These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Attack Battlecruisers should they be T2 Heavy Assault Battlecruiser?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-05-06 11:50:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
I would love to know if CCP really see these as natural ABC's rather than a strange specialization more akin to a T2 class.
Using large mods like logistics do should make these a T2 ship.
As i think people would rather have a more natural line of ABC's using the combat bc's like the navy versions seem to have taken up that line.... drake/brutix/harbinger/cane would all make good attack bc's

I have mentioned in the ABC thread that i think they should become T2 bc's Heavy assault battlecruiser
- so much like HACS that fanfest has said will be more like T2 attack cruisers with mwd bonus i think these would be a natural progression on HACS.

-As Heavy assault battlecruiser they would operate much like HACS do but with large weapons so higher damage potential on the right targets..
-remove a turret there dps is too much
-limit to short range weapons like HACS are so ... blasters ... AC's .. pulses
-then 4 of the bc's could become attack bc's although the navy bc's seem to have done this already.

With these changes it would alleviate some of the overlap with HACS and battleships atm.

'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

Galmas
United System's Commonwealth
#2 - 2013-05-06 12:10:07 UTC
I kind of agree to what you wrote. Given that tier 3 BC are in the game now and will prolly stay.

Beside that i don't like ships having out of class guns really. Think eve would be better of with the tier 3 BC completely gone. Totally overpowered and overly agile ships in my eyes. But that's me. The last good new ship type was the T3 cruisers. They are really cool but come for a price, which is what such a good ship should really do.

So with tier 3 BC becoming t2 that would at least provide a proper price for the performance you got.
Karig'Ano Keikira
Tax Cheaters
#3 - 2013-05-06 12:29:50 UTC
I think it makes sense for them to be moved to tech 2 ships, perhaps even into two classes of tech 2 ships - one more for sniping, specialized for long range versions of heavy weapons and other more brawly with short range versions. After all, they are highly specialized ships, what fits in with tech 2 ideas

In this case however, I would argue against nerfing them and perhaps even for buffing them a bit (as their price would go up significantly along with skills requirements and stuff, putting them on battleships(?) price tag along with bc 5 and misc skills requirements):
- they should be left with low tank and high gank (so removal of turrents should not be done)
- they already have role bonus appropriate for tech 2 ships (fitting large turrets), additional role bonuses for brawler vs sniper variant could be hm.. something like:
- brawler: +rof, -damage, +tracking; have drones?
- sniper: -rof, +damage, -tracking; no drones?
- additional bonuses from HABC skill could be something like, hm... :
- brawler variant: mild tank bonus or mwd bonus(es) or neut resistances or mild tackling range bonus ...
- sniper variant: -sig or +locking range / sensor resolution or faster align time or ability to fit mjd ...

if they stay as tech 1, they should get nerfed imo - having dps > battleship with mobility >> battleship for cost < battleship is not good balance - poor battleships struggled even before these came into being; perhaps not by reducing DPS or mobility but by giving them (even) worse damage application (perhaps good sized penalty to tracking or something similar)
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#4 - 2013-05-06 12:52:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Ruze
To be so specialized a craft (read, glass cannons), it seems more suited to a T2 version. In the idea of stealth bombers, that type of expensive and unique specialization is not something you want as a basic craft. T1 versions should have less capability but more flexibility.

I'm not sure if they need to be following the HAC line, though. That insinuates that they would have more defenses along with more firepower. To me, some type of turret-based stealth bomber would be nice. Uncloak, nothing but turrets. Their capabilities shouldn't be as line craft but as strike craft, hitting first and hitting where they aren't expected.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-05-06 13:08:44 UTC
Ruze wrote:
To be so specialized a craft (read, glass cannons), it seems more suited to a T2 version. In the idea of stealth bombers, that type of expensive and unique specialization is not something you want as a basic craft. T1 versions should have less capability but more flexibility.

I'm not sure if they need to be following the HAC line, though. That insinuates that they would have more defenses along with more firepower. To me, some type of turret-based stealth bomber would be nice. Uncloak, nothing but turrets. Their capabilities shouldn't be as line craft but as strike craft, hitting first and hitting where they aren't expected.



Well when i say HAC i think of them in a T2 attack cruiser way like the vaga which i believe going by the mwd bonus they want to give them means CCP is going to go this way too rather than the tanky HACS like sacrilege.

'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

StoneCold
Decadence.
RAZOR Alliance
#6 - 2013-05-06 13:17:49 UTC
I don´t see the need of tier3 bcs needs a change.
Only the talos can use a flight of 5 light drones - and most of them are only buffered with 2 extenders.
If you can bring a thorax into a close orbit (read: spiralling on the enemy) he´ll die soon.

It´s large guns, and they track like large guns. I realy don´t see a problem (and while saying this i have to mention that i even don´t use them very often - as they lack in other areas. Firepower is not everything).

My true stories
ExAstra
Echoes of Silence
#7 - 2013-05-06 13:20:57 UTC
I like this idea. Making them T2 is probably the best way to "nerf" them enough to make Battleships more attractive (in most cases the extra tank isn't as appealing as the extra speed, equal firepower, and reduced cost) without hitting them so hard they either become useless or disappoint half of the community. Or buffing Battleships to godhood.

Putting some T2 resists (perhaps slightly modified) on them would slightly increase their tankiness without lifting them from fragility.

Good idea OP. Make more.

Save the drones!
Vaihto Ehto
#8 - 2013-05-06 13:28:54 UTC
In my opinion all of the ABCs should lose a single highslot. This could more or less fix them.

Why would you not use an alt to post on the forums?
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#9 - 2013-05-06 15:05:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Leave the highslots. Leave everything. Eviscerate their tanking ability. Glass cannon is too OP. They should be paper cannons.

It should be a miracle of science that firing their weapons does not cause them to tear themselves to pieces and/or set themselves on fire. They should be like the Destroyer-class of Battlecruisers - Any single ship that's not smaller can swat them out of the sky with three good volleys at the maximum. Four if you officer-fit.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2013-05-06 16:04:02 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I would love to know CCP really see these as natural ABC's rather than a strange specialization more akin to a T2 class.
Using large mods like logistics do should make these a T2 ship.
As i think people would rather have a more natural line of ABC's using the combat bc's like the navy versions seem to have taken up that line.... drake/brutix/harbinger/cane would all make good attack bc's

I have mentioned in the ABC thread that i think they should become T2 bc's Heavy assault battlecruiser
- so much like HACS that fanfest has said will be more like T2 attack cruisers with mwd bonus i think these would be a natural progression on HACS.

-As Heavy assault battlecruiser they would operate much like HACS do but with large weapons so higher damage potential on the right targets..
-remove a turret there dps is too much
-limit to short range weapons like HACS are so ... blasters ... AC's .. pulses
-then 4 of the bc's could become attack bc's although the navy bc's seem to have done this already.

With these changes it would alleviate some of the overlap with HACS and battleships atm.



So if they're going to be HACs, you want proper tanks on them then? After all, that'll be a what, six month train?

HACs are in no way limited to short range weapons. Arty muninns, rail deimos, beam zealots etc etc all exist and are used in PVP with good effect.

Dropping a turret leaves a talos with what, 50-100 more DPS than a Brutix? Is months of training and hundreds of millions of ISK really worth it for 50-100 DPS over a ship you can fly in a few weeks tops? Especially when you consider the fact that you have less than half the EHP of said t1 ship?


Show us on the doll where the t3 BC sniper gang touched you.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-05-06 16:41:25 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I would love to know CCP really see these as natural ABC's rather than a strange specialization more akin to a T2 class.
Using large mods like logistics do should make these a T2 ship.
As i think people would rather have a more natural line of ABC's using the combat bc's like the navy versions seem to have taken up that line.... drake/brutix/harbinger/cane would all make good attack bc's

I have mentioned in the ABC thread that i think they should become T2 bc's Heavy assault battlecruiser
- so much like HACS that fanfest has said will be more like T2 attack cruisers with mwd bonus i think these would be a natural progression on HACS.

-As Heavy assault battlecruiser they would operate much like HACS do but with large weapons so higher damage potential on the right targets..
-remove a turret there dps is too much
-limit to short range weapons like HACS are so ... blasters ... AC's .. pulses
-then 4 of the bc's could become attack bc's although the navy bc's seem to have done this already.

With these changes it would alleviate some of the overlap with HACS and battleships atm.


So if they're going to be HACs, you want proper tanks on them then? After all, that'll be a what, six month train?

HACs are in no way limited to short range weapons. Arty muninns, rail deimos, beam zealots etc etc all exist and are used in PVP with good effect.

Dropping a turret leaves a talos with what, 50-100 more DPS than a Brutix? Is months of training and hundreds of millions of ISK really worth it for 50-100 DPS over a ship you can fly in a few weeks tops? Especially when you consider the fact that you have less than half the EHP of said t1 ship?

Show us on the doll where the t3 BC sniper gang touched you.


There always has to be one troll :(

and again for people who can't be arsed reading previous posts .... im not asking for extra tank beyond T2 resists which won't make much of a difference to their tanks

'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

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2013-05-06 17:02:22 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I would love to know CCP really see these as natural ABC's rather than a strange specialization more akin to a T2 class.
Using large mods like logistics do should make these a T2 ship.
As i think people would rather have a more natural line of ABC's using the combat bc's like the navy versions seem to have taken up that line.... drake/brutix/harbinger/cane would all make good attack bc's

I have mentioned in the ABC thread that i think they should become T2 bc's Heavy assault battlecruiser
- so much like HACS that fanfest has said will be more like T2 attack cruisers with mwd bonus i think these would be a natural progression on HACS.

-As Heavy assault battlecruiser they would operate much like HACS do but with large weapons so higher damage potential on the right targets..
-remove a turret there dps is too much
-limit to short range weapons like HACS are so ... blasters ... AC's .. pulses
-then 4 of the bc's could become attack bc's although the navy bc's seem to have done this already.

With these changes it would alleviate some of the overlap with HACS and battleships atm.


So if they're going to be HACs, you want proper tanks on them then? After all, that'll be a what, six month train?

HACs are in no way limited to short range weapons. Arty muninns, rail deimos, beam zealots etc etc all exist and are used in PVP with good effect.

Dropping a turret leaves a talos with what, 50-100 more DPS than a Brutix? Is months of training and hundreds of millions of ISK really worth it for 50-100 DPS over a ship you can fly in a few weeks tops? Especially when you consider the fact that you have less than half the EHP of said t1 ship?

Show us on the doll where the t3 BC sniper gang touched you.


There always has to be one troll :(

and again for people who can't be arsed reading previous posts .... im not asking for extra tank beyond T2 resists which won't make much of a difference to their tanks



I'm not trolling. Why do you think that making people train for months to get themselves a ship with half the EHP and all of a hundred more DPS than a regular T1 battlecruiser?

Why should they be limited to short range weapons, when HACs are not in any way?

Why do you want T3 BC snipers removed? They are an effective PVP doctrine in use by a hell of a lot of people.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#13 - 2013-05-06 18:00:17 UTC
I'm not trolling. Why do you think that making people train for months to get themselves a ship with half the EHP and all of a hundred more DPS than a regular T1 battlecruiser?

its not just dps it does it better but also projection and they have more mobility.

Why should they be limited to short range weapons, when HACs are not in any way?
Well i would limit HACS to short range weapons too myself .... otherwise they just as versatile as T1 which defeats the point of T2.

Why do you want T3 BC snipers removed? They are an effective PVP doctrine in use by a hell of a lot of people.
Again it makes them too versatile and also it kills off all other sniping ships in the game as they are too good at it combined with the ease of fitting and mobility.
Furthermore i would like to see battleships given back their premier role of sniper they used to have.

'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

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2013-05-06 19:07:38 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I'm not trolling. Why do you think that making people train for months to get themselves a ship with half the EHP and all of a hundred more DPS than a regular T1 battlecruiser?

its not just dps it does it better but also projection and they have more mobility.

Why should they be limited to short range weapons, when HACs are not in any way?
Well i would limit HACS to short range weapons too myself .... otherwise they just as versatile as T1 which defeats the point of T2.

Why do you want T3 BC snipers removed? They are an effective PVP doctrine in use by a hell of a lot of people.
Again it makes them too versatile and also it kills off all other sniping ships in the game as they are too good at it combined with the ease of fitting and mobility.
Furthermore i would like to see battleships given back their premier role of sniper they used to have.



Oh. So because you personally dislike the entire HAC line as well as T3 BCs, you feel they should both be nerfed into oblivion. Is that about right?
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-05-06 19:17:22 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I'm not trolling. Why do you think that making people train for months to get themselves a ship with half the EHP and all of a hundred more DPS than a regular T1 battlecruiser?

its not just dps it does it better but also projection and they have more mobility.

Why should they be limited to short range weapons, when HACs are not in any way?
Well i would limit HACS to short range weapons too myself .... otherwise they just as versatile as T1 which defeats the point of T2.

Why do you want T3 BC snipers removed? They are an effective PVP doctrine in use by a hell of a lot of people.
Again it makes them too versatile and also it kills off all other sniping ships in the game as they are too good at it combined with the ease of fitting and mobility.
Furthermore i would like to see battleships given back their premier role of sniper they used to have.



Oh. So because you personally dislike the entire HAC line as well as T3 BCs, you feel they should both be nerfed into oblivion. Is that about right?


you sure you're not a troll :P .... i actually rather like these ships but not necessarily exactly as they are now.
HACS need a good buff .... the ABC's i think need a slight re alignment that includes buffs and nerfs.

'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

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2013-05-06 19:41:59 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I'm not trolling. Why do you think that making people train for months to get themselves a ship with half the EHP and all of a hundred more DPS than a regular T1 battlecruiser?

its not just dps it does it better but also projection and they have more mobility.

Why should they be limited to short range weapons, when HACs are not in any way?
Well i would limit HACS to short range weapons too myself .... otherwise they just as versatile as T1 which defeats the point of T2.

Why do you want T3 BC snipers removed? They are an effective PVP doctrine in use by a hell of a lot of people.
Again it makes them too versatile and also it kills off all other sniping ships in the game as they are too good at it combined with the ease of fitting and mobility.
Furthermore i would like to see battleships given back their premier role of sniper they used to have.



Oh. So because you personally dislike the entire HAC line as well as T3 BCs, you feel they should both be nerfed into oblivion. Is that about right?


you sure you're not a troll :P .... i actually rather like these ships but not necessarily exactly as they are now.
HACS need a good buff .... the ABC's i think need a slight re alignment that includes buffs and nerfs.



But you've just called for a massive nerf to HACs and the outright removal of the very concept of sniper HACs. Where is the buff there?

And where is the buff in your T3 BC proposal? You want a massive increase in price and skill requirement, a nerf to damage output, the outright removal of snipers and absolutely nothing to justify them. Again, where is the buff?
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#17 - 2013-05-06 19:57:56 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:


But you've just called for a massive nerf to HACs and the outright removal of the very concept of sniper HACs. Where is the buff there?

And where is the buff in your T3 BC proposal? You want a massive increase in price and skill requirement, a nerf to damage output, the outright removal of snipers and absolutely nothing to justify them. Again, where is the buff?


At no point have i mentioned a nerf to HACS .... they need buffs

and the ABC's need to be changed as they stomp all over battleship class for half the price.
so making them T2 and removal of some dps and limiting them to short range weapons allow battleships to be worth using as sniper platform and battleships should have higher dps than a bc.
And the price and skill training provide some balance to the game in general as they are specialist ship so it just makes sense that they need more training time.

And in terms of buffs well T2 resists increase EHP slightly and maybe some of the current stats could be improved.
And maybe being T2 they could get an extra mid or low slot.


'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

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2013-05-06 21:05:52 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:


But you've just called for a massive nerf to HACs and the outright removal of the very concept of sniper HACs. Where is the buff there?

And where is the buff in your T3 BC proposal? You want a massive increase in price and skill requirement, a nerf to damage output, the outright removal of snipers and absolutely nothing to justify them. Again, where is the buff?


At no point have i mentioned a nerf to HACS .... they need buffs

and the ABC's need to be changed as they stomp all over battleship class for half the price.
so making them T2 and removal of some dps and limiting them to short range weapons allow battleships to be worth using as sniper platform and battleships should have higher dps than a bc.
And the price and skill training provide some balance to the game in general as they are specialist ship so it just makes sense that they need more training time.

And in terms of buffs well T2 resists increase EHP slightly and maybe some of the current stats could be improved.
And maybe being T2 they could get an extra mid or low slot.





But you just said that you think HACs should be limited to short range weapons. What is that if it is not a nerf?

Your nerfs make the t3 BCs utterly worthless. BS will out DPS them with more EHP. BC will almost match them, with more EHP. With the paper tanks they have, they won't work as brawlers with the price and skill requirements you want. Who is going to pay more for a talos than a mega or a hype if they want to brawl?

Why should BS always have higher DPS than BC? They fill different roles entirely.

How do price and skill training provide balance here? They never have before. On top of that, you still haven't explained why anyone would train for months on end and pay more than the price of a battleship for a T2 ship that is inferior to T1s in pretty much every way.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#19 - 2013-05-06 21:45:53 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:


But you've just called for a massive nerf to HACs and the outright removal of the very concept of sniper HACs. Where is the buff there?

And where is the buff in your T3 BC proposal? You want a massive increase in price and skill requirement, a nerf to damage output, the outright removal of snipers and absolutely nothing to justify them. Again, where is the buff?


At no point have i mentioned a nerf to HACS .... they need buffs

and the ABC's need to be changed as they stomp all over battleship class for half the price.
so making them T2 and removal of some dps and limiting them to short range weapons allow battleships to be worth using as sniper platform and battleships should have higher dps than a bc.
And the price and skill training provide some balance to the game in general as they are specialist ship so it just makes sense that they need more training time.

And in terms of buffs well T2 resists increase EHP slightly and maybe some of the current stats could be improved.
And maybe being T2 they could get an extra mid or low slot.





But you just said that you think HACs should be limited to short range weapons. What is that if it is not a nerf?

Your nerfs make the t3 BCs utterly worthless. BS will out DPS them with more EHP. BC will almost match them, with more EHP. With the paper tanks they have, they won't work as brawlers with the price and skill requirements you want. Who is going to pay more for a talos than a mega or a hype if they want to brawl?

Why should BS always have higher DPS than BC? They fill different roles entirely.

How do price and skill training provide balance here? They never have before. On top of that, you still haven't explained why anyone would train for months on end and pay more than the price of a battleship for a T2 ship that is inferior to T1s in pretty much every way.


like the eagle, cerberus or muninn are really great ships... zealot would be the same

like the blaster talos or pulse oracle are crap ships..
ABC's have much better projection and mobility .... brutix vs Talos e.g.
They have their niche as heavier HACS already and with an mwd bonus and T2 resists, buff tank slightly and an extra slot they would have plenty to justify using them over a battleship or HAC.

'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

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2013-05-06 22:35:32 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:

like the eagle, cerberus or muninn are really great ships... zealot would be the same

like the blaster talos or pulse oracle are crap ships..
ABC's have much better projection and mobility .... brutix vs Talos e.g.
They have their niche as heavier HACS already and with an mwd bonus and T2 resists, buff tank slightly and an extra slot they would have plenty to justify using them over a battleship or HAC.



I've been in plenty of fleets that have welped to arty muninns and rail deimos. The caldari HACs are awful, but limiting them to blasters and HAMs is not going to fix that, it'll just make them even worse.

HACs can tank, T3s can't. Making them slightly more mobile battleships at considerably more cost and with considerably less tank is really not going to be the answer. Brawling in a paper tanked ship costing several hundred million is a pretty terrible niche, I really don't see why you think it's a good idea.
123Next page