These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Tier3 Battlecruisers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Phantomania
Lonely Trek
#221 - 2011-11-07 18:34:55 UTC
Hentes Zsemle wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
all the things you wrote


So you basicly say you don't want to make the Naga overpowered in the exact same way in which the tornado is overpowered, which you consider fine....

I guess you should watch that video of a tornado killing drones and an interceptor. Even with double webs, that is really ****** up.




This! Nuff Said!
Tegg Tonn
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#222 - 2011-11-07 18:35:52 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
NAGA:

what you have to consider here, is that in its default configuration, the Naga has 8 launchers AND 8 turrets, which means:

  • Torpedo projection smiliar to Raven: even with one bonus to torpedoes, it does the same amount of damage/projection than a Raven. Adding another bonus to missile damage would make this ship greatly outperform its battleship equivalent
  • Why removing the torpedo explosion velocity? It was removed as it was making this ship too useful against smaller targets, which again defeats the purpose of this class. You also have to consider in your play testing that torpedoes cannot deliver full damage output in 1v1 scenarios against other tier3 battlecruisers. Remember the other new battlecruisers have a comparatively low signature radius (180-200) and high speed to mitigate damage output. If you want to test this ship against its natural targets, please try battleships/capitals instead
  • Giving this ship another hybrid bonus threatens the Rokh, while possibly make it better than the Talos for close range combat





and how many Ravens or Rokh's are used in PvP currently? None.

Using the logic that the Naga should be tried against BSs and Capitals, then why does the Tornado and Oracle do excellent dps against BCs and Cruisers? The Naga needs some bonus other than range to make is viable for use in PvP other than pummeling towers. Right now the Naga is the worst of the Tier 3 BCs. How about making in a ECM platform? at least then we wouldn't expect to do significant dps and it would actually have a role between the Blackbird and the Scorpion.

I also played around a bit with the Blaster Talos and it is so borked compared to the AC Tornado and Pulse Oracle. IMO all Tier 3s are bit fast, at least the differential in speeds between the Naga and the Tornado is very large especially when the MWD is active.
Camios
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#223 - 2011-11-07 18:39:45 UTC
The tornado is the most efficient in kiting, of course, given its velocity. A problem I see is that it is faster than all battlecruisers (and many cruisers) and it has more range. These facts does not count in 1vs1 pvp where warp disruptor range poses a limt on the usefulness of range, but in small gangs a tornado can easily break the orbiting of cruiser sized ships.

TL;DR a fast ship with guns in the hand of a skilled player can be able to kill smaller ships, using his MWDs and overload to reduce transversal. Yesterday I almost killed a vaga with the 'nado (the 'nado with 2 nanofibers and MWD overloaded goes at 2700 m/s), and I think that a Vaga would be better run if he sees a tornado.

(my 2 cents).
Bethany Hawke
Azure Flame
#224 - 2011-11-07 18:43:20 UTC
Naga:
I see why the reluctance with cruise (I would love it) but I can see why not - if the intended prey of the new ships are BS.
If I want a rail platform I would pick the rokh over the naga.
That means I would drop the hybrid from them all together and focus on torp.
If you give them a +damage bonus, then it makes the raven look bad.
So the only thing left, is to give them a range bonus.
But what about giving them two?
Flight time and velocity?
Then they would become a "torp sniper" (ish).

I would also give all torps 10% more range and take the range bonus off Raven/Widow (net no effect)
and replace it with a straight +damage ontop of the +rof but then, I like missiles Twisted
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#225 - 2011-11-07 18:45:46 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
NAGA:

Dual bonuses: what you have to consider here, is that in its default configuration, the Naga has 8 launchers AND 8 turrets, which means:

  • Torpedo projection smiliar to Raven: even with one bonus to torpedoes, it does the same amount of damage/projection than a Raven. Adding another bonus to missile damage would make this ship greatly outperform its battleship equivalent
  • Why removing the torpedo explosion velocity? It was removed as it was making this ship too useful against smaller targets, which again defeats the purpose of this class. You also have to consider in your play testing that torpedoes cannot deliver full damage output in 1v1 scenarios against other tier3 battlecruisers. Remember the other new battlecruisers have a comparatively low signature radius (180-200) and high speed to mitigate damage output. If you want to test this ship against its natural targets, please try battleships/capitals instead
  • Giving this ship another hybrid bonus threatens the Rokh, while possibly make it better than the Talos for close range combat


Torps are barely used in PVP outside of bombers (which have a 50% explosion velocity bonus). This should be a signal that they are broken.

But, if you don't want to give it that bonus, why not give it at least a torp damage/rof bonus? That way it has very high damage but trouble applying it to anything smaller than a stopped BS.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
#226 - 2011-11-07 18:55:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Reilly Duvolle
The problem with the blasterships are accuratley described as incompatibility between slowish armortanked ships and very short range weapons. And you cant make Gallente faster than Minmatar because they are supposed to be the kings of skirmish warfare.

Now, what you COULD do, is to nerf the falloff gained by tracking enhancers and tracking computers, so that TE/TC gives 15% each to both optimal and falloff (not 15/30% as today).

At the same time introduce smaller webbing drones with better effect than the heavies that exist today. The gallente drone bonus could be applied so that say 5 x medium webbing drones give the same effect as a t1 web (-50%), and also making medium webdrones much less powerful on non-blaster platforms.

This will force minmatar kiters closer, and coupled with extended web ranges make kiting more difficult (should not be impossible but should require a good pilot who are on the ball).
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
#227 - 2011-11-07 18:56:56 UTC
CCP Ytterbium's discussion of the Gallente woes just made me happy in the pants. At leat it shows they are aware of the problem and are working on it.

I am really looking forward to the day where it is not necessary to put shield mods and/or projectile turrets on my Gallente ships. Please oh please make it so!
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#228 - 2011-11-07 18:57:10 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
NAGA:

Dual bonuses: what you have to consider here, is that in its default configuration, the Naga has 8 launchers AND 8 turrets, which means:

  • Torpedo projection smiliar to Raven: even with one bonus to torpedoes, it does the same amount of damage/projection than a Raven. Adding another bonus to missile damage would make this ship greatly outperform its battleship equivalent
  • Why removing the torpedo explosion velocity? It was removed as it was making this ship too useful against smaller targets, which again defeats the purpose of this class. You also have to consider in your play testing that torpedoes cannot deliver full damage output in 1v1 scenarios against other tier3 battlecruisers. Remember the other new battlecruisers have a comparatively low signature radius (180-200) and high speed to mitigate damage output. If you want to test this ship against its natural targets, please try battleships/capitals instead
  • Giving this ship another hybrid bonus threatens the Rokh, while possibly make it better than the Talos for close range combat


Cruise missiles: initial reasons not to have them were because of the following combination:

  • Hit smaller targets: may be made to reliably hit smaller targets with target painters/rigs
  • Reliable projection: they have a fairly long range, within which the Naga doesn't have to worry about capacitor or transversal velocity
  • Mobility: Naga can use points above to deliver long range constant damage while being quite difficult to catch itself

You could argue points above are not always applicable and you would be right, which is why cruise missiles are still being considered. However, it they are introduced into the Naga, hybrid bonuses most likely will be removed from it

Lack of fittings: first pass fittings were too generous, but we possibly squeezed them down too much in this version, more investigation must be made on this



Just pick one. Hybrids or Torpedoes/Large Missiles in general. Or even just Rails rather than general hybrids. If you can do that for Torpes vs cruises, why not for rails vs blasters. Then give the selected weapons system 2 bonuses to bring it in line with the other races. If it threatens the Caldari BSes, then perhaps that's a sign the Caldari BSes aren't good enough, and you should buff them as well?

Personally, I think the Caldari already have an excellent missile BC in the Drake, and the Rokh is a sniper, and not much more. It would fit a gap in their lineup to have a higher damage, but shorter ranged, hybrid platform, so I'd make the Naga a hybrid platform, either intended to make it a blaster boat with longer range but less damage than the Talos, or make it a Rail ship with better damage at short ranges, but less overall range, than the Rokh.

For example, Railgun alpha and tracking would make it do better damage at shorter ranges than the rokh, while not treading on the Talos's toes, and rails don't really track well enough at shorter ranges to be too much of a threat to small ships anyway. The damage would stop it doing the anaemic damage it currently does compared to the other tier 3s, and the tracking would allow it to engage at short ranges, which rails currently don't do well at. So what if it means it's a good sniper? those exist already and aren't overused, it's not like it would be game breaking.
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#229 - 2011-11-07 18:59:28 UTC
Tegg Tonn wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
NAGA:

what you have to consider here, is that in its default configuration, the Naga has 8 launchers AND 8 turrets, which means:

  • Torpedo projection smiliar to Raven: even with one bonus to torpedoes, it does the same amount of damage/projection than a Raven. Adding another bonus to missile damage would make this ship greatly outperform its battleship equivalent
  • Why removing the torpedo explosion velocity? It was removed as it was making this ship too useful against smaller targets, which again defeats the purpose of this class. You also have to consider in your play testing that torpedoes cannot deliver full damage output in 1v1 scenarios against other tier3 battlecruisers. Remember the other new battlecruisers have a comparatively low signature radius (180-200) and high speed to mitigate damage output. If you want to test this ship against its natural targets, please try battleships/capitals instead
  • Giving this ship another hybrid bonus threatens the Rokh, while possibly make it better than the Talos for close range combat





and how many Ravens or Rokh's are used in PvP currently? None.

Using the logic that the Naga should be tried against BSs and Capitals, then why does the Tornado and Oracle do excellent dps against BCs and Cruisers? The Naga needs some bonus other than range to make is viable for use in PvP other than pummeling towers. Right now the Naga is the worst of the Tier 3 BCs. How about making in a ECM platform? at least then we wouldn't expect to do significant dps and it would actually have a role between the Blackbird and the Scorpion.

I also played around a bit with the Blaster Talos and it is so borked compared to the AC Tornado and Pulse Oracle. IMO all Tier 3s are bit fast, at least the differential in speeds between the Naga and the Tornado is very large especially when the MWD is active.


Couldn't say this any better. Saying that the Naga must not be buffed because it could overshadow its BS counterparts is crazy... Rokh and Ravens are generally aknowledged as BAD pvp ships (with the possible exception of the torp raven, which is quite silly considering there are AC tempests, blasterthrons and nanophoons around in the same niche)
Frothgar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#230 - 2011-11-07 19:06:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Frothgar
Quote:
Mobility and armor tanking conflicts with each other: no surprise here, fitting plates into your Gallente armor oriented slot layout decreases its mobility, which is a direct contradiction with how blasters are supposed to work. This leaves little to no choice but to fit shield extenders on Gallente ships (I'm looking at you, Mr. Brutix and Hyperion X) to keep some mobility and actually try to apply the blaster damage output. Also let's not forget Minmatar ships are usually faster than Gallente by design, while Gallente traditionally use the shortest weapon system available.



CCP Ytterbium wrote in the T3 balancing thread a rather decent bit about the role of speed with armor tanked ships.

This got me and some corp mates looking at plates in general. Its been a tongue and cheek observation for a long time that the 1600 Rolled Tungstun has both the Highest HP addition in addition to the lowest (non-faction/storyline) mass addition. This of course makes it so there is only one choice when it comes to fitting plates.

Perhaps this needs to change.

The Talos hull with MWD fit is actually pretty decently agile and rather decently fast. Its not nano-tornado agile, but what TBH is?

Perhaps its time to do a "Projectile ammo" style fix on plates. Namely have strong variations in both mass and armor added.

It makes little to no sense that the "Nanofiber" plates, while adding appropriate amounts of HP, have MORE mass than Face hardened rolled tungtun. Perhaps have the Nanofiber plates add only a tiny amount of mass compared to Steel or Tungstun and sacrafice a chunk of HP compared to the Tungstun or T2 plate. If you want it to be more "Gallente" make it so its Crystaline carbonate is the "Light" one.

If you want to make them even MORE varied, make it so the Nanofiber plate reduces Hull HP by a significant amount, but actually increases agility a little, Crystaline carbonate is a small increase in mass for moderate HP boost, and finally Rolled Tungstun adds a large amount of mass, in exchange for the best protection ISK can buy.

Anyway, just a thought. Its the Test server, so we can see if it works or is terribad.

<3
Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#231 - 2011-11-07 19:24:19 UTC
Frothgar wrote:
1600 Rolled Tungstun has both the Highest HP addition in addition to the lowest (non-faction/storyline) mass addition. This of course makes it so there is only one choice when it comes to fitting plates.

Perhaps this needs to change.


This is a very good point. At present, the only downside to using Rolled Tungsten over lower meta-level plates is only 1 or 2 points of CPU. It's almost always a no-brainer. T2 plates are also completely pointless because of this mechanic.

Perhaps another way of adding some helpful complexity to choosing plates would be more variation in the CPU and/or PG need of the various grades of plates.
Frothgar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#232 - 2011-11-07 19:33:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Frothgar
Daedalus Arcova wrote:
Frothgar wrote:
1600 Rolled Tungstun has both the Highest HP addition in addition to the lowest (non-faction/storyline) mass addition. This of course makes it so there is only one choice when it comes to fitting plates.

Perhaps this needs to change.


This is a very good point. At present, the only downside to using Rolled Tungsten over lower meta-level plates is only 1 or 2 points of CPU. It's almost always a no-brainer. T2 plates are also completely pointless because of this mechanic.

Perhaps another way of adding some helpful complexity to choosing plates would be more variation in the CPU and/or PG need of the various grades of plates.



Perhaps in addition to mass/inertia variations within plates, we could have them have variations in CPU and powergrid.

eg light light plates have lower PG usage, higher CPU, while heavy well fortified ones are lower CPU and higher PG usage. This would be able to adress concerns of Minnie ships doing Nanofiber plates exclusively to have LOLOL 5 E-war slots.

At the same time, at one point recently on test, Trimarks reduced shields, and extenders reduced armor. Perhaps test this with polycarbons also reducing hull?

I think there are ways this can be done that aren't a straight "Nerf ACs, Boost Blasters!!!" (Which might be another topic all together)

I'd like to see armor tanking in general get a stern looking at to promote more varying play styles across the spectrum.
Cyvhiros
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#233 - 2011-11-07 19:34:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyvhiros
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
NAGA:

Dual bonuses: what you have to consider here, is that in its default configuration, the Naga has 8 launchers AND 8 turrets, which means:

  • Torpedo projection smiliar to Raven: even with one bonus to torpedoes, it does the same amount of damage/projection than a Raven. Adding another bonus to missile damage would make this ship greatly outperform its battleship equivalent
  • Why removing the torpedo explosion velocity? It was removed as it was making this ship too useful against smaller targets, which again defeats the purpose of this class. You also have to consider in your play testing that torpedoes cannot deliver full damage output in 1v1 scenarios against other tier3 battlecruisers. Remember the other new battlecruisers have a comparatively low signature radius (180-200) and high speed to mitigate damage output. If you want to test this ship against its natural targets, please try battleships/capitals instead
  • Giving this ship another hybrid bonus threatens the Rokh, while possibly make it better than the Talos for close range combat




Well but we also have t considder that this ships natural terrain has to be pvp, while Rokh and Raven generaly are non pvp oriented (cause they suck in comparison to others).

Agreed in not adding a damage bonus to the Naga, as with 8 launchers its no need, but yet it needs some kind of explosion radius/explosionvelocity bonus, as without it renders the naga almost completely useles against non BS ships, and even against those, it cant unleash its whole damage potential, except maybe against the abaddon or the Rokh, becasue of this issue. This leaves him completely outdamaged by the AC tornado, the Pulse Oracle, and the BlasterB talos, while having lesser versatility against smaller targets, being slower, but equal in resistance.

At least as cruise misile platform, it could work as a long range bombardment ship, what would give it some kind of use.
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#234 - 2011-11-07 19:46:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Hungry Eyes
Camios wrote:
(the 'nado with 2 nanofibers and MWD overloaded goes at 2700 m/s), and I think that a Vaga would be better run if he sees a tornado.




this is absolutely goddamn ridiculous. why are these BC's moving faster than HACs, and able to hit at BS ranges? Do not let this go live. BC should move at BC speed. 1500m/s nano'd, max. plus overheat, never to pass 1900m/s.

Naga: as someone mentioned, torps simply arent used in pvp because theyre horrible. they have a niche role against large targets, but thats it. get with the times guys What?
Phantomania
Lonely Trek
#235 - 2011-11-07 19:47:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Phantomania
Well, my conclusion is, if the Tornado can destroy Medium Drones, then Cruise Missiles on the Naga is justified, real simple!

If thats not acceptable, then maybe the Tornado, Oracle and Talos need serious nerfing so they can't kill anything smaller than BS's!
Cyvhiros
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#236 - 2011-11-07 19:52:47 UTC
Phantomania wrote:
Well, my conclusion is, if the Tornado can destroy Medium Drones, then Cruise Missiles on the Naga is justified, real simple!

If thats not acceptable, then maybe the Tornado, Oracle and Talos need serious nerfing so they can't kill anything smaller than BS's!



+1, completely agree, if not the only pvp role that naga will cover will be decorating the hangar, as many other caldari ships do.
Cyvhiros
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#237 - 2011-11-07 19:53:23 UTC
Phantomania wrote:
Well, my conclusion is, if the Tornado can destroy Medium Drones, then Cruise Missiles on the Naga is justified, real simple!

If thats not acceptable, then maybe the Tornado, Oracle and Talos need serious nerfing so they can't kill anything smaller than BS's!



+1, completely agree, if not getting such and improvement, the only pvp role that naga will cover will be decorating the hangar, as many other caldari ships do.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#238 - 2011-11-07 19:55:14 UTC
The tornado should lose its fall off bonus, and probably not for a tracking bonus too unless the slot layout changed.

If the Tornado and Oracle stays as it is, you'd probably have to give the Talos and Naga drones and extra slots just to offer a little something extra, that's unless you can figure something out for hybrids.

Additionally, there would be absolutely no problem with having the Naga fire cruise missles, especially when large pulses behave more like uber medium rails at optimal and quake has 125km fall off with 3x tcs

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#239 - 2011-11-07 19:59:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
:words:


I'm glad you guys are trying to work on blasters / Gallente ships. I'm gonna re-post a thing I posted https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=30214 re: how to fix Gallente / blasterboats:

Ganthrithor wrote:
tl;dr: Make all Gallente / blasterboats the second-fastest ships in the game, and the most agile. Give them bonuses to AB speed that allow them to do MWD-speeds using afterburners, thus rendering them scram-immune and suitable for closerange engagements. Either further-increase the tracking of blasters or give them web-strength or scram-range bonuses that allow them to shut down the speed of hostile ships more effectively and stay on top of them during fights. Adjust slot layouts so that shield-tanked, speed-based fits are possible without totally gimping tank / tackle.

Doing this would provide significant enough advantages / capabilities that going into scram range to fight would be a) possible, and b) less than suicidal. It would actually make Gallente extremely fun to fly.


With regard to the Talos specifically, I think the obvious solution to its problems is to trade a low slot for 1-2 more midslots. This would allow the ship to fit a minimal shield tank, point, and web. I was graphing DPS earlier today and against anything smaller than a battleship it really is critical that the Talos fit a web if it wants to do more than 200 dps. It's also painfully obvious that, as you pointed out, there's no way to get proper combat performance out of the Talos while armor-tanking it.

You should turn Gallente into a mixed-role, split-skills race much like Minmatar currently are (for Min you have to train projectile turrets, missiles, nav skills, shield tanking skills, and armor tanking skills to fly their ship lineup properly, as compared to, say, Amarr, where all you need to train are armor tanks and lasers). Some of their boats could be active-armor tank bonused brawling ships (like the Hyperion, Myrm, Domi, Ishtar), while others could be set up to be fast and nimble knife-fighting ships that fit shield tanks (Talos, Brutix, Deimos, Megathron) . All of them should get the afterburner bonus I proposed in the other thread to make them useable inside scram/web range.

Personally I think that in addition to these changes, blasters should probably do as much dps as autocannons in proportion to their effective ranges-- ACs do 10-15% less dps but have 3x the range. Blasters should have a range that's 1/3 that of ACs, but they should track properly and do 3x the damage in exchange.

I also think it's important to keep in mind that nerfing other ships is probably not a good way to make Gallente "better." Viewed alone, ACs (the most complained-about "OP" weapon currently) are just fine-- they won't track at extreme close ranges, but track properly within their intended engagement ranges and can hit smaller ships for low-dps output at extreme ranges. Pulse lasers also don't seem terribly problematic. I don't have that much experience with missiles, but they don't seem too bad from the receiving end. All you need to do is either keep blasters' current range, but increase their damage output and tracking to compensate and re-design their host ships to make closerange combat a practical option instead of a suicidal gimmick.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#240 - 2011-11-07 20:00:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
Also, as it stands, these things will cost as much as tier 1 battleships to manufacture - when you consider this, how strong/weak should they be? How niche can they be before generally becoming underwhelming?

I still strongly believe that these ships should enter the game as tech 2 ships. Because in that arena specialization is easier to balance because you have a few more options.

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