Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Well, last time I talked to a sleipnir it was angry and disagreed with that statement..

I know, I was just referring to the sleipnir as a solo-wtf-bbq-omg-pwn-mobile. And the Nighthawk still has the best shield regeneration fit going for her, just not the damage that a sleipnir can do.

Speaking of heavy missiles, when will they be useful again?

I think MJD could have been a big help to BC utility by adding a mobility option. The problem is 100km is just not a useful distance for a BC in most cases. Considering typical weapon ranges and lock ranges, 50km MJD would be a lot more useful imo for BC.

For the most part a BC is a cruiser weapon platform with more HP, more cap and less mobility. Generally, mobility is better than HP for survivability in many situations which is part of the reason we see a lot more cruisers now. I think making the mobility option of the MJD more useful would help the BC class a lot.

MJD could add to the "projection" of the entire weapon platform, but the current 100km is overshooting in most cases. With 50km MJD I could jump away and continue firing, or lock target and then jump in front or on top of them.

I think a script would be fine.

I would much prefer to use MJD as tactical mobility than a get-away button. And using the MJD to project the BC adds more options and flavour to the game than simply adding range to guns imo. Having a handful of ships which could maintain a point during a jump wouldn't worry me too much. What I could do offensively with a 50km MJD would more than make up for adding a few ships I couldn't get away from.

I agree that the BC needs better projection. I would rather just project the whole ship rather than simply add some range to weapons. But I would be happy to see either one get implemented.

"Add some range"

Yeah, puny, puny range.

How'd that work out with the Ishtar?

Cruisers Online

Yea, those bonuses for only the faction BCs would work wonders as anti-cruiser. This makes the fleet/navy BC's very desirable, and would pull them out from being just a mantle piece.

It depends on the fall-off/optimal discussion. The 2 interact with artillery differently. With optimal bonus, you can do more damage under 35km, where as with fall-off you do more damage past 35km, using short range ammo. Long range ammo, its still the same story (just bigger ranges), but the optimal bonus is better in 85% of your engagement range, and the last 15% isn't much of a difference between the 2 in applied damage.

For slot layout, 7/5/5 may work, but is pretty much the same as the sleip. I think 7/4/7 could be interesting. Or 6/6/5 and give it 5 guns. That way its not always better than the muninn with artillery, but gives it more alpha compared to a muninn.

Also different meta modules sounds nice too. Differing spool-up's matched with range scripts could be very appealing to certain fits and help expand the meta alittle bit.

Agreed. In a non-fleet role, the HAM DNI has potential as a solo boat. HML needs a buff for sure. And the DNI could be a very good fleet missile ship with its application bonus.

If we extend projection bonuses as described in OP, it will buff the navy drake and remove many of its issues it has now. The few glaring issues i have with it, is fairly low fitting and no utility high like the t1 drake.

With my proposal, the navy drake's velocity bonus will become its role bonus. This frees up a trait for RoF/damage bonus. So, it would look like this:

Drake Navy Issue
5% bonus to Heavy assault and heavy missile launcher rate of fire
5% bonus to heavy assault and heavy missile explosion radius

Role bonus: 50% bonus to missile velocity
Role bonus: Can fit warfare links

Now, with the RoF bonus, we can drop a launcher or 2 which means we have a couple utility highs to work with. This frees up needed fitting and makes the ship more flexible.

In its current configuration it cant even fit a link and do more damage than a t1 drake. CCP allows bcs to fit links, then makes ships with no utility highs.. kinda counterproductive to the design. Some of the design choices on faction BCs seem like an after thought (looking at you fleet cane, and DNI).

Very Good Stitch you know your stuff. What revamp setups would you recommend for the other faction BC hulls?

I'm still thinking 25% bonus would be enough, however it should be to both Fall off & Optimal. Lets stop this 'Only Optimal' or 'Only Falloff' which causes especially for Minmatar real issues.
25% bonus to optimal is not actually a full 25% increase in effective range for a turret, 25% bonus to both is what's needed for a full 25% increase in range.
Unlike missiles where 25% to velocity is a real 25% increase in range (and often far more than 25% in effective range since missiles must chase their target, so overtake velocity is what really defines range in a lot of cases)

Lets discuss. Care to elaborate on what you think would cause a 50% bonus to projection to make BC's too powerful?

Their DPS doesn't change, brawler fits will still be short ranged for the most part, and long range weapons will still track slowly (on t1 hulls).

Meaning, a fast cruiser could still technically out track its guns, or speed tank the missiles. The cruiser pilot has to be good at piloting though, as getting complacent and just orbiting might mean that BC can still get good shots in if you aren't careful.

As per my OP and previous posts, the comparison between BC's and destroyer's should be more similar. If you're concerned that cruisers will be killed by BC's easier after the propasal, well thats kind of the point. Cruisers need a better hard counter. Would you fly destroyers if they had a 25% optimal and no application bonus? And would they be as good as they are now at killing frigates?

The ONLY ships that are getting application/range bonuses are the faction BC's. However, i'd be willing to consider them only getting 25% range bonus. As mentioned, they would probably need to be tested to see if 50% range + tracking would be too strong.

I do need to correct you on something though. If i'm understanding it correctly anyway.


Actually with your proposal, that would hurt minmatar more than my proposal. Since i mentioned minmatar (hurricane) would receive a 50% fall-off bonus as per its role bonus, not optimal. This goes well with minmatar being the fall-off race. A/C's operate strictly in fall-off, and arty operates more in fall-off than hybrids/lasers.

Some could consider it powerful, and thats something ill have to consider. At the same time though, it lacks tracking bonuses like a destroyer. So cruisers still have a way to outtrack/range depending on fit.

And if you're talking in general for all falloff/optimal bonuses, then that would definitely make minmatar a/c's even more crap. If vagabond/stabber had 25% optimal + fall-off, then it might as well only brawl, since the damage applied at point range would be pathetic. Plus it can't fit artillery well.. soo.. the optimal is useless.