These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Black Ops Battleship Rebalance

First post
Author
The Djentleman Paulson
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#41 - 2013-09-14 13:24:47 UTC
NEED

MORE

SCAN

RESOLUTION

KTHANKS
Jeffrey Donovan
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#42 - 2013-09-14 13:58:10 UTC
I think we are in agreement no drones more fire power!!!!!!!
also maybe the widow can have rail atts instead of missles not unless you give it uber missle velocity
some times there isnt enough time till the missles hit!
Trii Seo
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2013-09-14 14:41:40 UTC
+1, definitely. The only thing better than blowing **** up is blowing **** up all sneaky-like. Shifting firepower from drones to guns would be a good change, especially as far as the Sin is concerned.

Strongly agree with the EHP change, resists preferably. Now, full-blown T2 profiling is bad and could lead to them performing well as line ships in a fleet but current setup makes it more difficult to work RR (not impossible, it is possible doable and been done).

The support/combat blops thing is a really good idea (and a conveniently placed WE WANT MORE SHIPS TO PLAY WITH. I mean, Khanid coloured blackops abaddon - think about how awesome that would look.) but designing it is literally treading on thin ice. You'd need to rebalance the current and introduce the new without making the current iteration useless/relegated to bridge pigs.

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph

Jayne Fillon
#44 - 2013-09-14 15:03:19 UTC
The Djentleman Paulson wrote:
NEED

MORE

SCAN

RESOLUTION

KTHANKS


As both you and Luscius Uta mention, this is directly related to the cloak itself still reducing the scan res and velocity of the various black ops ships. Lucius suggested a reduction based on skill level so that there was still a point to having shiny cloaks on black ops, but I think those should really be relegated to ships like capitals and whatnot where it makes sense to drop a couple billion for a slight increase in scan res and the myriad of other penalties that a cloak creates.

I still believe the -100% to scanres and velocity penalties is needed.

Besides, I have never seen anything shinier than a DG/CN cloak on a black ops before.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Zachev Trace
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#45 - 2013-09-14 19:58:26 UTC
Very well thought out post. The implementation suggested sound solid, and the problems listed are accurate.

+1.
Evanga
DoctorOzz
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#46 - 2013-09-14 21:35:18 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
The Djentleman Paulson wrote:
NEED

MORE

SCAN

RESOLUTION

KTHANKS


As both you and Luscius Uta mention, this is directly related to the cloak itself still reducing the scan res and velocity of the various black ops ships. Lucius suggested a reduction based on skill level so that there was still a point to having shiny cloaks on black ops, but I think those should really be relegated to ships like capitals and whatnot where it makes sense to drop a couple billion for a slight increase in scan res and the myriad of other penalties that a cloak creates.

I still believe the -100% to scanres and velocity penalties is needed.

Besides, I have never seen anything shinier than a DG/CN cloak on a black ops before.


The widow needs more scanres
John 1135
#47 - 2013-09-15 00:36:03 UTC  |  Edited by: John 1135
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Black Ops Bonuses

• Gallente should receive a range bonus to warp disruptors, and a bonus to speed and/or agility.
• Caldari should receive a range bonus to ECM, as well as a bonus to ECM strength and ECM burst.
• Minmatar should receive a bonus to web range, as well as web velocity factor. (Possibly OP?)
• Amarr should receive a bonus to energy neutralizing amount, not range, and capacitor amount.

Role Bonuses

• 100% reduction in penalty to scan resolution and velocity when using an improved cloak.
• Ability to fit covert jump portal generators and covert cyno generators.
• Cloak reactivation delay reduced to 5 seconds.
• No targeting delay after decloaking.
• Increase in velocity while cloaked.

Generally agree with the direction. But two thoughts.

  1. The Amarr bonus is of low value relative to the others. Gallente have the highly significant point bonus. Caldari can turn off support logi and incoming fire of nearly any sort. Minmatar again have tackle. For all of those modules you pretty much know when it's working. A drain bonus by contrast is unimportant to some ships, doesn't pin down your targets, and it is difficult to know when it is working unless you give up another slot to a scanner. I would suggest a bonus to neutralised amount AND range, or a bonus to neutralised amount AND a bonus to TDs (which are also conditional). It is difficult to balance conditional modules compared to broader spectrum ones, because of course they shouldn't be totally OTP or they invalidate the ships they counter. But only a strong neut bonus would really be worthwhile.
  2. The cloaking bonuses are only needed if the BLOPs class is not seen as essentially a hot-dropping class. One option would be to give it up for some resilience, range, fuel reduction, or gun bonuses. If it is kept - then that would be to support CCP's concept of a dual role. I guess a warp-cloaked battleship might find a niche for itself...
Jayne Fillon
#48 - 2013-09-15 14:02:07 UTC
John 1135 wrote:
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Black Ops Bonuses

• Gallente should receive a range bonus to warp disruptors, and a bonus to speed and/or agility.
• Caldari should receive a range bonus to ECM, as well as a bonus to ECM strength and ECM burst.
• Minmatar should receive a bonus to web range, as well as web velocity factor. (Possibly OP?)
• Amarr should receive a bonus to energy neutralizing amount, not range, and capacitor amount.

Role Bonuses

• 100% reduction in penalty to scan resolution and velocity when using an improved cloak.
• Ability to fit covert jump portal generators and covert cyno generators.
• Cloak reactivation delay reduced to 5 seconds.
• No targeting delay after decloaking.
• Increase in velocity while cloaked.

Generally agree with the direction. But two thoughts.

  1. The Amarr bonus is of low value relative to the others. Gallente have the highly significant point bonus. Caldari can turn off support logi and incoming fire of nearly any sort. Minmatar again have tackle. For all of those modules you pretty much know when it's working. A drain bonus by contrast is unimportant to some ships, doesn't pin down your targets, and it is difficult to know when it is working unless you give up another slot to a scanner. I would suggest a bonus to neutralised amount AND range, or a bonus to neutralised amount AND a bonus to TDs (which are also conditional). It is difficult to balance conditional modules compared to broader spectrum ones, because of course they shouldn't be totally OTP or they invalidate the ships they counter. But only a strong neut bonus would really be worthwhile.
  2. The cloaking bonuses are only needed if the BLOPs class is not seen as essentially a hot-dropping class. One option would be to give it up for some resilience, range, fuel reduction, or gun bonuses. If it is kept - then that would be to support CCP's concept of a dual role. I guess a warp-cloaked battleship might find a niche for itself...


I'd disagree with your first point, in that the Amarr bonus is very significant. You argue that Caldari can turn off support logi, and although chance based, this is true. A neut ship, such as the bhaalgorn and the new armageddon serve much the same purpose except that it's not a chance based effect. Additionally, the power to turn active hardeners off on an enemy ship can make logi ineffective even if they do have capacitor remaining. This is extremely relevant when fighting capitals such as triage carriers.

I would be fine with the TD bonus in addition to the neut bonus, however that would make the blops as suggested less homogenized (and in my opinion, less balanced). The range bonus itself is also not required as most cases you would land on field in very close proximity to your target due to cyno, as well as a range bonus would be in direct conflict with the bhaalgorn in it's current form.

As for your second point, I couldn't have said it better nor more succinct:

Quote:
The cloaking bonuses are only needed if the BLOPs class is not seen as essentially a hot-dropping class.


I completely agree.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Saeka Tyr
Sanctuary of Shadows
#49 - 2013-09-16 02:50:43 UTC
I want a covert ops battleship more than anything else, even if it means that it is separate from the bridging black ops as currently designed.

Overall I like the proposed changes and want to see some blue/red feedback.
Beckett Firesnake
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2013-09-16 03:17:52 UTC
Black Ops are cloaky Battleships. They should not have the same roles thant the Recons.
To ECM there is the Falcon, to web there is the Rapier, etc...

Black Ops mission is to jump in a system behind the battlefront, destroy something and jump back before being catch.

Instead of making a bridge like the Titan, they should be able make a fleet jump where all the covert ops within 5000m(or anchored on him) would jump with him.

Oxide Ammar
#51 - 2013-09-16 07:43:17 UTC
Beckett Firesnake wrote:
Black Ops are cloaky Battleships. They should not have the same roles thant the Recons.
To ECM there is the Falcon, to web there is the Rapier, etc...


I agree with this part, giving stronger EWar role bonus to black ops is lazy approach to rebalance them, I think we have enough with this approach in frigs and cruiser between their t1 and t2 counters, we don't have to repeat that again to BS size.

We need new blood, something creative, something outside this repeatable progression between t1 and t2. We need something like what CCP proposed to Marauders rebalance. It doesn't have to be same idea but something new. Check the replies to CCP proposed idea most of it they never thought CCP will go in that way.

What I want to say it doesn't have to be always about changing slots layout, buff this and nerf that for every ship. I 'm nott proposing something but I hope CCP will do like what they did to Marauders.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.

Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#52 - 2013-09-16 09:35:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyaron wars
Jayne Fillon wrote:

TL;DR black ops are lame and in need of fixing, and I wrote some stuff about how to fix them.



Dear Sir,

I find your remarks regarding BO Battleships lame. According to what I saw on your killboard you haven't even tried using BO BS in combat. All those above mentioned in kind of irrelevant.

Look here:
Black Ops battleships are meant to be a snaky bastards created for catching capitals with pants down under safety of cynojammers etc. They fulfill their role very well. God damn they even kill a motherships (at least I managed to catch and kill it with my BO gang). Those ships performance is outstanding when it comes to brawling. Sins for example are most BO for having good amount of slots. There's variety of fits that ship can use. Redeemer has a clear role of high dps turret platform that is meant to jump in, melt any target it locks and get out. Panther is amazing ship to fly coz of it's bonuses. Shield fitted Panther is amazing ship, combination of speed and DPS on it is amazing. It is very nice this for bumping 2x remote repping carriers from each other for example, has nice utility highs for fitting 2x heavy neuts. Widow is more used in smaller BO gangs, only downside of that ship is heavy requirement of BO 5, with that skill ship jams pretty much everything and also can provide around 900 DPS. After introduction of MJDs and BO jump range buff they became even better. Those ships do not require any kind of changes. If you don't see blob of those ships that doesn't mean ship is broken.
So once again those ships are not meant for blob warfare, they do are not lame, they really do their job well.
As for bridging BO - You never jump bridging BO on target unless u want to lose it. Bridging BO has specific fit and requires different style of piloting.

If you really want to see strength of Black Ops Bbattleships feel free to contact me, I will provide you numerous examples of ganks, small and medium gang engagements (over 30 man in hostile gang) with explanations, killmails and some video footage.
CorsairV
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2013-09-16 10:07:02 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
This post didn't address why a Black-Ops should not be able to warp cloaked? I think it should. I don't see how it would be any more dangerous (actually it would be less dangerous) than a cloaky T3 which has more EHP, smaller sig, more dps and can use nullifier.

Simply because it can be used in one role - bridging - for one style of play (fleets) should not mean it can't be employed in other ways (covert ops) for other forms of play - solo, small gang roams.

I know which I'd rather have drop in on me, definitely the solo covert ops, rather than the fleet ops.


I was wondering this too, but how much would something with a battleship's align time benefit? They would still be able to choose their engagements but it would probably be hard to disengage from a fight.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2013-09-16 10:17:51 UTC
CorsairV wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
This post didn't address why a Black-Ops should not be able to warp cloaked? I think it should. I don't see how it would be any more dangerous (actually it would be less dangerous) than a cloaky T3 which has more EHP, smaller sig, more dps and can use nullifier.

Simply because it can be used in one role - bridging - for one style of play (fleets) should not mean it can't be employed in other ways (covert ops) for other forms of play - solo, small gang roams.

I know which I'd rather have drop in on me, definitely the solo covert ops, rather than the fleet ops.


I was wondering this too, but how much would something with a battleship's align time benefit? They would still be able to choose their engagements but it would probably be hard to disengage from a fight.


Essentially nothing changes, can't cloak while locked anyway. You could be a little more choosy with the attack though.
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#55 - 2013-09-16 11:28:16 UTC
I have deleted some spam from this thread.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents

Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#56 - 2013-09-16 12:23:02 UTC
Quote:
As for bridging BO - You never jump bridging BO on target unless u want to lose it. Bridging BO has specific fit and requires different style of piloting.

Don't you mean no piloting whatsoever. Right mouse click open bridge is not piloting. I don't know anyone that doesn't use an alt for the bridging blops.

Perhaps that is the proper balance, that a bridging fit means it can't do anything else. But I don't think that fit needs to be that useless.

Some success in combat is not the same as the OP begin wrong. For example with the fits you used, which bonuses were you taking advantage of?

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#57 - 2013-09-16 16:04:56 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Quote:
As for bridging BO - You never jump bridging BO on target unless u want to lose it. Bridging BO has specific fit and requires different style of piloting.

Don't you mean no piloting whatsoever. Right mouse click open bridge is not piloting. I don't know anyone that doesn't use an alt for the bridging blops.

Perhaps that is the proper balance, that a bridging fit means it can't do anything else. But I don't think that fit needs to be that useless.

Some success in combat is not the same as the OP begin wrong. For example with the fits you used, which bonuses were you taking advantage of?


The key issue with bridging BO is not BO or fit itself but people you bridge through. Since most of bomber pilots are not that intelligent thus they use to go through bridge with MWD on, recons do same from time to time, bridging Tech 3 is complete pain in the butt. So based on all these factors bridging BO is forced to fit for full rack of cargo expanders sacrificing it's tank. It carries fuel to quickly refuel in case of above mentioned **** up. So there's no matter how you will rebalance fit you still will have huge issues with bridging because of said issue. That is sole reason why I NEVER take bombers or recons or any scrub in cheap ship with my BO gangs. It's all about defining role of BO in gang - You either drop pimp battleships on top of your enemy and risk to lose it due to counter drop or bridge 100 useless scrubs in 20mil ships and don't risk that much. I personally prefer to utilize BO itself as a DPS platform, it gives me ability to engage broader variety of gangs rather then with bombers. Only issue that this T2 battleship has is it's tank. You have to invest a lot of ISK in order to make it same as regular T1 meta 3 BS. But moment of surprise attack compensates that problem. If target is tough to crack or impossible to engage you just don't drop it...
Marlin Spikes
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2013-09-16 16:41:01 UTC
I agree that these ships can be used in small gangs, but there is still much room for improvement. A BO ship would not be my first choice of PVP ships - not in its current state.

I'm not sure if I agree with your intellegence statement of bomber pilots. Stealth bombers fleets require a relatively high degree of practice and coordination that isn't normally found in other types of fleets. New pilots have to be trained on how to fly in a fleet AND how to fly a stealth bomber.

I'm sorry to hear that the bomber pilots in your fleets are making those kinds of mistakes. if you don't have the time to train them, maybe have them join Bombers Bar so they can learn the basics.

Bombers Rule!!!

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#59 - 2013-09-16 17:04:53 UTC
+1 from me, but I must take a small issue with the statement regarding the cov ops cloak on the BLOPS BS.

Quote:
Under no circumstance can I imagine black ops requiring the ability to fit a covert cloak beyond hunting solo or in a small gang; however, conducting PvE in hostile territory would become feasible much in the same way that covert Tengus in Venal are a common sight. There is certainly no group benefit in true black ops fleet (this is a multiplayer game, after all) in having the bridging ship able to warp cloaked – if anything it provides a much needed vulnerability to a class that would otherwise be nigh uncatchable.


With bubbles, the black ops BS would require more time to escape while cloaked. They would be much easier targets to catch than strategic cruisers or other cov ops cloak fitted ships. If they were locked, they would be unable to cloak still. There is no reason that the king of BLOPS should not be able to warp cloaked with the fleet. Being stealthy, there really isn't any reason that any ship should have to be uncloaked before bridging or jumping, either.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Jayne Fillon
#60 - 2013-09-16 18:42:37 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
Beckett Firesnake wrote:
Black Ops are cloaky Battleships. They should not have the same roles thant the Recons.
To ECM there is the Falcon, to web there is the Rapier, etc...


I agree with this part, giving stronger EWar role bonus to black ops is lazy approach to rebalance them, I think we have enough with this approach in frigs and cruiser between their t1 and t2 counters, we don't have to repeat that again to BS size.

We need new blood, something creative, something outside this repeatable progression between t1 and t2. We need something like what CCP proposed to Marauders rebalance. It doesn't have to be same idea but something new. Check the replies to CCP proposed idea most of it they never thought CCP will go in that way.

What I want to say it doesn't have to be always about changing slots layout, buff this and nerf that for every ship. I 'm nott proposing something but I hope CCP will do like what they did to Marauders.


For a support type role, nothing really beats having those bonuses - which is why they should go on the bridging class of ship imho. Additionally, it's either an all or nothing approach the way I view it as the Widow is currently the odd one out in terms of the ship hulls having an ECM bonus whereas the redeemer is already used with neuts in the highs. A panther would benefit from having long range webs to augment it's artillery platform, and a speed bonused long scram sin would be an superb combo for countering ships like the machariel.

The more creative approach I would like to see CCP take is in the design and creation of the entirely new line of black ops - I only have half cooked ideas in that regard and don't want to even try to think of anything more specific, because CCP literally has free reign to create whatever they deem fit with no limitation or precedent set beyond the creation of the Bastion module for marauders which is a pretty damn cool feature.

So really, homogenization on the current line of black ops would add a lot of utility, whereas the creative, new, exciting roles for black ops should be reserved for the yet to be created lineup.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.