These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Projection Role Bonus
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#81 - 2015-05-08 23:43:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
James Baboli wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
A good additional Role Bonus for Command Ships would be 75-100% Weapon Damage Bonus. That way they can replace a turret high slot for a utility so that the CS's can have 3 high slots for command warfare links instead of just 2. Also they can replace one of their Command Ship weapon damage bonus for additional range bonus like falloff or optimal range.

Nope. Takes them out of the command role, and into mainline combatant. While they are great in this role, it is not their intended use case, and optimizing them for it is wrong.
Maybe another in HA series of ships, should it become extant, but not command ships.


If they were not meant to be combatant ships then why do they have weapon damage bonuses and turrets to use those bonuses? They are clearly meant to be use as both combatant and fleet boost supporting ships while on grid. And since the BC's doesn't have any other T2 ships that's specialized purely for combat (like HABC's), then CCP should fully implement those abilities for CS's while still making them able to fully utilize their second role as on grid fleet boosters.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#82 - 2015-05-09 00:27:12 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
A good additional Role Bonus for Command Ships would be 75-100% Weapon Damage Bonus. That way they can replace a turret high slot for a utility so that the CS's can have 3 high slots for command warfare links instead of just 2. Also they can replace one of their Command Ship weapon damage bonus for additional range bonus like falloff or optimal range.

Nope. Takes them out of the command role, and into mainline combatant. While they are great in this role, it is not their intended use case, and optimizing them for it is wrong.
Maybe another in HA series of ships, should it become extant, but not command ships.


If they were not meant to be combatant ships then why do they have weapon damage bonuses and turrets to use those bonuses? They are clearly meant to be use as both combatant and fleet boost supporting ships while on grid. And since the BC's doesn't have any other T2 ships that's specialized purely for combat (like HABC's), then CCP should fully implement those abilities for CS's while still making them able to fully utilize their second role as on grid fleet boosters.

The issues I have with that is that it:

A: Closes off the possibility of a pure combat focused t2 BC ever.
B: All CS, with 4 turrets and a 75% damage bonus, would manage to out DPS the BS, which is the only trick that can't be duplicated right now.
C: There is no longer a tradeoff for flying them.
D: It now only takes like 6 sliepnirs to alpha almost any cruiser.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#83 - 2015-05-09 02:01:55 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

A projection bonus of 25% to optimal/fall off/missile velocity actually has the effect of making command ships more viable on grid since it lets their range get out towards battleships whom a CS is likely to be supporting. They still suffer from the 'odd man out' syndrome which makes them primary but that can be solves by flying enough of them in fleet to make that not worth it.
So the projection bonus works nicely, doesn't need to be as big as a destroyers projection bonus, but does give BC's something 'special' that cruisers simply can't match other than links which are not going to be used on each individual pilots BC.


CS already have a projection based hull in each line. They also have one for close range brawling/application.

Sleipnir = fall-off bonused
Claymore = explosion radius bonus
Nighthawk = explosion radius bonus
Vulture = Optimal bonus
Astarte = fall-off bonus
Eos = Drone and turret tracking bonuses
Absolution = Cap usage reduction bonus..? (odd one out)
Damnation = Missile velocity bonus

The main CS that need some looking at is probably the absolution since it could benefit greatly with a tracking bonus, and just buff the ship's cap slightly. Or, roll the 10% cap usage bonus in with the 5% RoF bonus and make it as one bonus. I mean gallente already get double traits for drones, i don't see why amarr shouldn't get a slightly more useful bonus. Now i'm not saying its useless, but i doubt rolling that in with RoF bonus would suddenly make it OP.

Making the Damnation a drone boat would also make more sense to bring it in-line with the prophecy. Although, that might make it too similar to gallente drone boats.

CS are t2, so their role is defined fairly well. And i think the application/range split between the CS is a good way to keep them unique from each other. One's a brawler, the other good at projecting damage.

Besides, this proposal mainly only applies to T1 BC's, not CS.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#84 - 2015-05-09 02:36:45 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
A good additional Role Bonus for Command Ships would be 75-100% Weapon Damage Bonus. That way they can replace a turret high slot for a utility so that the CS's can have 3 high slots for command warfare links instead of just 2. Also they can replace one of their Command Ship weapon damage bonus for additional range bonus like falloff or optimal range.

Nope. Takes them out of the command role, and into mainline combatant. While they are great in this role, it is not their intended use case, and optimizing them for it is wrong.
Maybe another in HA series of ships, should it become extant, but not command ships.


If they were not meant to be combatant ships then why do they have weapon damage bonuses and turrets to use those bonuses? They are clearly meant to be use as both combatant and fleet boost supporting ships while on grid. And since the BC's doesn't have any other T2 ships that's specialized purely for combat (like HABC's), then CCP should fully implement those abilities for CS's while still making them able to fully utilize their second role as on grid fleet boosters.

The issues I have with that is that it:

A: Closes off the possibility of a pure combat focused t2 BC ever.
B: All CS, with 4 turrets and a 75% damage bonus, would manage to out DPS the BS, which is the only trick that can't be duplicated right now.
C: There is no longer a tradeoff for flying them.
D: It now only takes like 6 sliepnirs to alpha almost any cruiser.


Not really the case as with the T2 Cruisers (HACs) and T3 Cruisers (Strategic). Both are combat oriented ships with the later been more powerful (which is due a balance pass later). And it has been hinted that the next combat oriented BC would be T3 BC's, but this is long way off. In the meantime to keep T2 BC hungry pilots satisfied they should make appropriate changes to the CS line of ships as both Combat/On-Grid boosters with the ability to hit out to 50km(or be pummeled to death by a few taloses/tornados), otherwise there would be no justification in the ridiculously (365+ days) long training time it takes to fly these hulls.


Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#85 - 2015-05-09 02:45:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
James Baboli wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
A good additional Role Bonus for Command Ships would be 75-100% Weapon Damage Bonus. That way they can replace a turret high slot for a utility so that the CS's can have 3 high slots for command warfare links instead of just 2. Also they can replace one of their Command Ship weapon damage bonus for additional range bonus like falloff or optimal range.

Nope. Takes them out of the command role, and into mainline combatant. While they are great in this role, it is not their intended use case, and optimizing them for it is wrong.
Maybe another in HA series of ships, should it become extant, but not command ships.


If they were not meant to be combatant ships then why do they have weapon damage bonuses and turrets to use those bonuses? They are clearly meant to be use as both combatant and fleet boost supporting ships while on grid. And since the BC's doesn't have any other T2 ships that's specialized purely for combat (like HABC's), then CCP should fully implement those abilities for CS's while still making them able to fully utilize their second role as on grid fleet boosters.

The issues I have with that is that it:

A: Closes off the possibility of a pure combat focused t2 BC ever.
B: All CS, with 4 turrets and a 75% damage bonus, would manage to out DPS the BS, which is the only trick that can't be duplicated right now.
C: There is no longer a tradeoff for flying them.
D: It now only takes like 6 sliepnirs to alpha almost any cruiser.


No the DPS would be around the same or a little higher. The propose changes would be as followed while changing one turret high slot into a utility:

Sleipnir
Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness

Minmatar Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff (was 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage)
7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount

Role Bonus:
• Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously
* 100% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage

In case of the Absolution, it would receive 10% Optimal range bonus instead of the 5% energy turret rate of fire bonus
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#86 - 2015-05-09 02:58:38 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:


No the DPS would be around the same or a little higher. The propose changes would be as followed while changing one turret high slot into a utility:

Sleipnir
Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness

Minmatar Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff (was 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage)
7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount

Role Bonus:
• Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously
* 100% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage

In case of the Absolution, it would receive 10% Optimal range bonus instead of the 5% energy turret rate of fire bonus

That looks like an additional 50% damage bonus to me.
So the lovely 720s with quake now hit for roughly 6k per volley before gyros.
A 2 t2 gyro fit hits for a nice 8.5k volley, with 810 DPS.

Shall we look at the numbers for ACs, or are you willing to admit that those numbers are too high?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2015-05-09 03:03:57 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
The issues I have with that is that it:

A: Closes off the possibility of a pure combat focused t2 BC ever.
B: All CS, with 4 turrets and a 75% damage bonus, would manage to out DPS the BS, which is the only trick that can't be duplicated right now.
C: There is no longer a tradeoff for flying them.
D: It now only takes like 6 sliepnirs to alpha almost any cruiser.

I thought the line of thinking around the rebalance was that the CS's WERE the combat focused T2 BC's. That seemed to be the reason the former fleet command ships were made more battle worthy. After the balance some are already close enough to BS damage profiles that another class further up doesn't seem to have room.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#88 - 2015-05-09 05:35:13 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

A projection bonus of 25% to optimal/fall off/missile velocity actually has the effect of making command ships more viable on grid since it lets their range get out towards battleships whom a CS is likely to be supporting. They still suffer from the 'odd man out' syndrome which makes them primary but that can be solves by flying enough of them in fleet to make that not worth it.
So the projection bonus works nicely, doesn't need to be as big as a destroyers projection bonus, but does give BC's something 'special' that cruisers simply can't match other than links which are not going to be used on each individual pilots BC.


CS already have a projection based hull in each line. They also have one for close range brawling/application.

Sleipnir = fall-off bonused
Claymore = explosion radius bonus
Nighthawk = explosion radius bonus
Vulture = Optimal bonus
Astarte = fall-off bonus
Eos = Drone and turret tracking bonuses
Absolution = Cap usage reduction bonus..? (odd one out)
Damnation = Missile velocity bonus

The main CS that need some looking at is probably the absolution since it could benefit greatly with a tracking bonus, and just buff the ship's cap slightly. Or, roll the 10% cap usage bonus in with the 5% RoF bonus and make it as one bonus. I mean gallente already get double traits for drones, i don't see why amarr shouldn't get a slightly more useful bonus. Now i'm not saying its useless, but i doubt rolling that in with RoF bonus would suddenly make it OP.

Making the Damnation a drone boat would also make more sense to bring it in-line with the prophecy. Although, that might make it too similar to gallente drone boats.

CS are t2, so their role is defined fairly well. And i think the application/range split between the CS is a good way to keep them unique from each other. One's a brawler, the other good at projecting damage.

Besides, this proposal mainly only applies to T1 BC's, not CS.


Yes the CS's do get one bonus to increase their engagement range (besides the Abso), but even so their effective engagement range is only around 25km which isn't enough for a T2 BC. It should have around 50km engagement range (long point range) to prevent them from been kited easily. As for T1 BC's a 25% optimal or falloff role bonus should give them enough engagement range to be vital in their meta again.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#89 - 2015-05-09 05:46:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
James Baboli wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:


No the DPS would be around the same or a little higher. The propose changes would be as followed while changing one turret high slot into a utility:

Sleipnir
Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness

Minmatar Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff (was 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage)
7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount

Role Bonus:
• Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously
* 100% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage

In case of the Absolution, it would receive 10% Optimal range bonus instead of the 5% energy turret rate of fire bonus

That looks like an additional 50% damage bonus to me.
So the lovely 720s with quake now hit for roughly 6k per volley before gyros.
A 2 t2 gyro fit hits for a nice 8.5k volley, with 810 DPS.

Shall we look at the numbers for ACs, or are you willing to admit that those numbers are too high?


Are you sure those numbers are accurate for 4 turrets? In any case the ideal DPS output for a CS should be b/t 900-1000. For Sniping fits it should be b/t 600-750, but CS aren't really suited for sniping platforms since their dps is more effectively applied in falloff. If those numbers for 4 turrets are correct then adjustments should be made accordingly to best fit their ideal dps output, like maybe a 75% weapon damage role bonus(which seems to low from where I'm standing)
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#90 - 2015-05-09 06:24:51 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:


Yes the CS's do get one bonus to increase their engagement range (besides the Abso), but even so their effective engagement range is only around 25km which isn't enough for a T2 BC. It should have around 50km engagement range (long point range) to prevent them from been kited easily. As for T1 BC's a 25% optimal or falloff role bonus should give them enough engagement range to be vital in their meta again.


Their effective range is 25km with what? A slep with 425's and a couple TE's/ambit rig can shoot out to 40km with barrage. Or, if fit with 720 arty, can shoot well past 50km with no problem. A vulture can shoot 100km+ with rails, and an astarte has more than 50km range with rails. Damnation shoots 30km with faction HAMs, and around 40km with javelin. And if you're into a **** application, HML get 94km range.

BC's and CS can fit MMJD, being "kited" doesn't work on them. Assuming you're smart enough to fit the holy grail of escape modules anyway.

CS already have good range on the ones bonused for it. They don't need to be buffed more. Not to mention 4 turret CS makes me sad. Its a T2 battlecruiser, not a frigate. That doesn't mean i don't understand your reasoning for it.

What i don't understand is why you want to neuter T1 BC range bonus. 25% is not enough to do anything useful. 50% has been the default for as long as i've been playing the game. 25% is a tease, and then on top of that, you're ignoring the whole purpose of the thread. To reinvigorate T1 BC's, not CS. People will use CS when they are trained. Most people don't use T1 BC's because they get forced into only brawling type roles, which is very easy to evade in a fast cruiser. Or, because of how slow they align, are fearful of getting caught in camps easily.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#91 - 2015-05-09 09:31:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:


Yes the CS's do get one bonus to increase their engagement range (besides the Abso), but even so their effective engagement range is only around 25km which isn't enough for a T2 BC. It should have around 50km engagement range (long point range) to prevent them from been kited easily. As for T1 BC's a 25% optimal or falloff role bonus should give them enough engagement range to be vital in their meta again.


Their effective range is 25km with what? A slep with 425's and a couple TE's/ambit rig can shoot out to 40km with barrage. Or, if fit with 720 arty, can shoot well past 50km with no problem. A vulture can shoot 100km+ with rails, and an astarte has more than 50km range with rails. Damnation shoots 30km with faction HAMs, and around 40km with javelin. And if you're into a **** application, HML get 94km range.

BC's and CS can fit MMJD, being "kited" doesn't work on them. Assuming you're smart enough to fit the holy grail of escape modules anyway.

CS already have good range on the ones bonused for it. They don't need to be buffed more. Not to mention 4 turret CS makes me sad. Its a T2 battlecruiser, not a frigate. That doesn't mean i don't understand your reasoning for it.

What i don't understand is why you want to neuter T1 BC range bonus. 25% is not enough to do anything useful. 50% has been the default for as long as i've been playing the game. 25% is a tease, and then on top of that, you're ignoring the whole purpose of the thread. To reinvigorate T1 BC's, not CS. People will use CS when they are trained. Most people don't use T1 BC's because they get forced into only brawling type roles, which is very easy to evade in a fast cruiser. Or, because of how slow they align, are fearful of getting caught in camps easily.


Sorry, In reference of the Sleipnir, I was referring the RF EM, Fusion, and Phased Plasma using 425's with 1 TE2. The additional range bonus I was proposing was a way to mitigate the -50% optimal range penalty it takes to use these ammos which are the mostly used for Projectile Turrets. Barrage is fantastic at 30 km+ but has limited uses due to only dealing exp. damage and in a lot of cases a lot of CS pilots would prefer using fusion because it has better tracking at close ranges. The CS's are clearly missing something right now so If those propose changes makes the CS's OP then I suggest a tracking bonus instead.

The CS's don't have the luxury to fit the MMJD due to limited slots available and in a lot of cases there would only be a few occasions where pilots would actually fit one. The only one that can fit one comfortably is the Astarte, the Sleip need those mids for tank, the Abso needs it for cap booster, TC II, etc..

A 50% Optimal role bonus for a standard T1 BC hull would make them a bit OP. These ships are meant to be pure brawlers, with decent tank, 600-750 dps with engagement ranges b/t 8-16 km. For sniping there's the Tier 3 BC's(or whatever they are called today) with glass cannons that hit for 600-800 dps out to 100km. But these ships aren't that fast and with some cruisers blazing up to 3.7km/s with a 10mn mwd can catch them and once caught is as good as dead from any cruisers. Now for faction BC's I agree a 50% optimal range or fallout bonus would bring life to those ships and make them very useful as anti-cruisers. They also need to broaden the BC family class of ships and include Pirate Faction variations that also include those optimal range role bonuses. The T2 BC line could also use some variety because the T1 & T2 Cruiser family line of ships is just to vast for BC's to control right now.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#92 - 2015-05-09 15:32:25 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:


Yes the CS's do get one bonus to increase their engagement range (besides the Abso), but even so their effective engagement range is only around 25km which isn't enough for a T2 BC. It should have around 50km engagement range (long point range) to prevent them from been kited easily. As for T1 BC's a 25% optimal or falloff role bonus should give them enough engagement range to be vital in their meta again.


Where are you getting 50km longpoints? that is linked long point on bonused hull, or faction longpoint on a bonused hull with heat.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#93 - 2015-05-09 15:44:08 UTC


Stitch Kaneland wrote:


Their effective range is 25km with what? A slep with 425's and a couple TE's/ambit rig can shoot out to 40km with barrage. Or, if fit with 720 arty, can shoot well past 50km with no problem. A vulture can shoot 100km+ with rails, and an astarte has more than 50km range with rails. Damnation shoots 30km with faction HAMs, and around 40km with javelin. And if you're into a **** application, HML get 94km range.

BC's and CS can fit MMJD, being "kited" doesn't work on them. Assuming you're smart enough to fit the holy grail of escape modules anyway.

CS already have good range on the ones bonused for it. They don't need to be buffed more. Not to mention 4 turret CS makes me sad. Its a T2 battlecruiser, not a frigate. That doesn't mean i don't understand your reasoning for it.

What i don't understand is why you want to neuter T1 BC range bonus. 25% is not enough to do anything useful. 50% has been the default for as long as i've been playing the game. 25% is a tease, and then on top of that, you're ignoring the whole purpose of the thread. To reinvigorate T1 BC's, not CS. People will use CS when they are trained. Most people don't use T1 BC's because they get forced into only brawling type roles, which is very easy to evade in a fast cruiser. Or, because of how slow they align, are fearful of getting caught in camps easily.

With the exception of the ferox, which has the sort of range bonus requested, absolutely on the dot.

Daniela Doran wrote:

Sorry, In reference of the Sleipnir, I was referring the RF EM, Fusion, and Phased Plasma using 425's with 1 TE2. The additional range bonus I was proposing was a way to mitigate the -50% optimal range penalty it takes to use these ammos which are the mostly used for Projectile Turrets. Barrage is fantastic at 30 km+ but has limited uses due to only dealing exp. damage and in a lot of cases a lot of CS pilots would prefer using fusion because it has better tracking at close ranges. The CS's are clearly missing something right now so If those propose changes makes the CS's OP then I suggest a tracking bonus instead.

Ever heard of swapping ammo? It can happen, and makes it so even without range control from a dual MJD + 10mn MWD/100mn AB setup, you can reliably hit out to whatever range your opponent chooses.

Daniela Doran wrote:

The CS's don't have the luxury to fit the MMJD due to limited slots available and in a lot of cases there would only be a few occasions where pilots would actually fit one. The only one that can fit one comfortably is the Astarte, the Sleip need those mids for tank, the Abso needs it for cap booster, TC II, etc..

So get gud or learn to fit them more effectively. Command ship, not solowtfpwnmobile. Meant to support a gang, not yolo into a hostile fleet. They can, if well skilled and flown, but that isn't the intent of the ship.

Daniela Doran wrote:

A 50% Optimal role bonus for a standard T1 BC hull would make them a bit OP. These ships are meant to be pure brawlers, with decent tank, 600-750 dps with engagement ranges b/t 8-16 km. For sniping there's the Tier 3 BC's(or whatever they are called today) with glass cannons that hit for 600-800 dps out to 100km. But these ships aren't that fast and with some cruisers blazing up to 3.7km/s with a 10mn mwd can catch them and once caught is as good as dead from any cruisers. Now for faction BC's I agree a 50% optimal range or fallout bonus would bring life to those ships and make them very useful as anti-cruisers. They also need to broaden the BC family class of ships and include Pirate Faction variations that also include those optimal range role bonuses. The T2 BC line could also use some variety because the T1 & T2 Cruiser family line of ships is just to vast for BC's to control right now.


Show me where it says that CBCs should be brawlers and unable to be kiters, etc.
Love the idea of more BC hulls though. Angel BC would give a sleipnir a run for it's money as THE medium arty kiting platform, because as it is, sleipnir is the only ship that works acceptably in this role.


PS. you were right, those numbers for the sleipnir were with 5 turrets. Still a net gain of 30% though.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#94 - 2015-05-09 18:52:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


Sleipnir = fall-off bonused
Claymore = explosion radius bonus
Nighthawk = explosion radius bonus
Vulture = Optimal bonus
Astarte = fall-off bonus
Eos = Drone and turret tracking bonuses
Absolution = Cap usage reduction bonus..? (odd one out)
Damnation = Missile velocity bonus


Quote:
Absolution = Cap usage reduction bonus..? (odd one out)


lel

I've proposed a solution how to fix this disparity in the Switch projection bonus from Damnation to Absolution

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
if projection bonus is absolutely needed, here is my proposed new Absolution bonuses:

Old:

Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):

10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire


Amarr Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):

10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost
4% bonus to all armor resistances
_________________________________________________
New:

Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):

10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Optimal Range
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Rate of Fire


Amarr Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):

10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost
4% bonus to all armor resistances

Bingo-presto - same 10 Effective turrets, same DPS as the current Abso. I'm drawing inspiration from the immortal Armageddon, which is forever fitted with Mega Pulses in my heart. ♥

Scorch range @ 33+6.3km vs 22+6.3km; Heavy Beams MF 22.5+10km vs 15+10km before, and Standard @ 45 vs 30km.


Smile

Accompanying maths,

Current Absolution effective turrets: 5 Turrets * 1.5x Damage bonus * (1/(1-0.25)) RoF = 10 Effective turrets.
New Absolution effective turrets: 5 * (1/(1-0.5)) RoF = 10 Effective turrets. Smile

Astarte has: 5 Turrets * 1.375 Damage Bonus * (1/(1-0.375)) RoF = 11 and Sleipnir 11.25 Effective turrets with a projection bonus. Attention

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

[Cruisers Online]
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#95 - 2015-05-09 20:33:08 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


Sleipnir = fall-off bonused
Claymore = explosion radius bonus
Nighthawk = explosion radius bonus
Vulture = Optimal bonus
Astarte = fall-off bonus
Eos = Drone and turret tracking bonuses
Absolution = Cap usage reduction bonus..? (odd one out)
Damnation = Missile velocity bonus


Quote:
Absolution = Cap usage reduction bonus..? (odd one out)


lel

I've proposed a solution how to fix this disparity in the Switch projection bonus from Damnation to Absolution

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
if projection bonus is absolutely needed, here is my proposed new Absolution bonuses:

Old:

Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):

10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire


Amarr Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):

10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost
4% bonus to all armor resistances
_________________________________________________
New:

Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):

10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Optimal Range
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Rate of Fire


Amarr Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):

10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost
4% bonus to all armor resistances

Bingo-presto - same 10 Effective turrets, same DPS as the current Abso. I'm drawing inspiration from the immortal Armageddon, which is forever fitted with Mega Pulses in my heart. ♥

Scorch range @ 33+6.3km vs 22+6.3km; Heavy Beams MF 22.5+10km vs 15+10km before, and Standard @ 45 vs 30km.


Smile

Accompanying maths,

Current Absolution effective turrets: 5 Turrets * 1.5x Damage bonus * (1/(1-0.25)) RoF = 10 Effective turrets.
New Absolution effective turrets: 5 * (1/(1-0.5)) RoF = 10 Effective turrets. Smile

Astarte has: 5 Turrets * 1.375 Damage Bonus * (1/(1-0.375)) RoF = 11 and Sleipnir 11.25 Effective turrets with a projection bonus. Attention


Very nice, Our minds functions alike Iroquoiss. I was thinking the exact same thing for the Absolution. That ship is the one in the most dire need of service out of all the CS's.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#96 - 2015-05-09 21:42:31 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:

Sorry, In reference of the Sleipnir, I was referring the RF EM, Fusion, and Phased Plasma using 425's with 1 TE2. The additional range bonus I was proposing was a way to mitigate the -50% optimal range penalty it takes to use these ammos which are the mostly used for Projectile Turrets. Barrage is fantastic at 30 km+ but has limited uses due to only dealing exp. damage and in a lot of cases a lot of CS pilots would prefer using fusion because it has better tracking at close ranges. The CS's are clearly missing something right now so If those propose changes makes the CS's OP then I suggest a tracking bonus instead.

The CS's don't have the luxury to fit the MMJD due to limited slots available and in a lot of cases there would only be a few occasions where pilots would actually fit one. The only one that can fit one comfortably is the Astarte, the Sleip need those mids for tank, the Abso needs it for cap booster, TC II, etc..

A 50% Optimal role bonus for a standard T1 BC hull would make them a bit OP. These ships are meant to be pure brawlers, with decent tank, 600-750 dps with engagement ranges b/t 8-16 km. For sniping there's the Tier 3 BC's(or whatever they are called today) with glass cannons that hit for 600-800 dps out to 100km. But these ships aren't that fast and with some cruisers blazing up to 3.7km/s with a 10mn mwd can catch them and once caught is as good as dead from any cruisers. Now for faction BC's I agree a 50% optimal range or fallout bonus would bring life to those ships and make them very useful as anti-cruisers. They also need to broaden the BC family class of ships and include Pirate Faction variations that also include those optimal range role bonuses. The T2 BC line could also use some variety because the T1 & T2 Cruiser family line of ships is just to vast for BC's to control right now.


Fusion, EM, and PP are all short range ammo's. The only long range ammo a/c's have is barrage. You can not expect short range ammo to be buffed to reach the same ranges as long range ammo. That would be like amarr pilots saying they want multi frequency to shoot out at 30-40km like scorch does. You can't have one ammo do it all. Also, the -50% optimal only applies to artillery, not a/c's. A/c's might take a .5km hit using that ammo. So, giving the slep a 100% bonus to fall-off (per your example) would mean medium a/c's with barrage could shoot out to 60-80km depending on fit. Think about that for a moment... a short range gun shooting in BS ranges, but without the high sig resolution of BS weapons.

Now granted, medium a/c's are in a bad spot for the most part due to overall lower dps compared to other turrets + fighting in fall-off a majority of the time. It only takes a 100% damage bonus and fall-off bonus to make them not **** (slep).

Tier 3's use BS sized guns, not medium sized guns. BS sized guns do not track cruisers that great. They're also squishy and fairly slow. And when the ship is meant to be in an anti-cruiser role, it should be able to kill cruiser sized targets without missing half the time because it can't track its intended target. Tier 3's are when you need a lot of dps against a big target, or to alpha something with proper support.

Battlecruisers are the equivalent to destroyers. Destroyers are anti-frigate and a general dps role. They use a large number of small guns (more dps), have more tank, move slower, but have projection and application bonuses. This enables them to hit frigates at range with no problem. Why should BC's be any different at being anti-cruiser? And we're not even giving them the full destroyer compliment of range+application, just a range bonus.

T1 BC's use medium guns (more than cruisers in most cases, minus the cyclone), have more tank, and move slower than their cruiser counterparts, but have no range/application bonuses (minus the ferox). They are not meant to be pure brawlers (since ferox bonuses go against your theory), they have been forced into being brawlers because they have no projection. Or, because their long range weapon system is either garbage (HML) or impossible to fit with any decent form of tank (artillery).

Giving them a projection bonus would be no more OP than destroyers having projection bonuses. Their dps, tank, speed, fitting would all remain unchanged. The only thing that happens, is they can shoot a little bit farther now.

Like i mentioned before, people don't fly CS because they're too pissed about the training requirements. If they could get into them quicker, we'd probably see a lot more of them around. T1 BC's on the other hand are easy to get into, but people rarely fly them because they can be solo'd by a stabber in some cases. No speed to slingshot a kiter, and no range to force him off, seeing a BC is a kiter's wetdream.

Also, you can fit MJD+MWD or AB (10mn or 100mn) fairly easily on CS. You just can't have an uber tank, 800dps and fit a MJD/MWD. Theres a thing called fitting sacrifices. Heres an example:

[Sleipnir, Unstoppable force]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Damage Control II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Federation Navy 100MN Afterburner
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
Warp Disruptor II
Medium Micro Jump Drive
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400

Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
50W Infectious Power System Malfunction
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Ancillary Current Router II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II

Hobgoblin II x5


650dps (cold), 1300-1800m/s, 80k EHP after XLASB magazine. Can kill scram tackle and then MJD away from the kiters. You can't have a dual XLASB fit with medium neut and MJD/MWD, just not gonna work.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#97 - 2015-05-09 23:51:18 UTC
I have been an advocate for this change for ages now. In todays eve of high speeds where ships can leave damage range at will in seconds its unrealistic to say a ship can stay competetitive being as slow as Battlecruisers and not being able to project damage.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#98 - 2015-05-10 00:53:34 UTC
I see your point Stitch, (and no I wasn't thinking it through, lol) a 60-80 km range for medium Ac's would be insane, but the CS's are clearly lacking something to able to justify that steep training time so how about these propose changes:

Sleipnir with same slot layout

Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness

Minmatar Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount

Role Bonus:
• Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously
* 50% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage


By the way that sig tanking Sleip you posted does look tempting for me to try out when I finish maxing CS V next month, but using only one XL-ASB doesn't feel right on the Sleip. How's the Agility/Speed and tracking with 100mn Ab?
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#99 - 2015-05-10 01:06:24 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
I see your point Stitch, (and no I wasn't thinking it through, lol) a 60-80 km range for medium Ac's would be insane, but the CS's are clearly lacking something to able to justify that steep training time so how about these propose changes:

Sleipnir with same slot layout

Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness

Minmatar Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount

Role Bonus:
• Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously
* 50% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage


By the way that sig tanking Sleip you posted does look tempting for me to try out when I finish maxing CS V next month, but using only one XL-ASB doesn't feel right on the Sleip. How's the Agility/Speed and tracking with 100mn Ab?


Its not that the training time is steep, its that skills you have to train are rarely used if you're using the ship as a solo boat. IIRC the training time is similar to marauders. Its just when you train marauders, you have to train skills that you need/want anyway, so its no big deal. But taking 1-2 months to train nothing but fleet/leadership skills can be daunting to people who have other things they may want to train.

I've not tested that slep fit yet. I will once i get done training CS :). However, i have flown an armor tanked hurricane with MJD/100mn a/b and it has worked very well. Turns like a station, but the 100mn is more of an escape tool to burn out of scrams, or to setup proper transversal to kill smaller targets. Not really meant to orbit with it. Align to escape, turn on 100mn, wait to get out of scram.

With 180's, the tracking should be fine. Speed is 1300-1800m/s (w/o links, using zor's), and agility is.. well.. not great. 30s align time with 100mn. Though compared to the 41s align time on t1 cane, i'd say thats an improvement.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#100 - 2015-05-10 01:45:37 UTC
It's gonna require CCP to do another major balance pass to the entire BC class for your propose role changes to be made Stitch. In summer 2013 CCP buffed the cruiser line quite a bit with no foresight of another ship class to act as counters for these vastly improve ships, which gave birth to the golden age of "cruisers online" with the ishtars as their sovereign rulers. Personally I would really like to see this change where BC's are viable in the meta again and have a role as anit-cruisers. After nerfing them to the ground late 2012, the only thing CCP has done to the BC family class is giving them the ability to use the MMJD and even that was just a saving grace module to keep the entire BC meta from going extinct. Giving an Optimal range role bonus would be a start in giving the BC's an ability to make them useful again, how much of an optimal range bonus would be the discussion.