These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

This expansion just became 25% less awesome?

First post
Author
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#161 - 2011-11-04 13:49:08 UTC
I think you'll find t2 ships and teirs also contributed to the opinion that specialised t1 ships suck.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#162 - 2011-11-04 13:51:23 UTC
Just to re-iterate. No problem with them being mobile damage dealers. Just be conscious of why people use and don't use certain ships (surviviblity) and just how in compatible hybrids and untangle bonused torps are to "kiting".

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#163 - 2011-11-04 13:52:47 UTC
For your information the new battlecruisers are on Sisi now, just not textured. Go and test them!

Throwing together a quick naga I got something like this.

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.

Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#164 - 2011-11-04 14:01:07 UTC
Not sure what your skills are like, but it seems like you'd be better off in a stealth bomber...

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2011-11-04 14:11:57 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


Creating new ships is not a simple task and is almost never done right on the first attempt, as we need several iterations to outline, play and tweak with capabilities until we find a middle-ground we feel comfortable to release.

On this particular instance, the first pass that was spread around was particularly off the chart and needed to be brought down to more realistic numbers.

The role of the tier 3 battlecruisers is to bring battleship range and damage into mobile, small gangs by wielding large weapon systems, which translates into the following design points:


  • Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
  • Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
  • Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
  • Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
  • Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant



In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.





well, I do understand that the stats weren't final, and tbh the web bonus let me a bit torn since I thought it was great and horrible at the same time.

great because of blasters, horrible because it would displace and/or reduce the value of the serp ships.


that said however, I hope that the proposed blaster changes on the devblog aren't final, because if they go to game like that, the talos will have no reason to be used beyond disposable suicide gank platform.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Cpt Fina
Perkone
Caldari State
#166 - 2011-11-04 14:17:34 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
I think you'll find t2 ships and teirs also contributed to the opinion that specialised t1 ships suck.



Exactly. That's why CCP should have a clear idea of what role new ships are supposed to fill before they add them into the game. They should do their outmost to make sure that Tier 3 BCs don't render a bunch of old ships obsolete.
Arrynoss
Doomheim
#167 - 2011-11-04 14:37:18 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Arrynoss wrote:


A 10% to the damage modifier along with the huge buffs to tracking, capacitance and so forth is going to make rail boats extremely competitive.



That huge buff to tracking had best bring it down to current 250mm rail levels on 425s, or my statement will hold, they simply won't work inside long point range, specially on a ship that only has room for a lunch box and two TEs.


But again, I think you are confusing a doctrine here mate.

At which point in the past did the 200km+ Apocs fit long points in their mids?

Although I am sure that some pilots will find a use fitting big, close range guns on these and glass cannoning them, the role bonii as they stand point them into providing a far more mobile, fleet sniper platform. Yes, the current state of the game has moved to close range fights in 0.0, however this has taken place due to the Battleship platform being terribly slow and easily pinned down by tackles.

Now there will be a ship class entirely designed around offering the benefits of Medium to Long Range combat, without the drawback of a tremendously immobile fleet.

Railgun tracking is at least gearing to place itself right near the top of the tree post patch. I have to say though, I am please they are looking at removing the drone bay. You could see the niche on paper and the Talos stood out like a sore thumb, as the Moros always did previously with the dreads.

And to address the long point range scenario. All current weapon platforms on the Battleship variant sized weapon have in or around the long point range as the falloff point for the short range weapons. If that is where you wish your ship to operate, then that would be the gun you would clearly use, even utilising the longest range ammunition, you still have a significant benefit in tracking, damage multiplier and so forth. I feel that statement is less a drawback of the Railgun system and more a misuse of it on the Large Hybrid platform.
Barbelo Valentinian
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2011-11-04 15:42:48 UTC
ITT: "Waaaah, they're taking away my WTFBBQSOLOPWNMOBILE that I never had in the first place!"
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#169 - 2011-11-04 15:58:07 UTC
Tracking and Rail Range:

If you are in a small gang situation, and set up to try and use rails inside point range, you are doing it wrong. These boats are meant to operate outside of point range, not slug it out at point blank. They do NOT have the tank for this, range control and warping out when necessary are their defense.


Rail Damage:

If you are operating at medium range and all you have with you is long range ammo, you are doing it wrong. Especially after the rail and ammo buffs medium and short range rail ammo does acceptable damage. Remember, what is long range to most is well within range of your shorter range, higher damage ammo. This is an advantage often overlooked.

Transversal:

If you are having issues tracking a target at medium range and haven't learned how to manually pilot your ship to compensate, you are doing it wrong. Stop orbiting.

This was written in haste, and isn't intended to be nearly as terse as it probably sounds. Smile

I do agree that with the Naga they would be better served to make a choice between bonusing rails or missiles, not both.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Saikron
Crazy Leftist Loons
#170 - 2011-11-15 04:55:04 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests Pirate).

However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.


TL;DR - We made a gallente ship that was good, realized our error, and corrected it immediately.
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#171 - 2011-11-15 07:28:30 UTC
CCP Navigator wrote:
This is why we would encourage people totake information from data dumps with a pinch of salt. The four battlecruisers are not even ready to pilot on singularity just yet and may go through several more revisions while they are still in development.

CCP Ytterbium is in the process of writing a blog which will be published when the ships are final. Obviously, you are free to speculate on what may happen but realize that any changes are fluid. These ships may go through several more rounds of changes so please try and be patient for now Smile


After seeing the direction of the changes so far, and reading the ridiculous dev comment regarding the naga, my confidence is pretty low that you guys will actually get it right. Right, in this case, meaning balanced and having a purpose.

Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2011-11-15 09:34:44 UTC
Saikron wrote:
[

TL;DR - We made a gallente ship that was good, realized our error, and corrected it immediately.



More or less this, there is no reason to fly a Talos over a Tornado other than suicide ganking.

None.
mkint
#173 - 2011-11-15 09:43:52 UTC
Saikron wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests Pirate).

However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.


TL;DR - We made a gallente ship that was good, realized our error, and corrected it immediately.

@ CCP: forgive my squirly ignorance, but how exactly would it be bad if every one of the new BCs performed exactly the same way? Same optimal ranges and falloffs, same DPS, everything the same but the skills? When you see one in space, is "being laughed at" a role?

You don't look at HICs and say "oh my, they all have thick tanks, slow speeds, and the same size bubbles... they are competing with eachother! Quick, make one useless!" Why are you trying to do this with the new BCs?

No, I'm not saying make them exactly the same as eachother, what I'm saying is that if they were all exactly the same, so the hell what?

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2011-11-15 09:58:16 UTC
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3919/nagav.png


.......Talos is now officially bottom of the barrel.

Unless you fancy operating a 30k eHP ship in scram range.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#175 - 2011-11-15 10:09:09 UTC
Additional Drones has made an improvement - in snipe mode, warriors or ecm drones would be a good reason to choose it other the others. Though at this point it's hard to see the Talos functioning with blasters without an increase in grid (EHP)

As for the Naga, I'm just happy that the Caldari have finally got a decent hybrid boat, I hope similar bonuses are replicated on the Rokh.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Niko Takahashi
Yoshitomi Group
#176 - 2011-11-15 11:07:43 UTC
Zendoren wrote:
CCP, by dropping the web bonus and drones you have brought the talos in line with what the rest of gallente has been for 8 years.

Leave them on there and if the ship is OP then tweak PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't pre-nurf the Gallente boat. a lot of people were looking forward to this buff to a Gallente ship

Thanks!
Derp

Ehhh

Gallente did not really get in trouble until the web nerf.

They used yo be on top of the food chain for a very long time.

If anything the blobs and changing scale of conflict and decreased frequency of small gang to solo pvp is what hurt them.

You drone ship lineup is still competitive.

Try fly Caldari for pvp then you see problems have not been the FOTM since they introduced the sgi radius and explosion velocity and kind of forgot to add modules for low and high slots equivalent for missiles.
gnome chaos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#177 - 2011-11-15 11:21:23 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
These will have the survivability of t1 cruisers, which I hear isn't very long during the typical hellcat fleets these days.


Lock-time.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#178 - 2011-11-15 13:50:09 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
so teh stats in the current data dump are the ones that are going live on TQ?

stop smoking and start reading Cool

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

John Caesse
Just Post Inc.
#179 - 2011-11-15 22:57:17 UTC
This just in: the racial variants of ships in the same class excel at different things. More at 11.
Joe Skellington
Sarz'na Khumatari
#180 - 2011-11-15 23:06:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Skellington
Game developers change things on a TEST server environment, and people scream like a kid whose candy was stolen. Get a freaking grip people.

Please note that ASCII art is not permitted in the forum signatures. Spitfire