These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance

First post First post First post
Author
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#281 - 2015-09-13 03:17:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Quesa wrote:

Save Minmatar, shield tankers generally have a high kin resist. Armor tankers, kin is usually 2nd or 3rd but I can't find any T1 or T2 ship where kin is lowest, again, save Minmatar.


Its only high if they fit an invuln, which is rare, which can be neuted off fairly easily. Its rare a shield ship is going to put kinetic rigs over EM/thermal, except certain T2 minmatar ships/fits. Against things like an armor cruiser, the drake has more than enough tank to kill them before they kill it. Not to mention being able to fit a medium neut. Setup for tank and scram/web, it still has plenty of tank and dps to handle other larger ships when properly fit for it.

The drake i fly with can do 720dps cold with rage, and 800+ heated. Using faction is over 600dps cold. Comparing that to other BC's, it out dps' the hurricane, is about on par with the harbinger, and is just under the brutix. Before these nerf's, a drake could scram kite a brutix and MAYBE win the dps race. It is still on par with other BC's, and does decent dps even with the kinetic lock. Even with unbonused missiles, it was not hard to kill smaller, tankier ships since you were shooting directly into their resist hole anyway.

Quesa wrote:
Sure but Minmatar is also very flat in their resist profiles so while Kin may be the weakest, it's very close to the other damage resists. Also, every race has another that shoots damage designed for the target's resist hole and at the same time, there is always one race that is very efficient in absorbing the primary damage type of another race.


Minmatar t2 profile is not flat, its 75/60/40/50 before mods. Unless you are specifically brawling, the kinetic hole is left open. The svipul is 60% in tank mode, but are still easy to kill with a drake. Neuts and consistently applied dps brings t3d's down. T1 shield ships also follow this same logic, they fill therm/EM holes over kinetic ones.


Quesa wrote:
Admitting defeat by saying, lol use another ship.


Or adapting and accepting that one ship cannot fight every ship, and every type of fit in the game. Seriously.. cry more.



Quesa wrote:
Amarr, Gallente and Minmitar primary weapon systems have the ability to, through ammo selection, shift their damage profile from one damage type to another....not by 100% but that is supposedly a benefit to using a missile system.


Put it this way, list any T1 ship that is traditionally a shield tanker/buffer and you'll be listing off ships that are prime targets for Lasers and decent targets for Hybrids (shields generally have a relatively low therm resist). Now, take that same list and look at the kin resists.


You are still able to shift your damage profile, just at the reduction of damage. No one is forcing you into using only kinetic. I have killed multiple ships with unbonused missiles on a drake. As i could shoot directly into their resist hole, and apply neut pressure. Combined with good application, I could bring them down. Now in a situation like drake vs ishtar, deimos, then i would accept i could not realistically tank and outdamage them with unbonused missiles. That is a fight I would try to avoid.

Laser/hybrids use cap, missiles do not. I have far more resistance against neuting, don't need to worry about transversal or range. I get within web range, apply neuts, drones and missiles and go to town. Trying to compare missiles to turrets outright, and focusing only on resists is foolish.

Think you should step away from EFT and just fly the ship. You'll realize the kinetic lock is not as restrictive as you think.
Mario Putzo
#282 - 2015-09-13 04:55:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
FINALLY ITS ABOUT TIME!

Exactly what the meta has needed for 2 years...BCs that are capable of projecting their damage onto Cruisers. Thanks for finally listening to us Fozzie.

Now 2 things I do not like.

1) Drake damage lock is still dumb. One of the biggest advantages of missiles is ability to select type. This Kinetic lock **** really needs to go.....which leads to #2

2) Please for the love of god fix heavy missiles. Its super duper simple. Revert the changes made to their explosion radius...and redact the 5% damage increase given to them a couple months back.

Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010.
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#283 - 2015-09-13 05:05:29 UTC  |  Edited by: RavenPaine
I understand that buffs need to be done in baby steps. Power creep and all that. And, I think these improvements are good on soooo many levels. I seriously believe that nerfing Hurricanes/Drakes/Heavies/Invulns had a huge negative impact on EVE. I truly hope these changes will have the desired results I think they might have. Eve lost a lot of pilots in the past year. I hope this isn't "too little, too late".

I think BC's have always been the *gateway* ship for sub-cap fights to escalate. BC should be able to run off the cruisers, or kill them, and they should draw attention from BS pilots.
In My Opinion: This is just the right approach for bringing back BS camps and more hi-sec PvP.
Which will keep more pilots entertained, and be better for subscription rates, player activity, bottom line, and general fun for all gaming.

I have harped about the Drake many times, but I like the fact that ALL BC have been addressed. I really don't care about any particular ship, (they're all fun if they do their job) but I do care about the *big picture* and I think this is a huge step in the right direction.

Edit for Marios comment:
I think if you see BC's doing what they should do, T3's will start dying like they should.
And yes, I'd like heavies to be a bit better myself, but I think these changes are still 100% moving in the right direction.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#284 - 2015-09-13 05:25:25 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:


Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010.



As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs.

Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%.
Mario Putzo
#285 - 2015-09-13 05:31:13 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:

Edit for Marios comment:
I think if you see BC's doing what they should do, T3's will start dying like they should.
And yes, I'd like heavies to be a bit better myself, but I think these changes are still 100% moving in the right direction.


Nah as is T3s will still dust BC's by virtue of 2 things.

1) T3s will apply more DPS to BC's than BC's do to T3s. Most (not all) BC's take 100% damage from medium sized weaponry, all T3's mitigate about 30% damage from medium weapons simply by using an AB, and 10-15% (depending on the hull) simply moving at max speed.

2) T3's can achieve nearly double the tank of BC's while maintaining similar DPS peaks. This is probably the biggest issue in comparison, while damage differences make sense (bigger ships should take more "full" hits from smaller guns) the tank difference is huge.

If you put an equal sized T3 group against an equal sized BC group, even post changes the T3 group will always win out due to their ability to out-tank and apply more DPS. They are basically battleships with cruiser sized sigs and BC like damage peaks. Keep the damage, keep the "size" lose the tank.

HACs are capable of taking on BS fleets with their ~60K EHP tanks, T3s could do the same with 70-80K EHP tanks id wager.
Mario Putzo
#286 - 2015-09-13 05:37:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Daniela Doran wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:


Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010.



As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs.

Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%.


I doubt it. T3s are so universal their value will always remain high, even if you nerfed their tankability down to a spot between C and BC (which is probably the only change really need to be made). They would still be the dominant cruiser option for most things, but they would be opposed by well piloted BC's. The relationship would function much like how T3Ds kind of bridge between Dessies and Cruisers. A good T3D group can kill a decent cruiser group, but a good cruiser group can kill a good T3D group.

T3's absolutely should not have BC DPS and BS Tanks. Its dumb.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#287 - 2015-09-13 05:43:53 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:

Edit for Marios comment:
I think if you see BC's doing what they should do, T3's will start dying like they should.
And yes, I'd like heavies to be a bit better myself, but I think these changes are still 100% moving in the right direction.


Nah as is T3s will still dust BC's by virtue of 2 things.

1) T3s will apply more DPS to BC's than BC's do to T3s. Most (not all) BC's take 100% damage from medium sized weaponry, all T3's mitigate about 30% damage from medium weapons simply by using an AB, and 10-15% (depending on the hull) simply moving at max speed.

2) T3's can achieve nearly double the tank of BC's while maintaining similar DPS peaks. This is probably the biggest issue in comparison, while damage differences make sense (bigger ships should take more "full" hits from smaller guns) the tank difference is huge.

If you put an equal sized T3 group against an equal sized BC group, even post changes the T3 group will always win out due to their ability to out-tank and apply more DPS. They are basically battleships with cruiser sized sigs and BC like damage peaks. Keep the damage, keep the "size" lose the tank.

HACs are capable of taking on BS fleets with their ~60K EHP tanks, T3s could do the same with 70-80K EHP tanks id wager.



I think t3 cruisers need to be rebalanced as t3 BCs. This means all their capabilities fall better in line, and their ship stats - IE agility, velocity, sig radius, and Scan Res can be rebalanced to fall in line with BCs.
It makes T3s less powerful by way of size classification while retaining everything else.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#288 - 2015-09-13 05:47:06 UTC
some seem to misunderstand how ship mass in this game works.

if agility and speed is kept the same but mass is increased it essentially means that plates and prop mods will affect your align time less. Think: your ship is already heavy but still agile due to space magic, adding more mass through plates is now like adding a feather to the load on your pickup truck.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#289 - 2015-09-13 05:49:20 UTC
I still want my cloaky/nullified Tengu for null sec exploration though. I need that tank for solo sites, and the nullified fit has crap DPS. So that ship for that role, seams ok to me.

Perhaps the 'combat' subsystems could use some tweeking? DPS/Tank offsets, or something.

I'll say this. You get caught and hard tackled in a T3 by a couple guys, and you generally going to die. Mobility is everything for them.
Maraner
The Executioners
#290 - 2015-09-13 06:13:48 UTC
Make the MJD an ability on the ship.

All BC's should be able to MJD without a requirement to fit the module. At the moment, the shield ships have to sacrifice a great deal more to fit MJD than the Armor ships.

Please. If we can make T3 destroyers have the ability to switch modes, then CCP could add a MJD button with a cool down for BC's

thanks
Mario Putzo
#291 - 2015-09-13 06:41:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Maraner wrote:
Make the MJD an ability on the ship.

All BC's should be able to MJD without a requirement to fit the module. At the moment, the shield ships have to sacrifice a great deal more to fit MJD than the Armor ships.

Please. If we can make T3 destroyers have the ability to switch modes, then CCP could add a MJD button with a cool down for BC's

thanks


I dunno about a great deal more...a bit more maybe...About the only drawback i see shield ships having is being slightly quicker to lock thanks to sig bloom. Armor ships have to first sacrifice DPS to even fit tank, second need to sacrifice application or utility to fit MJD. Shield ships sacrifice some tank or utility, but can add DPS or application in the lows.

Id say for the most part it is a wash.

That being said I think all BC's should have ability to use MJD Including the Teir 3 BCs....

Also unrelated to the above

Make the Naga shoot Rapid Heavies please something like -reload time % as it bonus...Ferox is king sniper now.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#292 - 2015-09-13 07:02:50 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:


Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010.



As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs.

Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%.


I doubt it. T3s are so universal their value will always remain high, even if you nerfed their tankability down to a spot between C and BC (which is probably the only change really need to be made). They would still be the dominant cruiser option for most things, but they would be opposed by well piloted BC's. The relationship would function much like how T3Ds kind of bridge between Dessies and Cruisers. A good T3D group can kill a decent cruiser group, but a good cruiser group can kill a good T3D group.

T3's absolutely should not have BC DPS and BS Tanks. Its dumb.


They have an offsetting penalty if they die (SP LOSS) so T3Cs needs their current tanks. The only time their 150 EHP is OP is when receiving logi from outside support. So I propose that CCP add a penalty to the buffer sub systems that disallows them from receiving logi from external sources.
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#293 - 2015-09-13 07:57:32 UTC
Not sure if this has been discussed already, but a logical reason for Myrm's popularity in the stats could well be solely it's slot layout, allowing it to fit MMJD with another prop and everything else.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#294 - 2015-09-13 07:58:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Daniela Doran wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:


Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010.



As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs.

Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%.


I doubt it. T3s are so universal their value will always remain high, even if you nerfed their tankability down to a spot between C and BC (which is probably the only change really need to be made). They would still be the dominant cruiser option for most things, but they would be opposed by well piloted BC's. The relationship would function much like how T3Ds kind of bridge between Dessies and Cruisers. A good T3D group can kill a decent cruiser group, but a good cruiser group can kill a good T3D group.

T3's absolutely should not have BC DPS and BS Tanks. Its dumb.


They have an offsetting penalty if they die (SP LOSS) so T3Cs needs their current tanks. The only time their 150 EHP is OP is when receiving logi from outside support. So I propose that CCP add a penalty to the buffer sub systems that disallows them from receiving logi from external sources.


Seems counter intuitive to say that t3c's need their tank then turn around and suggest an idea that neuts their tank....

Back to my suggestion though.
If t3Cs were made into t3BCs, they would fit really well.
Reduce velocity, scan res, and agility, then increase mass. (And maybe some other changes here and there.)
Now, their tank, DPS, projection, and other aspects fall in line with that of the balance changes to BCs.

It also calls in line with that of T3Ds, in that they're more powerful and versatile.
Even with the change from C to BC, they are still more powerful and versatile than BCs, but at least they become a bit easier to counter while still retaining all their power.
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#295 - 2015-09-13 09:04:58 UTC
CCP games if you really serious about bringing BC's into the fight with enhanced mobility and projection,

then please take a look at T1 / navy BC warp speed and enhance them also from 2.7 to 3.0 AU/sec Cool

Or at the least re-balance hyperspatial velocity optimizer rigs so they won't interfere with a(ny) meta game fitting requirements.

Regards, a Freelancer

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Vibiana
Frontier Trading Company
#296 - 2015-09-13 09:47:17 UTC
More fitting to squeeze that mjd in pls
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#297 - 2015-09-13 10:18:48 UTC
Does increased optimal/falloff really make BCs any better at killing cruisers? I would have thought optimal and tracking speed would have been better...

+ 1 mid and -1 low on the hurricane would have been nice.
Planeten Schreck
Green Screen
#298 - 2015-09-13 10:51:44 UTC
Hi,

is there also something planned for the gnosis to keep this ship usefull compared to the others bc ?
Blackfeathers
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#299 - 2015-09-13 11:10:57 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Does increased optimal/falloff really make BCs any better at killing cruisers? I would have thought optimal and tracking speed would have been better...

+ 1 mid and -1 low on the hurricane would have been nice.


You leave my Hurricane alone you monster. Stay away from her - she doesn't like you and your lack of falloff bonus anyway!
Kenji Noguchi
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#300 - 2015-09-13 11:50:32 UTC
Are these bonuses being "ported" to the T2 versions of the ships?
Are you planning on doing a rebalance pass on T2 BCs?