These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Luscius Uta
#2281 - 2013-02-12 13:14:02 UTC
To mare wrote:

i missed the caldari drone boat?


I would count Gila and Rattlesnake are Caldari drone boats because of missile bonus and sensor type (even though you can say they are Gurista boats if you want to be pedantic)

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#2282 - 2013-02-12 13:34:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakan MacTrew
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:


Please consider testing not only with [All V] characters and not only for Blob-PvP. Drake will be pretty weak for a new players. Also Caldari will become one and only race that don't have a BC for L3 missions / rattings against anyone but Guristas/Serpentis/Mercs. And since their T1 battleships are bad for PvE Caldari will be left with Tengu and Navy/T2 BS that are not accessbile for a new player at all (price and skill wise). This is not a small problem as some might think, inability to upgrade from L2 missions without months of accumulating SP may turn away some newbies who would otherwise stay.


So much wrong with this post.
Keep in mind that with Retribution, most of the formerly useless cruisers became great tools for both PVP and PVE.
Newbies can now chose between many ships that will do the job for them, and now there is actually a reason for them to stick with T1 cruisers and only upgrade to BCs when they have decent skills and (as a side effect) enough money to even afford to lose several BCs.
Before that, whenever a newbie asked which ship to train for, the answer was "Drake for PVE and Cane for PVP. No matter what race you are, you may have to crosstrain, but don't bother with any other ship, everything else is just a waste of time."
Now that new players have a valid choice between many ships that will all be good for the job, I reckon that it will be much better for motivation & new player retention.

And what's that stuff about Caldari battleships being bad for PVE? I read this sentence thrice now but I am still not sure if you are serious.

I totally agree. Most apt comment made in the whole thread.

To mare wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Consequently, that leaves Minmatar as the only race without a drone boat..

i missed the caldari drone boat?


Yeah, that confused the **** out of me too. Given the amount of drones usable by several of the Minmatar BSs as well, its a pretty pointless statement.
Are we going to recieve a request for Gallente missile boats?

Friends
Perihelion Olenard
#2283 - 2013-02-12 14:55:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Frankly, one shouldn't be flying a ship in PvP or PvE if their skill in that ship is below level 4. It doesn't take long to get.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#2284 - 2013-02-12 15:35:23 UTC
Natasha Rachmaninova wrote:
Another thing i dont get is... why u dont just announce the whole reballance changes u planed till summer now... and test them till summer... so there will be much more time to test... and i guess the outcome will be more usefull...
Just making the "between"-patches more juicy is not what the community wants... im sure REALLY ballanced setups are more important than the speed of making them...


BC balancing in the form of a point patch (much like the point patch the previous year) has always been intended.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#2285 - 2013-02-12 16:55:31 UTC
Krell Kroenen wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Your can is still really good, stop being bad.

Not cap dependant,
Selectable damage types
good tracking
great projection
more free mids because it doesn't need a booster


The cane's strength has never been tank/gank. It will remain really good in the hands of people that know what the **** they are doing.


I believe the cane will still see use in niche roles but I also see it being more unforgiving compared to some of the other BC's when it comes to it's use. But the point of my post is to temper some of your points.

1. The cane's cap has been reduced sharply which will affect it's propulsion, point and defense, even if the weapons do not require cap just about everything else does.
2. T1 ammo does allow for some choices on which split damage type you wish to apply but this does not apply to T2 ammo and given the 10 second reload times it is not very practical to be switching ammo hoping you hit a resist hole large enough to be worth the lost time on target.
3. I will agree the tracking is a plus of the AC weapon system but it has nothing to do with the Cane hull persay And what if you are trying to use an arty cane then your statement becomes rather false.
4. Projection in to fall off means lower dps and requires that you keep at range, the cane is barely faster than some of it peers now and also is more sluggish than it used to be.
5. Your booster point does not really jive as that is dependent on what fit one is looking at, especially in the realm of shield vs armor. Which the Cane being a jack of trades and master of none as it is, could go either way.

But back to what I first said, I don't believe the cane changes will make them non existence, there will be those pilots that can use the cane to their advantage for what niche they wish to fill. But even as your statement implied it will be the good pilots that can make something happen while using it.

Given that, I feel it will take more effort to use a cane than say a drake or a harby properly as to wither or not that is a good thing is another matter. *shrugs*


1. If your cane is shield fitted and thus has a cap reliant tank and you're in neut range.. Your cap really won't be your biggest problem.
2. Which is why you switch ammo before fights and only during if you really have too.
3. long range weapons have bad tracking? how odd...
4. No by good projection i mean you have a huge range where you do SOME damage. (assuming AC's, if arties your projection is magnificent)
5. a mid you don't need a capbooster in is great both for shield and armor ships.. For shield its more tank, for armor its more controll.


The cane will no longer be by far the best..

But if you think its going to be bad you're terrible.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Lili Lu
#2286 - 2013-02-12 18:32:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. First off, I want to make sure you all saw the news update from last week that announced Retribution 1.1 will be releasing on Feb 19th.

I want to let you guys know that we've been discussing the design for these ships, and it has been decided that we will go forward with the specs in the OP for Retri 1.1. Barring any significant defects found between now and then the current version of the stats will be released on the 19th. I understand that some of you will be unhappy with that choice, but know that we are not going to be ignoring these ships post-release.

Nice of you to say, but if past action is predictive of future performance I don't think you will be getting to that reevaluation very soon.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
The overlap of having two Gallente ships with the same armor rep bonus is the biggest issue we'll be watching, and if it becomes apparent that the whole or any part of the Gallente BC lineup is not working out as well as we had hoped I have time scheduled in our ship rebalance plan to make adjustments as needed.

Certainly it didn't hurt the Minmatar BCs to have two active tanking bon . . (scratch that) . . Having two resist bonuses hasn't hurt the Caldari BCs, but of course that's because resist bonuses help for both solo/small gang and for fleets. Conversely, a tepid new active armor tanking mod that in no way is as powerful as an asb, is limited to one per ship (unlike an asb), costs more isk to actually run, and is still cap dependent does not elevate the utility of active armor bonuses for anything beyond that which they were occasionally used for anyway. Neither Gallente BC will see much use in a fleet configuration. So effectively you are continuing to lock out Gallente BCs from fleet warfare, and continuing to promote the use of other racial BCs for fleets.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version.

If it is still too good, why are you not nipping it some more. Shave some more shield hp off or something. For so many years this ship has remained too popular because of its advantages. Have you changed things sufficently to break that streak? If not why not? Nothing should remain king of the hill forever. And at least increase the BC shield regen stat to 1450 or 1500 to further bite into the stupidity of a tech I BC being a level 5 and other pve aggro tank ship. One should need to put some shiney on the line in pve to tank whole rooms. Not some cheap ass seen everywhere for everything clone.
Mund Richard
#2287 - 2013-02-12 18:39:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Lili Lu wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The overlap of having two Gallente ships with the same armor rep bonus is the biggest issue we'll be watching, and if it becomes apparent that the whole or any part of the Gallente BC lineup is not working out as well as we had hoped I have time scheduled in our ship rebalance plan to make adjustments as needed.

Certainly it didn't hurt the Minmatar BCs to have two active tanking bon . . (scratch that) . . Having two resist bonuses hasn't hurt the Caldari BCs, but of course that's because resist bonuses help for both solo/small gang and for fleets. Conversely, a tepid new active armor tanking mod that in no way is as powerful as an asb, is limited to one per ship (unlike an asb), costs more isk to actually run, and is still cap dependent does not elevate the utility of active armor bonuses for anything beyond that which they were occasionally used for anyway. Neither Gallente BC will see much use in a fleet configuration. So effectively you are continuing to lock out Gallente BCs from fleet warfare.
Oh, you were kind enough to leave out the part where AAR cannot be oversized while also limited to one per ship, thus to have a meaningful impact, it has to be ran with at least one 'normal' repairer (along with a cap booster, up to 3-4 modules now and still none for resistance), but that reduces the ooomph it carries, and thus the whole reason to fit 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.
Vos Flam
Eet-A-Zeeb
#2288 - 2013-02-12 19:56:41 UTC

Sooo what the hell? You guys borrow the Nerf bat for Blizzard for the Harbinger?
Less shield, armor, power, turret slot, agility (this one blows me away as your removing armor and a turret and it has MORE mass? WTFQuestion ) and hull... your kidding right?

Now for the plus side...
+Faster cap recharge rate (and lower avg cap per second?)... nice but we use a mid slot to fix that now.
+More mass. I really fail to see how this is a bonus.
+Drone bay by 25... yea cause nothing screams drone boat quite like the Harbinger? Worthless.
+5 max target range - finely lady's and gents a real bonus. The first one today.
+1 Sensor - Well sure, with all that added mass, some would go to the on board computer.
+5 Signature - Theres that added mass rearing its ugly head again.
+25 Cargo - Again we needed to account for the mass increase, so.... (more loot space?)

I guess in the bigger, grander scale of things these seemed like good ideas... but for those that don't see the "Sailboat" yet, (like myself) please explain this to me CCP.


Harbinger:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets (-1)
Fittings: 1425 PWG (-75), 375 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000(-516) / 5000(-469) / 4500(-188)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3125 / 822s(+72s) / 3.8 (-0.366)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.69 (-0.014) / 13800000 (+300,000) / 8.9s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km (+5) / 210 / 6
Sensor strength: 17 Radar (+1)
Signature radius: 270 (+5)
Cargo capacity: 375 (+25)
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2289 - 2013-02-12 21:47:15 UTC
Don't forget that the harbinger is also gaining improved cap stability thanks to one less turret yet gaining firepower thanks to its laser damage bonus being swapped from 5% to 10%

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#2290 - 2013-02-13 02:47:46 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:


Please consider testing not only with [All V] characters and not only for Blob-PvP. Drake will be pretty weak for a new players. Also Caldari will become one and only race that don't have a BC for L3 missions / rattings against anyone but Guristas/Serpentis/Mercs. And since their T1 battleships are bad for PvE Caldari will be left with Tengu and Navy/T2 BS that are not accessbile for a new player at all (price and skill wise). This is not a small problem as some might think, inability to upgrade from L2 missions without months of accumulating SP may turn away some newbies who would otherwise stay.


So much wrong with this post.
Keep in mind that with Retribution, most of the formerly useless cruisers became great tools for both PVP and PVE.
Newbies can now chose between many ships that will do the job for them, and now there is actually a reason for them to stick with T1 cruisers and only upgrade to BCs when they have decent skills and (as a side effect) enough money to even afford to lose several BCs.
Before that, whenever a newbie asked which ship to train for, the answer was "Drake for PVE and Cane for PVP. No matter what race you are, you may have to crosstrain, but don't bother with any other ship, everything else is just a waste of time."
Now that new players have a valid choice between many ships that will all be good for the job, I reckon that it will be much better for motivation & new player retention.

And what's that stuff about Caldari battleships being bad for PVE? I read this sentence thrice now but I am still not sure if you are serious.

I totally agree. Most apt comment made in the whole thread.

To mare wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Consequently, that leaves Minmatar as the only race without a drone boat..

i missed the caldari drone boat?


Yeah, that confused the **** out of me too. Given the amount of drones usable by several of the Minmatar BSs as well, its a pretty pointless statement.
Are we going to recieve a request for Gallente missile boats?



The issue in balance between frig/cruiser/bc never had anything to do with the drake being best because cruisers sucked. It had/has everything to do with no role for any ship other than to last and project dps, ewar, or repairs.

Drake happened to do that best for a long time with lo skill investment. Honestly, the drake still does that best up til BS level. The gap has been closed between low skill point players, but at an all lvl 5 comparrison, cruisers and BC's make almost 0 sense now.

The smarter thing to do would have been to focus on an actual role for classes besides something to fly until the next bigger thing becomes a reality. Those roles actually used to exist long ago in this game but have vanished pirmarily due to webbing, tracking mechanics in general, poor balance decisions such as drones on every ship, and poor weapons balance and/or decisions.

The dev's are hitting up ships b/c it's the easy way to say, look guys, we're doing something; which really means, look guys, we're dumbing down the game more and more rather than tackle the tough issues that would actually make the game better.

The lack of a role is why so many ships get neglected in this game. It's why the Ferox will still be **** after this patch, why the Myrm/prophecy are just utterly ******** repeats of at least 5 other ships currently in game, and why the repeat bonuses on most of the BC's is just pure lack of ingenuity.

This is an embarrassing patch to watch go through... one of many in the history of eve.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2291 - 2013-02-13 11:24:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. First off, I want to make sure you all saw the news update from last week that announced Retribution 1.1 will be releasing on Feb 19th.

I want to let you guys know that we've been discussing the design for these ships, and it has been decided that we will go forward with the specs in the OP for Retri 1.1. Barring any significant defects found between now and then the current version of the stats will be released on the 19th. I understand that some of you will be unhappy with that choice, but know that we are not going to be ignoring these ships post-release.

The overlap of having two Gallente ships with the same armor rep bonus is the biggest issue we'll be watching, and if it becomes apparent that the whole or any part of the Gallente BC lineup is not working out as well as we had hoped I have time scheduled in our ship rebalance plan to make adjustments as needed.

For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version.


yes the DRAKE is still op because it has better tank than the ferox and more tank than it really needs just remove the shield resist bonus and switch the shield hp with the ferox.
And good to hear you are at least slightly open to changing the gallente bc's bonus although only the myrm would really benefit from a different bonus as to allow shield gank fits like on the vexor to be more viable
Also please look at the sig radius on the bc's why are they so high? its easy enough for battleships to do full damage to them already it doesn't seem balanced to me.

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Velocifero
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2292 - 2013-02-13 11:37:25 UTC
Quote:

I still think the problem is that they aren't given real roles... Just choose some roles for these ships, they feel really rather mellow and boring compared to the other rebalanced ships. It's like they're just 30-60 million isk of ship.


I totally agree, these ships don't have a point anymore. there's nothing inspiring or exciting or interesting about any of these changes. Even though it looks like mixing it up is going to help, the space for creativity with BCs is going to be eliminated.

They all end up just looking sorry for themselves, not to mention half of them will have a ship model which shows more hardpoints than actually exist.

The drake always looked ridiculous with 8 missile hardpoint blocks with one launcher mysteriously missing. This promo video incorrectly showed 8 launchers, now it's only going to have 6.

I will be keeping hold of my BC hulls though, as I predict a reverse-nerf in summer when the almighty godess of the usage stats declares that no-one is flying enough BCs anymore.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#2293 - 2013-02-13 11:57:19 UTC
Vos Flam wrote:

+Faster cap recharge rate (and lower avg cap per second?)... nice but we use a mid slot to fix that now.
+More mass. I really fail to see how this is a bonus.
+Drone bay by 25... yea cause nothing screams drone boat quite like the Harbinger? Worthless.


It actually has more dps now and a fair bit better cap due to losing a gun and gaining a bonus.

The mass is silly i'll give oyu that

And yes thats terrible.. being able to have both mediums and lights obviously holds no value... none at all..

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Mund Richard
#2294 - 2013-02-13 12:03:33 UTC
Vos Flam wrote:
+Faster cap recharge rate

+72 seconds to how long it's cap recharges is in fact a reduction of cap recharge rate, and thus bad.
Ofc also lost a gun that takes cap.

"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.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2295 - 2013-02-13 12:23:42 UTC
Saul Elsyn wrote:
GAH! I better learn to fly something else really fast... hmm, maybe an 'attack' battlecruiser.

Not gonna lie, I think my Drake is going on sale after this... clearance priced, and I only used it for mission running. Hmm, what to fly... what to fly for that role...


I'll buy it from you for 30M, tell me how many you can sell me I'll see how many I can get from you.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2296 - 2013-02-13 15:12:33 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version.

I hope you realize that you're bragging about how the rebalancing was a complete failure.

Mission Accomplished.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2297 - 2013-02-13 15:17:51 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version.

I hope you realize that you're bragging about how the rebalancing was a complete failure.

Mission Accomplished.


I'm saying we leaned on the side of caution and are taking advantage of our ability to iterate to ensure that we don't overnerf.

Of course you can read into that whatever nefarious motives you want. Lol

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#2298 - 2013-02-13 15:25:35 UTC
ITT, people who does not understand that nerfing every battlecruiser, is basically buffing every sub BC class ship, and also bringing balance to every battlecuiser.

If they are all worse than before, some more than others, are they all bad, or are they balanced?
Hint: They are balanced.

Stop the "booo hoooing" over your ship becoming "useless". Power creep is BAD mkay? Some ships have to get the bat to keep up balance. I'd even like to see them nerfed even more to make cruisers even more viable.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2299 - 2013-02-13 15:35:35 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
ITT, people who does not understand that nerfing every battlecruiser, is basically buffing every sub BC class ship, and also bringing balance to every battlecuiser.

If they are all worse than before, some more than others, are they all bad, or are they balanced?
Hint: They are balanced.

Stop the "booo hoooing" over your ship becoming "useless". Power creep is BAD mkay? Some ships have to get the bat to keep up balance. I'd even like to see them nerfed even more to make cruisers even more viable.



This

However I really hope iteration on these ships after release will continue if for whatever reason, and I already see a couple ones, those ships/mods and roles are not balanced.

Thing is this should already have been done for RAH and ASB but didn't, probably because of deadlines to deliver content etc but facts are there, I'm not used to see things getting reworked or adjusted while so many others upcoming are already on the top list of the desk "to do" (battleships then T2 versions of ships)

-read not going fast enough to actually correct eventual mistakes before the initial effort becomes worthless or need to get another profound rework

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#2300 - 2013-02-13 15:59:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Freighdee Katt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version.

I hope you realize that you're bragging about how the rebalancing was a complete failure.

Mission Accomplished.


I'm saying we leaned on the side of caution and are taking advantage of our ability to iterate to ensure that we don't overnerf.

Of course you can read into that whatever nefarious motives you want. Lol


Too late for that IMO. I suppose that in the case of BCs vs. Cruisers this'll not really be a horrible thing, but in the BC vs. BC group I'm really unhappy about how the Caldari ones in general were handled. IMO the Ferox is underwhelming in every way but tank (making it Drake II), and the Drake is... Well it's pretty much the same as before but even worse with non-kinetic missiles.

Will people actually use the Ferox ever over a Brutix or Myrmidon? For any reason?