These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Wylee Coyote
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#281 - 2011-11-08 03:32:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Wylee Coyote
Mariner6 wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
TALOS




Thanks for responding and staying engaged in your thread. It really make a difference, at least to me, to see some kind of CCP feedback regularly in the threads. After 50 so pages in the Hybrid thread with no response makes one start to feel people are just talking to a wall.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29692&p=10
Currently at ten pages only (four less than this thread as of this post), an a good three of those pages have nothing to do with hybrids, the point of the thread.
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#282 - 2011-11-08 03:39:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Gypsio III wrote:
So how to solve this? Well, some people have called for an explosion velocity bonus, but explosion radius is also a problem, so explosion radius would be considerably more useful. Alternatively, you can just increase the Naga's raw torp DPS output, under the principle that, with the web and tackle support, it should be devastating. A 25% ROF bonus would take the 948 DPS (CN ammo, 3x BCS) to 1264 DPS... that might be a bit much... or maybe not, considering the difficulties of application to non-BS targets... plus being the slowest of its class it should have some firepower advantage, after all. A 25% damage bonus would be 1185 DPS. These numbers require 3x BCS though, so the absence of a DC takes a big chunk of EHP out.

TLDR - torps good against BS but not so hot against BCs, many BC targets but few BS targets, relatively low raw damage on Naga, suggest 25% ROF bonus to give it really good EFT damage that's hard to apply.

They already stated that they don't want explosion velocity because it makes hitting smaller ships easier. How much worse would explosion radius be? MUCH.

And a 25% ROF bonus would give it an absolutely hideous advantage over current Ravens; in an ideal situation, which is more common than you'd think, this means a properly fit and supported Naga could put out something like 1660 DPS with rage torpedoes alone, overheated. That's the same exact damage projection as the Raven State Issue.

I like the small bonus to explosion velocity best, and I don't think that it was overpowered or would give the Naga much of an advantage against smaller targets.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#283 - 2011-11-08 03:42:15 UTC
Wylee Coyote wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
TALOS




Thanks for responding and staying engaged in your thread. It really make a difference, at least to me, to see some kind of CCP feedback regularly in the threads. After 50 so pages in the Hybrid thread with no response makes one start to feel people are just talking to a wall.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29692&p=10
Currently at ten pages only (four less than this thread as of this post), an a good three of those pages have nothing to do with hybrids, the point of the thread.

He's probably referring to an earlier, player-posted thread full of speculation prior to any sort of announcement about specifics from CCP. Complaining that they didn't talk there is like complaining that Putin doesn't answer your Christmas cards.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#284 - 2011-11-08 03:45:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
People who are whining about the new BCs being fast are dumb-- these ships have seriously minimal tank-- without speed they'd die incredibly quickly. They're going to be fairly dangerous to cruisers. Hint-- fight them with small ships (frigs) or big ships (battleships). Frigs can rip them to bits with impunity (lol large gun tracking) provided their pilots aren't completely ******** (ie, lights MWD, burns directly at BC with zero transversal) and any real battleship (think pulse apoc) will force one of these ships off in 2-3 volleys. At one point while testing on sisi I warped into a combat beacon at range and had a daredevil land on top of me a second later. He literally soloed my Tornado. These ships are not impossible to counter, you baddies.
Alsyth
#285 - 2011-11-08 04:54:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Alsyth
Hate these forums which don't post my answer and don't save it either.

Gypsio III wrote:
[...]


Do the math with Rage torps. This is unfair, other short range weapon high damage ammos are often useful, rage torps are not.







Proposed solution for t3 BCs : baby dreads.
First of all, give Naga its cruises back. Reduce their speed/agility back to BC level.

Allow them to fit "baby-siege module", hi-slot :
- 2 min activation time
- +200% damage for turrets/missiles. (like if they had 21 guns)
- malus -75% tracking / +25% explosion radius and -75% explosion velocity
- malus -80% scan resolution
- agility/speed bonus ? (make them faster than most cruisers, slower than mwd destros/vagas)
- 50% sig radius reduction, allowing them to speed tank like small and fast cruiser.
- can't be remote repped

Making them :

-POS/Caps killers. No caps can hit them except for carriers with small drones (and even with their thin tank, you need many drones to counter a full fleet properly). Might be a counter to capital hotdrops ?

-unable to hit small targets except with godlike piloting skills to reduce transversal (impossible for missile naga, though)

-having a really hard time to hit BSs if not flown properly (transversal needs to be managed carefully even when hitting a BS), but they can speed tank and outdamage them.

-won't be really good at sniping or gatecamps, really slow locktime, bad tracking... Make the siege module expensive (25M ?) to refrain people from suicide ganking in them too often ?









Of course this is a possibility, and we could still fly them without the module, and they would still be useful (unlike dreads).
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
#286 - 2011-11-08 05:06:51 UTC
Sirinda wrote:
There's no sense in trying to tighten two different screws at the same time.

Fix the underlying problem with hybrids first, then go about balancing the Talos with its brethren. Any other approach to this problem is doomed from the start.


This.
Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#287 - 2011-11-08 05:22:55 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:
[list]
  • 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.

  • TORNADO:

    Is it overpowered? Well, that's tied to the comments made on the Talos. Considering swapping the falloff bonus to tracking (but it could hit smaller targets even more easily) or just reducing the falloff bonus to 5-7.5%. Again, nothing is fixed yet.




    Have you seen the video of the Tornado killing drones and frigates? You need to be clear... either the Tornado is going against the intended role of the T3 cruisers or the Naga should get the explosion velocity bonus back.
    Iam Widdershins
    Victory or Whatever
    #288 - 2011-11-08 05:54:36 UTC
    Nemesor wrote:
    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:
    [list]
  • 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.

  • TORNADO:

    Is it overpowered? Well, that's tied to the comments made on the Talos. Considering swapping the falloff bonus to tracking (but it could hit smaller targets even more easily) or just reducing the falloff bonus to 5-7.5%. Again, nothing is fixed yet.




    Have you seen the video of the Tornado killing drones and frigates? You need to be clear... either the Tornado is going against the intended role of the T3 cruisers or the Naga should get the explosion velocity bonus back.

    The Tornado will probably be nerfed back to 5-7.5 percent falloff per level, I'd be fine with that; I hope the Naga gets its bonus back, too.

    Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

    Cosimo Medici
    Baxter Inc
    #289 - 2011-11-08 06:14:14 UTC
    OK, here is my thoughts about those new BCs. I had tried out 3 of 4 of those ships what we supposed to be gifted to. Well, we'll be gifted with Tornado only, others are just bonus stuff, no more. You had words 'giev us teh Durricane with very big guns' - 'ere we are. 'Live fast, die young, take the bad guys in the coffin with yourself!' - matari style. 800mm's Autocannons II, sufficient PG and CPU. Nanofibers are fine for matari. More than that, you may fit artillery into enemy's *** too.

    Others BCs are not so good. Now we don't need Harbinger or Prophecy, but if we ever need something almost no-tanked with awful fitting, great issues with capacitor and somewhat good damage, we have Harbinger, technically. And - surprise, surprise! - Harb may hit cruiser-sized stuff. Well, I don't know exactly, 'cause it's BAD for Amarr to come in fight without tanking.

    Well, we have Armageddon, it's cheap, big, hard-to-kill damage-dealing ship. It may allow itself to be slow-****, 'cause, 'yknow, it's AMARR, we have dignity to calmly kill that guy while he chews through half of our armor. Oracle have no armor at all. What's it? Some form of matari sabotage and our own BPCs were stealthly traded for fail ones?

    What about Caldari one? OK. 'TORPEDOES!', 'NO, RAILGUNS!'. Well, while caldari pilots have teh Drake, you may do any **** with Naga. Set it with sentry drones if you like, change it once in a month, a week, or a day. It's no problem, cool story, bros, we have the DRAKE!

    Anyone have any ideas and REASONS how to properly fit and use Oracle and Naga?
    Kiev Duran
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #290 - 2011-11-08 06:20:00 UTC
    Cosimo Medici wrote:
    OK, here is my thoughts about those new BCs. I had tried out 3 of 4 of those ships what we supposed to be gifted to. Well, we'll be gifted with Tornado only, others are just bonus stuff, no more. You had words 'giev us teh Durricane with very big guns' - 'ere we are. 'Live fast, die young, take the bad guys in the coffin with yourself!' - matari style. 800mm's Autocannons II, sufficient PG and CPU. Nanofibers are fine for matari. More than that, you may fit artillery into enemy's *** too.

    Others BCs are not so good. Now we don't need Harbinger or Prophecy, but if we ever need something almost no-tanked with awful fitting, great issues with capacitor and somewhat good damage, we have Harbinger, technically. And - surprise, surprise! - Harb may hit cruiser-sized stuff. Well, I don't know exactly, 'cause it's BAD for Amarr to come in fight without tanking.

    Well, we have Armageddon, it's cheap, big, hard-to-kill damage-dealing ship. It may allow itself to be slow-****, 'cause, 'yknow, it's AMARR, we have dignity to calmly kill that guy while he chews through half of our armor. Oracle have no armor at all. What's it? Some form of matari sabotage and our own BPCs were stealthly traded for fail ones?

    What about Caldari one? OK. 'TORPEDOES!', 'NO, RAILGUNS!'. Well, while caldari pilots have teh Drake, you may do any **** with Naga. Set it with sentry drones if you like, change it once in a month, a week, or a day. It's no problem, cool story, bros, we have the DRAKE!

    Anyone have any ideas and REASONS how to properly fit and use Oracle and Naga?



    I can't make heads or tails of a single goddamned word of this. What are you trying to say?
    Cosimo Medici
    Baxter Inc
    #291 - 2011-11-08 06:52:26 UTC
    Kiev Duran wrote:


    I can't make heads or tails of a single goddamned word of this. What are you trying to say?



    What I want to say, is following: there's plenty of people who are waiting for Tornado and clearly know how It may be used and will be used. If it's stats will be tuned down, this ship will be useful still because it fits into common matari way to fly ships, as cane or phoon, or nano-pest.

    Others are thrown into just for 'symmetry'. Only as emty entity for market and papers and tick in documentation. 'Work completed'
    no 'intended' role for them, no sense for using them. They are just deadborn frankenstein's monsters.
    Destination SkillQueue
    Doomheim
    #292 - 2011-11-08 07:19:32 UTC
    Cosimo Medici wrote:
    Kiev Duran wrote:


    I can't make heads or tails of a single goddamned word of this. What are you trying to say?



    What I want to say, is following: there's plenty of people who are waiting for Tornado and clearly know how It may be used and will be used. If it's stats will be tuned down, this ship will be useful still because it fits into common matari way to fly ships, as cane or phoon, or nano-pest.

    Others are thrown into just for 'symmetry'. Only as emty entity for market and papers and tick in documentation. 'Work completed'
    no 'intended' role for them, no sense for using them. They are just deadborn frankenstein's monsters.


    Well that is the inherent problem in designing ships for a specific narrow role. Instead of designing 4 good ships you design a role and make 4 racial variants of that. One of them(with luck 2) will always be the best at it and the rest can be pretty much ignored. Since this time the designed role relies heavily on minmatar strengths, it's natural that minmatar is one of the better choices. I'm not saying it doesn't need some tweaking, but it's unlikely to change the outcome, since the role naturally favors them.
    Pattern Clarc
    Citeregis
    #293 - 2011-11-08 08:04:20 UTC
    Destination SkillQueue wrote:
    Cosimo Medici wrote:
    Kiev Duran wrote:


    I can't make heads or tails of a single goddamned word of this. What are you trying to say?



    What I want to say, is following: there's plenty of people who are waiting for Tornado and clearly know how It may be used and will be used. If it's stats will be tuned down, this ship will be useful still because it fits into common matari way to fly ships, as cane or phoon, or nano-pest.

    Others are thrown into just for 'symmetry'. Only as emty entity for market and papers and tick in documentation. 'Work completed'
    no 'intended' role for them, no sense for using them. They are just deadborn frankenstein's monsters.


    Well that is the inherent problem in designing ships for a specific narrow role. Instead of designing 4 good ships you design a role and make 4 racial variants of that. One of them(with luck 2) will always be the best at it and the rest can be pretty much ignored. Since this time the designed role relies heavily on minmatar strengths, it's natural that minmatar is one of the better choices. I'm not saying it doesn't need some tweaking, but it's unlikely to change the outcome, since the role naturally favors them.

    Good post. May be worth reconsidering the roles of ships whose racial traits are diametrically opposed to them successfully completing that role.

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

    Phantomania
    Lonely Trek
    #294 - 2011-11-08 08:24:20 UTC
    I have another option for the new ships. Make them T2 Heavy Stealth Bombers. They all use Torps with velocity bonus and covert cloaky! P
    Rip Minner
    ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
    #295 - 2011-11-08 08:28:16 UTC
    Pattern Clarc wrote:
    Destination SkillQueue wrote:
    Cosimo Medici wrote:
    Kiev Duran wrote:


    I can't make heads or tails of a single goddamned word of this. What are you trying to say?



    What I want to say, is following: there's plenty of people who are waiting for Tornado and clearly know how It may be used and will be used. If it's stats will be tuned down, this ship will be useful still because it fits into common matari way to fly ships, as cane or phoon, or nano-pest.

    Others are thrown into just for 'symmetry'. Only as emty entity for market and papers and tick in documentation. 'Work completed'
    no 'intended' role for them, no sense for using them. They are just deadborn frankenstein's monsters.


    Well that is the inherent problem in designing ships for a specific narrow role. Instead of designing 4 good ships you design a role and make 4 racial variants of that. One of them(with luck 2) will always be the best at it and the rest can be pretty much ignored. Since this time the designed role relies heavily on minmatar strengths, it's natural that minmatar is one of the better choices. I'm not saying it doesn't need some tweaking, but it's unlikely to change the outcome, since the role naturally favors them.

    Good post. May be worth reconsidering the roles of ships whose racial traits are diametrically opposed to them successfully completing that role.



    Ya the sad thing is I thought that the Cane already filled this role very well. I was not made aware that Minmatar were hurting in any way what so ever out side of capital ships but in that departement they just go it's ok the one thing are Gallete allys do right is Capitals so were cool.

    Is it a rock point a lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship point a lazer at it and profit. I dont see any problems here.

    Sam Bowein
    Sense Amid Madness
    #296 - 2011-11-08 08:31:19 UTC
    Gypsio III wrote:
    TLDR - torps good against BS but not so hot against BCs, many BC targets but few BS targets, relatively low raw damage on Naga, suggest 25% ROF bonus to give it really good EFT damage that's hard to apply.

    That's a very good summary of the issue with the Naga.

    But I think that, much like the Talos is bad because hybrids are broken, the Naga is bad because torps are a little bit broken too.
    If you look at large guns, they have a 400m signature resolution. Why do torps have 450m ??
    As your number indicate, you need a web AND a painter to do full damage to some battleships… This should not be: as much as blasters should be the highest close-range damage turrets, torpedoes should be the highest damaging weapons to battleships.

    Slightly reducing the torp explosion radius (400m for normal, 500 for rage, mayber 350 for javelin) would give a working role for the Naga AND fiixing the Raven for PVP at the same time.

    You would still need either a web (close range, big effect) or a painter (long range, medium effect) to do full damage, but not both, as it should be !
    Jackie Fisher
    Syrkos Technologies
    Joint Venture Conglomerate
    #297 - 2011-11-08 09:19:18 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
    • Giving this ship another hybrid bonus threatens the Rokh, while possibly make it better than the Talos for close range combat



    Whilst I understand why you wouldn't wish to make them better than their battleship equivalents in damage terms you have allowed the Tornado to do exactly this - it has same/more damage than the Minmatar gun ships but also an additional gun related bonus.

    If you wish to be consistent the Tornado should lose its second gun bonus. Not sure what you could replace it with - maybe 'Nagafy' it with 8 torpedo launchers and bonus (everyone remember to +1 this idea Big smile).

    Overall is their any reason why these new ships should have the same large weapons output as their races best battleships?

    If you reduced the highs to 6-7 you could have hulls that are between current BC and battleship damage but provide more flexibility in selecting the bonuses as it would be easier to justify a (for example) fall off or tracking bonus on a Tornado if it was doing less DPS than a Maelstrom.

    Fear God and Thread Nought

    Gecko O'Bac
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #298 - 2011-11-08 09:47:58 UTC
    Gypsio III wrote:

    TLDR - torps good against BS but not so hot against BCs, many BC targets but few BS targets, relatively low raw damage on Naga, suggest 25% ROF bonus to give it really good EFT damage that's hard to apply.


    Well, let's ignore rage torpedoes since most T2 short range ammo sucks anyway (with rage torps you get around a 25, 30% or more damage reduction if the target battleship is standing completely still...) and let's take a look at how torpedoes would fare against battlecruisers...

    I'm using a spreadsheet set up with stafen's formula, so I won't include details, just the final results. Calcs are done with lvl 5 skill in mind, both on the target and on the attacker using no mods (don't want to look at umpteen diffent fits)

    Harbinger, Prophecy: -64% damage
    Ferox, Drake: -59% damage
    Brutix, Myrmidon: -59% damage
    Cyclone, Hurricane: (unsurprisingly) - 70% damage

    I don't have T3 data handy, but since the signature is around the same but the speed is quite higher, the numbers would be even worse than these. With common mods the caldari ships would probably take the lead in damage taken, with gallente not far behind due to higher base signature. Minmatar ships will probably take even less damage than this due to the common use of speed mods (and in truth I doubt a Naga would actually be able to catch a minmatar BC, but that is another issue).

    Even with a lvl 5 skilled Target Painter II we are speaking of a 50% reduction in damage on average, with no ability whatsoever to hit smaller classes in any meaningful way.

    With a boost in damage (if they don't want us to hit smaller classes of ships), they could be ALMOST on par with other weapon systems, except for the AutoCannons, which track even smaller targets WAY too easily.

    There are also issues with the ship itself: the Naga suffers from the low speed problem of gallente blasterboats, with the added problem of having the slowest base speed and (I think) worst mass/agility modifiers. Sure, we don't get mass addictions from plates, but we still start in a much worse position than the gallente to begin with.

    So, the Naga needs a lot of work. I doubt close range caldari are ever going to work, there are simply much better competitors... At least give Caldari ships a strong advantage on range. And I don't mean MORE range, which is useless.
    Herr Wilkus
    Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
    #299 - 2011-11-08 10:40:23 UTC
    I say, good show and the Tier 3 Battlecruisers, all the way around. I am quite happy.

    Only change I would make on the Tornado:

    Remove the falloff bonus, and pattern its bonuses after the Hurricane:

    5% ROF/level. 5% Damage/level.

    I'd like to see a Glass Cannon, emphasizing the Arty role, maybe a pinch more Grid to accomodate.

    Falloff, meh, thats what Rigs, TE's and Barrage L are for.

    Thanks for doing such a swell job on the Tornado so far, BTW. Looking forward to building and flying these things. Big smile

    Sirinda
    Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
    #300 - 2011-11-08 11:07:42 UTC
    Kiev Duran wrote:
    Sirinda wrote:
    There's no sense in trying to tighten two different screws at the same time.

    Fix the underlying problem with hybrids first, then go about balancing the Talos with its brethren. Any other approach to this problem is doomed from the start.


    The problem with that is how intertwined a racial weapon system and racial ships are. On one hand we have those who claim that there is nothing wrong with blasters and that fixing the only ships that blasters go on would fix blasters, while on the other you have those who claim there is nothing wrong with blaster ships and by fixing the only weapon system blaster boats use would fix blaster boats.

    Blasters are used almost exclusively by Gallente, ships that use blasters are undoubtedly sub-par.
    Railguns are used almost exclusively by Caldari, ships that use railguns are undoubtedly sub-par.

    So what's really broken? Are good ships cursed with bad guns, or have good guns been given to poor ships?

    Most likely is that both hybrids and hybrid ships are each a fair bit underpowered, compounding with themselves and making the situation a great deal more complicated and delicate than if only one or the other were underwhelming. CCP likely either suspects this as well or has evidence to support it, and while I'll always be frustrated with how long it takes them to address issues that the player-base seems to spot on Sisi, I'm relieved that they're showing restraint and actually attempting balance rather than the heavy handed buff sprees that they were once infamous for. So CCP can take the time they need to fix hybrids, so long as they do it right and don't just give me a button I can push to win PvP.


    That's exactly what I've been saying. I was just trying to make people realize that balancing the Talos as a ship won't work if the underlying problems with hybrids, be they caused by the guns or the ships, will not work.