These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Black Ops

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#141 - 2012-07-26 21:56:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Blackops are already pretty well balanced, they just need their own fuel consumption (not bridge) reduced by about a factor of 3-4 and their jump range increased by ~50%.

Adding tank or DPS would be silly (they already do well in these departments). Adding EWAR bonuses to the non-Widows might be cool (web strength or point range on the sin, web range on the panther, and neut/nos range and or effectiveness on the redeemer would be really cool). EWAR bonuses might also make the other blops overpowered though, so v0v.

I'm not sure what everyone's beef with covops cloaks on blackops BS is. You can pretty much go down the list and strike off every "overpowered" thing that a covops cloak would let a blops do. All it would really do is let people poke around systems to scout things out without decloaking (intentionally). Here's some things that covops cloaks wouldn't allow blops to do:

- Allow blops to run gatecamps (theyre BS, so they align slowly, aren't bubble-immune, and have large hitboxes that make them an easy decloak for any competent gatecamp)

- Allow blops to "sneak up and ambush targets" (They would still have 6-second sensor recal time, presumably, and battleship lock-times after that. The only thing you'd catch this way was someone flying an un-aligned capital ship)

- On a similar note to the above item, "sit somewhere (like off a jump bridge) and de-cloak and blap someone when they appear." The recal + lock time would make this kind of activity pretty much impossible (which is not actually the case now).

- Be more "escapable" than they are now, ie "but they'll just be able to cloak and warp off at the first sign of trouble, like a Falcon!" Yes, they will be able to do this, but they can already do this. All you need to do currently is hit cloak, align to something, reach about half-speed while cloaked, then decloak and insta-warp. The only thing a covops cloak would add is the ability to do this without hostiles seeing what direction you warped in.



Things a real cloak would allow blops to do:

- Move around in a less-conspicuous manner to scout and travel

- Possibly remove some of the fitting constraints on them (since presumably at blackops 5 the covops cloak would use no CPU. Currently the Redeemer in particular has an awful CPU shortage.)

- ???



I'm also not sure why people think these need to be significantly cheaper. Blops have always been over 500m for the hull (OK, the current 750ish is a bit ridiculous but the tech crash is coming), and I don't see why these ships should be less expensive than a command ship. They're very powerful ships, but I feel like their price:performance ratio as it is now limits their use. I also think that's a good thing. EVE would become seriously incredibly boring if blops were a dime a dozen and all you saw flying in space anymore was bait-cruisers with blops support in jump range.


e: One other thing I'd like to add is that ship balance shouldn't be evaluated based on the number of pilots who use the ship, especially for a class that's as skill intensive as blops bs. Lots of people flew / wanted to fly titans before the nerf. That didn't mean they were a balanced class. Blackops are just a very pricey, very skill intensive niche ship. You wouldn't expect many people to fly them.
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#142 - 2012-07-29 11:40:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Back from vacation and thought this thread could use some dev love.


Yes, Black Ops definitely need some attention; the main problem with them is the lack of role focus. Some (like the Redeemer or Window) are trying to achieve a purpose directly on the battlefield, similar with recons by having an electronic warfare or damage related bonus. On top of that, they also are trying to fulfill a fleet support role with their cyno capability, which is quite in contradiction with the previous one.

And they aren't great at both: their raw HP is quite lower than tech 1 battleships (and tech 2 resistance boosts aren't stellar either), have less turret and missile hardpoints than tech 1 counterparts and remain more expensive to run, which doesn't make them appealing for direct engagement purposes. They also lack autonomy in their support role, as they are quite short ranged, fuel hungry and this issue is amplified by their small fuel bay forcing them to rely on other ships to resupply frequently during an operation.

The current plan is to take one these two listed roles out of the Black Ops ship class and reshape them to do the remaining one well. If they are disruption ships using EW, they should have more presence on the battlefield for their pricetag. If they are support tools for surprise attacks and small gang movement into enemy space, then they should have the proper bay, range and tools to do so accordingly.

The role dropped out of the Black Ops would then be moved to a new class in the tech 2 battleship range to replace for the loss.

We acknowledge some entities out there are using Black Ops with great effect when backed up with the proper organization, structure and out-of-the-box thinking to make use of them in unorthodox situations. While we don't want to take that away, Black Ops should be more effective without such heavy commitment into them (a statistic query we ran at the beginning of this year shown there are more Titan than Block Ops pilot on TQ). They should be great force multiplier tools for small groups to take on larger ones by surprise, and should be able to do so relatively well without relying on a dedicated support structure.

So, when would this be coming out? Unfortunately, not for a while. As explained in the various blogs before, our current priority is to fix tech 1 ships as a whole before moving to more advanced hulls. That is because we need a solid frame of reference to rely on and compare hulls to before we can move to more delicate and complex ships, like Black Ops or tech 3 hulls.


Also don't forget this is just our long term plan for now, and things may change in the future. In all cases they are not forgotten, but will take time to get to.

Hope that helps!


I believe there are a number of things that need to be analysed.
The dps and tanking is not something that needs changed imo. There is a number of members in this thread alone that come from well recognized alliance that can also verify that black ops already do well in these areas. This is without touching the killboard with more than 4 years statistics relating them.

Furthermore, the increase of ewar is by far the worst idea. When a ship fleet is bridged, it usually somes with a large number of stealth bombers and recon ships, among others. Stealth bombers and recond ships are fitted with ewar already and recons already have ewar bonuses. Some black ops like the widow, already has ewar. Why add even more ewar bonuses? Havent you experinced what is like to be jumped by a fleet full of ewar like a blackops+recon? Even more on the serious matter, why should ONE class of ship should be good at tanking, dps, cyno a fleet into a cyno blocked system and on top of that have an EWAR bonus specially when recons already have them?!

Changing the jump range or fuel cost i can understand somehow. But 50% of either of these is way too much imo.

The covert ops is self explenetory so i wont even touch it as CCP obviously know this is a bad bad idea.
Irya Boone
The Scope
#143 - 2012-07-29 12:25:18 UTC
I'm sorry but black ops need improvement (no tank or dps ) We are all objectively agree about that .

But if you look at Sin don't look at me in the eyes and tell there is no improvements to do

Ok black ops is technically a bringer , but when you 'drop your friends what to do with your Ship ?

Why not leadership bonuses, or logistics bonuses and for the SIN for god sake do something ( gallente ships generally )

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#144 - 2012-07-29 12:42:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
Irya Boone wrote:
I'm sorry but black ops need improvement (no tank or dps ) We are all objectively agree about that .

But if you look at Sin don't look at me in the eyes and tell there is no improvements to do

Ok black ops is technically a bringer , but when you 'drop your friends what to do with your Ship ?

Why not leadership bonuses, or logistics bonuses and for the SIN for god sake do something ( gallente ships generally )


i undeerstand your point. But answer me this. Does some ship in every class in eve is used more than others in the same class? The answer is yes, obviously. And the reasons are simple and we already know them so i wont to into this any further.
Now the sin is by many ways a good ship. It get bonuses with drones and you can use them with armor repair drones to rep friendlies. And now you use them with ewar. Also the new item for the high slots offer even more bonuses to the Sin drones.
Not all the ship are meant to be good in the same strategy. This is a fundamental of eve and why we cross train so much.
I for example got a caracter that was initially a gallente and i cross trained to amarr to get a better use of it. But this is not all! Cross training to amarr grants me on the way an abundance of good ship types! So i win in many ways by cross training. EVE is not about training one race and that it. Neveer has been and to do so would be a grave mistake. Each race has a number of really good ship that complement each other very nicelly on the fleet as a whole!
Irya Boone
The Scope
#145 - 2012-07-29 12:50:25 UTC
indeed

But the problem is you have some really really goos ships without cross ( always the same race)

Drake , tengu .....

Me i need to protect my corpmates in opé so i have to train ewar and the best BS for that ... scorpion ( caldari .. again !!!)

So when you go on the path of black ops .. Black Widow is the better choice , because really Drones ... need a real fix be honest
Why go with a sin when you can go with the Black widow...

But if the sin had real bonus like Drone Optimal range bonus not the creapy 5% .... and a bonus to targetig range ... maybe i said maybe we can balance the Black ops.

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#146 - 2012-07-29 12:56:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
Irya Boone wrote:
indeed

But the problem is you have some really really goos ships without cross ( always the same race)

Drake , tengu .....

Me i need to protect my corpmates in opé so i have to train ewar and the best BS for that ... scorpion ( caldari .. again !!!)

So when you go on the path of black ops .. Black Widow is the better choice , because really Drones ... need a real fix be honest
Why go with a sin when you can go with the Black widow...

But if the sin had real bonus like Drone Optimal range bonus not the creapy 5% .... and a bonus to targetig range ... maybe i said maybe we can balance the Black ops.


You dont need to cross train for JUST ewar on black ops. Recons and stealth bombers allready do that for you! You cyno and bring all the recons and stealth bombers. You got enough ewar there! Even if the enemy by some reasons manages to lock, he would not have range or have a terrible tracking cos the recons have all these ewar!
Irya Boone
The Scope
#147 - 2012-07-29 13:11:09 UTC
ok , but why the most used black ops are widows and Redeemers ?

And really need some real drones Bonuses for the SIN !!

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#148 - 2012-07-29 13:18:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
Irya Boone wrote:
ok , but why the most used black ops are widows and Redeemers ?

And really need some real drones Bonuses for the SIN !!



The reason is simple. Right now there are more than 3 or so strategies when using black ops.
All of these are concentrated into two strategies either ewar or max dps/kill in seconds.
This is why.

It does not mean they are not good. It just means they are not as good as these others using these strategies. Same as other ships in other classes. I could say the same, well why is myrmidon not used so much instaed of a drake or harbinger or cyclone or hurricane? Or why NYX is used more than all the other super carriers? Or why is amarr and minmatar battleship used more than others? This is the same for all ship classes across eve!

PS: i need to go now. Busy all of a sudden.
Hemmo Paskiainen
#149 - 2012-07-29 15:44:27 UTC
Andrea Roche wrote:
Now the sin is by many ways a good ship


I wish ppl could just discuss black ops for how they are. People with experiance not hiding behind trolling alts, trying to force/ change / alter ppls opinions instead of just civily arguing and discussing.

I will give you an example of why im saying this too you and why i find that your just a trollign alt with no bo experiance.

You do realise the sin has only 8800 base powergrid / 11000 on L5 compared to the 17000/212500 on the redeemer?
you do realise each cost:

100mwd cost 1375 powergrid
1600 plate cost 500 powergrid
Large armour rep cost 2300 powergrid

Large electron blaster: 1039 powergrid
Large ion blaster: 1455 powergrid
Large neutron blaster: 1871 powergrid

Dual 250 large rail: 1559 powergrid
350mm large rail: 2079 powergrid
425mm large rail: 1039 powergrid

so pl tell me how to fit a sin on a good way like... a redeemer?
something viable not a full hull tank or 78k ehp full shield tank with no capbooster (-70% cap after jump in), no web, no point an so no oppertunity to stay / get close if target gos off... (drones are slow & blaster poor range) ect...

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?
Boston Bradley
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2012-07-29 16:07:37 UTC
It's funny that =AAA= is whining about the current standing of Black Ops when they have been the target of malicious black op strikes for the past 3 months.

Just saying....
Hemmo Paskiainen
#151 - 2012-07-29 16:10:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Hemmo Paskiainen
Boston Bradley wrote:
It's funny that =AAA= is whining about the current standing of Black Ops when they have been the target of malicious black op strikes for the past 3 months.

Just saying....


serious gfo you ******* stupid troll, if you read my first post instead of just trolling you would know im trying to get them fixed for the past 3 years.........

this game is soo terrible due the amount of trolls trolling serious idea's / fixes/ issues on this forum seriuos... (yes you just made me mad) Pirate

If relativity equals time plus momentum, what equals relativity, if the momentum is minus to the time?
Zera Kerrigan
The 420th Token
#152 - 2012-07-29 16:12:55 UTC
I also find this a very attractive idea. I mean, the call of duty black ops game was just amazing!

I can't help but wonder how awesome it would be to mix it up in eve. Crossbows in space! Can you even imagine the awesomeness of that?
Lillan Strand
Doomheim
#153 - 2012-07-29 17:36:03 UTC
One problem i see with black ops ship is the big difference in the bonuses they get. The widow gets an 30% ECM bonus which complements well with other cloaky ships, while the other get less then comparable bonuses. Would be a "class balance" for either all to get a bonus to ewar or none of them.
Also the ecm bonus is in line with the ships black ops should support but kinda seems redundant. There are already cruisers doing the same thing.
I donno, maybe they should invent some new modules for them to actually be the command center for a cloaky gank. Give them some recon specific gank links(not to cut into command ships) or smth like that. If cruisers can use gang links(which were supposed to be for bc) why not BS also.
Irya Boone
The Scope
#154 - 2012-07-29 17:56:45 UTC
some one who undertand me ^^

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
#155 - 2012-07-30 01:32:16 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Back from vacation and thought this thread could use some dev love.


Yes, Black Ops definitely need some attention; the main problem with them is the lack of role focus. Some (like the Redeemer or Window) are trying to achieve a purpose directly on the battlefield, similar with recons by having an electronic warfare or damage related bonus. On top of that, they also are trying to fulfill a fleet support role with their cyno capability, which is quite in contradiction with the previous one.

And they aren't great at both: their raw HP is quite lower than tech 1 battleships (and tech 2 resistance boosts aren't stellar either), have less turret and missile hardpoints than tech 1 counterparts and remain more expensive to run, which doesn't make them appealing for direct engagement purposes. They also lack autonomy in their support role, as they are quite short ranged, fuel hungry and this issue is amplified by their small fuel bay forcing them to rely on other ships to resupply frequently during an operation.

The current plan is to take one these two listed roles out of the Black Ops ship class and reshape them to do the remaining one well. If they are disruption ships using EW, they should have more presence on the battlefield for their pricetag. If they are support tools for surprise attacks and small gang movement into enemy space, then they should have the proper bay, range and tools to do so accordingly.

The role dropped out of the Black Ops would then be moved to a new class in the tech 2 battleship range to replace for the loss.

We acknowledge some entities out there are using Black Ops with great effect when backed up with the proper organization, structure and out-of-the-box thinking to make use of them in unorthodox situations. While we don't want to take that away, Black Ops should be more effective without such heavy commitment into them (a statistic query we ran at the beginning of this year shown there are more Titan than Block Ops pilot on TQ). They should be great force multiplier tools for small groups to take on larger ones by surprise, and should be able to do so relatively well without relying on a dedicated support structure.

So, when would this be coming out? Unfortunately, not for a while. As explained in the various blogs before, our current priority is to fix tech 1 ships as a whole before moving to more advanced hulls. That is because we need a solid frame of reference to rely on and compare hulls to before we can move to more delicate and complex ships, like Black Ops or tech 3 hulls.


Also don't forget this is just our long term plan for now, and things may change in the future. In all cases they are not forgotten, but will take time to get to.

Hope that helps!


Quite frankly, pushing all ship rebalancing out behind addressing every single class of T1 ships in all of Eve is just ridiculous. Unless of course rebalancing is given high priority and it's completed within the next 12 months. At the current rate, given the number of ships and how quickly progress is being made, Black Ops won't be touched for another three years. Unacceptable.

Second, the design team actually thinks that the way forward is to SPLIT the support and offensive capabilities?!?!!? REALLY???

If you do that, all you'll be left with are two classes of ships that STILL aren't worth the investment of time/risk/ISK for the ships.

The design team needs to grow some balls and build some ships that are *very* good at what they do, and stop watering down the designs. Nothing is more frustrating than having to use mediocre ships. Particularly when you're a solo player.

Intelligence shouldn't be free.   Mining, reloaded.   ADDICTED.

Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#156 - 2012-07-30 05:20:19 UTC
Hemmo Paskiainen wrote:
Boston Bradley wrote:
It's funny that =AAA= is whining about the current standing of Black Ops when they have been the target of malicious black op strikes for the past 3 months.

Just saying....


serious gfo you ******* stupid troll, if you read my first post instead of just trolling you would know im trying to get them fixed for the past 3 years.........

this game is soo terrible due the amount of trolls trolling serious idea's / fixes/ issues on this forum seriuos... (yes you just made me mad) Pirate


You obsession of calling everyone stupid and troll, that disagrees with YOUR view of black ops is disturbing.
The comment below best describes you!
Lady Spank wrote:
Counterpoints to a discussion will always be read as trolling in the minds of imbeciles.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#157 - 2012-07-30 07:43:13 UTC
Soi Mala wrote:
Master Tron wrote:
As a everyday black ops pilot this ship needs more love.
You have my support on this matter.

Black Ops should have:

- Larger Fuel Bay
- Bridge recons and t3 amount should be lower
- Increased ly

Does Black Ops needs Covert cloak ?

My answer is NO, as they are atm is perfect. Having covert cloak makes them too powerful.


QFT

Their mobility is what's screwing them at the moment, having to bring several cloaky haulers along just to move a few jumps is lame. There is nothing wrong with the ships, just the fuel requirements.



A bigger fuel-bay or allowing to compress jumping fuel would be appropriate. Reducing the cost for jumping is not.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#158 - 2012-07-30 11:00:50 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
Soi Mala wrote:
Master Tron wrote:
As a everyday black ops pilot this ship needs more love.
You have my support on this matter.

Black Ops should have:

- Larger Fuel Bay
- Bridge recons and t3 amount should be lower
- Increased ly

Does Black Ops needs Covert cloak ?

My answer is NO, as they are atm is perfect. Having covert cloak makes them too powerful.


QFT

Their mobility is what's screwing them at the moment, having to bring several cloaky haulers along just to move a few jumps is lame. There is nothing wrong with the ships, just the fuel requirements.



A bigger fuel-bay or allowing to compress jumping fuel would be appropriate. Reducing the cost for jumping is not.


It would be cool if they could drop the fuel requirement for the local jump drive while keeping bridge requirements the same. That way fuel trucks would be required for bridging ops but jumping only the blops itself around would be cheap and fuel efficient, allowing them to operate for a long time unsupported if they're operating alone.
Syzygium
Ventures Bar
Sleeper Protocol
#159 - 2012-07-31 16:39:50 UTC
Please be VERY careful when changing BlackOps. Your analysis of them being 'broken' because there are even more titan pilots than BO pilots is what is broken, not the BlackOps themselves.

You twist cause and effect here: There are NOT too few BlackOps Pilots, there are TOO MANY Titan pilots and there are mainly two reasons for this:
a) ISK is on corporate or alliance level or even for a skilled player NO LIMITING FACTOR any more. Your argumentation "they are expensive they must be a lot stronger" is not valid. ISK is generated and thrown around like peanuts these days, every second LowSec PvP-Corp with more than 20 players have 1-2 titans ready for bridging and most 0.0 entities already count titans in the dozens. THAT is the reason for the difference in BO- and Titan-Pilots. Not that BOs are somehow "broken". Titan are too good and too common.
b) Titans are THE ONE gankingtool. 100% save in the POS, able to bridge a fully prepared gang including tacklers, ewar, logistics and damage in a second over many lightyears. An option to run a nearly 100% save assault on some unprepared opponent with the chance of killing entire fleets without loosing a single ship. That (and the incredibly good boost for logistic efforts aka bridging freighters etc...) is the reason everyone who can afford it buys a titan sooner or later. And the trend goes on.

These are the two main reasons why you see so much more Titanpilots than BlackOps pilots. ISK is no factor and Titans allow EASY GANKING. BOs require attention, planning, skill and their usage is a LOT more risky since they are weaker than normal combat ships, what also applies to the ships you can bridge with them and your abilities for taking fleetboosters or logistics with you are close to zero. That is why people go titan and do not go BlackOps. Most people are LAZY. They want easy wins, not hard fights and they hate long and hard preparations and planning. They do not want to have effort for their shiny kills.

BlackOps do NOT need "much love". They are already a powerful tool in the hands of a skilled gang with adequate preparation. Their ability to show up without warning and moving through hostile or camped areas, almost unscoutable and unstoppable ALREADY outweights by far their lesser performance in battle.

They are not yet the gankingtool the titan already is, because they are hard to master, easy to lose if used wrong and require some attention and planning. Do not make them the next easygankmachine that jumps on every second tackled battlecruiser with 10:1 numbers because he was stupid enough to try a 1on1.

If you need to touch them, make them more self-sufficient by increasing their cargo (allowing to grab and bring home more loot and field more capboosters), increasing their dronebay (not bandwith! to let them replace lost drones for a longer time), give them adequate T2 resists, a marauder-like highslot setup (4guns/3utils with a 100% Damagebonus so they can field NOS/Neuts/Smartbombs more easily) or a bit more buffer or even a covert cloaking device.

But DO NOT give them more range! Their current limited range is what stops them from sitting around every corner just waiting for some poor guy engaging the cynobait. Their current range is absolutely okay because that forces the pilots to MOVE AROUND in order to use the BOs instead of sitting in a lonely system and covering just 50 other systems with cloaked cynoscouts! The problem is not that BOs can jump not far enough. All OTHER ships can jump way TOO FAR! Thats the problem with the current way of power projection via titanbridges or moving ov cap/superfleets from one end of eve to the other in a few minutes.

Mark my words: increase range and bridge abilities and you will do EvE no good! You just create one more tool for gankers who want easy kills with almost no risk and effort.

Just the few cents of one player who has FCed quite a few BlackOps Gangs very successfully and can assure you: They are FINE. They are NOT BROKEN. Do not make it worse by "fixing" something that do not need to be fixed.

/Syz
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#160 - 2012-07-31 17:59:38 UTC
Honestly, I enjoyed Black Ops a lot more than I thought I would. Yeah, the campaign was short, and yeah, the multiplayer was just the same old rehash they've been pushing since 4; but I still found the minor tweaks to be welcomed. Maybe I'm just averse to change, I dunno...

Given the chance for a do-over, I'd probably still buy it, though only if it was like $30.

Also, the FAMAS was sooooo OP...

Hows my posting? Call 1-800-747-7633 to leave feedback.