These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#761 - 2013-01-10 21:06:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
@CCP Fozzie do you not find it strange that the drake will still have 6 mids and sh resis whilst having the best ranged most flexible weapon system? Surely a close range brawler needs the extra tank rather than the ship with the best range looking at the harbinger as an example of similar range but no extra tank bonus.....
Also after the combat cruiser buff surely increasing/tiny nerf to tank keeps the bc as too tanky for what is meant to be a slightly heavier dps version of the cruiser hull... sig radius of a bc being the same as amarr battleships seems ridicilous.
the attack bc's are around 200 surely their is room to reduce it here much more.
Also still confused on the whole hybrid/drone damage line being missed on the myrm only to be continued on the domi?
Also could you explain why the prophecy needs so much tank?....... as droneboats range isn't an issue as to require needing to be in close range it seems like you couldn't think of a second bonus to add to the ship.
And why are the speed/sig rad stats the same on both ships per race surely the ferox needs more speed than a drake.
Why does the drake still have more tank than the ferox? ask yourself who needs it most especially as it has an extra mid too.
Also the mass of these are better than the attack bc's and some combat cruisers why?
Also what's the fascination in giving the minmatar ships such good drone capability surely the brutix should be better than a cyclone here?

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Saul Hyperion
Palmetto Galactic
#762 - 2013-01-10 21:09:31 UTC
Admitting something is wrong with the Gallente BC bonuses is a step in the right direction. But saying you are working on active armor tanking is a bit of a cop out, for all we know, the changes could suck, or get nerfed to hell and back like the ASB. Then we are still stuck with a useless bonus.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#763 - 2013-01-10 21:10:49 UTC
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
a bit off topic but has there been talk of treating the battleship skill like the BC skill?
Battleship skills are already broken up...not sure if trolling or not.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#764 - 2013-01-10 21:38:11 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Glad to see your post, Fozzie, including the followup that the Harbinger is being looked at.

Less glad about the timing, I was working on a followup article when it came out which said, among other things, the path to making the ferox a passable sniper isn't a damage bonus but a buff to rails and that a cyclone with six launchers is just a faster drake or a bad hurricane.

Ah well, I'll have to look like a prophet another time... Blink

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Mund Richard
#765 - 2013-01-10 21:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Forum won.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children
#766 - 2013-01-10 21:47:00 UTC
So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen?
In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.

Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.

Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so.
But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#767 - 2013-01-10 21:51:39 UTC
Andre Coeurl wrote:
So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen?
In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.

Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.

Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so.
But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones.


Maybe it's better to think of the combat battlecruisers as "heavy cruisers", which actually do fill a niche between light cruisers and battlecruisers or battleships, as opposed to actual battlecruisers which are, as you noted, essentially battleships that are faster but less well armored.

Or we could, you know, not try to pigeon-hole everything into hundred year old naval concepts instead. That would also work.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Spartan dax
0utbreak
#768 - 2013-01-10 21:55:47 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!

There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus:
1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings).
2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook.
3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.



The Ferox simply must have its optimal bonus, don't you dare defile it like the anathema that is now known as a Merlin!

Few things regarding the Ferox though. The resistance bonus lends itself well for brawling it out with blasters but the slot layout makes it hard getting a web on there, making range control difficult and the optimal bonus while not useless at the very least less.... optimal... a 7/6/4 layout instead would make it a fearsome brawling ship. Range is damage even with blasters but without range control parity with armor ships that can easily fit a web the optimal bonus will always be less than stellar.

For Railwork I'd argue that the resistance bonus is a severly sub par bonus but the 7/5/5 slot layout excellent.

In short, change the slot layout or the resistance bonus. Not that a 7/6/4 Optimal/ damage Ferox would make me cry myself to sleep or anything.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#769 - 2013-01-10 21:58:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
Andre Coeurl wrote:
So, absolutely....

His description of plans for the tier3's (Attack vs. Combat) made me think just that. The fitting gap between SR/LR weapons should be large enough to give them a tank slightly larger than cruisers with SR while leaving nothing when going LR .. should be possible at any rate as it is frightfully close to that now.
Trick will be to somehow widen the gap so that we don't suddenly drown in fast, tanked snipers.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#770 - 2013-01-10 22:05:17 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!

I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.


May I consider this as a temporary answer to the thread linked in my signature ?

Something like: "We are aware of the issue, but can't talk about how we plan to fix it, yet." ?

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#771 - 2013-01-10 22:20:10 UTC
Why do people keep thinking there will be a higher tier of battlecruisers after the removal of tiers?
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#772 - 2013-01-10 22:25:08 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Andre Coeurl wrote:
So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen?
In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.

Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.

Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so.
But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones.


Maybe it's better to think of the combat battlecruisers as "heavy cruisers", which actually do fill a niche between light cruisers and battlecruisers or battleships, as opposed to actual battlecruisers which are, as you noted, essentially battleships that are faster but less well armored.


Hate to break it too you, but I believe that role is already taken
Danny Centauri
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#773 - 2013-01-10 22:33:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?

This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.


Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!

There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus:
1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings).
2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook.
3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.


Why is the Cyclone getting just 5 launchers and why does it keep 2 turrets?

Creating effective balance between the Cyclone and the Drake is tricky business. We are aiming for a useful tradeoff between the ships, with the Cyclone significantly faster and more maneuverable and with two utility highs vs the Drake's extra missile damage, with the shield boost bonus vs resists. If it turns out that the Cyclone needs more damage to be competitive, then changing it is not off the table, but we're going to be careful here.
As for the turrets, we consider these slots to be utility highs. The existence of the turrets is simply to provide people more room to do creative things with fits and go max gank if they feel the need. A vast majority of the time we expect those remaining highs to be filled with Neuts, Smartbombs, Gang links, Probes, Salvagers or other handy highslot modules. Having two unbonused weapons available as an option for utility highs is not the same thing as split weapons, and the Cyclone is no more a split weapon ship than the Raven is. Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them.


To raise the quoted points in turn:

Active armor tanking for Gallente - Can the Brutix get a resistance bonus, which would then pass over to the Eos when command ships are rebalanced perhaps? I personally think Gallente ships struggle on the survivability front which means Amarr will become god after the proposed changes and soon to be commandship bonus's.

The Ferox and its bonus's - Run your data again on the ferox and who fits what, but split it by high, low, null - or by PvP losses preferably. The reason people fit rails is its a noob mission running ship, if it had reasonable bonus's people wouldn't. Your condemning the ferox to a life in hangers. The Caldari already have the naga to shoot long range, they don't need two ships.

The Cyclone - Its distinguishing feature should not be its missile DPS but the fact it already has a weaker tank due the the mid and low slot layout and the base HP. I think this is a bad reason to keep the current slot layout, I would prefer 6 missiles 1 utility high with no ability to fit a turret or it becomes OP. Really think you need to reconsider this further, I would even go for a further drop in shield base HP to get a extra missile launcher. This way you will see no buffer cyclones and primarily ASB fits where as Drakes will be buffer fit as they are currently.

EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players.
Alli Othman
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#774 - 2013-01-10 22:34:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them.

Thank you basedgod!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#775 - 2013-01-10 22:36:11 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Andre Coeurl wrote:
So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen?
In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.

Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.

Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so.
But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones.


Maybe it's better to think of the combat battlecruisers as "heavy cruisers", which actually do fill a niche between light cruisers and battlecruisers or battleships, as opposed to actual battlecruisers which are, as you noted, essentially battleships that are faster but less well armored.


Hate to break it too you, but I believe that role is already taken


If combat battlecruisers are more like heavy cruisers, I'd be more inclined to consider HACs as something more like a modern aegis cruiser or something. But like I said, trying to apply hundred year old naval concepts here leaves you coming up short, so why bother?

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
l0rd carlos
the king asked me to guard the mountain
#776 - 2013-01-10 22:38:53 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.


Yes, please give the Ferox or Drake a utily high.

Youtube Channel about Micro and Small scale PvP with commentary: Fleet Commentary by l0rd carlos
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#777 - 2013-01-10 23:33:01 UTC
Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#778 - 2013-01-10 23:44:29 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest?

Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships?
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#779 - 2013-01-10 23:46:17 UTC
So basically ...

Harbinger (mostly considered sub par and rarely used ship)
All skills considered maxed:
-32 PG
-5 CPU
- ~3k EHP (depends on rigs ofc)
+7% damage (~30dps with scorch, wohooo, and that is with BC at V, at IV you lose dps)
-20m/s with MWD (even less with armor fit, not really a big deal)

Needs +6% Pg implant to fit a plate, mwd and guns (and nothing else)
Needs CPU implant to fit anything in utility high even with godly skills (and needs +6% implant and faction heat sinks to fit gank link)
Is slowest of all battlecruisers with no tank bonus
You cant fit beams on it (there is not a single T1 hull that can use medium beams effectively)


Hurricane (mostly considered the best BC)
All skills considered maxed:
+1,5k EHP (the only one that got more)
-20m/s with MWD (even less with armor fit, not really a big deal)
-1 utility high (so now you cant fit probe launcher and salvager on it, and one neut less really destroyed it in PvP, yeah right)
To be fair it recently got a rather big PG nerf so lets consider that as well:
- all standard AC fits are the same, you dont even need AWU at all to fit most of them, and will always have more CPU than you know what to do with
- all standard Arty fits - you have to drop nanofiber for RCUII, so you cant kite all T1 frigates anymore, just most of them.

Its still the fastest Battle Cruiser. (to be fair its around ~5m/s slower than new Cyclone when both are shield tanked and MWD fit)
Can be fitted without implants and AWU5.
Can be effectively fitted with AC and Arty.

So all things considered the ac cane lost one neut and arty cane lost one nanofiber. Harbinger got nerfed to the ground. And ppl are happy with Harbinger "buffs" and raging about Hurricane "nerfs".

What is wrong with you?
fukier
Gallente Federation
#780 - 2013-01-10 23:47:42 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest?

Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships?


they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything... which is why you get one less slot...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.