These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
Ushra'Khan
#141 - 2015-05-21 09:28:50 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Well, I guess that's that then - no XL plates for BCs/Battleships, PG remains the same for 1600mms. Smile

T3 is King!



Introducing an XL tier in plates and extenders would be the wrong way imho.
What might help is discouraging the smaller ships going for the biggest/bigger tanking modules by default.
Bait-Maller is nice and all, but fitting the biggest extender or plate on a cruiser should be something that requires more dedication.

which would either require reigning in the fitting room, which makes them very hard for newbies to fit guns+prop + any tank on, an increase in plate/extender fitting requirements and corresponding increase in battleship and battlecruiser fitting room, or the sort of buff to the middle tier of buffer modules that the small shield extender is slated to get, which does not solve the problem of cruisers doubling their EHP with a single buffer module while battleships need triple plates and rigs for similar effect or battlecruisers needing double plates and rigs. While the battleships and battlecruisers have more slots, 3 slots for resists + 2 for buffer is still a much larger chunk of their fitting space than 3 slots for resists +1 for buffer due to the hard cap of 8 slots.


I'd rather have the cruisers penalized more through mass gain or sig bloom. Or in other words, smaller ships putting on more 'weight' need to feel the burden as well.
Sadly I am not smart enough to device some function to do this, but having the penalizing attribute inversely correlating in a dynamic way to ship size might work? Like, a BS or BC might feel the weight of a plate and receive some penalty but the much weaker cruiser engines struggle more to move the same mass? In a way that's what agility and mass attributes are already used for, but maybe the penalty needs to be more severe if you are overfitting.

Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#142 - 2015-05-21 10:30:05 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Mjd spool up or cooldown reduction could be an easy way to spice up the CS line-up without having to do a full rebalance.


What would really spice up CS is forcing on grid boosting, since this ship line is really the only one capable of fitting a combat effective tank while maintaining max boosts. T3's can go diaf.


Agreed. However we have no ETA as to when that will happen. In the meantime a role bonus to mjd could help some of the CS get more use. As a side bonus, once links are on grid, the MJD will be even more valuable to dedicated link boats, making the bonus all the more viable.

Perhaps giving MJD cooldown reduction to faction bc's might add an interesting flavor to them?
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#143 - 2015-05-21 11:04:05 UTC
I would call for a slightly more nuanced approach to this, although the focus towards damage projection is the right avenue and would be correct to focus on for most of them.

CALDARI:

Ferox: Should be scaled up from the corm; drop resist bonus and go double range with a 50% tracking bonus into the hull. Use those rails to fry anything you can target. Just hope they don't have a TD and get under your guns.

Drake: 50% velocity bonus is good. Do eet.

Drake Navy: Double velocity bonus, roll missile sig bonus into a role bonus. Give bonuses to light missiles and sit back to watch the fireworks.

AMARR:

Prophecy: Honest to Bob, I'd love to see it get a tracking bonus to lasers. Move a mid to a high slot and give it 6 turrets to work with. Quit it with the stupid split weapons bonus on amarr drone ships already; gallente get hybrid bonus on some of their drone ships, amarr should get lasers. The tracking bonus should help offset the loss of a mid, and should lead to quite a few useful setups for a variety of situations

Harbinger: Optimal range bonus. Lasers by their nature already have excellent damage projection, and giving it a range bonus (and potentially dropping the sig down) would leave it as an excellent option for armor fleets. The big drone bay means that it could defend itself fairly well if anything gets under its guns.

Harbinger Navy: TBH just add the range bonus. While the vanilla harb can remain a strong fleet sniper with decent sustainability in cap and cost, the navy harb can deal better application, and have more options with its myriad mid slots. Fits its current role already.

MINMATAR

Hurricane: Had an evil idea here. Go with a 10% Damage bonus, and a tracking bonus. Role bonus of 50% falloff, and you have the perfect platform for med autos or arty. Would bring back the solo Cane as a thing, and would be particularly useful for any situation.

Cyclone: Same with the Drake. Hams on that thing would be nice.

Hurricane navy: Same bonuses for the above listed hurricane. Difference would be dropping 2 highs for a mid, and going with the slot layout of the beast. Lack of utility high for neut balances it somewhat.

GALLENTE

Brutix: Add a tracking speed bonus. Would assist with its focus as a close range berserker and give it a distinct advantage in mid-range engagements with rails. Add 50m3 to its drone bay to compensate for its lack of range.

Mymidon: Go with the a 50% drone speed bonus. Keeping drone spec with it remains ideal, and separates it from the prophecy. Give it the full 125 mbit bandwidth so while you can go all sentries, they won't benefit from the speed bonus.

Brutix Navy Issue: Optimal range role bonus. It's best suited as a tanky fleet rail boat anyway since its stats predispose it towards that. Would be terrifying to face with logi backing it up.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#144 - 2015-05-21 11:08:35 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Mjd spool up or cooldown reduction could be an easy way to spice up the CS line-up without having to do a full rebalance.


What would really spice up CS is forcing on grid boosting, since this ship line is really the only one capable of fitting a combat effective tank while maintaining max boosts. T3's can go diaf.


Agreed. However we have no ETA as to when that will happen. In the meantime a role bonus to mjd could help some of the CS get more use. As a side bonus, once links are on grid, the MJD will be even more valuable to dedicated link boats, making the bonus all the more viable.

Perhaps giving MJD cooldown reduction to faction bc's might add an interesting flavor to them?


The MJD cooldown reduction role bonus should be reserved for the T2 BC's (CS).
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#145 - 2015-05-21 12:19:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Well, I guess that's that then - no XL plates for BCs/Battleships, PG remains the same for 1600mms. Smile

T3 is King!



Introducing an XL tier in plates and extenders would be the wrong way imho.
What might help is discouraging the smaller ships going for the biggest/bigger tanking modules by default.
Bait-Maller is nice and all, but fitting the biggest extender or plate on a cruiser should be something that requires more dedication.

which would either require reigning in the fitting room, which makes them very hard for newbies to fit guns+prop + any tank on, an increase in plate/extender fitting requirements and corresponding increase in battleship and battlecruiser fitting room, or the sort of buff to the middle tier of buffer modules that the small shield extender is slated to get, which does not solve the problem of cruisers doubling their EHP with a single buffer module while battleships need triple plates and rigs for similar effect or battlecruisers needing double plates and rigs. While the battleships and battlecruisers have more slots, 3 slots for resists + 2 for buffer is still a much larger chunk of their fitting space than 3 slots for resists +1 for buffer due to the hard cap of 8 slots.


I'd rather have the cruisers penalized more through mass gain or sig bloom. Or in other words, smaller ships putting on more 'weight' need to feel the burden as well.


That could work though Battlecruisers would get hit by it more than cruiser masses.

Still, the best solution would be to rebalance 800mm plates to be for = cruisers, 1600mm for BCs/Battleships. Though that train left many, many years ago and now it would entail a very large overhaul of hull attributes included.

Second-best solution is XL plates.

Whatevski be the case, CCP knows what they're doing. We have best spaceship balance in decades*. Smile

*If you delete battlecruisers and battleships from the game, which are made irrelevant between capitals and their peasant cruiser support.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#146 - 2015-05-21 13:28:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Catherine Laartii wrote:
I would call for a slightly more nuanced approach to this, although the focus towards damage projection is the right avenue and would be correct to focus on for most of them.

CALDARI:

Ferox: Should be scaled up from the corm; drop resist bonus and go double range with a 50% tracking bonus into the hull. Use those rails to fry anything you can target. Just hope they don't have a TD and get under your guns.

Drake: 50% velocity bonus is good. Do eet.

Drake Navy: Double velocity bonus, roll missile sig bonus into a role bonus. Give bonuses to light missiles and sit back to watch the fireworks.


Ferox should stick with only 1 optimal bonus. The main reason is if you give it dual optimal and a tracking bonus, then it obsoletes the vulture. Why fly a vulture when the ferox does the same thing for 1/4 of the price? Besides i'd like to leave the application bonuses to the fleet/navy variations of BC hulls. Gives them a unique role, and merits their price increase.

DNI: Single velocity bonus (role bonus), with application bonus and dmg/rof bonus would be sufficient for the DNI. The main reasoning is that by giving it a small damage or RoF bonus, we could drop a launcher or 2, so it can perform its role as a link boat if someone chooses. As it sits now, you cannot fit links or neut on a DNI, but you can on a vanilla drake. I don't fly DNI for this reason. Neuts are very important in solo. Not to mention it not fulfilling its role as a BC by not being able to fit links + weapons. By dropping a launcher or 2, it also free's up fitting, which IMO the DNI needs.

As to light missile bonuses, i don't think that will ever happen on BC's. You're basically bonusing a ship 2 classes higher to kill smaller things. So its tank will be huge, and it can kill smaller ships better than a destroyer.

Quote:
AMARR:

Prophecy: Honest to Bob, I'd love to see it get a tracking bonus to lasers. Move a mid to a high slot and give it 6 turrets to work with. Quit it with the stupid split weapons bonus on amarr drone ships already; gallente get hybrid bonus on some of their drone ships, amarr should get lasers. The tracking bonus should help offset the loss of a mid, and should lead to quite a few useful setups for a variety of situations

Harbinger: Optimal range bonus. Lasers by their nature already have excellent damage projection, and giving it a range bonus (and potentially dropping the sig down) would leave it as an excellent option for armor fleets. The big drone bay means that it could defend itself fairly well if anything gets under its guns.

Harbinger Navy: TBH just add the range bonus. While the vanilla harb can remain a strong fleet sniper with decent sustainability in cap and cost, the navy harb can deal better application, and have more options with its myriad mid slots. Fits its current role already.


I'm not experienced enough with the proph to know whats best for it. I was more leaning towards how the dragoon/geddon are setup though, favoring drone speed bonus over a turret bonus. Maybe others can chime in here and see if a laser bonus would be more favorable. Tbh though, i see most prophs fit missiles

Harb/HNI: Yea, thats how its currently laid out. Harb and HNI both get optimal bonuses, and that makes the HNI better as a pure anti-cruiser role.

Quote:
MINMATAR

Hurricane: Had an evil idea here. Go with a 10% Damage bonus, and a tracking bonus. Role bonus of 50% falloff, and you have the perfect platform for med autos or arty. Would bring back the solo Cane as a thing, and would be particularly useful for any situation.

Cyclone: Same with the Drake. Hams on that thing would be nice.

Hurricane navy: Same bonuses for the above listed hurricane. Difference would be dropping 2 highs for a mid, and going with the slot layout of the beast. Lack of utility high for neut balances it somewhat.


I think vanilla cane should stay how it is, but the fleet cane NEEDs to be changed, and as you and I have proposed, the 10% dmg and 7.5% tracking traits would fit much better on the fleet cane. Since it matches up with the other fleet/navy BCs.

Quote:
GALLENTE

Brutix: Add a tracking speed bonus. Would assist with its focus as a close range berserker and give it a distinct advantage in mid-range engagements with rails. Add 50m3 to its drone bay to compensate for its lack of range.

Mymidon: Go with the a 50% drone speed bonus. Keeping drone spec with it remains ideal, and separates it from the prophecy. Give it the full 125 mbit bandwidth so while you can go all sentries, they won't benefit from the speed bonus.

Brutix Navy Issue: Optimal range role bonus. It's best suited as a tanky fleet rail boat anyway since its stats predispose it towards that. Would be terrifying to face with logi backing it up.


Brutix: BNI has tracking bonus already, brutix should remain armor rep + damage but a fall-off bonus added. Why fall-off? Well, look at gallente range bonuses. Astarte, atron, deimos etc all have fall-off bonuses.

BNI: Proposal would be for fall-off to keep it different from the ferox and for points mentioned above.

Agree on the myrm except maybe the extra bandwidth.. there are enough sentry boats out there right now, the myrm should focus more on keeping up with faster ships with its drones.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#147 - 2015-05-22 00:53:29 UTC
Alone with these changes should be to increase their agility so that the faction Bc's can fit and use oversize Ab's.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#148 - 2015-05-22 06:41:15 UTC
I think I support the OP's idea.....
at least for the combat BC's.... their bonuses should be (almost) directly comparable to the simlar racial destroyer
thrasher->cane
corax->drake
coercer->harby
algos->myrm
etc.....

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Claud Tiberius
#149 - 2015-05-22 11:28:28 UTC
+1 support buffs for BC.

Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#150 - 2015-05-22 16:58:41 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Alone with these changes should be to increase their agility so that the faction Bc's can fit and use oversize Ab's.


They can fit and use oversized AB, you just need to be creative about the fit/role. Buffing their agility to the point of wanting an oversized t3d.. no. Minor agility buff for flavor, sure.

I believe most CS are more agile than both faction/t1 bcs.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#151 - 2015-05-23 20:56:06 UTC
I'm bumping this thread once a day until CCP takes notice.
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#152 - 2015-05-24 08:51:22 UTC
I agree with this thread in principle. My basic theory for Eve PvP is that you need speed. If you don't have it, you need projection, DPS and tank to avoid getting outbrawled or kited. BCs have DPS and tank over cruisers (except T3s, which is a separate issue), but lack projection and are easily kited. Giving them better projection would allow them to prevent this, or alternatively, allow them to fit smaller guns and defend themselves against frigates (which they are terribly vulnerable to right now). I would also support a moderate boost to BC speed to better distinguish them from BSs.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#153 - 2015-05-24 15:12:03 UTC
James Zimmer wrote:
I agree with this thread in principle. My basic theory for Eve PvP is that you need speed. If you don't have it, you need projection, DPS and tank to avoid getting outbrawled or kited. BCs have DPS and tank over cruisers (except T3s, which is a separate issue), but lack projection and are easily kited. Giving them better projection would allow them to prevent this, or alternatively, allow them to fit smaller guns and defend themselves against frigates (which they are terribly vulnerable to right now). I would also support a moderate boost to BC speed to better distinguish them from BSs.


This gentleman gets it.

I posted ranges earlier - the 32.5-37.5% increase is the sweet spot.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#154 - 2015-05-28 08:18:31 UTC
A bump for this thread
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#155 - 2015-05-28 08:41:51 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
A bump for this thread

We're not allowed to bump stuff in this forum. Blink

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Infrequent
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2015-05-28 11:30:47 UTC
+1 I was pretty annoyed when Fozzie(or was it Rise?) had the nerve to say that BCs were currently in a good state. CCP have been doing a pretty damn fine job lately, and I commend them for that, but they do still come out with some ridiculous statements sometimes. The warp speed changes barely scratched the surface of the flaw that the BCs have, I believe this thread is on a very good track to help fix this.

CCP, please take note.
Eridon Hermetz
Proudly Snoring
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#157 - 2015-05-28 15:36:25 UTC
I am Eridon Hermetz , and I support this idea ! +1
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#158 - 2015-05-28 16:08:22 UTC
Not that im expecting a response from the devs, but to try and move it up the ladder for better visibility. Who is the responsible CSM for something like this?

Seems there is a reasonable amount of support here. If they dont want to implement this change, then I would be curious as to what role they see for BCs?
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#159 - 2015-05-29 04:21:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Not that im expecting a response from the devs, but to try and move it up the ladder for better visibility. Who is the responsible CSM for something like this?

Seems there is a reasonable amount of support here. If they dont want to implement this change, then I would be curious as to what role they see for BCs?

In terms of actually taking action, I would like the devs to fix HMLs and to a lesser extent Medium Autocannons before they consider any drastic changes to BC roles.

As for CCP Rise saying BCs are in a relatively good place, I'm curious as to whether he looked at individual hulls or just the use of the class in general. In the latter case I think the use of Myrmidons as cheap Eoses might be hiding the lack of use of the other BCs.
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#160 - 2015-05-30 01:49:32 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Not that im expecting a response from the devs, but to try and move it up the ladder for better visibility. Who is the responsible CSM for something like this?

Seems there is a reasonable amount of support here. If they dont want to implement this change, then I would be curious as to what role they see for BCs?

In terms of actually taking action, I would like the devs to fix HMLs and to a lesser extent Medium Autocannons before they consider any drastic changes to BC roles.

As for CCP Rise saying BCs are in a relatively good place, I'm curious as to whether he looked at individual hulls or just the use of the class in general. In the latter case I think the use of Myrmidons as cheap Eoses might be hiding the lack of use of the other BCs.


I cant think of a single hull that isn't outdone by a cruiser for the role of anti-cruiser. But I agree, part of the BC problem is the fact that some of the cruiser sized weapons are underpowered like Heavy Missiles and AC's. If they do a rebalancing of the BC class they need to rebalance those weapon systems concurrently. And with almost all Caldari boats, especially the Drake, they need to remove the kinetic bonuses and actually allow the main strength of the missile system to be used.

Without checking ISIS, I think each race has 2 Combat BCs and an Attack BC. I think one of the combat BC's needs 1 Damage and 1 Tank Bonus, and the other Combat BC needs 1 Damage Bonus and 1 MJD bonus. With both getting an application bonus.