion it's hardly the go-to option for a Sleipnir, I mean how often do you plan to get perma pointed and not be able to shake it off that you need a Marauder cooldown bonus for it? Passing on the agility/speed buffs to Command Ships will help them farm more in those situations than an MMJD bonus.


Long webs tend to stop that from happening. Not to mention positioning, if a stabber comes in at 100km from me, i can lock him at 80km+ and get a few shots in by the time he gets into OH Fed Web range. Dual LSE stabbers are not that tanky, and have a big sig. Easy to track. Svipuls are also not super hard to kill, sabot ruins them with proper piloting. Inties will be something to worry about as usual.

I understand what you're saying, but i don't think we are saying to ONLY give CS an MJD bonus. But for those who use them, having an MJD to reposition around the grid quickly (something an arty sleip would find useful) is not a bad thing. Marauders have an MJD bonus and people have found plenty of uses for it, both in PvP and PvE.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Anthar Thebess
#373 - 2015-09-15 13:48:20 UTC
Can we get a secondary bonus to all battle cruiser hulls, something that will make them unique in some way.
Suggested boosts are nice, but without considering the ability to mount links, and MJD - there is nothing special about those hulls.

Most of the people don't consider putting links on this ship class, as better ships can be easily obtained that have better bonuses, as for the MJD - it is fun, but not necessarily provide good use on a battlefield , or make this hull useful because of this.

Battle crusers are quite often used by a new players , and because of this i suggest that more of the stats are migrated from BC level to a basic hull bonus.

Basically i don't have idea what we can else offer to this class to make it more unique.

Probably bad idea, but can we make them to have 1000 m3 of cargo hold?
This way we will have ship that can haul additional supplies for the battle or roam.
Set of additional large bubbles , mobile depos, MJD etc etc.

For higsec players shield BC could be adapted to low cost armored trucks to haul some more valuable stuff.
But this is probably bad idea.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#374 - 2015-09-15 14:18:48 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Can we get a secondary bonus to all battle cruiser hulls, something that will make them unique in some way.
Suggested boosts are nice, but without considering the ability to mount links, and MJD - there is nothing special about those hulls.


So providing you discount the things that make them unique, they are not unique/special? Shocked

Yeah funny how that works Roll

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#375 - 2015-09-15 15:39:30 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Poranius Fisc wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Poranius Fisc wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
some nice buffs too certain ships especially harbinger, but some big overbuffs too the navy bc's i mean a drake that has more tank than a raven, smaller sig aswell, with only 25% less range on HAM's than torps, really?? .. when are HAM's getting that range nerf? and better mobility than a navy brutix WTF???? .. its either a brawler or a kiter.. pick one

Ferox changes are interesting, more of a shield brutix now .. ish, would expect it too be quicker than the drake though, tiny mass difference isnt good either, i would also expect a lower sig as it's basically an attack bc now, now you removed resist for damage, you could have simpler swapped the 50% range for the damage, does it even need 75% range bonus, which also begs the question why not just move the current ABC's too T2 and make the 4 more speedy bc's proper attack bc's.. this would open up a greater range of stats, being speed lower sig better agility etc.. more variety of sig radius is needed at least here.


Ham's don't need a nerf. Last I checked they were only viable on 2-3 ships.


HAM's a medium weapon has the same range as torps a large weapon... need i go on??

so you want hams to have the same range as small missiles or rockets?
Torps need a range buff. not Hams need a range nerf.


well the natural development would mean rockets being nerfed in range too, they have as good range as medium guns do.


The only person complaining about rockets having too much range is you. The medium weapon system with comparable range as rockets is medium, unbonused blasters. This isnt taking into account most rocket ships use rage missiles which drops them down to under 9km of range.

Regardless its still some pretty silly logic. Especially when you consider small railguns, beams and artillery have more range than rockets. Hell small acs with barrage or scorch pulse have same or better range.

HAMs = 20km
HML = 60km

rockets = 10km
LML = 42km

Torps = 20km
Cruise = 148km

One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same.

Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#376 - 2015-09-15 16:31:53 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


HAMs = 20km
HML = 60km

rockets = 10km
LML = 42km

Torps = 20km
Cruise = 148km

One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same.

Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous.


If torp applied better than cruise like short range weapon are technically supposed to, it would not be that big of a problem. Right now, any non bomber torp boat need so much med slot/rig support it's funny to look at.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#377 - 2015-09-15 16:50:35 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


HAMs = 20km
HML = 60km

rockets = 10km
LML = 42km

Torps = 20km
Cruise = 148km

One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same.

Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous.


If torp applied better than cruise like short range weapon are technically supposed to, it would not be that big of a problem. Right now, any non bomber torp boat need so much med slot/rig support it's funny to look at.


Also having higher fitting costs than its long range weapon system. Torp/cruise relations are just derpy as hell. I agree with you though.

I was merely pointing out that because HAMs have the same range as torps, does not mean HAM range needs to be nerfed.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#378 - 2015-09-15 17:01:41 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


HAMs = 20km
HML = 60km

rockets = 10km
LML = 42km

Torps = 20km
Cruise = 148km

One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same.

Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous.


If torp applied better than cruise like short range weapon are technically supposed to, it would not be that big of a problem. Right now, any non bomber torp boat need so much med slot/rig support it's funny to look at.


Also having higher fitting costs than its long range weapon system. Torp/cruise relations are just derpy as hell. I agree with you though.

I was merely pointing out that because HAMs have the same range as torps, does not mean HAM range needs to be nerfed.


Yeah the range are all over the place. There is no progression scheme. LML to HML is close to a 50% gain while HML to cruise is over 100% gain. Rocket to HAM is 100% gain and then 0 from HAM to torp. I have no idea where those numbers come from.
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#379 - 2015-09-15 17:09:04 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships....

Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter.

I guess that I'm wondering if a BS *can* counter a BC, after these changes.

Seems to me that a BC should be able to more easily kite a BS, with the buffs to both speed and weapon range. Maybe a drone or missile BS would still be ok, but anything with large guns is probably going to do less damage.


Well, as someone posted earlier, a scorpion would be hard put to Jam a BC if they all got sensor strengths at the BS level. Im pretty sure a Gheddon can nuet out ever last one of these, less a pure passive fit drake, but you'd more than likely be doing more dps and can fit a stronger tank. BS's will get a pass soon enough I am sure.

I hope all ewar gets a better look soon at the BS level. Lots of platform types missing. They'd be fun to fly :)
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#380 - 2015-09-15 17:13:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Terra Chrall
Please increase the base targeting range on all BC below 60km, and make 60km the minimum base range. The Prophecy and Cyclone at 50km is too short and even the Myrmidon at 55km. Both drone boats can send their drones out faster, but can't even target far enough away to call it a projection bonus. The Cyclone deserves better than 50km base targeting range.