Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I think that the cyclone having only 5 main weapons and 2 utility slots will gimp it unless it's as swift compared to other battlecruisers as the stabber is to the cruisers. Even then it'll still be midway between a cruiser and battlecruiser, and will be loved more as a cruiser that can fit gang links than as an actual battlecruiser. Now I also don't think giving it 6 main weapons is the answer. I like its 3 utility slot setup that it has right now, and I think keeping that will ensure it always has a special niche.

I'd also like to see all of the combat battlecruisers have at least one utility high. The myrmidon I think could use a full complement of drones (125mb/s) and just take away some of the turret hardpoints. Then it'll both feel more like a drone ship and players won't feel bad about filling up the highs with utility items. It should have at least 3 high slots more than its turret hardpoints I think.

And lastly, I'd like to see a bit more flexibility in the attack battlecruisers. I think it wouldn't hurt to allow them to fit other types of turrets. They should all have a powergrid cost reduction to all large turrets, not just the type they have bonuses for. Tech 1 ships are supposed to be flexible. What if I want to fly an oracle with large autocannons? And their ship skill bonuses could extend to medium turrets as well as large, allowing them to fill the role of the medium assault battlecruiser OR the heavy assault battlecruiser. Toss in -25% powergrid cost for medium turrets (because they have low powergrid) and you're golden. The battlecruisers are way more flexible now without anything becoming overpowered at all.

That's because it has 11 total mid and low slots and there is no stacking penalty on shield recharge effects, not because of the slot layout. A battlecruiser with 8 low slots and 3 mid slots would be more effective as a shield tanker just because of this.

I think the myrmidon is better with an armor tank but that's just because I don't trust a ship that doesn't regenerate capacitor. The people saying that the myrmidon is better as a shield tanker are talking about the passive regen fit, which a drake actually does better for the simple fact that it can run hardeners without draining its capacitor. The myrmidon's passive shield tank still gets high numbers though, and a ship with a 3/8 or 4/7 layout will still get that. And because it can be done, people will do it and say it's better even when it's really not better.

The reason why battleships with 11 mid/low slots don't have this problem ties in with why there are no shield extenders bigger than the LSE. Increasing shield HP grants a proportional increase to shield regen. The shield regen modules do the same. The first one offers a very tiny bonus, not even close to being worthy of the slot it takes up. But the second gives more, and the third even more than that, and it's really the last one that makes all the difference. This is why a battlecruiser with 11 slots can passive tank way better than one with 10 slots, while a battleship needs 11 slots to match a battlecruiser with 10 (the LSE gives it a much smaller bonus due to its high base shield HP and slow shield regen)

Well it is an ugly SoB...
The art team should get on that, along with 90% of the other Caldari ships, (except you scorpion, I can never stay mad at you... x)

But stats wise, its looking good compared to the other BC's. And thats the point, they are balanced against each other and other ship classes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, good job Fozzy and the team.

(Also, try putting something useful in your post rather than, "Change It". Normally an explanation is helpful. Thats the whole point about constructive critisism.)

Personally, I prefer the "safe, stable" vs. "unstable, insanely powerful" choice you can make between Amarr ships. It's what makes lasers, otherwise limited to EM/TH, not suck.



Cyclone essentially flies like a pimped up original Podla Drake - between 1.4 and 1.5 km/s, 400-500 dps, while remaining (barely) cap stable. It is, as you put it, the Stabber of BCs. As far as I'm concerned, it'll easily be my go-to kiter missile BC now.

Lasers have an excellent range to damage ratio, which is why they cost so much capacitor. Reducing their range and capacitor cost would essentially turn beam lasers into short range railguns and pulse lasers into autocannons that don't have a choice in damage type.

Lasers are a very popular weapon system, despite being absolutely the easiest to prepare for and tank against. They don't need an adjustment to make people use them because people like them just the way they are. But I think it would be nice to add some variation in damage types, maybe make some of the crystals have mostly thermal and others have mostly EM.

For the love of god please fix the drakes damage bonus dont make it worse.

8 missile launchers ( to match the model awesomness )

No Kinetic damage bonus.
1 second per level ammo reload bonus. ( faster ammo switch )

133% EM , 133% Therm , 133% Kin , 133% Exp.

Against

6 launchers with 50% kin bonus.

100%EM , 100% Them , 150% Kin , 100%Exp.

Maximum firepower is less than that being proposed.
Players have to use correct ammo to maximise there potential.

Drake is no longer easy mode fit kin and forget about it.

Players now have to make sure there firing into resist holes to max there damage.

Also removes the T2 Cal/Gal invulnerability being proposed to Cal FW fleets.

And if 133% at all resists is too much ( no likelly ) then lose a mid slot.
Too much tank has always been the drakes problem for fleets not its firepower.

Your question was already answered.
Lose a mid if needed to reduce the tankability.

nm anyway , I see the horse has bolted.

Check your fittings, they didn't change but you need one less neut and that's a big buff even if it doesn't have the (+XX) beside it. Open EFT with the new stats and open your Hurricane up, now slap on whatever you like, go ahead i'll wait.

Done? It all fits doesn't it? OK, so you have to have AWU 5 and you have to meta one LSE to F-S9 and your MWD (which you were going to do anyway) to not need a 1% PG implant, or you could just use your free CA-1/CA-2 and not worry about it. 425s, MWD, dual extenders, neut all with zero fitting mods seems better than fine to me. You can also fit a rack of 720s with only a single reactor control and a decent fit if you're so inclined. You also have SO much CPU that you can tech II every single module on the ship and include five gyrostabs in the lows and not run out. In fact I think we deserve an explanation as to why you get so much. You just don't get two utility highs anymore.

Now try to fit the largest possible guns to all the other BCs plus the full tank and see how it goes... You get really high dps (not sure if it's the highest but in excess of 800 with heat is no slouch) set up with a standard fit but I don't resent that bit so much as you also have a thin tank compared to say a 1600 plated Harb but you're much much much faster than it. Your Hurricane by the way is now outpaced by the Cyclone but that's it, so acting as if the mobility loss killed you is a tough sell.

Of all the crying there has been in this thread, it's the tears for the poor poor Hurricane that ring the most hollow, it's still a fine ship, it's just not the stand alone best of the best winning the race by a timezone over the next finisher.

EDIT: The five gyrostabs point is just to illustrate how much CPU you get because it's insane, not that you would want 5 gyros.

Please look at it again.
The drake is gaining a bit of kinetic dps with BC skill at V, and doesn't lose any with skill at IV.

i think that the myrmidon is nerfed too greatly by removing a turret since drones have the problem of being too vulnerable when increasing in size.

either drones should have slightly reduced sig radius, at least when warping or balance the mrtm by gining it 125BW, a lightly bigger cargohold or anything else

regarding Brutix
its traditional problem was too little pwergrid and you shrink it even more?