These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1561 - 2013-01-24 02:06:22 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
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


Guns have two or three sizes of weapons in each class. Pulse lasers have focused medium and heavy, medium blasters have electron, ion and neutron, autocannons have dual 180, 220 and 425mm. So it's possible to make things fit by dropping to a smaller size, ergo using ion blasters instead of neutron.

Missiles don't get that luxury. They have long range and short range. Rapid light launchers are a notable and mostly useless exception.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#1562 - 2013-01-24 02:06:37 UTC
So what happened to the rest of the feedback?

  • People concerned about breaking the normal bonus patterns (serious advantage to lv 5 guys too)
  • Drake absolutely being locked into a kinetic only role - 50% difference over other ammo types is a huge mistake...
  • Drake being pretty low on cpu already - how will you get to fit that warfare link?
  • Brick prophecy resist bonus and 7 lowslots vs. glass harbinger no tank bonus and only 6 lowslots? Why not compensate lacking tank bonus with that extra slot? Let one have an extra slot but the other one have a resist bonus. Harbinger would appreciate,
  • Ferox and Drake sharing same resist bonus, about same range/dps +/- but Ferox having 1 more medslot and doesn't have the same need for web to do damage to close range targets?
  • The drone boats not getting any reward for using racial turrets on their ship but being able to fit much better tanks when choosing ACs?



Lots of questions and observations gone unanswered... Damn you - the frigs and cruisers were awesome but you don't appear to have a genuine interest in listening much :-(
But thank you for accomodating warfare links at least
Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1563 - 2013-01-24 02:31:23 UTC
I went into this thinking that tier one battlecruisers would be turned into dedicated T1 command ships and tier two would be dedicated combat or attack ships, instead we got this... Some of these decisions I'm really not sure about.

The Ferox, Prophecy, Brutix, and Cyclone would have been better as T1 command ships really in my opinion. The Tier three battlecruisers are used mostly as snipers so having the tier two turned into mid or short range brawler type attack or combat ships makes the most sense to me.

I don't know why they've gone this route as it seems much more like they're just trying to get rid of the tiers instead of giving the ships dedicated roles.

Myrmidon for example... I'd love to see that ship turned into an 'attack' type battlecruiser sort of like the Hurricane. Set it up with bonus to hybrids and drones, no defense bonuses and you actually have what it looks like... a fast moving, face ripping, skirmishing battlecruiser.

The Drake would be a brawling brick with a full load of missiles, bonused to rate of fire instead of kinetic damage maybe? I mean mission runners are going to be upset at being forced to use a specific damage type with their missile ship.

The Harbinger would get a bonus to something else... as that stupid 10% to laser cap usage is one of those things I think is an artifact of older ideas on balancing. What, I have no idea.
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#1564 - 2013-01-24 02:46:56 UTC
I have a niggling concern about the "1 less up-bonused weapon" model. All other things being equal, you've effectively given the ship a free slot. I assume this is compensated for by tighter fitting requirements, forcing you to spend low or rig slots for fitting mods?

(ie 6 launchers + co-processor vs 7 launchers is effectively moving a low slot to a high slot, not simply freeing up a high)


On lasers:

- Have you considered the effect of giving the harby a boost to capacitor recharge rather than a reduction in cap usage?

- Are lasers actually 25% more effective than (say) projectiles, before hull bonuses? The logic of a cap reduction is, to me, that lasers are 25% better than other weapons (ie with a full level 5 hull boost), but that this is balanced by crippling cap use. Thus, a cap use reduction is basically fitting magic to allow use of these "25% improved" weapons, and thus an implicit bonus. Does this actually follow in-game?

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#1565 - 2013-01-24 02:49:13 UTC
Addendum: is it intended that the drake and cyclone don't get bonuses to Rapid Light Missile Launchers?

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#1566 - 2013-01-24 03:24:30 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
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


Guns have two or three sizes of weapons in each class. Pulse lasers have focused medium and heavy, medium blasters have electron, ion and neutron, autocannons have dual 180, 220 and 425mm. So it's possible to make things fit by dropping to a smaller size, ergo using ion blasters instead of neutron.

Missiles don't get that luxury. They have long range and short range. Rapid light launchers are a notable and mostly useless exception.


I'm making the point that the Cyclone needs some love with fitting grid. Here is how I would fit it.

High:
HAM II x 5
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator
Mid:
Experimental MWD
X-LASB
Adaptive Invuln II
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler
Low:
Internal Force Field Array
BCU II x 2
Nano II x 2
Rigs:
Shield EM x 2
Shield Thermal

The fit clears by 27.5 PG and 3.75 CPU. That is stupid tight with alot of expensive meta gear. 40 more CPU would make me happy- full DC II and a third BCU.
Oskie
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1567 - 2013-01-24 03:28:07 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:

Still feels like the Ferox needs +1 midslot and the Drake needs to lose the shield resist. Just make a clear break between the "attack" boat and "combat" boat in each race; every race needs one boat that is good at each. The tier 3s are not "attack" ships, they're dedicated snipers and gank wagons. Right now all the tier 1/2 boats are some sort of half-hearted hybrid without any clear roles between them. And the 10% kinetic bonus on the Drake is even worse of a bad thing than 5% was. Just swap it to RoF + Velocity. It is plain silly for the Drake firing heavy missiles to have the same effective range as a Caracal firing lights.


Except that both boats are "Combat" Battlecruisers.

Though, like you, I would love it if rebranding the t3's as attack battlecruisers means that there is a new round of medium-weapon-using, low tank, high speed, possibly ganglink-free "attack" battlecruisers that is in the pipe.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#1568 - 2013-01-24 03:37:04 UTC
Debir Achen wrote:
I have a niggling concern about the "1 less up-bonused weapon" model. All other things being equal, you've effectively given the ship a free slot. I assume this is compensated for by tighter fitting requirements, forcing you to spend low or rig slots for fitting mods?

(ie 6 launchers + co-processor vs 7 launchers is effectively moving a low slot to a high slot, not simply freeing up a high)


In this specific case, they're trying to free up a high-slot and leave a bit of fitting so as to encourage use of gang-links in BC gangs.
Also, this is also in anticipation of the removal of off-grid links, as that's something else they're trying to change. So when you have to bring links on grid, it'll be useful to have a BC with links there with you.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#1569 - 2013-01-24 03:42:34 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
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


Guns have two or three sizes of weapons in each class. Pulse lasers have focused medium and heavy, medium blasters have electron, ion and neutron, autocannons have dual 180, 220 and 425mm. So it's possible to make things fit by dropping to a smaller size, ergo using ion blasters instead of neutron.

Missiles don't get that luxury. They have long range and short range. Rapid light launchers are a notable and mostly useless exception.


I'm making the point that the Cyclone needs some love with fitting grid. Here is how I would fit it.

High:
HAM II x 5
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator
Mid:
Experimental MWD
X-LASB
Adaptive Invuln II
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler
Low:
Internal Force Field Array
BCU II x 2
Nano II x 2
Rigs:
Shield EM x 2
Shield Thermal

The fit clears by 27.5 PG and 3.75 CPU. That is stupid tight with alot of expensive meta gear. 40 more CPU would make me happy- full DC II and a third BCU.

Well if you're willing to compromise, the meta 3 webs and scrams are only slightly worse, are even easier on fitting, and are substantially cheaper. Can't help you on the IFFA/BCU's though. But you also have 2 neuts on there. That's a lot of utility, even if one is a small. And it does have a full 50/50 drones for more utility or damage.

Personally I think a tiny bit more CPU would be good, but 40 seems like an awful lot, if you ask me. Of course, as you compared to the Ferox, it might be a bit tight on fittings. Ah well. It's up to Fozzie.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1570 - 2013-01-24 04:14:37 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We eventually want links to be something you use on field

As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time. If I'm part of a small gang chasing potential targets around the interceptors are going to need the benefit of skirmish gang links, but because they have different warp speeds there's two options here, neither of which are attractive at all: either the interceptor warps after the target alone and loses the fleet bonus, or it warps along with the boosting ship - while that ensures the interceptor will have the skirmish bonuses when they land, you're cutting the ceptor down to less than a quarter of its original warp speed and so chances are you won't be able to catch up with a target that's warped off ahead of you.

There are other problems with forcing links to be on field including the fact that the only way to get the best industrial bonuses is to use a several billion isk ship that's completely immobile and defenseless for five minute blocks of time - forcing the bonuses to be on grid won't bring the ship on grid, it will simply mean that the only reason anyone will ever use the industrial core is for compression jobs.

There are ways to solve the problem of invincible OGB ships - forcing all of them to be on grid is not one of the more comprehensive solutions.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1571 - 2013-01-24 04:42:53 UTC
Does this mean the Harby won't be the laughing stock now? Looking good!!
Perihelion Olenard
#1572 - 2013-01-24 05:16:08 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We eventually want links to be something you use on field

As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time. If I'm part of a small gang chasing potential targets around the interceptors are going to need the benefit of skirmish gang links, but because they have different warp speeds there's two options here, neither of which are attractive at all: either the interceptor warps after the target alone and loses the fleet bonus, or it warps along with the boosting ship - while that ensures the interceptor will have the skirmish bonuses when they land, you're cutting the ceptor down to less than a quarter of its original warp speed and so chances are you won't be able to catch up with a target that's warped off ahead of you.

There are other problems with forcing links to be on field including the fact that the only way to get the best industrial bonuses is to use a several billion isk ship that's completely immobile and defenseless for five minute blocks of time - forcing the bonuses to be on grid won't bring the ship on grid, it will simply mean that the only reason anyone will ever use the industrial core is for compression jobs.

There are ways to solve the problem of invincible OGB ships - forcing all of them to be on grid is not one of the more comprehensive solutions.

In that case you'll probably want your booster to be a tech 3 cruiser instead of a battlecruiser or command ship. In the future it won't boost as well but it's a more mobile boosting platform with more links.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1573 - 2013-01-24 07:04:58 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We eventually want links to be something you use on field

As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time.


The solution to this is that fleet links arent exclusive to the fleet booster, anyone can activate them who have them on their ship, however if multiple people have them active, it still only counts as a single boost overall (prioritizing highest skill boosts)

Thus your fleet could be fighting on two grids and have drakes with a siege link on both grids and thus get boosts quite easily on both.

I am pretty sure they are decoupling boost link modules from fleet booster type boosts (since they will be on grid only) so this is probably fairly easy to do...


James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We eventually want links to be something you use on field

If I'm part of a small gang chasing potential targets around the interceptors are going to need the benefit of skirmish gang links, but because they have different warp speeds there's two options here, neither of which are attractive at all: either the interceptor warps after the target alone and loses the fleet bonus, or it warps along with the boosting ship - while that ensures the interceptor will have the skirmish bonuses when they land, you're cutting the ceptor down to less than a quarter of its original warp speed and so chances are you won't be able to catch up with a target that's warped off ahead of you.


This is an issue with warp speed differences overall, not links, devs have said they would like to scale warp speeds more so the warp speed interceptors would get places much quicker than other ships without a warp speed bonus (which is currently barely different for anything less than 20-30 au which is the majority of warp distances), however, there hasn't been anything particularly done about this because it would change how fast you can get around the game in general.

Another change that they should bring to mitigate the issue with catching an opponent after a warp with links (Because it is a reasonable issue) is have smaller ships able to utilize warfare links. Like a command frigate of sorts with quick warp speed and assault-frigate sort defenses.


TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1574 - 2013-01-24 08:46:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
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. 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.


Shield tanks are not supposed to have full tackle, that's a huge factor in the balance.

Seems like you want to be able to fit all:

superior tank
full tackle
damage
speed

Where is the compromise?

Armor tanking has full tackle, that is the gain for losing speed, damage and having less tank.

Cyclone has more grid than a Myrmidon, and LASBs use less grid than MAR IIs, and even less after active armor rig penalty change.

EDIT: there are no armor fits that tank 600-900 hps and do +1K dps.

.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1575 - 2013-01-24 08:56:10 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We eventually want links to be something you use on field

As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time.

The solution to this is that fleet links arent exclusive to the fleet booster, anyone can activate them who have them on their ship, however if multiple people have them active, it still only counts as a single boost overall (prioritizing highest skill boosts)

Thus your fleet could be fighting on two grids and have drakes with a siege link on both grids and thus get boosts quite easily on both.

If only there were a boost that only applies to certain groups or wings of people with a fleet . . . Smile

Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
If I'm part of a small gang chasing potential targets around the interceptors are going to need the benefit of skirmish gang links, but because they have different warp speeds there's two options here, neither of which are attractive at all: either the interceptor warps after the target alone and loses the fleet bonus, or it warps along with the boosting ship - while that ensures the interceptor will have the skirmish bonuses when they land, you're cutting the ceptor down to less than a quarter of its original warp speed and so chances are you won't be able to catch up with a target that's warped off ahead of you.

This is an issue with warp speed differences overall, not links, devs have said they would like to scale warp speeds more so the warp speed interceptors would get places much quicker than other ships without a warp speed bonus (which is currently barely different for anything less than 20-30 au which is the majority of warp distances), however, there hasn't been anything particularly done about this because it would change how fast you can get around the game in general.

Another change that they should bring to mitigate the issue with catching an opponent after a warp with links (Because it is a reasonable issue) is have smaller ships able to utilize warfare links. Like a command frigate of sorts with quick warp speed and assault-frigate sort defenses.

I would actually like to see fast warping T2 destroyers able to fit gang links at 1% per level bonus.

They could be command corvettes or something like that. This would also give gang links to fast roaming frigate wolf packs, as right now even T3 ships arent fast enough to keep up with them.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1576 - 2013-01-24 09:01:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok time to get feedback on the next iteration.

Once of the things we have refocused on since this thread started is that with warfare link changes potentially on the not too distant horizon we needed to build these ships for the warfare links we want rather than the warfare links we have. The ability to use warfare links is a key part of what gives these ships their identity, even if that has been watered down in recent years.
As such we're working to ensure that each of these ships can fit a warfare link without sacrificing a bonused highslot. We eventually want links to be something you use on field and part of that will be ensuring that you can use links while also also enjoying the normal on-grid gameplay.


I like this a lot, a BC or two supporting a cruiser gang :)

Brutix got a mild dps buff, which is nice because the armor changes mean that it will be more often used as burst armor tanker, than going all out shield gank.

Myrmidon is harder to fit, slower and relies on insta-poppable heavies to reach competitive dps - hard to find many reasons why I would fly it instead of the very promising Brutix.

.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1577 - 2013-01-24 09:08:17 UTC
Akturous wrote:
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.


He just did it

If you don't think a link BC is strong enough, fly a CS? Being forced to make compromises in fitting is really a vital ingredient in balance. Choose whether you think having links is more important than having 50 more dps.



.
Weasel Leblanc
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1578 - 2013-01-24 09:45:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Weasel Leblanc
So, just to review how the new Myrmidon compares to the new Prophecy...

The Prophecy gets:

  • More grid.
  • More CPU.
  • Higher speed.
  • A smaller signature.
  • A resist bonus that works with all three forms of armor tanking (buffer, local active, and fleet RR) instead of a repper bonus that only works for local active repping.
  • HP heavily concentrated in armor (where it matters for the vast majority of an armor ship's life) instead of being split out to structure (where it matters for a much shorter length of time unless you're in a gimmick hull tank) and shields (which only matter at the very start of a fight unless you want to toss out a hull bonus entirely and fly your drone-boat BC as a shield tank).
  • An extra low slot that, in combination with the non-stacking-penalized ship resist bonus, will allow the Prophecy to fully and completely outtank the Myrmidon in an otherwise similar fit.
  • A deeper drone bay.
  • The ability to fit missiles, though why you would do so is beyond me. Unless you're already skilled for missiles, but not for projectiles.

The Myrmidon gets:

  • An extra turret hardpoint, which is not such an advantage once you consider that its guns are guaranteed to be unbonused.
  • An extra mid slot, which - since the Prophecy already has that magic number of four - is also not such an advantage unless you're comparing which can shield tank harder.
  • Slightly better lock range, which - given how far out it is - only matters if I've already given up the fifth turret to fit a drone link augmenter. Or, alternatively, if I am being a hilariously bad player and trying to snipe in a ship with five medium turrets and no gun bonuses.
  • Higher sensor strength, but not enough to actually make a difference unless you happen to be sitting exactly above that ECM pilot's break point between "can jam" and "can't jam".
  • A repper bonus which will only ever let the Myrm outsurvive the Prophecy's higher EHP and almost-as-good-for-active-tanking resist bonus in hilariously unlikely situations. Don't even get me STARTED on what happens when I add the Prophecy's extra low slot into that.
  • HP split more evenly between the three types than the Prophecy, which helps if you want to shield tank or go the Elite Hull Tanking route, but does nothing to help out the armor tanking that's supposedly the ship's go-to method.
  • A drone bandwidth advantage that won't matter until drones are fixed because heavies are currently trash and anyone who wants a fourth sentry will want to fly a different ship so they can have a fifth.

...Why would I ever fly an armor Myrmidon after these changes, again?

Edit note: in case I wasn't clear enough, the "what this ship gets" list are what they have in relation to the other one in the comparison, not in relation to their previous versions.
Mund Richard
#1579 - 2013-01-24 10:05:24 UTC
Roime wrote:
Brutix got a mild dps buff, which is nice because the armor changes mean that it will be more often used as burst armor tanker, than going all out shield gank.

Myrmidon is harder to fit, slower and relies on insta-poppable heavies to reach competitive dps - hard to find many reasons why I would fly it instead of the very promising Brutix.

+
Weasel Leblanc wrote:
So, just to review how the new Myrmidon compares to the new Prophecy...

The Prophecy gets:
[list of good stuff]

The Myrmidon gets:
[list of stuff not quite working out]

...Why would I ever fly an armor Myrmidon after these changes, again?

The two posts after one another = "Why would you use the Myrm?"

And all three get bonuses to the new rep modules, so that is not the saving grace.

"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
#1580 - 2013-01-24 10:24:25 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We eventually want links to be something you use on field

As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time.


The solution to this is that fleet links arent exclusive to the fleet booster, anyone can activate them who have them on their ship, however if multiple people have them active, it still only counts as a single boost overall (prioritizing highest skill boosts)

Thus your fleet could be fighting on two grids and have drakes with a siege link on both grids and thus get boosts quite easily on both.

I am pretty sure they are decoupling boost link modules from fleet booster type boosts (since they will be on grid only) so this is probably fairly easy to do...



Or people could HTFU? ^^

BYDI recruitment closed-ish