These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Battleship and HAC pass

Author
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#1 - 2014-06-30 00:19:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Alright, it has been mentioned by CCP rise that the next two things on the list for a rebalance are the t1 battleships and HACs:

CCP Rise wrote:
I think very next thing for me is going back to Battleships and HACs for polish passes now that they've been out in the wild awhile and there's some room for improvements.

Black ops and Recons are both on the short list after that but I'm not sure exactly what the schedule will be (Summer is crazy in Europe, they let you just not go to work).


Now while I do admit that while overall both of these have come out exceptionally well, there are a few outliers that I think should be addressed.

-The Abaddon:
Despite its enormous tank and offensive abilities with lasers, There are more than a few things that come up short for this ship. The first, namely, is capacitor. I would propose bumping up the cap to a solid 9k, and increasing the recharge rate significantly, to give it superior capacitor to the Apocalypse, which should focus a little more on damage application. Since the decision was made to negate any kind of cap usage bonus in favor of combat usability (which was the right decision), capacitor remains a serious issue for both ships, particularly on the abaddon.
Secondly, As partially to offset the huge cap increase and solve another issue, it should swap a mid slot for a low. The former version of the Armageddon was perfect as a laser platform, and while it is excellent at what it does now, having the abaddon shift more into that role is ideal, and I'm certain that battleship users everywhere would appreciate having an 8-lowslot battleship to remain competitive with the megathron and hyperion, both which are extraordinarily powerful. This should help define them more with their fleet role.
Lastly, it does need a large increase in powergrid; say up to a total of 30k with max skills. It currently cannot fit a full rack of 8 tachyon lasers; the oracle is currently the only large laser-oriented ship able to do so. The other two buffs will compliment this nicely, and as a whole the ship should work together much better and remain a powerful, if inflexible fleet-oriented battleship.

-The Apocalypse
Small buff to targeting range and scan res.

-The Armageddon
Add 2 extra gun and missile hardpoints, giving people who aren't using neutralizers the option to actually deal damage apart from their drones. Other than that, the ship is fine.

-The Maelstrom.
Increase in base speed up to a little under the tempest, and increase scan res and sensor strength a bit.

-The Tempest
This ship needs some work. Instead of going with 6 guns with a double damage bonus, I would propose to drop the missile hardpoints, and give it a full rack of 8 guns. The firing rate bonus would swap into a 7.5% tracking speed bonus, making it a very strong arty platform that can compete with the tornado. PG would be boosted to 25000, and CPU would go up to 750.

-The Typhoon
Add heavy missiles to the explosion velocity bonus, to give it better viability with rapid heavy launchers.

-The Rokh
Drop a low slot for a mid, move some hull into the shields, and give it better cap regen

-Raven
Apply the missile flight time bonus to heavies, for better application with rapid heavy missile launchers.

-Scorpion
Roll the range and strength bonuses for ecm into one 20% bonus per level, and give it a 5% firing rate bonus to cruise and torpedo launcher firing rate. Swap a low for a high, and drop all gun hardpoints so it has 6 launchers, same as the raven. Port some hull into armor.

-The Dominix, Megathron, and Hyperion are all fine after the initial buff. Hype could use a little extra power grid, but it's not necessary.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#2 - 2014-06-30 00:35:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Here are the HACs, which have less of a need to rebalance. Was hoping they would have gotten around to recons next thing, but that's beside the point.

-The Zealot
The zealot is badly in need of a drone bay.
EDIT: After thinking it over, i believe the 50/75 drone bay might have been a LITTLE too much. I'll settle for a 20/30 drone bay. How does that sound?

-The Sacrilege
The sacrilege is mostly fine as-is, but I would like to see it given more base HP overall than the zealot, to set it apart in the same way the combat and attack cruisers are. That theme should generally apply to each of the HACs. It does not need to have equal usability with rapid lights.
EDIT: I would be fine with dropping the drone bay on the sacilege if the zealot gets one. I would also be fine for dropping a high for a low because 5 lows on one of the most armor-tank focused ships in the game makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable, and I just remembered how livid I was during the patch about it.

-The Muninn
The muninn should get a high slot moved to a mid, and a slight buff to cpu and powergrid.
EDIT: After looking it over a bit and seeing how it's normally fit, and trying a few myself, I have come to the conclusion that it should follow the same ship bonuses as the Wolf, but either keep the 6th high and swap the missile hard point out for a gun, or drop the high for the mid and let it shield tank.

-The Vagabond
Fine as is. Might be open to dropping a high for a mid or low, but that would be unnecessary as it currently performs admirably.

-The Cerberus
Drop drone bay. No other changes needed.

-The Eagle
Bump the cap regen up slightly. Invulns and rails chew up a lot of cap.

-The Ishtar
EDIT: After reviewing changes, I will consider dropping the nerf on the ishtar since the other ships are being brought up to par pretty well. That being said, I would STILL like to see a slight nerf to sentry range and/or dps, as sentries on the ishtar remain obscenely overpowered.

-The Deimos
Port some hull hp into armor, and give it a higher scan res. Change out falloff bonus into a 7.5% tracking speed bonus for medium hybrids like the thorax. Swap the damage bonus on the HAC skill into a firing rate one.

EDIT
After reading some of the negative feedback about my changes to HACs, I am nerfing some of the drone bay changes I had initially made. My intention was to bring the other HACs up to the same level of the cerberus and ishtar, with the plan being to nerf the ishtar. It turns out with just a few tweaks they bring themselves up to that level quite handily, and I was overreaching. Thank you for your feedback.
Meandering Milieu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2014-06-30 02:24:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Meandering Milieu
Catherine Laartii wrote:


-The Ishtar
Drop a mid for a high and an extra gun slot


I will fight you irl.

Edit: Note this is clearly sarcasm.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#4 - 2014-06-30 03:42:59 UTC
I don't think you use HACs.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2014-06-30 05:57:48 UTC
I only agree with the abaddon, because dangit, Amarr are supposed to be the beefy armored upr ace, adn they TOOK AWAY the 8th slot on the abaddon for a mid because "lul why should we rebalance/fix laser ships for realz", on top of the nerf to the percentage/lvl resists.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#6 - 2014-06-30 06:33:08 UTC
Ishtar should have it'd drone bonuses changed to light-heavies, not sentries. Even Heavies allows it DPS well past what a HAC class should have since it's a Battleship weapon system, but Sentries is just silly.
Sigras
Conglomo
#7 - 2014-06-30 07:09:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
confirming that making all the battleships better and introducing a new level of power creep is exactly what this game needs...

/sarcasm

Also giving the zealot a drone bay is one of the most idiotic things Ive ever heard... especially a medium drone bay! Yeah sure lets just give 158 free DPS to the already most used HAC in the game making it the only used HAC in the game.

Did it ever occur to you that it cant deal with tracking disruptors by design? We call that a weakness and every ship has at least one.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#8 - 2014-06-30 07:16:54 UTC
Sigras wrote:
confirming that making all the battleships better and introducing a new level of power creep is exactly what this game needs...

/sarcasm

Given how little they are used outside of massive fleet work & lvl 4's that were designed specifically around BS's, I think making battleships better in some way isn't actually a bad thing.
Currently they don't have a good niche outside massive fleet combat.
Sigras
Conglomo
#9 - 2014-06-30 07:28:01 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Sigras wrote:
confirming that making all the battleships better and introducing a new level of power creep is exactly what this game needs...

/sarcasm

Given how little they are used outside of massive fleet work & lvl 4's that were designed specifically around BS's, I think making battleships better in some way isn't actually a bad thing.
Currently they don't have a good niche outside massive fleet combat.

Have you considered that massive fleet combat is a niche?
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#10 - 2014-06-30 08:10:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Sigras wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Sigras wrote:
confirming that making all the battleships better and introducing a new level of power creep is exactly what this game needs...

/sarcasm

Given how little they are used outside of massive fleet work & lvl 4's that were designed specifically around BS's, I think making battleships better in some way isn't actually a bad thing.
Currently they don't have a good niche outside massive fleet combat.

Have you considered that massive fleet combat is a niche?

Have you considered that they already introduced power creep with the buffs to the gallente battleships, or did you forget about how insanely overpowered the Dominix was during the last alliance tourny?

For their size, effort and cost, they SHOULD be held to a higher standard. Nothing about their design or HACS should be half-assed, since they are made for straight, heavy combat. They should give absolutely no quarter whatsoever in their design.

In regards to the Zealot, have you considered that it was also their intention to pidgeonhole it into being a fleet Ahac for exactly the reasons you mentioned? Sure it's a stupidly powerful laser platform, but do you see any of the other assault cruisers having such a glaringly obvious weakness? I can site variant consistency, but that's pointless because they have fairly different things they do well, especially noting the difference between the t1 omen and omen navy. Its role does not exclude it from having a drone bay; the f*cking sac got one and it's a damn missile boat; I would be fine with taking that off the sac and giving it to the zealot.

Class consistency is a thing, and apparently CCP is having way more trouble with it that they should
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#11 - 2014-06-30 08:20:28 UTC
Meandering Milieu wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:


-The Ishtar
Drop a mid for a high and an extra gun slot


I will fight you irl.

Edit: Note this is clearly sarcasm.

Ishtar OP needs nerf. Hope you don't mind buffing the sh*t out of the deimos to compensate. :P
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#12 - 2014-06-30 08:29:10 UTC
Sigras wrote:

Have you considered that massive fleet combat is a niche?

An entire ship size should not have such a limited niche.
Meandering Milieu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-06-30 08:34:37 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Meandering Milieu wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:


-The Ishtar
Drop a mid for a high and an extra gun slot


I will fight you irl.

Edit: Note this is clearly sarcasm.

Ishtar OP needs nerf. Hope you don't mind buffing the sh*t out of the deimos to compensate. :P


I wouldn't mind a buff to the deimos at all, though it can be a capable ship if flown right, or in the right fleet comp.

My disagreement with you about the ishtar though has nothing to do with it needing or not needing a nerf. It has to do with your suggestion being pants on head stupid.

The ishtar does not need more high slots, it does not need another turret slot. Turrets are worthless on it for the most part, as it gets no turret benefits at all.

Further, removing a midslot compromises shield fits. You might think this is warranted, but as it stands the ishtar is one of the few ships that offer fitting versatility the way it does. For fleets, small gang, or even solo pvp you have the option of armor with ewar, or shield with dps and speed mods. Most pvp ishtars fit neuts in highslots anyways.

I would sooner sacrifice two highs entirely for no reward what so ever, just get rid of them, before removing a midslot.

Further, ishtars have received nerfs (all drone boats have, in regards to sentries), though indirectly. Drone assist gone (and thank god); Omnis now have 30 second cycle times; gardes now do less damage than previously, and are still the highest dps sentry, meaning that the total highest damage you can manage from sentries has gone down. In order to get previous damage levels from sentries, minus I think wardens, you have to train a 20 day skill (racial spec V) otherwise you are looking at a 2-6% dps nerf, or possibly a 2% buff with it at V, but that buff is on the sentries most didn't use anyways, not gardes, and so overall damage is still lower. Then take into account that drones can be killed, and any amount of warping in and out of the battlefield makes drones a pain compared to other weapon systems.

Sigras
Conglomo
#14 - 2014-06-30 08:37:50 UTC
so because they introduced power creep before, they should do it again?

Yes I agree, the dominix is a very powerful ship in an arena of 250km that your opponent cannot leave ... call me when that happens in the wild on TQ...

The fact that these ships are/should be designed for out and out combat does not mean they get to introduce new power creep... It just means that they shouldnt get any bonuses to anything other than their tank and gank...

That said, some of your proposed changes just seem ill concieved

Zealot - adding an extra 158 DPS and a TON of utility would make this already stellar HAC completely unbeatable... an AHAC doing 600 DPS with scorch or 790 DPS with conflag no thank you

Vagabond - that utility high is actually very useful, and a 3 slot tank + DCU may actually be a but OP on such a fast ship... If it can keep itself alive long enough it can almost always escape. Also 30 m^3 of drone bay? why?

Eagle - have you considered what a flight of light drones would do to the 20km kiting rail eagle? It may actually be more damage at that range than CCP is comfortable with

Ishtar - you want more damage on the ishtar? really?
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#15 - 2014-06-30 09:38:43 UTC
Muninn: Change the %5 rof bonus to a %5 dmg bonus, buff PG. Make it an armor alpha ship.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#16 - 2014-06-30 09:49:16 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
-The Zealot
The zealot is badly in need of a drone bay. I would recommend a 50 bandwidth, 75 m3 setup to put it in the same class and slightly above the omen navy and t1 omen. It currently has no defenses to getting tracking disrupted, or having someone sig tank under its guns.

[...]

-The Muninn
The muninn should get a high slot moved to a mid, and a slight buff to cpu and powergrid. Other than that, maybe a slightly larger drone bay; 40m3 would be ideal.

[...]

-The Ishtar
Drop a mid for a high and an extra gun slot, nerf capacitor and drone space slightly.


If anything, the Muninn needs a 6th turret mount. And go away with your Zealot-proposal, that's absurd. Zealots are kept in check because they got no drone bay, which is close to the only weakness on that otherwise still completely outstanding hull. And what do you even need a drone bay for? Solo, take the NOmen. Fleet - you don't really need drones to begin with on that ship.

Do you even fly those ships?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#17 - 2014-06-30 10:32:49 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Sigras wrote:

Have you considered that massive fleet combat is a niche?

An entire ship size should not have such a limited niche.

Things Battleships are used for:

  • Highsec PVP
  • Incursions
  • Lowsec PVP
  • Level 4s
  • Fleet fights in null
  • Gate camps
  • Neuting out capitals
  • Wormholes
  • Tournaments
  • Bait
  • Mining (8 miner rokhs still exist, for some pants on head reason)


They aren't used in random roams. This befits their relatively static nature vs the OP power projection of capitals ATM. They're for either planned engagements or heavy DPS where you can't get your supers, carriers, dreads, etc.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#18 - 2014-06-30 10:52:37 UTC
Which is the worst HAC?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#19 - 2014-06-30 11:03:35 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Which is the worst HAC?

For what role? HACs vary enough by combat style to have distinct niches even in the "awesome combat cruiser" archetype

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Joshua Foiritain
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#20 - 2014-06-30 11:08:53 UTC
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
I don't think you use HACs.


This. Most of those suggestions are full blown ********.

The Coreli Corporation is recruiting.

123Next pageLast page