These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2081 - 2013-02-06 19:53:57 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
amarr were intended to be a drone race before the current changes.


Thats why for ten years they've only had like 3 drone ships? Roll

Personally I'm against making the races similar, or making ship progression derp-level easy.

Difference is good.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2082 - 2013-02-06 19:58:05 UTC
Marcus Jonas wrote:
thx ccp for killing caldari !

first you downgrade the rockets and now make the drake to a pice of junk......

thats the time for saying good by.......... i quit this game.


thx ccp good job

CCP has only buffed rockets and your an idiot.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2083 - 2013-02-06 19:58:31 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
amarr were intended to be a drone race before the current changes.


Thats why for ten years they've only had like 3 drone ships? Roll

Personally I'm against making the races similar, or making ship progression derp-level easy.

Difference is good.

Its not easy its just sensible.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2084 - 2013-02-06 20:04:26 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

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.


Autocannons have no drawbacks at all.
- Good dps on bonused ships
- Good range via falloff and TE/TC
- Good tracking
- Selectable damage pattern
- Capacitor-free
- Easiest fitting
- Large ammo capacity

In fact AC is so good that it is default option on hulls without damage bonuses. I bet that if there were projectile bonuses on all turrets ships we would very rarely see anything but autocannons.



Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.

Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2085 - 2013-02-06 20:13:08 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Vae Abeo wrote:
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.

Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . .

Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection)

the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range.

Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster?

TL;DR
if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .


Blasters are great right now. Lasers are the worst.

With the new armor changes coming armor tanked blaster ships will be much faster.
Marius8
DNS Requiem
#2086 - 2013-02-06 20:13:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Drake:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to all Shield Resistances
10% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L , 6 Launchers (-1)
Fittings: 800 PWG (-50), 500 CPU (-25)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250(-219) / 3250(-658) / 3750(-156)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500(-312.5) / 658s(-92s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.64(+0.012) / 14810000 (+800,000) / 8.9s (+0.7)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8
Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 295 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 450 (+105)


Change the kinetic damage bonus to a general damage bonus, and the drake will at least be useableAttention
and the changing in the shield reduces the tank on a passive tanked drake with almost 110 hp/s (that's to much reduction!!!!!).
Ryomo Shimei
Galactic Brotherhood of Violence
#2087 - 2013-02-06 20:13:52 UTC
marcus is right .. the heavy missiles got nerved ... and the heavy assault missiles has way to low flyrange compared to other short range weapons which can easy outrun em in range .. and since caldari ships are basicly the slowest you cant even get in range with ham + with only 6 launchers in the drake and the lowerd tank ability makes the last usefull missile boat in the cruiser level useless for caldari since in missions many npc use defender missiles but no use for example tracking desruptors ... so drake is also useless in missions now so whatfor even go for missiles since they cant be used properly .... you have way to less dps ( since if ya have you have nearly no tank ) or way to less range .. especialy since ham need nearly 5km to get at maxspeed which for example reduaces your range from 15 km down to 11 ... and if i see that an minmatar player can fire easyly 22km and is faster caldari is out of use ... i hope ccp r4econsider the missiles again ... not only in pvp case but also in pve ..... or give as much rats that use defender missiles anti turrent equipment aswell so that the turrent users know how it feals when you cant kill something
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2088 - 2013-02-06 20:32:18 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:

Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.

Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others.


I disagree. Beside ACs and speed Minmatar ships have numerous advantages over other ones. Here are a few of those:

1. Best afgility and align times. Crucial in many PvP situations.
2. Artillery. Brings a lot of creative usages.
3. Best T2 Resistances profile. No evident resist-holes.
4. Interdictor in a league of it's own.
5. By far easiest fitting. In many cases you can just slap anything you want onto Minmatar ship and don't even need AWU.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#2089 - 2013-02-06 20:38:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
A few points:

Amarr have always had a strong predilection towards drones. Along side their line of obviously drone dedicated T1 and T2 cruisers many of their other ships (BS in particular) have always sported larger drone bays than any other race but the Gallante. True, Gallante put a stronger emphasis on pure drone damage but for bay size and variety available Amarr has always ranked highly. Amarr pilots who have been in the game any length of time and not realized this have apparently been blinded by their lasers. Blink Time to get with the program as the rebalancing makes this even more obvious.

For the record, Amarr have not traditionally been know as being an active armor tanking race... they have been known as the buffer armor tanking race. Big difference functionally. Gallante have always been a bit more flexible in this regard, but with active tanking being made more practical we should see it becoming a lot more main stream than it has been in the past.

And last but not least, it's going to be very amusing when Drakes remain the most commonly used mission running BC, and STILL a strong contender for med to large fleet engagements. I may have to book mark a few posts in this thread for future reference and nose rubbing. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2090 - 2013-02-06 20:39:58 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:

Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.

Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others.


I disagree. Beside ACs and speed Minmatar ships have numerous advantages over other ones. Here are a few of those:

1. Best afgility and align times. Crucial in many PvP situations.
2. Artillery. Brings a lot of creative usages.
3. Best T2 Resistances profile. No evident resist-holes.
4. Interdictor in a league of it's own.
5. By far easiest fitting. In many cases you can just slap anything you want onto Minmatar ship and don't even need AWU.


Aligity and speed are basically the same idea.

The fitting is great because of the low fitting requirements of the weapons system.

T2-resists are nice, but arties and the sabre don't provide enough advantages to say minmatar have many advantages.

Most of their power is due to ACs.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#2091 - 2013-02-06 20:45:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Ryomo Shimei wrote:
marcus is right .. the heavy missiles got nerved ... and the heavy assault missiles has way to low flyrange compared to other short range weapons which can easy outrun em in range .. and since caldari ships are basicly the slowest you cant even get in range with ham + with only 6 launchers in the drake and the lowerd tank ability makes the last usefull missile boat in the cruiser level useless for caldari since in missions many npc use defender missiles but no use for example tracking desruptors ... so drake is also useless in missions now so whatfor even go for missiles since they cant be used properly .... you have way to less dps ( since if ya have you have nearly no tank ) or way to less range .. especialy since ham need nearly 5km to get at maxspeed which for example reduaces your range from 15 km down to 11 ... and if i see that an minmatar player can fire easyly 22km and is faster caldari is out of use ... i hope ccp r4econsider the missiles again ... not only in pvp case but also in pve ..... or give as much rats that use defender missiles anti turrent equipment aswell so that the turrent users know how it feals when you cant kill something

If Marcus wants to avoid confusion in the future he shouldn't say "rockets" when he apparently means heavy missiles (or all missiles).

Also adjustments are being made to missile range calculations so that what you see will pretty much be what you get... meaning if it says 15km then it means 15km. A variety of skills and rigs will also now apply to HAM's that previously had no effect on them... you did train those skills as a missile user right? If not, time to get busy.

Of course, heavy missiles are still an excellent weapons system compared with all other medium long range weapons systems but I'll stop so as not to distract you from your panic and hand wringing. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2092 - 2013-02-06 21:15:32 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:

Aligity and speed are basically the same idea.

The fitting is great because of the low fitting requirements of the weapons system.

T2-resists are nice, but arties and the sabre don't provide enough advantages to say minmatar have many advantages.

Most of their power is due to ACs.


Alltogether they have enough advantages. Something about autocannons have to go, either it selectable damage, cap-free usage, super-easy fitting or double benefit from TE/TC.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#2093 - 2013-02-06 21:20:57 UTC
Yun Kuai wrote:

Now, when you look at the Brutix, it has been graced with an additional low slot and a tiny amount of extra PG but to be honest it's not enough to save the active tanking role. Unlike the Myrm, the Brutix uses blasters (or broken railguns) to apply that amazing paper damage. Those use cap, are subject to bad tracking and awful engagement range. Again, unlike the Myrm, the Brutix cannot fit a full tackle set and enough cap boosters to feed the cap itensive armor reppers alongside hybrids. The Brutix needs a web if it plans to engage anything smaller than another BC, but it can't afford to fit one if it wants to be a true dedicated active tanker. Without full tackle, the Brutix can't control engagement ranges (even with it, it still won't be able to) and is sentenced to any early death if the other guy has a neut.


And they removed a gun but increased the bonus to compensate for it, increasing its PG effectively. And they reduced the PG cost of medium reps by 20%. They've done a lot to help the Brutix PG wise. And subject to bad tracking?? What? Blasters? I will agree with the mids though. It can't afford to put in the cap boosters it needs to power the reps.
Gosti Kahanid
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#2094 - 2013-02-06 21:27:05 UTC
Abaut the Drake Damage-Bonus: Why not change the "10% to Kinetic Damage" to "5% to Damage, and additional 5% to Kinetik" Such a Bonus existet once for a Amarr-Frig, why not make it for the Drake. Like this, Kinetic ist still the superior Damage-Type which can make over 700 DPS, and the other Types would be at least a little bit usable. Not at much like Kinetik on the Drake, or overall the Damage on the Zyclone, but at least usable
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic
#2095 - 2013-02-06 21:50:56 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:

Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.

Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others.


I disagree. Beside ACs and speed Minmatar ships have numerous advantages over other ones. Here are a few of those:

1. Best afgility and align times. Crucial in many PvP situations.
2. Artillery. Brings a lot of creative usages.
3. Best T2 Resistances profile. No evident resist-holes.
4. Interdictor in a league of it's own.
5. By far easiest fitting. In many cases you can just slap anything you want onto Minmatar ship and don't even need AWU.


1. Agility - Ok, so why are there so many pvp situations that people don't use Minmatar(Drake/tengu blobs, hellcats, etc.)? Agility is important, but not as lower is always better, often for fleet they want similar agility/align time not lowest.
2. Arties are nice but creative uses aren't limited to Arties.
3. Eh, best T2 Shield resist profile sure. Horrid for armor though where Amarr have the best. and then Gallente/Caldari T2 profiles are nice because whether you shield or armor tank you only have one big hole to fill, instead of two in the case of shield tanking Amarr or armor tanking Minmatar. Best profile, in some ways yes but not always.
4. Till T2 balancing comes around.
5. Pretty much, though AWU is still much needed, esp for arties.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#2096 - 2013-02-06 22:59:56 UTC
Minmatar would *only* be fast, because that's not a lot of course...
Alek Row
Silent Step
#2097 - 2013-02-06 23:33:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Alek Row
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:

Alltogether they have enough advantages. Something about autocannons have to go, either it selectable damage, cap-free usage, super-easy fitting or double benefit from TE/TC.


You forgot a few things...
Lowest optimal
Low (lowest?) dps on paper
Fights in falloff, even lower dps despite the good projection
This may not be accurate, but you are only taking into account the weapon systems.

And now you can resort to other things, ships that simply work because of the slot layout, ship bonuses, ship stats, module combinations, whatever, and I agree, because taking into account weapon systems without their ships it's idiotic.
So tell me, which Minmatar ship after the balancing pass is causing you trouble?

Edited to rephrase the question
Which Minmatar ship after the balancing pass you think it's better than other races ships, in their respective class?
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#2098 - 2013-02-07 00:25:48 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

Amarr have always had a strong predilection towards drones. Along side their line of obviously drone dedicated T1 and T2 cruisers many of their other ships (BS in particular) have always sported larger drone bays than any other race but the Gallante. True, Gallante put a stronger emphasis on pure drone damage but for bay size and variety available Amarr has always ranked highly.


Well Ranger, the Corax has a 450m3 cargo bay.

Using your logic, I guess it has a "strong predilection" toward being an Industrial ship.

The reason the Arbi t2 variants have that huge drone bay is because their primary attribute is a cap-hogging energy weapon bonus. Amarr = energy weapons. But the t1 Arbi is still, with no energy weapon bonus combined with drone bonuses, pretty much the only ship that fits the "Amarr drone ship" bill. One was already too many but the Curse and Pilgrim were such cool pvp ships, (because of the weapon bonuses - not the drones) nobody cared - myself included.

But this new blasphemy will put Gallente drones throughout the entire Amarr fleet and while that might look great on some balance spreadsheet somewhere - when I think about the practical implications of those changes, and the disregard for established thematic continuity, and the thousands upon thousands of NEW Amarr ships about to be stuffed with Gallente drones, my blood pressure rises.

It's an attack on the soul of my people.

Opinions vary.

"Obviously."

YK
Mund Richard
#2099 - 2013-02-07 00:36:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Yonis Kador wrote:
The Gallente have always been the drone race. Are you really coming in here and telling me that the Amarr people, my people, were "meant to be" a drone race too? Since when? Barring what, the Arbitrator, prior to all this "balancing," the Amarr have had virtually nonexistant drone attributes. As it should be. Drones are, and have always been, at least in the 5 years I've been playing EvE, the purvue of the Gallente. Gallente are the enemy. Just because every race has drones does not mean every race needs drone ships. To ensure max dps, primary drone bonuses on Amarr ships will ensure that they are going to be loaded with Gallente drones because Gallente (you know, the drone race) drones do the best dmg. And that inescapable truth, that my people's ships will be loaded with their enemy's tech as a result of these changes, is total BS.

The state racial drones are in is another topic (rebalance drones so amarr/caldari are more useful).
Amarr being a drone race or not... (following statements ignore Gallente)
They had the only drone cruiser, the only BC that could field a full flight of mediums, a battleship capable of launching a full flight of heavies and navy faction have room spare (Phoon slightly ahead though), and on T2 level there's also the mini-curse also superb in drone bay. True, proper drone bonus was only on one hull.

On the other hand, they had all those rocket/HAM T2 ships tanks to Khanid, but how silly would it look if 3 races had missiles as secondary system, and only Gallente were left with drones, it's Much Better(TM) to have two shield+missile secondary and two armor+drone secondary for variation, than let's say armor+missile.

"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.
Mund Richard
#2100 - 2013-02-07 01:08:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Travasty Space wrote:
Mund Richard wrote:
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Roime wrote:
(Also notice that lasers are ****** over WAY more by TD's than any other ammotype due to having no falloff/bad tracking already)
Frankly, they'd need to look over how TE/TCs work (optimal vs. falloff)
And by look over how they work, do you mean reduce the falloff they give to somewhere towards x1.5 for instance?
TD not affecting falloff the way TC does would make sense if the plan would be to let brawling ships at least stand a chance against kiters by going into deep falloff.
Now how much that reflects the current state of affairs, is another thing.
Whaaaaa? I think you need to play more man, Optimal and Fall-off both get done over by TDs equally.
And was that not precisely what we were talking about?

The symmetry is that beneficial modules affect falloff twice as much (TC/TE/TL 15% optimal vs 30X% falloff scripted).

With Tracking Disruptors, this is not true, since - just as you pointed out - both are reduced at the same percentage, instead of falloff being reduced twice as much.

"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.