These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
abrasive soap
Gape Deep Core Mining
#281 - 2015-04-19 20:09:08 UTC
You can have infinite max velocity but it means nothing if your acceleration is so slow that you never reach it
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#282 - 2015-04-19 20:16:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
soap, nevermind them - they just love Cruisers Online.

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

A reasonable balancing thing to do would be to raise 1600mm / LSE fitting reqs, while compensating with more CPU/PG on all BCs, so that the cruiser peasants stick to the 800mm plates.

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

[Cruisers Online]
abrasive soap
Gape Deep Core Mining
#283 - 2015-04-19 20:35:03 UTC
We all know what happens now. The Vexor gets nerfed while the BC's stay terrible
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#284 - 2015-04-19 21:05:20 UTC
Nah, not even that.

BCs will just stay terrible in this cruiser meta. Smile

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

[Cruisers Online]
Cade Windstalker
#285 - 2015-04-19 21:17:35 UTC
abrasive soap wrote:
You can have infinite max velocity but it means nothing if your acceleration is so slow that you never reach it


Again, they didn't significantly nerf the align time of BCs. As in only two ships significantly changed align time. The +.7 seconds on the Drake and the -.4 on the Prophecy. Everything else was either +.05 or nothing, and lower inertia means that with a prop mod the ships accelerate and perform better.

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
A reasonable balancing thing to do would be to raise 1600mm / LSE fitting reqs, while compensating with more CPU/PG on all BCs, so that the cruiser peasants stick to the 800mm plates.


Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.

abrasive soap wrote:
We all know what happens now. The Vexor gets nerfed while the BC's stay terrible


Only if the Vexor is over-performing relative to other T1 Cruisers, but that would be a problem within the T1 Cruiser class and wouldn't have any bearing on the standing of BCs or BS class ships. So far that doesn't seem to be the case, at least not nearly to the extent that the Ishtar was the dominating HAC.

Overall it kind of feels like BCs aren't as bad off as people are making them out to be, they're just no longer the sweet spot between cost and effectiveness for T1, and at least some of the people complaining just want that back.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#286 - 2015-04-19 21:22:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.


How so? Your demagogy is starting to be tiring. Smile

Goal 1) cruisers can't fit 1600mm & LSEs without multiple fitting mods;
Goal 2) BCs and BS can fit them just as they do now with current fits intact;

Ever heard of ratios?

Roll

Or a super-easy cheese solution: Role bonus for both Battleships and Battlecruisers to fitting 1600mms/LSEs.

New 1600mm II plate PG requirement = 1437 MW vs 575 MW previously. The Role bonus is set at 60% = same 575 MW cost.

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

[Cruisers Online]
Cade Windstalker
#287 - 2015-04-19 21:50:19 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.


How so? Your demagogy is starting to be tiring. Smile

Goal 1) cruisers can't fit 1600mm & LSEs without multiple fitting mods;
Goal 2) BCs and BS can fit them just as they do now with current fits intact;

Ever heard of ratios?

Roll


T2 and T3 Cruisers are balanced around being able to fit those modules and the trade-offs that entails, plus that has zero effect on active-tanked fits which still make up a significant portion of Cruiser gameplay.

Those modules are also a significant portion of the fitting cost on a BC, as well as BS sized fits, so BCs would still need a rebalance to be able to fit them (currently a 1600 plate takes about 1/3rd of the PG on a Hurricane), and BSes would see at least some effect.

There's also no evidence here that those modules are a problem, you've simply decided seemingly arbitrarily that they're a problem based on the magnitude of the bonus provided without taking anything else into account. For example that LSEs are equivalent to 800 plates and the buffer tanks just have sizes they're intentionally not tied to ship size.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#288 - 2015-04-19 21:55:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.


How so? Your demagogy is starting to be tiring. Smile

Goal 1) cruisers can't fit 1600mm & LSEs without multiple fitting mods;
Goal 2) BCs and BS can fit them just as they do now with current fits intact;

Ever heard of ratios?

Roll


T2 and T3 Cruisers are balanced around being able to fit those modules


Oh, now they're balanced around them? Roll HACs were always balanced around local active tanking ever since their introduction around 2005, but thanks for the laugh!

Compared to these setups, local cruiser active tanks are a joke, hence you have dead brick cancer as the epitome of combat in Eve, without either Battlecruisers or Battleships being present in that equation, courtesy of over-sized plates and especially extenders, which coupled with sig and speed tanking, make cruisers reach BC EHP levels in effect, and in the case of T3 - they simply match Battleship EHP levels de facto.

Who needs variety anyway? Roll

Useless to continue this discussion, which no one takes note of anyway.

He sees this chart and he sees no problems - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

No problems, officer! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

[Cruisers Online]
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#289 - 2015-04-20 01:50:33 UTC
abrasive soap wrote:


They are garbage now and making it seem as if they have some niche is ridiculous, a HAC would be better in literally any situation. It used to be that BC's were the cheap option but with the change in insurance and the survivability of BC's being nil, I don't think that is the case anymore. A hac might be more expensive in simple terms, but the insurance changes brought them in line to a degree and you also are much less likely to get stuck and die because of poor mobility


BCs can manage slightly more versatile fits, and all BCs have at least 1 utility high, making them a better middleweight middle cost combat exploration ship than most HACs. They are still dunked on by ishtars in that category though. As PVP ships, don't even.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Cade Windstalker
#290 - 2015-04-20 03:15:05 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Oh, now they're balanced around them? Roll HACs were always balanced around local active tanking ever since their introduction around 2005, but thanks for the laugh!

Compared to these setups, local cruiser active tanks are a joke, hence you have dead brick cancer as the epitome of combat in Eve, without either Battlecruisers or Battleships being present in that equation, courtesy of over-sized plates and especially extenders, which coupled with sig and speed tanking, make cruisers reach BC EHP levels in effect, and in the case of T3 - they simply match Battleship EHP levels de facto.


HACs haven't been used as fleet active tanked ships since at least 2008/9, and given that the entire class has been rebalanced that claim is flatly false. Rise flew (and I would presume still flies) a lot of HACs has a PvP pilot and is perfectly aware of their capabilities. They're fantastic fleet ships because of their resists. The buffer is simply a nice bonus that lets the Logi get reps on them.

Also no, Cruisers do not hit BC levels of tank, unless you mean a completely unfitted BC vs a Cruiser with tank fitted. Fully fitted BCs can consistently end up with 3-4 times the EHP of a Cruiser fit due to more slots, more fitting room, and much higher base HP.

The only places Cruisers really beat out BCs is in speed, agility, and cost, which are clearly more important in most current meta's.

How you're getting "the problem is Cruisers fitting larger tank mods" out of that I haven't a clue, especially since Cruisers have been able to fit LSEs and 1600 plates since more or less the inception of Eve as a game.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#291 - 2015-04-20 12:24:30 UTC
Felter Echerie wrote:
Challus Mercer wrote:
Nice! Thx for listening to the community and giving us at least something. Would be very nice to see the same for battleships. They are damn slow at warping :(


nope; they should be slow.

Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships.

Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Cade Windstalker
#292 - 2015-04-20 19:02:21 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships.

Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical.


Eve has borrowed the names, nothing more, and it's hardly alone in Sci-Fi for doing that. Battleships in Eve have always traded the speed of the smaller classes for projection and firepower.

Taking a game and saying "look! Real life does it this way so we should to!" is utter nonsense. We play games like because they're different from real life and let us do things we never could in real life. That's why the people who make games are called Game Developers and not Urban Planners.

Games can take inspiration from real life and even mimic it when appropriate, but that should always be because doing so favors gameplay in some way and in this case Eve Battleships are slow. It's one of the fundamentals of the class for the last 8-9 years, ever since the Nano-Nerf, and the game is better for it.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#293 - 2015-04-20 19:05:07 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post.

The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#294 - 2015-04-20 20:03:11 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Eve has borrowed the names, nothing more, and it's hardly alone in Sci-Fi for doing that. Battleships in Eve have always traded the speed of the smaller classes for projection and firepower...


And here is the problem that battlecruisers and battleships face. Warping fast or not is only a tiny part that makes them bad.

The warping thing is bad because you want to get from a to b at some point. As long as you are in the warp tunnel nothing happens anyway, everything is out of your control.

The being useless on grid is the other thing that makes those classes bad. Fine you have 1000-2000dps that you can neither project nor apply to anything.

Both classes are too slow to keep up with the cruiser speeds and long range guns need so much help that it is always better to keep them in a station.
So there goes the projection out of the window.

Battleships have that other problem that they need to get a target lock on something before they get volleyd of the field.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#295 - 2015-04-20 20:08:46 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Felter Echerie wrote:
Challus Mercer wrote:
Nice! Thx for listening to the community and giving us at least something. Would be very nice to see the same for battleships. They are damn slow at warping :(


nope; they should be slow.

Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships.

Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical.

Historically you could send a few carriers out and decimate half of the American Pacific fleet with but a few losses. But that wouldn't be fun for gameplay though.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#296 - 2015-04-20 20:22:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Rowells wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Felter Echerie wrote:
Challus Mercer wrote:
Nice! Thx for listening to the community and giving us at least something. Would be very nice to see the same for battleships. They are damn slow at warping :(


nope; they should be slow.

Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships.

Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical.

Historically you could send a few carriers out and decimate half of the American Pacific fleet with but a few losses. But that wouldn't be fun for gameplay though.


Those ships were AFK at a POS with its shields down. P

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

[Cruisers Online]
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#297 - 2015-04-21 11:19:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships.

Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical.


Eve has borrowed the names, nothing more, and it's hardly alone in Sci-Fi for doing that. Battleships in Eve have always traded the speed of the smaller classes for projection and firepower.

Taking a game and saying "look! Real life does it this way so we should to!" is utter nonsense. We play games like because they're different from real life and let us do things we never could in real life. That's why the people who make games are called Game Developers and not Urban Planners.

Games can take inspiration from real life and even mimic it when appropriate, but that should always be because doing so favors gameplay in some way and in this case Eve Battleships are slow. It's one of the fundamentals of the class for the last 8-9 years, ever since the Nano-Nerf, and the game is better for it.

Not true at all.

EvE modelled ships based on historical naval forces. Frigates were fast and small and lightly armed and armor. check. You can go through the entire original lineup of EvE ships and the approximate very accurately the speed, armor, defense and offense of traditional naval forces on earth.

Carriers were the first ships that broke with that thinking, having ridiculous amounts of armor when compared to battleships however they were added a long time after the original line.

No borrowed in name, copied in functionality and purpose from naval forces.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Cade Windstalker
#298 - 2015-04-22 02:58:39 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Not true at all.

EvE modelled ships based on historical naval forces. Frigates were fast and small and lightly armed and armor. check. You can go through the entire original lineup of EvE ships and the approximate very accurately the speed, armor, defense and offense of traditional naval forces on earth.

Carriers were the first ships that broke with that thinking, having ridiculous amounts of armor when compared to battleships however they were added a long time after the original line.

No borrowed in name, copied in functionality and purpose from naval forces.


[Citation Needed]

No, the comparison is loose at best, which is my point. There's no equivalent to Torpedoes for Destroyers for a start. Look back at Eve's history, the classes borrow the names as size designations and nothing more, the stats build off of the size, trading weight for speed which often didn't apply to historical naval ships since displacement often meant bigger engines and more speed, not less.

They *certainly* don't balance the ships based on naval ships, it just doesn't translate.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#299 - 2015-04-22 03:25:04 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Not true at all.

EvE modelled ships based on historical naval forces. Frigates were fast and small and lightly armed and armor. check. You can go through the entire original lineup of EvE ships and the approximate very accurately the speed, armor, defense and offense of traditional naval forces on earth.

Carriers were the first ships that broke with that thinking, having ridiculous amounts of armor when compared to battleships however they were added a long time after the original line.

No borrowed in name, copied in functionality and purpose from naval forces.


[Citation Needed]

No, the comparison is loose at best, which is my point. There's no equivalent to Torpedoes for Destroyers for a start. Look back at Eve's history, the classes borrow the names as size designations and nothing more, the stats build off of the size, trading weight for speed which often didn't apply to historical naval ships since displacement often meant bigger engines and more speed, not less.

They *certainly* don't balance the ships based on naval ships, it just doesn't translate.


Though you can draw comparisons between ABCs being true battle cruisers, with cruiser weight armor and such on cruiser hulls upsized just enough to fit battleship caliber weapons on, without violating the rules on the number of capital vessels nations could have, and CBCs as "grand/heavy/armored cruisers" which thickened the decks, belt and hull but left them with between 6" and 9" guns, and sacrificed some speed relative to both cruisers and battleships IRL.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Cade Windstalker
#300 - 2015-04-22 03:28:49 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Though you can draw comparisons between ABCs being true battle cruisers, with cruiser weight armor and such on cruiser hulls upsized just enough to fit battleship caliber weapons on, without violating the rules on the number of capital vessels nations could have, and CBCs as "grand/heavy/armored cruisers" which thickened the decks, belt and hull but left them with between 6" and 9" guns, and sacrificed some speed relative to both cruisers and battleships IRL.


Sure, but just because we can draw the comparison back the other way doesn't mean the comparison works both ways or that Eve ships are currently or should try to in the future emulate the roles of real-life naval vessels.