These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mund Richard
#2161 - 2013-02-08 13:59:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
In relation to the myrmidon with its current bonus it surely limits its optimal fighting style to the same as the brutix blasters and active reps whereas if you look at the vexor it can quite happily use either armour buffer/active or shield buffer/ASB with either blasters or rails.

You can pick between ACs and Blasters. Roll

Ofc, that doesn't change the fact that both are mainly geared towards point range engagement with active repping and drone support, making the difference between the two miniscule unless you start ignoring hull bonuses, unlike at cruiser level where both Thorax and Vexor can do both armor and shield tanking both buffered and active.
Wow, that's quite a lot of boths I used in the second part.

"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.
Alek Row
Silent Step
#2162 - 2013-02-08 14:12:18 UTC
Vayn Baxtor wrote:

I fly Slasher regularly (even before tiericide).
It is just so that the Slasher now is quite damn useful. It is swift, it aligns fast, has high scan res, 4 medslots <-- that alone is nice. Even more fun as a pesky scout, and you're not scaring people away because you were flying a Claw or Stiletto. So somewhere, Slasher is indeed a nifty T1 inty. Not the best, but it surely has its merits.


Different context, slasher is a very good ship.
At the time we were discussing the advantages/disavantages of ACs.
Like you said "Slasher is a tackler, so ACs are there to shoot down drones in many cases"
I don't think that the damage performed by a kiting slasher is a good example to describe how good ACs are.
In my opinion, after the tiericide I don't see how ACs can represent a balance problem at all.
Perihelion Olenard
#2163 - 2013-02-08 14:52:56 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:

In relation to the myrmidon with its current bonus it surely limits its optimal fighting style to the same as the brutix blasters and active reps whereas if you look at the vexor it can quite happily use either armour buffer/active or shield buffer/ASB with either blasters or rails.

What stops you from shield tanking the brutix or myrmidon? People already do that. There's nothing stopping you from putting rails and sentry drones on a myrmidon or rails on a brutix, either. They're useful in missions or other PvE. For PvP, the talos would be a better choice over a rail brutix or myrmidon in most cases to snipe with.
Mund Richard
#2164 - 2013-02-08 14:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:

In relation to the myrmidon with its current bonus it surely limits its optimal fighting style to the same as the brutix blasters and active reps whereas if you look at the vexor it can quite happily use either armour buffer/active or shield buffer/ASB with either blasters or rails.

What stops you from shield tanking the brutix or myrmidon? People already do that. There's nothing stopping you from putting rails and sentry drones on a myrmidon or rails on a brutix, either. They're useful in missions or other PvE. For PvP, the talos would be a better choice over a rail brutix or myrmidon in most cases to snipe with.

The point was that the Vexor and Thorax don't lose anything by going either buffer armor or active/buffer shields.

The BC variants "lose" the +5% hybrid damage or 7.5% tracking they don't have, in the form of not using the active rep bonus which is a lot more restrictive than a 5% resist bonus (applying to both buffer, remote and local tank).

Someone earlier commented that Gallente should keep their mouth, or else they will get a -% cap usage for their guns.
As hilarious that sounds at first, for buffer plating or shield tanking variants, that would be a buff...

Both ships being restricted THAT much by such a bonus is wrong.
No other race has similar anywhere.
No, not even the Caldari.
And I would have liked to see one of their +resist%-s go away as well, but that's somewhat different, at least there the ship weapon system is more varied (not turret+drone vs drone+turret), and the tanking choices are more broad as well.

"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.
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive
#2165 - 2013-02-08 16:07:09 UTC
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
Edward Pierce wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Ferox:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to all Shield Resistances
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
Fixed Bonus:
99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L (+1), 7 turrets (+1)
Fittings: 1100 PWG (+25), 510 CPU (+35)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.05) / 13510000 (-500,000) / 8.2s (+0.3)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8
Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 295 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)


An optimal range to hybrid guns practically forces you to use railguns since blasters have terrible optimals anyways, why not follow the Moa route and give this a damage bonus instead? Even a tracking or falloff bonus would beat this.


What's the point of using a Rail Ferox, when you have the Rail Naga?



The Ferox should be given a rate of fire bonus or tracking bonus over an optimal range bonus coupled with enough CPU and PWG to run a mwd cap stable to make it a fast boat for maneuver warfare. I think you would see much more use of it as a blaster boat then and not be overshadowed by the NAGA. Either that or make it a fast, all HAM missile boat with 7 launchers since they seem dead set on nerfing the Drake.
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive
#2166 - 2013-02-08 16:16:55 UTC
Aprudena Gist wrote:
And you still give the ******* cyclone a split weapon system? for fucks sake


Which is a reason that most people don't / won't use it. I agree completely that CCP needs to make it a one weapon system and be done with it. It's so obvious what needs to be done that we just have to wonder why they don't do it....
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive
#2167 - 2013-02-08 16:21:41 UTC
4LeafClover wrote:
Why all the hate for the Hurricane? Because people actually flew them? On a side note why is the Minmatar Sensor strength only 16 when other ships are more? Caldari is 19?

The hurricane is my ship of choice, I fly it 99% of the time. Now it sucks. I can't fit anything, I can only imagine what it will be like if these changes go through. You have taken a good thing in EVE and killed it. And from what it seems you are intent on doing that to all the BC. Doesn't CCP realize that the BC is the primary ship for low skill pilots? Why are you killing them all?

On a different note, it seems like CCP is intent on creating a ship for every roll in a fleet fight...and that is all they can do. What you seem to ignore is that MOST pilots fly around in small gangs or solo and need a ship that can multitask. If you limit EVERY ship to a single role you effectively ostracize every pilot that doesn't fly in a large fleet. Which is your broad player base. While I like to fly in large fleets, MOST of my time is spent flying around solo, or in a small gang. I need a multipurpose battlecruiser, and you are killing that for me and the rest of EVE. You are making it more difficult to get into this game.


AMEN TO THAT!
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive
#2168 - 2013-02-08 16:31:25 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
4LeafClover wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
First, let me say: Don't touch my Cyclone. Now I'll read your post.

-Liang


I have been playing EVE for almost 5 years and can count the number of cyclones I have seen on one hand. The ship sucks. And now they are making it worse, but trying to morph it into a missile boat? Now I can't even use the Cyclone as a sniping platform....it is completely useless.


WTF? Where the hell do you live that you don't see Cyclones everywhere?

-Liang


Amarr and Caldari and sometimes in Gallente space and occasionally in Minmatar space. The only Cyclones I've seen flown where the ones I flew that got blown out of space making me realize they are a waste of money and time to fly as they currently are. The guys I flew with were nice enough not to laugh when I showed up in one and just let me learn my lesson on that ship on my own quick time.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#2169 - 2013-02-08 16:33:10 UTC
Smilingmonk wrote:
4LeafClover wrote:
Why all the hate for the Hurricane? Because people actually flew them? On a side note why is the Minmatar Sensor strength only 16 when other ships are more? Caldari is 19?

The hurricane is my ship of choice, I fly it 99% of the time. Now it sucks. I can't fit anything, I can only imagine what it will be like if these changes go through. You have taken a good thing in EVE and killed it. And from what it seems you are intent on doing that to all the BC. Doesn't CCP realize that the BC is the primary ship for low skill pilots? Why are you killing them all?

On a different note, it seems like CCP is intent on creating a ship for every roll in a fleet fight...and that is all they can do. What you seem to ignore is that MOST pilots fly around in small gangs or solo and need a ship that can multitask. If you limit EVERY ship to a single role you effectively ostracize every pilot that doesn't fly in a large fleet. Which is your broad player base. While I like to fly in large fleets, MOST of my time is spent flying around solo, or in a small gang. I need a multipurpose battlecruiser, and you are killing that for me and the rest of EVE. You are making it more difficult to get into this game.


AMEN TO THAT!


Only thats not whats actually happening. It turns out in EVE when players fly one thing to the exclusion of the others its because that one thing is out of balance compared to everything else.

If you were to try to bring the power levels of everything else up to their power levels you risk power creep.

The drake and cane were the most flown BCs, to the absolute exclusion of most of the others (the same is happening with the Talos) and so it became obvious that they were out of balance compared to every other BC, hence needing an adjustment.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive
#2170 - 2013-02-08 16:36:03 UTC
4LeafClover wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


WTF? Where the hell do you live that you don't see Cyclones everywhere?

-Liang



EVE Online


lol, too true, I said the same thing in my reply pretty much.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#2171 - 2013-02-08 16:42:06 UTC
Smilingmonk wrote:
Aprudena Gist wrote:
And you still give the ******* cyclone a split weapon system? for fucks sake


Which is a reason that most people don't / won't use it. I agree completely that CCP needs to make it a one weapon system and be done with it. It's so obvious what needs to be done that we just have to wonder why they don't do it....


CCP Fozzie has already commented on this. The two AC slots should be viewed as utility highs. That you have the choice to put AC there for more DPS or utility is a bonus. Most people will put neuts there instead. The Cyclone will be:

The fastest BC in the game.
It will have a great burst tank that does not depend on cap.
It will have two neuts or other form of utility.
It has damage type choice.


The tradeoff is that it has mediocre DPS compared to the other Battlecruisers.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#2172 - 2013-02-08 16:52:48 UTC
Most of the alternative bonuses being suggested for the Brutix won't work.

1) - Armor HP per level
The Brutix would need to be able to fit plates in order to get any use out of this. Currently if you fit a 1600mm plate you're forced to use Electrons. Big, slow and snub-nose range is a fail equation.

2) - Tracking per level
We would go from comparing the Brutix to the Myrmidon to comparing it to the Talos. The Talos, by the way, would win that equation hands down.

3) - Falloff per level
This is probably the best choice of the bunch. You'd still probably have Talos vs. Brutix comparisons. (Range envelope vs. Range envelope) The Deimos would also need to be radically redesigned so as not to have it's toes stepped on. All in all you would have two Gallente BC with a lot of firepower and little tank. One would be declared the 'winner' and the other would not be used.

Tweak the amount of armour MAR repair per cycle and look to the Myrmidon for more variety.
Mund Richard
#2173 - 2013-02-08 16:57:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
The tradeoff is that it has mediocre DPS compared to the other Battlecruisers.

Over 500 dps burst tank and over 400dps in the target's resist hole at close range without any hope of mitigating it sitting in a BC doesn't sound all too bad. Though, a Caracal can do the same dps, but without the tank.

Sure, outside scram+web range it starts to suffer, but if you want to brawl it out, who can get away from it?

"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.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#2174 - 2013-02-08 16:59:22 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Smilingmonk wrote:
Aprudena Gist wrote:
And you still give the ******* cyclone a split weapon system? for fucks sake


Which is a reason that most people don't / won't use it. I agree completely that CCP needs to make it a one weapon system and be done with it. It's so obvious what needs to be done that we just have to wonder why they don't do it....


CCP Fozzie has already commented on this. The two AC slots should be viewed as utility highs. That you have the choice to put AC there for more DPS or utility is a bonus. Most people will put neuts there instead. The Cyclone will be:

The fastest BC in the game.
It will have a great burst tank that does not depend on cap.
It will have two neuts or other form of utility.
It has damage type choice.


The tradeoff is that it has mediocre DPS compared to the other Battlecruisers.

Yep, exactly like how the Cane has the option to fit extra launchers. I don't see anyone pissing and moaning about that...

Friends
Mund Richard
#2175 - 2013-02-08 17:03:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Yep, exactly like how the Cane has the option to fit extra launchers. I don't see anyone pissing and moaning about that...

Well, one reason to moan about is how the Cane at least has 6 double-bonused guns, while the Cyclone has only 5 singe 5% bonused.
Only the drone boats have 5 hardpoints, but with a drone damage bonus and the bay to go with it.
Those ships that have 6 have either a double bonus, or a double-strengthed one.
And the Brutix also has a tank bonus to pair it with.

"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.
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2176 - 2013-02-08 17:23:28 UTC
Alek Row wrote:


Different context, slasher is a very good ship.
At the time we were discussing the advantages/disavantages of ACs.
Like you said "Slasher is a tackler, so ACs are there to shoot down drones in many cases"
I don't think that the damage performed by a kiting slasher is a good example to describe how good ACs are.
In my opinion, after the tiericide I don't see how ACs can represent a balance problem at all.



Okay. Was just trying to keep it true. Because even today, there are a lot of misunderstandings on ships that are not FOTM - though in this example, the Slasher did become such as it has a lot of Inty aspects now where as other frigs of its faction now are in its shadow (to a point). That is a different topic though.

Quote:
Why all the hate for the Hurricane?


Quote:
Only thats not whats actually happening. It turns out in EVE when players fly one thing to the exclusion of the others its because that one thing is out of balance compared to everything else.

If you were to try to bring the power levels of everything else up to their power levels you risk power creep.

The drake and cane were the most flown BCs, to the absolute exclusion of most of the others (the same is happening with the Talos) and so it became obvious that they were out of balance compared to every other BC, hence needing an adjustment.


I just wanted to add what I said before. The reason why these specific ships are so popular and people's main is mostly because of the dmg bonus - or damage next to tank stats.

I understand that it may seem as hate - but it is more about the hate on the fact that only one ships is really useful while others remain in shadow. Yes, the other ones are used in EVE too, but for playing this damn long, you have no idea how tiresome it can get when one's fleet says "this ship only" just because the stats are superior. That is a personal example but it is quite common.

While Tiericide does define ships by applying roles, it should be foremost there to get those unpopular ships finally in the spotlight - at least so that they can be used properly. This however requires the good ol' stuff you've been using to get balanced (read: changed/nerfed).


Let's not forget how extreme the Dramielle was. People were also defending it's unbalanced state like crazy. Personally, I wish that all ships could have a chunk of what the old Dramiel had to offer - it would have given even the weakest/crappiest of ships some fangs.

Tiericide is unfortunately not just about you or me, but about the whole gaming community. So it is very common that people or CCP will be stepping on your feet when molesting one's precious ship. Been through that too many times.
Nobody is stopping you from being vibrant about any subject so feel free to share what you think (as you did just now).

I just find that the game is applying too much flexibility to certain classes. Tier3 BCs may be of paper, but I still don't quite get why most have a range bonus applied to their already whoopin' dmg capabilities, as large turrets of whatever kind already naturally have more range than mediums - and if you put in t2 ammo, boom. But as usual, many just want to have a ship that they can oneshot things with and grab killmails with them on top3.
I'd be fine with that, but I'd want the other ships to have a better chance too.


Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#2177 - 2013-02-08 18:57:25 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Big smile [snip] The root issue that needs to be addressed is that Amarr (and Caldari) drones need to be reworked to actually be useful. I think that would resolve any lingering RP issues you may have. Smile



Negative. Amarr drones will never outpower Gallente drones. I'd argue against it if it were proposed. The Gallente are the drone race. So my primary concern, that usage of my enemy's tech is being incentivized throughout the Amarr fleet will not change.

Besides, I don't see all races being made to suffer equally with each race having a BC being repurposed as a drone boat. The Prophecy is the red-headed stepchild here.

Let's take 2 missile launchers off the Drake, reduce it's powergrid, shields, hull, and align time - but increase the size of its drone bay - and see how the Caldari feel about that.

YK

Sorry Yonis, but I figured I'd just point it out. He's not asking for Amarr and Caldari drones to be more powerful than Gallente drones. He's asking that they be useful. At present Amarr drones aren't the fastest, don't deal with frigates the best, or anything, and on top of that have THE WORST DPS of any drones in game. They are the absolute worst drones in game. Caldari isn't as bad, but they don't have a use that isn't already filled by either Gallente or Minmatar. Minmatar drones are best for dealing with small, fast targets. Gallente is good for murdering slower, larger targets (or brawling). Amarr and Caldari do... what again?

He's not asking for Gallente to suddenly get worse, or for Amarr/Caldari to suddenly get much better than Gallente. Simply that there be some point to using them.

I'd like to see them make Amarr drones not a joke. I wouldn't mind using some of those sleek little buggers. Only issue is they suck.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#2178 - 2013-02-08 22:12:58 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
At present Amarr drones aren't the fastest, don't deal with frigates the best, or anything, and on top of that have THE WORST DPS of any drones in game. They are the absolute worst drones in game. Caldari isn't as bad, but they don't have a use that isn't already filled by either Gallente or Minmatar. Minmatar drones are best for dealing with small, fast targets. Gallente is good for murdering slower, larger targets (or brawling). Amarr and Caldari do... what again?

In fact, caldari drones are pretty good middle ground between gallente and minmatar ones : speed is often enough to catch their target, and dps is a *lot* more than minmatar drones.
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive
#2179 - 2013-02-08 22:48:12 UTC
[quote=NetheranE]Prophecy changes are excellent, as are the Harb and Myrm.

Drake and Cane, these changes effectively bring them in-line with the other BCs, which I think is an excellent choice. For too long the drake and cane have left all other BCs far behind in the dust, and pushing them back down to an even keel is an excellent balance choice.


Evil

F**K Balance! Every civilization in the course of history has always endeavored to put out a better mouse trap, or in this case a better battle cruiser, than it's enemies. This obsession with balance is BS! This obsession with nerfing the Drake and Hurricane is BS! Instead of nerfing two perfectly great battle cruisers further (putting them back to where they were is a thought that should be entertained more) CCP should worry ONLY about the other battle cruisers capabilities and bring them UP to the Drake/Hurricane standard instead of tearing down to the lowest level.

Logic is clear that one or two civilizations will always have top dog machinery while others strive to catch up and have to use different tactics to negate the better civilizations ships. The game worked beautifully UNBALANCED for 10 years so why worry about making everything BALANCED NOW???? Look who bitches most about the Drakes and Hurricanes being too good, it's the ones who had rather use their favorite inferior ship and ***** about someone else's better free choice than simply changing their choice to the Drake and Hurricane.

It's like the broken American education system where there can be no winners among the students because that makes the loser students ego and self esteem hurt so they tear down the winners and the institutions that made them winners and recognized them as such.
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive
#2180 - 2013-02-08 22:52:16 UTC
Beregond Romendacil wrote:

Seems to me, these ships are just getting thrown together out of a pile of parts on the floor without any thought of what people would want to do with them. Seems like everyone is trying to figure out how to use each of these ships the way it was randomly designed rather than designing the ship for a use. As it is now, most boats do have advantages but are not good at any role. And it would be nice for newer players to choose a role and train the skills for it rather than train skills for a year and still have no useful roles other than 'just bring what you got'. The recent move to ECM frigs and Logis might help.

- Battlecruisers are supposed to be the first ships of scale capable of exchanging volleys and surviving for while. They should be able to put cruisers and frigs in their place. And Eve Battleships are embarrassing. Nobody fears them or needs to.

- BCs should be decent at solo/small fleets or decent in large fleets, not bad at both. And given 2 BCs for each race, their should be one of each. i.e. one bonused for reps, one for resists.

- The options for long range, short range, drone, or ECM should be spread out/mixed across the races. It may be a good drone boat but if its bad at both fleet and solo roles so it does not get used. Gallente might get the drone boat with resists designed for fleets and Minmatar might get the drone boat with self-reps for solo but that's better than both having a drone boat that no one wants. Designing for large fleet vs small fleet/solo seems better than designing for PvP vs PvE. Good PvP designs will still work well in PvE (especially considering continued AI improvements).

- And, since missiles are already near useless and unwanted, do you have to make it worse with a bonus for Kinetic damage ONLY? Missiles may be weaker DPS but their upside was supposed to be able to switch ammo types.

- all BCs and larger ships should have 2 utility slots so that turrets don't have to be dumped for common tasks: salvage & tractor, probe and cloak, warfare links, drone mods. and I would expect frigs and cruisers to have 1. maybe 2 for the strategic cruisers would make them more useful.

- drone bays should be larger. Still have the reasonably limited bandwidth but have a few more in reserve to kick out.

- And, for the love of God, whatever the ship's intended role, the CPU and PG should be capable of fitting it !!! A low skilled character should be able to fit T1 basic modules and make it work. And as character skills progress, they should be able to progressively step up through the modules until reaching the T2 modules. And shouldn't T2 modules be better than T1 ? sometimes but many times not.




Great way to sum up the situation!