These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mund Richard
#961 - 2013-01-12 00:29:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Lucius Exitius wrote:
No but in my anger at the changes I made a major mistake, and that's comparing a BS weapon with a BC weapon. I still believe that the drake is getting nerfed to much. Missiles are cool looking but still have flight time which makes them much weaker then most other forms of weaponry. IMHO the only reason HMs got nerfed was because of the Tengu.

In return for the travel time, you still cannot "get under the guns", as Gizznitt Malikite showed a few posts ago just how powerful that is.
Furthermore, I find CN missiles to be quite viable for range AND damage, while CN antimatter is only good for damage but not range.
IMHO it's neither OP or broken.
Quote:
Before the nerf.... HAMS were rarely ever used.... There was rarely any reason to use them, as heavy missiles did 90% of the dps and had 4x the range. CCP could have buffed HAMs, but any true analysis of close range weapons systems and long range weapon systems clearly showed that HMs were the weapon system that's out of line.
and HAMs are awesome these days!!!
And that.

"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.
Lucius Exitius
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#962 - 2013-01-12 00:31:33 UTC

[/quote]

No but in my anger at the changes I made a major mistake, and that's comparing a BS weapon with a BC weapon. I still believe that the drake is getting nerfed to much. Missiles are cool looking but still have flight time which makes them much weaker then most other forms of weaponry. IMHO the only reason HMs got nerfed was because of the Tengu.[/quote]

Before the nerf.... HAMS were rarely ever used.... There was rarely any reason to use them, as heavy missiles did 90% of the dps and had 4x the range. CCP could have buffed HAMs, but any true analysis of close range weapons systems and long range weapon systems clearly showed that HMs were the weapon system that's out of line.

and HAMs are awesome these days!!! [/quote]

Good point, I guess im just mad because I have to train HAMs now lol.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#963 - 2013-01-12 00:37:43 UTC
Andre Coeurl wrote:

The logic is that since currently BCs are used for several things where they do good, namely providing a good punch to mobile small or medium sized gangs, the proposed change to combat stats will reduce that use ESPECIALLY when you consider that cruisers are now much better than they used to be.
I was trying to see what the reasoning behind that was, and as you agree then there isn't another role the "tiericided" BCs would be more useful at.
Basically, I think the changes would just make the T1 BC category in general a lot less interesting for PVP without any other reason for it than "oh the Hurricane is so overpowered", which honestly it isn't anymore, if it was before.
In fact I have the impression that there are quite a few cruisers which could engage battlecruisers 1V1 and even win... that's not what one would expect to happen when a category of ships is so "overpowered" as seem to think they are.

But what did you expect? Cruisers and battlecruisers all use basically same mods and if occasionally a cruiser manages to outplay its elder brother, then so be it. How is that wrong? Even a mighty carrier can be killed by just 2 subcaps - curse+machariel. I suspect after these changes interclass balance between Cruisers and BCs to be set pretty good. Yet again, most just got spoilt by cheap-ass overperforming ships, Drake being the perfect example.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Luc Chastot
#964 - 2013-01-12 01:30:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Luc Chastot
On keeping the armor rep bonus for the Brutix and the Myrm, I seriously hope the armor tanking changes will go live with the BC changes. With cruisers it's still manageable, but now that we got to battlecruisers, not fixing armor tanking would seriously hurt gallente and amarr pilots.

On the drone bonus and the slot trade-off, you should consider either giving those lost slots back or make the bonus affect all drones' effectiveness on drone boats.

Edit: Minor thing, but is the Myrm hull/texture being fixed to appropriately reflect the reduction in highslots/hardpoints? I don't want Gallente to suffer from the same case of hardpointitis as some Caldari ships.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#965 - 2013-01-12 01:42:00 UTC
So it looks like any BC that is currently useful is being nuked through the floor and any that is currently not useful is becoming slightly better.
Personally i think these changes will make BCs an obsolete class apart from the tier 3s since T1 cruisers will do everything just as well.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Mund Richard
#966 - 2013-01-12 01:47:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Jack Miton wrote:
Personally i think these changes will make BCs an obsolete class apart from the tier 3s since T1 cruisers will do everything just as well.

In all honesty, if multiple webs are applied to a target in a fleet scenario, I'd rather be in a Combat BC.
Now if I had to pick one though... I'd have a rough time to choose.
Suppose it is well so? Roll Prophecy for drones, to annoy the enemy with neuts, boost the fleet, and enjoy the armor resist and health.

"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.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#967 - 2013-01-12 01:49:51 UTC
Lets take the Ferox. You can put together a fit:

High:
Neutrons II x 7
Mid:
Experimental MWD
LSE II x 2
Adaptive Invuln II
Warp Scrambler II or Warp Disruptor II (soooooo much CPU)
Low:
RCU II
DC II
MFS II x 2
TE II
Rigs:
Shield rigs to taste

The ship with Null gets mid 400 to 525 DPS (with damage implants) Add drones for another 80-100 DPS. The Null has a 11km optimal and 11km falloff. With void? Mid 600 to 744 DPS. (With damage implants). 6km + 5km. Add drones to that number. 75k EHP. If you want you can swap out a shield rig for a medium ACR and turn the RCU into another magstabs or tracking enhancer. You can also downgrade the guns to ions and replace the two LSE with an X-L ASB and a web.

The point is - why would I want to fly a Brutix over this? By the time you slap two MAR, a cap booster, and a MWD on the ship you are looking at Ions at best. I can get tank AND gank on the Ferox. Not so much for the Brutix.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#968 - 2013-01-12 02:02:27 UTC
Just noticed the +100 CPU on the cyclone >_<
Dual ASBs, dual ASBs everywhere...

(Please no...)

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#969 - 2013-01-12 02:18:42 UTC
Regarding the issue of local repping bonuses vs. resist bonuses, it certainly seems like RR may have become somewhat OP these days. Perhaps the "fix" to local repping should actually be a nerf to RR?

The comments on this thread appear to inadvertently support this thought, as does the fact that CCP restricts teams to a single RR ship in the AT. I also remember reading a post on Jester's blog, where RK was running into logi-heavy gangs, which were nigh impossible to kill.

With the introduction of T1 logis and the nerf to ECM, this situation is just going to get worse. The only counter to a logi-heavy opponent is probably going to be a blob (ugh).

A ship with a local repper, which also receives RR, should always tank better than a ship without a local repper, receiving only RR, regardless of resists. Resist modules already have the advantage of having lower fitting requirements and lower capacitor use than the local reppers - it doesn't make sense that they should also provide comparable or superior tanking, too.
Mund Richard
#970 - 2013-01-12 02:20:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Jack Miton wrote:
Just noticed the +100 CPU on the cyclone >_<
Dual ASBs, dual ASBs everywhere...

(Please no...)

OFC you realise, T2 425 ACs are 19CPU, 720s are 24, while the two launchers are 37,5 and 41,3 at max skills.

Had what, 5+3 before and one slot less? so +2 launcher -3 turret and a low...
Tired, so math will be wrong..
BCU in the low +40, +2 HAM +75, -3 AC 3*19= -57, a total of +60 seems reasonable for a start after CPU V (so +48), and missile rigs eat CPU.
...
But yes, ASB, ASB everywhere, with small neuts in the utility highs.

"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.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#971 - 2013-01-12 02:25:56 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Just noticed the +100 CPU on the cyclone >_<
Dual ASBs, dual ASBs everywhere...

(Please no...)


i think the new cpu will be eaten up (mostly) by the missile launchers as a t2 heavy assault launcher requires 50 tf while a T2 425mm autocannon requires only 25 tf.

so you need additionally 150 tf CPU just for fitting 5xHAMs instead of 5x425'ger. thats before skills so with weapon upgrades 5 you get 25% off should be at 112,5 tf addionally needed.

looks rather then a indirekt cpu reduction of 12,5 tf to me.
Mund Richard
#972 - 2013-01-12 02:28:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
i think the new cpu will be eaten up (mostly) by the missile launchers as a t2 heavy assault launcher requires 50 tf while a T2 425mm autocannon requires only 25 tf.

Well yes, question is, if the 3 highslots that had launcher hardpoints were originally figured in with T2 HAMs in mind, T2 HMs, or ...not really anything the like (or medium neuts, that are cheaper than the launchers as far as CPU goes).

Your figure is going a bit overboard imho (or not, depending on CCP's scenario), since it did have 8 hardpoints, including 3 missiles.
But mine may be too restrictive in return.
/shrug

After a bit of looking at it, numbers may be off, but with a CPU module in the lows, even two Thruster rigs should be doable to squeeze on, to help HAMs hit as far as the disruptor allows, assuming no OGB and that the enemy chases you, and not the other way around (influencing missile ranges by up to 14 km from the original 26 Roll)

"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.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#973 - 2013-01-12 02:44:14 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Jack Miton wrote:
Just noticed the +100 CPU on the cyclone >_<
Dual ASBs, dual ASBs everywhere...

(Please no...)


Are you worried about dual large ASB or dual x-large ASB? The former fits without any issues, so long as you use a couple pieces of named equipment and don't mind a that you can't use your utility highs (unless you use a CPU rig or implant, anyway.) But, the latter takes something like a co-processor, an ancillary current router, two processor overclocking units, and a CA-1/CA-2 implant set, plus a 3% CPU implant if you want to actually use a couple small neuts. If you're willing to go that far to use two XLASBs, frankly, I think you deserve to.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Mund Richard
#974 - 2013-01-12 02:46:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
mynnna wrote:
Are you worried about dual large ASB or dual x-large ASB?
One of each? Roll
That's almost hilarious enough to relatively easily allow.
Almost.

"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.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#975 - 2013-01-12 03:24:09 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Are you worried about dual large ASB or dual x-large ASB?
One of each? Roll
That's almost hilarious enough to relatively easily allow.
Almost.


It's actually a little HARDER to fit the XLASB fit post-patch than it is now, believe it or not. I mentioned what it takes to fit post-patch, right now it's "only" a co-proc, ACR and two POUs; add a 3% CPU implant if you want two small neuts. Two LASBs and 425mms fit without any fitting mods at all, even if you replace the co-proc with a third gyro; a 3% CPU implant lets you run three small neuts in the utility highs. So if anything they nerfed the fit. Blink

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
#976 - 2013-01-12 04:21:05 UTC
Hi CCP Fozzie,
I mainly focus on industry and investment. I dont have the
experience to comment on pvp effectiveness. However I do keep a eye
on the market and tiericide has diversified the market for ships, especially
cruisers. Tiericide has opened up investment opportunities for a lot of
player, and once stockpiles run low, manufacturing opportunities will follow.

With this in mind I want you to be as tiericidal as possible. You are
removing field/fleet command distinction, don't add it to BCs. Make them
all be able to field a ganglink. People will be looking for cheap ongrid solutions
soon, and they will want choices.

Neug

Indices/Mining Simulator V6.41 UPDATED*

Daily Forge Mineral Sales Summary V1.5

Neug's Prime Industrial Real Estate V1.3
Sigras
Conglomo
#977 - 2013-01-12 05:39:02 UTC
Andre Coeurl wrote:
Basically, I think the changes would just make the T1 BC category in general a lot less interesting for PVP without any other reason for it than "oh the Hurricane is so overpowered", which honestly it isn't anymore, if it was before.
In fact I have the impression that there are quite a few cruisers which could engage battlecruisers 1V1 and even win... that's not what one would expect to happen when a category of ships is so "overpowered" as seem to think they are.

I think this is the point. Right now all you ever see is BCs, T3s, logis and cap ships in 0.0 with these changes, you might start to see other ships in the mix.

I dont understand where everyone got this idea of one ship "countering" another >.>

You might think that medium neuts on a cyclone "counter" frigates, until you meet someone who knows how to use his small nos to keep his AB and warp scrambler running and beats you anyway . . .
rodensteiner
Looser Cannons
#978 - 2013-01-12 06:08:11 UTC
I'm sure this has already been said, but

WHAT IN THE ACTUAL **** DID YOU DO THE PROPHECY?????????

The only thing that the Prophecy really needed was a 4th mid, and it'd have been fine!

But now missiles? Drones? What the hell??? Can you even fly a full flight of heavies with it? Probably not.
B'reanna
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#979 - 2013-01-12 06:15:04 UTC  |  Edited by: B'reanna
Sigras wrote:

I think this is the point. Right now all you ever see is BCs, T3s, logis and cap ships in 0.0 with these changes, you might start to see other ships in the mix.

I dont understand where everyone got this idea of one ship "countering" another >.>

You might think that medium neuts on a cyclone "counter" frigates, until you meet someone who knows how to use his small nos to keep his AB and warp scrambler running and beats you anyway . . .


i don't know about your neck of the woods but on 0.0 i see caps, bs, bcs, cruisers and frigs(both t1 and t2) as well as t3. now admittedly some do better than others in given situations but they are all used. with the lowering of the gap between t1 bcs and t1 cruisers i suspect it will mean seeing less bcs and more cruisers for roaming and more bs for big fleets. that said if the changes go through as is i suspect that there will if anything be no or little change in the diversity of the bcs one encounters but that the particular bcs one frequently encounters will change. As some that were already rather underutilized get nerfed more (harb) while others get pushed to the forefront (proph) and still others fall in from the front of the pack to the middle (cane, drake)
D'Angelo Barksdale
He's got a pineapple on his head
#980 - 2013-01-12 07:24:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


To repeat, the skill split is scheduled for the big Summer 2013 expansion.





Will you include changing the capital requirements in this expansion as well?