These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#981 - 2013-01-12 07:34:18 UTC
rodensteiner wrote:
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.


Bandwidth 75 indicates you cannot. You can load up a ton of them though, and fly 2 plus 2 medium and one small if you like. Or you could just use a load of Mediums. It's going to have a wicked tank though.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#982 - 2013-01-12 09:03:45 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Mund Richard wrote:
HM CN: 63 (damage delay of ~10 seconds...)
HM Rage 47


Is there a problem?

DPS:
CN: 317
Fury: 372

Range:
CN: 107 km
Fury: 80,6 km

[Caracal, 100km HM]

Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
Sensor Booster II

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile

Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I


Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-605
Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-705
Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1005

Btw, this thing was capable of some 210 km "sniping" before the change.


fitting t2 rigs worth 50m ++ each on a ship thats worth 10m with 130m++ hardwirings.gg
Jack Mancetti
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#983 - 2013-01-12 10:26:25 UTC
Can u stop change the proud Matarships into weak Caldari boat,noone from the Matar pilots need this crap on their shipsAttention

We like our . . . .ratatatatatatatatatatatat . . . from our autocannon and dont want this stupid,lazy,unpretentious zzzzzwiiischh
from those fire and forget launchers.

Matar pilots train hard for for their ships and weapons and are the best Combatpilots in the whole space,
they don't want those Kindergarten crap on their ships What?

Mancetti
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
#984 - 2013-01-12 10:28:31 UTC
With the extra CPU the cyclone can run twin
active gang links without sacrificing too much
buffer and dps. Would be nice to see more of
the bc be able to do this for a selection of cheap
ongrid boosters.

Neug

Indices/Mining Simulator V6.41 UPDATED*

Daily Forge Mineral Sales Summary V1.5

Neug's Prime Industrial Real Estate V1.3
Luscius Uta
#985 - 2013-01-12 11:39:56 UTC
I would remove one turret slot from Brutix (but either keep an extra utility high slot or replace it with +1 midslot) and replace the +7.5% rep bonus with +5% RoF bonus. Makes it even more of a proper close range gank boat than before.

Also, when will faction cruisers be fixed? After Retibution, Vexor Navy Issue became inferior to normal Vexor in about every regard. No wonder you're being accused of trolling those who fly Gallente. And faction variants of T1 logis were horrible even before.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Mund Richard
#986 - 2013-01-12 12:57:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
While I may not support the entire message of Jack Mancetti
Jack Mancetti wrote:
We like our . . . .ratatatatatatatatatatatat . . . from our autocannon and dont want this stupid,lazy,unpretentious zzzzzwiiischh
from those fire and forget launchers.

He's DAMN RIGHT on this one!
Crosstraining Minmatar for the MORE DAKKA!

Pinkish ...Phobos ejaculating hot white ...plasma... - while having it's own ..."charm"? - doesn't come close for me to a Cane, and it's superior audiovisual experience of MORE DAKKA.

This message has been brought to you by an Acolyte of the Temple of BOOM.

"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.
Mund Richard
#987 - 2013-01-12 13:00:33 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
I would remove one turret slot from Brutix (but either keep an extra utility high slot or replace it with +1 midslot) and replace the +7.5% rep bonus with +5% RoF bonus. Makes it even more of a proper close range gank boat than before.

Also, when will faction cruisers be fixed? After Retibution, Vexor Navy Issue became inferior to normal Vexor in about every regard. No wonder you're being accused of trolling those who fly Gallente. And faction variants of T1 logis were horrible even before.
So the same bonuses and turret count as a Cane, while also having the same utility high for on-grid boosting?
Can't say I don't like.

That said, Faction ships will hopefully be fixed really-really soon, supposedly once T1 Battleships (and maybe command ships?) are done?
Not sure if this was the last thing communicated or not.

"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.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#988 - 2013-01-12 13:07:11 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
So whats this hint about buffing active armor tanking? Will all modules just get a straight buff you think? Will their be an armor ASB? Will they use less cap or something?



Please god no.. anything but that!

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Mr Noo
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#989 - 2013-01-12 13:15:49 UTC
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
Just to point out one more time how much Harbinger is nerfed, and that the"nerfed" Hurricane is the same as before, considering the nerfs to other hulls even better than before.

Fitting both ships with just the guns the Harbinger is left with 279 CPU and 533 PG, Hurricane has 387 CPU and 575 PG left. That puts the "nerfed" Hurricane 108 CPU and 42 PG above the Harbinger to spend on same number of slots. And this is considering AWU 5.


I can't fit in Harb not only 1600 plates, but also Energized Plating or Heat Sinks.

While Hurricane pilots cries for one mid neut, Harbinger pilots cant fit something in their ship at allAttention

It will be better if you cancel changes for Harbinger at all.
Nathaniel Branden
Starwinders
#990 - 2013-01-12 13:19:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathaniel Branden
Hi Fozzie,

I really appreciate your communication with us on here and would like to briefly offer my opinions on the proposed changes:

  • Overall, I feel the changes are rather underwhelming, even more so when they are compared to the amazing job done on the frigate and cruiser tiercide. Furthermore, the introduction of the Tier 3 BC offered an exciting new mechanic by allowing the fitting over BS sized weapons to a BC sized hull. If possible, I would like to see similar changes and exciting ideas enacted for the Spring expansion:

  • I propose all the BC previously classed as Tier 1 (possibly not the Brutix, I believe the Myrmidon would be better suited) lose all their turret and launcher hard-points and replace them with 'weapon hard-points' (WS). These new hard-points would allow the ships to fit weapons of either class (launcher or turret) to the ship. This change, I feel, would eloquently resolve a number issues and hopefully help towards satisfying players (an impossible task - I know). The main purpose of this change is to offer player's flexibility in fitting their ship and not forcing them into rigid pre-subscribed doctrines. These rigid designs worked for cruisers and frigates because there is double the selection of craft to choose from. If you were to introduce flexible weapon hard-points it would also allow you to add in double bonuses (5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire - 5% bonus to medium ****** Turret Damage) without risk of it being 'overpowered'. In fact, a new bonus could be: 5% bonus to Medium Weapon System's rate of fire.

  • The Prophecy would in essence, remain unchanged, with 5 highs and 4 'WS' but as players seem resistant to it becoming a pure drone-boat I'd argue keep the 75m3 drone bandwith but switch the drone bonus to 5% bonus to Medium Weapon System's rate of fire.

  • The Ferox's 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range has long been a point of contention, it needs to go. I'd propose 7 H 6 WS with a bonus to 5% bonus to Medium Weapon System's damage.

  • The Cyclone has long been a gunboat and the proposed changes would keep this fitting an option but incorporates your proposals of a missile based vessel. The 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire would be replaced by a 5% bonus to Medium Weapon System's rate of fire with 7H and 6 WS slots.

  • The Myrmidon's 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness has long been an issue, however, you've hinted at an overhaul of armour tanking so I'm loathed to argue for its removal if a fix is incoming. But if you are ok with a proposal for its removal I'd say 5% bonus to Medium Weapon System's damage with 5H and 4 WS but keeping the drone damage bonus with the new 100m3 bandwith.

    • I know this proposal is rather radical and that due to scripting it might be difficult to implement but I also know that the team you've got there are more than capable. I hope you consider the proposal and I would love your feedback - after all I can't believe I'm the only player that finds it strange that in such a technology advance era ships are stuck having missile or turret hard-points.

    Also, I believe the Tier 2's (and Brutix) require some more fine tuning but in essence are acceptable and I will hopefully post again later outlining my thoughts.
    Hakan MacTrew
    Konrakas Forged
    Solyaris Chtonium
    #991 - 2013-01-12 13:35:29 UTC
    Nathaniel Branden wrote:
    Hi Fozzie,

    I really appreciate your communication with us on here and would like to briefly offer my opinions on the proposed changes:

  • Overall, I feel the changes are rather underwhelming, even more so when they are compared to the amazing job done on the frigate and cruiser tiercide. Furthermore, the introduction of the Tier 3 BC offered an exciting new mechanic by allowing the fitting over BS sized weapons to a BC sized hull. If possible, I would like to see similar changes and exciting ideas enacted for the Spring expansion:

  • I propose all the BC previously classed as Tier 1 (possibly not the Brutix, I believe the Myrmidon would be better suited) lose all their turret and launcher hard-points and replace them with 'weapon hard-points' (WS). These new hard-points would allow the ships to fit weapons of either class (launcher or turret) to the ship. This change, I feel, would eloquently resolve a number issues and hopefully help towards satisfying players (an impossible task - I know). The main purpose of this change is to offer player's flexibility in fitting their ship and not forcing them into rigid pre-subscribed doctrines. These rigid designs worked for cruisers and frigates because there is double the selection of craft to choose from. If you were to introduce flexible weapon hard-points it would also allow you to add in double bonuses (5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire - 5% bonus to medium ****** Turret Damage) without risk of it being 'overpowered'. In fact, a new bonus could be: 5% bonus to Weapon System's rate of fire.

  • The Prophecy would in essence, remain unchanged, with 5 highs and 4 'WS' but as players seem resistant to it becoming a pure drone-boat I'd argue keep the 75m3 drone bandwith but switch the drone bonus to 5% bonus to Weapon System's rate of fire.

  • The Ferox's 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range has long been a point of contention, it needs to go. I'd propose 7 H 6 WS with a bonus to 5% bonus to Weapon System's damage.

  • The Cyclone has long been a gunboat and the proposed changes would keep this fitting an option but incorporates your proposals of a missile based vessel. The 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire would be replaced by a 5% bonus to Weapon System's rate of fire with 7H and 6 WS slots.

  • The Myrmidon's 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness has long been an issue, however, you've hinted at an overhaul of armour tanking so I'm loathed to argue for its removal if a fix is incoming. But if you are ok with a proposal for its removal I'd say 5% bonus to Weapon System's damage with 5H and 4 WS but keeping the drone damage bonus with the new 100m3 bandwith.

    • I know this proposal is rather radical and that due to scripting it might be difficult to implement but I also know that the team you've got there are more than capable. I hope you consider the proposal and I would love your feedback - after all I can't believe I'm the only player that finds it strange that in such a technology advance era ships are stuck having missile or turret hard-points.

    Also, I believe the Tier 2's (and Brutix) require some more fine tuning but in essence are acceptable and I will hopefully post again later outlining my thoughts.

    For those who view this as TL:DR
    Nathaniel Branden wrote:
    Remove all turret and launcher hardpoints and replace them with general weapon hardpoints, so they can fit anything. Also, remove the specific weapon bonuses and replace them with a generic bonuses too, so that they apply to everything as well.

    I can't say I'm a fan of the idea. As much as I would love to put missiles on just about everything, it would take a lot away from the feel of a lot of ships and also from the feel of the game in general. Ravens with lasers, Torp Domi's and AutoGeddons.

    It's a no from me.

    Friends
    Nathaniel Branden
    Starwinders
    #992 - 2013-01-12 13:43:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathaniel Branden
    Quote:
    I can't say I'm a fan of the idea. As much as I would love to put missiles on just about everything, it would take a lot away from the feel of a lot of ships and also from the feel of the game in general. Ravens with lasers, Torp Domi's and AutoGeddons.

    It's a no from me.


    These proposed changes only apply to 3 Tier 1 BCs & the Myrmidon, in the same vein of the Tier 3 BCs are the only ships that fit oversized guns.

    Please don't twist the proposal to include battleships that I've made no mention of! I'd totally agree that I wouldn't want Ravens with lasers etc.

    However, players have long been fitting AC Prophecys, Laser Myridons and HAM Ferox's my proposal would only respect that tradition and incorporate into the tiercide.
    Mund Richard
    #993 - 2013-01-12 13:45:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Nathaniel Branden wrote:
    Quote:
    I can't say I'm a fan of the idea. As much as I would love to put missiles on just about everything, it would take a lot away from the feel of a lot of ships and also from the feel of the game in general. Ravens with lasers, Torp Domi's and AutoGeddons.
    These proposed changes only apply to 3 Tier 1 BCs & the Myrmidon, in the same vein of the Tier 3 BCs are the only ships that fit oversized guns.
    Please don't twist the proposal to include battleships that I've made no mention of! I'd totally agree that I wouldn't want Ravens with lasers etc.
    However, players have long been fitting AC Prophecys, Laser Myridons and HAM Ferox's my proposal would only respect that tradition and incorporate into the tiercide.
    Different weapon systems have different fitting costs.
    Their racial hull versions are balanced with that in mind for both fitting and cap-recharge for weapons.

    If a gameplay mechanism CAN be abused, it WILL be abused.

    For instance, the Ferox would either become a faster drake (let's say 6 RoF bonused launchers instead of kinetic-only, +1 low) with a LOT more PG, or an AC brawler with a brick tank and more cap (what's freed up with capless weapons).
    Do we need that? Roll
    Not that I would mind the brick-ShieldBrutix that the Ferox would become. Twisted

    "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.
    Sinzor Aumer
    Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
    #994 - 2013-01-12 13:47:39 UTC
    Hakan MacTrew wrote:
    Ravens with lasers, Torp Domi's and AutoGeddons.

    FYI, Arty-Abaddons were once the main-stream doctrine of some 0.0 alliances.
    Nathaniel Branden
    Starwinders
    #995 - 2013-01-12 13:51:53 UTC
    Mund Richard wrote:
    Auto/Torp/CruiseGeddon.
    AutoDrake!

    Right.
    Not to mention how radically different some weapon systems are to fit, as shown by the discussion on top of this page, just ripe for the abuse, if off-racial weapon systems are also bonused on every hull.
    So yea.
    No.


    Again, these proposed changes only apply to 3 Tier 1 BCs & the Myrmidon, in the same vein of the Tier 3 BCs are the only ships that fit oversized guns.

    Hakan's summary of my post is quite inaccurate.
    Mund Richard
    #996 - 2013-01-12 13:52:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Nathaniel Branden wrote:
    Again, these proposed changes only apply to 3 Tier 1 BCs & the Myrmidon, in the same vein of the Tier 3 BCs are the only ships that fit oversized guns.
    Hakan's summary of my post is quite inaccurate.

    As soon as you posted your first clearance (well, noticed after posting), I've edited my post to *edited*, now finished.

    "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.
    Sinigr Shadowsong
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #997 - 2013-01-12 14:01:10 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Hi everyone! Welcome to our first ship balance thread of 2013! Today we've got a set of battlecruisers for you, the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 BCs, re-branded Combat Battlecruisers.


    Another thing that often mentioned in this thread is Warfare Links. All 8 combat BC are supposed to have their Role Bonus (99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need) remain. However I believe that Warfare Links on those ships will almost never be used. The reason for it is that unbonused links are too weak to even consider putting them on such ships. To evaluate the difference between T1 and T2/T3 Warfare Link bonusing ships just recall in your memory how often was T1 Logistic cruisers used prior to beginning of Tiercide.

    Instead of having 2 BC with similar role for every empire you could make some of those BC into T1 version of Command ships. Currently Warfare Links is an exclusive thing that cannot be used on T1 ships even semi-effectively.
    E.g. Ferox
    5% bonus to all shield resistances and 2% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level.
    This will bring following benefits:

    1) Clearer roles for T1 Battlecruisers: Combat, Attack and Command.
    2) More way for a new players to help corpmates or fellow militia.
    3) Transitional path for players who like using such ships T1 => T2/T3 instead of _nothing_ => T2/T3
    4) more incenitieve to train Leadership. Leadership SP will not feel wasted until character can pilot covert nullified offgrid T3.
    5) Reduced disadvantage of roaming fleets without bonuses.
    6) Lowering entry barrier for small-scale PvP.
    7) Traditional bonus ships will not be pushed aside because of lower bonuses and tank.

    Such changes will be beneficial for new players, small scale PvP and alt leveling. Think about it just like T1 Logistic Cruisers, T1 Ewar cruisers, T1 Tackling frigates. It will increase fleet diversity: fleet of T1 Cruisers/BCs with T1 Logistics and T1 Warfare Link ship might appear in New Eden much more often.
    Andreus Ixiris
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #998 - 2013-01-12 14:07:26 UTC
    Honestly, I think if active tanking is to be made viable again as a PvP tactic, the amount of capacitor armour reps (and possibly shield reps, although there is the ancillary shield booster) use needs to be drastically reduced.

    Even then, I remember someone writing once that the problem with active tanking in a fleet engagement is that even without energy warfare, there's a very distinctive hard limit on the amount of tanking a single ship can do, so active tanking has the problem of scaling.

    Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

    Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

    Andreus Ixiris > ...

    Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
    Mund Richard
    #999 - 2013-01-12 14:16:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Hi everyone! Welcome to our first ship balance thread of 2013! Today we've got a set of battlecruisers for you, the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 BCs, re-branded Combat Battlecruisers.
    Another thing that often mentioned in this thread is Warfare Links. All 8 combat BC are supposed to have their Role Bonus (99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need) remain. However I believe that Warfare Links on those ships will almost never be used. The reason for it is that unbonused links are too weak to even consider putting them on such ships. To evaluate the difference between T1 and T2/T3 Warfare Link bonusing ships just recall in your memory how often was T1 Logistic cruisers used prior to beginning of Tiercide.

    Having not much experience in BC PvP, naive as I am, I'd think part of the problem why links aren't used on T1 hulls is:

    It's simply a b**** to fit them. T2 Neutron: 25/168, T2Pulse:26/187, T2_425:19/138
    Compared to that, T2 Link: 55/210, a good 2+ gun's worth of CPU, and a notable PG.

    A command processor on top is another 150/50, and a prescious midslot lost, only ship I can imagine it on is the new Prophecy.

    If active tanking was in a good spot, 18.75% reduction in cycle time and/or cap consumption would be nothing to sneeze at even with no bonus for a roaming Brutix gang.
    Resistances are stacking penalized as far as I'm aware between links and modules, so bit nerfed there.
    Skirmish warfare links seem interesting, acting like permanently overheating your points, or speeding up the gang even more.
    Having someone with 28% extra Jam resist (if the new skills are worth it) when running in caldari ECM boats wouldn't hurt.

    But it ain't easy to justify an "if", when it costs the performance of one ship, and the enemy may guess which one it is (based on smaller guns fit or one missing, lower speed, the only Harbi on grid, ect).

    "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.
    Nathaniel Branden
    Starwinders
    #1000 - 2013-01-12 14:41:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathaniel Branden
    Mund Richard wrote:
    Nathaniel Branden wrote:
    Quote:
    I can't say I'm a fan of the idea. As much as I would love to put missiles on just about everything, it would take a lot away from the feel of a lot of ships and also from the feel of the game in general. Ravens with lasers, Torp Domi's and AutoGeddons.
    These proposed changes only apply to 3 Tier 1 BCs & the Myrmidon, in the same vein of the Tier 3 BCs are the only ships that fit oversized guns.
    Please don't twist the proposal to include battleships that I've made no mention of! I'd totally agree that I wouldn't want Ravens with lasers etc.
    However, players have long been fitting AC Prophecys, Laser Myridons and HAM Ferox's my proposal would only respect that tradition and incorporate into the tiercide.
    Different weapon systems have different fitting costs.
    Their racial hull versions are balanced with that in mind for both fitting and cap-recharge for weapons.

    If a gameplay mechanism CAN be abused, it WILL be abused.

    For instance, the Ferox would either become a faster drake (let's say 6 RoF bonused launchers instead of kinetic-only, +1 low) with a LOT more PG, or an AC brawler with a brick tank and more cap (what's freed up with capless weapons).
    Do we need that? Roll
    Not that I would mind the brick-ShieldBrutix that the Ferox would become. Twisted


    You raise a good point regarding the fitting costs and capacitor balance of each hull!

    I'd argue those differences would still encourage racial weapon systems on their respective hull, Cyclone with lasers while fun, would cap out quickly. However, the options for new and exciting fits would be great and recognise the meta of fitting off-racial weapons onto Teir 1 BCs. Thus your Ferox would certainly take some names and wouldn't just languish in station, unused and unloved.

    If 5 years ago you'd of told me CCP would release a BC with BS sized weapons bonused I'd of definitely laughed. I feel this proposal is in a similar vein - I know they won't implement the proposal but my guess is you'll still be seeing ACs on Myridons, Blasters on Prophecys and even, occasionally, lasers on Feroxs unless they implement proper weapon bonuses on the teir 1 BCs. My post is just a request for CCP to recognise this trend and on 4 hulls, actively allow it.