Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Frequently used by poors for mining boosts.

180s are used on XLASB vagas due to fitting. Unless you pimp for 220s. So yes, 180s are viable for kiting if a falloff bonus is present. Granted, BCs dont have the speed to kite. However, 180s with barrage and falloff bonus should barely get to long point range. They wont apply great, but can still apply something at least. More to force off tackle.

I probably could have worded it better.There is no garauntee what i propose is going to happen in the way ive stated.. And with the lack of reading comprehension that is running rampant in this thread, many others are talking about optimal bonuses. So i mentioned what a 25% bonus to optimal would look like on artillery. Its possible CCP would just throw optimal bonuses at all turret based ships, like dessies.

TE/TC on an amarr hull? With what slots? T1 harby has 4 mids, and a cap booster is almost mandatory unless you dont want to shoot against the first thing with a neut. Pretty sure a harb cant kite like a nomen either. So that means youd sacrifice tank for range, which for a t1 bc like the harb, would be silly. It would have a tank similar to a cruiser if you started slapping TEs on it. Navy harb could maybe go with a single TC thanks to extra mid.

You can skirt 50k EHP in a moa and maller. Most BCs that arent completely brick tanked and with some option to escape are anywhere from 45-65k for t1s. Faction BC is normally 65-100k from what ive seen so far.

Why stay with t1 cruisers? A gila roaming around that sees a drake isnt going to say "oh hey, hes t1 and im pirate, im not going to engage that." A thrasher can regularly kill pirate frigs and t2 AF if the pilot is good with a decent fit. It is their ROLE to kill cruisers. Not just t1. Trying to say we should not compare to what they will actually face is foolish. HACs fall in the same category. If a t1 dessie can kill AF, why cant BCs kill a HAC? Bcs are better at killing a HAC (in comparison to BS) because medium weapons track better than large. I fail to see why you think HACs should be immune to consideration. Its not like ishtars arent the main doctrine of every alliance.

Cool story that your drone boats that field extraordinary tank and utility are fine. Cause drones are not FOTM or anything..

And if arty hurricanes are so good at tearing up cruisers, why are they seldomly used? They probably work in a niche, but are paper tanked.

Agree with the Op, and special thanks to Mario for the logical breakdown of why we're seeing cruisers as the main ship of choice in EVE.

A change like this could really spice up the ships that are fielded in the space lanes.

+1

The 65K I quoted was in reference to brawling BCs. If we're talking about kiting BCs, then you would compare them to kiting cruisers, which often have tanks around 10K or even lower, so my statement that BCs still have significantly more tank still stands.

Where are you getting your numbers from? A stabber gets 26k EHP with 2 LSE/dcu and some shield rigs. Your arty hurricane for example would be getting 35k EHP as a shield fit "kiter". Since there is no PG to add more than 1 LSE. The harby you mention is better, at around 42k, but has some issues.

Its easy to kite (1300 m/s with dual nano) and easy to outtrack the turrets. Not to mention no cap booster, so is still very sensitive to neut pressure.

I flew many vagas as well. In fact i flew dual LASB brawl vagas shortly after ASBs were released. Ive flown max range vagas as well using 180s or 220s. A good kite vaga pilot doesnt expect to be fighting in scram range. He manual pilots away to kill tackle or warp off as needed. A scrammed vaga is a dead vaga. XLASB fits allow you to tank missiles and other longer range weapons that you cant kite, without having your tank overwhelmed. This is from a solo background, not pre organized fleet/gang fights. I brought up 180s on a vaga because you said you cant kite with them. You can, and with barrage will barely break past 25km. A 37.5 or even 50% bonus to falloff would still keep them viable on bc hulls. I go into detail below.

The reason i mentioned 180s is because to get the EHP numbers youre quoting from a t1 BC like a cane would mean you would need to use 180s to fit a 1600 plate and still keeping the medium neut. 180s are used fairly often on minny ships due to fitting to keep the fit flexible so you can engage multiple targets. 220s are ideal, but sometimes they dont fit. 425s take too much fitting and have poor tracking in most cases.

I still dont think that even a 50% bonus to projection is all that bad.. i was flying my sleip around with 180s and shooting at a tristan that was orbiting me. Even with barrage, i was only getting grazing shots most of the time at 25-30km. He actually got me to alil over 1/4 shield (didnt rep) when i got him to 3/4. However it did eventually force him off. Im not talking kiting specifically, im talking a BC should be able to project to point range not to kill every cruiser there, but to force them off, or make the cruiser pilot actually work for the kill. Instead of orbit and then gg. Depending on fit, maybe the bc can kill the cruiser out there. But thats not my intention.

Why are you mentioning how a harby could kite back before nomen buff like its relevant now? Hurricane was the best at kiting at one point too.. but its no longer that way, and shouldnt be used as a point in a discussion. It muddys the water and offers nothing of use to this discussion.

Ive killed enyos, triple masb hawks, vengeance, ret, jags and harpies in my thrasher. Actually im pretty sure ive killed every AF with it. Pirate frigs are alittle harder but still do able.

If you think a 37-50% wouldnt affect how they engage hacs (and would need more), then why are you proposing 25% instead? I never said a BC should outright dunk a HAC, but should give them a run for their money. Just like if an AF screws up.against a dessie, they will normally DIAF.

Trying to balance by price point is bad. These ships have a role to fill. BCs should kill cruisers like destroyers kill frigs. There is no disclaimer when flying a dessie that it can only kill something under 8m isk. HAC, faction and t1 are all cruisers no matter how you look at it. Do you think corms should be nerfed because they could snipe a daredevil at 80km for 10m? So why should t1 BC have an artificial isk to kill limit?

I mentioned gila because you said cruisers cant get to BC level tank. Then you mentioned the 2 most tankiest drone boat BCs have no problems killing cruisers. Because drone boats can use drones against varying classes/damage types and arent limited by a single turret resolution or missile application or range (since drones follow). You missed your own point to the extent its like youre moving the goalposts.

I've never had trouble killing thrashers in AFs but to avoid this inevitably going to a KB epeen comparing competition I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree. Dessies perform well in doing damage and projecting it but generally die if something sneezes on it. Most AFs do less damage but have more mobility, resiliance and quite a few have better midslots to control range or fit e-war to beat dessies in 1v1.

Because I think 25% is sufficient to give tech 1 BCs the significant advantage over tech 1 cruisers. I don't believe tech 1 BCs should overpower HACs. I said this already come'on.

What I said was "I don't believe that a 65million isk (tech 2 fittings) tech 1 Battlecruisers should beat a 280 million isk (also tech 2 fittings) HAC where both are fit for the same purpose"

Who fits a daredevil for sniping? They don't even have the lock range...

And the Gila is a pirate cruiser with a tank bonus and 6 midslots and drone focussed DPS so it can use the bare minimum of its fittings for weapon systems. What was your interpretation of my point because mine was that they were fine at killing cruisers and yours according to the OP was that these hulls should receive a very large role bonus to drone speed.

Basically a summary of my view for each of the CBCs:

Prophecy: Doesn't actually need that much work because as mentioned before drones allow it to deal with frigates (it usually also fits neuts or rapid lights in the highs as well) and it does okay against kiting cruisers for the same reason (medium drones and rapid lights). MJD bonus would benefit it most since its only issue is its lack of mobility. The only thing a drone speed bonus would let it do is use its warriors to kill or force off a linked garmur holding it at bonus long point range. I don't really think it needs it but I'm also happy to see Garmurs die so I have no hard opinion on this.

Conclusion: MJD cooldown bonus

Harbinger: It's basically a slower hurricane that projects damage better. Poor cap hurts its engagement endurance and shuts it down when facing neuts but that's probably intended by CCP. Has a very good drone bay for a ship not focussed on drones. 25% bonus lets it hit out to 30km optimal before any TCs or TE.

Conclusion: 25% optimal bonus. Maybe a slight cap buff.

Drake: Nerfed into oblivion by both specific hull nerfs and nerfs to HML. IMO they were never that great, they were just effective in comparison to how quickly newbros could get into them and become a number in a null blob. Moreover the nerfs that were made to hurt the HML doctrine Drake hurt the HAM small gang/solo Drake as well. My opinion on HMLs has always been that the damage and projection were fine, but their fittings needed to be increased so that Drakes and Tengus had to make sacrifices to their tank if they wanted to fit them, the same way Artillery Hurricanes or Beam Harbingers do. With the introduction of RHMLs, the Raven does everything the Drake does but better. The Raven is even FASTER (LOLWUT?).

Conclusion: Fix HMLs, 25% missile velocity bonus.

Ferox:Optimal range bonus doesn't really help blasters that much and it's too slow to take advantage of the rails in small gang fights. I think it should just go the way of the Moa and receive a damage bonus instead. A 20% damage bonus would make it an impressive brawler. The reason why I don't think range bonus is needed is because anything less than 50% range bonus will mean this will still be overshadowed by the Eagle while giving it 50% range bonus will mean it overshadows the Eagle.

Conclusion: 25% damage role bonus so the 10% per level optimal range bonus can stay so those few rail Feroxes don't cry. -1 Turret and High Slot, +1 Mid Slot.

Myrmidon: Probably the best CBC hull mostly thanks to drones and flexibility in the highs. Like the prophecy, the only thing the Myrm lacks is mobility. I think an MJD bonus would benefit it the most.

Conclusion: MJD cooldown bonus.

Brutix: Overshadowed by the Myrmidon that can outbrawl it, is less cap dependant and can deal with more ships. The speed advantage doesn't make up for it. Falloff bonus I also think isn't that useful. With 2 TEs and null loaded and giving it a generous 50% falloff bonus, its still only hitting out to 24km in deep falloff. Meaning it's only doing decent damage at 16.5km. The currently strategy cruisers and frigs have vs the brutix is to hold it at long point until heavy dps arrives and unless the brutix gets a ridiculous 100% falloff bonus this strategy won't change. You could fit Rails but people would probably still use the Eagle for fleets and Deimos/Thorax/Moa for small gang because of mobility. I think a 25% tracking bonus would help both rail and blaster fits the most without treading on the Eagle/Deimos.

Conclusion: 25% tracking bonus.

Cyclone: A pretty decent ship if medium missiles weren't bad. Fix medium missiles. Give it a 25% bonus to explosion velocity bonus (differentiates it from Caldari and fits with Typhoon).

Conclusion: Fix medium missiles, 25% explosion velocity bonus.

Hurricane: Massive powergrid nerf, high slot nerf, medium autocannons are crappy, artillery powergrid increased, various nerfs to the hull (mass, align time, signature radius and tank). Add on the TE nerf and you have one very over-nerfed ship. If the Muninn wasn't so crappy and if the hull itself didn't look so badass, no one would fly the Hurricane. Powergrid needs to be buffed, medium autocannons need to be fixed and a 25% falloff bonus would go a long way into making this ship viable again.

Conclusion: Powergrid buff, 25% falloff bonus.

Navy Battlecruisers
These should get the same role bonuses (maybe slightly higher like 37.5%). Navy Brutix and Navy Harbinger are the better ones. Navy Hurricane is CCP trolling old Cane pilots and the Navy Drake is arguably worse than the standard drake. Once HMLs are fixed, the 5% explosion radius bonus needs to be changed to a damage bonus.

Attack Battlecruisers
In many ways these are what larger destroyers would look like; 8 guns highs and paper tank. They were nerfed indirectly when tracking enhancers were nerfed and were nerfed directly in Odyssey when they received universal sig radius increases. Recent hyperspatial rigs have helped these. 25% bonus to CBCs likely won't affect these too much. The Blaster Talos and the Autocannon Nado which were already hurt the most by the TE nerf would probably suffer quite badly and I would propose a slight speed/agility buff to these hulls IF CBCs are to receive a projection role bonus to help to keep their mobility advantage over CBCs relevant.

Cruisers
These I feel get over-generalised. The star performance of the Vexor, Thorax and Moa and certain pirate/navy faction hulls such as the Orthrus, Gila, ONI, VNI overshadow the issue that some cruiser hulls are absolutely trash and will become even more trash if the CBC buffs above go through. Namely the Bellicose, Stabber, Osprey Navy Issue (do people even fly this), Caracal Navy issue and Muninn. Stabber and CNI could theoretically be fixed just by fixing medium ACs and missiles.

I've already addressed the range impact of 25% falloff/optimal bonus for 425mm ACs (with close range faction ammo), Heavy Pulse (with Scorch) and 720mm Arties (with close range faction ammo) and they all do excellent damage from 24-30+km. Hence why I think 25% is sufficient. Rails and Missiles I didn't address as they don't have issues with projection but rather with application. I didn't say 37.5% would break BCs, I said:



Giving more range than needed for BCs to force off tackle then starts to tread into the damage support roles of ABCs, especially the closer range ones like the AC nado and the Blaster Talos.

Lets compare then, because i'm not sure how you came up with that.

Tornado with 800mm and x2 TE/Gyro = 781dps @ 3.6km+45km using faction

Hurricane with 425's + 50% fall-off bonus x2 TE/Gyro = 549dps @ 1.8km+27km using faction

Using barrage there is still a big range disparity between the nado and cane, and dps is still significantly different. ABC's will always have more dps/range than CBC's, as they use large guns which have a higher base range and damage, plus they have 8 of them, compared to BC's 5-6.

And to pull a page from your book, we'll say they're the same role, and fit with artillery. For this example, CCP decides to go with a 50% optimal bonus for all turret based CBC's.

Tornado with 1400's x2 TE/Gyro = 606 dps @ 36+77km w/ 10k alpha using faction ammo

Hurricane with 720's x2 TE/Gyro and 50% optimal bonus = 474dps @ 27+31km w/ 3.7k alpha using faction ammo

So, again, huge alpha difference, dps is better and has better range (including optimal). The only difference is tracking. And generally an MWD cruiser's sig is big enough that it could be tracked fairly well at a tornado's operating range.

ABC's will always be king of range and dps. CBC's will have better tank, less range, less dps, more utility. I see no problem with giving CBC's more range, as even with a 50% bonus, it won't be close.