These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

T2 Battlecruisers with weapon range bonus of the T1

Author
Spaceship Bebop
#1 - 2016-12-23 13:33:36 UTC
I would really like a good reason to train into and fly T2 Battlecruisers...

T1 BC really shine and are fun to fly with the:

25% bonus to [Weapon] optimal range and falloff

That feature would be really sexy on its T2 brethren. With that added range bonus and on grid boosts, I'd love to fly a command ship and put range between me and the enemy keeping the enemy on the other side of our fleet while boosting them and still applying DPS and having fun with the oh so important killboards! lolz

T3 immune to remote reps. They should be the most powerful solo/small gang ships but not useful for large fleets as T2 ships should be used. Remove Insurance from game. Ban Frigate Pirate Ships from Novice FW Plexs. Buy me Ice cream please!

O.U.Z.O. Alliance
#2 - 2016-12-23 16:29:50 UTC
They didn't get them yet but I won't be against it.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

#3 - 2016-12-25 12:31:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Artillery Sleipnir and HML Claymore both have great range, excellent alpha, a serious tank and boost shield/signature (which are both excellent boosts for any shield fleet)
Spaceship Bebop
#4 - 2017-01-03 11:18:10 UTC
Just a little bump to put this back at the top to see what others think. If I'm one of the only one this concerned about it... then I guess its not worth implementing.

T3 immune to remote reps. They should be the most powerful solo/small gang ships but not useful for large fleets as T2 ships should be used. Remove Insurance from game. Ban Frigate Pirate Ships from Novice FW Plexs. Buy me Ice cream please!

#5 - 2017-01-03 16:03:28 UTC
Personally, I wouldn't add the T1 battlecruiser application bounses to the command ships. A few reasons why:

1. In at least one case (Prophecy), the bonus would make zero sense. Why would a Khanid missile boat need a drone MWD bonus?

2. In another case (Ferox), the resulting bonus would be insane. +125% Optimal + 25% falloff at CS V? Ouch.

3. Command Ships already tend to have bonuses geared towards application to smaller targets. Giving them a blanket ability to apply to targets that are also further away would increase their power dramatically.

Having said that, I could see Command Ships getting a little love of some sort, especially now that they have to be on-grid in order to boost. I'm just not sure that this is what they need.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Spaceship Bebop
#6 - 2017-01-05 01:26:07 UTC
You could be right, I'm not asking to break the game with them. Maybe to a lesser extent instead of 25% general range bonus, they get 10% or 15%?

Bronson Hughes wrote:
Having said that, I could see Command Ships getting a little love of some sort, especially now that they have to be on-grid in order to boost. I'm just not sure that this is what they need.


But this I definitely agree on, they need some love to justify their SP investment.

T3 immune to remote reps. They should be the most powerful solo/small gang ships but not useful for large fleets as T2 ships should be used. Remove Insurance from game. Ban Frigate Pirate Ships from Novice FW Plexs. Buy me Ice cream please!

#7 - 2017-01-05 14:07:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Bobman Smith wrote:
You could be right, I'm not asking to break the game with them. Maybe to a lesser extent instead of 25% general range bonus, they get 10% or 15%?

Bronson Hughes wrote:
Having said that, I could see Command Ships getting a little love of some sort, especially now that they have to be on-grid in order to boost. I'm just not sure that this is what they need.


But this I definitely agree on, they need some love to justify their SP investment.



I can only give you my word on this, but as a gal that has flown most command ships in pvp at one time or another. The skill investment is worth it. They all have really great applications in various situations. None of them are good all of the time, nor should they be. Being small gang WH folk, we have used command ships for several years w/ boosts on grid. They have and will continue to work great. All the on grid boosting change is going to do is make the 6 link crap fits a thing of the past.

I'm not sure there is a bad command ship out there right now. Sleipnir fleets are currently ripping things up. Command ship pilots just have to shift their point of reference. They are pvp ships with great damage application, good to awesome tanks and they give 1 or 2 boosts to your fleet while kicking some patoot. For the price (isk) they are a great purchase. Since command ship training went from 'Command ships' to 'Race Command ships' their training cost went up a lot.

Some guys can't get past the notion that longer training time means the ship should get a significant buff to justify it. That's bad logic. You have to look at the balance of the ship vs others once you get into it. You can't start adding buffs due to longer training times - that would throw the game all sorts of out of whack in short order.

Taking the long training hit is a personal choice. I think for command ships - it's worth it. If you don't, that doesn't equate to command ships needing a buff.
#8 - 2017-01-05 14:56:00 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Taking the long training hit is a personal choice. I think for command ships - it's worth it. If you don't, that doesn't equate to command ships needing a buff.

I should probably clarify. I don't think that Command Ships as a class need any sort of buff, but there are a few things that I think need to be addressed.

1. Slot layout on the Nighthawk. 5/5 mid/low on a Caldari BC? Lolwat? This is utterly ridiculous. Borderline criminal. Make this 6/4 like a sane person.

2. Slot layout on the Sleipnir. Again, 5/5 mid/low. Not nearly as egregious as the Nighthawk since Minmatar ships typically shield or armor tank, but it should probably be 4/6 or 6/4.

3. Slot layout on the Absolution. While 3/7 mid/low makes sense from a lore standpoint as a Carthum ship, it's the only CS that can dedicate a 7 slots entirely to tank, plus it happens to have a naturally balanced resit profile that matches those slots. I think 4/6 like the other armor tankers would be a bit more sane tank-wise, plus offer more utility with an extra midslot.

4. Drone Bay on the Eos. Providing less of a drone bay on the Eos than the Ishtar is nuts. I've said for a long time that the problem with the Ishtar isn't its drones, it's its massive drone bay, which strays from the typical Gallente/Amarr bandwidth/bay balance. I'd swap the two values so that the Ishtar has 250m^3 and the Eos has 375m^3, and then maybe tone the Eos down to 300m^3 or so.

So, again, no major things, and nothing class-wide. Just a little love here and there to address some issues.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Evictus.
#9 - 2017-01-05 18:21:41 UTC
They cut roughly a month from the training time for Command Ships with Ascension and we've been promised a balance pass "soon". When you consider these ships in their intended fleet support role, the training isn't unreasonable. To do their job properly, the pilots of these ships will need the command specialist skills at level 5 to fit a mindlink. I also suspect most FC's will be more interested in survivability for their Command Ships than the amount of DPS they bring to a fight. The balance pass may focus on that.
The Initiative.
#10 - 2017-01-09 19:25:42 UTC
Do Little wrote:
They cut roughly a month from the training time for Command Ships with Ascension and we've been promised a balance pass "soon". When you consider these ships in their intended fleet support role, the training isn't unreasonable. To do their job properly, the pilots of these ships will need the command specialist skills at level 5 to fit a mindlink. I also suspect most FC's will be more interested in survivability for their Command Ships than the amount of DPS they bring to a fight. The balance pass may focus on that.


Some of us like eg: the Sleipnir for actually shooting at things with. I'm happy for there to be a more tanky, less shooty CS for each race as long as there's a more speedy, more shooty CS as well.

And for the love of God, it's time to either give the Nighthawk some love or put it out of its misery.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

#11 - 2017-01-13 12:55:22 UTC
I think its so that the T2 is not just a flat better choice. if you want better tank and boosts go t2. if you want better range go t1
#12 - 2017-01-13 12:56:55 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


And for the love of God, it's time to either give the Nighthawk some love or put it out of its misery.




O.o you just ain't fitting it right. this is the best command ship for med sized fights it's near unkillable unless alpha is an issue it outshines the amarr one in tank
Pen Is Out
#13 - 2017-01-15 22:52:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain NONECK
Command ships need more fitting for the love of god more fitting we should be able to run fits that won't get slapped with 2 linksUgh an example is any shield CS that runs dual Xlasb its almost never done on anything but the Sleipnir because of fitting and don't even try to run links because its impossible

Edit: Is the Sleipnir seriously 499 mill for the hull in Jita right now? what in the everlasting f*ck.....
#14 - 2017-01-15 23:32:11 UTC
sounds like CCP is letting command bursts settle in a bit and will do a balance pass on command ships soon™

And looking at the last week from zkill looks like some of them need it more than soon™

Sleipnir 1,931
Damnation 1,651
Vulture 1,300
Claymore 945
Astarte 456
Eos 355
Nighthawk 203
Absolution 178
https://zkillboard.com/group/540/

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

#15 - 2017-01-17 16:26:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Sleipnir is fantastic. Has exactly the right amount of slots, cap, pcu, sig and grid to offset lack of tracking/falloff.
Its perfect. Dont you dare touch it.
Med ACs are apparently pending a balance pass.

Claymores can comfortably fit an oversized AB even with a huge active omni shield tank, without nerfing its damage application. 240sig (minus skirmish link) BC moving at 1k km is pretty serious. A bling fit perfect skill Claymore can even fit an additional oversized shield booster for absolutely ridiculous stats.
Pen Is Out
#16 - 2017-01-17 21:46:53 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Sleipnir is fantastic. Has exactly the right amount of slots, cap, pcu, sig and grid to offset lack of tracking/falloff.
Its perfect. Dont you dare touch it.
Med ACs are apparently pending a balance pass.

Claymores can comfortably fit an oversized AB even with a huge active omni shield tank, without nerfing its damage application. 240sig (minus skirmish link) BC moving at 1k km is pretty serious. A bling fit perfect skill Claymore can even fit an additional oversized shield booster for absolutely ridiculous stats.


Personally, I think all command ships need more fitting even the Sleipnir.... and especially the Caldari ones
#17 - 2017-01-19 15:28:55 UTC
The Astarte does enjoy said damage projection bonus but the absolution could use it as well. I'd argue that it needs an optimal bonus just as much as the astarte needed the falloff.
Spaceship Bebop
#18 - 2017-03-14 23:06:52 UTC
Many of you make many interesting points.

I think we can agree the class needs some tweaks, what they are is more complicated then adding this or subtracting that. With all the changes going on in Eve in the last year, CCP does need time to gather data to make choices on how they want to tweak the class.

The more I think about it, the more I think what is driving my interests is a nice little multi purpose OP ship. And that's not what I really want when I think about it like that. T2 ships should be specific niche ship that plays well in organized fleets where everyone does a specific job to benefit the team. Making T2 BC more multi purposed would wreak that. For solo ships, that's why we have Pirate Ships and T3's, and I should focus on those ships that already exist to do what I want: A strong solo ship that can multi task PVE and PVP with tweaks to the fit in that I can 'master' a favorite ship or 2 (or 5 lol).


T3 immune to remote reps. They should be the most powerful solo/small gang ships but not useful for large fleets as T2 ships should be used. Remove Insurance from game. Ban Frigate Pirate Ships from Novice FW Plexs. Buy me Ice cream please!

O.U.Z.O. Alliance
#19 - 2017-03-15 08:21:44 UTC
What is a Nighthawk? Anyone know?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Ultimate Space
#20 - 2017-03-15 15:24:44 UTC
I think the class has some really good entries, but some of them are lacking.

Good:
Damnation - double tank bonus makes this a good fleet booster
Sleipnir - small gang pwnmobile
Astarte - all the brawling dps
Vulture- decent with heavy tank possibilities
Nighthawk - good overall, just missing the range of the tengu imo

Ok
Eos - drone boat, but not as impressive with sentries. wtf tracking bonus
Claymore - used because of boost bonuses and more mid choices, but unimpressive outside of fleets (meh damage)

Orz
Absolution - I guess it's a brawling ship, but the fittings seem too tight on it. Meh imo
Forum Jump