These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#261 - 2013-04-02 12:03:42 UTC
Theia Matova wrote:
Don't forget that TEs will get serious balancing. This will affect Tornado. Yes alpha remains but you will get problems getting the same falloff and even alpha to long range.


Also, lets not forget that a single meta 4 Tracking Disruptor with lvl1 skill scripted tracking disruption is enough to make that Arty Tornado become useless beaten to death and dishonor by everything T1 able to scram it.

Talos is indeed a great ship that could use a little nerf only with the long term sight of making Battleships more attractive, otherwise Talos hull agility/speed should remain untouched except maybe, I really mean maybe, decrease the tracking bonus to 5% and increase dmg bonus to 7.5% but take away the drone bay.
The greyest argument about Gallente: when or when not shield tank means choosing in between a performing platform (tank with dps/mobility) or a meh thing, but this is still the remaining issue of shield/armor tanking designs so...

This gets me to the point off battleships rebalance but this is not the thread about it.





removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#262 - 2013-04-02 12:18:31 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
But a 1400 Nado doesn't track better than a Muninn with Tremor. Not by any stretch of the imagination.... I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the tracking formula works.

-Liang


Aye! Signature radius can be a negative or postive multiplier. Still. I understand his/her point and there was a qualifier (micro warp drive signature increase). I do believe this has become semantics but at the same time it may be helpful to those who do not understand basic combat mechanics.

Note: while some of these changes surprise me (tracking ehancer). All I care about is the changes to warfare-links. That could mean the difference between earning 12 or 9 billion and bringing every "solo" poser ingame back to reality.


- killz

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Pinky Feldman
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#263 - 2013-04-02 14:54:25 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
But a 1400 Nado doesn't track better than a Muninn with Tremor. Not by any stretch of the imagination.... I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the tracking formula works.

-Liang


So you have absolutely no thoughts on the terribleness of medium long range guns being any part of the problem with why ABCs are so dominant and instead focusing on a side tidbit that isn't even relevant in the context of what i'm trying to say?

Anyways, don't mind corrections if I wasn't clear on a point I was trying to make if I pick crappy examples, but there's no need to be pretentious about it, since you're talking effective tracking, which you could have just said instead of taking 3 posts to nitpick after saying you hate to nitpick, let me start by admitting that the Muninn was a bad example to even pull numbers from since it it gets a bonus and I may have tried to make too many points off a single example.

I brought up the Muninn to point out how a ship with great bonuses to range and tracking still gets completely outclassed by a 1400 Tornado when fighting ABCs. This part focuses only on the ABC matchup aspect of it. There's no point in bringing a Muninn to snipe ABCs because an ABC will still do that job better and with much more range flexibility. In terms of effective tracking, no they don't track the same, because of the sig resolution/tracking component and the fact that the difference in sig resolution weights more heavily than the the tracking. However, in terms of laying down DPS on a close range ABC at range even despite that difference, the 1400 Tornado comes out on top. If the margin still isn't close enough for your liking then throw on a tracking computer with a speed script onto the Tornado since you would realistically probably have one anyways.

I mostly threw in the tracking number because I think T2 long range ammo on medium guns is absolute garbage. It works for small guns because dessies have ridiculous tracking and range bonuses that make it work and being a small gun and having small gun sig res means you have several ship classes larger than you which you can hit at relative ease. There's probably a few other applications where long range t2 ammo works for small gun applicatioins that i'm leaving out as well. Next, it works well on large guns because you can pull tons of range to help make up for transversal and the larger sig resolution. Yes i'm swapping the example here to something a bit more homogeneous. Compare a standard 720 Rupture with 2 TEs running Tremor with a 1400 Tornado with 2 Gyros, a TE, and Tracking Comp with speed script shooting tracking ammo and at that range you're still getting outclassed. If i'm in a long range cruiser using long range guns, all T2 ammo does is turn me into a really crappy long range ABC in terms of performance with nothing that really sets me apart. Meanwhile, if I want to use close range ammos, i'm just a really crappy close range ABC. I don't even think that it needs a huge change or care what it is, but something to give it some more viability compared to ABCs would be nice.

At the end of the day, you know what? I don't even care what CCP does about this "issue" since there are tons of possibilities in a lot of the upcoming changes to discover as it is. There might be a good reason long range cruisers aren't a huge thing outside of bonused ships, because sniping and kiting and extreme ranges with impunity completely kills off some gang types. I just mostly wanted to toss some food for thought out for additional discussion.

The moar you cry the less you pee
Pinky Feldman
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#264 - 2013-04-02 15:10:54 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Pinky Feldman wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
So, but the thing about it is that a 1400mm Nado and a Muninn have nowhere near the same tracking.

-Liang


1400 Tornado with tracking ammo tracks better than a Muninn with Tremor, which is what I said the inital post that you quoted. I'm not saying anywhere that the 1400 Tornado can do the same things a Muninn can, nor am I saying they provide the same role in your fleet.
They're two very different ships.

I'm talking about how cruisers get dumpstered by ABCs in almost every way.

Short range cruisers die to close range and long range ABCs. This makes sense.
Long range cruisers die to long range ABCs. This makes sense as well.
Long range cruisers engaging at any range but their max using non-t2 ammo don't even stand a chance against close range ABCs, because with the exception of a couple combinations, they're terrible.
Long range cruisers engaging at max range using T2 range ammo can do ok against close range ABCs, but if you're engaging at that range a long range ABC would probably be more effective.




Effectively you need to divide the tracking value by the weapon signature if you want to compare them. Munin still tracks like 3 times better effectively.


Yeah, I started writing a reply last night but didn't finish it up until this morning. If Liang would have just said effective tracking from the start, we could have gotten to the point, but instead asked for sig res because they weren't by EFT so I figured if they needed EFT to know the sig res of guns they legitimately were talking about the tracking statistic and only the tracking statistic and then got baited into a semantics battle.

I should have used a totally different example for talking about why T2 ammo is awkward and not even used numbers, since the Muninn example was mainly meant to point out that a bonused cruiser vs an ABC still gets outperformed by an ABC.

The moar you cry the less you pee
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#265 - 2013-04-02 17:38:41 UTC
Pinky Feldman wrote:

So you have absolutely no thoughts on the terribleness of medium long range guns being any part of the problem with why ABCs are so dominant and instead focusing on a side tidbit that isn't even relevant in the context of what i'm trying to say?


I was mostly wanting to make sure that you didn't actually think the Nado tracks as well as the Muninn - because it doesn't (at all). I think the problem ultimately boils down to the fact that engagement ranges aren't what they used to be. Back in the day, the typical engagement range looked like:
- 10km: web range
- 20km: point range
- 24km: T2 point range

Now it looks like:
- 18km: scram/web range
- 35km: T2 point range
- 42km: overheated T2 point range

Without a range bonus, the furthest you can push any medium short range weapon is about 30km with Heavy Pulse - you can get further with Autos, but the damage is pretty bad. However, once you factor in ABCs and their battleship sized guns, you can see that even the closest range ABC (Talos) can project really good damage across the entire field of battle. The only way that medium weapons can possibly compete is by going with long range weapons + close range ammo, but now they are utterly lacking in DPS.

Now, I know that people are going to immediately shout about tracking - but the truth is that tracking kinda sorta maybe doesn't actually matter that much due to how powerful MWD sig bloom is. Once things are big enough, the DPS difference between one value and 100 times that value can be pretty small. Granted frigates are still pretty tough nuts to crack, but I've got my ways for dealing with them. So really, to me, it does boil down to the DPS difference between ABCs with short range guns and the DPS available from medium gun platforms.

In a lot of ways, this has been the driving factor behind why I've pushed so hard for the Omen and NOmen to get an optimal bonus. The NOmen getting an optimal bonus is a straight up hard counter to ABCs.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#266 - 2013-04-02 23:07:33 UTC
What is the purpose of ABC's?

Is is a sub-BS hull to provide firepower against BS and capitals or merely a BC with BS dps and near cruiser mobility?

If the latter (hope it isn't!) then let them stay as proposed, they get to remain the blob ship of choice.

If the former then .. the Tornado (for example use only) fires eight 1.4m (4.5ft for the metrically challenged) projectiles and although it has thrusters and a mass of 14 kiloton, this takes place in a zero-G vacuum .. how the hell does it stabilize those guns?
Slap a -50% tracking "bonus" on them all .. the hulls, even with mass proposed additions, is roughly 1/10th that of the BS ships that must be assumed were intended to use the large weapons and thus have extra engine power diverted to maneuvering thrusters to help with realignment.

Note: Technically the firing of lasers does not produce noticeable recoil, but for the sake of balance etc. I'd say they have some whopping big coolant apparatus/coils that need realignment so effect is same.

All depends on what the purpose of them is to be.

Personally want either tracking or range reduced as they have obsoleted all other LR platforms in one fell swoop, does a ship like the Apocalypse even sell anymore for non PvE activities (apart from the role of cap battery/ neut platform)?
Gorn Arming
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#267 - 2013-04-03 02:11:04 UTC
Add another vote to the "Grath is correct" pile.

The Talos obviates all other BCs in a small gang. I guess the Drake is still useful for large fleets, and the Prophecy is okay for baiting. I can't think of a reason to bring a Hurricane or a Harbinger or any similar ship on any kind of small gang engagement, though, other than getting tired of the Talos.

Hell, the Talos even dominates PvE in Deklein. That may change here as it's right on the edge of being able to solo F-hubs due to speed/sig tanking (in fact I rather suspect that nerfing Talos ratting is one of the reasons behind these changes).
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#268 - 2013-04-03 10:39:59 UTC
Gorn Arming wrote:
Add another vote to the "Grath is correct" pile.

The Talos obviates all other BCs in a small gang. I guess the Drake is still useful for large fleets, and the Prophecy is okay for baiting. I can't think of a reason to bring a Hurricane or a Harbinger or any similar ship on any kind of small gang engagement, though, other than getting tired of the Talos.

Hell, the Talos even dominates PvE in Deklein. That may change here as it's right on the edge of being able to solo F-hubs due to speed/sig tanking (in fact I rather suspect that nerfing Talos ratting is one of the reasons behind these changes).


Yes, it's actually quite ridiculous that i can run L4 missions faster in Talos than battleships which they are made for... i'm really looking forward to some major fixes in battleships if CCP sees nothing more wrong in tier3 bc's than this.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#269 - 2013-04-03 13:18:21 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Gorn Arming wrote:
Add another vote to the "Grath is correct" pile.

The Talos obviates all other BCs in a small gang. I guess the Drake is still useful for large fleets, and the Prophecy is okay for baiting. I can't think of a reason to bring a Hurricane or a Harbinger or any similar ship on any kind of small gang engagement, though, other than getting tired of the Talos.

Hell, the Talos even dominates PvE in Deklein. That may change here as it's right on the edge of being able to solo F-hubs due to speed/sig tanking (in fact I rather suspect that nerfing Talos ratting is one of the reasons behind these changes).


Yes, it's actually quite ridiculous that i can run L4 missions faster in Talos than battleships which they are made for... i'm really looking forward to some major fixes in battleships if CCP sees nothing more wrong in tier3 bc's than this.



wowowowh stop there. Battleships are not made to run missions. Only marauders are! Do not dessacrate the holy battleships with this heresy!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Irelia Stark
Doomheim
#270 - 2013-04-03 15:38:03 UTC
Seems like a pretty good start so far.

The Talos still needs to loose its drones though, and here's why:

The ABCs seemingly were designed to be full gank, light tank, with good range and good mobility. The Oracle, Tornado, and Naga, when tackled by a frig, in most situations, are toast. This is a good thing. The ABCs have tradeoffs to their relatively high mobility to power ratio.

The Talos, however has drones. Why? Perhaps when initially designed they were included because it was a Gallente ship and Gallente ships are the drone race. This is a poor design choice. However, I don't believe this is why they were included (although I bet it was a small consideration). I think the Talos got drones because it lacked the range of the other ABCs. The thinking was probably, "because the Talos has to engage it's targets at a closer range, it needs the protection of drones," etc.

This is a good design choice IF it were not for other facts to consider that make the drones unnecessary and cause the Talos to outclass the other ABCs in many situations.

The other facts I'm speaking about are the fact that the Talos has the BEST tracking and BEST mobility and to top it off, after the blaster and railgun buffs, it's range is not too shabby either.

I've seen in game and on countless videos good Talos pilots blapping frigs burning towards them with ease. If you're a Talos pilot complaining about the potential of drone removal, don't even try to deny that you do the same.

Even the man, Kil2 himself, has tens of videos of him in a Talos blapping frigs left and right.

I'm sorry, but the weakness that other ABCs share - NO DRONES - needs to extend to the Talos as well. Even then, it can still defend itself better against frigs than the other ABCs.

Therefore, the Talos needs to lose its drones.
Lelob
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#271 - 2013-04-03 21:33:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lelob
No. The talos does not need to remove the drones because that is not what the drones do. They don't "blap" jack ****, and chances are they barely have time to even reach the frig and start applying the whopping sub-100 dps before the frig dies. You could happily give drones to all of the t3 bc's and the effect would be the same. They have such amazing dps projection that they will kill most frigs far before their drones can ever reach them to be an issue.

Even if you were to use your 5 hobgobs/warriors against a frig, that was say scramming you, it wouldn't matter because the frig can tank the drones long enough to either kill the drones or kill you with your pitiful tank. In fact it kind of goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about when you talk about damage drones, when anyone with 1/2 a brain will just be using ec-300s anyways, gven that they are the only way that you can hope to run away if you get scrammed.

Again though, the amount of versatility that the drones offer to the talos is fairly minimal.

As has been said time and time again, projecting between 600-1000 dps out to 20-70km in the case of the t3 bc's using short range guns is the real problem. They simply give far too much dps, with an insanely overpowered projection to even be remotely considered balanced. You could nerf the speed down to that of a drake, going 1k/s and it still wouldn't matter for gangs because you are still going to be sitting at between 20-70km projecting insane dps in a ship that costs at most maybe 80-90mil after insurance.

The speed of the t3 bc's helps to exacerbate the problem of the t3 bc's, but the real problem has always and will continue to remain in their damage projection. As I have said before, these changes will do nothing of value to fix them.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#272 - 2013-04-03 23:16:18 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Gorn Arming wrote:
Add another vote to the "Grath is correct" pile.

The Talos obviates all other BCs in a small gang. I guess the Drake is still useful for large fleets, and the Prophecy is okay for baiting. I can't think of a reason to bring a Hurricane or a Harbinger or any similar ship on any kind of small gang engagement, though, other than getting tired of the Talos.

Hell, the Talos even dominates PvE in Deklein. That may change here as it's right on the edge of being able to solo F-hubs due to speed/sig tanking (in fact I rather suspect that nerfing Talos ratting is one of the reasons behind these changes).


Yes, it's actually quite ridiculous that i can run L4 missions faster in Talos than battleships which they are made for... i'm really looking forward to some major fixes in battleships if CCP sees nothing more wrong in tier3 bc's than this.



wowowowh stop there. Battleships are not made to run missions. Only marauders are! Do not dessacrate the holy battleships with this heresy!

Alright, i can make missions in my Talos almost as fast as in my Golem or Vargur The speed that i can blitz around and large gun dps to kill stuff is just that much of an advantage, and will be even after the mass increase.
Then note their price tag difference. Of course you feel safer in marauder and can loot/salvage while killing but that is not my point.

Flying it is helluva fun but this can't be balanced in any way Twisted

Try the same in any other regular bc, their dps nor tank just aren't enough.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#273 - 2013-04-04 02:33:46 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Nah, the hilarious thing is how many people like you that think it's a "joke fit" and then die to it. Combining the unmatched damage projection vs mitigation with scram immunity makes for a pretty boss platform. :)

-Liang


I didn't call it a joke, I called it trash.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Strange Shadow
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2013-04-04 08:06:40 UTC
Disagree and disapprove of these changes.

Instead of making all twelve battlecruisers look the same, why not create actual difference between attack and combat BCs?
As i see it, the main problem of current attack BCs is the same as with old cane - too much grid/CPU, its really easy to fit biggest close range guns AND solid tank on them without making much compromises. Look at this infamous neutron talos for example:

http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/58019-Talos-Small-gang.html

(Supposedly) close range blasters suddenly have 15k optimal + 26 falloff with void, with almost 900 dps.
Add here 40k EHP, and 1600+ m/s speed.

I dare you to show me brutix fit that meets at least two of the above parameters.
Clearly there is some problem, but with reduced agility, talos will just take over brutix role, and will become (surprise!) tier2 battlecruiser! Same goes for harbinger and oracle (oracle easily fits rack of mega pulses AND 1600mm plate), ferox and naga, cane and talos...

Proposed changes:
1. Firepower - same 8 slots, everybody love them.
2. Agility - same, or even increase a little.
3. Tank - same, or even reduce a tiny bit again, so it would rely more on modules to protect itself.
4. Reduce PG/CPU, to the level that fitting full rack of largest T2 guns AND full tank would require a fitting module (RCU or co-processor). Will force pilots to either fit that module, go sniper glass cannon, or tone guns down a bit, this will reduce DPS/range, but enables more solid tank.
5. Speed - reduce, maybe significantly, to make them more vulnerable to frigates/destroyers, and reliant on support to clear the tackle. Current speed allows them too easy mitigate low tracking speed of their guns. Again, current speed should be attainable with a prop mod or two (nanofiber/overdrive/polycarbon), but again, it should be pilot's choice to do so, not ship's default.

Role: Heavy DPS, agile but fragile and vulnerable, similar to torp bombers, but to greater extent.

More fitting possibilities, more choices for either fleet or solo play, without overshadowing battleships too much.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#275 - 2013-04-04 09:19:47 UTC
[Brutix, Brutix fit]

Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Damage Control II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Scrambler II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender 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
[Empty High slot]

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


Hammerhead II x5

1347m/s - 910dps - 47.9ehp - obviously the range is not as good.

you said it just had to meet 2 of the metrics!

@ccp_rise
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#276 - 2013-04-04 09:47:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
Medium blaster kiting /o\


Also my view on these things

Reduce speed (Being faster then a nanocane without a nano is quite silly, think they would do fine if the slowest Attack BC was just slightly faster then a cane up to the fastest maybe being as fast as a cane with 1 nano)

Remove the dronebay from the Talos, its already too good at killing small things.

And maybe reduce fittings a bit. its way to easy to fit the largest possible guns on those things.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#277 - 2013-04-04 09:48:50 UTC
That Talos does not have 15km optimal and 26km fall off with void.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#278 - 2013-04-04 09:50:49 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Rise
Not saying it has to kite! Although it could kite some things. Just saying you can get some of the numbers to match up.

And yeah...with void Talos should be more like 9 + 10, but even with null it does almost 800dps

@ccp_rise
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#279 - 2013-04-04 09:54:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
CCP Rise wrote:
Not saying it has to kite! Although it could kite some things. Just saying you can get some of the numbers to match up.

And yeah...with void Talos should be more like 9 + 10, but even with null it does almost 800dps


Not really taking issue with you coming up to the challenge, i just don't like the shield blaster no web thing <.<

Also edited my previous post.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2013-04-04 10:14:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Alticus C Bear
You can knock a couple Km of that range with the TE change.

Brutix is an armour brawler, I dont really like comparing these ships and forcing them into each others roles, put a Brutix on top of that Talos and I would pick a well fit Brutix and all the new navy cruisers will chase a tier 3 down and kill it close range.

Talos gets a nerf here and in the TE thread, I would suggest seeing how that plays out before hitting them again with the nerf bat.