These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Tech 1 Battleships - Caldari

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ed Bever
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2013-04-11 18:27:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Ed Bever
CCP Rise wrote:

The Rokh, like most of the former tier 3 battleships, is in a very healthy place currently. It hasn't been changed, except for a tweak to the resist bonus. This change is significant, and we are going to dedicate an entire thread to discussing the power of resistance bonuses later in the day. If you want to talk about this bonus here, in relation to the Rokh specifically, feel free. The general idea from our end is that the current bonus to resistance is one of the most powerful ship bonuses in the game. It adds to the power of local tanks (active and passive) as well as remote tanks, which has consistently positioned ships with this bonus at the center of some of the most powerful gameplay available. We feel that the Rokh is a good example of this powerful gameplay, and expect it to thrive despite this change.


Naturally, you have a point if you say resistance bonusses are powerful. This is why the active tanking bonusses are larger (7,5%/lvl to be exact)
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#322 - 2013-04-11 19:25:57 UTC
Ugh, is there any point to battleships as they stand anymore with the Faction BC's that are coming out? They are cheaper, and are about as powerful, but can hit more things on the field. I mean, honestly. First the tank nerf, then this! It's like CCP thinks the way to balance BS's is to make them unplayable.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Plekto
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#323 - 2013-04-11 19:58:45 UTC
They just need specific roles. Since the Min BS is the new DPS missile boat, the Caldari Missile BS needs to be either speed or range focused. Given the extra mid slot, I'd say either would work. Possibly both in exchange for no damage mods.

200km lock range? Oh lord, sign me up!
Toshaheri Talvinen
Tritanium Industries and Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#324 - 2013-04-11 20:50:34 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
Ugh, is there any point to battleships as they stand anymore with the Faction BC's that are coming out? They are cheaper, and are about as powerful, but can hit more things on the field. I mean, honestly. First the tank nerf, then this! It's like CCP thinks the way to balance BS's is to make them unplayable.

That's what I'm saying, the raven is going to have less HP than a faction battlecruiser. And all battleships are going to be touching elbows with battlecruisers in general. The HP gap needs to widen in my opinion. It makes little to no sense to fly battleships due to the fact that battlecruisers hit slightly under that of battleships, while tanking the same, if not more than a battleship. Good job on this one CCP.
Wolfe Malar
Lone Wolves of Malar
#325 - 2013-04-11 21:12:29 UTC
Caldari:

Rokh
- In combat turret line as expected.
- High slot layout is nice and meshes with other combat turret ships overall. 8 turrets and 0 utility
- Non-drone ship bandwidth needs to either be made consistent across ship line according to race or across all racial non-drone ships. Prefer to limit bandwidth on non-drone Caldari ships to 75 or 50.
- Like the 4missle hardpoints for extra options and possibilities.

Raven
- In attack alt (missile) line. The ship would be fit in well if put into either the combat or attack line, though to me it would feel better in the combat alt(missile) line as Caldari are not known for there speed.
- Mirrors the other attack alt (missile) ship in high slot layout, yet provides something very different.
- Non-drone ship bandwidth needs to either be made consistent across ship line according to race or across all racial non-drone ships. Prefer to limit bandwidth on non-drone Caldari ships to 75 or 50.
- Would like 4 turret hardpoints for extra options and possibilities.

Scorpion
- In disrupt line, expected. Would also fit in the attack or combat line with a ewar bonus like the Armageddon.
- Warning: Oddball if no other disruption ships are introduced.
- High slot layout fits the disrupt role and mirrors the Blackbird well.
- Non-drone ship bandwidth needs to either be made consistent across ship line according to race or across all racial non-drone ships. Prefer to limit bandwidth on non-drone Caldari ships to 75 or 50

I have expressed my thoughts on the overall battleship design in the "Introducing Myself....." thread and it contains more detailed reasons for my comments on the specific ships above:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2871021#post2871021
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#326 - 2013-04-11 21:22:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
See, here is the thing. When you propose cutting resists in order to make BS's more losable, and then you release faction BC's that cost 80% as much and provide 90% of the tank, it blows the whole reduce resists to preserve meta argument out of the water. The new faction battlecruisers will completely ruin any current BS meta anyway.

I have given a bit more thought to it, and here is what needs to be done:

All BS ehp needs to be boosted about 33% more, if not in the tech 1 models, then in the Navy ones.
All BS cargoholds need to be doubled in size.
No resist nerf for any ship.
Double all tech 1 battleship base material costs.
All battleship need to be buffed a bit utility wise. This has mostly been covered by the proposed changes.
Give the Rokh 25m3 more drone bay.
A modest cap buff for all BS's
Fix large missiles.
More speed for the raven.
Buff large blaster optimal a bit (800-2800m), the TE nerf is not really targeted at this weapon.

and

Split omni Invulns into size classes, and increase the cycle cost of the BS sized invuln by 50%, increase the cycle cost of the meduim sized one by 25%, and leave the small size one as it is. One of the big reasons that active resists boosts are so powerful is because they are so cheap cap wise, so running a dual-invuln is easy. Making 2 invulns cost 3 cap wise will go a long way to reducing the attractiveness of that fitting option. If you want cap cheap omni tank, you should have to really pay for it slot wise. And there should be a resist penalty to the target of remote reps for the duration of the rep and a few seconds afterward. Furthermore there should be a penalty of some sort for all directly applied (Not fleet booster or OGB) remote buff effects.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Mirel Dystoph
Perkone
Caldari State
#327 - 2013-04-12 00:10:05 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

I hate to do the soonTM thing, but Fozzie should be making a post soon (I'm not sure if that means today or tomorrow or what) about the Rokh/Abaddon resistance bonus tweak, so just watch for that.

Still no new thread up...

"Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise." 
LarpingBard
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#328 - 2013-04-12 00:11:46 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Welcome to the Tech 1 Battleship rebalance, fasten your seatbelts!

Rokh:

The Rokh, like most of the former tier 3 battleships, is in a very healthy place currently. It hasn't been changed, except for a tweak to the resist bonus. This change is significant, and we are going to dedicate an entire thread to discussing the power of resistance bonuses later in the day. If you want to talk about this bonus here, in relation to the Rokh specifically, feel free. The general idea from our end is that the current bonus to resistance is one of the most powerful ship bonuses in the game. It adds to the power of local tanks (active and passive) as well as remote tanks, which has consistently positioned ships with this bonus at the center of some of the most powerful gameplay available. We feel that the Rokh is a good example of this powerful gameplay, and expect it to thrive despite this change.

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+10% to large Hybrid Turret optimal range
+4% Shield resistances per level (-1% per level)

Slot layout: 8H, 6M, 5L; 8 turrets , 4 launchers
Fittings: 15000 PWG, 780 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 8500 / 7000 / 7500
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / recharge per second) : 6000 / 1250s / 4.8
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 89 / .136 / 105300000 / 19.85s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km / 75 / 7
Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 500


I know this might make blob doctrines happy but that's about it. In every situation other than the blob the Rokh is really weak. Micro Jump Drives has made it even weaker. And it's stupid to PvE in a Rokh, might as well rat in a dread (and no, that is a really bad idea)

Rokh needs its 5% resis (even if the hp on shields goes down to 7000) for those who do not use it in fleets above 25+
If not, is it possible to give the Rokh 75/75 drone capability?
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#329 - 2013-04-12 00:25:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
7000 is a bit much, 8000 / 7500 / 7500 would be more resonable. Same total base HP, but a bit of EHP shaved off.

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Pan Dora
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#330 - 2013-04-12 03:19:19 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Once upon a time, no one ever fitted Cruise Missiles on a Raven, only Torps.


Unfortunately people started to use Cruise Missiles on Ravens not because some adjustment made then better, but because a big reduction in range and increase in fitting made Torp Ravens not viable for some uses.


CCP Rise wrote:
I see a lot of discussion about large missiles overall. I can't give you guys a whole bunch of details right now, because honestly we don't have them quite pinned down yet, but I'll tell you two things now which will hopefully be encouraging: cruise missiles will get a buff (most likely related to their damage), and at least some of the work for battleship missiles will make it into Odyssey.


Unfortunately, this its really not much. CM receiving a buff related to their damage its probably what everyone its expecting, and, like others had pointed, Raven/Typhoon/Armageddon changes can't be considered done without the large missile changes (not some changes, all the necessary changes).

Im also cusious: May we expect changes to Stealth Bombers, Golem, Raven Navy and Rattlesnake with the large missile change or those will need to wait until ship re-balancing initiative reach then?









-CCP would boost ECM so it also block the ability of buthurt posting.
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#331 - 2013-04-12 05:37:43 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Heyo Caldari guys

Little update for you since I think I've posted in the other threads a bit more =)

I hate to do the soonTM thing, but Fozzie should be making a post soon (I'm not sure if that means today or tomorrow or what) about the Rokh/Abaddon resistance bonus tweak, so just watch for that.

I see a lot of discussion about large missiles overall. I can't give you guys a whole bunch of details right now, because honestly we don't have them quite pinned down yet, but I'll tell you two things now which will hopefully be encouraging: cruise missiles will get a buff (most likely related to their damage), and at least some of the work for battleship missiles will make it into Odyssey.

I know thats not as specific as you would want, but I hope its enough to hold you over until we pin down a few more things.

We're glad to hear you like the scorp change!




i m more interested if TORPS will get their Range fixed to be higher than HAM, but is really nice to know cruises will get a buff.

i have extensively like really extensively tested all the weapons on all the ranges against all sort of targets and gotta say bs missiles currently are way too weak compared to any turret long range or short range.
Tub Chil
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#332 - 2013-04-12 07:35:17 UTC
CCP Rise /fozzie
please give ROkh 75m2 drone bay
it's a BS after all
thanks
0wl
Hailbird
#333 - 2013-04-12 09:47:41 UTC
It's so hard to comment on the Raven without seeing the Missile changes, we really need to see those aswell.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#334 - 2013-04-12 10:33:24 UTC
GIVE BACK THE RAVEN TURRETS

MY RAVEN TACHYON BACKBONE

I SHALL NOW UNSUSCRIBE 345 ACCOUNTS AND A KITTEN

XXX
XXX
XXX

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#335 - 2013-04-12 12:39:54 UTC
Alright, I did a thing earlier about Battleship missiles, come and give your opinions about should be done and what should not be done with those Smile

Battleship Missiles debate for Odyssey
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#336 - 2013-04-12 13:49:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Mathias
CCP Rise, it's been 3 days since you promised the resist thread! Are we not past the point of "soon"? Where in the heck is that thread you promised?

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Grunnax Aurelius
State War Academy
Caldari State
#337 - 2013-04-12 14:00:58 UTC
Van Mathias wrote:
CCP Rise, it's been 3 days since you promised the resist thread! Are we not past the point of "soon"? Where in the heck is that thread you promised?


I would ask the same thing about the changes to torpedo and cruise torpedo changes promised, but you don't see me complaining....

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread
Van Mathias
Dead Space Continuum
#338 - 2013-04-12 14:14:31 UTC
The squeaky wheel gets the grease....

Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#339 - 2013-04-12 16:30:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Little Dragon Khamez
Ranamar wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Just noticed the drone stats on the raven 50m3 bay 75mbit bandwidth. Is this a typo? I just can't imagine how all that bandwidth could be used up, unless I am missing something, I am not that heavy a drone user so I may be wrong.


Back when I ran L4 missions in a Raven, (... back before the rat AI change, too...) I would keep 1 flight mediums (Hammerhead) and 1 flight lights (Hobgoblin) in my 75 cubic meters of drone bay. It looks like this is codifying that and getting rid of the goofy 2H/2M/1L loadout that was the way to max out bandwidth and drone control limit.


It was a typo, they've since corrected it it seems to correctly show bandwidth at 50 and storage of 75.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#340 - 2013-04-12 16:39:03 UTC
Toshaheri Talvinen wrote:
Van Mathias wrote:
Ugh, is there any point to battleships as they stand anymore with the Faction BC's that are coming out? They are cheaper, and are about as powerful, but can hit more things on the field. I mean, honestly. First the tank nerf, then this! It's like CCP thinks the way to balance BS's is to make them unplayable.

That's what I'm saying, the raven is going to have less HP than a faction battlecruiser. And all battleships are going to be touching elbows with battlecruisers in general. The HP gap needs to widen in my opinion. It makes little to no sense to fly battleships due to the fact that battlecruisers hit slightly under that of battleships, while tanking the same, if not more than a battleship. Good job on this one CCP.

I also agree with you guys, and actually if you consider the sig and speed advantage of the bc's i would say they ARE better tanks unless you really want to just sit there without moving.

It's hilarious how they are making the battleships faster and to have less tank too, gee i thought we had the tier3 bc's for that...
Now the battleships have way too little ehp to draw a clear line between them and the bc's.