These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Battlecruisers -- Lost because they're not different enough
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#21 - 2015-01-03 04:31:55 UTC
I've been working on trying out various armor BC's for small gang (10-20) action, hoping for medium range (~50km) but apart from the Navy versions, they all just seem so uninspiring. It's like they were redesigned and rebalanced for Level 3 missions, rather than actually being good contributors to a fleet. I'm not looking for a return to multiple 250-man Drake fleets or roaming gangs of 50 Hurricanes, but it would be nice to see BC's be a really viable option in the 30-70km engagement range.

If the MMJD could jump you only 50km, that would be more synergistic with most BC's than the current 100km jump. It would give you a realistic chance to get on top of kiters and brawl with them, while not completely leaving behind your logistics and other support.

Another option would be to make it easier for them to do damage while still sporting gang links. This would make them more viable as on-grid contributors. I'd go so far as to suggest something like the ability to fit three gang links without command processors. Then I would consider giving each seven high slots total, with five weapon slots with 50% damage bonus built in. Command ships would still be strictly speaking better for boosting, due to the 3% warfare link effectiveness bonus per level. Of course, for those who chose to forgo the links, the utility highs would open up a lot of versatility, particularly for close-range brawler fits. I'd give them decent damage projection bonuses, so that BC's could reliably engage at 50km with long range weapons using high damage ammo. I'd steer clear of damage application bonuses, as these would make them potentially OP. They would need proper support from gang members, or would need to fit the ship to apply damage better, at a cost somewhere else.

The goal would be to have ships that are roughly 50% more EHP and DPS than T1 cruisers, but have worse damage application. It might even be best to make them all use large weapons, like the ABC's. Unlike the ABC's, however, BC's should not be helpless at close range - they still have the option to fit medium neuts to deter tacklers inside of scram range, MMJD's to escape to 50km off if not scrammed, and each one would have at least a flight of light drones.

Perhaps I'll post more later...

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-01-03 05:08:15 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
HML Drake:

  • dps: 384
  • Range: 62.9km
  • EHP: 79,527
  • Max Velocity: 175m/s, 1003m/s w/MWD on
  • SigRad: 380m, 2201m w/MWD on

RLML Caracal:

  • dps: 335
  • Range: 63.3km
  • EHP: 41,620
  • Max Velocity: 288m/s, 1881m/s w/MWD on
  • SigRad: 197m, 1143m w/MWD on

Try comparing to HML Caracal:

  • dps: 277
  • Range: 94.3km
  • EHP: 32,568 (multiple downgrades to meta variants to make everything fit)
  • Max Velocity: 288m/s, 1881m/s w/MWD on
  • SigRad: 187m, 1101m w/MWD on

Much less DPS with more range. Also maintains damage flexibility. More difficult to fit, had to change fitting a bit:
* 1x BCS II downgraded to Cross-linked Bolt Array (meta 1)
* DC II downgraded to Internal Force Field Array (meta 4--expensive!)
* 1x LSE II downgraded to F-S9 Regolith (meta 4)
* EM Ward II downgraded to Limited
* AIF II downgraded to Limited
* 1x CDFE I removed and replaced with Ancillary Current Router I

Drake might still be a little weak, especially considering it only receives that damage bonus for kinetic. Could fix it by giving it 15% kinetic damage bonus and 5% damage bonus to other missile types, or 10% across the board, or 20% to kinetic only. But more to the point, it is not the Caracal which beats the Drake, but the Rapid Light Missile Launcher. The RLML is in dire need of a heavy nerf. It is absolutely mind-numbingly overpowered.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2015-01-03 11:00:17 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
RLML is the ONLY reason caracals are even flown. The other options are disgracefully bad.

Try adding reload time to the RLML dps......
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2015-01-03 11:04:22 UTC
I don't know about that. Caracal is a better sniper than Moa, especially now that the Moa lost its range bonus. No other T1 cruisers have a range anything like the HM Caracal. The missiles are a bit slow but it's not too bad really.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2015-01-03 11:25:00 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't know about that. Caracal is a better sniper than Moa, especially now that the Moa lost its range bonus. No other T1 cruisers have a range anything like the HM Caracal. The missiles are a bit slow but it's not too bad really.


Perhaps on paper, vs a stationary target at useless ranges.

At worst possible transversal, it's actually nearly even out to ~38km, inside that range the moa eats it alive. Caracal will edge out at like 50km, but that's not a workable engagement range for any length of time because caracals will be caught and can't clear tackle.

It also has 40k ehp vs a caracals 28k for the fits I used plus you also need to remember that the caracal cant even target as far as it can shoot so without mods the effective range is only 71km.

On paper it sounds alright, but in reality, not so much. There's also the minor detail of the first volley taking so long to a land there is zero issues for logis to target swap, even armor ones.

Fits were 2 damage mods, MWD, point, tank. 200mm rails. As tank is traded for mods (say, sebos/TCs) the moa starts to pass it quite handily.

To be fair, maybe is sniping wasn't garbage and actually usable as a tactic they would add more value, but that's already a crippling handicap on top of a complete pathetic weapon system.

HML have literally no good use in the game at this stage (maybe PvE?). None, zero. Maybe if they rolled back the damage and application nerfs that would help since they jacked up all the other weapons since then. They're like a ball and chain around the drakes legs, caracals at least get RLML which see them fielded (and eaten alive by real cruisers, which amusingly also kill frigates just fine)
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#26 - 2015-01-03 12:39:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Malcanis wrote:
Battlecruisers were absolutely fine with "not being different enough" a couple of years ago.

The thing they most urgently need is for bombs to be nerfed.

The next thing is for the ridiculous HML nerf to be reverted. The basis for this in the first place was pretty shaky; with the long range medium turrets getting a fat buff almost straight after, whatever grounds there were for this ill conceived change were completely removed.

The final thing is they need a little more warp speed to make them perceptibly more mobile than BS.



HML nerf reverted? No, their damage is in line with their range and missile overall damage design. If you want HML to gain dps they will have to lose range.


And if someone wants to use a Drake to show this amazing perceived balance issue then don't forget to mention the imbalanced EHP it has.
Ix Method
Doomheim
#27 - 2015-01-03 13:25:00 UTC
Bo Rothrock wrote:
Gang links are tough because the ships' fittings are balanced around their exclusion, which is kind of funny seeing as how the modules are strictly limited to certain hull classes.

We have a winner. Most of the points about Mobility, HML, relation to ABC/BS/Cruisers are true enough but not having to nerf fits to perform this role should be nailed to the top of the list.

Travelling at the speed of love.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2015-01-03 14:08:11 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Battlecruisers were absolutely fine with "not being different enough" a couple of years ago.

The thing they most urgently need is for bombs to be nerfed.

The next thing is for the ridiculous HML nerf to be reverted. The basis for this in the first place was pretty shaky; with the long range medium turrets getting a fat buff almost straight after, whatever grounds there were for this ill conceived change were completely removed.

The final thing is they need a little more warp speed to make them perceptibly more mobile than BS.



HML nerf reverted? No, their damage is in line with their range and missile overall damage design. If you want HML to gain dps they will have to lose range.


And if someone wants to use a Drake to show this amazing perceived balance issue then don't forget to mention the imbalanced EHP it has.



hahahahahahahahaha.

No.

Don't make me find the graphs again.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#29 - 2015-01-03 14:08:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Go for it, show us how a weapon system as versatile as heavy missiles should have more/comparable dps while having massively more range.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2015-01-03 14:18:43 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
A rail thorax will outdamage a caracal from 5-60km.

At maximum transversal.

Shooting a MWD shield crusier.



If you think those extra 11km range are worth that, I dont know what to tell you.


spike
http://imgur.com/5plH1Zp

iron
http://imgur.com/g2pBFT5

tungsten
http://imgur.com/o6GYXuT

antimatter
http://imgur.com/y2TyTx6

javelin
http://imgur.com/Vl8SYsQ



Fits:
[Caracal, HML]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Overdrive Injector System II
Damage Control II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Faint Warp Disruptor I

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I





[Thorax, Thorax Rails]
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Tracking Enhancer II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Faint Warp Disruptor I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

200mm Railgun II, Javelin M
200mm Railgun II, Javelin M
200mm Railgun II, Javelin M
200mm Railgun II, Javelin M
200mm Railgun II, Javelin M

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#31 - 2015-01-03 14:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Ok, now show me on that thorax how it's supposed to do dps at 90km. Or how at ~35+km optimal its dps doesn't drop below the Caracal, also try and explain how 200mm rails are supposed to deal with short orbit targets.

p.s. No one sane is falling for your "oh look how long range weapons can track MWD shield bloated sig cruisers up close, see it works just fine!" because, generally, shield cruisers won't do that and the majority of targets that get in close orbit will be smaller than that. Only idiots or hypocrites would fall for that, the fact that you "accidentally forgot" about frigates is both insulting as hilarious.

p.p.s. hybrids are cap using weapons, how about you compare missiles to the other capless weapon system; projectiles.

p.p.p.s. your Caracal fit is terrible, the only thing those graphs show is that you have no clue on how missiles really work and, subsequently, how to fit a Caracal properly (or any other HML ship for that matter).
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2015-01-03 15:07:29 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Actually it's a shield MWD cruiser because that's best case scenario for the HML. The deck is stacked to the caracal and it still loses. Favouring guns would be an AB armor ship.

And thank god the thorax doesn't have not one but TWO flights of light drones to eat fast ships. And god knows it's so slow, at 2200ms, getting under the guns will be trivial for a cruiser. Oh, wait. The HML platform can't dictate range, does less damage across the board and is less survivable vs frigates.


But please, continue to tell us all how awesome HML are with no shred of proof and throwing out hilarious numbers which are further than a caracal can even lock.

The very fact you suggest HML are any use against frigates is nothing short of priceless.

HML are bad, nearly as bad as you it seems.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#33 - 2015-01-03 15:16:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
It's sad that this needs to be explained to people who claim to understand how things work enough (lol) to make statements about how it should be changed but I'll happily put in that effort.


Since the missile changes missiles have trouble dealing full damage to even size targets BY DESIGN. This means that even against a cruiser (MWD or not) HML SUCK AT APPLYING DPS because that was the plan. The solution to this is either a painter or better yet; rigor/flare rigs.

So in this case, drop the ******** shield rigs from that Caracal (and notice how suddenly it has similar EHP compared to the Thorax, who'd have guessed) and fit 2 rigor/1 flare rig, then do your calculations again.



I'm still waiting for your explanation or fit how a thorax is going to do dps at 94km range, something your Caracal can easily do when fitted with a sebo.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#34 - 2015-01-03 15:32:45 UTC
4.5 sec spool time... that gives oponents no time to react, with the lag and server delay they are as good as gone if not already tackled with a scram.

The spool time stays at 9 sec and it should too.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#35 - 2015-01-03 15:50:40 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Killing BC's is usually incredibly easy because of their high signature, which is why I consider them useless in most stances.


Yeah their outsized sig is an issue - they're barely smaller than the attack battleships, but with 1/2 to 1/3 of the EHP.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jenshae Chiroptera
#36 - 2015-01-03 15:53:21 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The final thing is they need a little more warp speed to make them perceptibly more mobile than BS.
+1

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#37 - 2015-01-03 16:32:41 UTC
Sylveria Relden wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

I believe that the problem is not that the ganglinks aren't useful, but that fleets don't bother to employ squad boosters with links.

It would be even more important if ganglinks were on-grid only.


THIS. It speaks absolute volumes about the current state of strategy in game, and if the mechanics were reworked so that on-grid boosting was forced, instead of people using off-grid booster alts, it would solve a lot of problems quickly.

Of course, I expect all those who have trained off-grid booster alts to refute/deny/refuse/flame but go ahead. Everyone already knows it's reality, and if they don't they soon find out rather quickly.



CCP is working on this but the legacy code is causing problems

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#38 - 2015-01-03 16:48:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lienzo
Most of them lack damage projection for fleet pvp.

Another problem that becomes more obvious as you go up in hull (and turret) size is the lack of variation between turrets. Beyond fitting concerns, the tactical differences between 200mm rails and 250mm rails are pretty trivial.

In an ideal world, 200mm rails would be the best option for facing off against other cruisers, and 250mm rails would be a little better for punching BC or larger targets. This would be accomplished by boosting the sig resolution (the area through which the RNG cruncher calculates shot hit chance) to match BC sized sigs and boosting the damage multiplier.

The fitting options of all heavier hulls would be expanded by making dual 150mm rails, or their equivalents, punch down by having a tighter sig res, something closer to logistics or destroyer signatures.


Currently, these weapon groups have attempted balance simply by having the higher fitting ones remove options for tank (and small tracking differences), but this simply isn't uniform across all ships. On those hulls where fitting weapon fitting reqs are minimal, the other weapon options generally aren't used at all.



I would also like to see the heavier hulls get a little more field presence rather than mobility increases. This could be accomplished marginally by tilting cargo bays further in their favor (or simply reducing them on smaller ships). Fleet bays on support ships could have extended access range to compensate. They could also be a little less squishy, and work a little better with logistics support by trading some bulk hitpoints for increased resistances, bucking the ancient T1 norms.

Logi efficacy could also be nerfed by having penetrating damage coefficients. This would allow a certain small percentage of damage to punch through to armor or structure layers below the tanked layer. This would shift the tide to attrition management in most fleet scenarios.

People don't like BC/BS because of the prevalence of bombers, themselves created as a response to blobs. Perhaps bombers could have their bombs divided into wider area of effect bombs and more intensive bomb, and diminish the signature radius boost effect in exchange for a less variable mechanic. Perhaps a heavier class of bombers could be added that doesn't rely on cloaking. Perhaps the anti-bomber capabilities of destroyers could be buffed. If anything, bubblers of all variants are the best anti-bombers because they discourage or prevent bombers from warping downrange to safety. Perhaps battlecruisers could be equipped with mini-bubbles where they might normally fit command modules.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#39 - 2015-01-03 16:57:51 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Killing BC's is usually incredibly easy because of their high signature, which is why I consider them useless in most stances.


Yeah their outsized sig is an issue - they're barely smaller than the attack battleships, but with 1/2 to 1/3 of the EHP.


People have this mistaken idea that CBC should be viable for normal/fleet pvp, they shouldn't. That's why they got nerfed because back when they were good you effectively ran into two ships; Drake and Cane. The second you make CBC viable for "general play styles" is the second they'll poop all over the other ships again and we'll lose the ship size & type diversity we have atm.

Forget about CBC for normal pvp styles, it's the only way to ensure that we get to keep flying frigs and cruisers because a buffed CBC would just be too good. they're, very deliberately, kept "terrible" for normal use and we should be ok with that even though it's a bit of a shame.
Mario Putzo
#40 - 2015-01-03 17:27:28 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Killing BC's is usually incredibly easy because of their high signature, which is why I consider them useless in most stances.


Yeah their outsized sig is an issue - they're barely smaller than the attack battleships, but with 1/2 to 1/3 of the EHP.


People have this mistaken idea that CBC should be viable for normal/fleet pvp, they shouldn't. That's why they got nerfed because back when they were good you effectively ran into two ships; Drake and Cane. The second you make CBC viable for "general play styles" is the second they'll poop all over the other ships again and we'll lose the ship size & type diversity we have atm.

Forget about CBC for normal pvp styles, it's the only way to ensure that we get to keep flying frigs and cruisers because a buffed CBC would just be too good. they're, very deliberately, kept "terrible" for normal use and we should be ok with that even though it's a bit of a shame.



Ships size and type diversity? You mean Cruisers online? Im sorry but I fail to see any real diversity in fleets anymore, not nearly as much as say back in 2009/10 at any rate.

What we flying tonight?
HACs or T3s?

or are we going to just go on a Harpy and welp into HACs, T3s or other Harpies.

Back in 2010 if you had intel an enemy was bringing HACs you brough BC's, if they were bringing BC's you brought BS, if they were bringing BS you brought HACs. Today you bring Ishtars, or T3s. Because they are the top of the food chain in a game where there are no bigger fish to keep them in check. Except Domis and Carriers of course because Drones are super special snowflakes that should be able to apply damage up and down the spectrum despite the ship type launching them Roll...

Make BC's viable fleet options again, and you open the door to making BS viable fleet options again. As it stands right now there isn't much reason to use anything other than Ishtar and Tengu, and thats not because they are "OP" thats because they have no predators. Nerf Ishtar and T3's and you will just have folks rocking Cerbs and Zealots, or Munins or Eagles.