These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Portiko
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#221 - 2015-06-05 17:04:15 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
A large weapon BC already exists with the ABCs. Theyre faster, more agile and do more damage than their CBC counterparts, just have less tank. If you want tank plus large guns, you're looking for a battleship which already exist. Dont think anyone wants a fast BC with large guns and CBC levels of tank as it would obsolete battleships even more than they are now.

It wouldn't obsolete battleships. Battleships still have BS EHP which BCs don't. In large blobs, EHP is more valuable.

Quote:
Not to mention changing them to large weapons, and adding more speed and tank would mean CCP would need to rebalance them from the ground up. Which is a lot of time that could be spent better elsewhere.

Can't say that I agree it's time better spent elsewhere. BCs are terrible and in dire need of reform. This is important.

Daniela Doran wrote:
I think she's referring to a T2 version of the ABCs, which would be interesting. But it would require a lot more balancing then her proposal to keep from stepping on the BSs toes.

To be honest, ABCs should already be classed as T2 ships in their current form imo.



SDPPenter link description here

Send dick pics please...
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#222 - 2015-06-05 17:45:03 UTC
Portiko wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
A large weapon BC already exists with the ABCs. Theyre faster, more agile and do more damage than their CBC counterparts, just have less tank. If you want tank plus large guns, you're looking for a battleship which already exist. Dont think anyone wants a fast BC with large guns and CBC levels of tank as it would obsolete battleships even more than they are now.

It wouldn't obsolete battleships. Battleships still have BS EHP which BCs don't. In large blobs, EHP is more valuable.

Quote:
Not to mention changing them to large weapons, and adding more speed and tank would mean CCP would need to rebalance them from the ground up. Which is a lot of time that could be spent better elsewhere.

Can't say that I agree it's time better spent elsewhere. BCs are terrible and in dire need of reform. This is important.

Daniela Doran wrote:
I think she's referring to a T2 version of the ABCs, which would be interesting. But it would require a lot more balancing then her proposal to keep from stepping on the BSs toes.

To be honest, ABCs should already be classed as T2 ships in their current form imo.


BC EHP in some cases is quite a bit closer on some hulls than you think. A prophecy can get about 100-110k EHP. A drake can go about 100k in full brick tank mode. Hull tanked brutix can acheive about 90k EHP in a hull tank fit, navy brutix easily gets over 100k in hull tank. Those are a few examples. Some cant ill agree. But if you want 100k EHP from a BC, it can be done fairly easily.

For comparison, my t1 phoon gets anywhere from 87k-100k depending on how much tank/gank i feel like adding. Yea some BS will surpass those numbers with full tank fits, but wont be anymore close to the application BCs can get against cruisers.

It would be time better spent balancing the current CBC rather than recreate them from the ground up. Slapping on big guns/prop and keeping the current tank of CBC will mean they would have to have fits/performance tested extensively. Again time better spent balancing around the already balanced mediums, but just increasing their range to function as anti-support.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Portiko
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#223 - 2015-06-05 18:53:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Portiko
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
For comparison, my t1 phoon gets anywhere from 87k-100k depending on how much tank/gank i feel like adding. Yea some BS will surpass those numbers with full tank fits, but wont be anymore close to the application BCs can get against cruisers.

Yeah, the Typhoon is actually my idea of what a CBC should be, despite it being a BS. Well, I say despite it being a BS but, the OCD in me insists a CBC should be a BS anyway, which it kinda should because that's what BCs actually are.

SDPPenter link description here

Send dick pics please...
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#224 - 2015-06-05 19:00:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Portiko wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
For comparison, my t1 phoon gets anywhere from 87k-100k depending on how much tank/gank i feel like adding. Yea some BS will surpass those numbers with full tank fits, but wont be anymore close to the application BCs can get against cruisers.

Yeah, the Typhoon is actually my idea of what a CBC should be, despite it being a BS. Well, I say despite it being a BS but, the OCD in me insists a CBC should be a BS anyway, which it kinda should because that's what BCs actually are.


If thats the case it would be simpler to buff BS EHP to make the line between BC/BS more distinctive. See James Baboli's thread about his ideas on how to improve BS.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#225 - 2015-06-06 01:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Phaade wrote:

Do you solo pvp much? I'm not **** waving here, but killing AF's in destroyers is very, very easy to do. A Thrasher out tracks and far out damages them, unless the AF goes for pure dps, which is then shredded by 350 dps selectable damage. If they go for pure tank, they still can't tank that much damage without links and boosters....which is not solo. They can also fit a neut....And don't even get me started on what I do to AF's in an Algos or Dragoon. It's disgusting.

I solo a lot actually. There are only two dessies IMO that can consistently kill good AF pilots and that's the Algos and Dragoon. The rest are pretty easily killable by AFs with kiting or in some cases they just get outbrawled. AC thrasher doesn't do 350dps as it most often ends up fighting in falloff and the sig radius of dessies mean small guns have perfect tracking on dessies.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#226 - 2015-06-06 07:15:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
How do MJD bonuses affect how a BC deals with cruisers? MJD bonuses should be reserved for CS, a'la marauders.
The BCs I proposed MJD bonuses for are the Prophecy and the Myrmidon. None of which have problems dealing damage to kiting cruisers. Their only weakness is they're both relatively slow compared to the other BCs. MJD bonus addresses that.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
The brutix cannot get a tracking bonus, the navy brutix already has one. And having 2 of the same ship but one with more EHP is boring (see hurricane).
Almost all the navy BCs have at least one identical bonus, or in the Hurricane's case as you mentioned, completely identical bonuses. This rule you're imposing is fairly arbitrary. A falloff bonus doesn't help the Brutix much at all. Blaster fits, even with Neutrons and Null still gets kited and the range for Rails is completely fine. Tracking would help the Rail Brutix deal damage to fast cruisers the same way it helps the Rail Thorax track fast moving cruisers. Basically if giving the Brutix a falloff bonus puts it in the same position it is in now, i.e. the Myrmidon performs better in every way except for being slightly slower.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
For the ferox, it makes no sense for it to be the only BC with a damage role bonus, especially since my proposal is to give all BC's a projection bonus. So we'd have 7 BC's with projection bonuses, and 1 with a damage bonus. I've already proposed how the ferox would change, similar to what you have, just in a manner that is consistent.Ferox
5% bonus to medium hybrid turret damge
4% bonus to shield resistances

Role bonus: 50% bonus to optimal range

It would lose 1-2 turrets to compensate, and keep the overall damage the same. But by losing a turret or 2, it will help with fitting immensely. As the ferox does suffer from some slight fitting issues.
What about it doesn't make sense? Are you just being OCD with your bonuses? At level V Caldari BC they're exactly the same...

Also I didn't propose 7 projection bonuses. The drone boats don't need help with projection. The only ships I've proposed damage projection bonuses to are the Harbinger, Drake and Hurricane (that's 3).

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
The other thing, the ferox is a sniper ship, not a blaster boat. The targeting range is the highest of any t1 BC, tell me why we would need an 81km targeting range with blasters? The drake is the second highest at 75km, everything else falls around 65-60km.
The Moa had an optimal range bonus which is now changed to a damage bonus. My proposal is hardly unprecedented. Also the thing about lock range makes no sense. The Brutix has 68km targeting range... so I should only fit weapons on it that project to that range lol?

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
To add on to this statement, a ferox already has a 50% optimal bonus, but is not out tearing up or obsoleting HAC's or ABC's. They were recently being used by an alliance as a cheap fleet rail doctrine (i want to say Brave.. but not 100%). People put blasters on the ferox for double XLASB fits, as it can still make a decent brawler in certain cases.
The Ferox isn't obsoleting the Eagle because the Eagle has 2x10% bonuses which equates to a 125% range bonus at max skills.

And a tracking bonus would help both the brawl and rail fits. Currently people fit 180mm ACs with double XLASB feroxes because they projection damage better, are easier on fitting (so more damage mods) and can't be neuted out.

For rails the Eagle is preferred because it projects better and the Rail Moa and Rail Thorax are better for small gang because they have the speed to dictate range.

You have some weird restrictions what you think are or aren't appropriate bonuses. All the bonuses I've proposed have some reasoning behind them in relation to the description which you said you agree with.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#227 - 2015-06-06 12:53:32 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
The BCs I proposed MJD bonuses for are the Prophecy and the Myrmidon. None of which have problems dealing damage to kiting cruisers. Their only weakness is they're both relatively slow compared to the other BCs. MJD bonus addresses that.


They're actually faster than some of the other BC's, so that point is moot. Also, an MJD bonus does not make them faster, it allows tactical repositioning, or escaping. It does not increase your speed in anyway whatsoever.

Myrm = 1129 m/s with MWD
Proph = 1179 m/s with MWD
Ferox = 1083 m/s with MWD
Drake = 1011 m/s with MWD
Harbinger = 1132m/s with MWD
Brutix = 1232m/s with MWD
Cyclone = 1322m/s with MWD
hurricane = 1303m/s with MWD

There are cruisers that could easily outrun medium drones. Or mitigate damage through speed.

The same philosophy as the algos/dragoon to their light drones can be applied to the myrm/proph for the mediums. A drone velocity bonus would make more sense, and keep the role consistent as "anti-cruiser". To prevent it from being too powerful with lights, perhaps drone velocity bonus to only medium/large drones. Here, a 25% bonus to MWD drone speed would be sufficient.

An MJD bonus, as mentioned, should be reserved for CS. As the only other ship that gets a bonus to MJD are marauders which are a high end T2 BS. Makes no sense that a T1 BC should get the bonus arbitrarily just because your 2 favorite BC's are "slower" (they're not).

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Almost all the navy BCs have at least one identical bonus, or in the Hurricane's case as you mentioned, completely identical bonuses. This rule you're imposing is fairly arbitrary. A falloff bonus doesn't help the Brutix much at all. Blaster fits, even with Neutrons and Null still gets kited and the range for Rails is completely fine. Tracking would help the Rail Brutix deal damage to fast cruisers the same way it helps the Rail Thorax track fast moving cruisers. Basically if giving the Brutix a falloff bonus puts it in the same position it is in now, i.e. the Myrmidon performs better in every way except for being slightly slower.


If you want a BC that has a tracking bonus to deal damage to fast cruisers, use the navy brutix. Short of lol hull tank fits, it could use a better role.

So.. fall-off doesn't help the deimos, atron, astarte, enyo etc? I beg to differ. Fall-off on gal hulls is their racial flavor bonus. It also prevents a brutix from being scram kited since it will project well past scram range. Giving them optimal would make them better at range than caldari, since you'd be pairing tracking+optimal bonuses and making them excellent at projecting damage. Fall-off still helps blaster or rail fit ships, especially once you start tacking on TE/Rigs/TC (more so on rail fits). A tracking and fall-off bonused brutix navy for example would still do very well with rails and project well.

What you think is "fine", doesn't mean a projection bonus would be worthless. By that logic we should remove the fall-off bonus from the deimos and astarte because "the range for rails is completely fine". What you think is fine does not dictate how ships are fit for the purpose the pilot has in mind.

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
What about it doesn't make sense? Are you just being OCD with your bonuses? At level V Caldari BC they're exactly the same...

Also I didn't propose 7 projection bonuses. The drone boats don't need help with projection. The only ships I've proposed damage projection bonuses to are the Harbinger, Drake and Hurricane (that's 3).


Its sloppy and lacks consistency. If we want people to use BC's, especially newer players that skilled up for them, they need to have a clear understanding of the role they're intended for. Do destroyers have random damage/tracking/MWD role bonuses? No. All their bonuses relate to their role as anti-frig and are for projection.

My mistake on the 7 projection bonus comment.

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
The Moa had an optimal range bonus which is now changed to a damage bonus. My proposal is hardly unprecedented. Also the thing about lock range makes no sense. The Brutix has 68km targeting range... so I should only fit weapons on it that project to that range lol?


The moa was terrible with the old bonuses, and the ferox did the same job better. The ferox is still a good ship, but has a few minor shortcomings.

Because the ship is meant for rails...? Does the brutix have an optimal bonus? No it doesn't. What part of extra targeting range + optimal bonus don't you get? If you can project past 65km with spike, it would make sense for the targeting range to be able to lock that far, without adding unnecessary sebo's or targeting range mods. Its a sniper ship, and if you want to shoot past 100km you can with a single range mod (rig/sebo/sig amp etc).

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#228 - 2015-06-06 13:02:41 UTC
Iyacia Cyrc'ai wrote:
The Ferox isn't obsoleting the Eagle because the Eagle has 2x10% bonuses which equates to a 125% range bonus at max skills.

For rails the Eagle is preferred because it projects better and the Rail Moa and Rail Thorax are better for small gang because they have the speed to dictate range.

You have some weird restrictions what you think are or aren't appropriate bonuses. All the bonuses I've proposed have some reasoning behind them in relation to the description which you said you agree with.


You said you don't want T1 BC's to obsolete HAC's due to projection bonuses. I said that the ferox hasn't obsoleted any HAC, so you actually have just proven my point.

See your point here:

Iyacia Cyrc'ai wrote:
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"


A rail ferox does not beat a rail eagle in their role fit for the same purpose. Thank you for realizing this and agreeing with me. So now, i guess you still want your 25% bonus to projection for "reasons" right?

A vagabond with 50% fall-off bonus has the speed to dictate range as well, unlike a hurricane with a fall-off bonus. So again, the roles are more defined now, yet you still don't want BC's to have more than 25% projection bonus.

All my bonuses have reasonings behind them too, that you seem to be ignoring. They are almost identical to destroyer bonuses, minus some minor tweaking to prevent the hybrid ships from being the same.

You seem to be the ONLY person with a problem here. I see no reason why BC's should not get a projection bonus or at least one that matters, and if you're concerned that it will become BC online, again as mentioned numerous times already, if BC's become popular again, guess what else becomes popular? Their counter, Battleships. A battleship will tear a BC apart, regardless of what you think. I've killed dual XLASB ferox's in my RHML phoon, even with the reload.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#229 - 2015-06-06 13:38:36 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Iyacia Cyrc'ai wrote:
The Ferox isn't obsoleting the Eagle because the Eagle has 2x10% bonuses which equates to a 125% range bonus at max skills.

For rails the Eagle is preferred because it projects better and the Rail Moa and Rail Thorax are better for small gang because they have the speed to dictate range.

You have some weird restrictions what you think are or aren't appropriate bonuses. All the bonuses I've proposed have some reasoning behind them in relation to the description which you said you agree with.


You said you don't want T1 BC's to obsolete HAC's due to projection bonuses. I said that the ferox hasn't obsoleted any HAC, so you actually have just proven my point.

See your point here:

Iyacia Cyrc'ai wrote:
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"


A rail ferox does not beat a rail eagle in their role fit for the same purpose. Thank you for realizing this and agreeing with me. So now, i guess you still want your 25% bonus to projection for "reasons" right?

A vagabond with 50% fall-off bonus has the speed to dictate range as well, unlike a hurricane with a fall-off bonus. So again, the roles are more defined now, yet you still don't want BC's to have more than 25% projection bonus.

All my bonuses have reasonings behind them too, that you seem to be ignoring. They are almost identical to destroyer bonuses, minus some minor tweaking to prevent the hybrid ships from being the same.

You seem to be the ONLY person with a problem here. I see no reason why BC's should not get a projection bonus or at least one that matters, and if you're concerned that it will become BC online, again as mentioned numerous times already, if BC's become popular again, guess what else becomes popular? Their counter, Battleships. A battleship will tear a BC apart, regardless of what you think. I've killed dual XLASB ferox's in my RHML phoon, even with the reload.


I didn't even realize that the BSs had RHML until recently. I wish CCP do the same for turret based BSs. With the cruise missile buff along with RHML, BS missile boats are in a really good place right now.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#230 - 2015-06-06 17:27:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Iyacia Cyrc'ai wrote:
The Ferox isn't obsoleting the Eagle because the Eagle has 2x10% bonuses which equates to a 125% range bonus at max skills.

For rails the Eagle is preferred because it projects better and the Rail Moa and Rail Thorax are better for small gang because they have the speed to dictate range.

You have some weird restrictions what you think are or aren't appropriate bonuses. All the bonuses I've proposed have some reasoning behind them in relation to the description which you said you agree with.


You said you don't want T1 BC's to obsolete HAC's due to projection bonuses. I said that the ferox hasn't obsoleted any HAC, so you actually have just proven my point.

See your point here:

"]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"

A rail ferox does not beat a rail eagle in their role fit for the same purpose. Thank you for realizing this and agreeing with me. So now, i guess you still want your 25% bonus to projection for "reasons" right?
Eagle =/= all HACs. Settle down there buddy and focus. The Eagle has a double 10% range bonus and it's the ONLY HAC to have that. I've already said the Ferox can keep its 50% bonus (either as a 10% per level or as a role bonus) provided it gets a 25% damage bonus at lvl 5. If you gave the Ferox another 50% optimal bonus on top of its current optimal range bonus then yes it would trump the Eagle because it would do almost double the damage, have the same projection and have nearly identical tanks at only a fraction of the price.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
A vagabond with 50% fall-off bonus has the speed to dictate range as well, unlike a hurricane with a fall-off bonus. So again, the roles are more defined now, yet you still don't want BC's to have more than 25% projection bonus.
Because 25% for the Hurricane and Harbinger are enough for reasons I've already stated. You even said that your intention was to make BCs at least not such easy kills by giving them enough range to force off kiters (but not necessarily kill them unless they commit). 25% does that.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
All my bonuses have reasonings behind them too, that you seem to be ignoring. They are almost identical to destroyer bonuses, minus some minor tweaking to prevent the hybrid ships from being the same.
Really? How does a falloff bonus help a Brutix vs Cruisers? Blasters still can't hit kiting cruisers and Rails with antimatter already hit well over long-point range (although they would have issues tracking some fast cruisers).

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
...if you're concerned that it will become BC online, again as mentioned numerous times already, if BC's become popular again, guess what else becomes popular? Their counter, Battleships. A battleship will tear a BC apart, regardless of what you think. I've killed dual XLASB ferox's in my RHML phoon, even with the reload.
Just because a ship has a counter doesn't mean overbuffing it doesn't matter. Otherwise why not give destroyers a 100% bonus to projection? I mean who cares about the impact on frigate pilots, cruisers will counter dessies so it's all good right?
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#231 - 2015-06-06 17:50:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
The BCs I proposed MJD bonuses for are the Prophecy and the Myrmidon. None of which have problems dealing damage to kiting cruisers. Their only weakness is they're both relatively slow compared to the other BCs. MJD bonus addresses that.


They're actually faster than some of the other BC's, so that point is moot. Also, an MJD bonus does not make them faster, it allows tactical repositioning, or escaping. It does not increase your speed in anyway whatsoever.

Myrm = 1129 m/s with MWD
Proph = 1179 m/s with MWD
Ferox = 1083 m/s with MWD
Drake = 1011 m/s with MWD
Harbinger = 1132m/s with MWD
Brutix = 1232m/s with MWD
Cyclone = 1322m/s with MWD
hurricane = 1303m/s with MWD

There are cruisers that could easily outrun medium drones. Or mitigate damage through speed.

The same philosophy as the algos/dragoon to their light drones can be applied to the myrm/proph for the mediums. A drone velocity bonus would make more sense, and keep the role consistent as "anti-cruiser". To prevent it from being too powerful with lights, perhaps drone velocity bonus to only medium/large drones. Here, a 25% bonus to MWD drone speed would be sufficient.

An MJD bonus, as mentioned, should be reserved for CS. As the only other ship that gets a bonus to MJD are marauders which are a high end T2 BS. Makes no sense that a T1 BC should get the bonus arbitrarily just because your 2 favorite BC's are "slower" (they're not).
Unfortunately shield fit or naked Prophecies aren't a thing. With 1600mm plates they most definitely are the slowest. The Myrmidon as I said in the description doesn't really have any issues and it's commonly regarded the strongest CBC in the current meta, particularly in gangs using sentries. Drone boats are already very strong. But as I said in my description I don't particularly mind a 25% bonus to drone MWD speed. 50% has the potential to be pretty cancerous though as I don't really see the need for Heavy Drones to go 3600m/s.

I never said MJDs would make them faster, that's obvious. I said it would help their mobility. And if you don't think being able to warp 100km with immunity to long points with greater frequency counts as being more mobile than I don't know what to say to you.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
If you want a BC that has a tracking bonus to deal damage to fast cruisers, use the navy brutix. Short of lol hull tank fits, it could use a better role.

So.. fall-off doesn't help the deimos, atron, astarte, enyo etc? I beg to differ. Fall-off on gal hulls is their racial flavor bonus. It also prevents a brutix from being scram kited since it will project well past scram range. Giving them optimal would make them better at range than caldari, since you'd be pairing tracking+optimal bonuses and making them excellent at projecting damage. Fall-off still helps blaster or rail fit ships, especially once you start tacking on TE/Rigs/TC (more so on rail fits). A tracking and fall-off bonused brutix navy for example would still do very well with rails and project well.
Enyo has an optimal bonus not a falloff bonus... Also Navy Brutixes are okay with Rails, except for their price, most just paying a little more for an Eos or an Astarte which are miles better than the Navy Brutix.

All sizes of medium blasters reach over scram range with Null. But sure a falloff bonus would help a Brutix apply better damage at the edge of scram range. However the Brutix in general is a pretty good brawler. The problem your thread is supposedly trying to deal with though is BC's performance against Cruisers, particularly kiting cruisers. A falloff bonus wouldn't help a blaster Brutix from getting kited by Cruisers.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
The Moa had an optimal range bonus which is now changed to a damage bonus. My proposal is hardly unprecedented. Also the thing about lock range makes no sense. The Brutix has 68km targeting range... so I should only fit weapons on it that project to that range lol?


The moa was terrible with the old bonuses, and the ferox did the same job better. The ferox is still a good ship, but has a few minor shortcomings.

Because the ship is meant for rails...? Does the brutix have an optimal bonus? No it doesn't. What part of extra targeting range + optimal bonus don't you get? If you can project past 65km with spike, it would make sense for the targeting range to be able to lock that far, without adding unnecessary sebo's or targeting range mods. Its a sniper ship, and if you want to shoot past 100km you can with a single range mod (rig/sebo/sig amp etc)
Again Moa had 60+ lock range and 10% per level optimal. Didn't stop CCP changing it. I don't see why the Ferox should be immune from a similar change. In fact look at any killboard statistic on the Ferox and you'll find that Blasters are by far more commonly fit on Feroxes than Rails.

The Ferox is not a "good' ship even in comparison with other Battlecruisers. It's slow speed means ships easily orbit it to avoid the tracking of Rail fits and it's lack of damage bonus prevents it from being a competitive alternative to the Brutix.
Dregalis DeGraiden
Doomheim
#232 - 2015-06-08 11:07:18 UTC
I Agree with Stitch. Role bonuses can't be all over the place, they should be a unified bonus that all ships under the same umbrella class uses. I also agree with Iyacia in that 25% optimal/falloff role bonus is sufficient for a t1 BC hull and maybe give the faction BC's a 50% optimal/falloff role bonus.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#233 - 2015-06-10 09:30:47 UTC
The discussion about MJD and/or speed still ongoing? It's a gimmick.

+101 to unified BC projection Role bonus.

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

[Cruisers Online]
Dregalis DeGraiden
Doomheim
#234 - 2015-06-10 11:06:16 UTC
CMON CCP WHAT HELL YALL DOING. GIVE MY SLEIPNIR A 70% COOLDOWN REACTIVATION REDUCTION ROLE BONUS ALREADY.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#235 - 2015-06-12 13:42:15 UTC
https://www.themittani.com/news/o7-show-delivers-meta-changing-content

Buffs to combat and faction BCs?! I wants the details. i really hope the faction cane becomes decent. As well as other proposals between james babolis thread and mine.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2015-06-12 17:41:10 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
https://www.themittani.com/news/o7-show-delivers-meta-changing-content

Buffs to combat and faction BCs?! I wants the details. i really hope the faction cane becomes decent. As well as other proposals between james babolis thread and mine.


Yeah I saw that. HMs are finally getting buffed too. :O
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#237 - 2015-06-12 17:46:38 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
https://www.themittani.com/news/o7-show-delivers-meta-changing-content

Buffs to combat and faction BCs?! I wants the details. i really hope the faction cane becomes decent. As well as other proposals between james babolis thread and mine.


Yeah I saw that. HMs are finally getting buffed too. :O


Not sure that 5% damage will be enough to save them, but the added application modules will make it easier to run HAMs and torps. Will need to see how the modules shake out and what they do to the CBCs and faction BCs. Hopefully they don't make for a return of the age of drake.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2015-06-12 17:59:37 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
https://www.themittani.com/news/o7-show-delivers-meta-changing-content

Buffs to combat and faction BCs?! I wants the details. i really hope the faction cane becomes decent. As well as other proposals between james babolis thread and mine.


Yeah I saw that. HMs are finally getting buffed too. :O


Not sure that 5% damage will be enough to save them, but the added application modules will make it easier to run HAMs and torps. Will need to see how the modules shake out and what they do to the CBCs and faction BCs. Hopefully they don't make for a return of the age of drake.


Hey, at least they're willing to take a first step and recognize that CBCs and HMs aren't in a great spot.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#239 - 2015-06-12 18:01:17 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
https://www.themittani.com/news/o7-show-delivers-meta-changing-content

Buffs to combat and faction BCs?! I wants the details. i really hope the faction cane becomes decent. As well as other proposals between james babolis thread and mine.


Yeah I saw that. HMs are finally getting buffed too. :O


Not sure that 5% damage will be enough to save them, but the added application modules will make it easier to run HAMs and torps. Will need to see how the modules shake out and what they do to the CBCs and faction BCs. Hopefully they don't make for a return of the age of drake.


Kinetic locked drake cant kill ishtar. So i dont see that happening. With application mods and no missile nerfs.. we just might have something to make missiles more viable in their intended role.

CBC changes have me very curious. The fact they specifically mentioned faction BCs is good too. Will the navy drake and fleet cane finally get a proper role. Hopefully navy drake gets a utility high and cane gets bonuses that make it different from t1.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#240 - 2015-06-13 00:27:54 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Portiko wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
For comparison, my t1 phoon gets anywhere from 87k-100k depending on how much tank/gank i feel like adding. Yea some BS will surpass those numbers with full tank fits, but wont be anymore close to the application BCs can get against cruisers.

Yeah, the Typhoon is actually my idea of what a CBC should be, despite it being a BS. Well, I say despite it being a BS but, the OCD in me insists a CBC should be a BS anyway, which it kinda should because that's what BCs actually are.


If thats the case it would be simpler to buff BS EHP to make the line between BC/BS more distinctive. See James Baboli's thread about his ideas on how to improve BS.


The 3200mm plates, k.

LSE Shield cruisers are approaching retardo levels currently.

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

[Cruisers Online]