These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Battlecruisers: Projection Role Bonus

Author
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1 - 2015-04-25 03:33:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
This is something i've been thinking about and have made a few comments about in other threads. Figured i'd see if it had any merit and make its own thread.

Proposal
I'd like to see Battlecruisers receive a weapon range (projection) role bonus. This would not remove the link bonus (As i think having multiple roles on the BC would not be bad, allows variety in fits/uses).

The Reasoning
Battlecruisers are intended as anti-cruiser platforms, or gang support/cheap links (to a lesser extent). The same way that destroyers serve as anti-frigate platforms. Destroyers are often used to shoot long ranges to destroy frigates in small-medium gang settings to provide cover for larger ships. Sometimes its just a roaming blob of cheap T1 Destroyers creating a trail of frigate destruction through low sec.

Destroyer Comparison
Look at the use destroyers have in FW, or just roaming small gangs. I see Thrashers/corm/coercers/catalyst used in all manner daily. Thrasher takes advantage of 300+ dps in a/c fit, or project out to 25km+ and alpha small targets with arty no problem. Corm is very common and is often sniper fit sitting 100km+ being a huge annoyance to anyone in a frig and even some kite cruisers. Kite coercers and gank catalysts (or cata's supported by frigs for giant killers against bigger ships)are fairly common. Every destroyer has multiple roles for the most part and are GOOD at it, without being overpowered.

What does every destroyer have? Projection and application. Every destroyer has a range bonus and tracking bonus, to help them be flexible in filling their intended role as anti-frigate.

What cost did they pay for this added role? Well, tthe main one is that they're slower. But just because they're slower doesn't mean they can't still pick a frigate off at 20km+ (depending on fit).

Details
Coming back to battlecruisers, if we look at them in the same light as destroyers, they should function similarly. They're already much slower than their cruiser counterparts, but lack any projection minus the ferox.

Here is what I feel would be the best variety and keeping with the racial flavors.

Ferox = optimal bonus
Hurricane = falloff bonus
brutix = falloff bonus (this keeps it different from the ferox, and matches gallente fall-off bonused hulls)
harbinger = optimal bonus
drake/cyclone = missile velocity bonus
Prophecy/Myrm = Drone velocity bonus

I'm open to ideas to the Myrm/Prophecy, but i think these would work and compliment them for heavier drones chasing cruisers down.

For the Ferox the 10% optimal per level trait would be removed in favor of a different trait (perhaps 5% dmg or RoF per level). This would help it to drop 1 turret, helping fitting (which could be tuned slightly with the change as well to reduce a little PG).

Coupled with the MMJD, this could allow BC to be more viable in small gangs and with fozsov coming up, would make a great, cheap fleet doctrines for the smaller corps/alliances that may try to invade null to fight with.

Faction Battlecruisers
I also am not opposed to adding these to the fleet variations of BC's as well. This would actually give a reason to buy fleet BC's, or even consider them in fleet settings. *Side note* Change fleet hurricane to 10% dmg bonus and 7.5% tracking. Give us a reason to actually want one, other than "hey its the old cane".

This would mean a few things.

-Navy drake gets one of its traits put into a role. Meaning it can get a relevant trait added. Maybe RoF, lose a couple launchers and solves fitting issues, or allows fitting a neut (which i find way more important, and still fly T1 drakes because of that).

-Navy harb/brutix/drake/Cane (with proposed changes) all immediately become great possible doctrine ships. As they all share tracking/projection bonuses. Not to mention higher base EHP compared to the t1's.

-I keep hearing about cruisers:online, or how cruisers are everywhere. Well, i'm pretty sure a few fleet BC's would counter cruiser/HAC blobs, like destroyers counter frigate-blobs.

-If a resurgence of BC's happens due to these changes, this also means that Battleships will start to have a role again. To kill the new flood of BC's. Meaning we can start dusting these guys off, and having a healthier ship food chain. Instead of being stuck in Frigate/Cruisers all the time.

I think those are the key points. Let me know what you think.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#2 - 2015-04-25 05:00:15 UTC
Supported as the minimally intrusive change for maximal effect, with the size of the bonus being tunable fairly easily until close to the desired balance.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#3 - 2015-04-25 10:19:15 UTC
i just start too think this would push us back towards bc's online.
i suggest the better option is too reduce the top level of power on cruisers.
things like:
- cap dps at under bc levels 650 ish
- cap EHP under bc levels
- reduce the top level resists on cruisers too partial T2 resists, leave top level too command ships

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.
#4 - 2015-04-25 15:48:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Harvey James wrote:
i just start too think this would push us back towards bc's online.
i suggest the better option is too reduce the top level of power on cruisers.
things like:
- cap dps at under bc levels 650 ish
- cap EHP under bc levels
- reduce the top level resists on cruisers too partial T2 resists, leave top level too command ships


I don't believe it would become BC's online again. Ship traits/balance were completely different 2-3 years ago compared to how it is today. Weapon systems are also slightly different than how they used to be. Drakes were everywhere because of HML, HML are pretty terrible now. Hurricanes were prominent because you could add some nano's and kite around like a vagabond in a freakin BC. After nano and TE nerf and losing a utility high, hurricanes have been pretty well neutered.

Not to mention all the Battleships have been rebalanced since then. This is why i mentioned this in OP:

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
-If a resurgence of BC's happens due to these changes, this also means that Battleships will start to have a role again. To kill the new flood of BC's. Meaning we can start dusting these guys off, and having a healthier ship food chain. Instead of being stuck in Frigate/Cruisers all the time.


As to the rest of your statement, i don't think adding arbitrary caps to ship classes is good for a sandbox. Its mainly the drone boats that get over 650dps. The blaster deimos gets over 600, but thats because it gets 5 medium drones and is using blasters. If you're going to commit to a fight with blasters, you need the dps to kill things quick before you get blobbed.

Most cruisers are already under BC EHP levels. My DCU/invuln + 3 extender rigged drake has more EHP than my XLASB vagabond. You have a few pirate/faction cruisers that can get BC EHP levels (gila, navy aug), but its not all of them. The only resists that need to be tweaked are on T3 cruisers. HAC's (Heavy Assault Cruiser) are ships in a specialized role for heavy tackle, either by brawling or kiting, or in some cases sniping. Their resists are intended to support that role.

I think BC EHP levels are in a good medium at this moment between cruiser and BS. I mean, compare frigates to destroyers, the EHP bump destroyers got wasn't groundbreaking, maybe 30% more compared to a frigate. So, if you consider that when comparing BC and cruisers, i'd say its working as intended. If anything BS EHP should get a buff.
Mario Putzo
#5 - 2015-04-25 16:52:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Harvey James wrote:
i just start too think this would push us back towards bc's online.
i suggest the better option is too reduce the top level of power on cruisers.
things like:
- cap dps at under bc levels 650 ish
- cap EHP under bc levels
- reduce the top level resists on cruisers too partial T2 resists, leave top level too command ships


Ok im not sure where you got this false premise that BCs online existed because of their damage or their tank or w/e. The primary reason that BCs online existed is because you could get more money back in insurance than the hulls cost. In the case of the drake you could get 5-10 mil more from insurance than the hull cost (in some cases more).

Drakes for example were never really that strong. HACs could out perform them, and some HACs (armor variants) could even out tank and out DPS them at the same time. The Cane was a bit stronger, in the sense it could do quite a lot of damage, and tank really well, and had awesome speed.

The nerf to BCs was never done to facilitate the usage of other hull classes, the nerfs (primarily to Drake and Cane) were done to balance the BC line of ships, as these 2 specifically just shat all over the capabilities of the other 6 BCs, to a lesser extent the Harby and Brutix also shat over the other 4 (Myrm, Ferox, Proph, Cyclone).

The only reason that we now have cruisers online, and not BCs online, is because they offer you the most bang for the buck, you can get solid tanks (40-50K) with solid DPS (300-500DPS) great speed (AB or MWD fit) for a fully fit cost of around 30-40M (less than the cost of a BC Hull). More over, Crusiers were designed to be balanced against other hull types, not specifically against just their hull size like BCs were.


Now with the amount of changes to weapons systems, addition of drones as a weapons platform, and revamps to mineral cost/insurance payouts. BCs themselves could use with a rework of their role. Which should be effectively similar to that of the Destroyers and Frigs relationship.

BCs should **** all over Cruisers. But they don't, so they go underused simply because Cruisers are better at shitting on each other for the price point.

Ideally you would have a system like this.

BS > BC
BS should eat BCs (they do)
BC > C
BC should eat C (they don't)
C > D
C should eat D (they do)
D > F
D should eat F (they do)

With

F > BC
F should eat BC with time (they do)
C > BS
C should eat BS with time (they do)

These of course are without any additional flavors such as someone webbing the Frigs down so BCs can eat them, similarly with Cruisers being webbed down vs BS. This is just a basic food chain...and when one link is missing you get left with which ever ship has the least predators above it...in this case. Cruisers, and is partially why we see limited use of BS.


In regards to OP....I like the idea of making the BC/C relationship more like Dessies/Frigs...this is how it used to be before CCP started Tiericide, and then kind of stopped halfway through the balance act in 2013.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#6 - 2015-04-25 17:25:47 UTC
@ mario, if they were too do as i propose than bc's would end up being stronger than cruisers in brawls at the least, which is the main point of a bc anyway...
and before the cruiser buffs, most people flew HML drakes, now ofc HML's got nerfed heavily and RLML's have replaced them and ofc its ishtars online now because sentries .. so i suppose a great deal is too do with the weapon systems.

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

Mario Putzo
#7 - 2015-04-25 17:52:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Harvey James wrote:
@ mario, if they were too do as i propose than bc's would end up being stronger than cruisers in brawls at the least, which is the main point of a bc anyway...
and before the cruiser buffs, most people flew HML drakes, now ofc HML's got nerfed heavily and RLML's have replaced them and ofc its ishtars online now because sentries .. so i suppose a great deal is too do with the weapon systems.


Arbitrary caps are stupid though. If I want to fit an 800 DPS Thorax that is paper thin I should be able to, alternatively if I want to fit a 100K EHP Maller with little DPS, I should be able to do that too.


and again the ONLY reason folks flew drakes in the numbers they did is because they cost practically nothing to buy and fit. Insurance paid 100% of the hull cost and put isk into your wallet on the loss. In fact you could buy a drake, insure it, destroy it and make money (insurance fraud). In terms of combat HML drakes were, and always were ****. HAM Drakes on the other hand were pretty damn awesome (up to 700DPS, with 65K EHP, 1200m/s Dual Webs...mmm mmm.)

Everything killed drakes, Cruisers, HACs, BS, Carriers, Dreads, Titans. They were a garbage ship then, and are a garbage ship now...speaking of course in pure cost efficiency though they were the best. About the only thing they were (and are) good for was PVE.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#8 - 2015-04-25 17:56:26 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
@ mario, if they were too do as i propose than bc's would end up being stronger than cruisers in brawls at the least, which is the main point of a bc anyway...
and before the cruiser buffs, most people flew HML drakes, now ofc HML's got nerfed heavily and RLML's have replaced them and ofc its ishtars online now because sentries .. so i suppose a great deal is too do with the weapon systems.


Arbitrary caps are stupid though. If I want to fit an 800 DPS Thorax that is paper thin I should be able to, alternatively if I want to fit a 100K EHP Maller with little DPS, I should be able to do that too.




exceptions are fine, just in the whole they should be guidelines too keep them from being OP

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

Mario Putzo
#9 - 2015-04-25 17:58:13 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
@ mario, if they were too do as i propose than bc's would end up being stronger than cruisers in brawls at the least, which is the main point of a bc anyway...
and before the cruiser buffs, most people flew HML drakes, now ofc HML's got nerfed heavily and RLML's have replaced them and ofc its ishtars online now because sentries .. so i suppose a great deal is too do with the weapon systems.


Arbitrary caps are stupid though. If I want to fit an 800 DPS Thorax that is paper thin I should be able to, alternatively if I want to fit a 100K EHP Maller with little DPS, I should be able to do that too.




exceptions are fine, just in the whole they should be guidelines too keep them from being OP


Ya its called fitting limitations which exist. The only exception to this rule at present is Drone based ships...which is why they have been Flavor of the past 2 years.
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-04-25 19:23:22 UTC
I agree with the OP on most points, though I'd like to see the cyclone get an application bonus instead of another projection bonus. These changes would give players a great choice between ships that can hold ground well in a fight, or ones that can control the flow of the grid, pretty similarly to the dynamic, as the OP mentioned, between destroyers and frigates. It would also help to make battleships more relevant, but I still think that CCP needs to address battleships separately. They're good in a few cases, particularly drone nulls and RHML hulls, but overall the t1 lineup and even a couple of the faction hulls are pretty underwhelming.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#11 - 2015-04-26 08:35:11 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i just start too think this would push us back towards bc's online.
i suggest the better option is too reduce the top level of power on cruisers.
things like:
- cap dps at under bc levels 650 ish
- cap EHP under bc levels
- reduce the top level resists on cruisers too partial T2 resists, leave top level too command ships


Ok im not sure where you got this false premise that BCs online existed because of their damage or their tank or w/e. The primary reason that BCs online existed is because you could get more money back in insurance than the hulls cost. In the case of the drake you could get 5-10 mil more from insurance than the hull cost (in some cases more).

Drakes for example were never really that strong. HACs could out perform them, and some HACs (armor variants) could even out tank and out DPS them at the same time. The Cane was a bit stronger, in the sense it could do quite a lot of damage, and tank really well, and had awesome speed.

The nerf to BCs was never done to facilitate the usage of other hull classes, the nerfs (primarily to Drake and Cane) were done to balance the BC line of ships, as these 2 specifically just shat all over the capabilities of the other 6 BCs, to a lesser extent the Harby and Brutix also shat over the other 4 (Myrm, Ferox, Proph, Cyclone).

The only reason that we now have cruisers online, and not BCs online, is because they offer you the most bang for the buck, you can get solid tanks (40-50K) with solid DPS (300-500DPS) great speed (AB or MWD fit) for a fully fit cost of around 30-40M (less than the cost of a BC Hull). More over, Crusiers were designed to be balanced against other hull types, not specifically against just their hull size like BCs were.


Now with the amount of changes to weapons systems, addition of drones as a weapons platform, and revamps to mineral cost/insurance payouts. BCs themselves could use with a rework of their role. Which should be effectively similar to that of the Destroyers and Frigs relationship.

BCs should **** all over Cruisers. But they don't, so they go underused simply because Cruisers are better at shitting on each other for the price point.

Ideally you would have a system like this.

BS > BC
BS should eat BCs (they do)
BC > C
BC should eat C (they don't)
C > D
C should eat D (they do)
D > F
D should eat F (they do)

With

F > BC
F should eat BC with time (they do)
C > BS
C should eat BS with time (they do)

These of course are without any additional flavors such as someone webbing the Frigs down so BCs can eat them, similarly with Cruisers being webbed down vs BS. This is just a basic food chain...and when one link is missing you get left with which ever ship has the least predators above it...in this case. Cruisers, and is partially why we see limited use of BS.


In regards to OP....I like the idea of making the BC/C relationship more like Dessies/Frigs...this is how it used to be before CCP started Tiericide, and then kind of stopped halfway through the balance act in 2013.


I learn something new every time I read something as competent as this. Without been aware of this fact I conscientiously focused on medium turrets and cruiser hulls for their versatility & survivability. Also I now know the reason I cringed at the thought of training for the Absolution. The t1 BC hulls were one thing but CS's absolutely need another Role Bonus like a -75% micro warp drive energy consumption or 50% weapon damage bonus in addition to the 3 warfare link bonus. They're also the only ships that don't have pirate faction variants which puts BC's in the most needed help column atm. I really liked the T1 & T2 BC's 3 years ago, but now they're completely without purpose other than maybe C2/C3's which can also be done with HAC's & T3's. SO i totally agree that they need a complete rework to regain the niche they once had that's now dominated by HAC's and T3's.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#12 - 2015-04-26 12:56:04 UTC
Mjd spool up or cooldown reduction could be an easy way to spice up the CS line-up without having to do a full rebalance.
Mario Putzo
#13 - 2015-04-26 13:51:45 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Mjd spool up or cooldown reduction could be an easy way to spice up the CS line-up without having to do a full rebalance.


What would really spice up CS is forcing on grid boosting, since this ship line is really the only one capable of fitting a combat effective tank while maintaining max boosts. T3's can go diaf.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#14 - 2015-04-26 14:02:10 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Mjd spool up or cooldown reduction could be an easy way to spice up the CS line-up without having to do a full rebalance.


What would really spice up CS is forcing on grid boosting, since this ship line is really the only one capable of fitting a combat effective tank while maintaining max boosts. T3's can go diaf.


Agreed. However we have no ETA as to when that will happen. In the meantime a role bonus to mjd could help some of the CS get more use. As a side bonus, once links are on grid, the MJD will be even more valuable to dedicated link boats, making the bonus all the more viable.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#15 - 2015-04-26 19:36:21 UTC
What Role bonus are Battleships going to get then? Or are Battleships akin to frigates and cruisers in your world? Blink

Supported because of this - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

DEATH TO ALL CRUISERS AND CAPITALS
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2015-04-26 19:57:32 UTC
+1 what this would do is make BCs excellent anti-support for BS doctrines. they could even keep up with MJDs if it's one of those doctrines.

on that note I think the cane should get 10 damage and 7.5 tracking like the harb and Brut.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#17 - 2015-04-27 02:30:30 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
What Role bonus are Battleships going to get then? Or are Battleships akin to frigates and cruisers in your world? Blink

Supported because of this - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

DEATH TO ALL CRUISERS AND CAPITALS


Na, BS don't need a role bonus. They just need a role. Killing BC's would be a good role when BC's are actually out and about in the same numbers cruisers/frigates are.

BS get used in fleets, and as camper crashers at least. When was the last time BC's were used en masse` in a fleet? When did we have small gang comps running around with BC's in their midst? Its very rare.

BS also can fit large weapons. BC's fit medium weapons, and move slower. I'd classify things that use smaller guns/launchers on larger hulls have a role bonus. Since they're inherently slower due to the added weight, but gain no range from their weapon systems.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#18 - 2015-04-27 06:06:00 UTC
The BC Role bonus also doesn't have to be a 50% bonus. It can easily be a 33% or 25% bonus, meaning it's not as much of an advantage (since medium weapons have larger projection to start with). But it will still make an interesting difference to CBC's without stepping on ABC's toes if the bonus is only 25%.

BC's don't need much of a tweak to become good again, and I'd rather start too small and then increase the bonus than start too big.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#19 - 2015-04-27 08:04:52 UTC
The explanation of the food chain was very nice. Thank you, Mario. There are many people who should read that.

This is a good thread. The OP deserves credit for posting something thoughtful and well-argued, rather than the standard whiny sputum we see so often.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#20 - 2015-04-27 14:28:51 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
The BC Role bonus also doesn't have to be a 50% bonus. It can easily be a 33% or 25% bonus, meaning it's not as much of an advantage (since medium weapons have larger projection to start with). But it will still make an interesting difference to CBC's without stepping on ABC's toes if the bonus is only 25%.

BC's don't need much of a tweak to become good again, and I'd rather start too small and then increase the bonus than start too big.


I dont think 50% is too strong. It is the standard amount applied to hull bonus. Anything less (especially falloff on medium acs) would be fruitless.

You mention "medium weapons have larger projection to start with". In comparison to what? Tier3/ABCs use large guns which inherently have more base range + hull bonus. These bonuses would not apply to ABCs only BCs using medium sized weapons.

180 ACs with a 50% falloff bonus only shoot out to 16km with a naked fit (for comparison, large dual 425s on a nado shoot out to 27km naked). HAMS could shoot out to 30km, but would apply for **** unless the target was webbed/TP'd. Scorch pulse would be in the 30-40km range and blasters would be around 15km. Those dont seem that OP. The nomen shoots out to 40-50km and goes 2500m/s+ and people are ok with it. Whats the difference if a harby can have the same range but is much slower? Meaning its more susceptible to tracking issues if unsupported.

Yes you have LR guns as well that will project better. But that causes its own issues. Have you seen a BC fit LR guns? They have very little grid left (like dessies, another common shared theme). Which means tank/utility will be sparse. Not to mention you could outtrack them easily. Its only when properly supported that they shine. Fleet settings are a good example.

If people are afraid it will be harder for their kite cruisers to kite.. well thats kind of the point. Sniper corms/thrasher/coercer cause havoc for kitey frigs, but no one seems concerned with nerfing them. Its because they trade their speed for range and tank. CBCs already have the tank buff and speed nerf, but no projection bonus. This means all of them function as glorified brawlers, which is as good as dead in this overloaded kite meta. They need range to perform their role as anti-cruiser.

Lets say we remove range bonuses on dessies. How do you think they would fair then? Still think a scorch coercer would be viable? Could arty thrashers still shoot out to LP range to get that pesky condor off its back? Or could corms still be the backbone of anti frig gangs? Unlikely. Just a few things to take into consideration with how that range bonus synergizes with their roles.




123Next pageLast page