These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Qaidan Alenko
Eezo-Lution Inc.
#1641 - 2013-01-25 09:22:54 UTC
I'm currently training BC V atm... In the end though, this change does mean a slight boost to my Drakes damage (after bonuses, the equivelent of 9 launchers vs 8.75), assuming I fit only Scourge missiles for damage.

Downside though, of course, will be quite a large drop in DPS should I choose to field a different missile type.
Go ahead... Get your Wham on!!!
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1642 - 2013-01-25 09:25:16 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:

Gypsio III wrote:

It's almost as if CCP is trying to persuade new players to fly something other than a bearing Drake. Fancy that.

They might be. But I doubt that that is the reason. They wanted to free up a high for links, without cutting out any other slots. Likely an unintentional side effect. Besides, as a T1 ship there should be a moderate entry level for effectiveness. Mastery of course should take more time, but the difference between mastery and effectiveness shouldn't be too vast on a T1 ship. T2 ships though should absolutely punish those who attempt to enter them prematurely.


I don't have a quote for this, but I'm pretty sure that CCP did say that they were unhappy with the newbie's general progression of "get in a BC as fast as possible and ignore cruisers". But certainly removing that philosophy fits in with the principle of tiericide.

Now, certainly the primary intent for the 10% Drake kinetic bonus is to free up a highslot for a link. But the fundamental problem with BCs is that they're too good at doing too many things and they need to be less flexible, and the 10% bonus fits in with that, while simultaneously creating further distinction between the Drake and the Caldari T1 cruiser missile cruiser.
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1643 - 2013-01-25 09:37:10 UTC
great job killing battlecruisers fozzie.i hope you can sleep well at night lol
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1644 - 2013-01-25 09:41:28 UTC
Recoil IV wrote:
great job killing battlecruisers fozzie.i hope you can sleep well at night lol


Great job not telling anyone what you think is wrong.

Or is it because your favorite BC was slightly nerfed and/or changed ?
Gosti Kahanid
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#1645 - 2013-01-25 09:44:34 UTC
I can remember a Amarr-Rocket-Frig with a "5% damage to EM Rockets and Light Missiles and 2,5% to other Damage-Types" Why not do the same with the Drake? Instead of the "10% to kinetic" make "10% to kinetic and 5% to other Damage-Types" with this kinetic is still the top Damage for the Drake, but other missiles are also a little bit more effektive
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#1646 - 2013-01-25 10:04:07 UTC
I personally love the active rep bonus on the Brutix. And would like for it to stay. Ferox is imho fleet variant of that ship.

On the other hand Brutix suffers from PG issue. I am not sure how much PG reduction (if any) CCP Fozzie is planning for medium armour repairs. But right now when fitted with 2x T2 MAR, MWD and Medium cap booster it cant fit full rack of ion blasters. And I did not calculate proposed PG increase from the rigs.

If this ship is supposed to be active armour tanker (and I hope it is) giving it enough PG to fit reasonably while utilizing both bonuses is a way to go. Or drop the active rep bonus (which would make me sad panda).
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1647 - 2013-01-25 10:13:01 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
Recoil IV wrote:
great job killing battlecruisers fozzie.i hope you can sleep well at night lol


Great job not telling anyone what you think is wrong.

Or is it because your favorite BC was slightly nerfed and/or changed ?



i can fly all bc`s an i have no favourited.but seriosly,they had to nerf drake even more?
Qaidan Alenko
Eezo-Lution Inc.
#1648 - 2013-01-25 10:15:06 UTC
Recoil IV wrote:
SMT008 wrote:
Recoil IV wrote:
great job killing battlecruisers fozzie.i hope you can sleep well at night lol


Great job not telling anyone what you think is wrong.

Or is it because your favorite BC was slightly nerfed and/or changed ?



i can fly all bc`s an i have no favourited.but seriosly,they had to nerf drake even more?

Hey... it got just under a 3% damage bonus at lvl V... P
Go ahead... Get your Wham on!!!
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#1649 - 2013-01-25 10:21:36 UTC
Recoil IV wrote:
SMT008 wrote:
Recoil IV wrote:
great job killing battlecruisers fozzie.i hope you can sleep well at night lol


Great job not telling anyone what you think is wrong.

Or is it because your favorite BC was slightly nerfed and/or changed ?



i can fly all bc`s an i have no favourited.but seriosly,they had to nerf drake even more?


All tier 2 battlecruisers were used quite extensively. CCP wanted to buff tier 1 battlecruisers a bit while toning tier 2 battlecruisers down a bit (i.e nerf). The most popular ones will be toned down more for apparent reason.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1650 - 2013-01-25 10:23:34 UTC
Well most popular of BC on any meaningful levels are Tier 3 BC nowadays.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#1651 - 2013-01-25 10:26:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
I usually don't fly Caldari very much, but from gathering my first experiences with the Moa (I refused to fly this ship for years just because of its spectacular ugliness) I think I can understand the problem people have with the new Ferox now.
Caldari sniper line:
-Cormorant (D)
-Ferox (BC)
-Naga (BC)
-Rokh (BS)

So what's clearly missing is a fast and cheap sniper in the cruiser class that is just a little more durable than the cormorant. Having two snipers in the BC class instead is just a little meh, especially since the Naga does this job so good already that there should really be no need for an alternative.

Suggestion: Switch the boni between Moa and Ferox- make Moa the cruiser-class sniper and Ferox the mid-range dps powerhouse.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#1652 - 2013-01-25 10:28:34 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Well most popular of BC on any meaningful levels are Tier 3 BC nowadays.


Yes. And the are getting a tone down (nerf) as well. The details are not known but will probably be in form of agility and/or top speed adjustment.
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad
Against ALL Authorities
#1653 - 2013-01-25 10:45:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Schmell
Ferox :(


Also did you notice that you have killed 3rep myrm? (because with new pg you can't fit 3 reps and full set of medium guns of any type, and if you take 4 guns instead of 5 you will have less dps than current tranq one has, even considering additional heavy drones)

PS. Well whatever, as long as tier3 exist, all other bc's dont have place in current meta (except maybe a victim role)
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1654 - 2013-01-25 10:55:14 UTC
Sad part in potential tier 3 nerf is that it can make anything that not Battleshp, T2+ or faction is irrelevant.
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad
Against ALL Authorities
#1655 - 2013-01-25 11:00:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Schmell
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Sad part in potential tier 3 nerf is that it can make anything that not Battleshp, T2+ or faction is irrelevant.



Yeah, because ships with tank of BC, speed of cruiser and range and dps of BS for 150 mil are obviously not overpowered and well balanced for price/effectivity
Unkind Omen
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1656 - 2013-01-25 11:18:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Unkind Omen
Schmell, you just forget that new CCP doctirne is "Price does not matter".

Upd: Well, anyway tier III BC's damage makes sense even if we consider it to be BC-BSH size-projectable only. However it is actually not as "close range" big guns have a great chance of hitting small targets on mid-range(30-70 km) distances.

Upd2: My humble POV is that you should have no ship that is capable to decrease angular speed of its target with its own speed to the point where the damage ignores gun-size restrictions.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1657 - 2013-01-25 11:31:56 UTC
Schmell wrote:

Yeah, because ships with tank of BC, speed of cruiser and range and dps of BS for 150 mil are obviously not overpowered and well balanced for price/effectivity

Speed of cruisers and range/dps of BS. They dont have tank level of BC but actually closer to T1 cruisers.
I personally think that Tier 3 BC are most balanced of all BC. They dont make neither cruisers non BS obsolete while being useful for so many purposes.
Unkind Omen
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1658 - 2013-01-25 11:42:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Unkind Omen
An example:
Assume that there is a cruiser chasing a "well-balanced BC". The cruisers MWD speed is around 2 km/s. The T3 battlecruiser's is 2km/s. So the BC can just burn away from the cruiser and force angular speed to zero which basicly means that T3 BC's are not vulnerable to an insanely large number of ships which they are actually SHOULD be vulnerable to.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#1659 - 2013-01-25 11:45:44 UTC
The devs have hinted over and over again that the tier 3 BC are getting a speed/mobility nerf.
Unkind Omen
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1660 - 2013-01-25 11:49:03 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
The devs have hinted over and over again that the tier 3 BC are getting a speed/mobility nerf.

I don't see how a mobility nerf is better than tracking nerf (guns damage formula rework) in terms of keeping T3 BC's within their Attack(high damage and speed, low tank) role.