These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[April] Battlecruiser Warp Speed and Warp Rig Tweaks

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#121 - 2015-04-04 08:42:29 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
So, throwing together a couple of skeleton fits for testing purposes...

Drake with a single Explosion Velocity rig vs a Caracal with a 10MN Afterburner. Both use the EFT all-5s profile, and both have 3 BC IIs and a full loadout of HMLs.

The Drake applies 142 DPS to the Caracal and the Caracal applies 284 DPS to the Drake. Exactly double the applied DPS, but the Drake has almost four times the raw EHP of the Caracal and, when you look at some of the other available fittings can be passively fit to tank the Caracal all day, while the Caracal can not perma-tank the Drake, though it can probably escape easily. In a straight up fight of raw EHP between gangs of 10 the Caracals are going to lose at least two ships for every Drake that dies.

It's also worth noting that the Caracal gains no benefit from a Target Painter in this situation, but the Drake sees an increase to 176 applies DPS from just a single Tech 2 TP.

Running a similar setup between the Hurricane and the Rupture with ACs but with a single Tracking Enhancer on each ship we see a similar relationship, except the Hurricane is only losing on DPS by about a 1/3rd (389DPS to 283DPS at 5km, optimal DPS range for the Rupture) and still maintains a convincing tank advantage over the Rupture.

In short, a Battlecruiser with a similar basic fit has distinct advantages over a Cruiser. Of course the details of these fits are going to make or break them, but the BC has more fitting space, more slots, and more EHP to play with and uses the same weapons, so while it may not be able to catch every Cruiser out there it is very likely able to deal damage to it and in significant enough amounts to make up for the application difference between the two ships. Go figure the guy from Goons with a fleet concept named after him knows something about ship strengths and weaknesses... Roll


That caracal can use fury though....
Cade Windstalker
#122 - 2015-04-04 08:56:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
afkalt wrote:
That caracal can use fury though....


And the Drake can use Precision, which evens things out. Besides if you run the numbers of Furies versus just CN Scourge it's still not enough for the Caracal to beat the Drake in a straight up fight based on DPS versus tank alone.

At this point though we're getting into the realm of Eve Fitting Calvin Ball, where we can each come up with some change or scenario that invalidates the point of the other one. Personally, I think that's a waste of time and refuse to participate.

There was a claim made about the relative merits of the two ship classes, and I pulled out a couple very generic, and hopefully generically applicable, examples to prove that the claims being made were, if not flatly incorrect, then at least failing to take into account the relative merits of the ships in question. If you can refute my point with numbers then please do so, and show the math to prove your point, otherwise I think I've made mine.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2015-04-04 09:16:22 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Indeed, my point was it's still a bit too close for my money (isk) in terms of performance. I say this taking the BC trade offs into account.

It may be my own personal uses though which could be placed into three "buckets" extending to roams, stratops and camps. Stratops are an obvious nono, roaming they are eschewed because you don't know what you're going to wind up fighting and with the existing super-popular cruiser meta, odds are you'll not be able to evade which means you're forced to fight and the performance gap for the trade of speed, cost and increases damage in isn't offset by the gains. Indeed, if I'm taking a BC on a roam...it's an ABC, faster, more agile, better DPS by a country mile and enough tank. Camps...well...kitchen sink ftw there, eh?

So camps and known reinforcement situations where you know what you're flying into - but these are a little too narrow in focus for my personal tastes.

Obviously this is just my personal view and have mentioned before I've had great success with small bore guns and scram/webs/mmjd however I'd prefer them to have a little something....different. That use is awesome but it's so narrow, for me, cruisers are just functionally superior bang for buck.

I'm familiar with calvin ball, long live spaceman spiff Big smile
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#124 - 2015-04-04 14:55:05 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:


No. Cruisers have application bonuses, which make them superior in most situations.


Harbinger
Amarr Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):
10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage

vs.

Omen
Amarr Cruiser bonuses (per skill level):
10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost
5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire

Not sure where is the trick.


There's also a CBC with application bonus, but in general CBCs have damage and tanking bonuses, and are therefore weaker fighting smaller ships.


When this is the case - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

Cruisers do have a defacto application bonus against BCs. Blink

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Cade Windstalker
#125 - 2015-04-04 17:40:13 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Indeed, my point was it's still a bit too close for my money (isk) in terms of performance. I say this taking the BC trade offs into account.

It may be my own personal uses though which could be placed into three "buckets" extending to roams, stratops and camps. Stratops are an obvious nono, roaming they are eschewed because you don't know what you're going to wind up fighting and with the existing super-popular cruiser meta, odds are you'll not be able to evade which means you're forced to fight and the performance gap for the trade of speed, cost and increases damage in isn't offset by the gains. Indeed, if I'm taking a BC on a roam...it's an ABC, faster, more agile, better DPS by a country mile and enough tank. Camps...well...kitchen sink ftw there, eh?

So camps and known reinforcement situations where you know what you're flying into - but these are a little too narrow in focus for my personal tastes.

Obviously this is just my personal view and have mentioned before I've had great success with small bore guns and scram/webs/mmjd however I'd prefer them to have a little something....different. That use is awesome but it's so narrow, for me, cruisers are just functionally superior bang for buck.

I'm familiar with calvin ball, long live spaceman spiff Big smile


As CCP have stated repeatedly, increased cost is not supposed to translate linearly to increased effectiveness. The only reason this used to be the case for some BCs was because they were hilariously OP for their hull cost. They still have their uses though, and I don't think there's anything wrong with Cruisers being the sweet spot between price and performance.

If two equally sized gangs meet, one comprised mainly of Cruisers and the other comprised mainly of Battlecruisers the BC gang has a significant advantage in terms of hitpoints, DPS, and utility slots. If they make use of their advantages and support ships effectively then they're going to completely stomp the cruiser gang, because the only advantage the Cruisers have is their speed and agility. If that gets nullified and they can be prevented from running away then they pretty much flat loose the fight.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#126 - 2015-04-04 17:45:36 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.

The Rules:
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Baron Wikkheiser
Infinite Density
#127 - 2015-04-04 18:27:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Baron Wikkheiser
They will still be terrible. Cruisers are all too fast, any joe blow in a pirate faction or T1 can get over 3k/s overheated. What was once a specialized attribute is now very common and the large amount of high speed hulls now heavily favors tracking bonused platforms or cancerously cheesy RLML and drone platforms

The emphasis on small and fast will erode interest in this game for people who were brought in by the stories of the large battles with large ships. I didn't stay subbed so I could spend the entirety of my playtime on EVE sitting in a breacher in FW sites or flying a t1 cruiser. I stayed subbed and trained because I wanted to fly battleships and destroy other big ships.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#128 - 2015-04-04 18:31:20 UTC
Baron Wikkheiser wrote:
They will still be terrible. Cruisers are all too fast, any joe blow in a pirate faction or T1 can get over 3k/s overheated. What was once a specialized attribute is now very common and the large amount of high speed hulls now heavily favors tracking bonused platforms or cancerously cheesy RLML and drone platforms

The emphasis on small and fast will erode interest in this game for people who came for the big ships. I didn't stay subbed so I could spend the entirety of my playtime on EVE sitting in a breacher in FW sites or flying a t1 cruiser. I stayed subbed and trained because I wanted to fly battleships and destroy other big ships.


This man has it korrekt.

http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

This reminds me of the Need for Speed era, which wasn't as disastrous as the current situation. What?

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#129 - 2015-04-04 20:02:52 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

As CCP have stated repeatedly, increased cost is not supposed to translate linearly to increased effectiveness. The only reason this used to be the case for some BCs was because they were hilariously OP for their hull cost. They still have their uses though, and I don't think there's anything wrong with Cruisers being the sweet spot between price and performance.



I wouldn't ever expect linear performance increase related to cost, for me it's not enough of a performance hike AND attached to too many severe [in the current meta] drawbacks to ever [outside of edge cases] be the smart play.

The cost/power difference between frigates to cruisers is in a far more healthy place. Assfrig to HAC (ishtars aside) also. Attack battle cruisers are also in a far healthier place, they're worth their trade offs.
Cade Windstalker
#130 - 2015-04-04 20:11:22 UTC
afkalt wrote:
I wouldn't ever expect linear performance increase related to cost, for me it's not enough of a performance hike AND attached to too many severe [in the current meta] drawbacks to ever [outside of edge cases] be the smart play.

The cost/power difference between frigates to cruisers is in a far more healthy place. Assfrig to HAC (ishtars aside) also. Attack battle cruisers are also in a far healthier place, they're worth their trade offs.


That's your call, and CCP have indicated they're keeping an eye on the larger classes and how they look relative to the other ones. Personally though I don't think they're in a terrible place, and the data I have access to backs me up.

That lovely distorted graph of "all cruiser hulls" vs everything else doesn't come close to telling the whole story, and there's nothing historical to compare it to, which further skews things.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#131 - 2015-04-04 20:20:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Cade Windstalker wrote:

That lovely distorted graph of "all cruiser hulls" vs everything else doesn't come close to telling the whole story,


http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

How is it distorted? Smile

Yes, Marauders and BlOps had been left out of the "Battleships" metric, as well as Attack BC, Command Ships being separate from Combat BC.

Adding up the above doesn't change the structural problem is that Cruisers Online, however. Smile

Quote:
...and there's nothing historical to compare it to


Exactly. At historical crossroads, we are.

The cornerstone concept that had been the Battleship has been forced into irrelevance with the coffin getting heavier with each nail that is being struck into it. Roll

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Cade Windstalker
#132 - 2015-04-04 20:41:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

How is it distorted? Smile


It fails to list where those numbers are coming from. It's just throwing together all cruiser hulls (except, apparently, for Recons) into one big blog for shock value. It doesn't actually tell us anything about why those hulls are popular, who is using them, or how that compares to usage historically for the various classes.

See the Fanfest Presentation on Data Science for why you can't look at a single statistic and jump to conclusions...

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Yes, Marauders and BlOps had been left out of the "Battleships" metric, as well as Attack BC being separate from Combat BC.

Adding up the above doesn't change the structural problem is that Cruisers Online, however. Smile

Quote:
...and there's nothing historical to compare it to


Exactly. At historical crossroads, we are.

The cornerstone concept that had been the Battleship has been forced into irrelevance with the coffin getting heavier with each nail that is being struck into it. Roll


Setting aside the irony of this mirroring, to an extent, real-life navies and the fact that this came about because of a very popular series of changes that the players pushed for...

One, there's not necessarily anything wrong with Cruisers dealing more damage than everything else. They're at a nice spot with respect to cost and utility, and something like that gets more players out PvPing. If you run into a Battleship roam and just get whelped every time then you don't feel like there's a point in taking your Cruiser out even though you feel it's what you can afford to lose.

As for what I mean about not having anything to compare it to historically, I mean we don't have a version of that graph for every year going back 5 years. HAC gangs for example have been popular in Null since PL and others came up with the original Armor HAC sig-tanking concept way way back in... what, 2009/10?

Plus a large percentage of that huge line comes from T3 Cruisers, which have been massively popular (and problematic) ever since the price started to come down into Null fleet-doctrine-viable ranges, never mind their use in small-gang and solo PvP before that.

If we look back over the last five years and see a similar trend, or similar absolute numbers in the other classes besides T1 Cruisers (prior to their big rebalance anyway), then there isn't necessarily a huge problem with the relative usage of the various ship types, it just feels like there is to some players.

Either way this thread isn't the place for a comprehensive dive into the relative balance between Cruisers and BCs, and it's unlikely that the answer is to nerf cruisers back into irrelevance either.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#133 - 2015-04-04 20:45:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

How is it distorted? Smile


It fails to list where those numbers are coming from.


The graph is sourced from this dev blog: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla/

Quote:
Have a look at this awesome graph of PVP damage by class


Original: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png

The PVP damage also includes structure grind. Smile

Super-fixed graph: http://i.imgur.com/MKKgoCA.png Roll

By my analysis colour coding goes as follows:

Blue = Drones -> because HACs=Ishtar and Tech 1 cruisers with blue being prevalent in BC metric = Myrm/Prophecy; Also BS = Domi/Geddon/Rattlesnake = See how long this line can get even on a forum?

Orange seems to be Energy weapon systems -> because Tactical Destroyer = Confessor at that time;

Dark blue = Hybrids -> because Proteus/Tengu/Pre-Medium Rails fix; Also Moros.

Light blue = Could be Light Missiles = See Tech 1 cruiser use = RLML

Dark Yellow = Carriers = Fighters = Assigned fighters at that time.

Yellow = Projectiles? vOv See Dreads and most tech 1 Archtype ship use.

All in all,

CCP Rise wrote:
...we believe ship and module balance in EVE is in one of the best positions we’ve seen in a long time.


I'll leave you to your own thoughts. Smile

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Baron Wikkheiser
Infinite Density
#134 - 2015-04-04 21:20:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Setting aside the irony of this mirroring, to an extent, real-life navies and the fact that this came about because of a very popular series of changes that the players pushed for...


A number of popular changes when put together resulted in a undesirable side effect. Unless you think its desirable, *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Cade Windstalker
#135 - 2015-04-04 21:53:03 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:


The graph is sourced from this dev blog: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla/



I know, I meant it's distorted because it doesn't give any indication of the contributions of individual classes to the overall line. The comparison of all classes is a somewhat better graph but still doesn't really tell the whole story because it's still one graph with very little context or background.

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Original: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png

The PVP damage also includes structure grind. Smile

Super-fixed graph: http://i.imgur.com/MKKgoCA.png Roll

By my analysis colour coding goes as follows:

Blue = Drones -> because HACs=Ishtar and Tech 1 cruisers with blue being prevalent in BC metric = Myrm/Prophecy; Also BS = Domi/Geddon = See how long this line can get even on a forum?

Orange seems to be Energy weapon systems -> because Tactical Destroyer = Confessor at that time;

Dark blue = Hybrids -> because Proteus/Tengu/Pre-Medium Rails fix; Also Moros.

Light blue = Could be Light Missiles = See Tech 1 cruiser use = RLML

Dark Yellow = Carriers = Fighters = Assigned fighters at that time.

Yellow = Projectiles? vOv See Dreads and most tech 1 Archtype ship use.


By my count you're missing two colors, which suggests these probably aren't damage sources.

I'm showing:


  • Medium Blue (or just blue)
  • Orange
  • Yellow-Orange? (either way it's a second sliver on several bars and distinct from the yellow at the ends)
  • Dark Blue
  • Dark Brown
  • Brown
  • Dark Green?
  • Light Blue (only shows up on Cruisers, HACs, T3 Cruisers, Combat Recons, Combat BCs, and HICs)
  • Yellow
  • Grey (only shows up on the Stealth Bomber, Battleship, Marauder, and Black Ops bars)
  • Slightly darker grey (no, I'm not kidding, I've got the graph open in GIMP and I'm using select by color, this one is only on the Super Carrier bar)
  • Brick Red (only shows up on the Battleship, Marauder, and possibly EAF bars)
  • Light Green (only on the bomber graph)


Overall a lot more than the six categories you listed, and one more than every faction of ship in the game (four empires plus seven pirate factions) though that explanation seems unlikely given the skewing on some of those bars. If nothing else the Super Carrier one is massively implausible, and there are eight colors on the bar for Strategic Cruisers but only four of those ships. This suggests that the damage is broken up in some way by target type or possibly a very granular weapon breakdown.

Actually the more I get into this the more likely it is that this is some kind of extremely granular weapon or target type breakdown. The green on the Bomber bar could easily be Bomb Damage, which makes a lot of sense, and that would make the Grey torpedoes, with the little sliver of orange being some kind of small missile weapon.

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
All in all,

CCP Rise wrote:
...we believe ship and module balance in EVE is in one of the best positions we’ve seen in a long time.


I'll leave you to your own thoughts. Smile


Personally, having played for six years and seen what a mess we used to be in, I agree with him, but that's my opinion. If you want to keep going over that graph and the relevant statistics PM me. I think further discussion in this thread would be off topic assuming we aren't there already.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#136 - 2015-04-05 02:41:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
It is segmented by weapon type - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532803#post5532803

Welcome to Drone Cruisers Online. Blink

I don't wanna hear, I don't wanna know,
Please don't say you're sorry!
Don't explain yourself cause talk is cheap;
I've heard it all before, And I can take care of myself
There's more important things than hearing you speak;
I don't wanna hear, I don't wanna know. vOv
Please don't say 'forgive me'!

I've heard it all before;
I've heard it all before;
I've heard it all before...
I've heard it all before!

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#137 - 2015-04-05 03:13:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs). This penalty matters quite a bit for large nullsec fleets and small ships (two areas where we want to be cautious about the power level of warp speed rigs) but is much less important for smaller gang activities in large ships, as well as for mission runners. We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy.

From my own experience, the CPU penalty is preferred over yet-another-sig-radius penalty, partiicularly since the sig radius penalty persists, even when NOT actively warping.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the moment the two sets of warp rigs have -CPU penalties, which are among the most harsh penalties that rigs in EVE can have.
In truth, I can't recall any case where a CPU penalty on a rig has been a problem for my own ship fits.

Logically, though, I think it would make more sense to penalize ship velocity, as a trade off to increased warp speed.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#138 - 2015-04-05 03:32:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Sizeof Void wrote:
From my own experience, the CPU penalty is preferred over yet-another-sig-radius penalty, partiicularly since the sig radius penalty persists, even when NOT actively warping.

I agree. Let's also not forget that this will also make it easier to lock ships when trying to get through gate camps and you're going to take more NPC damage in PvE with a larger signature radius.

Quote:
Logically, though, I think it would make more sense to penalize ship velocity, as a trade off to increased warp speed.

This I don't have a problem with, although I really think it should be left as the CPU penalty.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#139 - 2015-04-05 04:48:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs). This penalty matters quite a bit for large nullsec fleets and small ships (two areas where we want to be cautious about the power level of warp speed rigs) but is much less important for smaller gang activities in large ships, as well as for mission runners. We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy.

CCP Fozzie, can you please reconsider this change? It's easy for null fleets to offset the +15%+ signature bump with off-grid links but less so for your average solo player.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#140 - 2015-04-05 04:56:09 UTC
I might then ask very simple but fundamental question - what is a well balanced ship ?

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP