Player Features and Ideas Discussion

UGH, because CCP admits Shield tanking is still way better even after balance changes.

Its not that hard CCP - Reduce cap need for armor reps. Problem solved.

generally i'm not sure if i feel comfort with new tweaking session every month
even if its required, its too rapid

this is ur ferox

Ferox:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to all Shield Resistances
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 5 M, 4 L, 7 turrets (+1)
Fittings: 1250 PWG (+175), 510 CPU (+35)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4000(+94)
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 / 0.66(+0.06) / 13250000 (-760,000) / 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)

this is how i see it - taking the ferox and turning it into a pocket-rokh

Ferox:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to all Shield Resistances
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 8 M(+3), 1 L(-3), 8 turrets (+2)
Fittings: 1200 PWG (+125), 530 CPU (+55)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4000(+94)
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 / 0.66(+0.06) / 13250000 (-760,000) / 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: 350 (+5)

I'm sorry but I'm kind of tired of my favorite ships being nerfed... most BC's are nearly pointless to fly and after the patch its just going to be the same or worse in my opinion. Much more efficient to just fly cruisers now. I saw someone else post this and I agree, BCs should be a bridge between cruisers and BS's, but at their current state they're not. And the patch isn't going to help.

Reading the post at the start I had the impression that it will be another "boohoo, CCP keeps nerfing my Cane/Drake" post, but ended up being a bit more.

And I kinda see your point, when I compare the Moa and the Ferox for instance.
5 bonused guns are not far off from 7 unbonused, what the Ferox gains in optimal the Moa can balance simply being able to dictate range better (about 50% faster with an MWD on and 36% without), low and midslot count is the same.

On the other hand, if you are in a group and some guys come and keep stuff sitting still (many web and scram), the Ferox has over twice the base shield HP, armor and hull, mobility of the Moa will mean less (you will either not be primary, or have many webs on you in a "fair" engagement as well), while the optimal will be better.
DAAAAMN!!!
I hate it when while writing a post I come to a conclusion opposite of what I wanted to get!

One more mid may be a thing but if it were to get 6 mids I would want it to come from the highs at the expense of the utility high, as it stands as presented it fits Ions and an XL ASB pretty easily for 650 dps with Void and over 900 dps tank thanks to a built in capless invuln. 8 Turrets may not even increase this dps since you are proposing taking off all your magstabs and TEs to fit your ship with WAYYYYYYYYYYY to much tank. You're also losing the bonuses from the TEs to your tracking, optimal and falloff that you will need to really make your optimal bonus shine.

8 mids is just right out and not going to happen, it's not even good. Getting that at the cost of all but one low is horrible. Now you have a stupidly overtanked piece of crap who's sole role is to warp some place obvious get pointed and call in something better to deal with it. This proposal is not good or even useful, it would be exactly what the Prophecy is now before this patch goes through. The only thing you can do with this is warp in with your fleet and have the satisfaction of taking a very long time to die last. Even the Cormorant was bad with only 1 low which is why it got more, instead of more mids.

Probably the worst part of these new BC's is the necessity to train lvl 5 now due to the much higher gap in damage/tank bonuses from 4 to 5 than before. I thought one of the mandates CCP had was that there should never be a necessity to have to have a skill to be competitive? 10% damage per level on top of some ships gaining another 5% to resist makes such a huge gap compared to the old 5/5 that there's almost no way a player can compete unless that ship skill is to 5. There's certainly no chance with it 3 or below. Even worse, it supplants actually training multiple gun skills to 5 as the ship bonus is larger than 2-3 levels of most gun skills.

Well...
The "mistake" you make, is that you assume it's an beam ship.
With nor damage ROF or cap bonus, I don't really see much reason to put any lasers on it.

As a Gallente being used to flying the Myrm as a minmatar BC (AC+Shield) with drone bonus, the Prophecy has a few things appealing that the Myrm lacks:
- Has a more universal tank bonus
- Has a larger bay
- Can be fit with HAMs
- Is smaller, faster, lighter
- Has an extra low

Not sure if it's a good ship overall or not, but it's at least something that makes me pause and ponder, instead of outright dismissing it as I have before.

Cyclone goes Caldari,the new low emerged sad about this nothing ever should go caldari i guess not enough F1..meh don't like not saying it wont work.

How come the hurricane and cyclone have 5% damage bonuses while everything else has 10% bonuses? (except the Ferox) They have 5 and 6 main weapons, just like the other battlecruisers. This means that the hurricane with its dual bonuses will land slightly higher in main weapon damage than other battlecruisers, but without a secondary bonus to rely on, and a below average drone bay to boot. The cyclone will have the lowest damage output of all battlecruisers but still only has 2 utility high slots.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if these ships were significantly faster and more agile than the others, but the changes show them being brought closer to the medium than before. Now the brutix is just as massive, agile, and almost as fast as the cyclone, but it'll hit much harder. They have equivalent defensive bonuses and drone bays. The cyclone has 2 utility highs and the brutix has 1. The brutix has 35% more weapon power at battlecruiser skill 5, while the cyclone has about 10% more EHP than the brutix (not counting structure). And finally, the cyclone and brutix have about the same powergrid, despite the brutix being not only armor based, but having more weapon slots of a type that costs more powergrid. I'm not saying it's unfair, just:

1.) doesn't it make more sense for the minmatar ship to have less HP but be more agile?
2.) of all things the brutix loses to the cyclone, why max velocity? It needs that to move into blaster range. Shouldn't its agility be cut instead?
3.) shouldn't a light-hitting ship like the cyclone be swift moreso than durable?
4.) I think the cyclone could stand to give up some of its powergrid to the brutix.