These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#1541 - 2013-01-23 21:53:59 UTC
mynnna wrote:

So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane?

Riiiiiight.
Wivabel
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#1542 - 2013-01-23 21:55:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Wivabel
Mund Richard wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
To get these highslots back we've moved the new slot on the Ferox from low to high

Drone ships: 11 low+midslots
The rest: 10 low+midslots
Ferox: 9 low+midslots

Doesn't that hurt the Ferox a bit too much?





I really enjoyed the Ferox with the extra Low. Now I am not so sure. I really hope no one was wasting that extra slot with a reactor control..... unless you were using stupid overtanked fits and then .... oh nevermind. The Ferox was perfect before these changes.



Not so sure the Brutix needed its mass raised either. 1200 m/s is not overly scary.





Once again utility highs will be filled with neuts. Cruisers will have no chance against battlecruisers as they have little to no utility slots of their own. They also have very week capacitors.

Maybe this is CCPs way of balancing tanking types as armor ships will atleast be able to fit cap boosters.





I say again down with command bonuses and down with the over propagation of utility highslots.

WivLol

I am not sure if I am going to log in anymore.......
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1543 - 2013-01-23 21:57:39 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Tsubutai wrote:
mynnna wrote:

So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane?

Riiiiiight.


My point is that there are a couple of very likely fits that work (using or ignoring the bonus, there are valid reasons for both) just fine, and the removal of the grid only starts to manifest itself as you try to do more specialized or gimmicky setups... which themselves don't require going too much further to fit.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#1544 - 2013-01-23 22:03:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
mynnna wrote:
Tsubutai wrote:
mynnna wrote:

So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane?

Riiiiiight.


My point is that there are a couple of very likely fits that work (using or ignoring the bonus) just fine, and the removal of the grid only starts to manifest itself as you try to do more specialized or gimmicky setups.

Your "fine" solutions all involve at least one of ignoring bonuses, multiple fitting mods, undersized tanking mods, or frigate sized modules. By your logic, the original version of the new harbinger was fine because if you used autocannons and a couple of ANPs, it fit quite comfortably.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1545 - 2013-01-23 22:11:19 UTC
Fozzie - Any chance you could check to make sure all of those can fit a gang link without completely and utterly gimping the rest of the fit with 3 fitting mods or something?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Amaloy Jeqcovy
Raytheon Intergalactic Research
Fall From Grace.
#1546 - 2013-01-23 22:11:43 UTC
Two flights of drones is the only "balancing" the Myrmidon needs.

On grid boosters = fail. Off grid != out of range; Out of system = out of range! (seriously, only your bug reporting speed is the lacking networking ability. It takes 60 seconds to send 45 bytes of text with login! FAIL! [Yes, I run a web server!])

Are you trying to balance out the people that came to EVE because everyone else balanced the noobs to elite?
I don't want you to give players like me (3 months) any hand outs. That will just mess up what I have at a year, and even more what I have at 5! Quit muckin' about with the ships... (don't make them softer!!!!!!!!)

One thing you gotta realize is that ships will be popular by their kills. If a guy in my alliance kills 5 billion players with a venture, that thing will be a popular ship. Don't balance it out, you made it equal you just don't realize it's use. (these kills exist)
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#1547 - 2013-01-23 22:12:02 UTC

the grid nerf to the cyclone is terrible cause it has to use one of its lows for a reactor control now to fit the standard X-L booster fit
and the ferox is still not quite there and imo should get its range bonus buffed to 15%
the slot move is also not benefiting it =/ the PG buff is tho =D
the other changes are mostly good even though I think the brutix lost a bit of its flavor by loosing a turret
also I very much hope that the myrmidon will get pushed up a bit in the remodel pipe to fix its empty hardpoint....

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Amaloy Jeqcovy
Raytheon Intergalactic Research
Fall From Grace.
#1548 - 2013-01-23 22:25:54 UTC
I have an idea: let's "balance" the game until the people that left WoW to come here hate you! Or, conversely, you could realize that sometimes a brick works better than a bat...

You want balancing? Look at what the actual statistics for death are (yeah, I'm a sick man) and model your ships after that!

Truth be told, here in the US most deaths are not due to firearms. There is a high number due to baseball bats, so brawler ships (like the myrmidon) are right up our alley! (bare knuckle boxer, me!)
Montaire
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1549 - 2013-01-23 22:26:23 UTC
Crazy KSK wrote:

the grid nerf to the cyclone is terrible cause it has to use one of its lows for a reactor control now to fit the standard X-L booster fit
and the ferox is still not quite there and imo should get its range bonus buffed to 15%
the slot move is also not benefiting it =/ the PG buff is tho =D
the other changes are mostly good even though I think the brutix lost a bit of its flavor by loosing a turret
also I very much hope that the myrmidon will get pushed up a bit in the remodel pipe to fix its empty hardpoint....


Maybe you are supposed to need to make some sacrifices to put an XL booster on a battle cruiser hull...
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#1550 - 2013-01-23 22:26:56 UTC
Crazy KSK wrote:

the grid nerf to the cyclone is terrible cause it has to use one of its lows for a reactor control now to fit the standard X-L booster fit


Yeah poor Cyclone, needs to use two slots now for 14k shield boost in a fight.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1551 - 2013-01-23 22:30:52 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Tsubutai wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Tsubutai wrote:
mynnna wrote:

So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane?

Riiiiiight.


My point is that there are a couple of very likely fits that work (using or ignoring the bonus) just fine, and the removal of the grid only starts to manifest itself as you try to do more specialized or gimmicky setups.

Your "fine" solutions all involve at least one of ignoring bonuses, multiple fitting mods, undersized tanking mods, or frigate sized modules. By your logic, the original version of the new harbinger was fine because if you used autocannons and a couple of ANPs, it fit quite comfortably.


Y'know, I feel the passive fit is valid in some circumstances, but lets set it aside for now since you seem overly fixated on it. And let's drop the false equivalency of the Harbinger, since as I'm about to show you, it doesn't even apply anyway.

So how about one normal, likely fit - dual LSB tanked HAMs. Seems reasonable - run one LSB at a time for a more sustainable tank under "light" damage (415 DPS), or slam both on for a big tank (nearly 800 DPS). I'm sure it'll be a pretty common fit post-patch.

[NEW Cyclone, HAMs]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II
Co-Processor II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Warp Disruptor II
Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I


Hornet EC-300 x5
Hobgoblin II x5

1315/1500. Seems like it'll be fine after the patch. Tighter, sure - 1315/1375 - but it fits, so that's that. It sucks that you have to use a fitting mod, but then again ya'll were complaining about grid anyway, weren't you?

I don't really consider LASBs to be "undersized" so much as XLSBs are oversized. But I'll indulge you, so lets look at the XLASB fit.

[NEW Cyclone, XLASB]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II
Co-Processor II

X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I


Hobgoblin II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5

500 DPS, two medium neuts, 916 DPS tank for as long as your boosters last, yes? Fits for now, but we come up exactly four grid short thanks to Fozzie.

Incidentally, it looks like the current "equivalent" of that as far as DPS goes is 220mm ACs and two neuts. Fitting it requires either three CPU rigs, or two and an implant, or two and downgrading to a named point or damage control. Fitting the third neut means dropping to 180mm guns, an ACR and a named point. So it's not like the modern fit doesn't make sacrifices as it is.

Anyway, back to the future. What happens if we think about it for a bit instead of immediately whining? Well, we can always trade the Co-Proc (already mandatory) for an RCU II, and swap the ACR (also mandatory, even now) for a second POU. But we're still 2% over. What else can we do? Hmm, how about swap the DCU for a best named, and swap the T2 Warp Disruptor for a best named, or even just use a scrambler instead. Or we can just use an implant instead, that works too.

How about that, it fits now.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#1552 - 2013-01-23 22:55:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
Mynna, even after the GMP buff, webs are still mandatory on HAM ships that are geared to very small scale pvp, for damage application and for range control, so posting webless setups because they produce nice-at-first-glance tank numbers in EFT is kind of meaningless. Second, saying that you consider LASBs to be "right-sized" is all well and good, but you have to consider the environment in which the ship's going to be operating. If the changes go live in their current incarnation, you'll be seeing 80k EHP drakes with full tackle and excellent resists, 100k+ EHP prophecies (or active tanking setups that tank well over 600 dps and have good neut resistance), myrms tanking 700-900 dps, and brutixes tanking 600-odd dps while pushing the best part of 1k dps of their own - all with full tackle and similar or better outgoing/applied dps than the cyclone. Given those circumstances, LASB-based tanks are woefully inadequate - once you factor in cycle time and reloads, you wind up with a sustained tank of something like 360 dps, or about 70k total EHP before reloading if you use the ASBs as a burst tank. Ultimately, all your fits are showcasing is a tank-bonused BC that is far less durable than other tank bonused hulls, has mediocre dps, and cannot field supplementary tackle or ewar. It's simply not a viable ship given the options available.

I also like how you refute the claim about the number of fitting mods required after the grid changes by posting an XLASB setup with three fitting mods... that still won't fit without an implant.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1553 - 2013-01-23 23:21:45 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Tsubutai wrote:
Mynna, even after the GMP buff, webs are still mandatory on HAM ships that are geared to very small scale pvp, for damage application and for range control, so posting webless setups because they produce nice-at-first-glance tank numbers in EFT is kind of meaningless.

This is true now, with autocannons, as well as post-patch with missiles. The web makes the tank weaker, but is required effectiveness while soloing.

Tsubutai wrote:
Second, saying that you consider LASBs to be "right-sized" is all well and good, but you have to consider the environment in which the ship's going to be operating. If the changes go live in their current incarnation, you'll be seeing 80k EHP drakes with full tackle and excellent resists, 100k+ EHP prophecies (or active tanking setups that tank well over 600 dps and have good neut resistance), myrms tanking 700-900 dps, and brutixes tanking 600-odd dps while pushing the best part of 1k dps of their own - all with full tackle and similar or better outgoing/applied dps than the cyclone. Given those circumstances, LASB-based tanks are woefully inadequate - once you factor in cycle time and reloads, you wind up with a sustained tank of something like 360 dps, or about 70k total EHP before reloading if you use the ASBs as a burst tank. Ultimately, all your fits are showcasing is a tank-bonused BC that is far less durable than other tank bonused hulls, has mediocre dps, and cannot field supplementary tackle or ewar. It's simply not a viable ship given the options available.

The XLASB fit I posted boosts about 38.8k EHP on its average resist (68.75%), which is an average tank of 370 DPS including reload time. The LASB fit will boost about 30.8k EHP total, for an average tank of about 294 DPS, including reload time, though it has the benefit of getting to choose to have that either all at once or over a lengthier period.

That's assuming I did the napkin math right, of course.

If you're arguing that when the ships are compared against each other in a 1v1 environment, the tank fielded by an ASB cyclone comes off as a bit lacking, then (provided the numbers you claim about other BC tanks are accurate, I haven't checked myself) you're right. That has nothing to do with the cyclone losing 100 grid and will not be changed by fozzie allowing it to keep 100 grid. If you want to make a compelling argument to fozzie about it, I suggest you present several setups for other battlecruisers that showcase this issue, and then try to make an argument for why he should care about the comparison of the tanks in a 1v1 environment that ignores all other factors. Good luck.

Quote:
I also like how you refute the claim about the number of fitting mods required after the grid changes by posting an XLASB setup with three fitting mods... that still won't fit without an implant.

Right now, the pre-tiericide XLASB setup requires two to three fitting mods depending on which sacrifices you choose to make. The original cyclone Fozzie proposed requires three fitting mods to make an XLASB setup work, period. With his proposed grid nerf, the setup can continue to be made to work by either using a piece or two of named gear, or by using an implant. So basically, little to nothing about using an XLASB cyclone has changed.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1554 - 2013-01-23 23:26:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariner6
I was very much hoping to see that Armor Rep go away on the Brutix or the Mrym, especially after reading that whole mess on Armor tanking 2.0.

Fozzie, please rethink this and give GAL a different option beyond local armor rep. Its like forcing both the Hurricane and the Cyclone to have shield boost. That would suck and would be met with howls. There are places/times for local reps, and there are places where buffer is better and it would be nice to have that option. It just makes sense Fozzie.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#1555 - 2013-01-24 00:24:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarnak Wulf
Let me throw this Ferox out there as a comparison to the Cyclone just for fitting purposes.

High:
Heavy Ions II x 7
Small Nuet II
Mid:
Experimental 10MN MWD
X-LASB
Adaptive Invuln II
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler
Low:
DC II
TE II
MFS II x 2
Rigs:
Shield rigs to taste

Look Ma! No fitting mods or rigs!
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1556 - 2013-01-24 00:32:55 UTC
Mariner6 wrote:
I was very much hoping to see that Armor Rep go away on the Brutix or the Mrym, especially after reading that whole mess on Armor tanking 2.0.

Fozzie, please rethink this and give GAL a different option beyond local armor rep. Its like forcing both the Hurricane and the Cyclone to have shield boost. That would suck and would be met with howls. There are places/times for local reps, and there are places where buffer is better and it would be nice to have that option. It just makes sense Fozzie.


You always have the option of ignoring the rep bonus. I say keep them. What, are you telling me you're going to get fleets of Myrmidons and Neutron Brutixes together? Confirming drones and Blasters are great fleet weaponry. Roll

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1557 - 2013-01-24 00:40:17 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Let me throw this Ferox out there as a comparison to the Cyclone just for fitting purposes.

High:
Heavy Ions II x 7
Small Nuet II
Mid:
Experimental 10MN MWD
X-LASB
Adaptive Invuln II
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler
Low:
DC II
TE II
MFS II x 2
Rigs:
Shield rigs to taste

Look Ma! No fitting mods or rigs!

Of course! How could I be so stupid, all I have to do to make the cyclone work is downsize the missile launchers!

[NEW Cyclone, XLASB]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Co-Processor II
Damage Control II

X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
Stasis Webifier II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I


Hobgoblin II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5

Perfect, right? Roll

(Just to drive the post home, try your ferox fit without downsizing the guns, since there's no reasonable way for the cyclone to do that either. Then tell me how it works.)

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1558 - 2013-01-24 00:44:23 UTC
I do have to wonder at some of these changes... the switch from a 5% per level bonus to damage on the Drake to a 10% for example... then dropping a high-slot. Some of these it's like we're not thinking about a specific role so much as a general 'does damage and reps or buffer tanks'

I was really hoping for specific roles for these ships... Heck, I was hopping some of them would loose the ability to fit fleet bonus modules so there'd be a bit more specialization.

I can see there's the kernel for some good ideas in some of these. I really like the Hurricane being setup as an all out damage ship, as that's really the role we've seen it used in quite a bit. On the flip side, I really am not that fond of turning the Cyclone into a missile boat.

I still can not figure out for the life of me why the stupid 10% cap usage bonus continues to survive on Amarrian ships. If laser cap usage is such an issue, increase the capacitor of the Amarrian ships. Or better yet, a bonus to cap injection if you really want to consider other possibilities. I always said that Amarrian ships use ammo... it's call cap boosters charges.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1559 - 2013-01-24 01:11:49 UTC
mynnna wrote:
(Just to drive the post home, try your ferox fit without downsizing the guns, since there's no reasonable way for the cyclone to do that either. Then tell me how it works.)


He's using medium blasters... ?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1560 - 2013-01-24 01:43:39 UTC
You can't fit a gang link to a BC without gimping it's fit supurbly, especially with the nerfing of fittings on the tier 2 BC's.

When will you learn, you need to reduce the fitting requirements of gang links if you want people to use them on combat bc's, otherwise they'll just use off grid t3's and after you nerf them, it'll just **** off all those people like me with just about every leadership skill at V and no way to use that benifit when I'm not in a big gang because you can't bloody fit gang links to bc's and still have a viable combat fit.

Idea:

Why don't you do what you did with co-ops cloaks and get rid of the 99% reduction etc, so you can just have a can, can not fit and have the gang link fitting requirements reduced dramatically.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8