These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#2341 - 2013-02-15 18:59:23 UTC
Screenlag wrote:
The ferox is still useless. But I don't know how to change it without making it a brutix. The range bonus is redundant no matter how you look at it though.


The Ferox looks like it's built around using railguns as a primary weapon.

There's the problem. Medium railguns suck too hard to be used as a weapon. All of the other Caldari hybrid boats have really good damage potential; the Ferox struggles to pass the Moa in terms of DPS and only really manages to offer improvements in terms of defense.

Of course you do realize that this means that there are now reasons to use cruisers over battlecruisers while not necessarily meaning that battlecruisers are useless. I've finally come to the conclusion that battlecruisers are not supposed to be the be-all-end-all of PvP or PvE.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#2342 - 2013-02-15 19:03:10 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Screenlag wrote:
They fixed the moa by changing its range bonus and now people fly it for once in forever. You can probably shield tank the brutix quite good, so what's the point with flying a ferox?

It's a better shield tanker than the Brutix, that's why.

Quite a bit better. Resist bonus, more mids, higher base shields, and the optimal bonus which allows it to use closer range ammo to match damage over range. The Brutix would be pretty bad compared to the Ferox in a shield tanking role.

Though you obviously know this X Gal, I thought it might have needed pointing out to some.
Luc Chastot
#2343 - 2013-02-15 19:58:42 UTC
Tennessee Jack wrote:
People are still stuck on the concept of what is best.

If the Brutix got a 5% to resistances per level, everybody would flock to it as it has "Buffer".

Since it does not, people are saying it is terrible in large fleet warfare.

The Gallente Ships (some would also say the Minmatar ships), are fairly self reliant. They are meant to try to keep themselves alive. SIde by side, would they survive an alpha attack, generally no. Will they fold like wet paper if attacked, generally no but other ships would survive longer than the 2 Gallente Battlecruisers. It is an odd dynamic, we will see how it plays out.

Regarding the Myrmidon. Have you ever thought that the issue is not the 100m3 or the 125m3 dronebay debate, but the fact that sentry drones are 25m3 themselves? They should have been 20m3. The sentry drone has virtually no propulsion system on them, there is really no need for them to be 25m3, when 20 would do. If sentries are 20 bandwidth per, the Myrmidon would be the only battlecruiser that can field 5 sentry drones, but still be restricted to fielding 4 Heavy Drones. The sentry change would affect very few other ships (off of my recollection, virtually no ship under a BS hold would be affected, except the Myrmidon.

The drone lineup should have looked like this.

1) Small Drones, 5m3
2) Medium Drones, 10m3
3) Sentry Drones, 20m3
4) Large Drones, 25m3

What that does is allow more ships to field sentry drones if they so choose, and also give the myrmidon access to an additional role, as a optional drone sniping platform.

Ship current/future hold's addressed regarding Sentry Drones

50m3 bandwidth holds, can hold 2 sentry drones presently, and with the change, will still only be able to hold/use 2 sentries.
75m3 bandwidth holds, they can hold 3 sentry drones presently, and with the change, will still only be able to hold/use 3 sentry drones.

100m3 and above could use 5 drones, the only ships I know of that are smaller than a battleship, can already use a max flight of sentry drones. Virtually, the only ship that changes in regards to utilizing sentries, would be the Myrmidon, giving it a viable entry into the role.

So Consider Reducing the Bandwidth of Sentry drones from 25 to 20. Is it a dps Increase for the Myrmidon.. yes. Does it turn it into one giant stationary target.. yep. Does it give the ship even more options, and make the 100m3 bandwidth seem more.. well interesting...


This is actually a very interesting idea.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#2344 - 2013-02-15 20:29:24 UTC
Luc Chastot wrote:
Tennessee Jack wrote:
People are still stuck on the concept of what is best.

If the Brutix got a 5% to resistances per level, everybody would flock to it as it has "Buffer".

Since it does not, people are saying it is terrible in large fleet warfare.

The Gallente Ships (some would also say the Minmatar ships), are fairly self reliant. They are meant to try to keep themselves alive. SIde by side, would they survive an alpha attack, generally no. Will they fold like wet paper if attacked, generally no but other ships would survive longer than the 2 Gallente Battlecruisers. It is an odd dynamic, we will see how it plays out.

Regarding the Myrmidon. Have you ever thought that the issue is not the 100m3 or the 125m3 dronebay debate, but the fact that sentry drones are 25m3 themselves? They should have been 20m3. The sentry drone has virtually no propulsion system on them, there is really no need for them to be 25m3, when 20 would do. If sentries are 20 bandwidth per, the Myrmidon would be the only battlecruiser that can field 5 sentry drones, but still be restricted to fielding 4 Heavy Drones. The sentry change would affect very few other ships (off of my recollection, virtually no ship under a BS hold would be affected, except the Myrmidon.

The drone lineup should have looked like this.

1) Small Drones, 5m3
2) Medium Drones, 10m3
3) Sentry Drones, 20m3
4) Large Drones, 25m3

What that does is allow more ships to field sentry drones if they so choose, and also give the myrmidon access to an additional role, as a optional drone sniping platform.

Ship current/future hold's addressed regarding Sentry Drones

50m3 bandwidth holds, can hold 2 sentry drones presently, and with the change, will still only be able to hold/use 2 sentries.
75m3 bandwidth holds, they can hold 3 sentry drones presently, and with the change, will still only be able to hold/use 3 sentry drones.

100m3 and above could use 5 drones, the only ships I know of that are smaller than a battleship, can already use a max flight of sentry drones. Virtually, the only ship that changes in regards to utilizing sentries, would be the Myrmidon, giving it a viable entry into the role.

So Consider Reducing the Bandwidth of Sentry drones from 25 to 20. Is it a dps Increase for the Myrmidon.. yes. Does it turn it into one giant stationary target.. yep. Does it give the ship even more options, and make the 100m3 bandwidth seem more.. well interesting...


This is actually a very interesting idea.



While not the thread for it, I have often thought that there should be some Gallente drones with different bandwidth from the norm to take advantage of our weird bandwidth Allocation. Might make for an interesting bonus on some hulls. While I do use split flights to take advantage of the bandwidth, I'm kind of OCD about it and prefer to use flights of all the same size. I actually crosstrained Amarr Cruiser just because I felt the Arbitrator was a better drone boat than the Vexxor, since I consider a turret bonus on a drone boat wasted.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2345 - 2013-02-15 22:04:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Wedgetail
The Ferox suffers from the hybrid's split engagement range, because of this a bonus doesn't particularly help them.

In their current incarnation a Ferox can be blaster fit to perform on par with the current hurricanes and harbingers, it does however lack speed to compensate for lack of range (hybrid split engagement range making 10% to optimal worthless, 10% of nothing is still nothing, and a ferox must be within 5 km to match a hurricane or harbinger for damage)

So what I would suggest as the caldari lack a brawler Hull, is to increase the speed of the Ferox (as should have been done in the Hybrid rebalance) and to replace optimal range bonus with Tracking or damage, This allows the caldari to compete at closer ranges with hybrid blaster turrets against the longer ranges of lasers and autocannons.


Additionally

I fear your suggested changes for the cyclone may force its fits to become dependent on the ASB modules, currently it is possible to use standard shield boosters and energy vampires to run a solid shield tank for PVE and small gang fighting,

loosing a high slot would severely impact its ability to do this, the ASB is a powerful module but it's not good for drawn out fighting which can often happen in smaller gangs due to lower concentrations of enemy fire, fitting two of these modules to compensate for this weakness makes the lack of firepower problem more evident as the resources required to do this often call for smaller less powerful weapons to be mounted. (it is easier to defend a ship than it is to get fire power to kill one)

The change to missiles is...workable...but not amusing...missiles (with the exception of perhaps heavy assaults) have not made a good weapon platform when compared to the performance of the turrets, the low response time and fire rate of heavy missiles (and now lower range) often tends to give the opponent the one advantage they should never be afforded. (time)

I'm not able to present an alternative for this ship at the moment as I did for the Ferox, Will require more thought on my part
(largely because I'm happy with the way the cyclone fits into the role of a workhorse, and if the Ferox were to be altered for blasters the current cyclone would make a good nemesis for it, as a ferox can fit ASB's also, a ship that has the defensive endurance to stand toe to toe would be required X) )
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2346 - 2013-02-15 22:33:38 UTC
well what might help the ferox and caldari sniper ships in general is if all ranged weapons are rebalanced maybe like this:

Range: Best
beams
missiles
rails
arties

ROF: Best
rails
beams
missiles
arties

Alpha: Best
missiles
arties
beams
rails

So each weapon type has a clear advantage and disadvantage but with more clarity as to which can do what the best.
Also they all need some tracking and damage buffs and maybe the high damage turret ammo could have better range.

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Mund Richard
#2347 - 2013-02-15 22:41:44 UTC
Tennessee Jack wrote:
100m3 and above could use 5 drones, the only ships I know of that are smaller than a battleship, can already use a max flight of sentry drones. Virtually, the only ship that changes in regards to utilizing sentries, would be the Myrmidon, giving it a viable entry into the role.

Drone Proteus? (also 100)
Then again, Drone Proteus is kinda funny. As in, mostly a joke as far as I was told.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Luc Chastot wrote:
This is actually a very interesting idea.
While not the thread for it, I have often thought that there should be some Gallente drones with different bandwidth from the norm to take advantage of our weird bandwidth Allocation. Might make for an interesting bonus on some hulls. While I do use split flights to take advantage of the bandwidth, I'm kind of OCD about it and prefer to use flights of all the same size. I actually crosstrained Amarr Cruiser just because I felt the Arbitrator was a better drone boat than the Vexxor, since I consider a turret bonus on a drone boat wasted.

Confirming I went over to the Darkgold side simply due to how my OCD not being able to handle those drone bays, and anything changing that sounds good.

"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.
Wedgetail
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2348 - 2013-02-15 22:53:35 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
well what might help the ferox and caldari sniper ships in general is if all ranged weapons are rebalanced maybe like this:

Range: Best
beams
missiles
rails
arties

ROF: Best
rails
beams
missiles
arties

Alpha: Best
missiles
arties
beams
rails

So each weapon type has a clear advantage and disadvantage but with more clarity as to which can do what the best.
Also they all need some tracking and damage buffs and maybe the high damage turret ammo could have better range.


this would be a good fix, I think that CCP's aim is however to make all the Hulls do the same thing in a different way (there are no clear advantages, no hull is 'more powerful' and therefore the 'obvious choice')

if this is the case then simply giving each weapon a defined role won't be sufficient, It may help when used in conjunction with redesigning the ships however. (as an outright change like this would cause racial superiority, greatly diminishing the fun in trying to shoot someone in the face)

people are already more than capable of my ship + their ship = win/loss avoiding a racial equivalent of this is a must.

by giving hulls a clear role in combat though rather than the weapons we maintain the diverse rock paper scissors, kites beat bricks, bricks beat glass cannons, glass cannons beat kites, etc etc (the weapon you use doesn't matter, what's important, and what makes the hulls fly differently - is what/how you accomplish with it.)

there are already a large number of ships capable of filling the mid-long range role, and battle cruisers stereotypically make poor snipers due to speed (something the newest group of hulls has remedied) armor hulls have plenty of close range face melting to compliment their kite ships, shield hulls do not.

ideally the battle cruisers will become sorted based on their role, not their weapon system, otherwise they become more predictable and fight outcomes already more pre determined than they are.
Tennessee Jack
Doomheim
#2349 - 2013-02-15 23:07:50 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Tennessee Jack wrote:
100m3 and above could use 5 drones, the only ships I know of that are smaller than a battleship, can already use a max flight of sentry drones. Virtually, the only ship that changes in regards to utilizing sentries, would be the Myrmidon, giving it a viable entry into the role.

Drone Proteus? (also 100)
Then again, Drone Proteus is kinda funny. As in, mostly a joke as far as I was told.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Luc Chastot wrote:
This is actually a very interesting idea.
While not the thread for it, I have often thought that there should be some Gallente drones with different bandwidth from the norm to take advantage of our weird bandwidth Allocation. Might make for an interesting bonus on some hulls. While I do use split flights to take advantage of the bandwidth, I'm kind of OCD about it and prefer to use flights of all the same size. I actually crosstrained Amarr Cruiser just because I felt the Arbitrator was a better drone boat than the Vexxor, since I consider a turret bonus on a drone boat wasted.

Confirming I went over to the Darkgold side simply due to how my OCD not being able to handle those drone bays, and anything changing that sounds good.


I'm doing that now with the Prophecy Changes. Though as a drone user, I would love to be able to use a full complement of sentry drones on the Myrmidon, and have access to two type of drone boats which are used in two varying different ways.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#2350 - 2013-02-15 23:45:23 UTC
You do realize how crazily OP dps a five sentry drone dps Myrm would deal?

100 mbit/s is perfect, want more drones, fly an Ishtar or BS. And hopefully an Eos in the future.

.
Luc Chastot
#2351 - 2013-02-15 23:59:45 UTC
Roime wrote:
You do realize how crazily OP dps a five sentry drone dps Myrm would deal?

100 mbit/s is perfect, want more drones, fly an Ishtar or BS. And hopefully an Eos in the future.


Yes, but I would love it.

On another, more serious note, such a thing could be considered for the innevitable drone rebalance.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Fjury
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2352 - 2013-02-16 09:04:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Fjury
Fu*k you CCP, last couple year you doing nothing than ruining this great game!

Last successful patch was Trinity! since this moment you ...... ...... .. .

And now you came up with that fu*king BC nerf and Only one ship which will be complety fu*ked up will be hurricane.

SHOW ME SOME GOOD BENEFITS!!!! except of lame targating range bonus

Hurricane:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets, 3 Launchers
Fittings: 1125 PWG, 400 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4250(-47) / 4500(-188) / 3500(-16)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(-562.5) / 592s(-158s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12800000 (+300,000) / 8.4s (+0.2)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km (+5) / 220 / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Ladar
Signature radius: 250 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 425 (-50)
pointlessalt
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2353 - 2013-02-16 09:35:06 UTC
Fjury wrote:
Fu*k you CCP, last couple year you doing nothing than ruining this great game!

Last successful patch was Trinity! since this moment you ...... ...... .. .

And now you came up with that fu*king BC nerf and Only one ship which will be complety fu*ked up will be hurricane.

SHOW ME SOME GOOD BENEFITS!!!! except of lame targating range bonus

Hurricane:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets, 3 Launchers
Fittings: 1125 PWG, 400 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4250(-47) / 4500(-188) / 3500(-16)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(-562.5) / 592s(-158s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12800000 (+300,000) / 8.4s (+0.2)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km (+5) / 220 / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Ladar
Signature radius: 250 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 425 (-50)


The intent was to slightly nerf them.

Why don't you go fu*k yourself, you're so dumb it hurts reading what you're saying. If that is so big of a nerf for you that you can't fly the ship I suggest you biomass yourself.
Please don't ever post here again, idiot.
Artaire
The Separatist Consortium
#2354 - 2013-02-16 11:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Artaire
I don't see why all the battlecruisers need reworking when its only really the Prophecy that was deemed useless. I understand that the tier system is being reworked so that Ship A from Tier1 can have a fair chance against Ship B from Tier2 but I think reworking ALL of the BCs is a bit much, as some ships could do this adequately anyway Imo, but we will see how this works out and hopefully you guys know what your doing :).

At least the prophecy is not going to be useless anymore which is awesome.

I hope you guys get around to the Command Ships at some point also, The EOS is useless and it'd be nice to actually see one in space once in a while lol
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#2355 - 2013-02-16 18:05:25 UTC
Artaire wrote:
I don't see why all the battlecruisers need reworking when its only really the Prophecy that was deemed useless. I understand that the tier system is being reworked so that Ship A from Tier1 can have a fair chance against Ship B from Tier2 but I think reworking ALL of the BCs is a bit much, as some ships could do this adequately anyway Imo, but we will see how this works out and hopefully you guys know what your doing :).

At least the prophecy is not going to be useless anymore which is awesome.

I hope you guys get around to the Command Ships at some point also, The EOS is useless and it'd be nice to actually see one in space once in a while lol


Well all the BC's got reworked because T2's were OP and needed to be nerfed. And it wasn't just the Prophecy that was bad. It was the Prophecy, Ferox, and the Brutix.
Tub Chil
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2356 - 2013-02-17 03:20:31 UTC
i think it's not fair that cyclone gets 5% fire rate bonus when drake gets 10% kinetic dmg bonus and + 1 slot
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2357 - 2013-02-17 05:38:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jeanne-Luise Argenau
My impressions of the battlecruiser changes so far arent bad. But i will still say a few words to them. Lol

Amarr

  • I would like to see the removal of all laser cap boni on amarrian ships, instead reduce the damage boni abit and add a tracking boni plus increase their natural capacitor, where said boni existed.
  • Prophecy
    • looks like it will be a nice droneboat so thumbs up.
  • Harbinger
    • looks like a nice buff to me, but as i said before pls remove that cap boni its just worthless

Caldari

  • I'm not a Caldari Pilot so i will only say how it looks to me.
  • Ferox
    • Looks like a tough brawler where the range boni makes void alot more useful.
  • Drake
    • She appears to be not affected much. Before she was overtanky and undergunned, now she is slightly less overtanky and undergunned.

Gallente

  • Overall not much to say about, small changes but still the ol same boats. Only real thing i would like is one of them losing the Rep-Boni and getting something else instead.
  • Brutix
    • Nice close range blaster boat. If it would lose its Rep-Bonus and get a Tracking Bonus it would be a bigger Thorax.
    Edit: Forgot the Anci Armor Reps, they will boost that abit still prefer the Tracking Boni.
  • Myrmidon
    • Will become a nice drone boat (as it already is). Should this lose the Rep-Boni i would replace it either with a Drone Tracking Boni or Drone-MWD Boni.

Minmatar

  • Also a Faction i didnt use that often. So also only some impressions
  • Hurricane
    • I used it only after Retribution for standing grind and would say losing that one high doesnt change much.
  • Cyclone
    • A ship i have never flown but if i had a say in that i would want 6 missile launcher slots instead of 5.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#2358 - 2013-02-17 10:59:42 UTC
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
Harbinger
looks like a nice buff to me, but as i said before pls remove that cap boni its just worthless

The Fozz did explain this one:
If they halved the cap usage of lasers, then nocked 33% off the huge optimal, you could give the harby, (and all the other cap bonused ships,) an optimal bonus and have the same effects.
The weapon system itself has different benefits and problems.

Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
Gallente
Overall not much to say about, small changes but still the ol same boats. Only real thing i would like is one of them losing the Rep-Boni and getting something else instead.

The only thing I would like to change is this as well. But hey, Fozzy has said that it can still change.
I would like to see BCs have different bonuses to the other ships, and not just see them as scaled up or down versions of other cruisers or BS's.

Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:
Cyclone
A ship i have never flown but if i had a say in that i would want 6 missile launcher slots instead of 5.

Its still got those two utility slots that can use turrets to make up damage, as well as those 5 lows. I'm tempted with trying to wedge an XL booster on there in an exploration fit, for giggles.
Actually, this could end up being the poor/unskilled mans Tengu for exploration...

Friends
TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2359 - 2013-02-17 12:20:26 UTC
Fjury wrote:
Fu*k you CCP, last couple year you doing nothing than ruining this great game!

Last successful patch was Trinity! since this moment you ...... ...... .. .

And now you came up with that fu*king BC nerf and Only one ship which will be complety fu*ked up will be hurricane.

SHOW ME SOME GOOD BENEFITS!!!! except of lame targating range bonus

Hurricane:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets, 3 Launchers
Fittings: 1125 PWG, 400 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4250(-47) / 4500(-188) / 3500(-16)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(-562.5) / 592s(-158s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12800000 (+300,000) / 8.4s (+0.2)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km (+5) / 220 / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Ladar
Signature radius: 250 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 425 (-50)

+1
Firia O'Flame
Gunpoint Mercantile Associates
#2360 - 2013-02-17 15:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Firia O'Flame
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Sorry for not getting this post up sooner, been pretty busy here at CCP.



Thanks for posting replies to common questions. I have a question that needs addressing because it keeps coming up in conversation in game.

The Hurricane. We're all sad to see its glory diminish. It's been a staple of dominance on the field for as long as I can remember. The previous nerf has certainly reduced its ability. It's still the most versatile BC the minmatar have to offer.

But the upcoming proposed nerf doesn't put it on even ground with other BCs. In fact, other ships bury it. Myself and other capsuleers would like to hear more about why such an extreme nerf is necessary on top of an existing nerf.