These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mund Richard
#2061 - 2013-02-06 14:35:16 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
If I wanted a shield tanking missile race, I'd use caldari. Roll

And now those who want to use missiles on a ship that can move and isn't forced to one kind of missile per launcher (which takes away the "selectable damage" part of launchers), can crosstrain into minnie. Roll

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#2062 - 2013-02-06 14:36:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Yonis Kador
Dear Benny Ohu,

The primary attributes of the Amarr race have always been energy weapons/armor repping. Caldari are missile/shields, Minnies are projectiles/speed, and Gallente are hybrids/drones. The Gallente have always been the drone race. Are you really coming in here and telling me that the Amarr people, my people, were "meant to be" a drone race too? Since when? Barring what, the Arbitrator, prior to all this "balancing," the Amarr have had virtually nonexistant drone attributes. As it should be. Drones are, and have always been, at least in the 5 years I've been playing EvE, the purvue of the Gallente. Gallente are the enemy. Just because every race has drones does not mean every race needs drone ships. To ensure max dps, primary drone bonuses on Amarr ships will ensure that they are going to be loaded with Gallente drones because Gallente (you know, the drone race) drones do the best dmg. And that inescapable truth, that my people's ships will be loaded with their enemy's tech as a result of these changes, is total BS.

I'm also well aware that the Bhaalgorn is a BR ship. (The camo is telling.) This does not negate the fact that if you load an Armageddon with neuts, it works pretty well as a poor man's Bhaalgorn. Neutageddon loadouts are commonplace online.

Yonis Kador
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2063 - 2013-02-06 14:43:25 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
If I wanted a shield tanking missile race, I'd use caldari. Roll

And now those who want to use missiles on a ship that can move and isn't forced to one kind of missile per launcher (which takes away the "selectable damage" part of launchers), can crosstrain into minnie. Roll


Excuse me?
Selectable damage? Caracal and kestrel want to have a word with you.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2064 - 2013-02-06 14:49:11 UTC
Yeah they've apparently always supposed to (during the capsuleer era) have been a drone race too from what I can gather, despite poor execution in the game. Note armour isn't a weapon and each other race has two weapons and an EWAR :P

My other point was that the Amarr really have no problem with taking other races' tech regardless

I agree on the Hobgob bit though :S i've always wanted the option of using Acolytes in my spaceships, even if it's just more EM damage on top of all the EM damage I'm doing anyway
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#2065 - 2013-02-06 14:57:51 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
Dear Benny Ohu,

The primary attributes of the Amarr race have always been energy weapons/armor repping. Caldari are missile/shields, Minnies are projectiles/speed, and Gallente are hybrids/drones. The Gallente have always been the drone race. Are you really coming in here and telling me that the Amarr people, my people, were "meant to be" a drone race too? Since when? Barring what, the Arbitrator, prior to all this "balancing," the Amarr have had virtually nonexistant drone attributes. As it should be. Drones are, and have always been, at least in the 5 years I've been playing EvE, the purvue of the Gallente. Gallente are the enemy. Just because every race has drones does not mean every race needs drone ships. To ensure max dps, primary drone bonuses on Amarr ships will ensure that they are going to be loaded with Gallente drones because Gallente (you know, the drone race) drones do the best dmg. And that inescapable truth, that my people's ships will be loaded with their enemy's tech as a result of these changes, is total BS.

I'm also well aware that the Bhaalgorn is a BR ship. (The camo is telling.) This does not negate the fact that if you load an Armageddon with neuts, it works pretty well as a poor man's Bhaalgorn. Neutageddon loadouts are commonplace online.

Yonis Kador


Actually Amarr has never been armor repping race and always had drones. Arbi, Pilgrim, Curse and battleships with huge drone bays. Caldari has hybrids, missiles and uses shields. Minmatar projectiles, missiles and speed. Gallente is the armor repping race (fwiw) with hybrids and drones.

Minmatar is your enemy, btw.

Anyway these weapon system changes are just logical, every race has two weapon system lineups to provide variation and choices for pilots.


.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2066 - 2013-02-06 15:05:28 UTC
Roime wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
Dear Benny Ohu,

The primary attributes of the Amarr race have always been energy weapons/armor repping. Caldari are missile/shields, Minnies are projectiles/speed, and Gallente are hybrids/drones. The Gallente have always been the drone race. Are you really coming in here and telling me that the Amarr people, my people, were "meant to be" a drone race too? Since when? Barring what, the Arbitrator, prior to all this "balancing," the Amarr have had virtually nonexistant drone attributes. As it should be. Drones are, and have always been, at least in the 5 years I've been playing EvE, the purvue of the Gallente. Gallente are the enemy. Just because every race has drones does not mean every race needs drone ships. To ensure max dps, primary drone bonuses on Amarr ships will ensure that they are going to be loaded with Gallente drones because Gallente (you know, the drone race) drones do the best dmg. And that inescapable truth, that my people's ships will be loaded with their enemy's tech as a result of these changes, is total BS.

I'm also well aware that the Bhaalgorn is a BR ship. (The camo is telling.) This does not negate the fact that if you load an Armageddon with neuts, it works pretty well as a poor man's Bhaalgorn. Neutageddon loadouts are commonplace online.

Yonis Kador


Actually Amarr has never been armor repping race and always had drones. Arbi, Pilgrim, Curse and battleships with huge drone bays. Caldari has hybrids, missiles and uses shields. Minmatar projectiles, missiles and speed. Gallente is the armor repping race (fwiw) with hybrids and drones.

Minmatar is your enemy, btw.

Anyway these weapon system changes are just logical, every race has two weapon system lineups to provide variation and choices for pilots.




Amarr barely had two weapon systems before they started pushing all the drone nonsense.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2067 - 2013-02-06 15:10:13 UTC
Gallente is sort of a half-enemy? There's a lot of Minmatar in the Federation and they're allies of the Minmatar, having secretly aided the minnies against the Amarr. They're not at war proper, though, both races are part of CONCORD and the Amarr and Gallente have an open trade agreement


Diesel47 wrote:
Amarr barely had two weapon systems before they started pushing all the drone nonsense.
amarr were intended to be a drone race before the current changes.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#2068 - 2013-02-06 15:12:30 UTC
As someone who has pretty much only been an Amarr character his entire time in EvE, I guess I just don't know what I'm writing about. I frequently spout off about topics on which I know absolutely nothing. So I stand corrected. Despite armor bonuses galore, armor implants rewarded in Amarr Cosmos, numerous low slots, and virtually no drone bonuses to be found (The Arbitrator (which I listed, and its t2 variants) as stated was the only exception.) the Amarr race is clearly a drone race and Gallente are my friends.

You learn something new every day.

I'll have to go shopping in Dodixie later and buy myself a Megathron. It should look great in my polished, golden hangar.

YK
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#2069 - 2013-02-06 15:17:36 UTC
Good that you are still able to learn.

Mega does look good in any hangar :)

.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#2070 - 2013-02-06 16:01:16 UTC
Sarcasm is an art.

I'll work on it.

Ugh
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2071 - 2013-02-06 16:08:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.


High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.


Just give the harbinger a 3rd bonus, or at least make whatever awesome stat it has over other battlecruisers show up in the description. I mean a drake gets a bonus to weapon damage and tank, meanwhile its weapons still use less cap than the harbinger. A bonus shouldn't be something that other ships get for free.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2072 - 2013-02-06 16:23:19 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.


Autocannons have no drawbacks at all.
- Good dps on bonused ships
- Good range via falloff and TE/TC
- Good tracking
- Selectable damage pattern
- Capacitor-free
- Easiest fitting
- Large ammo capacity

In fact AC is so good that it is default option on hulls without damage bonuses. I bet that if there were projectile bonuses on all turrets ships we would very rarely see anything but autocannons.
Sigras
Conglomo
#2073 - 2013-02-06 17:05:25 UTC
Vae Abeo wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.

But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut.

And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential.

I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore.

Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . .

Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection)

the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range.

Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster?

TL;DR
if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic
#2074 - 2013-02-06 17:23:49 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Roime wrote:
(Also notice that lasers are ****** over WAY more by TD's than any other ammotype due to having no falloff/bad tracking already)


Frankly, they'd need to look over how TE/TCs work (optimal vs. falloff)

And by look over how they work, do you mean reduce the falloff they give to somewhere towards x1.5 for instance?

TD not affecting falloff the way TC does would make sense if the plan would be to let brawling ships at least stand a chance against kiters by going into deep falloff.
Now how much that reflects the current state of affairs, is another thing.


Whaaaaa? I think you need to play more man, Optimal and Fall-off both get done over by TDs equally.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#2075 - 2013-02-06 17:29:40 UTC
No idea why my name is in that quote, someone messed up.

.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#2076 - 2013-02-06 17:33:23 UTC
Sigras wrote:

Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . .

Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection)

the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range.

Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster?

TL;DR
if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .


Eeh, I disagree. Blasters over small can all shoot out to long point range with Null loaded (assuming a TE or two), but don't get outrun by a close orbiting enemy ship. Also many blaster ships have enough mids to fit full tackle AND a cap booster so they aren't as susceptible to neuts. Also they don't take long to switch ammo either. So they get DPS, tracking, and don't typically suffer as far as neuting is concerned. And all large blasters and any range bonused/TE'd medium blaster ships have all the range they need. The projection at that range isn't as good as lasers, but is still sufficiently high.
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2077 - 2013-02-06 17:39:00 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Callduron wrote:
The issue of certificates came up at the CSM Town Hall on Sunday. Is someone going to look at the relevant certificates as part of the rebalancing process. Cyclones currently have Cruiser Projectile Turrets (Standard) on its recommended list.

(I notice this has been done for the Retribution rebalanced ships so well done there).


Yes we've updated the recommended certificates for each of the Combat BCs as a part of this change.


Great work, many thanks!

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#2078 - 2013-02-06 17:48:28 UTC
Fozzie,

I understand that having varied ships makes the game exciting. Hell, you made the game more exciting by making people fly more than just minmatar by making each ship good in it's own way while being able to compete with other races and other ships within the same race.

But that's the kicker, each ship has a role that makes it noticeably better at one role and not so good at another. That makes interesting game play. However, for the Gallente BC's you have resolved (for the time being) to have two ships compete at the same role through only slightly different means. There is no definable difference that says the Myrm does this better than the Brutix and vice versa. The Myrm just outright does it better leaving the Brutix to twiddle its thumbs and dream of what it could have been.

And I'll explain one more time what I mean. The Myrm, as many have said before, excels at taking on 1-2 targets and using its drones to kill the target. While it uses the drones for it's dps, the myrm can focus all of it's midslots to full tackle and cap boosters because of the cap intensive requirements of running active armor tanks. 99.9% of the time the Myrm fills it's high slots with projectile turrets because they also use no cap alongside drones which allows the Myrm to focus all of it's worth on staying alive.

Now, when you look at the Brutix, it has been graced with an additional low slot and a tiny amount of extra PG but to be honest it's not enough to save the active tanking role. Unlike the Myrm, the Brutix uses blasters (or broken railguns) to apply that amazing paper damage. Those use cap, are subject to bad tracking and awful engagement range. Again, unlike the Myrm, the Brutix cannot fit a full tackle set and enough cap boosters to feed the cap itensive armor reppers alongside hybrids. The Brutix needs a web if it plans to engage anything smaller than another BC, but it can't afford to fit one if it wants to be a true dedicated active tanker. Without full tackle, the Brutix can't control engagement ranges (even with it, it still won't be able to) and is sentenced to any early death if the other guy has a neut.

So we're left with two ships doing the same role (albeit with different means of doing damage) but with one ship fulfilling that role better. That leaves the Brutix in the same state of where it is now, stuck on the market or shield buffed. Take your time and come up wth a meaningful second bonus for the Brutix that will make it be chosen and actually useful in small gang and large gang armor fleets: RoF bonus, tracking bonus, falloff bonus, agility bonus, mwd cap penalty reduction, etc.



*P.S. - Why on Earth do both the Gallente BC's have bonuses to active armor tanking but have larger Hull HP than armor HP? That makes no sense, especially considering the extremely long cycle times of armor reppers in a pvp environment. That needs to be looked at as well, I for one do not enjoy having to pay a large repair bill every time my Gallente hull gets into it's massive structure.
/me sends Fozzies his repair bills :D

--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#2079 - 2013-02-06 18:45:19 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Vae Abeo wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.

That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.

But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut.

And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential.

I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore.

Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . .

Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection)

the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range.

Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster?

TL;DR
if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .



Laser boats generally don't have the mids to have both cap and web.

Blasters are better in scram range in every single way as the tracking on all lasers is ****. And blasters use less than half the cap that lasers do.


That said the majority of the problem with amarr ships are the ships/slots/bonuses synergising badly with the WS

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Marcus Jonas
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2080 - 2013-02-06 19:35:06 UTC
thx ccp for killing caldari !

first you downgrade the rockets and now make the drake to a pice of junk......

thats the time for saying good by.......... i quit this game.


thx ccp good job