These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2021 - 2013-02-05 19:15:16 UTC
In regards to the cap use bonus on the Harb I wrote something in the Combat Frigates thread back in August that I'm going to shamelessly copy-paste here since it still describes the :plan:

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Laser cap use bonus on Amarr ships:
So this became a pretty heated debate in the thread, and I'm going to address it even if it is a bit off topic.
The original design of lasers was that they essentially had a built in damage bonus, being more powerful in base damage than any other weapon system. In the time since launch however that specific damage advantage has diluted somewhat, as most of the buffs lasers received over the years were to tracking. Pulse lasers tend to have good damage and excellent range for short range guns, and Beams have good damage, fair range and excellent tracking compared to other long range options. There are a lot of Amarr ships that need help, as well as many that are working well. Certain problems are tied to the weapons themselves, for instance fittings on small lasers need help and many of the problems with beams are tied to the weapons. We're taking our first steps towards improving the fitting situation for frigates in the already announced changes for winter:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
  • All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU

    • Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

    That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
    Maximus Andendare
    Stimulus
    Rote Kapelle
    #2022 - 2013-02-05 19:47:39 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    In regards to the cap use bonus on the Harb I wrote something in the Combat Frigates thread back in August that I'm going to shamelessly copy-paste here since it still describes the :plan:

    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Laser cap use bonus on Amarr ships:
    So this became a pretty heated debate in the thread, and I'm going to address it even if it is a bit off topic.
    The original design of lasers was that they essentially had a built in damage bonus, being more powerful in base damage than any other weapon system. In the time since launch however that specific damage advantage has diluted somewhat, as most of the buffs lasers received over the years were to tracking. Pulse lasers tend to have good damage and excellent range for short range guns, and Beams have good damage, fair range and excellent tracking compared to other long range options. There are a lot of Amarr ships that need help, as well as many that are working well. Certain problems are tied to the weapons themselves, for instance fittings on small lasers need help and many of the problems with beams are tied to the weapons. We're taking our first steps towards improving the fitting situation for frigates in the already announced changes for winter:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
  • All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU

    • Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

    That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.
    Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.

    Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

    >> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

    Mund Richard
    #2023 - 2013-02-05 19:55:49 UTC
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.

    "Ain't I simply better off with capless ACs or blasters that do more damage and have better tracking?"

    Depends on your definition of interesting.

    Obviously, with the Harbi loosing a turret slot and gaining in energy weapon damage bonus, there is less interesting player decision there.
    The fitting of cap boosters maybe? At least the Harbi has the 4th mid for it, unlike every smaller category (T1?) of it's kind.

    "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.
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #2024 - 2013-02-05 19:58:23 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.


    High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

    That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
    Cid Tazer
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #2025 - 2013-02-05 20:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Cid Tazer
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.


    High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

    That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.


    Fozzie, out of curiousity, what is the plan for bonuses and drawbacks for each weapon system?

    I get for Lasers it is:
    Bonus: Damage
    Drawback: High Cap use, limited damage types

    missiles it is:
    Bonus: Can do any damage type. Hits for consistent damage.
    Drawback: Delayed damage.

    What about the rest of the systems/full list?
    Bienator II
    madmen of the skies
    #2026 - 2013-02-05 20:03:37 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    In regards to the cap use bonus on the Harb I wrote something in the Combat Frigates thread back in August that I'm going to shamelessly copy-paste here since it still describes the :plan:

    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Laser cap use bonus on Amarr ships:
    So this became a pretty heated debate in the thread, and I'm going to address it even if it is a bit off topic.
    The original design of lasers was that they essentially had a built in damage bonus, being more powerful in base damage than any other weapon system. In the time since launch however that specific damage advantage has diluted somewhat, as most of the buffs lasers received over the years were to tracking. Pulse lasers tend to have good damage and excellent range for short range guns, and Beams have good damage, fair range and excellent tracking compared to other long range options. There are a lot of Amarr ships that need help, as well as many that are working well. Certain problems are tied to the weapons themselves, for instance fittings on small lasers need help and many of the problems with beams are tied to the weapons. We're taking our first steps towards improving the fitting situation for frigates in the already announced changes for winter:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
  • All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU

    • Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

    That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.


    in other words. lasers where once designed to be better as anything else but thats no longer the case since they are now balanced. They obviously still use cap and do only em/therm damage. So why are they still so OP that many amarr ships can live with one effective turret bonus? Its not like it makes the ships cap independent like most minmatar or caldari ships - which is a built in feature not even a bonus.

    how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
    Mund Richard
    #2027 - 2013-02-05 20:09:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Cid Tazer wrote:
    Fozzie, out of curiousity, what is the plan for bonuses and drawbacks for each weapon system?

    I get for Lasers it is:
    Bonus: Damage
    Drawback: High Cap use, limited damage types

    What about the rest of the systems/full list?
    Caldari? Roll
    Since I made a joke last time, I'll try to be more serious.
    And then get corrected by those with more experience.

    Laser:
    +: scorch, instant ammo swap, mid-range, small ammo
    -: cap usage, close range one lacks dps and tracking

    Blaster:
    +: blaster dps
    -: some cap usage, short range (even compared to web on smaller hulls) OR extreme range but low damage/alfa

    AC:
    +: selectable damage, no cap usage, easy fitting for AC, huge alfa for Arti, good combo with falloff bonus and TE
    -: long reload, weak optimal

    Missile:
    +: no cap usage, selectable damage, not gun (no getting under them, having to keep a mind for tracking, ect)
    -: long reload, not gun (can't hit a target charging at you from 50km away like you can with guns, ect)

    "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.
    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #2028 - 2013-02-05 20:10:27 UTC
    I totally agree the lasers should not be changed to use less cap, however wasting a ship bonus to balance the drawback is a shame... Most Amarr laser boats are fighting with a passive armor buffer and for those with enough medslots a cap booster to avoid running out of cap.

    A Harbinger with heavy pulse lasers does not need a cap bonus (much). People tend to fit reduction rigs and/or cap booster if they need it for PvP and cap rechargers for PvE. Being capstable should not be a goal... If an Amarr ship really require more cap why not boost the capacitor amount (and keep the cap/minute recharge the same) and maybe those cap amount rigs could be usefull?

    Harbinger is atm super fragile as you barely have enough cpu to fit double EANM like any other armor BC without sacrificing dps - the only thing this ship has going for it...

    Pinku
    Garviel Tarrant
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #2029 - 2013-02-05 20:47:25 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.


    High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

    That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.


    I agree with this

    But its a bit tricky from a design point of view isn't it?

    Because you would feel that with such a drawback should come ample power, but its hard to do that without making the weapon OP in certain situations.



    What you REALLY REALLY need to do to fix lasers and laser boats is 1. 2. and 3. remove scorch from the equation entirely, too many ships rely on it entirely.


    The entire design philosophy with amarr is kinda faulty, Their weaknesses are cap stability, speed and tracking... And at the same time they have very few utility highs (And if they do whoopdedoo since Nos is kinda ****) so their only choice is to use webs and cap boosters.. But a lot of the ships don't have the midslots you allow you to do that since "Amarr have few mids" (Give the punisher a 3. mid for crying out loud <.<)

    BYDI recruitment closed-ish

    Vae Abeo
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #2030 - 2013-02-05 21:29:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Vae Abeo
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

    That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.

    But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut.
    And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential.
    I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore.
    Zarnak Wulf
    Task Force 641
    Empyrean Edict
    #2031 - 2013-02-05 21:46:19 UTC
    Neut warfare has and looks like it will continue to take a big hit. A lot of the new frigates and cruisers don't have any utility high slots. Of those that do have utility slots many are forced to fit a class down due to fitting constraints. The Hurricane and Rupture for example have been cut from two to one utility slot. Many fits on the Rupture require it to fit a small neut rather then a medium sized one. I suspect the same may be true of the Hurricane when it rolls out on Feb 10....

    The small rather then medium size is also true for the Ferox, Drake, Brutix, Harbinger.... even the new Cyclone with two utility highs can only fit a medium neut and a small neut if it wants to fit HAMs and an X-LASB - pretty mandatory stuff for it's hull. All of the frigates and cruisers that have been rebalanced are currently in heavy use in faction warfare - and in that arena I can tell you that the use of neutralizers in general has decreased dramatically.

    Why is the Harbinger a red headed step-child on TQ currently? Fitting difficulties? They are going way. Cap weakness? It's primary competitor is losing it's trademark dual neut setup. A lot of the 'nerfs' the Harbinger is set to receive are red herrings. It's cap lasts the same because you have one less turret. It's fitting is actually much better. As such you can fit a third trimark instead of a MACR - which gives you close to the same EHP as it has now. On top of that you have more damage to look forward to as well as a flight of lights to give the ship more utility. I'm very much looking forward to the new Harbinger.

    TL;DR - 'Neuts on everything!' is going away and the metagame is changing in ways that most haven't caught up to yet.
    Maximus Andendare
    Stimulus
    Rote Kapelle
    #2032 - 2013-02-05 21:48:12 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.


    High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

    That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.
    Thanks for the reply!

    I honestly thought high cap use was to keep lasers off of other ships (looks at Myrm), and the reduced cap need was to keep them viable on Amarr ones. I wonder, then, if lasers have a built-in damage buff, why wouldn't Amarr ships receive +tracking or +optimal bonuses (or other creative bonuses (reduced power need, etc.) over +damage ones, given the built in damage buff? I have always sort of considered the -cap use is the weapon-related bonus on the hull.

    At any rate, I appreciate the answer!

    P.S. What happened to Team Game of Drones??

    Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

    >> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #2033 - 2013-02-05 23:04:36 UTC
    Most Battlecruisers have an utility slot and fitting for a warfare link - currently those warfare links are more difficult to fit than medium neuts so having to downgrade for small utility modules shouldn't be an issue unless you got crazy expectations...
    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #2034 - 2013-02-06 00:03:54 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.


    High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

    That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.


    You have the right idea for once. I hope you can ignore all the 'feedback' the dps plebs give you. Removing cap bonus has not made good ships so far: abaddon can do it because all BS seem to require cap boosters for some reason, and that covers it, but punisher and maller are both trash, because on proper ships, midslots are life. I think amarr ships should mostly all have the bonus.

    Btw, TEs, T2 ammo and drones. This had better be happening sooner than you guys doing rebalancing on every ship in the game. Stuff is broken.
    Zarnak Wulf
    Task Force 641
    Empyrean Edict
    #2035 - 2013-02-06 00:04:30 UTC
    Fozzie indicated earlier that the warfare links would have their fitting requirements tweaked when the rebalancing got to that stage.
    Annihilious
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #2036 - 2013-02-06 01:27:01 UTC
    Game changing name to "Nerf Online"...
    Flatiner
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #2037 - 2013-02-06 02:18:56 UTC
    Can I ask who in their stoned state of mind hired this goon? Seriously why dont you try doing something productive in this game that WE the player pay for instead of f**ki*g us in the butt every chance you get. At this rate you might as well apply for bankruptcy just like THQ did for not listening to the player base. Fix what needs to be fixed stop breaking items/ships what have you, that don't need your rediculous ideas or "improvments" as you all call them. I'm not the oldest player in eve but I feel as if this game has taking a change for the worse since they hired Fuzzie to the ccp team. Here's an idea why don't you ask your player base what they would like to see happen. Seriously tired of the "changes" to this game and can't wait for a new game to come along and stomp this one into the ground
    Nian Banks
    Berserkers of Aesir
    #2038 - 2013-02-06 02:47:26 UTC
    Not impressed with the changes, I had hoped that CCP would just give the tier1 battlecruisers better speed/agility and more HP.

    Why does every rebalance now = completely different bloody ship. Give us variants, MlI and MkII, New blueprints to research for the MkII and people can still have and produce their old faithful.

    More ships FTW.
    Nevyn Auscent
    Broke Sauce
    #2039 - 2013-02-06 03:26:06 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.


    High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

    That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.


    I would have to disagree.
    If you cut the cap useage on lasers to 2/3rds their current amount it would still be a significantly high cap useage but would allow ships without the bonus to effectively fit & use lasers. Generaly the ships with no cap use bonus get fitted with something like AC's simply because it's utterly unviable for them to work with lasers.
    The cap bonus could then be removed off additional ships, but still left on a few that are specifically intended to be able to fire indefinetly (or close to) with a little bit of cap fitting of some kind, be it rigs or mods.
    They certainly do not have a damage advantage anymore that requires leaving them unable to continious fire without serious effort.
    Lili Lu
    #2040 - 2013-02-06 05:51:05 UTC
    Flatiner wrote:
    Can I ask who in their stoned state of mind hired this goon? Seriously why dont you try doing something productive in this game that WE the player pay for instead of f**ki*g us in the butt every chance you get. At this rate you might as well apply for bankruptcy just like THQ did for not listening to the player base. Fix what needs to be fixed stop breaking items/ships what have you, that don't need your rediculous ideas or "improvments" as you all call them. I'm not the oldest player in eve but I feel as if this game has taking a change for the worse since they hired Fuzzie to the ccp team. Here's an idea why don't you ask your player base what they would like to see happen. Seriously tired of the "changes" to this game and can't wait for a new game to come along and stomp this one into the ground

    must be you're upset about the hm nerf and your pve tengu not performing like it used to. too bad. such a constructive tear filled post. can't wait for you to leave. o/