These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#281 - 2013-04-04 11:33:13 UTC
Have to say i'm still not massively convinced that the changes proposed will really bring these ships into balance.

personally (and i think a fair few people have said similar) is that the major sticking point with ABC's is the alpha damage they apply.

a talos or tornado being able to apply huge DPS isn't really a problem, my point being that it should require some amount of time to apply it's damage rather than being able to hit 10k alpha in the case of the nado.

My understanding was that for some time CCP had been wanting to extend the duration of combat, rather than having it over in seconds. Currently these ships not only go directly against that they tend to lead to engagements ending instantly allowing no room for any viable counter to be utilized.

obviously as with anything insta popping will be obtainable with scale, but I don't think we should really be encouraging a situation where a single ship can insta-pop pretty much any of it's potential predators (taking the assumption an ABC will simply run away from a BS that might have the range to combat it).
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#282 - 2013-04-04 12:00:54 UTC
monkfish2345 wrote:
Have to say i'm still not massively convinced that the changes proposed will really bring these ships into balance.

personally (and i think a fair few people have said similar) is that the major sticking point with ABC's is the alpha damage they apply.

a talos or tornado being able to apply huge DPS isn't really a problem, my point being that it should require some amount of time to apply it's damage rather than being able to hit 10k alpha in the case of the nado.

My understanding was that for some time CCP had been wanting to extend the duration of combat, rather than having it over in seconds. Currently these ships not only go directly against that they tend to lead to engagements ending instantly allowing no room for any viable counter to be utilized.

obviously as with anything insta popping will be obtainable with scale, but I don't think we should really be encouraging a situation where a single ship can insta-pop pretty much any of it's potential predators (taking the assumption an ABC will simply run away from a BS that might have the range to combat it).



Alpha strike is the whole point of arties because they are inferior on all other aspects (pure range, tracking and DPS). That was an intentional change to increase alpha strike because the advantage that arties were supposed to have was too small a few years ago. That was specially relevant when battleships were used a lot in fleet combat. That time APOCs and railboats ruled completely the field.

The problem appeared when the STUPIDLY CONCEIVED TIER 3 BC were introduced.

What can be easily done is reduce tornado fitting capabilities. Large alpha strikes should be reserved to tempests and maelstroms. Tornados should be running with AC not Arties.

Back when ccp were trying to extend combat duration things got even worse, there was almost no chance for some inferior force to cause damage on a larger force and bug out. Thanks god that they stopped trying to make all ships take 20 minutes to kill another ship.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Isbariya
State War Academy
Caldari State
#283 - 2013-04-04 12:33:41 UTC
Buzzmong wrote:
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.


Supported, this kind of summs it up
monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#284 - 2013-04-04 12:58:35 UTC
Quote:



Alpha strike is the whole point of arties because they are inferior on all other aspects (pure range, tracking and DPS). That was an intentional change to increase alpha strike because the advantage that arties were supposed to have was too small a few years ago. That was specially relevant when battleships were used a lot in fleet combat. That time APOCs and railboats ruled completely the field.



What can be easily done is reduce tornado fitting capabilities. Large alpha strikes should be reserved to tempests and maelstroms. Tornados should be running with AC not Arties.


This is point i'm eluding to, as i said before the dps a ABC is able to apply isn't a problem really, it is the massive alpha they are allowed along with their high maneuverability. While the changes will make them align a little slower etc, it will make little difference if their target dies before it's able to shoot back.

Quote:

Back when ccp were trying to extend combat duration things got even worse, there was almost no chance for some inferior force to cause damage on a larger force and bug out. Thanks god that they stopped trying to make all ships take 20 minutes to kill another ship.


This is one of those funny balancing acts they need to take a bit more of a look at. we don;t want to go back to everyone flying brick tanked drakes and myrms. but at the same time their should actually be some actual combat rather than just systematic insta-popping of ships until one side runs out of ships.

a large part of what they did do when they tried to extend combat time was to (as usual) not finish their actual concept of having sub targeting etc. which left us with the problems you mentioned. if the idea were to have been finished this would have been so much the case and we would have got the dynamic combat they had hoped to give us.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#285 - 2013-04-04 13:23:14 UTC
balance team approving of shield tanking gallente ships Cry
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#286 - 2013-04-04 13:40:59 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
balance team approving of shield tanking gallente ships Cry

Ones with a bonus to armor reps also.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#287 - 2013-04-04 13:42:44 UTC
monkfish2345 wrote:
Quote:



Alpha strike is the whole point of arties because they are inferior on all other aspects (pure range, tracking and DPS). That was an intentional change to increase alpha strike because the advantage that arties were supposed to have was too small a few years ago. That was specially relevant when battleships were used a lot in fleet combat. That time APOCs and railboats ruled completely the field.



What can be easily done is reduce tornado fitting capabilities. Large alpha strikes should be reserved to tempests and maelstroms. Tornados should be running with AC not Arties.


This is point i'm eluding to, as i said before the dps a ABC is able to apply isn't a problem really, it is the massive alpha they are allowed along with their high maneuverability. While the changes will make them align a little slower etc, it will make little difference if their target dies before it's able to shoot back.

Quote:

Back when ccp were trying to extend combat duration things got even worse, there was almost no chance for some inferior force to cause damage on a larger force and bug out. Thanks god that they stopped trying to make all ships take 20 minutes to kill another ship.


This is one of those funny balancing acts they need to take a bit more of a look at. we don;t want to go back to everyone flying brick tanked drakes and myrms. but at the same time their should actually be some actual combat rather than just systematic insta-popping of ships until one side runs out of ships.

a large part of what they did do when they tried to extend combat time was to (as usual) not finish their actual concept of having sub targeting etc. which left us with the problems you mentioned. if the idea were to have been finished this would have been so much the case and we would have got the dynamic combat they had hoped to give us.


You fella's really need to make up your minds. In one sentence you talk about fast moving, high alpha ships ruining small gang vs larger gang combat... and in the next it appears that is exactly what small gangs need to effectively combat the larger forces. Big smileBig smileBig smile

The fact is that Attack BC's are ideal tools for combatting the blob just as they are (with room for minor tweaks)... but as always if it's good for the small gang then the blob can always leverage their capabilities as well.

When much faster and more dangerous "nano ships" were common we heard much the same arguments. Even though the nano ships were fairly easy to deal with if you employed the proper tactics, the majority were either to lazy or too inept to employ them. The Attack BC's are in no way as difficult to deal with as the old nano fleets were... in fact, properly countered, they literally die in droves.

Stop trying to kill small gang options, stop promoting lazy blob tactics, start using your brains to kill these flimsy attack BC's.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#288 - 2013-04-04 14:03:40 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
[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!


oh cool so when we getting a fall off bonus for the brutix... since even you admit an armor rep bonus is pointless...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#289 - 2013-04-04 14:29:59 UTC
Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.

I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.

@ccp_rise
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#290 - 2013-04-04 14:44:07 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.

I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.



I still think you guys must make the bonused ships apply the bonus over the overheat bonus as well. That would give them a short term PVP level repair capability. Example. If a ship has 37.5% repair bonus, this bonus should apply to the base ammount repaired and over the 20% (if my memory serves me right) bonus gained on the overheat

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kane Makanen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#291 - 2013-04-04 14:45:42 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.

I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.


why dont you better add a bonus to remote armor reppers that affect the ship that way increasing the effect that logis may have on the armor fleets
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#292 - 2013-04-04 14:49:28 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.

I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.


Buffing the hull bonus from 7.5% to 10% would do it :) alternatively, buff the medium and large reppers. Since fitting active armor tank means sacrificing damage, and it has a common hard counter (neuts), I honestly see no reason why it shouldn't be more powerful.

Active tanking ftw, it adds an interesting mechanic into PVP and in it's own way complicates combat. Which is a good thing considering the somewhat limited nature of actual ship-to-ship combat mechanics of EVE.

.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#293 - 2013-04-04 14:50:54 UTC
Kane Makanen wrote:

why dont you better add a bonus to remote armor reppers that affect the ship that way increasing the effect that logis may have on the armor fleets

Because Fozzie does not approve boosting the power of remote reps. Ironically boosting incoming reps would not go beyond the effective reps a ship with resist bonus get.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#294 - 2013-04-04 14:50:57 UTC
The weakness of self repair bonus also comes from the fact that the whole metagame changed a lot and very small fights are rare nowadays.

7 years ago dual repairer megatrons rules low sec.... hunting their solo prays or even .... 2 ENEMIES!!!!!!!

Todays you are lucky if you can get a fight with less than 3 on each side and most fights are in half a dozen people (for small fights)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
fukier
Gallente Federation
#295 - 2013-04-04 14:51:19 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.

I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.


so does that mean we can expect a polish pass for armor 1.5? maybe a real 2.0 for the summer expansion? and i dont think the active tank is pointless just not as usefull on a ship that already is cap hungry in the form of mwd and blasters adding active tank really hurts its cap as you should know... though on the myrm i feel the active tank bonus is suited to the ship and its role...

the rumor is you guys are planning faction bc's so please consiter removing the tank bonus for the navy brutix? maybe make it the attack bc for the navy version and make the navy myrm the combat?

in the end i trust you guys will get this fixed... and hope that one way to balance armor to shields is to nerf tech II logistics...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2013-04-04 14:52:51 UTC  |  Edited by: fukier
Kane Makanen wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.

I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.


why dont you better add a bonus to remote armor reppers that affect the ship that way increasing the effect that logis may have on the armor fleets


fozzie is against this sadly... perhaps you guys going to fanfest can get him drunk enough to support it?

Hannott Thanos wrote:
Because Fozzie does not approve boosting the power of remote reps. Ironically boosting incoming reps would not go beyond the effective reps a ship with resist bonus get.


if you made rr work for the bonus then it would be 3% better then the resist bonus but still not have the ehp of the resist bonus...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#297 - 2013-04-04 14:54:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Hannott Thanos
I always thought that repairing armor should be like this:

Activating an armor repairer makes it pulse the same way a cloak does.
Armor gets a passive linear recharge just like shield has a natural recharge, and it is equal to the amount repped pr second by equivalent current rep (small, medium large).
Capacitor is drained as if you had a negative value on how long it takes to recharge the capacitor.


Implement this and I will love you forever

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#298 - 2013-04-04 14:55:25 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.

I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.

Thank you for confirming active armor tanking still has hope. Big smile
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#299 - 2013-04-04 15:00:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
CCP Rise wrote:

I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.


Well instead of just focusing on the active tank bonuses of the hull, look at the foundation of active armor tanking. Instead of trying to patch a sub-par tanking method by tweaking hull bonuses or coming up with gimmicky modules like AAR's. Just fix normal active armor tanking itself and then the hull bonuses will truly shine.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#300 - 2013-04-04 15:05:20 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
I always thought that repairing armor should be like this:

Activating an armor repairer makes it pulse the same way a cloak does.
Armor gets a passive linear recharge just like shield has a natural recharge, and it is equal to the amount repped pr second by equivalent current rep (small, medium large).
Capacitor is drained as if you had a negative value on how long it takes to recharge the capacitor.


Implement this and I will love you forever



Would very likely be way way more burned at the server since to keep persistency coherence the database wold have to be updated much more than currenlty is.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"