These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#441 - 2015-09-18 05:37:32 UTC
Rampage2010 wrote:
Plz Do not forget the Gnosis

The Gnosis is not a normal CBC.
It's a zero skill special gift that was given out. It doesn't need to be made competitive against other BS, because of it's special gift nature and it's non replaceable nature also.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#442 - 2015-09-18 07:01:32 UTC
Rampage2010 wrote:
Plz forget about the Gnosis


Corrected that for you.
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#443 - 2015-09-18 09:20:43 UTC
Suitonia wrote:
/wisdom


Suitonia, what would you think about giving it 8 highs with 7 launchers with 5 percent to kin damage? KIN damage is nerfed by a quarter of a launcher, with selectable damage going up and low sp damage starting higher.
Nevil Kincade
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#444 - 2015-09-18 09:45:51 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Changes look alright to be honest, better than I would have expected for pass 1 anyways.

Contentious points seem to be the kinetic lock and the Harbs cap bonus.

[...]

As for the cap usage bonus on the Harb, its fine, pulses get better base range and base damage than other turret weapon systems, the cap usage bonus is the price you pay for having a short range turret with amazing base DPS and the ability to apply a good chunk of that DPS out to medium range (or further, with this new bonus).

[...]

.


It's not pass 1 ...
The Harb is not fine ...
And the usage stats show that ...


I used the harb for over 6 month gatecamping in null and low sec just around the time BCs got changed the last time when the Harbinger received the 10% dmg bonus and one turret slot was removed. A change that increased dmg and reduced cap consumption slightly. I was rather new back then and the Harb was the only ship i had nearly maxed out and therefore i used it a lot. I am sad to see that the next balance pass took years to come along and still does not address the Harbinger's issues. Once again the Harbs cap is buffed but it's problems remain.

Again: It is the only BC that gets only one effective bonus instead of two. And that is completely unjustified.


"The price you pay" for the lasers advantages are already compensated by their innate weaknesses:

- Pulse base damage is certainly not as good as blasters. And has a worse (less universal) damage profile.
- Pulse tracking is the worst among all short range turrets
- Lasers are vulnerable to neuts like no other weapon system while hybrids can be cycled to a certain degree under neuts.
- Tracking and damage get even worse once you start using the only advantage pulse lasers have here: Scorch M and range.

If your point was valid then all laser platforms need to have one bonus slot removed. Balance passes on cruisers have shown that CCP is willing to replace energy turret cap consumption bonuses. Why it has been overlooked here is beyond my comprehension.

Anyway, maintaining range and making use of it's turrets range is problematic for a Harb:
In it's current state a harb would run dry on it's own by only shooting pulse lasers even with max capacitor skills despite the 10% energy turret cap bonus. Let alone pulsing MWD. I sincerely hope that the buff to capacitor capacity will finally enable the Harb to continueouly shoot it's guns at least because being the only BC unable to do so despite a bonus slot dedicated to enabling it to do so was an extraordinarily pathetic state over the last years even for CCP balancing standards.

To run it's MWD after the new balance changes I would still expect the ship to need a cap booster which costs so much power grid that you can't fit a 1600mm plate anymore at which point i would choose any other BC over the Harb (if i was looking for an armor tank). So you can basically choose between pest and cholera either having:

- no PG for tank
- or no CAP for propulsion
- or no CAP for lasers

But what will really keep people from using the ship again is the fact that one of the hull bonuses is ****. I could live with the Harb running dry after a couple of minutes and even with the implications of fitting a cap booster but other hulls dont have the cap issue and offer a 2nd bonus. Screw the Harb, not going back to it.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#445 - 2015-09-18 10:37:55 UTC
Nevil Kincade wrote:

To run it's MWD after the new balance changes I would still expect the ship to need a cap booster which costs so much power grid that you can't fit a 1600mm plate anymore at which point i would choose any other BC over the Harb (if i was looking for an armor tank). So you can basically choose between pest and cholera either having:

- no PG for tank
- or no CAP for propulsion
- or no CAP for lasers

But what will really keep people from using the ship again is the fact that one of the hull bonuses is ****. I could live with the Harb running dry after a couple of minutes and even with the implications of fitting a cap booster but other hulls dont have the cap issue and offer a 2nd bonus. Screw the Harb, not going back to it.


[Harbinger, test]
1600mm Steel Plates II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

50MN Microwarpdrive II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I
Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I

Infiltrator II x5
Warrior II x5


- absolutely no PG issues.

as a comparison, your "any other armor BC":

[Brutix, test]
1600mm Steel Plates II
[empty low slot]
[empty low slot]
[empty low slot]
[empty low slot]
[empty low slot]

50MN Microwarpdrive II
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
[empty high slot]


- already requires a 5% PG implant to fit.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#446 - 2015-09-18 11:40:25 UTC
Why do they all have the exact same cap regen?
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#447 - 2015-09-18 12:01:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
I feel the Harbinger is still going to be fairly weak standing next to a Prophecy.


Harbinger should receive a large capacitor recharge buff but lower the capacitor capacity.
Swap the 10% cap reduction bonus for a 4% armour resist bonus

Harbinger then becomes an excellent brawler with a small capacitor reservoir that gives it an inherent weakness. Although its cap recharge time will allow for endurance with lasers. The smaller cap reservoir will also mean it gets hit with the MWD cap penalty less which also helps.


The Cyclone is at the bottom of the usage pile for a reason. It's a two or three trick pony at best. It really needs a rework of the slot layout and hardpoint profile.

It really needs:

.

  1. A heavy CPU buff
  2. An extra midslot at the cost of a low slot
  3. An extra launcher or the RoF bonus buffing to 7.5%
  4. if 1-3 are implemented - reduce it's drone bandwidth to 25 but keep the 50 bay.
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#448 - 2015-09-18 12:59:22 UTC
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
Why do they all have the exact same cap regen?


That is Average regen, look at the regen time and the cap pool.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#449 - 2015-09-18 13:12:28 UTC
Nevil Kincade wrote:
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Changes look alright to be honest, better than I would have expected for pass 1 anyways.

Contentious points seem to be the kinetic lock and the Harbs cap bonus.

[...]

As for the cap usage bonus on the Harb, its fine, pulses get better base range and base damage than other turret weapon systems, the cap usage bonus is the price you pay for having a short range turret with amazing base DPS and the ability to apply a good chunk of that DPS out to medium range (or further, with this new bonus).

[...]

.


It's not pass 1 ...
The Harb is not fine ...
And the usage stats show that ...


I used the harb for over 6 month gatecamping in null and low sec just around the time BCs got changed the last time when the Harbinger received the 10% dmg bonus and one turret slot was removed. A change that increased dmg and reduced cap consumption slightly. I was rather new back then and the Harb was the only ship i had nearly maxed out and therefore i used it a lot. I am sad to see that the next balance pass took years to come along and still does not address the Harbinger's issues. Once again the Harbs cap is buffed but it's problems remain.

Again: It is the only BC that gets only one effective bonus instead of two. And that is completely unjustified.


"The price you pay" for the lasers advantages are already compensated by their innate weaknesses:

- Pulse base damage is certainly not as good as blasters. And has a worse (less universal) damage profile.
- Pulse tracking is the worst among all short range turrets
- Lasers are vulnerable to neuts like no other weapon system while hybrids can be cycled to a certain degree under neuts.
- Tracking and damage get even worse once you start using the only advantage pulse lasers have here: Scorch M and range.

If your point was valid then all laser platforms need to have one bonus slot removed. Balance passes on cruisers have shown that CCP is willing to replace energy turret cap consumption bonuses. Why it has been overlooked here is beyond my comprehension.

Anyway, maintaining range and making use of it's turrets range is problematic for a Harb:
In it's current state a harb would run dry on it's own by only shooting pulse lasers even with max capacitor skills despite the 10% energy turret cap bonus. Let alone pulsing MWD. I sincerely hope that the buff to capacitor capacity will finally enable the Harb to continueouly shoot it's guns at least because being the only BC unable to do so despite a bonus slot dedicated to enabling it to do so was an extraordinarily pathetic state over the last years even for CCP balancing standards.

To run it's MWD after the new balance changes I would still expect the ship to need a cap booster which costs so much power grid that you can't fit a 1600mm plate anymore at which point i would choose any other BC over the Harb (if i was looking for an armor tank). So you can basically choose between pest and cholera either having:

- no PG for tank
- or no CAP for propulsion
- or no CAP for lasers

But what will really keep people from using the ship again is the fact that one of the hull bonuses is ****. I could live with the Harb running dry after a couple of minutes and even with the implications of fitting a cap booster but other hulls dont have the cap issue and offer a 2nd bonus. Screw the Harb, not going back to it.


Harb with HPL and conflag and 2 heatsinks is 55% stable. How are you running out of cap with just guns running? Also, pulse lasers arent the only weapons it can fit. Beams are quite viable and will be even more viable with range/cap buff plus cap cost reduction bonus. Beams use considerably more cap than pulses. Even the biggest beam is stable with 2 heatsinks at 46%.

I tinkered with the harb a bit, and its certainly not terrible. I was using quad light beams, 100mn AB and MJD on my fit. Could brawl down most other ships and MJD away from anything faster. Meanwhile pumping out 700+ dps and having a set of medium and light drones. Excluding the drone BCs, it also has the largest drone bay.

Its also got a very decent amount of grid. 1600 plate, 100mn AB, MMJD, med nos and quad lights all fit with only a single MACR.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#450 - 2015-09-18 14:18:31 UTC
Cyclone is only i see that could use bit more help,at least fitting(cpu),extra mid slot or swap from low to mid...or it will remain where it is usage wise....someone need to be at the end anyway...

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#451 - 2015-09-18 14:19:22 UTC
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
Why do they all have the exact same cap regen?


That is Average regen, look at the regen time and the cap pool.

I know that. Why do they all, unlike every other class, have the same regen across the class?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#452 - 2015-09-18 15:20:51 UTC
not a fan of more drones being added too ships, i think we need less drones myself, especially making caldari and minmatar have the same capability of fielding drones as the brutix is plain wrong and kills off gallente strengths and uniqueness

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.
#453 - 2015-09-18 16:36:44 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
not a fan of more drones being added too ships, i think we need less drones myself, especially making caldari and minmatar have the same capability of fielding drones as the brutix is plain wrong and kills off gallente strengths and uniqueness


Except that the brutix isnt bonused to drones, and still does more damage than any other BC before drones (670ish with AM, 750 with void). Brutix is a hybrid boat, not a drone boat. If the drake got bonuses to hybrids then id tend to agree with you, but it didnt.

Giving BCs a better drone bay is a way to increase overall dps of the hull without changing slot layouts or traits. Probably why they went this route with the navy drake, instead of dropping a launcher and giving a RoF bonus. Since its launchers are unbonused via damage, they increased potential dps by giving it more dronebay/bandwidth. Same with the navy cane as it technically lost dps compared to t1 cane, so they are compensating with more drone bay/bandwidth.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#454 - 2015-09-18 16:55:44 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
not a fan of more drones being added too ships, i think we need less drones myself, especially making caldari and minmatar have the same capability of fielding drones as the brutix is plain wrong and kills off gallente strengths and uniqueness


Except that the brutix isnt bonused to drones, and still does more damage than any other BC before drones (670ish with AM, 750 with void). Brutix is a hybrid boat, not a drone boat. If the drake got bonuses to hybrids then id tend to agree with you, but it didnt.

Giving BCs a better drone bay is a way to increase overall dps of the hull without changing slot layouts or traits. Probably why they went this route with the navy drake, instead of dropping a launcher and giving a RoF bonus. Since its launchers are unbonused via damage, they increased potential dps by giving it more dronebay/bandwidth. Same with the navy cane as it technically lost dps compared to t1 cane, so they are compensating with more drone bay/bandwidth.


i know why they are doing it that's quite obvious, however that doesn't justify it, navy drake will have huge tank on top the bizzare mobility buff, it doesn't need too go out of caldari lore just too buff its dps slightly.

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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#455 - 2015-09-18 17:45:10 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
not a fan of more drones being added too ships, i think we need less drones myself, especially making caldari and minmatar have the same capability of fielding drones as the brutix is plain wrong and kills off gallente strengths and uniqueness


Except that the brutix isnt bonused to drones, and still does more damage than any other BC before drones (670ish with AM, 750 with void). Brutix is a hybrid boat, not a drone boat. If the drake got bonuses to hybrids then id tend to agree with you, but it didnt.

Giving BCs a better drone bay is a way to increase overall dps of the hull without changing slot layouts or traits. Probably why they went this route with the navy drake, instead of dropping a launcher and giving a RoF bonus. Since its launchers are unbonused via damage, they increased potential dps by giving it more dronebay/bandwidth. Same with the navy cane as it technically lost dps compared to t1 cane, so they are compensating with more drone bay/bandwidth.


i know why they are doing it that's quite obvious, however that doesn't justify it, navy drake will have huge tank on top the bizzare mobility buff, it doesn't need too go out of caldari lore just too buff its dps slightly.


The balance is more important than lolore.
Gramps Pljugi
Black Rabbits
Black Rabbit.
#456 - 2015-09-18 18:34:17 UTC
CCP consider giving Prophecy 10 extra drone bandwith, it would help field 2x small webifier drones or 2x small target painter drones, both would help with application of missile damage and heavy drone damage, its not a significant buff but its one with most potential to bring it up to speed with other ships...
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#457 - 2015-09-18 20:00:43 UTC
Looking at the Navy variants I see value for money even for pvp where before only the Navy Brutix lived up to it's price tag, but now they all look good except the Navy Harb.

Is there a role that the Navy Harbinger is so good at you would risk 200mil isk for the hull knowing you're not getting much of it back from insurance if you lose it?
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#458 - 2015-09-18 20:44:43 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Looking at the Navy variants I see value for money even for pvp where before only the Navy Brutix lived up to it's price tag, but now they all look good except the Navy Harb.

Is there a role that the Navy Harbinger is so good at you would risk 200mil isk for the hull knowing you're not getting much of it back from insurance if you lose it?


Beams + tracking/optimal bonus and 5th mid could quite flexible in shield or armor doctrines. Or small gang. I personally would probably run it as a MJD/100mn brawler /w cap booster and neut. Pretty much a mirror of t1 harb, but adding cap booster and replacing NOS with neut. But im alil weird in how i fly BCs. I like to solo with them.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Asuna Crossbreed
Kittens
#459 - 2015-09-19 00:40:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuna Crossbreed
After thinking about it. The harbinger feels a little weak still, but its in such a nice spot that it can be hard to argue away the cap bonus, which many argue is worthless. What if the cap bonus was made 15% per level. that would be a 75% reduction, it would make it a actual coveted bonus as your guns would be good and use little cap.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#460 - 2015-09-19 06:51:55 UTC
I'm not a PvP expert, but I think my main issue with the navy harbinger is that anything you would use it for would be better served by getting into a navy brutix instead. It seems more of a role playing ship than anything else.

I get the same overall feeling for the regular Amarr battle cruisers as well. The other battle cruisers seem to have a niche of some niche they fill, but the Amarr ones feel like the roleplaying choice.

I'm noob though.