These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arathella
Corpus Hermeticum Inc
#1081 - 2013-01-13 16:26:10 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Yes but to use that versatility they must give up a large portion of there DPS


Dedicated drone ships are -1 slot in comparison to ships of similar class/"tier". This is how it's more or less been for a very very long time. No amount of pointless arguing is going to get this changed...

Myrmidon and proph will be -1 slot compared to the rest. No point in continuing that specific line of discussion.


Why not? Is it appropriate to bring this up in the BC rebalancing feedback? As for "this is how it's more or less been for a very very long time": Ishtar - 15 slots, Demios - 15 slots
Mund Richard
#1082 - 2013-01-13 16:30:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Naomi Anthar wrote:
Don't get me wrong i love prophecy hull, i'm big amarr fan but giving ideas out of ... back ;) is not good idea. I have strong feeling that devs ignore some posts with crazy unreal/overpowered ideas, while they pay attention to those that are more realistic in terms of ship balance.

Edit : i just talk about pvp as i don't see anyone pick prophecy as hull for pve. After changes of course.
Edit2: Was talking about small drones but it applies to medium drones too etc.

I did suggest a big cut in bay, not only bandwidth, but I do see what you mean.

Now, if you have any good suggestion to make the Myrm's Ogres any more effective than the Prophecy's wave-after-wave of mediums against cruiser-sized targets, I'm all ear.

Heck, in PvP, any non-scrammed sub-BS ship laughs at drones since their orbit velocity is nothing like the target's MWD.
They catch up MAYBE, turn their MWD off, and are left behind. As being chased how many times do you have to repeat that, if you want to shoot them down, while their sig bloom is active, and are larger than a battleship?

Is that more balanced?
Damage projection of an Ogre goes as far as your scram and web.
Might as well have the bay of an Ogre less, and bonused Blasters. Or the extra turret back so we can continue with ACs on them. Same range, less vulnerabilityRoll

"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.
stoicfaux
#1083 - 2013-01-13 16:31:20 UTC
How about making the repair/resist bonus user selectable? The pilot would choose which bonus to have before undocking. A possible implementation would be a very specific rig slot that accepts either a resist bonus or a repair bonus. This rig slot would be in place of the repair/resist ship bonus.

IMO, this would get around the "useless" repair bonus on buffer tanked ships.


disclaimer: No, I haven't read all 55 pages, so apologies in advance if this has already been proposed.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1084 - 2013-01-13 16:54:31 UTC
Arathella wrote:


Why not? Is it appropriate to bring this up in the BC rebalancing feedback? As for "this is how it's more or less been for a very very long time": Ishtar - 15 slots, Demios - 15 slots


I'm sure the ishtar will lose a slot or the deimos will gain a slot in the HAC pass.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1085 - 2013-01-13 17:00:42 UTC
Balance ships, not slot numbers.
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#1086 - 2013-01-13 17:03:35 UTC
Roime wrote:
Why not? Having one less slot makes no sense and nobody has ever come up with any kind of proper explanation why it should be kept so.

"it's always been like that" is not an argument.

If any other non-combat drones besides dishonour drones would make any sense, the slot/versatility argument would make sense.

But now it's about giving up 500 dps for 1/6th of a web, except that the "webs" are too slow to even catch their target. This is why I suggest expanding the drone bonus to all drones to make them viable choices on drone ships.



To be fair, it always seemed like drone ships lost their slot where they needed it least. As in, usually one of the high slots.
Mund Richard
#1087 - 2013-01-13 17:17:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
To be fair, it always seemed like drone ships lost their slot where they needed it least. As in, usually one of the high slots.
That, I can somewhat agree with.
But the Myrm with 5 unbonused guns compared to the Brutix's 7 bonused ain't quite the same as the Vexor's 4 bonused vs the 5 of the Thorax.
On Vexor level, you can get away with using hammerheads for their speed and tracking, with a Myrm you are accepting a much larger loss of dps that way, while the bays don't allow for a spare flight just as much, should you be forced to warp out, and Ogres are unlikely to catch up then.

Now against battleships, the thing is a lot more fine in the drone department with the Ogres.

"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.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1088 - 2013-01-13 17:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Gypsio III wrote:
Balance ships, not slot numbers.


You mean something like this?

Cane: 24+4 slots
Drake: 24+4 slots
Harbinger: 16+2 slots
Myrmidon: 18+3 slots

Cane/Drake would be OP? Not more than they currently are, so no problem.
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#1089 - 2013-01-13 17:50:06 UTC
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
Drake - nothing much has changed.


Inbeepingdeed! I had expected the Drake to get a small but noticable nerf, which would make the Nighthawk look better in comparison.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1090 - 2013-01-13 18:40:17 UTC
Salpad wrote:


Inbeepingdeed! I had expected the Drake to get a small but noticable nerf, which would make the Nighthawk look better in comparison.


Nighthawk buff incoming Soon™
Octoven
Stellar Production
#1091 - 2013-01-13 19:34:10 UTC
Drake tank changes:

Shields: 5250 (-219)
Armor: 3250 (-658)
Hull: 4000 (+94)

Soo your shields are weaker, armor is significantly weaker so that if your shields go you pretty much pop much faster. Ohh ho ho but look out! We are going to save grace by giving you a whole fricken 94 hp to your structure!! Oh man that is going to save my ass so much. /sarcasm

Seriously though, why the increase to structure. I mean why not just go ahead and take hp from it too?
Mund Richard
#1092 - 2013-01-13 19:40:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Octoven wrote:
Drake tank changes:
Shields: 5250 (-219)
Armor: 3250 (-658)
Hull: 4000 (+94)
Soo your shields are weaker, armor is significantly weaker so that if your shields go you pretty much pop much faster. Ohh ho ho but look out! We are going to save grace by giving you a whole fricken 94 hp to your structure!! Oh man that is going to save my ass so much. /sarcasm
Seriously though, why the increase to structure. I mean why not just go ahead and take hp from it too?
Things to notice:
1) The Drake still has the second largest tank in it's primary among the BCs, beaten only by the Prophebrick (5500).
2) It's the only ship with 6 meds, so among shield tankers, it's unrivaled.
3) All tank numbers are now multitudes of 250, every hull got at least rounded to the closest, if not further.

"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.
pressveck
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1093 - 2013-01-13 19:56:29 UTC
Please rename them to Supportcruiser, because it is not an BATTLEcruiser anymore. Thats really ridiculous.

Oh, wait got a better idea. Remove them completely from EVE, than this story will come to an end.
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#1094 - 2013-01-13 20:01:53 UTC
pressveck wrote:
Please rename them to Supportcruiser, because it is not an BATTLEcruiser anymore. Thats really ridiculous.

Oh, wait got a better idea. Remove them completely from EVE, than this story will come to an end.

You have such amazing ideas, its a wonder CCP doesn't hire you.
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Gildinous Vangaurd
The Initiative.
#1095 - 2013-01-13 20:02:32 UTC
I had hoped to see the Drake go the route/role of the Caracal; lose its shield resist bonus and gain something else in return - velocity or flight time bonus?

The Moa gets the shield resist bonus in the Cruisers, so the Ferox should keep it. The Drake needs to lose its shield resistance bonus, IMO.

*braces for impact against all of the crap teh Draek lubbers are going to hurl his way*

"I am a leaf on the...ah, frak it!"
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1096 - 2013-01-13 20:06:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Freighdee Katt
Kitsune Jones wrote:
I don't think anyone can really say that they weren't expecting an eventual Drake tank nerf, though that along with the heavy missile nerf may wind up dumping the ship in the trashbin in the minds of many pilots. Drakes were never paragons of damage, just immense survivability. If the survivability is getting yanked, they really deserve a damage boost to compensate, at least enough to bring them back to pre-heavy missle nerf areas.

If they really wanted to do the Drake "right," they would make it the obvious step up between the Caracal and the Raven. Way back when they first started talking about all this, that's what they actually said they were going to do. Drop the stupid kinetic bonus AND the shield resists, give it the rate of fire and velocity bonus, and make it the designated Caldari "attack" missile boat. This would at least make some sense, and nerfing the passive tank would completely fix the perceived problems with it, while still leaving it to be quite good for its intended role.

Let the Ferox then step into the "combat" role, and things would start to make some sense; more sense anyway than having two "tanky" BCs in each race and no real "attack" ships at all, other than the tier 3s, which are more gank wagons than combat ships. To fill things out, as someone else suggested, they should really bring in a brand new "command" hull for each race, drop the gang link CPU need bonus from all the other BCs, and give the new set of command hulls a really nice booster role bonus, the same way that they did for T1 logi with the "support" line of frigates and cruisers.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
fukier
Gallente Federation
#1097 - 2013-01-13 20:28:41 UTC
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:
I had hoped to see the Drake go the route/role of the Caracal; lose its shield resist bonus and gain something else in return - velocity or flight time bonus?

The Moa gets the shield resist bonus in the Cruisers, so the Ferox should keep it. The Drake needs to lose its shield resistance bonus, IMO.

*braces for impact against all of the crap teh Draek lubbers are going to hurl his way*


yeah its funny no one wants both gal ships getting the same bonus (active tank)

but yet both the ferox and drake having the same bonus is a o.k?

get rid of the resist bonus on the drake and replace with a velocity bonus...

that would make the drake a ham ship of uberness
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Mund Richard
#1098 - 2013-01-13 20:30:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Well, Fozzie's post is here.

The Ferox having tank and optimal does have the intriguing side of not being that easy to kite if you use 2 TEs and Null with max skill.
Having 5 mids though is still sub-optimal for brawl maybe, considering it's a caldari ship, must choose between tank and tackle.
...Which, while I don't like if I fly it, is well if my enemy sits in one. P

The Drake...
"It was just an early idea" - and I liked it :(
Fozzie wrote:
Both RoF and damage missile bonuses are valid tools to use, and I prefer having a variety. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and provide different interesting gameplay in different situations.
Sure, both damage and RoF have their advantages.
Specially a damage bonus over a +kinetic only damage bonus. Roll, nerfs one of the two advantages the system it gives a bonus to has.
On the other hand, even shooting mjolnirs, given the equal number of upgrades, I guess it will out-damage a launcher-only Cyclone.
That would make it balanced, compared to the other, I suppose... Except in terms of fitting used and still being free.
Still hoping that both get RoF and 6 launchers, letting both have one utility high for the occasional fleetboost/cloak/probe launcher.

"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.
Ares Desideratus
UNSAFE SPACE
#1099 - 2013-01-13 21:23:31 UTC
WTF are you doing with the Harbinger? FFS
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
#1100 - 2013-01-13 22:41:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie,
I think it may be worthwhile looking at fitting
requirements for gang links and command processors.
This way you can encourage their use without having to
risk utility slots being used for neuts or increasing pg on
ships to allow their use. This of course would leave t2/3
command ships with extra resources for a while until they
are adjusted.

Neug

WTB cheap effective command platforms

Indices/Mining Simulator V6.41 UPDATED*

Daily Forge Mineral Sales Summary V1.5

Neug's Prime Industrial Real Estate V1.3