These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

The proposed new Brutix
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#21 - 2013-01-13 21:09:06 UTC
Do not forget:

Quote:
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.


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.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2442879#post2442879

Remove standings and insurance.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2013-01-13 21:15:02 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
A 6 low slot Brutix is actually quite sexy and I have no idea why people are so pissy over it.


I would like to see your planned low slot layout.

I think in general, people wanted a mid

I especially wanted a mid so that there would be some more viable shield fits, just as minmatar have some very viable armor fits.
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#23 - 2013-01-13 21:23:13 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
A 6 low slot Brutix is actually quite sexy and I have no idea why people are so pissy over it.


I would like to see your planned low slot layout.

I think in general, people wanted a mid

I especially wanted a mid so that there would be some more viable shield fits, just as minmatar have some very viable armor fits.


The shield cane only has 4 mids, as so does the Talos, yet they are still viable. If you want a strong shield tank for brawling, you should fly the ferox instead.

Minmatar has both shield and armor fits before they are the jack of all trades race. Gallente is primarily an armor race, but over the recent year, shield fits have become more and more common. 1-2 years ago ppl would laugh at gallente shield ships.

While I agree with you that shield ships should still be an option for gallante ships, it should not be the norm and it shall not out compete the caldari blaster boats.

Why do you have such a big obsession for a shield brutix?

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#24 - 2013-01-13 21:23:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
The Brutix has 4 mids already. Another mid would only be used for making the ship even more of a shield tanker.

No.

-Liang

Ed: Also, with the proposed changes, I'd continue to fit a Neutron Shield Brutix with a second TE in the lows. It won't even require a fitting mod now. It'll lose a bit of HP, but it'll still be well over 50k EHP. However, the 6th low slot makes an armor tanking Brutix an actually viable thing to do. It could use a bit more grid for the purpose, but I suspect we'll see some improvement on that front with the armor tanking changes.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#25 - 2013-01-14 04:23:52 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
A 6 low slot Brutix is actually quite sexy and I have no idea why people are so pissy over it. Furthermore Fozzie has all but promised a reworking of the rep bonus - not necessarily in the removal of the rep bonus but in the fixing of it.

I think people should chill the **** out and see how this turns out. Gallente has been making out very well indeed in these rebalances. What I don't want to see is another case of the Deimos not getting buffed for 5 years because people were too dumb to think.

-Liang


These ships aren't anything different really. Brutix isn't bad, just un-inventive. I've given my 2cents in the appropriate thread. Overall the 'changes' are nothing short of depressingly bland.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#26 - 2013-01-14 04:33:32 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
A 6 low slot Brutix is actually quite sexy and I have no idea why people are so pissy over it. Furthermore Fozzie has all but promised a reworking of the rep bonus - not necessarily in the removal of the rep bonus but in the fixing of it.

I think people should chill the **** out and see how this turns out. Gallente has been making out very well indeed in these rebalances. What I don't want to see is another case of the Deimos not getting buffed for 5 years because people were too dumb to think.

-Liang


These ships aren't anything different really. Brutix isn't bad, just un-inventive. I've given my 2cents in the appropriate thread. Overall the 'changes' are nothing short of depressingly bland.


Given the goal (BC class between Tier 1 and Tier 2 in effectiveness) there was never going to be a way forward with a flashy glitzy boost. That said, I'm fairly content with all the changes save the Cyclone and Harbinger. I'm unhappy with the Cyclone's role change and the Binger wasn't terribly far from the mark already. The massive nerf bat the Binger ate was just unnecessary.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Reuqh Dew
Anasta.
#27 - 2013-01-14 05:02:45 UTC
I don't get why people cry for another mid slot for Brutix. Like there isn't enough viable shield gank ships.
In my eyes Brutix has been the prime example of gallente combat ship, active tanked scary brawler with good drone bay and lots of pain. At the moment it just doesn't have the lows to fill that role.

Good change in my opinion. Although I'd like to see +100pg instead of +50 to be able to fit full set of Ions with dual reps. Roll
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#28 - 2013-01-14 05:57:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarnak Wulf
The Brutix's most obvious competitor is the Ferox. The Ferox will sport a tank that ranges from 70k - 80k EHp. The Ferox will also sport a full rack of Neutrons at the same time. The Brutix by comparison usually is stuck with Ions or Electrons and struggles with magstabs vs tank. With my damage implants I have one future Ferox variation that, with a flight of hobs, breaks 700 DPS with Null (11km opt + 11km f/o) and 900 DPS with Void (6km opt + 5km f/o)

As Liang said, I'm waiting to pass judgement. But in skeptical so far.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2013-01-14 08:25:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Verity Sovereign
Liang Nuren wrote:
Given the goal (BC class between Tier 1 and Tier 2 in effectiveness) there was never going to be a way forward with a flashy glitzy boost. That said, I'm fairly content with all the changes save the Cyclone and Harbinger. I'm unhappy with the Cyclone's role change and the Binger wasn't terribly far from the mark already. The massive nerf bat the Binger ate was just unnecessary.

-Liang


You realize with the increased bonus, that it actually gets a slight DPS boost... it keeps the same number of mids and lows, keeps a utility high, gets a longer targeting range...
The only problem is the reduced base HP, which is rather dissappointing


As to your fit...a 2nd TE in the lows... I'd rather have a TC in for the mid, so that if one closes to point blank, you can switch a range script for more tracking.

As to the shield "obsession", the Gallente BCs along with the hyperion, were the most commonly shield tanked Gall ships. (though I think some of the rebalanced cruisers might be doable now)
You said the Minmatar were "jack of all trades", yet its clear they were meant to be a shield tanking race, both based on dev comments, and the bonuses + faction module offerings.
Cadari: shield resists
Minmatar: active shield tanking
Amarr: Armor Resists
Gallente: active shield tanking

But among the Minmatar, we had several ships that were equally good, or better when armor tanked (or you could shield and nano them). I want similar versatility for Gallente, because I'm not convinced they will ever fix the problems with active tanking (unless they make an ancillary armor repper).
A mid in this case would add versatility, without taking away from its armor tank fit, as any armor tank fit that uses a TE, is goingto be very similar to a fit with 1 less low, and another mid that sports a TC
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#30 - 2013-01-14 09:16:22 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
You realize with the increased bonus, that it actually gets a slight DPS boost... it keeps the same number of mids and lows, keeps a utility high, gets a longer targeting range...
The only problem is the reduced base HP, which is rather dissappointing


Nah, you totally missed the point if you think that the Binger is getting a DPS boost. The bonus is going up, sure, but it's getting a nerf to it's already tight fittings. Most Binger fittings were already split HPL/FMP and that trend is going to be made a bit worse. The tank nerf was pretty significant (~15-20%) and the massive mobility nerf was nothing to sneeze at. I'm having some trouble believing that anyone would claim the newly rebalanced Binger is in shouting distance of any of the other BCs.

Quote:

As to your fit...a 2nd TE in the lows... I'd rather have a TC in for the mid, so that if one closes to point blank, you can switch a range script for more tracking.


A web would work better than a TC if you have the extra mid to spare. Unfortunately, what would work even better than that is moar tank. There's a reason that people are shield tanking everything in sight. Asking to remove the armor bonus for a "more useful one" and begging for another mid slot... who do you think you're fooling hear?

Quote:
Gallente: active shield tanking


Wut?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2013-01-14 09:30:53 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Nah, you totally missed the point if you think that the Binger is getting a DPS boost. The bonus is going up, sure, but it's getting a nerf to it's already tight fittings. Most Binger fittings were already split HPL/FMP and that trend is going to be made a bit worse. The tank nerf was pretty significant (~15-20%) and the massive mobility nerf was nothing to sneeze at. I'm having some trouble believing that anyone would claim the newly rebalanced Binger is in shouting distance of any of the other BCs.

Mobility nerf? its speed is still 150 m/s, as it always has, no? was the change to agility really that massive?
As far as DPS, I didn't look at fitting, I simply took he new bonus vs old bonuse at lvl 5 and the turret number: 1.5/1.25 *6/7 = 1.0286 -> nearly 3% more, before factoring in turret size.

Quote:
A web would work better than a TC if you have the extra mid to spare. Unfortunately, what would work even better than that is moar tank. There's a reason that people are shield tanking everything in sight. Asking to remove the armor bonus for a "more useful one" and begging for another mid slot... who do you think you're fooling hear?

Well, the TC can help range... but yea, a 2nd web would be nice: 2x web, point, AB/MWD, and a cap booster- > 5 mids
As the the reason that people are shield tanking.... because armor tanking vs shield tank for sub caps is broken, and active tanking is broken (partially fixed for shields with the ASB) and until they fix that, any ship forced to active armor tank will be broken too.
I already know what I'll hear, you have to balance the ships overall, not the bonus. Ie, an 8/8/8 slot BS with a base speed of 160 m/s and 10,000 shield/armor/hull HP and a 400m3 drone bay would definitely not suck just because it had an active armor tank bonus. However... the stats and slot layout on the brutix aren't outstanding, so.... I'm still opposed to trying to keep it active armor - until they've done something more to make active armor competitive.

Quote:
Quote:
Gallente: active shield tanking


Wut?

-Liang

Typo, meant active armor
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#32 - 2013-01-14 09:45:27 UTC
Most battlecruisers get damage and tanking bonus. Hurricane and harbinger being the only exceptions.

So it makes sense for brutix to have armor bonus. And frankly active armor bonus makes a lot of sense. It does not gimp the agility and acceleration of that ship.

The drawback is quite a large number of slots required for effective active armor tank and harsh fitting requirements.

Up until now I was avoiding brutix for the lack of 6 low slots. Now it is very appealing for me.
Perihelion Olenard
#33 - 2013-01-14 10:32:01 UTC
Brutix will still need to use an ancillary current router to get a dual repairer setup with ions. I'll still plate it though since I still don't have any confidence in armor repairers.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#34 - 2013-01-14 13:15:23 UTC
[NEW Brutix, shield gank]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Damage Control II
Tracking Enhancer II

Warp Scrambler II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x5


[NEW Brutix, armor]
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Scrambler II
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M

Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I


Hammerhead II x5

[NEW Brutix, im a ranis yay]
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Overdrive Injector System II
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Large Shield Extender II
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Medium Polycarbon Engine Housing I


Valkyrie II x5


[NEW Brutix, udalrep]
Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800
Warp Scrambler II
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M

Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I


Hammerhead II x5

Doesnt seem to shabby tbh+
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#35 - 2013-01-14 13:37:35 UTC
Personally I think the Brutix is about where I would want BCs to be... And I wouldn't want to get rid of the active tank bonus on it (though if the rebalancing improved the bonus and the reppers I'm sure I wouldn't complain).
The Brutix is not designed for fleet to fleet slugfests - it has little need for huge EHP totals. It's very much aimed for the solo/small gang paradigm, where the active part of your tank can make a difference to the fights you win and lose.

The difficulty with all of the BC balancing is always going to be the existence of the (currently) Tier 3 BCs, to bring the Talos (for example) into line with the current Brutix would be very tricky - I still feel that they should have retained the original 'nado's design philosophy - BS with secondary Ewar bonuses (web range for the 'nado, mini-vindi for the Talos...etc).
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#36 - 2013-01-14 13:49:59 UTC
Dato Koppla wrote:
Verity Sovereign wrote:
Even if they change the rep bonus on the Brutix, the one that remains (myrm) needs a buff to at least 10%, right now I see the Prophecy outdoing the Myrm.... much better armor tank, not that much lost drone DPS


This absolutely, I feel 7 lows + resist bonus is really going to make the Prophecy punch above the Myrm, sure you get the extra 25m3 bandwith but with better tanking bonus, option for additional lowslot damage mod, better base tank, more bay etc, the Prophecy is going to give more mileage.


I do see the Myrm as a permarep gatecamper with sentry drones as it stands.

IMHO, though, resists were always an amarr thing. Maybe add cycle time to reppers in addition to the existing rep bonus to make it a wee bit more PvP viable.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#37 - 2013-01-14 13:51:03 UTC
i dropped some idea on another thread - along the lines of: Split them into 1 comabt BC per race, one 'assault (current tier3) and 1 of another kind.

Something along the lines of an E-WAR BC. With the OPPOSITE bonuses that T1's normally get. So that means: Point range increase, web range increase, nos ammount increase, and ECM strength.

Brutix with bonus to scrambler range? Yes please.
Cane with less deeps but longer web range? Thanks.
Drone boat proph with neuts? PILGRIM :D
ECM Ferox with tanking bonus? First tanked ECM boat with no range bonus - brawler ECM :)
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#38 - 2013-01-14 13:58:35 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Brutix will still need to use an ancillary current router to get a dual repairer setup with ions. I'll still plate it though since I still don't have any confidence in armor repairers.


Aye, and this is why it needs another 30ish grid.

It should be noted that if you cram ca-1 and ca-2 into your active tanking clone that you will be able to fit ions w/o the use of an ACR.
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#39 - 2013-01-14 14:44:38 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Given the goal (BC class between Tier 1 and Tier 2 in effectiveness) there was never going to be a way forward with a flashy glitzy boost. That said, I'm fairly content with all the changes save the Cyclone and Harbinger. I'm unhappy with the Cyclone's role change and the Binger wasn't terribly far from the mark already. The massive nerf bat the Binger ate was just unnecessary.

-Liang


You realize with the increased bonus, that it actually gets a slight DPS boost... it keeps the same number of mids and lows, keeps a utility high, gets a longer targeting range...
The only problem is the reduced base HP, which is rather dissappointing


As to your fit...a 2nd TE in the lows... I'd rather have a TC in for the mid, so that if one closes to point blank, you can switch a range script for more tracking.

As to the shield "obsession", the Gallente BCs along with the hyperion, were the most commonly shield tanked Gall ships. (though I think some of the rebalanced cruisers might be doable now)
You said the Minmatar were "jack of all trades", yet its clear they were meant to be a shield tanking race, both based on dev comments, and the bonuses + faction module offerings.
Cadari: shield resists
Minmatar: active shield tanking
Amarr: Armor Resists
Gallente: active shield tanking

But among the Minmatar, we had several ships that were equally good, or better when armor tanked (or you could shield and nano them). I want similar versatility for Gallente, because I'm not convinced they will ever fix the problems with active tanking (unless they make an ancillary armor repper).
A mid in this case would add versatility, without taking away from its armor tank fit, as any armor tank fit that uses a TE, is goingto be very similar to a fit with 1 less low, and another mid that sports a TC


Most ships benefits much more from a TE than TC. And an Armor brutix has much more use of an Magstab in lows rather than a TC in mids, since tracking is rarely an issue. If you want a 5th mid just to fit a TC you would be much better off with a web. So in any circumstances, a TC shouldn't really be considered for a brutix. So what if the brutix got 5 mids? Well then it will end up like the ferox and we will have 2 ships being almost the same. So do yourself a favor and train caldari cruiser 3 so you can fly a ferox instead.

If the Brutix gets 5 mids and 5 lows it will even more gimp the armor brutix since shield tanking would be much better. thus The verstatility would actually be reduced. However 4 mids and 6 lows allows the armor brutix to shine while still enabling the possibility for a shield gank brutix. (Just like the cane). With 6 lows a buffer brutix can fit a 1600mm plate, a DCU, 2EAMN and 2 magstabs, which turns it into a quite good ship. Likewise It will have mids for the holy trinity + an utility mid. And active tanked dualrep brutix will have 2 medium reps, a DCU, 2EAMN and a magstab, and in mids it would have the holy trinity and a cab booster. Gaining a midslot rather than lowslot would just gimp their dps and in return they get an utility mid which is less useful. Tracking isn't a big problem when they are webbed and the drones can easily take care of webbed frigs. Likewise dmg projection is already low and it is just better to get ontop of them by using the web.

While minmatar has some ships with active shield tank bonus they have many ships that supports armor tanking and some that favours it. Notice how minmatar ships often has more lows than mids and there are even some t2 frigs with only 2 mids. The reason why minmatar ships are more commonly shield tanked is becaue it often is superior with the current meta. The loki has both subsystems for armor and for shield tanking.


Verity Sovereign wrote:

Well, the TC can help range... but yea, a 2nd web would be nice: 2x web, point, AB/MWD, and a cap booster- > 5 mids
As the the reason that people are shield tanking.... because armor tanking vs shield tank for sub caps is broken, and active tanking is broken (partially fixed for shields with the ASB) and until they fix that, any ship forced to active armor tank will be broken too.


So your way to fix armor tanking is by making all ships shieldtank? What about fixing the actual problems and make armortanking desireable? Hint: you dont do that by making slotlayouts favour shieldtanking.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2013-01-14 15:07:58 UTC
"So your way to fix armor tanking is by making all ships shieldtank? "
No, I don't want them to gimp the shield tank until armor tanking is fixed...
I don't want them to gimp it in favor of active armor until active tanking is fixed
I also wouldn't be complaining if they changed the repper bonus to a resist bonus, or increased it to 10%... but as is, the mode of tanking they want it to use sucks, and they've further gimped its ability to shield tank.

I also want some Gall ships to be able to shield tank as well as some minnie ships can armor tank - even though the minnie are designed as a "shield race"

Leave Amarr as the armor race,
Leave Caldari as the shield race
And have gal and minmatar do both depending on the ship, with gal having some active armor ships, and minmatar having some active shield ships.

There are more Gal ships with an active armor bonus than there are minnie ships with an active shield bonus...
and as far as bonuses go, the active armor bonus at 7.5% just doesn't compare well, and the hull stats that it is applied to don't make up for the lackluster bonus
Previous page123Next page