These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#481 - 2015-09-20 19:30:41 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
I do have a slight reservation on the navy drake. It still has no High's for links or nos/neut. It is bonused for links but cant fit them without sacrificing dps, something all the other BCs dont have to consider. I dont mind the navy drake not having a tank bonus, as to be honest having good application and range can kill things quickly before harming you. Plus MMJD. So kiters are a non issue.

Would changing it to something like this be a possibility?

Navy Drake
5% RoF per level
5% explosion radius per lvl

25% bonus to missile velocity

Drop a launcher, frees up fitting and now you can add neut/nos or links as needed without sacrificing dps.


The Navy Drake was a square peg before because nobody outside pve had much use for a pricey drake with worse dps/tank, no neut, and nothing to offer but an extreme range bonus on weapons that do delayed dps.

Now it has medium drones the lower dps is less of an issue, the tank bonus with navy stats means it has an even better tank than the t1 drake, a full rack of unbonused launchers lets people play around with RLML set ups, the application bonus sets it apart when using HML, or rage HAM's ... so the new Navy Drake has a lot of potential roles because the tank bonus compliments all set ups especially PVE which is the bread and butter of Drakes now. A neut/nos is only useful for brawling and no use at all in PVE.


Good luck killing any active tanked t3d or 10mn t3d (or both) without a neut.

There's a reason I prefer the T1 drake over the navy one, and its because of the neut. Take for instance, this perfectly balanced svipul.

[Svipul, 10mn Svipul]
Damage Control II
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II

10MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400

200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
5W Infectious Power System Malfunction
[empty high slot]

Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Small Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II
Small Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II

Without links and only using bluepill it has a cap stable 267dps tank (before heat). Using a navy drake with only a scram/web, you are applying 111dps out of your 475dps. Add another 90dps from drones and your at 201dps. Drones will die, and then you'll be left with 111dps.

Using dual webs on the navy drake, you can hit for around 230dps before drones. The svipul can OH to 350dps to tank your missiles and drones, until he pops all your drones (which will happen quickly). From there on, he can still tank your applied dps with no problem. 10mn dual rep fessor the same way, but even worse since it has a smaller sig.

Anyway, my point is, you hit them with a medium neut, and get that AB to turn off, even for just 5-6 seconds, you will apply 300+dps easy, and with the fits I use, max damage. Get yourself an easy kill. Now, this didn't even touch on a linked svipul, as it gets even worse from there. But even with links, there is no link that gives you cap, and i've killed plenty of linked fessors and svipuls.

Now, you do bring up a good point with RLML, but your not using either velocity or application bonus. Why not just buy a raven then, will probably be cheaper, and have a better tank.

The last thing I would mention is the fact the navy drake gets a link bonus, but has to sacrifice dps to fit it. No other BC has to make this sacrifice. If you bonus the ship for the role, it should be able to do the role without sacrificing something in return. I know this is a minor thing as most people won't be using links on it, but why handicap it in the first place?



A drakes best friend is the falcon.
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#482 - 2015-09-20 19:35:55 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Roti Rotineque wrote:
Ok, ty CCP. Now fix the skill thingy please. I have to train 102731923 days of leadership just to fly an absol? Are you serious. This is shi... not good. Fix it. Fix it now. CCPlleeeeease.



Nope, why should they. They'll just replace those skills with some other useless time sink skill so what's the difference. Just suck it up and train those skills if you want to undock in CSs. If anything you should request that CCP make them worth training for.

I actually think that the skills are inline and fine. not, to actually max out the specialist skills is more for your booster.. but.. they stillc an have pvp / pve viability. They are command ships.. so they are bonused towards leadership. If your looking at more dmg ask for a Tactical Battlecruiser T2.
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#483 - 2015-09-20 19:42:52 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
I'm still left wondering why Caldari seem have suddenly improved their agility. Why does the Navy Drake seem to have gained obscene levels of agility in comparison to the other BC hulls. And why is the Ferox in the top three most agile T1 BCs.

Consider that these are going to be fit with shields and so will suffer no agility penalties means Caldari are basically becoming the most agile race in terms of this rebalance.


Because the legs of caldari healed better after getting hit my the missile , BS and ECM nerf-bats years ago.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#484 - 2015-09-20 19:50:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Fourteen Maken
Deacon Abox wrote:
I have to agree with some of the concern already posted. The Navy Drakes base speed and time to align agility seem out of proportion in comparison to the other Navy BCs. Especially considering how these characteristics could be easily further enhanced with a nanofiber. Gunboats sorta need mobility to deal with tracking considerations. Missile and drone boats not so much.

Additionally, where the hell is the expanded drone bay coming from? The ship mobility already gives it an edge on the others. It does not need more drone options. Also, lore be ****** I guess.

We will not see fleets of Navy Harbs or Brutix, and I doubt even Navy Canes. Although Navy Canes for alpha strike type fighting will always have appeal. But we could see some return of fleets of Drakes in Navy form. The only drawback from the old omnipresent perma mwd regular Drakes being pricetag.Ugh

Fozzie, when you imbalance Navy ships you induce FW farmer alts to migrate faction. The Navy Drake is much better than the others as a fleet ship. There probably will be a surplus demand for them in comparison to the other Navy BCs. And being a fleet comp capable ship, that demand could be very large. This will affect FW game balance. Something to consider.


I'm glad someone brought that up I'm just suprised it was someone in Galmil because the Calmil LP store is full of lemons and carebear PVE ships that never leave high sec, while Galmil have some of the most popular pvp ships in the game.

Faction frigates

Fed Navy Comet: between 4k-5k get destroyed every month; that creates demand for ~40-50million lp per month

vs

Caldari Navy Hookbill: 1.1k - 1.5k destroyed per month = ~11-15 million lp per month

advantage Gallente by more than 3:1


Faction Cruisers

Vexor Navy Issue: 2k-2.8k get destroyed per month = ~90-126 million LP per month
Exequror Navy Issue: 160-300 get destroyed per month = ~7-13.5 million LP per month

vs

Caracal Navy Issue: 140-180 destroyed per month; ~6-8 million per month
Osprey Navy Issue: 60-90 destroyed per month; ~2.7-4 million per month

advantage Gallente by more than 10:1!! 100-140million vs Caldari 9-12 million per month

Faction Battlecruisers

Brutix Navy Issue: 150-170 destroyed per month = ~15-17million lp per month

vs

Drake Navy Issue: 80-110 destroyed per month = ~8-11million per month

advantage gallente again over 50% more than Caldari

Faction Battleships

Raven Navy Issue: 100-150 destroyed per month = ~25-37.5 million per month
Scorpion Navy Issue: 40-60 destroyed per month = ~10-15 million per month

vs

Megathron Navy Issue: 50-80 destroyed per month = 12.5-20 million per month
Dominix Navy Issue: 40-50 destroyed per month = 10-12.5 million per month

advantage Caldari by nearly 2:1


Overall Gallente 177.5-240million vs Calari 63-90.5million. So you're right, Navy ships do impact balance, it's the reason why FDU LP is worth more despite galmil making 2-3 times as much of it from being in higher tiers.

EDIT: just noticed, the Navy Vexor alone cashes out nearly 50% more LP than all the Caldari Navy ships combined.
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#485 - 2015-09-20 19:59:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Flyinghotpocket
IF you want people to actually come back to this game for these bc's your gonna have to buff harder than that. only 50% tracking bonus on hurricane fleet and all the others are getting only 37.5%? make them all 50%. And wheres all the damage buffs? these are BATTLEcruisers, not tankcruisers.

harbinger least used in game. gets nerfs and buffs. making it really just a nerf.
ferox just gets buffs.

prophecy and myrm get a completely garbage bonus. that little drone bonus, is nothing. IT NEEDS something better.


suck it up loose your WOW money, nerf logi and links into the ground. and you might actually get your player base back.

back in the day, no logi no links. 20 v 20, everybody got kills everybody died. simple formula and it worked. all out bc brawls.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#486 - 2015-09-20 21:44:47 UTC
Poranius Fisc wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless.


Someone can attempt to burn in to scram range on arty sleip. I have an arty sleip fit that was good and used MJD. MJD, XLASB, 720's, MWD, was good kite combination. I also had dual neuts, so most small tackle could get neuted out semi-quick. MJD is more to escape things faster than you that hold a point. Like garmur.

MMJD is far from useless on CS though. I've actually had a number of CS with MJD as its too useful not to use. Vulture has over 100km long range, making MJD dunks easy. Damnation can get over 100km lock range with single range rig. So there are definitely fits that could benefit from a MJD bonus.




Celestis counter?


warp or use MJD for max wisdom

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#487 - 2015-09-20 22:55:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
here is a concern which occurred to me while fitting a sentinel actually:

all BCs have now the same cap recharge rate, while having different cap pool size. Cap recharge rate however is directly influenced by the cap pool size (just like shield recharge is by the shield buffer).

so lets say you put a semiconductor rig on a ferox and one on a harb. The ferox would have a better cap recharge rate than a harb.

is this intended? (maybe i miss something obvious - note i also did no math maybe the recharge difference is even not worth mentioning)

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
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#488 - 2015-09-20 23:49:37 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month.

All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff.

Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake.

Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#489 - 2015-09-21 01:42:54 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:


Osprey Navy Issue: 60-90 destroyed per month; ~2.7-4 million per month


Yeah, well, there's a massive problem right there with the osprey navy issue, which is the only ship in EVE with literally no point to its existence at all. Oh, besides the Hoarder.

Your whole post basically is an argument for keeping the outrageous buffs to the navy Drake (or as I like to call it, the low-SP Nighthawk) because it will cause a huge demand for Caldari LP's and even out matters somewhat.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#490 - 2015-09-21 02:19:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Fourteen Maken
Deacon Abox wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month.

All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff.

Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake.

Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake.


A pve ship can be bought and sold ten times over before it gets destroyed - that doesn't help calmil flush their lp. The same way the game needs ISK sinks to get rid of all the new ISK coming into the game, LP markets need LP sinks. It's pretty obvious that in the long run ship losses most definitely drive the demand for faction LP, and at the minute that equates to roughly 3 times as much demand for Gallente LP as there is for Caldari LP. It was my biggest gripe about faction war but not many people understood what I was talking about so I gave up - but ultimately it has a big impact on the warzone: It makes Calmil corps and pilots poorer, it makes it harder for them to attract players and new corps to their side, and it makes it harder to get people to sit in the plexes.

I wish the Navy Drake was OP because calmil need something stupidly OP to balance things out, but it's clearly not. Overall it's in a far better place than it was before because it has the speed to dictate range better but they're not about to darken the skies!

Overall I think the Fleet Cane looks best and hardly anyone is talking about it. It will be good in small gangs where the tracking bonus and the bigger alpha will help arty fits one shot smaller ships off the field - should be popular in the current meta, and it will work well with Autocannons too.

The Navy Brutix just got more hull tank, mobility bufs and the 25% range bonus. People shouldn't write off the 25% range bonus on blasters either because it helps close range ammo apply better in scram range and with long range ammo it allows the blasters to do damage further into disruptor range, along with the mobillity buffs and some decent manual piloting that should make them harder for small ships to kite - so it was already a solid pvp ship and it just got better.

In terms of pvp it's a close between Navy Brutix and Navy Drake for second imo, the Drake should be able to keep range if the fight starts at range so the New Navy Drake will be strong. It's got the speed to keep away from better brawlers but it needs that because it doesn't have cap warfare or dps to live with them in scram range, it has more dps from the drones but it's still got the weakest overall dps. It has a decent tank now (awesome tank for pve fits and gang fits without tackle or ewar) but it's lost a big range bonus while all the others gained range.

The Navy Harbinger is last imo, even though it's got nice buffs to mobility everything I see it do one of the others, or one of the t1 BC's can do better.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#491 - 2015-09-21 03:17:54 UTC
The Cyclone is very, very underwhelming. I mean, the missile velocity bonus is better than nothing, but it's not enough to really make it worthwhile. It's hardly a buff.

The biggest issue for the Cyclone is the huge sig radius - 250 - which is only a bit less than a Tempest. Given you have to shield tank the thing, it really is a giant punching bag with mediocre DPS and woeful application of the DPS.

25% missile velocity bonus = 20km Rage HAMs. uh...ok. It is going to be over-run by the Brutix easily, and easily outmaneuvered. its tank is quite weak - the Ferox is going to do it better without the shield HP bonus for repping, given the oversupply of mids. As a buffer fit, it's still going to be OK but it still lacks a midslot for full tackle (scram and web).

I'd like to see the Cyclone lose a high, gain a mid, and gain a missile bay. it needs more DPS, given how HML's are pathetic for it, and HAMs don't apply DPS to anything and have such a short range.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#492 - 2015-09-21 07:12:26 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
The Cyclone is very, very underwhelming. I mean, the missile velocity bonus is better than nothing, but it's not enough to really make it worthwhile. It's hardly a buff..................................

.......................................................I'd like to see the Cyclone lose a high, gain a mid, and gain a missile bay. it needs more DPS, given how HML's are pathetic for it, and HAMs don't apply DPS to anything and have such a short range.



Losing a high slot for a mid slot is another option instead of losing a low for a mid. However, adding a launcher removes all utility high slots. So buffing the RoF bonus would be better than giving it an extra launcher (in this situation).
DarkLander
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#493 - 2015-09-21 09:12:11 UTC
Good changes, but i think better for Cyclone will be 10% RofFfor lvl BC and -1high slot for +1 mid slot.
And i think will be good for Navy Hurricane -1 high slot and +1 mid slot for Shield Fitting ability or electronic slot for armor variant

TY!Smile
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#494 - 2015-09-21 09:36:39 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:
The Cyclone is very, very underwhelming. I mean, the missile velocity bonus is better than nothing, but it's not enough to really make it worthwhile. It's hardly a buff..................................

.......................................................I'd like to see the Cyclone lose a high, gain a mid, and gain a missile bay. it needs more DPS, given how HML's are pathetic for it, and HAMs don't apply DPS to anything and have such a short range.



Losing a high slot for a mid slot is another option instead of losing a low for a mid. However, adding a launcher removes all utility high slots. So buffing the RoF bonus would be better than giving it an extra launcher (in this situation).

I'd actually just swap the low slot for a mid. That 5th low slot is only really used for a co-processor anyway so if the base CPU were to be increased it would actually have negligible effect other than gaining a badly needed mid slot.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#495 - 2015-09-21 11:59:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Moac Tor wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:
The Cyclone is very, very underwhelming. I mean, the missile velocity bonus is better than nothing, but it's not enough to really make it worthwhile. It's hardly a buff..................................

.......................................................I'd like to see the Cyclone lose a high, gain a mid, and gain a missile bay. it needs more DPS, given how HML's are pathetic for it, and HAMs don't apply DPS to anything and have such a short range.



Losing a high slot for a mid slot is another option instead of losing a low for a mid. However, adding a launcher removes all utility high slots. So buffing the RoF bonus would be better than giving it an extra launcher (in this situation).

I'd actually just swap the low slot for a mid. That 5th low slot is only really used for a co-processor anyway so if the base CPU were to be increased it would actually have negligible effect other than gaining a badly needed mid slot.


which was my original proposal. That + an extra launcher.


However, dropping a high and buffing the RoF bonus means the "Surprise Armour" fit is still viable. (and actually better)
zhang elliott
Stygian Boatmen
#496 - 2015-09-21 13:24:42 UTC
Overall the changes don't look bad, I guess. But still waiting patiently for a Cov-ops/EWAR type BC.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#497 - 2015-09-21 14:26:16 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month.

All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff.

Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake.

Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake.


I guess navy vexor online for god know all long was ok but navy drake online would be bad...
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#498 - 2015-09-21 16:54:54 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month.

All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff.

Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake.

Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake.


Tiericide also happened in that 4 year window after drakes got dropped/nerfed. The meta is not the same and almost every other ship has been rebalanced for the better. A navy drake MWD'n around will have the sig of a moon. Hop in a BS and shoot it down. You will have the range/tracking/utility to handle it without much issue. Apoc maybe? Will it have a role? The anti-drake.

Now if you take a cruiser to a BC fight, then id say working as intended. Same way you dont take a frig gang into a destroyer/t3d gang, unless you have the right gang comp.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Gramps Pljugi
Black Rabbits
Black Rabbit.
#499 - 2015-09-21 18:19:58 UTC
Indeed as someone mentioned earlier on the page, Prophecy and Myrmidon bonus is kind of bad, its said its used to "project damage" with drones on range, but both of those ships are Close-Range brawlers, leave the projection bonuses for other battlecruiser (harby, oracle, talos), and give something else to prophecy and myrmidon so they can actualy be slightly better at what they are nowadays used for, Frontline brawling and tanking..
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#500 - 2015-09-21 19:42:39 UTC
Now that combat battlecruisers will be getting role bonuses like destroyers, can CCP finally look at a destroyer-class equivalent of the attack battlecruiser lineup that uses cruiser weapons? Aside from bringing more parity to the battlecruiser and destroyer lineups...I'd kind of be interested in seeing what people would do with a 250mm rail Cormorant-esque glass cannon platform....

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs