These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#2501 - 2013-02-27 19:14:40 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
The Brutix actually compares favorably to the Ferox in terms of a dps platform. Forget webbing and pointing and all that other nonsense. dps > tank > other stuff (you can't kill anything if you're dead).

1004 dps, 1,130 overheated, 65.9k EHP, 69k EHP overheated.

This is a "gang" fit. Your friends can point stuff. Your job is dps.
[Brutix, dps machine]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Hammerhead II x5
Ferox: 756 dps, 89k EHP. (same style)

Brutix dps*EHP = Feros dps*EHP, but who do you want to grind through all these active tankers more, the Brutix or Ferox?Yeah, that's what I thought.

Repping bonus? Bah, still only for solo gimmick setups.
Gosti Kahanid
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#2502 - 2013-02-27 22:44:43 UTC
Fabio Khanid-El wrote:
I don't see how the Harbinger rebalancing was a buff... I deal less dps now and have less armor with my harb.

I might just throw it in the trash bin now.

When you have less DPS than bevore the patch, then you must have a BC-Skill of 3 or below. With BC 4 you have exactly the same DPS as prepatch (8,4 Turrets) and with BC 5 your effective Turretnumber rises from 8,75 to 9,0, so you should make more Damage
Fabio Khanid-El
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2503 - 2013-02-27 23:05:57 UTC
Gosti Kahanid wrote:
Fabio Khanid-El wrote:
I don't see how the Harbinger rebalancing was a buff... I deal less dps now and have less armor with my harb.

I might just throw it in the trash bin now.

When you have less DPS than bevore the patch, then you must have a BC-Skill of 3 or below. With BC 4 you have exactly the same DPS as prepatch (8,4 Turrets) and with BC 5 your effective Turretnumber rises from 8,75 to 9,0, so you should make more Damage


Thanks for the tip Gosti, I was focused on gunnery skills so I missed that one.

But the strange thing is that the Battlecruisers skill does not say anything about improved damage or anything in its description and attributes. Isn't it only to be able to fly higher level BCs?
Fabio Khanid-El
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2504 - 2013-02-27 23:50:40 UTC
Fabio Khanid-El wrote:
Gosti Kahanid wrote:
Fabio Khanid-El wrote:
I don't see how the Harbinger rebalancing was a buff... I deal less dps now and have less armor with my harb.

I might just throw it in the trash bin now.

When you have less DPS than bevore the patch, then you must have a BC-Skill of 3 or below. With BC 4 you have exactly the same DPS as prepatch (8,4 Turrets) and with BC 5 your effective Turretnumber rises from 8,75 to 9,0, so you should make more Damage


Thanks for the tip Gosti, I was focused on gunnery skills so I missed that one.

But the strange thing is that the Battlecruisers skill does not say anything about improved damage or anything in its description and attributes. Isn't it only to be able to fly higher level BCs?


Nervemind, just read the harb description again :)

Thanks!
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2505 - 2013-02-28 16:31:08 UTC
Its a shame CCP don't make the Tier 3 bc's(attack bc's) into a different category and then make some the combat bc's into attack bc's some them of them would really benefit from this like the brutix being active tank now the extra speed would be useful the drake would also benefit with a more dps much less tank orientation.... cyclone and harbinger also.

'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

Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#2506 - 2013-02-28 22:10:22 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Its a shame CCP don't make the Tier 3 bc's(attack bc's) into a different category and then make some the combat bc's into attack bc's some them of them would really benefit from this like the brutix being active tank now the extra speed would be useful the drake would also benefit with a more dps much less tank orientation.... cyclone and harbinger also.


Regarding the brutix, you're talking like someone who never flies them. There are plenty of examples since the patch of just how poor they remain for armour tanking. As for the drake, it's still going to be top banana, so no, it doesn't need more dps. Cyclone and harby are still finding their feet but overall they fit the job description. Remember this wasn't a buff, it was a rebalancing. In my opinion it fell short in a number of ways, but you seem to want overall buffs, and that's not what was needed for the good of the game.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2507 - 2013-02-28 22:22:04 UTC
Nikuno wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Its a shame CCP don't make the Tier 3 bc's(attack bc's) into a different category and then make some the combat bc's into attack bc's some them of them would really benefit from this like the brutix being active tank now the extra speed would be useful the drake would also benefit with a more dps much less tank orientation.... cyclone and harbinger also.


Regarding the brutix, you're talking like someone who never flies them. There are plenty of examples since the patch of just how poor they remain for armour tanking. As for the drake, it's still going to be top banana, so no, it doesn't need more dps. Cyclone and harby are still finding their feet but overall they fit the job description. Remember this wasn't a buff, it was a rebalancing. In my opinion it fell short in a number of ways, but you seem to want overall buffs, and that's not what was needed for the good of the game.


Assumptions are the mother of all ****ups.... i do have a shield brutix from before patch buts its shield tank now would be **** poor better to use a ferox or talos now.... so AAR's are its only chance of being useful and its still a bit fail at that atm.
But on the drake the dps would ofc be in exchange for its OP tank this would then make the ferox useful and not just its poor cousin.
It just doesn't seem right that the tier3's get the attack category as it leaves too many combat bc's all tanking the same way.

'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

Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#2508 - 2013-03-01 08:12:45 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Nikuno wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Its a shame CCP don't make the Tier 3 bc's(attack bc's) into a different category and then make some the combat bc's into attack bc's some them of them would really benefit from this like the brutix being active tank now the extra speed would be useful the drake would also benefit with a more dps much less tank orientation.... cyclone and harbinger also.


Regarding the brutix, you're talking like someone who never flies them. There are plenty of examples since the patch of just how poor they remain for armour tanking. As for the drake, it's still going to be top banana, so no, it doesn't need more dps. Cyclone and harby are still finding their feet but overall they fit the job description. Remember this wasn't a buff, it was a rebalancing. In my opinion it fell short in a number of ways, but you seem to want overall buffs, and that's not what was needed for the good of the game.


Assumptions are the mother of all ****ups.... i do have a shield brutix from before patch buts its shield tank now would be **** poor better to use a ferox or talos now.... so AAR's are its only chance of being useful and its still a bit fail at that atm.
But on the drake the dps would ofc be in exchange for its OP tank this would then make the ferox useful and not just its poor cousin.
It just doesn't seem right that the tier3's get the attack category as it leaves too many combat bc's all tanking the same way.


To quote my post on the previous page;
Nikuno wrote:

I 1v1'd with an alliance mate who expected the new AAR to be all whizzy when used on the new Brutix. He set up a dual AAR/T2 rep combo, ions in the highs and all the usual resist and damage control fittings to go with. He then took a standard exile. He rigged with 2 rigs for rep amount and one for rep speed.

I fitted a neutron Brutix with 2 mag stabs, 2 TEs, and a tank consisting of 2 LSE and rigs for anti-em, enti-therm, and extender and a damage control.

We started at about 5km range.

I used a flight of warrior IIs, he used a flight of hammerhead IIs.

I won at 90% structure remaining.


Armour repair is still a joke.


This should be where the brutix should dominate with armour tanking if it's effective. It isn't. It loses to a shield tanked version of itself.

Armour repair is still a joke. The brutix with an armour repair bonus is the biggest joke of them all. Limited engagement opportunities for Gallente through ship bonuses, limited engagement opportunities for Gallente through poor long range weaponry. Gallente continue to be the whipping boy of Eve despite all the comments pointing out that this would be the only outcome of the changes in 1.1
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#2509 - 2013-03-01 08:52:31 UTC
So by fitting one version with broken (more than adequately proven several times) modules you were able to defeat a ship fitted with modules just off the balancing table and thus on par with current hull power ratios?

Shield buffers are stupidly effective; easy to fit, great value for money/slot and negligible drawbacks.
TE's are stupidly effective (and synergizes perfectly with above) to the extent where a lot of ships are better off replacing tank/damage/speed/whatever mods with then and still come out ahead.

Just sayin' Smile
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#2510 - 2013-03-01 10:57:08 UTC
Well I don't really consider Brutix in any way representative of the current Gallente line-up, small ships are in very good shape and Talos rocks the tier 3s. It's basic idea is great, fast armor, but in practice it just falls flat on it's wide face due to combination of several factors. Hufe sig, MWD, blasters and active tank all suck cap, only 4 mids, medium reppers are too small for BCs and/or hull rep bonus too weak, and fitting armor compromises it's main specialty- brutal amount of hurt. On TQ it's just better to kill stuff faster, than chip away at them while tanking much less than enough.

Introducing a BC-size repper would fix this, and Myrm.



Pure classic active armor is, if not a complete joke, certainly niche. However I've come to the conclusion that AAR is pretty muc perfect companion to a 800mm plate on solo ships, especially onT2 cruisers. This combo is easier to fit than 1600mm, gives as much or even tad more EHP just from the boosted cycles, and doesn't brick you. On these ships (with new armor rigs) heated MAAR can also work as "real" tank due to their low sig, mobility and natural resists.

.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#2511 - 2013-03-01 11:00:51 UTC
Bit off-topic there but whatever, armor tanking issues are most relevant on the Gal combat BCs.

.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#2512 - 2013-03-01 19:20:59 UTC
I hate to say it, but my opinion is sliding more and more towards upping the active rep bonus up to 10%, and either allowing multiple AAR's or increasing the rep amounts (or both).

Either that or allow something totally off the wall like some sort of synergy boost when using an AAR and the new adaptive hardener together (improving the capabilites of both when used together on the same ship)... which would be fairly unique and have the trade off of two low slots being spoken for if you choose to go this route.

Something...

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2513 - 2013-03-01 20:26:57 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
I hate to say it, but my opinion is sliding more and more towards upping the active rep bonus up to 10%, and either allowing multiple AAR's or increasing the rep amounts (or both).

Either that or allow something totally off the wall like some sort of synergy boost when using an AAR and the new adaptive hardener together (improving the capabilites of both when used together on the same ship)... which would be fairly unique and have the trade off of two low slots being spoken for if you choose to go this route.

Something...

Not too long ago I tried using a single AAR, Damae Control, RAH, plus 2 more resistance mods, and was warping out of the mission in 1/2 structure. The mods are not good enough to be useful ATM.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#2514 - 2013-03-02 03:25:50 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
CCP should make the Brutix a better armor ship than a shield ship. For conventional fits, the Brutix lacks powergrid but has excess CPU. This is contrary to shield (CPU intensive) vs armor (PG intensive) ships. It's also contrary to the Capacitor Booster that is needed to run the active armor repairers. It is a bit fail that the Brutix can fit the largest size blasters and largest railguns in the shield setup, but it can't do so in the active armor repping setup (one 800mm plate, MAAR, small Capacitor Booster) - because of powergrid issues.

Shouldn't it have a difficult time fitting shield extenders and invulnerability fields and shouldn't it be able to fit a modest active armor tank (800mm plate + one MAAR) with the largest blasters and largest 250mm railguns?

Otherwise, the Brutix is working as CCP intended. It's a shield tanker for gangs that can potentially use a gimmick active repping setup for 1v1 situations.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#2515 - 2013-03-02 20:42:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Little Dragon Khamez
I'm disappointed about this rebalance. The only ships that have done well out of it are the ferox (which is now useful) and the prophecy. I was hoping that all of the ships would be given the same thorough re-evaluation that the prophecy enjoyed.

As someone who likes to read the eve fiction and was also told numerous times when I first started in the game that Gallente like to armour tank and use hybrids/drones, caldari shield tank and use missiles/rails/, amarr like heavy armour and drones and that winmater do just about everything and excel at speed tanking. Well I'm sick to death of seeing amarr ships fitting projectiles and gallente shield tanking.

The only ships that work well within their racial identities are of course the winmatar (although the cyclone performs badly in terms of dps these days) and the caldari as their ships don't have the slots or the stats to support armour tanking and other weapon choices. So we have two races pigeon holed into working as the eve canon suggests and the other completely off it. This points to a bigger problem with the super awesomeness and effectiveness of projectiles and cap free weaponry in general whilst armour tanking is still crap despite the new additions recently added.

The overall impression I'm given is that the latest rebalancing has been done in a rush and that there's more to come. I look forward to the drake having another nerf in the summer expansion. I also think that this obsession with balance is dangerous and robs the game of difference. I like the idea of all ships in a class such as battle-cruisers being useful but I don't like the idea of them performing more or less the same as any other because it makes the decision to pick a racial style and train for it unimportant.

In real life not all machine guns are the same, but they all can kill, that's what we need to be aiming for, combat usefulness not combat uniformity.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Lili Lu
#2516 - 2013-03-04 20:13:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
This whole level of rebalancing has made me think that part of the answer may be to reduce the tech I resist bonuses to 4% per level. Presently a level 5 ship skill returns a 25% resist bonus. At 4 per level it would be 20. This will accomplish some balancing. Resist bonuses are the most useful tanking bonuses in the game. So a reduction of 5% overall I doubt would break the Caldari and Amarr resist bonused ships.

Also, please give the Brutix an hp per level bonus instead of a repper bonus. Or both it and the Myrm. So you put the AARs into the game. Fine. If people see some gimmicky use for them in rare circumstances ok. But you should not be forcing Gallente BCs into only gimmick use, or glass cannon weak shield tanked close range only gank boat use.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2517 - 2013-03-04 20:16:35 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
This whole level of rebalancing has made me think that part of the answer may be to reduce the tech I resist bonuses to 4% per level. Presently a level 5 ship skill returns a 25% resist bonus. At 4 per level it would be 20. This will accomplish some balancing. Resist bonuses are the most useful tanking bonuses in the game. So a reduction of 5% overall I doubt would break the Caldari and Amarr resist bonused ships.

Also, please give the Brutix an hp per level bonus instead of a repper bonus. Or both it and the Myrm. So you put the AARs into the game. Fine. If people see some gimmicky use for them in rare circumstances ok. But you should not be forcing Gallente BCs into only gimmick use, or glass cannon weak shield tanked gank boat use.



Would you not think an HP bonus as a replacement to resist bonus would be a better option as it then makes gal bc's better at repping than a resist based active tank? and to a lesser extent same for cal vs minnie shield boost bonus.

'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

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#2518 - 2013-03-04 20:44:09 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
I hate to say it, but my opinion is sliding more and more towards upping the active rep bonus up to 10%, and either allowing multiple AAR's or increasing the rep amounts (or both).

Either that or allow something totally off the wall like some sort of synergy boost when using an AAR and the new adaptive hardener together (improving the capabilites of both when used together on the same ship)... which would be fairly unique and have the trade off of two low slots being spoken for if you choose to go this route.

Something...

Not too long ago I tried using a single AAR, Damae Control, RAH, plus 2 more resistance mods, and was warping out of the mission in 1/2 structure. The mods are not good enough to be useful ATM.

I missed this earlier. In case nobody has pointed this out since you posted, burst tanking in any form is not intended to be used for PVE.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Lili Lu
#2519 - 2013-03-04 21:31:36 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
This whole level of rebalancing has made me think that part of the answer may be to reduce the tech I resist bonuses to 4% per level. Presently a level 5 ship skill returns a 25% resist bonus. At 4 per level it would be 20. This will accomplish some balancing. Resist bonuses are the most useful tanking bonuses in the game. So a reduction of 5% overall I doubt would break the Caldari and Amarr resist bonused ships.

Also, please give the Brutix an hp per level bonus instead of a repper bonus. Or both it and the Myrm. So you put the AARs into the game. Fine. If people see some gimmicky use for them in rare circumstances ok. But you should not be forcing Gallente BCs into only gimmick use, or glass cannon weak shield tanked gank boat use.



Would you not think an HP bonus as a replacement to resist bonus would be a better option as it then makes gal bc's better at repping than a resist based active tank? and to a lesser extent same for cal vs minnie shield boost bonus.

Not sure exactly what you're asking. Resist bonuses are more efficient for just about every kind of tanking. HP bonuses can approximate resist bonuses. But a logi pilot would rather rep a resist tanked ship than an hp loaded ship. Each cycle of remote repping will be more efficient with a resist tank. People who stack 3 plates or extenders on their ships and short change resists are only demanding more repping cycles from their logis.

For active local repping the resists win also. Again for the cycle efficiency reason. Although with ASBs not being cap dependent somewhat a less resist base is managable.

I only mention the hp per level bonus because CCP is simply not going to give a resist bonus to Gallente or Minmatar. Those bonuses are an Amarr and Caldari "thing", have been, and always will be. But an hp per level bonus has some backstory support for gallente in that they already have one with drone hp. To say that somehow the gallente scientist overcame the radiation issues and were able to transfer the technology to the ship hulls themselves would be no stretch or radical alteration of the traditional backstory. Having an hp bonus on a Gallente BC would be akin to a free plate (without mass penalties which helps blaster use) just as the resist bonuses act like free eanms or invulns for the other races. Minmatar shield rep bonuses work because shield repping is simply better/good enough, especially combined with ASB advantages, to derive a practicle benefit in more than just solo combat.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2520 - 2013-03-04 21:36:51 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
This whole level of rebalancing has made me think that part of the answer may be to reduce the tech I resist bonuses to 4% per level. Presently a level 5 ship skill returns a 25% resist bonus. At 4 per level it would be 20. This will accomplish some balancing. Resist bonuses are the most useful tanking bonuses in the game. So a reduction of 5% overall I doubt would break the Caldari and Amarr resist bonused ships.

Also, please give the Brutix an hp per level bonus instead of a repper bonus. Or both it and the Myrm. So you put the AARs into the game. Fine. If people see some gimmicky use for them in rare circumstances ok. But you should not be forcing Gallente BCs into only gimmick use, or glass cannon weak shield tanked gank boat use.



Would you not think an HP bonus as a replacement to resist bonus would be a better option as it then makes gal bc's better at repping than a resist based active tank? and to a lesser extent same for cal vs minnie shield boost bonus.

Not sure exactly what you're asking. Resist bonuses are more efficient for just about every kind of tanking. HP bonuses can approximate resist bonuses. But a logi pilot would rather rep a resist tanked ship than an hp loaded ship. Each cycle of remote repping will be more efficient with a resist tank. People who stack 3 plates or extenders on their ships and short change resists are only demanding more repping cycles from their logis.

For active local repping the resists win also. Again for the cycle efficiency reason. Although with ASBs not being cap dependent somewhat a less resist base is managable.

I only mention the hp per level bonus because CCP is simply not going to give a resist bonus to Gallente or Minmatar. Those bonuses are an Amarr and Caldari "thing", have been, and always will be. But an hp per level bonus has some backstory support for gallente in that they already have one with drone hp. To say that somehow the gallente scientist overcame the radiation issues and were able to transfer the technology to the ship hulls themselves would be no stretch or radical alteration of the traditional backstory. Having an hp bonus on a Gallente BC would be akin to a free plate (without mass penalties which helps blaster use) just as the resist bonuses act like free eanms or invulns for the other races. Minmatar shield rep bonuses work because shield repping is simply better/good enough, especially combined with ASB advantages, to derive a practicle benefit in more than just solo combat.


The point im making is that resist bonus is too strong at doing everything and as a result ships like the prophecy is a better active tanker than the gal bc's which kind of defeats the point of the gal bc's having a rep bonus.
Therefore replace the resist bonus with a hp bonus thus making the prophecy better at buffer tanking and allowing the gal bc's to be better active tankers.

'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