These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tier 3 BC's left us high and dry.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
OfBalance
Caldari State
#61 - 2012-03-01 02:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: OfBalance
Ares Renton wrote:

Part of the problem is that Missiles are a huge tree for something someone is supposed to train alongside the huge gunnery tree. If someone wants to cross-train Caldari... they essentially have to retrain every weapon support skill from scratch. Conversely, for Gallente, drones are used by everybody as they fulfill an essential role in PVE and PVP (even if you're not flying a dedicated drone boat). So really, all a pilot has to do to cross-train Gallente is work on Hybrids and Damps.

In practice, most players only train 1 type of weapon: turrets or missiles because of the way the skills are set up that they do not benefit eachother in the slightest. However, turret users have far more options. Pure hybrid-users have access to all of Gallente and half of Caldari, while pure missile users have access to half of Caldari. People who have both skills have access to everything, but that leaves out new players.


Ares you're a ways off. Missile ships are quite common, they're just not highly concentrated in one race aside from caldari where it's only 50%. Khanid ships, stealth bombers, combat recons, the typhoon, and gurista ships all use missiles as primary weapons. That almost equals the distribution of hybrid weapon ships: Half caldari, all gallente, and serpentis. It is close to the number of laser ships, most amarr, sansha, and blood raider. It is also greater than the number of projectile ships, the vast majority of minmatar ships and angels. So, all in all, that's a really poor choice of argument and it really detracts from the more appropriate subject: why battleship+ sized missiles are not very appealing on ships other than stealth bombers.

Trinkets friend wrote:
I don't want to be like those Minmatar pilots


heh
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#62 - 2012-03-01 02:28:27 UTC
OfBalance wrote:
why battleship+ sized missiles are not very appealing on ships other than stealth bombers.


Because they trade away too much applied DPS. Cruise trades it for raw (but mostly useless) range while torps trade it for EFT DPS numbers. I'd say that fixing both of them is relatively straight forward (and I have ideas, obviously), but I figure its best to leave that to CCP.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#63 - 2012-03-01 03:14:20 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
OfBalance wrote:
why battleship+ sized missiles are not very appealing on ships other than stealth bombers.


Because they trade away too much applied DPS. Cruise trades it for raw (but mostly useless) range while torps trade it for EFT DPS numbers. I'd say that fixing both of them is relatively straight forward (and I have ideas, obviously), but I figure its best to leave that to CCP.

-Liang


Correct. That's what i'd like to read about.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#64 - 2012-03-01 03:29:46 UTC
OfBalance wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
OfBalance wrote:
why battleship+ sized missiles are not very appealing on ships other than stealth bombers.


Because they trade away too much applied DPS. Cruise trades it for raw (but mostly useless) range while torps trade it for EFT DPS numbers. I'd say that fixing both of them is relatively straight forward (and I have ideas, obviously), but I figure its best to leave that to CCP.

-Liang


Correct. That's what i'd like to read about.


Honestly the only reading that can be done is figuring out which way CCP wants to lean on the balancing act. I'm sure that any communication by CCP will be fascinating to read, but whining by the players isn't a whole lot more than just that.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#65 - 2012-03-01 03:35:35 UTC  |  Edited by: OfBalance
Liang Nuren wrote:
OfBalance wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
OfBalance wrote:
why battleship+ sized missiles are not very appealing on ships other than stealth bombers.


Because they trade away too much applied DPS. Cruise trades it for raw (but mostly useless) range while torps trade it for EFT DPS numbers. I'd say that fixing both of them is relatively straight forward (and I have ideas, obviously), but I figure its best to leave that to CCP.

-Liang


Correct. That's what i'd like to read about.


Honestly the only reading that can be done is figuring out which way CCP wants to lean on the balancing act. I'm sure that any communication by CCP will be fascinating to read, but whining by the players isn't a whole lot more than just that.

-Liang


Hearing more about that way CCP wants to lean was the intent of my gentle yet firm coaxing. I've been attempting to pull this thread out of whine mode so we can better penetrate this fascinating subject matter.

C'mon Ytterbium, just a tip. Just to see how it feels. Twisted
Ares Renton
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#66 - 2012-03-01 05:21:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Ares Renton
Trinkets friend wrote:
Ares Renton wrote:

Part of the problem is that Missiles are a huge tree for something someone is supposed to train alongside the huge gunnery tree. If someone wants to cross-train Caldari... they essentially have to retrain every weapon support skill from scratch. Conversely, for Gallente, drones are used by everybody as they fulfill an essential role in PVE and PVP (even if you're not flying a dedicated drone boat). So really, all a pilot has to do to cross-train Gallente is work on Hybrids and Damps.

In practice, most players only train 1 type of weapon: turrets or missiles because of the way the skills are set up that they do not benefit eachother in the slightest. However, turret users have far more options. Pure hybrid-users have access to all of Gallente and half of Caldari, while pure missile users have access to half of Caldari. People who have both skills have access to everything, but that leaves out new players.


Let me paraphrase you.

"I believe, as Caldari, that my skill training queue should be as straightforward as an Amarrian's. I want a world where all I have to do is show info on citadel torps and work through the checklist. I don't want to be like those Minmatar pilots who are confronted with a training queue which is bloated with missile skills, gunnery skills, shield skills. Oh, and poor them for having to train armour skills too. Ha ha, us Caldari, we got it easy with missile + shield."


I fly minmatar (I switched from Caldari quickly when I realized that they weren't a good race to start with). It's not as complicated as you make it seem. Only a handful of Minmatar ships REQUIRE missile launchers for decent DPS. Most are good enough with a utility in the high instead. Armor tanking is 2 necessary skills (hull upgrades, hull repair) and 4 adjunct ones (x armor compensation). Shield tanking is 2 necessary skills (shield operation, shield management) and 6 adjunct ones (tactical shield manipulation, shield compensation, x shield compensation). There is not nearly as many skills involved in branching between armor and shield tanking as there is branching between guns and missiles (especially battleship guns and missiles). Minmatar don't need guns/missiles to be able to access most of their ships. Caldari do.

P.S. If you could be 100% efficient in 1 year, or 100% efficient in 2 years what would you choose? That's the situation. It's pointlessly imbalanced. It doesn't take skill to train queues, just time. In this regard, the races should be balanced.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#67 - 2012-03-01 09:52:46 UTC
OfBalance wrote:

-snip!-

Hearing more about that way CCP wants to lean was the intent of my gentle yet firm coaxing. I've been attempting to pull this thread out of whine mode so we can better penetrate this fascinating subject matter.

C'mon Ytterbium, just a tip. Just to see how it feels. Twisted


Awwwww poor thing. Ok, ok, fine, since you look desperate with your whimpering and puppy eyes here is one for you P

Tip: there are dev blogs incoming on ship balancing, and don't worry, they will give you plenty of things to talk / argue / rabble / whine / set things on fire when they go out.

*inset cliche evil villain laugh here*
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#68 - 2012-03-01 09:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Wacktopia
Ireland VonVicious wrote:
For those of us who are gurista specialist and focused on both missles and drones it's been a very sad few months.
From the forums I've read people already seemed to be against drones when it comes to the larger ships for pvp purposes. ((cheap neut domi is the only decent option without dropping down to cruiser size))
Those who are gurista heavy would rather fly the gila over the myrm and now with the drake nerf the gila is better then any bc we could chose from. Seems to be a huge case of no love in the BC class of ships for us.


Ironically you could have trained T2 large rails from scratch in a sad few months.

Tr 3 ships are not unique in this either btw. How about gun-skilled people who want to use Stealth Bombers, they have to train up a load of missile skills. Or how about when people get to caps... oh wait carriers only use Fighters/Drones.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Ryoko Matsu
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#69 - 2012-03-01 10:53:48 UTC
as an gun-fu amarr pilot...i love the t3´s...

...the naga is great in shield/logi/drake fleets...you can buffer it up and survive quite a bit.

but regarding skilling, i don´t whine cause my missile skills don´t reach the 1-mill benchmark...
...if needed i fly my sb or drake or whatever requested, it´s not optimal, but at least i can shoot and hit something. Twisted


i´m trying to think out of the box and i´m beginning to skill other races too... Shocked

and yes missiles are baaaaaaad...don´t know why people are still using them Roll
Grideris
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2012-03-01 10:58:05 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
OfBalance wrote:

-snip!-

Hearing more about that way CCP wants to lean was the intent of my gentle yet firm coaxing. I've been attempting to pull this thread out of whine mode so we can better penetrate this fascinating subject matter.

C'mon Ytterbium, just a tip. Just to see how it feels. Twisted


Awwwww poor thing. Ok, ok, fine, since you look desperate with your whimpering and puppy eyes here is one for you P

Tip: there are dev blogs incoming on ship balancing, and don't worry, they will give you plenty of things to talk / argue / rabble / whine / set things on fire when they go out.

*inset cliche evil villain laugh here*


You evil evil man not telling us more. I demand some sneak peaks. For Science of course.

http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com -** the** blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-03-01 11:53:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Wacktopia wrote:
Ireland VonVicious wrote:
For those of us who are gurista specialist and focused on both missles and drones it's been a very sad few months.
From the forums I've read people already seemed to be against drones when it comes to the larger ships for pvp purposes. ((cheap neut domi is the only decent option without dropping down to cruiser size))
Those who are gurista heavy would rather fly the gila over the myrm and now with the drake nerf the gila is better then any bc we could chose from. Seems to be a huge case of no love in the BC class of ships for us.


Ironically you could have trained T2 large rails from scratch in a sad few months.

Tr 3 ships are not unique in this either btw. How about gun-skilled people who want to use Stealth Bombers, they have to train up a load of missile skills. Or how about when people get to caps... oh wait carriers only use Fighters/Drones.



A ton of missile skills?Compared to a battleship turret?

I think not, you only have to get a V in launcher operation launcher and spec

As opposed to gunnery V small V spec IV, medium V Spec IV, large V spec IV and sharpshooting V and whatever the tracking skill is (depending on long/short range). Per turret type.
Alara IonStorm
#72 - 2012-03-01 12:05:02 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Tip: there are dev blogs incoming on ship balancing, and don't worry, they will give you plenty of things to talk / argue / rabble / whine / set things on fire when they go out. [b]

Do they talk about T1 Frigate and Cruiser Balance???
OfBalance
Caldari State
#73 - 2012-03-01 12:21:20 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
OfBalance wrote:

-snip!-

Hearing more about that way CCP wants to lean was the intent of my gentle yet firm coaxing. I've been attempting to pull this thread out of whine mode so we can better penetrate this fascinating subject matter.

C'mon Ytterbium, just a tip. Just to see how it feels. Twisted


Awwwww poor thing. Ok, ok, fine, since you look desperate with your whimpering and puppy eyes here is one for you P

Tip: there are dev blogs incoming on ship balancing, and don't worry, they will give you plenty of things to talk / argue / rabble / whine / set things on fire when they go out.

*inset cliche evil villain laugh here*


Oh you tease.
Lijhal
Innoruuks Wrath
#74 - 2012-03-02 07:05:02 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
This thread could use some blue light.

We have to admit creating the Naga was possibly one of the most challenging ship balancing task we had to tackle so far. Not only because finding a proper role for it without overlapping with the Talos too much, while still remaining effective was crazy difficult, but mainly as we knew that no matter which kind of direction we picked it would still generate a heated debate among the community.

The core problem here lies with the Caldari combat philosophy, or at least how it is externally perceived. Some believe Caldari to be missile based, other hybrids based. And to be honest, that is quite a logical assuption to do so, as most of the Caldari hybrid hulls are quite underused (or were before Crucible), and the most popular ships remain missile based (Caracal, Drake, Raven).

As designers, we can tell Caldari have three main points going for them as a race and that is, missile, hybrids and ECM. To be an all-rounded Caldari pilot, one must realize all aspects have to be considered and learned, just like, for example, a pilot has to consider training for hybrids, drones and dampening to master most of the Gallente tech 1 ships.

However, we are players as well, and we can freely admit only having one side of the coin for a new expansion is indeed frustrating. Favor the Naga as hybrid, as missile pilots feel shafted. Make it missile based and hybrid users will hunt your family down with torches and pitchforks. It is, in essence, a no win situation, no matter how much you try to please the player base.

The first iteration of the Naga attempted to please all interested parties by having both missile and hybrid bonues, but as the feedback quickly shown, it was quite a failure, as it was not achieving any specific role and lacked a purpose.

So, in the end, we had to go for the option that made the most logical sense. Tier 3 battlecruisers are supposed to be mobile, heavy damage support for fleets and hybrids were the most appealing to reach such goal. Torpedoes are too short range based for a hull that frail, while cruise missiles have their own issues for long range combat.

It is not to say cruise missiles are fine and that we don't want to tweak them, but the Naga is, and will remain a hybrid ship as it best fits its role. The issue with missiles in general needs to be and will addressed, but that is a separate discussion altogether, that we will happily discuss with the player base when we come down to it.


Crap, made a wall of text P Well, hope that helps a bit no matter what.


Finally! hope some "special caldari missile user" are going to read this!!

thx

your girlfriend
Death Killer21
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#75 - 2012-03-02 08:08:38 UTC
Ireland VonVicious wrote:
CCP must just love missle/drone pilots. Question

They gave us a nice new BC to play with. Ugh
What no tier 3 drone ship. Damn. Cry
No missle tier 3 ship either? WTF? Shocked

Atleast we still have the drake. Big smile
Your nerfing the drake too? Evil

Thanks for the love guys. Really. I'm so sick of hearing how missles and drones are over powered. Roll

Well atleast the new BC's are good at killing all those mission runners. Attention
I mean how often to you see missle or drone ships running mission? Oh, yeah all the time. Idea


No drone Tier 3????

Try the talos man

Death killer21

Caldari and amarr Mission service.  Contact me for more info
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2012-03-02 08:19:52 UTC
Death Killer21 wrote:
Ireland VonVicious wrote:
CCP must just love missle/drone pilots. Question

They gave us a nice new BC to play with. Ugh
What no tier 3 drone ship. Damn. Cry
No missle tier 3 ship either? WTF? Shocked

Atleast we still have the drake. Big smile
Your nerfing the drake too? Evil

Thanks for the love guys. Really. I'm so sick of hearing how missles and drones are over powered. Roll

Well atleast the new BC's are good at killing all those mission runners. Attention
I mean how often to you see missle or drone ships running mission? Oh, yeah all the time. Idea


No drone Tier 3????

Try the talos man



25mb does not a drone ship make.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#77 - 2012-03-02 13:30:52 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tier 3 battlecruisers are supposed to be mobile, heavy damage support for fleets


You made them mobile and heavy damage alright... You made a battlecruiser hull with cruiser stats and battleship weaponry. I have read countless battlereports mentioning tier 3 BC fleets jumping into a bigger hostile fleet camping a gate and just burning away with minimal casaulties.

I must admit the tier 3 battlecruiser fill nicely into a niche and CCP have been added something nice to the game, but at the same time these battlecruiser have some stats making them able to easily cream every shipclass from cruiser to battleships.

Tier 3 BC's are battlecruisers with way bigger weaponry than normal.
- Why are they so fast they can they outrun even cruisers?

One of the parameter to balance the dps from battleships is their low scan resolution.
- Why can tier 3 BCs lock even faster than the other battlecruisers?
- Better lock range is fine, but not better scan resolution.

The signature of tier 3 BC's are to protect from battleship weaponry.
- Why didn't you adjust the acceleration and agility so smaller ships actually have a chance of catching up without getting slaughtered or left behind?

You gave the tier 3 battlecruisers 8 large weapons providing them the largest available subcap alpha in-game
- Why didn't you settle for 7 guns and give at least the tier 3 battleships a firepower advantage?

As mentioned the tier 3 battlecruisers was a good choice from CCP, however the stats implemented declines any real drawbacks from these ships. Mobility and scan resolution like a battlecruiser would be a perfect balance with the battleship damage and cruiser size advantage. The only drawbacks would be reduced hitpoints and no tank bonus.

Having advantages to other battlecruisers in 5-10 areas is too much...

Pinky Denmark
Oxylan
Blood Fanatics
#78 - 2012-03-02 15:11:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Oxylan
I like my Hybrid Naga, i have on it 715dps with large railgun t2 with antimatter L t1 ammo... I use it as support dps on mision pure dps zero tank, so got more dps than tengu with t2 fury trauma missile + 4 t2 bcu + lvl 5 offesive subsystem (673 dps) with trauma fury on my alt , also thanks CCP for made it hybrid ship because with cruise missile or torps probably this ship may be compared to ravenfirepower efficienty, btw after hybrid ammo change it may be very good ship in small even big fleet, tier 3 bc got multiple roles in game.

If it bleed we can kill it.
Tozmeister
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#79 - 2012-03-02 21:53:37 UTC
Onictus wrote:

As opposed to gunnery V small V spec IV, medium V Spec IV, large V spec IV and sharpshooting V and whatever the tracking skill is (depending on long/short range). Per turret type.


Why is it when people compare gunnery to missile training times they always include the support skills for gunnery and ignore them for missiles?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#80 - 2012-03-02 23:03:48 UTC
Tozmeister wrote:
Onictus wrote:

As opposed to gunnery V small V spec IV, medium V Spec IV, large V spec IV and sharpshooting V and whatever the tracking skill is (depending on long/short range). Per turret type.


Why is it when people compare gunnery to missile training times they always include the support skills for gunnery and ignore them for missiles?


Not all of the missile supports apply to every missile. You can put together a hell of a bomber pilot for very little SP investment. I know. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.