These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#161 - 2015-05-30 02:02:43 UTC
Wynta wrote:


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.

So a unique bonus to the MJD, which is already a fairly unique puppy, and a third bonus?
Lovely. Sounds like a recipe for Return of the Drake, where one does not simply warp into Delve.

On a more serious note.
t1 hulls, with a very few exceptions, get 2 bonuses that are unique to the hull, and not role bonuses.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#162 - 2015-05-30 02:48:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Wynta
James Baboli wrote:
Wynta wrote:


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.

So a unique bonus to the MJD, which is already a fairly unique puppy, and a third bonus?
Lovely. Sounds like a recipe for Return of the Drake, where one does not simply warp into Delve.

On a more serious note.
t1 hulls, with a very few exceptions, get 2 bonuses that are unique to the hull, and not role bonuses.



The Drake would be something like:

5% Missile damage
4% shield resists

role: 37.5% explosion radius or 50% missile velocity

The Ferox would be

5% hybrid damage
10% MJD cooldown

role: 50% optimal

With the Attack BC's unchanged.

The Prophecy:

10% Drone HP/Damage
4% Armor Resists

Role: 37.5% drone tracking

Harbringer:
10% Medium Damage
10% MJD Cooldown reduction

Role: 37.5% Optimal and 25% Activation



The whole point of this thread was to give the t1 bc's a role bonus that improved damage application
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#163 - 2015-05-30 03:00:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
James Baboli wrote:
Wynta wrote:


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.

So a unique bonus to the MJD, which is already a fairly unique puppy, and a third bonus?
Lovely. Sounds like a recipe for Return of the Drake, where one does not simply warp into Delve.

On a more serious note.
t1 hulls, with a very few exceptions, get 2 bonuses that are unique to the hull, and not role bonuses.



Well I agree with you on this. The fleet issue variants should be the ones with 2 skills and a optimal range/falloff role bonus (without the warfare link bonus).

I also agree that HML and medium AC's should be readjusted to more useful on BC hulls or give BC's a built in better tracking ability than cruisers.

CS should be given a MMJD cooldown reduction role bonus and an additional utility high slot so they can field 3 warfare links instead of just 2.

They should get rid of that hybrid tracking bonus on the Eos and transform it into the 2013 ishtar with the 7.5% bonus to sentry drone tracking speed and optimal range.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#164 - 2015-05-30 04:52:22 UTC
James Baboli wrote:

On a more serious note.
t1 hulls, with a very few exceptions, get 2 bonuses that are unique to the hull, and not role bonuses.

Destroyers disagree with you. They all get a Role bonus.
Battlecruisers are in the same situation as Destroyers, so should be treated the same way and gain a role bonus.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#165 - 2015-05-30 09:05:10 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

On a more serious note.
t1 hulls, with a very few exceptions, get 2 bonuses that are unique to the hull, and not role bonuses.

Destroyers disagree with you. They all get a Role bonus.
Battlecruisers are in the same situation as Destroyers, so should be treated the same way and gain a role bonus.


Well they do kinda have a role bonus albeit a almost useless one.
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#166 - 2015-05-30 22:16:29 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

On a more serious note.
t1 hulls, with a very few exceptions, get 2 bonuses that are unique to the hull, and not role bonuses.

Destroyers disagree with you. They all get a Role bonus.
Battlecruisers are in the same situation as Destroyers, so should be treated the same way and gain a role bonus.


Well they do kinda have a role bonus albeit a almost useless one.


Not useless, they get either range or application which allows them to kill the much faster frigate. BC's have a similar relationship as in they are supposed to be anti-cruiser boats, but without application they just get kited to death. Giving them the bonus application allows them to actually apply damage.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#167 - 2015-05-31 03:46:20 UTC
Wynta wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

On a more serious note.
t1 hulls, with a very few exceptions, get 2 bonuses that are unique to the hull, and not role bonuses.

Destroyers disagree with you. They all get a Role bonus.
Battlecruisers are in the same situation as Destroyers, so should be treated the same way and gain a role bonus.


Well they do kinda have a role bonus albeit a almost useless one.


Not useless, they get either range or application which allows them to kill the much faster frigate. BC's have a similar relationship as in they are supposed to be anti-cruiser boats, but without application they just get kited to death. Giving them the bonus application allows them to actually apply damage.


I think Daniela meant the 'Can fit warfare link modules' bonus, which doesn't help projection much.

Anyhow, I still don't have any reasons to disagree with Stich's idea.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#168 - 2015-05-31 05:16:25 UTC
Wynta wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Wynta wrote:


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.

So a unique bonus to the MJD, which is already a fairly unique puppy, and a third bonus?
Lovely. Sounds like a recipe for Return of the Drake, where one does not simply warp into Delve.

On a more serious note.
t1 hulls, with a very few exceptions, get 2 bonuses that are unique to the hull, and not role bonuses.



The Drake would be something like:

5% Missile damage
4% shield resists

role: 37.5% explosion radius or 50% missile velocity

The Ferox would be

5% hybrid damage
10% MJD cooldown

role: 50% optimal

With the Attack BC's unchanged.

The Prophecy:

10% Drone HP/Damage
4% Armor Resists

Role: 37.5% drone tracking

Harbringer:
10% Medium Damage
10% MJD Cooldown reduction

Role: 37.5% Optimal and 25% Activation



The whole point of this thread was to give the t1 bc's a role bonus that improved damage application
Those bonuses are insane. No I don't support that. Optimal/falloff bonuses should be 25% at most. Especially considering BCs can fit substantially larger tanks than cruisers. Destroyers often have identical or only marginally larger tanks than ftigs.

Also prophecy/myrm don't need drone tracking bonuses. They need drone speed bonuses. medium drones and sentry drones track cruisers fine. Their issue is catching and keeping up with them.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#169 - 2015-05-31 07:37:04 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Wynta wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Wynta wrote:


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.

So a unique bonus to the MJD, which is already a fairly unique puppy, and a third bonus?
Lovely. Sounds like a recipe for Return of the Drake, where one does not simply warp into Delve.

On a more serious note.
t1 hulls, with a very few exceptions, get 2 bonuses that are unique to the hull, and not role bonuses.



The Drake would be something like:

5% Missile damage
4% shield resists

role: 37.5% explosion radius or 50% missile velocity

The Ferox would be

5% hybrid damage
10% MJD cooldown

role: 50% optimal

With the Attack BC's unchanged.

The Prophecy:

10% Drone HP/Damage
4% Armor Resists

Role: 37.5% drone tracking

Harbringer:
10% Medium Damage
10% MJD Cooldown reduction

Role: 37.5% Optimal and 25% Activation



The whole point of this thread was to give the t1 bc's a role bonus that improved damage application
Those bonuses are insane. No I don't support that. Optimal/falloff bonuses should be 25% at most. Especially considering BCs can fit substantially larger tanks than cruisers. Destroyers often have identical or only marginally larger tanks than ftigs.

Also prophecy/myrm don't need drone tracking bonuses. They need drone speed bonuses. medium drones and sentry drones track cruisers fine. Their issue is catching and keeping up with them.


Well these proposed changes are indeed a bit rough around the edges. You should refer to Stitch's proposed changes, as they are more reasonably balanced.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#170 - 2015-05-31 09:01:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Daniela Doran wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Wynta wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Wynta wrote:


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.

So a unique bonus to the MJD, which is already a fairly unique puppy, and a third bonus?
Lovely. Sounds like a recipe for Return of the Drake, where one does not simply warp into Delve.

On a more serious note.
t1 hulls, with a very few exceptions, get 2 bonuses that are unique to the hull, and not role bonuses.



The Drake would be something like:

5% Missile damage
4% shield resists

role: 37.5% explosion radius or 50% missile velocity

The Ferox would be

5% hybrid damage
10% MJD cooldown

role: 50% optimal

With the Attack BC's unchanged.

The Prophecy:

10% Drone HP/Damage
4% Armor Resists

Role: 37.5% drone tracking

Harbringer:
10% Medium Damage
10% MJD Cooldown reduction

Role: 37.5% Optimal and 25% Activation



The whole point of this thread was to give the t1 bc's a role bonus that improved damage application
Those bonuses are insane. No I don't support that. Optimal/falloff bonuses should be 25% at most. Especially considering BCs can fit substantially larger tanks than cruisers. Destroyers often have identical or only marginally larger tanks than ftigs.

Also prophecy/myrm don't need drone tracking bonuses. They need drone speed bonuses. medium drones and sentry drones track cruisers fine. Their issue is catching and keeping up with them.


Well these proposed changes are indeed a bit rough around the edges. You should refer to Stitch's proposed changes, as they are more reasonably balanced.

Has Stitch actually proposed numbers? I've just seen his proposal regarding the type of role bonus for each class which in theory I'm fine with. Although I would say these role bonuses definitely need to be added to faction BCs as well as they're currently pointless when you consider their price and the price of Command Ships.

The "cruiser problem" is also exaggerated in my opinion. There are actually only a few tech 1 cruisers that are cancerous on the current meta (*cough*vexor*cough). Most are just pretty average and there are quite a few rather **** cruisers still floating around.

25% bonus to damage projection bonuses (including drone speed) IMO opinion is fine. This way they don't obsolete HACs and Command Ships but generally enough to apply damage to kiters holding them them at long point range.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#171 - 2015-05-31 10:29:22 UTC
I agree with the proposal of giving CBC's projection bonuses.


The other thing I think could be a really good addition would be to re-design Command Ships like "Mini Marauders". This would give command ships a real bonus over CBC's and you could even potentially push the link bonus command ships have into the Bastion module. Forcing command ships to "Deploy" to get large link bonuses. A deployed OGB would be easy to probe and catch making them less appealing as OGB's without being properly fit. The Bastion Module would make them very tough on grid as fleet boosters though. Giving them the Marauder MJD bonus would also give them great mobility on grid too.

It's bonkers but might be a really interesting concept. (CBC's with resist bonuses would have to swap the bonus for rep bonuses)
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#172 - 2015-05-31 12:24:12 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
I agree with the proposal of giving CBC's projection bonuses.


The other thing I think could be a really good addition would be to re-design Command Ships like "Mini Marauders". This would give command ships a real bonus over CBC's and you could even potentially push the link bonus command ships have into the Bastion module. Forcing command ships to "Deploy" to get large link bonuses. A deployed OGB would be easy to probe and catch making them less appealing as OGB's without being properly fit. The Bastion Module would make them very tough on grid as fleet boosters though. Giving them the Marauder MJD bonus would also give them great mobility on grid too.

It's bonkers but might be a really interesting concept. (CBC's with resist bonuses would have to swap the bonus for rep bonuses)



I don't think a bastion like mode is gonna happen for CS's, but something like a -50% MMJD cooldown reactivation role bonus needs to happen because it's absolutely imbecilic for CS's to only have THAT warfare link role bonus.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#173 - 2015-05-31 13:16:31 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:

Has Stitch actually proposed numbers? I've just seen his proposal regarding the type of role bonus for each class which in theory I'm fine with. Although I would say these role bonuses definitely need to be added to faction BCs as well as they're currently pointless when you consider their price and the price of Command Ships.

The "cruiser problem" is also exaggerated in my opinion. There are actually only a few tech 1 cruisers that are cancerous on the current meta (*cough*vexor*cough). Most are just pretty average and there are quite a few rather **** cruisers still floating around.

25% bonus to damage projection bonuses (including drone speed) IMO opinion is fine. This way they don't obsolete HACs and Command Ships but generally enough to apply damage to kiters holding them them at long point range.


Role bonuses, as per OP would be applied to faction BC's as well. So faction BC's would become bonused in both application and projection, like destroyers.

The problem i have with 25% bonus to projection, is it barely affects the range for the weapons. For example, 180mm autocannons with a 25% bonus to falloff go from 11km to 13km.

A 25% bonus to optimal for 720's makes arty go from 15km to 18.75km. This really does nothing to improve projection in any meaningful way. Its basically adding a single built in TE to hull. After discussion with others, i think we've felt that 37.5% is a good medium at this point. Not as powerful as HAC or some T1 cruiser projection bonuses, but still enough of a bonus to make it worthwhile, and to help fulfill BC's anti-cruiser role.

The one thing you may be forgetting, especially in comparison to destroyers, is that even with these range bonuses, without tracking bonuses, the guns can be outtracked fairly easily still, and missiles still won't apply well (w/o webs and TP). Destroyers have both projection/application bonuses. T1 BC's will not. Faction BC's will have both bonuses. So there is certainly room for a well setup/piloted cruiser to beat the proposal for T1 BC's. Just like how properly fit AF/pirate or certain T1 frigs can kill a destroyer.

HAC's with their MWD sig bloom bonus should be able outtrack medium guns fairly easily. Most HAC's can stand toe to toe with a BC when brawling as well. BC's are not gaining damage, EHP buffs, cap buffs or speed buffs. Only projection. So if a HAC/t1/pirate cruiser want to brawl a BC, literally nothing will change.

But for kitey cruisers, these changes will make things alittle harder for them, or make viable cheap fleet doctrines. And with foz sov coming up, it would be nice to see smaller groups field BC fleets, instead of ishtar vs ishtar fleets. Plus, a fleet of FI BC's fit with long range weapons could potentially kill ishtars. Or, have the option of MJD's for positioning, things that cruiser fleets don't have the option for.

Quote:
Especially considering BCs can fit substantially larger tanks than cruisers. Destroyers often have identical or only marginally larger tanks than ftigs.

Also prophecy/myrm don't need drone tracking bonuses. They need drone speed bonuses. medium drones and sentry drones track cruisers fine. Their issue is catching and keeping up with them.


BC's tank is not as big as you think. There might be exceptions, but for the most part, a couple cruisers could easily take down a BC. Triple rep myrm being the exception, or brick tanked drake/proph. But, a maller, aug navy, gila, strat, moa, are capable of fielding a BC tank. Not to mention most HAC's are still quite capable of handling a solo BC. Plus, the ones that don't have the tank to straight up brawl a BC, have the speed to kite them indefinitely.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#174 - 2015-05-31 14:25:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
The problem i have with 25% bonus to projection, is it barely affects the range for the weapons. For example, 180mm autocannons with a 25% bonus to falloff go from 11km to 13km.

A 25% bonus to optimal for 720's makes arty go from 15km to 18.75km. This really does nothing to improve projection in any meaningful way. Its basically adding a single built in TE to hull. After discussion with others, i think we've felt that 37.5% is a good medium at this point. Not as powerful as HAC or some T1 cruiser projection bonuses, but still enough of a bonus to make it worthwhile, and to help fulfill BC's anti-cruiser role.
A person fitting 180mms with 37.5% falloff bonus would only go from 11-15... because they're 180mms. A guy fitted with those guns is going to get kited no matter what unless you give him like a 100% bonus, which I'm sure we agree is absurd. C'mon Stitch what are you trying to do here?

720s would benefit from falloff since you proposed falloff bonus for the Hurricane yes? In which case it's going from 22-27.5 with close range faction ammo. Now given that the sweet spot for Minmatar falloff damage is Optimal + 1/3rd of Falloff, the Hurricane is now doing ideal damage at 23.5km (i.e. the edge off tech-2 long point range). Add in TEs or Tracking Computers and you're doing ideal damage out to 30+km. That's quite a big deal.

If we try Heavy Pulses, with 25% we're going from 22km optimal to 27.5. Add in a TE/TC or two and you're hitting to 30km-36km. What this basically means is that any cruisers long-pointing the BC will need to be able to tank their damage.

If this issue came down to a vote between leaving BCs the way they are or having 37.5% projection bonus, I'd choose the latter, but I think 25% is enough and I prefer to be more conservative when it comes to balancing. It can always be increased further if live testing shows it's not enough but I really do think 25% is enough.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
The one thing you may be forgetting, especially in comparison to destroyers, is that even with these range bonuses, without tracking bonuses, the guns can be outtracked fairly easily still, and missiles still won't apply well (w/o webs and TP). Destroyers have both projection/application bonuses. T1 BC's will not. Faction BC's will have both bonuses. So there is certainly room for a well setup/piloted cruiser to beat the proposal for T1 BC's. Just like how properly fit AF/pirate or certain T1 frigs can kill a destroyer.
If I'm not limited by range, I've personally never had any issues tracking cruisers with medium guns. Unless said cruisers are HACs, the MWD bloom more than makes up for the tracking issues caused by speed. Not to be THAT GUY but I can seriously only imagine piloting being the issue if you're having difficulties in this department (Heavy Missiles being the exception but that's a weapon issue not a BC issue).

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
BC's tank is not as big as you think. There might be exceptions, but for the most part, a couple cruisers could easily take down a BC. Triple rep myrm being the exception, or brick tanked drake/proph. But, a maller, aug navy, gila, strat, moa, are capable of fielding a BC tank. Not to mention most HAC's are still quite capable of handling a solo BC. Plus, the ones that don't have the tank to straight up brawl a BC, have the speed to kite them indefinitely.
A couple of frigs can take down a destroyer too. What's the piont in saying that though? Please at least be sensible with your comparisons. A couple of Cruisers can take down any sub-capital except for perhaps a Marauder, especially if you're throwing in Gilas or any of the other pirate cruisers that can do 700-1kDPS. If you want to make comparisons against tech 1 CBCs, stick with tech 1 cruisers.

Maller's can only field BC level tank (i.e. 65k-100K tank) if they're bait fitted (i.e. they have frigate-noobship level dps). Neither buffer or XLASB fitted Moas reach BC level tanks, but they're popular because they're about 75% the tank and DPS at only 35% the cost.

I've regularly flown in Prophecy/Myrmidon gangs and we tear apart cruiser gangs often without a single loss. With the exception of the Vexor (which is borderline cancerous in the current meta), the other tech 1 kiting cruisers frankly don't do enough DPS within long-point. Arty-cane gangs similarly also tear cruiser gangs apart.

HACs aren't a valid comparison when you're talking about tech 1 CBCs. A lot of HACs have ALWAYS been able to handle Solo BCs, heck most can handle solo Battleships too. Unless you're talking about Command ships, leave HACs out of the comparisons please. Also many HACs could solo a BC even if you gave the BCs 50% projection bonus because the T2 resists and additional damage bonuses often means a lot of HACs surpass BCs in both tank and spank. Or are you suggesting that tech 1 BCs should be buffed to the point where they stomp HACs?
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2015-05-31 14:28:13 UTC
I agree with the concept but i also agree with the poster who said they should mimic there destroyer counterparts with there bonuses.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2015-05-31 15:23:45 UTC
You have to admit that the concept is a sound one.

The fact that Cruisers don't have a natural predator the way that Frigates, Destroyers and Battlecruisers do can be a reason for their proliferation. The fact that cruisers are simply "the best choice" may simply be because there is no natural predator against them instead of the idea that cruisers are just "too good".


This concept would probably make BC viable cruiser killers (a couple of BC's need a little bit more than that) and to that end a little more prolific. With BC's entering the "food chain" BS's then get a reason to be undocked. The PvP Ecosystem theory sounds very good.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#177 - 2015-05-31 22:32:46 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai, the way the eve ship food chain should be set up is T1 BC should be able to easily kill T1 C, Faction BC kills Faction C, Pirate Faction BC (when they come out) kills Pirate Faction C, and T2 BC (CS) kills T2 C (HACs).

As far as the Projection role bonus goes, I believe the T1 BC's should remain as they are with THAT warfare link role bonus. The Faction BC's should be given a 37.5% optimal range/fallout role bonus without the warfare link role bonus. Pirate Faction BC's should have a 100 % damage role bonus with 4 turrets/launchers and a Tracking Speed + Falloff skill bonus. Command Ships should be given at least another role bonus like a -50-70% MMJD reactivation cooldown AND another utility high slot.
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#178 - 2015-06-01 01:46:00 UTC
I by no means have experience with Battlecruisers as the last time they were considered "good" was like 2 years ago between when I was playing.

I'd also like to add that I have never seen a T1 BC used as a Link Boat. I've seen FC's in brick tanked Command Ships, and the Offgrid T3 with a cloak, but never a T1. I'd bet they are so rarely used that if CCP took that role bonus off them no one would actually notice or care.
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#179 - 2015-06-01 02:02:42 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai, the way the eve ship food chain should be set up is T1 BC should be able to easily kill T1 C, Faction BC kills Faction C, Pirate Faction BC (when they come out) kills Pirate Faction C, and T2 BC (CS) kills T2 C (HACs).

As far as the Projection role bonus goes, I believe the T1 BC's should remain as they are with THAT warfare link role bonus. The Faction BC's should be given a 37.5% optimal range/fallout role bonus without the warfare link role bonus. Pirate Faction BC's should have a 100 % damage role bonus with 4 turrets/launchers and a Tracking Speed + Falloff skill bonus. Command Ships should be given at least another role bonus like a -50-70% MMJD reactivation cooldown AND another utility high slot.


I don't think they gave plans to add Pirate BC's, but they need to add a damage focused T2 class or have the Field Command Ships more combat focused. If I were to deal with the BC-C foodchain it would be

T1 BC>2 T1 C
F BC>2 F C
F BC=P/T2 C
T2 BC>2 P/T2 C

In general 1 BC should equal 1.5-2 Cruisers of equal hull class (Pirate/Navy/T2)

I think the Amarr Command Ships are a great example of hull bonuses. One should be 3 Damage and 1 Tank bonus (Absolution, and the other should be 1 Damage, 1 Application, 2 Tank bonuses (Damnation). Although I think that one of the Absolution's damage bonuses should go to tracking or optimal.

The Changes to Caldari would go something like...

Vulture: 1 Damage, 1 Application, 2 Tank

Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):
7.5% bonus to ship shield hitpoints
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Information Warfare Links effectiveness

Caldari Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
4% bonus to all shield resistances

Role Bonus:
• Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously

Nighthawk: 1 Damage, 2 Application, 1 Tank

Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):
7.5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion radius
3% bonus to Siege Warfare and Information Warfare Links effectiveness

Caldari Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level):
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile damage
4% bonus to all shield resistances

Role Bonus:
• Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#180 - 2015-06-01 03:58:28 UTC
Wynta wrote:
I by no means have experience with Battlecruisers as the last time they were considered "good" was like 2 years ago between when I was playing.

I'd also like to add that I have never seen a T1 BC used as a Link Boat. I've seen FC's in brick tanked Command Ships, and the Offgrid T3 with a cloak, but never a T1. I'd bet they are so rarely used that if CCP took that role bonus off them no one would actually notice or care.


It can be a useful addition to a small cruiser gang to have a T1 BC used as a Link Boat, unless you have an off-grid booster. It is a bit easier on the wallet than dragging along a nice, expensive command ship.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.