Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Retracted. I see what you did now. It was correct.

You must be blind, please carefully re-read the harbinger changes.

YEA ONE STAT GOT BUFFED WHILE THE REST GOT RAPED TO OBLIVION WOOO HOOO BREAK OUT THE PARTY FAVORS.

If I ignored the fact that the developers had previously posted plans for the BS revamp which does not include an Amarr drone ship, then I would think you make an excellent point.

But they did... and I didn't.

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530

I don't see why so many hulls lost that utility high, I thought the point of those utility highs was to utilize the role bonus to links. Now only the Harbinger has a strict utility high (except the minnies but cares about minmatar anyway). Why not spread that increased bonus concept to all the hulls and remove a hardpoint?

Or at least have one of those for each race.

EHP got nerfed... Cap got buffed. Drone bay got buffed. Targetting range got buffed. Sensor got buffed. Cargo got buffed.


L2read bro.

Mass got raped, ship is slower, overall the stats will be worse without near perfect skills.

So lets review:

Cap got buffed: Only because you're short one gun really, but since the ships going to likely be injected anyway WHO CARES.

Drone bay got buffed: Sweet because its so slow that your drones will be the only thing that ever gets in damage range

Targeting range got buffed: Sweet so you can watch that ship kite all the way away from you while you do absolutely no DPS outside of just over 20km

Sensor got buffed: Great, you'll still get jammed by 1 ECM 300 drone because those are still broken so maybe you wont actually get to watch him kite away.

Cargo got buffed: Great so its new role is a slower weaker hauler with less cargo than any actual hauler..

Sure am glad you actually play EVE bro.

I've noticed that everyone focuses, quite understandably, on the specific, ship-per-ship changes proposed, and I agree with many who said some nerfs are totally unnecessary, being myself of the opinion that for EVE to be more fun, good ships should remain good while bad ships should get better.
We've all appreciated the introduction of Tier3 BCs because they were GOOD ships, who in heavens would expect a game to become more fun when something which used to be good becomes instead bad, and what was bad becomes, well, slightly "meh"?

But the real problem here is, I think the concept of "tiericide" scales horribly bad when applied to battlecruisers.

Dear CCP Fozzie, battlecruisers aren't cruisers, obviously.
Cruisers have different roles inside the class, so it makes sense to keep them in many ways comparable to each other, there are Ewar ships, logistics, combat, assault, what they have in common is similar speed and staying powers so they can fly together , but completely different uses.
What are Battlecruisers instead? They are a mix between two classes, so depending on the design philosophy they could either be meant to provide more punch to a cruiser fleet (fast and nimble as cruisers but with a lot more firepower, or with heavier long range guns), or as armored and slow as battleships, but providing advantages to a battleship fleet (either as an advanced command post, or as a screen vessel against small boats, aircrafts, missiles, etc).
They could also be seen as a mixed ship meant to raid enemy commerce and punch small ships flotillas, with a combination of speed allowing it to outrun battleships, and firepower allowing it to outgun small ships.

I didn't see any "battlecruiser specific" thinking in that realm in the proposed changes though.
Fozzie, your (or CCP's) plan is, "[...] for these ships to have roughly comparable power levels. To that end most of the former Tier 1 ships are getting slots and most of the former Tier 2 ships are losing slots. We gave them EHP closer to the averages of the old Tier 1s and damage closer to the averages of the old Tier 2s."

Is this a good, deeply thought out and planned foundation to throw all the previous BC philosophy in the crapper?
I personally doubt it.

To this day we were supposed to have a Tier1 with fast(ish) ships meant to provide DPS to small gangs, a Tier2 with slower and tankier ships meant to provide screen to BS heavy gangs.
But the initial designs were already a bit flawed (speed never matched that of cruisers in the Tier1, and tank never matched a BS's in Tier2) plus in time things got mixed and changed, anyway we found ourselves with ships which were nor as fast as cruisers, nor as tanky as battleships.
Today the only ships doing what we could call a real BC work are Commanships and the long-awaited Tier3s.
Other BCs are usually flown either in battlecruisers-only gangs (that's an obvious sign of a flaw in the design of a ship which isn't able to fly along the other classes he should fly along with).
To fly along cruisers one can only use Tier3s (thankfully) or NanoCanes (or Cyclones if he's poor) because shield Minnie ships are decently fast.
Anyway most Tier1s around are usually flown solo, and mostly because they're cheap.

So PLEASE CCP Fozzie think about this.
Rethink the CONCEPT behind the rebalancing, and make it meaningful.
To review BCs, don't just nerf what's good and slightly fix what's terrible in the class, and don't copycat what you did about cruisers.

The work on Cruisers was awesome, but Battlecruisers are a very different beast, they ARE NOT cruisers so applying the same kind of reasoning to their "tiericide" is very dangerous and will kill the fun so many of these ships have provided us so far, without providing much more use to the ones which were instead neglected.

On a side note: if you plan to go ahead with the changes as proposed, what about the different prices we paid for BC hulls so far?
Tier2 hulls are sensibly more expensive than Tier1s but it would sound pointless to keep it that way if they'll have comparable stats.
So if someone bought a few replacement Canes or Drakes he'll just lose his ISK, as I can't imagine you'll raise the mineral requirements of Tier1s to the level of Tier2s given they're going to be just slightly better than cruisers in the proposed plan.
That sounds a bit unfair to me, and I'd expect it to cause quite a stir throughout the community.

You want to use BEAMS on a ship that already suffers crippling fitting issues?

Like seriously bro if you're just going to throw situational bullshit at whatever argument faces you thats cool and all but in this thread its already been pointed out that even with an 800 plate and Heavy Pulse laster you need fitting implants, and thats SUPER WEAK tank wise since you know, many cruisers can fit a 1600 plate for a tank.

But hey, you go ahead and argue that you're going to fit BEAMS (the harder to fit gun) on that ship, I guess tank is completely overrated.

Just hang it up boss, you looked at one stat, saw a change, and didn't look at what happened to the rest of the ship. Its ok to be wrong, just try not to drag it out like this because its silly.

2.1% of a ship thats already super slow can in fact be devastating, trying to fit beams to take advantage of some silly increase in lock range and then being ass naked because theres no fitting room left for a tank and calling that a buff is also silly. The whole sensor strength argument is ******** when stated as a buff because EC-300's dont give a damn what your sensor strength is at all, they just jam you. Turns out you could have a sensor strength of 10 million and 1 EC-300 will jam you out. You could fit a full flight in before so I'm not sure what your point is.

Just face it, you failed to notice the other changes that take a mediocre ship and basically make it the worst of all the BC's.

I want to make some snide comment about your game knowledge but at this point your just grasping at straws trying to prove your originally wrong statement so I'll just let you keep going with that because it does the job for me.