These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Pirate Faction Battleships

First post First post First post
Author
DHB WildCat
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#561 - 2014-04-16 01:44:45 UTC
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
Myrthiis wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:
Myrthiis wrote:
"Cassandra Aurilien " wrote:
You kind of miss the point of "balance". That's like NM pilots complaining that they can't match A Mach's DPS & tracking up close. (Hint - They can't.) There shouldn't be a "best" ship for everything, nor should all weapon systems have the same specs. The idea is to have ships which are viable for different roles, while still having some flexibility.


Once against numbers says ur wrong 800 MM track at 0.0594 for 1003 dps ,megapulse laser track at 0.0693 for 1051 dps ,and they can fit 2 sebo with scan resolution script meaning they lock faster without even reducing their tank or their mobility .


I'm not sure what combo of ammo & skills you are using for the DPS, but I show it higher for the Mach with comparable ammo.

885 EMP vs. 844 Multi with full skills. (4 HS/Gyros on each.) Faction, Hail vs. Conflag, they all work out higher on the Mach. Admittedly, it's not all applied unless you are really close. Throw in the extra drone DPS you can use on a Mach though... (Plus, your weapons don't eat cap.)

Tracking is .054 for a 800 vs .058 for a Mega pulse fit on a Nightmare. You are right, with a NM with 4 HS & two TE's vs the standard 4 Gyro, 3 TE setup on the Mach, the NM will track .00128 better.


I'm glad u realized ,and i ll repeat myself i don't whine over nightmare as it ll be a great and fun ship but as a mach lover i feel that if we don't move now ,we ll never see the field again and thats is something i ll fight against


I fly both. Before, I rarely had reason to use the NM. Now, there will be times I'll pull the NM out of the hangar, and times I'll pull the Mach out. I don't see the changes as that imbalanced, especially as no one used the NM for anything outside of PVE. It's been a shame, really.



I beg to differ good sir!
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
#562 - 2014-04-16 01:54:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Myrthiis
chaosgrimm wrote:
Myrthiis wrote:
chaosgrimm wrote:


To be fair you are comparing a tracking bonus to a falloff bonus and wanting changes so that the mach can be more like a nm is just silly.

If the mach had a tracking bonus instead of falloff bonus + maybe a few hull attr buffs to compensate for the reduced range, u'd have a ship uniquely different than the other pirates and the vargur, rather than a half baked nm clone


No in fact it is the total opposite .

you beg to differ:
Myrthiis wrote:

...
it ll just free mach pilot from the obligation to plug for a full genolution set + a 6 % grid implants just to match the range and the dps of the NM .


Myrthiis wrote:

There is no other Bs who need a 16 % grid plugging to work decently , as far as balance and variety matter those changes doesnt remove anything from anyone and will give a chance to the machariel to find a niche he was always designed for.


How is the Mach much different from other's hulls in the minmatar lines that cant fit 1400s without fitting modules / implants? If you want to argue that 1400s use too much powergrid, it should be in a thread about large artillery.
If you just to get your grid solely through implants that's up to you.


Once again u are making false statement , i think u are trolling every BS in the minnmatar line can fit a full rack of 1400 MM + a 100 MWD without pg mod or implant at very exception of the maelstrom who need a +3% implants or mod to fit but he has a 6 mid 6 low set up whose ease this quite a bit.
But they lack the offensive bonus of their pirate counter part .Every others pirate battle ships have better fitting capability than their t1 or navy counterpart at the very exception of the mach . Does he have today something to offer ,yes a nice agility tomorrow not so much with the nerf to its agility and align time .So yes i think it deserve to have :

Special ability +37.5% to large projectile turret damage
Minmatar bonus :+5% to Rof
Gallente bonus +10 % falloff even a +5 % would make the deal
A layout with 7H 6T 5 M 7 L
Cassandra Aurilien
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#563 - 2014-04-16 01:57:28 UTC
DHB WildCat wrote:
Cassandra Aurilien wrote:


I fly both. Before, I rarely had reason to use the NM. Now, there will be times I'll pull the NM out of the hangar, and times I'll pull the Mach out. I don't see the changes as that imbalanced, especially as no one used the NM for anything outside of PVE. It's been a shame, really.



I beg to differ good sir!


I take it that you are a pvp NM pilot? (If so, I knew I should have said almost no one.) Big smile
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#564 - 2014-04-16 02:00:47 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Maybe I'm way off base here, but given the performance of Tachs I have trouble thinking of a good time to use 425mm rails if the 2 were equally easy to fit. I guess a counter argument is being locked to EM as a large component of damage...


Performance of tachs agains rails? They do 15% more damage, but have 10% less optimal and 20% less falloff. Go down one ammo type with your railguns and you have the same range and damage as the lasers but without the cap use and fitting cost.
Which gets turned on it's head in a Mega V Apoc race. A tach Apoc would always hit for more damage at greater optimal range with the same ammo before fitting when bonuses are included. Stepping down the ammo leaves base damages swinging in the other direction with the mega drawing a lead but a much bigger range gap behind the tach apoc. Basically a tach apoc would be able to have more base DPS and slightly more range with the same ammo or slightly less DPS and considerably more optimal range with the next ammo down.

The Abbadon also makes a nice outlier in that it can stomp on some of the ranges of a rokh in some fittings with tachs having similar comparative fittings to 425's, at which point the mega need not apply to the conversation so far as damage output is concerned.
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
#565 - 2014-04-16 02:12:19 UTC
All guns are the Tech 2 types
Advanced Weapon Upgrades V: Power grids of gun types
1400mm: 3,217.5
800mm: 1980
Difference : 1234.5
Difference with 4 guns fit: 4938

Tachyon: 3340.8
Mega pulse: 2475
Difference: 865.8
Difference with 4 guns fit : 3463.2

425mm rails: 2079
Neutron Blasters: 1871.1
Difference: 207.9
Difference with 4 guns fit : 831.6

Hybrids can upgrade 8 Neutron Blaster Cannon II's to 8 425mm Railgun II for only 428.7 more grid than upgrading a SINGLE 800mm autocannon II to a 1400mm artillery II.

This makes it MUCH easier to balance the grid of hybrid ships. However for laser and projectile boats, if you allow the fitting of 1400mm and tachyons than the fitting of 800mm and mega pulse becomes completely trivial. If you try and limit what they can fit with 800mm and mega pulse than 1400mm and taychons become impossible to fit.

They really need to reduce the pg gap between projectile and laser short range/long range guns and it would be much easier to balance the pg of the ships that use them.

That awkward moment at the Gentlemen's Club when you see your sister on the stage....and you're not sure where to put the money....

Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#566 - 2014-04-16 02:16:56 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Maybe I'm way off base here, but given the performance of Tachs I have trouble thinking of a good time to use 425mm rails if the 2 were equally easy to fit. I guess a counter argument is being locked to EM as a large component of damage...


Performance of tachs agains rails? They do 15% more damage, but have 10% less optimal and 20% less falloff. Go down one ammo type with your railguns and you have the same range and damage as the lasers but without the cap use and fitting cost.
Which gets turned on it's head in a Mega V Apoc race. A tach Apoc would always hit for more damage at greater optimal range with the same ammo before fitting when bonuses are included. Stepping down the ammo leaves base damages swinging in the other direction with the mega drawing a lead but a much bigger range gap behind the tach apoc. Basically a tach apoc would be able to have more base DPS and slightly more range with the same ammo or slightly less DPS and considerably more optimal range with the next ammo down.

The Abbadon also makes a nice outlier in that it can stomp on some of the ranges of a rokh in some fittings with tachs having similar comparative fittings to 425's, at which point the mega need not apply to the conversation so far as damage output is concerned.


This would be a valid point if sniping at ranges past 150km was viable. Unfortunately, you can get a warpin on them in 5 seconds with on grid probes if they try this. The result is the mega and apoc do the same damage at all relevant ranges, just change the ammo to fit the range. Inside MF/antimatter range, the mega does more DPS but that close the better tracking of lasers starts to matter. Bottom line, same damage, double the fitting and cap use.

Abaddon has a gigantic sig and gets **** on by bombs, the Mael has the same issue. People use the attack BSes for their smaller sigs to resist bombs.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#567 - 2014-04-16 02:22:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Xequecal wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Maybe I'm way off base here, but given the performance of Tachs I have trouble thinking of a good time to use 425mm rails if the 2 were equally easy to fit. I guess a counter argument is being locked to EM as a large component of damage...


Performance of tachs agains rails? They do 15% more damage, but have 10% less optimal and 20% less falloff. Go down one ammo type with your railguns and you have the same range and damage as the lasers but without the cap use and fitting cost.
Which gets turned on it's head in a Mega V Apoc race. A tach Apoc would always hit for more damage at greater optimal range with the same ammo before fitting when bonuses are included. Stepping down the ammo leaves base damages swinging in the other direction with the mega drawing a lead but a much bigger range gap behind the tach apoc. Basically a tach apoc would be able to have more base DPS and slightly more range with the same ammo or slightly less DPS and considerably more optimal range with the next ammo down.

The Abbadon also makes a nice outlier in that it can stomp on some of the ranges of a rokh in some fittings with tachs having similar comparative fittings to 425's, at which point the mega need not apply to the conversation so far as damage output is concerned.


This would be a valid point if sniping at ranges past 150km was viable. Unfortunately, you can get a warpin on them in 5 seconds with on grid probes if they try this. The result is the mega and apoc do the same damage at all relevant ranges, just change the ammo to fit the range. Inside MF/antimatter range, the mega does more DPS but that close the better tracking of lasers starts to matter. Bottom line, same damage, double the fitting and cap use.

Abaddon has a gigantic sig and gets **** on by bombs, the Mael has the same issue. People use the attack BSes for their smaller sigs to resist bombs.
If an apoc can comfortably fit tachs it will always outdamage a mega at any chosen range. This isn't about extreme fits. I ran the numbers working with the short range ammos first actually. And no, AM vs MF before fitting the apoc would have tracking, range and damage advantages but the mega only has one low to chose which to make up.

Edit: Whelp, I math failed a bit. The mega DOES have the raw DPS advantage, albeit small to a Tach apoc. That said it's still the mega that has to step down to match the range of the Apoc, which removes that advantage. Still, I will concede the point about the extra low after correcting my numbers.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#568 - 2014-04-16 03:07:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Instead of a 5th launcher on the Rattlesnake, what about a 7th low slot or 8th mid slot instead?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#569 - 2014-04-16 04:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: chaosgrimm
Myrthiis wrote:

i think u are trolling every BS in the minnmatar line can fit a full rack of 1400 MM + a 100 MWD without pg mod or implant at very exception of the maelstrom who need a +3% implants or mod to fit but he has a 6 mid 6 low set up whose ease this quite a bit.


Data is off somewhere, I'm using EFT 2.22.2 for this.
For your above example, ill use a full rack of T2 1400s with a Prototype 100MN MWD, not fitting any other mods or rigs, no implants, all skills @ V, the following ships cannot fit what ur asking:
Maelstrom: +3%
Tempest: +3%
Typhoon: + approx 32%
Typhoon Fleet Issue: + approx 27%
Panther: + approx 9%
Machariel: +6%

Why should the Machariel be an exception? And not only an exception ur asking for approx 3217.5 additional power grid via eliminating a high. that's approx 14.34%. What is the justification for the Mach over the others listed here. You say yourself:
Myrthiis wrote:

they lack the offensive bonus of their pirate counter part .

If anything, that is a good reason for another ship to have fewer fitting problems.

Myrthiis wrote:

Every others pirate battle ships have better fitting capability than their t1 or navy counterpart at the very exception of the mach .

Any change made to the mach would not change the above.... the mach doesnt have a t1 / navy counterpart

Myrthiis wrote:

Does he have today something to offer ,yes a nice agility tomorrow not so much with the nerf to its agility and align time .So yes i think it deserve to have :

Special ability +37.5% to large projectile turret damage
Minmatar bonus :+5% to Rof
Gallente bonus +10 % falloff even a +5 % would make the deal
A layout with 7H 6T 5 M 7 L


The falloff bonus is really the only thing that I dont like again, just because its too similar to the vargur.
Would you be up for:

Special ability +37.5% to large projectile turret damage
Minmatar bonus :+5% to Rof
Gallente bonus +7.5% tracking
A layout with 7H 6T 5 M 7 L
keeps majority of saved PG
+ any combination of buffs to the hulls other attributes like sig, mobility, ehp, etc. to help make up for losing falloff
Ahernar
Perkone
Caldari State
#570 - 2014-04-16 05:39:11 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Instead of a 5th launcher on the Rattlesnake, what about a 7th low slot or 8th mid slot instead?


RS needs another high (or keep the launcher count and compensate by bonus ++ ) . That or the RS pilots will have to change the way are using it . It could find itself a niche or it will become meh again . The chance to get it wrong again it's in the air.

It's not much of a buff if 2 kin therm launchers are costing you the old drone flexibility ,light med drone damage bonus and -50% missile speed .
It's not much of a buff if 3.5 kin therm launchers are costing you the old drone flexibility ,light med drone damage bonus -50% missile speed and crucially makes you slowboat 20-30km after a mjd until you can engage with drones .

At least IMO "rebalance" got it closer to the other pirate battleships but definitely not in the pack .
RHAMHLAK
ALL41FandF
Circle of Hell
#571 - 2014-04-16 07:36:18 UTC
Machariel is a damn shield ship, so make mach like it supposed to be. U need to work only at slots: 8H 6M 6L and we will have a true angel ship. Vindi is OK, Bhaal its the same, Rattle... i dont care about that ship so much to post anything , NM is a decent build and mach....she needs 6 medium slots!!!!
Liberty Hope
Stabbed Hearts
#572 - 2014-04-16 07:44:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Liberty Hope
Now when all bitching settled down, lets give some real examples how those ships should be changed and why

T1 battleships are lerning/PVP cheap ships and have bonuses according to that
Marauders are solot ships with bastions and local reper bonuses
Faction navy ships are small scale fleet ships
Pirate faction ships are purely fleet ships and according to that they should have fleet bonuses, for example, what Vindicator webs, whole fleet benefit from that, what Bhaalgorn paints, fleet benefits from that.

Bhaalgorn should keep his web range bonus and be pure armor dmg dealer

Nightmare like Bhaal should have same bonuses but as shield ship.

Machariel to have TP range bonus, in that case not nerfing scan resolution so that Mach can lock 1st and paint target. That includes +1 medium slot

Rattlesnake to have TP strenght bonus, so that can actually apply that torp damage and to boost fleet with signature radius bonus on target.

Dont know what do you guys think, but with this "fleet" bonuses i expect to see more pirate faction ships in pvp and other sort of big fleets.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#573 - 2014-04-16 07:59:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
RHAMHLAK wrote:
Machariel is a damn shield ship, so make mach like it supposed to be.


Angel ships are supposed to be armor ships. People shield tank it because you can get a good enough tank and have all the lows for damage and TEs. Your suggestion would actually weaken both the shield and the armor variant.

Ahernar wrote:
That or the RS pilots will have to change the way are using it. It could find itself a niche or it will become meh again . The chance to get it wrong again it's in the air.


Oh no, someone will have to adapt! Big smile

Rattle, as it currently stands, is about to become a very, very strong ship. If that means it needs to be a bit closer to the opponent, so be it.

Liberty Hope wrote:
Bhaalgorn should keep his web range bonus and be pure armor dmg dealer


Just stop it, BR ships were never ment to be dpsers. Your suggestions only go down from there.

Also, you're pidgeonholeing ships into a predetermined role. No. Just... no.
Frayze Nissai
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#574 - 2014-04-16 08:35:03 UTC
Fabulous Rod wrote:
Frayze Nissai wrote:
Last Wolf wrote:
Frayze Nissai wrote:

You have heard of a module called the Mobile Depot yes? The one that allows you to change modules AND DRONES whilst in space? Or are you arguing that you would use your salvage drones whilst still engaged?

I also fly an RS, i also chose it for its versatility. Do i feel screwed over by these new changes? Hell no, i have never been happier. I can now focus more on what is going on around me than on my 5 little guys HP bars, i can do significantlymore DPS, and with the mobile depot i keep a very high degree of versatility.

'I picked a ship with a large drone bay' - yes, one that at the time had a justifiably large bay as it needed to field 5 sentry drones (read 125 m3 of space) to put down maximum DPS. We now need to field 2 sentries (or 50m3) to do EXACTLY the same. So please, justify how we should keep a 400m3 drone bay???


As much as I agree that the 175 m3 bay is fine, using the Mobile Depot should not be used as a crutch for balancing a ship.

The argument "The ship is fine because you can use Mobile Depot" is a bad one. It takes 60 seconds to activate, or are you seriously going to plop one down for every pocket you warp into, then hope you don't need to move or you don't get bumped away from it?

I completely agree with you, i was attempting to show the stupidity of a post


the stupidity is yours for bringing up mobile depots at all.

I've never had a problem losing sentries. Try to think a little before you post.


Wow, you win the competition for well thought out, reasoned posts. Try not to clutter the forums with your inane drivel, either that or carry on with your attempt to get CCP to go back on these changes, based on your need to field salvage drones, in combat, on a drone boat....

*slow clap*

This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.

Gauro Charante
Vile Duck Pond
#575 - 2014-04-16 08:51:45 UTC
Wonder why they didn't make the SoE ships with the new "2-mega-badass drones"- style instead,and not Guristas. Then fewer would have complained so much, couse they wouldn't have played with them ships before. All new and so on...
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#576 - 2014-04-16 09:49:33 UTC
Fabulous Rod wrote:
Garak n00biachi wrote:
That Mach buff makes no sense at all....this dev fell for the powercreep trap like many developers have fallen to it before him.


While Rattlesnake loses more things than it gains and gets gimped on top of it all. 5 drones are better than 2.

Just give us an extra mid slot on the Rattlesnake and the current 400m3 drone bay on a BATTLESHIP we trained for and you won't be shitting on your customers.


customership as an argument to ship balancing

you must be american

CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#577 - 2014-04-16 10:39:49 UTC
Patri Andari wrote:
In each case the bonus to Gurista ships states "bonus to kinetic and thermal missile damage" without refering to heavy, heavy assault, etc.

Does this mean that each ship will have bonuses that apply to all missiles that do said damage?

To state more clearly, can we expect the damage bonus on the RS to also apply when firing thermal and kinetic missiles from RHML and RLML?


Yes, the damage bonus will apply to RHML and RLML.

I'm not sure if it helps settle anything but from my perspective the angel ships aren't necessarily meant to be armor or shield. They are capable of both and even though the ISIS says shields we are very happy with the versatility that Angel ships are capable of.

Speaking of Angel ships, I looked into making the Mach turrets symmetrical and unfortunately it isn't going to happen. It would be almost impossible to avoid having a significant impact on balance for the ship and we don't feel that an aesthetic concern like this justifies making a change. Sorry Cry

@ccp_rise

Vinyl 41
AdVictis
#578 - 2014-04-16 10:50:22 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Patri Andari wrote:
In each case the bonus to Gurista ships states "bonus to kinetic and thermal missile damage" without refering to heavy, heavy assault, etc.

Does this mean that each ship will have bonuses that apply to all missiles that do said damage?

To state more clearly, can we expect the damage bonus on the RS to also apply when firing thermal and kinetic missiles from RHML and RLML?


Yes, the damage bonus will apply to RHML and RLML.

I'm not sure if it helps settle anything but from my perspective the angel ships aren't necessarily meant to be armor or shield. They are capable of both and even though the ISIS says shields we are very happy with the versatility that Angel ships are capable of.

Speaking of Angel ships, I looked into making the Mach turrets symmetrical and unfortunately it isn't going to happen. It would be almost impossible to avoid having a significant impact on balance for the ship and we don't feel that an aesthetic concern like this justifies making a change. Sorry Cry

maybe im missing smt but a small 2% damage increase isnt smt we should call serious balance problems - i can only see that giving the mach 2 utility high slots could be the huge balance problem
i would like to point that there have been some complains about mach having 1 to many slot overall so removing 1 high should be ok with most people
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#579 - 2014-04-16 10:56:20 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Speaking of Angel ships, I looked into making the Mach turrets symmetrical and unfortunately it isn't going to happen. It would be almost impossible to avoid having a significant impact on balance for the ship and we don't feel that an aesthetic concern like this justifies making a change. Sorry Cry

Shooting with the Machariel now is going to feel like walking with one shoe on.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#580 - 2014-04-16 10:58:06 UTC
I didn't say serious, I said significant. It wouldn't just be a damage increase. It would be a heavier importance placed on a required skill, changes to fitting balance, changes in ammo consumption, change in fitting cost, potential effects on damage output and/or alpha. It's not unsolvable or something, it's just a lot of things that need to be accounted for and we don't think it's worth it in this case.

@ccp_rise