These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[Odyssey] Attack Battlecruiser balance pass

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bakuhz
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#101 - 2013-03-28 16:13:50 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:


Single T1 cruiser 200 km off a Naga gang? Yes, run like hell. Straight

Seriously, you appear to be arguing that a Naga shouldn't be able to hit a cruiser as it approaches from 200 km. Actually it probably can't if you'd bothered to bring the right tool for the job - TDs or RSDs.



Please list cruisers that can lock to 200km that commonly appear in roaming gangs.


sensorboosted blackbirds now commence the jamming Pirate

https://zkillboard.com/character/584042527/
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
#102 - 2013-03-28 16:20:07 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
decent changes but i think you can go further here.
-remove a turret
-buff tank to be better than combat cruisers as it seems odd a moa can outank a naga at least in HP anyway.

And nerf the alpha on arties for christ sake they are OP in this regard i think missiles should really do the alpha damage not guns.


Alpha is the only thing that makes artillery attractive. It certainly doesn't get great tracking nor railgun-level ranges. Missiles in fact already do a good deal of alpha, it's simply delayed in application due to flight time.

I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way.

Destination Unreachable: the worst Wspace blog ever
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#103 - 2013-03-28 16:22:10 UTC
It's not enough. Nerf them harder, this isn't going to do anything. Do something big like dropping highslot or making them as slow as combat BCs.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#104 - 2013-03-28 16:23:00 UTC
Eshnala wrote:
Tier3s need to be able to only fit their respective short-range versions of guns.

Nagas and Tornados are way to strong with rails/artys and can only be countered by a bigger fleet or a good warpin. And even with the later one they are often able to just burn out or warp because of their good agility/speed.

The big problem with tier3s is not their speed or tank, its their awesome damage projection (in combination with the speed ofc, as it helps to minimize transversal) up to very long ranges without beeing overly vulnerable to smaller/faster ships.

This proposed changes wont do anything to the big dominance of tier3s as fleetdoctrines for large entities but it will hurt the small skirmish pvp even more.
(Nagas/Nados will just fit sensor boosters or have them fitted anyways.)


Yes.

However Z changes to tracking enhancers should help with that, but not much. I think the hull damage bonuses should be nerfed. Or! Maybe 1 turret hard point should be removed v0v.

Long range turrets will still kick ass though.

- killz

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
James Arget
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#105 - 2013-03-28 16:39:52 UTC
I feel like the Talos still has greatly more flexibility with both guns and drones. Removing either 1 highslot (and pg/cpu to match) or removing its drones seems like a reasonable change to stop it from being so vastly superior to the others when fit for close range. At long ranges, the optimal bonuses of the Naga and the poor performance of T2 beams put Naga and Tornado far ahead, but I think that is acceptable since Oracle is very strong in mid range, and Talos will still be the strongest close.

CSM 8 Representative

http://csm8.org
Bootleg Whammers
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#106 - 2013-03-28 16:40:46 UTC
EVE ONLINE
Minimum Requirements:
computer thingy with some memory and stuff

**Note: We no longer support small gang PVP.
Oddsodz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2013-03-28 16:44:02 UTC
Make sure that base scan resolution is low enough that my Arazu is not instalpopped before I lock a tier3 battlecruisers as it jumps in from a gate.

I Am sad as it is that the fire power of tier3 battlecruisers makes the job of a recon pointless (pun intended) when camping gates and so on. Before any sensor boosters are used. A tier3 battlecruisers can lock and fire before any recon ship. And in Lowsec. You can't use frigs for tackling on gates (well you can use an enyo if you can afford the silly fit with legon boosts) due to gate guns and so on. So you would use a cruiser or a recon for that job. But since the tier3 battlecruisers came along. There is no need for that role/job any more. tier3 battlecruisers can lock and pop any target before it even has a chance to warp (fittings depending). My job as an Arazu pilot was not needed any more.

Anyway. Rant over
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#108 - 2013-03-28 16:48:50 UTC
Oddsodz wrote:
Make sure that base scan resolution is low enough that my Arazu is not instalpopped before I lock a tier3 battlecruisers as it jumps in from a gate.

I Am sad as it is that the fire power of tier3 battlecruisers makes the job of a recon pointless (pun intended) when camping gates and so on. Before any sensor boosters are used. A tier3 battlecruisers can lock and fire before any recon ship. And in Lowsec. You can't use frigs for tackling on gates (well you can use an enyo if you can afford the silly fit with legon boosts) due to gate guns and so on. So you would use a cruiser or a recon for that job. But since the tier3 battlecruisers came along. There is no need for that role/job any more. tier3 battlecruisers can lock and pop any target before it even has a chance to warp (fittings depending). My job as an Arazu pilot was not needed any more.

Anyway. Rant over



As i said several times. Attack BC are bad for the metagame. They were knee jerk reaction to make players happy back at the incarna fiasco results.

Now we are paying the price of ships made to be extra awesome, instead of being good to the metagame.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Eshnala
TURN LEFT
#109 - 2013-03-28 16:50:27 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Oddsodz wrote:
Make sure that base scan resolution is low enough that my Arazu is not instalpopped before I lock a tier3 battlecruisers as it jumps in from a gate.

I Am sad as it is that the fire power of tier3 battlecruisers makes the job of a recon pointless (pun intended) when camping gates and so on. Before any sensor boosters are used. A tier3 battlecruisers can lock and fire before any recon ship. And in Lowsec. You can't use frigs for tackling on gates (well you can use an enyo if you can afford the silly fit with legon boosts) due to gate guns and so on. So you would use a cruiser or a recon for that job. But since the tier3 battlecruisers came along. There is no need for that role/job any more. tier3 battlecruisers can lock and pop any target before it even has a chance to warp (fittings depending). My job as an Arazu pilot was not needed any more.

Anyway. Rant over



As i said several times. Attack BC are bad for the metagame. They were knee jerk reaction to make players happy back at the incarna fiasco results.

Now we are paying the price of ships made to be extra awesome, instead of being good to the metagame.


i would be completly happy with removing tier3s at all tbh.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#110 - 2013-03-28 16:52:53 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:

-buff tank to be better than combat cruisers as it seems odd a moa can outank a naga at least in HP anyway.



No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no non nein. Absolutely not.

That goes completely against the design philosophy of the attack battlecruisers in ways that would completely undo every single tiericide change that occurred with t1 cruisers. These tier 3 battlecruisers are the closest thing to the real concept of battlecruiser that currently exists in EVE. They have cruiser-magnitude (or worse) defense, hence the 'cruiser' part of their name, and then are also noted distinctly for being able to fit battleship weapons (which the lore implies is the reason they skimp on defense).

I am extremely against trying to make battlecruisers better to take roles away from smaller ships. That was a dark time in EVE, and now it will be awful given that battlecruisers, fully fit, are starting to cost near 100mil.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#111 - 2013-03-28 17:08:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
hoped to see the cap use bonus replaced with something useful on the oracle, left disappointed.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2013-03-28 17:14:57 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hopefully the end result is that they are slightly more vulnerable to... bombing

lol, cause they weren't terribly vulnerable to bombing before now.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Buzzmong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2013-03-28 17:30:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzmong
Sorry CCP Rise, but no, these aren't good changes as they do nothing to address the fact the Attack BC's obsolete pretty much all the gun focused BS's.

This is one time when you really need to go back to the drawing board with the entire lineup.

I'd suggest knocking them down to 5/6 turrets or limiting them via grid or cpu so that they really can't fit an entire top tier rack of guns without serious fitting mods*, with the idea being that they can run around with the lower tier BS weapons as a "normal" fit, meaning they are near BS damage and range but not surpassing it, while still being light, manouverable and cheaper.


*Nb, I'd seriously think you (CCP as a whole) need to go back and relook at *all* fitting requirements. It used to be that if you wanted to fit top tier guns you had no choice but to use fitting mods and have a reduced tank, or you'd choose the medium tier and a medium tank, or low tier guns for a good tank.

It feels as if there's been a slow power creep over the past couple of years where it's becoming more common for people to easily use medium/ top tier guns, have a good tank and not really need fitting mods, which I think is bad for the rock, paper, scissors aspect of Eve warfare.
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#114 - 2013-03-28 17:35:38 UTC
Suyer wrote:
Cool. No reason to fly BC's anymore.

I too like flying un-agile garbage ships because I too like to get scrammed and then piled on by lamer pubbies who can't even consider flying without support.

Frigs it is.


Ganking and multibox ganking is serious issue in eve and in low/null sec play. Wish such ass **** orgies were less :/ I wish its also issued soon since low sec could be as well called "psychopat sec"
0wl
Hailbird
#115 - 2013-03-28 17:38:17 UTC
Gah, still no Cruise Naga ... Disapointing.
Varesk
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2013-03-28 17:47:05 UTC
85 percent of these replies are "OMG my t1 cruiser gets killed by two sniping ABCs because I dont warp off" or "I really dont know what I am talking about'.

ABCs are fine they way they are. We use the Tornado, Oracle, and Talos a lot. Each for their own purpose.

Talos - Roams and Brawling.
Oracle - Roams and POS shoots
Tornado - Lets go mess up someones fight or we cant really do anything due to numbers so lets go snipe the FC

We have even used the Naga in the past with rails, Decent ship.

These ships were made for high DPS with little or no tank. If you are complaining about them being overpowered they are not. Like most ships in Eve they have their weakness. Tracking anything close and a small tank.

As far as increasing their sig for better scanning, Not sure about this unless you are trying to help newer players that cant seem to scan them out.
Joelleaveek
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2013-03-28 17:47:12 UTC
Good changes, all the ships really need imo.

0wl wrote:
Gah, still no Cruise Naga ... Disapointing.


Ha, this is never happening.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2013-03-28 17:56:54 UTC
0wl wrote:
Gah, still no Cruise Naga ... Disapointing.



Peopel really come here with this kind of expectation? Wtf people? get a grasp of reality.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
WInter Borne
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#119 - 2013-03-28 17:59:53 UTC
Does the naga really need more sig radius?

Cant wait to see how this affects C6 Pulsar fits!
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2013-03-28 18:05:29 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
decent changes but i think you can go further here.
-remove a turret
-buff tank to be better than combat cruisers as it seems odd a moa can outank a naga at least in HP anyway.

And nerf the alpha on arties for christ sake they are OP in this regard i think missiles should really do the alpha damage not guns.


Yeah just basically make them the same as normal battle cruisers, that's good game design...

The wishlist is pretty much complete...