These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#801 - 2013-01-11 01:15:05 UTC
fukier wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest?
Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships?
they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything... which is why you get one less slot...

Drones can also be selectively destroyed, unlike modules, and EW drones are subject to stacking penalties, on a per drone basis, not per flight.

I don't agree that losing a slot is a reasonable compromise, esp. if you are going to limit the drone bay size on Gallente ships to a single flight of max damage drones.
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#802 - 2013-01-11 01:15:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Inkarr Hashur
Mund Richard wrote:
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Well if Domi pilots aren't complaining about it I suppose there's likely no issue.

From hull to hull, the impact of just that one slot is different, based on how useful the rest of the guns and drones are.
The Domi is best off, since it has 18 compared to a Hyperions 19, plus it's one less turret than the tier 2s turret ships while still keeping pace more or less with it's second damage bonus. It's bay is HUUUGE, leading to many spare flights, so drones aren't that bad a liability on short term (their EHP added is comparable to the Domi's probably, and it's a hassle to kill 3-6 flights), they apply their damage to intended targets well.

In short: it doesn't have the Myrm's shortcomings.

Now, if it would get an extra slot, I wouldn't complain, but I won't protest as much as I do here, when the BS balancing pass comes.

Well it sounds like you've got a bone to pick regarding the Myrmidon's state. And the point I was trying to lead into originally was that I don't think that all drone boats need to lose a fitting slot, that it should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Since you said "From hull to hull, the impact of just that one slot is different, based on how useful the rest of the guns and drones are." this seems similar to an argument I could make to support my assertion that drone boats don't need to lose a fitting slot.

And since larger drone bays were handed out like candy with the retribution patch, and this new BC balancing update, it seems to me that utility is all over the place these days. Another obvious symptom of power creep.
Mund Richard
#803 - 2013-01-11 01:22:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Sizeof Void wrote:
Drones can also be selectively destroyed, unlike modules, and EW drones are subject to stacking penalties, on a per drone basis, not per flight.
Apart from ECM drones which - like the module they are based on - are only diminished by the fact that if one manages a cycle, the rest aren't making it worse.
But even moreso than the dedicated ECM ships, they are fragile.
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Well it sounds like you've got a bone to pick regarding the Myrmidon's state.
It would seem so, doesn't it?
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
And the point I was trying to lead into originally was that I don't think that all drone boats need to lose a fitting slot, that it should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Since you said "From hull to hull, the impact of just that one slot is different, based on how useful the rest of the guns and drones are." this seems similar to an argument I could make to support my assertion that drone boats don't need to lose a fitting slot.
And since larger drone bays were handed out like candy with the retribution patch, and this new BC balancing update, it seems to me that utility is all over the place these days. Another obvious symptom of power creep.
T1:
  • Algos and Dragoon : "Too new", no idea about them. Nothing really compares to them, so kinda tough.
    • 6 instead of 5 mid+low is HUGE, as is having 2-3 flights of lights instead of ZERO drones. THREE turrets lost hurts ofc...
  • Arbitrator : EWAR/Drone boat, 2 full spare flights, hard to evaluate since it's main purpose is not damage.
  • Vexor : The 2/2/1 loadout ain't funny. It can fit Neutrons, T2 MWD and T2 800 plate with a fitting rig, 2 DDA vs a Thorax with 2magstabs, their damage is within 7% (though not their range/tracking) while keeping 1.5 spare flights, so fair-ish.
  • Myrm : Cannot work the magic the Vexor can, 2 guns below the Brutix, and this time unbonused ones.
  • Prophecy : Haven't looked into it properly. Oops 7 lows with an armor bonus is crazy. 4-and-half flights of medium drones. The thing feels... wrong. Overtanked and underganked if not x3 DDA-d. The Drake for droneboats? T2 HAMs with Rage?
  • Domi : Detailed it already.
    • So while I don't like the drone slot nerf, when they have the tripple bay size and the double damage bonus (Roll), I can swallow it.

    "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.
    Omnathious Deninard
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #804 - 2013-01-11 01:26:35 UTC
    Sizeof Void wrote:
    fukier wrote:
    Tyberius Franklin wrote:
    Omnathious Deninard wrote:
    Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest?
    Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships?
    they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything... which is why you get one less slot...

    EW drones are subject to stacking penalties, on a per drone basis, not per flight.

    I was just testing this the other day and found it to be false. Each drone applies it effects seperatly, the easiest example is stasis web drones.
    Starting velocity 1000m/s
    5 SW-900 20% web effect

    1000*0.8=800
    800*0.8=640
    640*0.8=512
    512*0.8=409
    409*0.8=327

    Which is on paper better than a T2 stasis webifier, but it takes half of the DPS from a dominix to do this.

    If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
    Garviel Tarrant
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #805 - 2013-01-11 01:34:48 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Liang Nuren wrote:
    Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.

    I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.

    -Liang


    Yup that's a piece of feedback I've been getting from a lot of sources I consider weighty, and it's something I'm looking closely at.



    Talking about the prophecy

    I do hope this Proph design doesn't mean you're going to turn the Veng/Sac into drone boats. Seeing how both are incredibly satisfying and badass ships to fly in their current form (Although the later is a bit me due to well.. being an aHac)

    BYDI recruitment closed-ish

    Mund Richard
    #806 - 2013-01-11 01:38:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    Talking about the prophecy
    I do hope this Proph design doesn't mean you're going to turn the Veng/Sac into drone boats. Seeing how both are incredibly satisfying and badass ships to fly in their current form (Although the later is a bit me due to well.. being an aHac)

    If they do change the Vengeance, counting the mini-pilgrim Sentinel, you'll have more "drone" ships than the Gallente (unless the Keres or something changes).
    Plus it would mean the Khanid lost in some internal power struggle.

    Might be just me, but I don't quite see how a T2 cruiser - that is NOT the Ishtar - could be effective.
    It has a 375* bay, so amarr wouldn't gain the benefit of the larger bay and smaller bandwidth wouldn't really mean that much.
    Maybe a drone/missile with 50 bay...
    Oh wait, and then with the Pilgrim, amarr would have yet AGAIN an extra drone ship in the size-class over Gallente. Roll

    And that would be when I truly consider joining the Golden Fleet, or at least steal their blueprints.

    "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.
    Garviel Tarrant
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #807 - 2013-01-11 01:46:45 UTC
    Mund Richard wrote:
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    Talking about the prophecy
    I do hope this Proph design doesn't mean you're going to turn the Veng/Sac into drone boats. Seeing how both are incredibly satisfying and badass ships to fly in their current form (Although the later is a bit me due to well.. being an aHac)

    Edit: scratch that, wrong ships



    I personally think amarr should have 1 missile frig and a missile BC

    But thats just me

    BYDI recruitment closed-ish

    Weasel Juice
    Mayhem and Destruction
    #808 - 2013-01-11 01:48:00 UTC
    Harbinger has already been one of the weaker and less funny ships.

    So here are my thoughts on the most important parts.

    Fitting:
    CPU was slightly buffed, that's nice. CPU was always tight on Harbinger.
    PG was nerfed hard, that's not nice. Harbinger already can't fit heavy pulses right, let alone beams.
    Everyone else gets complete freedom of their weapon systems while using only one fitting mod if any for the biggest guns.
    Canes can fit 720s with just one RCU. Drakes can fit any weapon system without trouble. And now fitting Heavies gets even harder. Is that intentional?

    Armor tanking is already not viable because the PG is just too tight, and the reduction of armor buffer makes it even less likely.
    The slight CPU increase will make shield tanking a bit easier, but shield tanking doesn't work really well on a Harbinger since you need that cap injector to really fly well.

    I'm not sure what CCP wants the Harbinger to be able to do, but it definitely is not fitting weapons and shooting at ships.



    Damage difference:
    (Same assumptions as with cap, using conflag and no drones)
    Old Harbinger: 405.85DPS
    New Harbinger: 417.45DPS

    That is a 3% increase at Battlecruisers V. It definitely widens the gap between IV and V - people with low skills will cry, people with high skills will like it. Not sure whether we need to artificially widen gaps between older and newer players, but fine. I have the skills I don't care.



    Drone Bay:
    I like this one. It reflects nicely of the drone sympathy that Amarr generally has, without giving too much. Allows us to bring a bit more variety and it's a very soft buff. This is perfect.



    The other changes were minor, and mostly affected all BCs similarly, that they are more about changing the role of BCs in general, rather than tweaking individual battlecruisers.

    But all in all, the PG is an extremely hard nerf hammer. Harbinger is already very rare in PvP. It is mostly used by pilots who cannot afford a Zealot pretty much, or don't have a Hurricane. This proposed change would remove Harbinger entirely out of PvP (and possibly PvE too, since PG is really tough), so I hope you guys at CCP look at this again.
    Mund Richard
    #809 - 2013-01-11 01:52:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    I personally think amarr should have 1 missile frig and a missile BC
    But thats just me

    Honestly, I expected amarr to get missiles (you know, armor + missiles compared to the Caldari's shield),
    and Minnies to get drones (shields + drones to the Gallente's armor), to make things interesting.
    Always looked at the Phoon, and thought: "Man, does that thing look like a mini-carrier, or what? With a 175/200 bay already, surely it will get a drone bonus!"

    "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.
    Boltorano
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #810 - 2013-01-11 02:02:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Boltorano
    The way I've always thought it was supposed to be, considering secondary weapon systems (Turrets being the one thing everyone has):

    Most Missiles------------Least Missiles
    Caldari - Minmatar - Gallente - Amarr

    Most Drones--------------Least Drones
    Gallente - Amarr - Minmatar - Caldari

    This is ignoring T2 manufacturing corp's specific preferences (missiles for Khanid Innovations etc.), but considering Amarr has good representation already for drone ships in their T1 lineup I was really hoping/expecting a HAM Prophecy instead of a Drone Prophecy so they'd at least have two T1 hulls where missiles were more than an afterthought.

    With the removal of the missiles from the Tristan it almost makes sense to try to swap Gallente/Amarr on the missile line to make that diagram look more "balanced"
    Garviel Tarrant
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #811 - 2013-01-11 02:05:24 UTC
    I agree that missiles on t1 amarr ships don't really make sense..


    I just think they would be really good and amarr needs some good stuff =<

    BYDI recruitment closed-ish

    Boltorano
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #812 - 2013-01-11 02:11:02 UTC
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    I agree that missiles on t1 amarr ships don't really make sense..


    I just think they would be really good and amarr needs some good stuff =<


    I think it DOES make sense, and that's why I wish they had more of them. Ever since they rebalanced Sansha ships (four?) years ago, the option of combining missiles with armor tanks have been extremely limited outside of T2/T3.
    Mund Richard
    #813 - 2013-01-11 02:14:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Boltorano wrote:
    The way I've always thought it was supposed to be, considering secondary weapon systems (Turrets being the one thing everyone has):
    *snip*
    Can't really say I agree.
    To me, Gallente and missiles always felt weird.
    No ship but the SB/Recon had more than two (specifically, three each) launchers I believe, and no T1 had a bonus for it.
    Amarr had the Inquisitor properly bonused, and the Khanid line.

    If anything, those hardpoints felt like they were meant for defender missile launchers Roll
    Including Mega, but especially on the vulnerable Celestis. I mean, we fight against the Caldari...

    "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.
    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #814 - 2013-01-11 02:22:13 UTC
    Thank you for a reply to the relative long thread...

    I am in particular happy with the Goal of creating at least 1 battlecruiser for each race capable of using 1-2 warfare links without compromising the combat abilities. Currently people haven't used them a lot because of current mechanics.
    I just want to make sure you know how important this oportunity is to create flavour and make ALL of the battlecruisers interesting and not just go over many of them because they're "balanced".

    Btw have you considered lowering the cpu for command processors? fitting one can be VERY limiting atm. Either this OR allow T1 battlecruisers to fit 2 warfare links on the hull?

    The Prophecy gives versatility and I agree with the new line. Likely to be a good command ship too.
    The amount of armor buffer however combined with resist bonus and 7 lowslots makes me worried a lot. People already have crazy tanks on prophecy with 6 lowslots and less armor. Wouldn't this be the time to settle for a 16 slot layout just like the Myrmidon?

    The Harbinger needs to have a look at that 10% damage bonus, but I like keeping it in the old role and a 6 gun setup seems a good option. Perhaps consider 5 guns and a 100% bonus as an alternative... We've seen that bonus before. This even gives you a free utility slot...

    The Ferox is kind of growing on me. I only wish the hybrid rebalance was followed through and completed as the alpha is ridiculous low when sniping at anything with railguns.
    7/5/5 slot layout also seems very nice and allows to compensate for lack of damage bonus and still have lowslots for damage control and a tracking enhancer, however I have always felt a caldari shield tanking gunboat needed 6 medslots.

    Drake still looks boring as hell and I feel the resist bonus takes away from the cool looking Ferox and prevents a more agressive aproach to a missile boat. Plz consider giving it a more glorious role - Especially when the days as a fleet ship is over...

    Brutix will benefit from improved slot layout and I feel it's good. Few people will like the repair bonus and even though it has potential like a mini Hyperion. I think it will be important with more armor and less shield for armor reppers to catch on and be effecient... It does however not feel right with both gallente battlecruisers sharing the same repair bonus. So use it for Brutix or Myrmidon please, not both...

    Cyclone and Hurricane looks cool as well. I have a feeling however the Cyclone would benefit a lot from 6 medslots just like I feel for the Ferox. Active shield tanking is damn difficult in pvp and Im sure it need it.

    PinkyDK
    Mund Richard
    #815 - 2013-01-11 02:28:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Pinky Denmark wrote:
    I am in particular happy with the Goal of creating at least 1 battlecruiser for each race capable of using 1-2 warfare links without compromising the combat abilities. Currently people haven't used them a lot because of current mechanics.
    I just want to make sure you know how important this oportunity is to create flavour and make ALL of the battlecruisers interesting and not just go over many of them because they're "balanced".

    Btw have you considered lowering the cpu for command processors? fitting one can be VERY limiting atm. Either this OR allow T1 battlecruisers to fit 2 warfare links on the hull?

    The Prophecy gives versatility and I agree with the new line. Likely to be a good command ship too.
    The amount of armor buffer however combined with resist bonus and 7 lowslots makes me worried a lot. People already have crazy tanks on prophecy with 6 lowslots and less armor. Wouldn't this be the time to settle for a 16 slot layout just like the Myrmidon?

    The Harbinger needs to have a look at that 10% damage bonus, but I like keeping it in the old role and a 6 gun setup seems a good option. Perhaps consider 5 guns and a 100% bonus as an alternative... We've seen that bonus before. This even gives you a free utility slot...

    The Command Processor...
    If they were easy to fit like candy, that would be an issue as well.
    Two per ship... sounds interesting, but I dunno...

    Prophecy: 5 High + 4 Mid + 7 low = 16? Or do you mean 5 mids like the Myrm?
    Doesn't quite feel amarrian to have as many mids as a Caldari vessel. Though the buffer is brutal, and can be used for local rep as well.

    Harbringer: Wait, did you just suggest 10 gun's worth of dps there?

    "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.
    IbanezLaney
    The Church of Awesome
    #816 - 2013-01-11 02:31:41 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?

    This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.



    Check my hangers dude - I use them on this toons HM Drakes and on Feroxs.

    Removing the utility slot from the Drake will make it less likely that people will fit links to it - not more likely.

    Everything else looks good but just a logic fail removing the utility slot if you want people to on grid boost as you are removing an economical way of doing it for small corps/gangs.


    https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
    Fon Revedhort
    Monks of War
    #817 - 2013-01-11 02:37:04 UTC
    IbanezLaney wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?

    This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.



    Check my hangers dude - I use them on this toons HM Drakes and on Feroxs.

    Removing the utility slot from the Drake will make it less likely that people will fit links to it - not more likely.

    Everything else looks good but just a logic fail removing the utility slot if you want people to on grid boost as you are removing an economical way of doing it for small corps/gangs.



    No one is forced to fill up that utility wih link. So leaving the slot as-is just results in it being traditionally (ab)used for neut, cloak or w/e.

    Let's admit it: current slot number of Tier2's is insanely high, given they also have 3 rig slots.

    "Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
    Grath Telkin
    Amok.
    Goonswarm Federation
    #818 - 2013-01-11 02:39:34 UTC
    Mund Richard wrote:
    rep as well.

    Harbringer: Wait, did you just suggest 10 gun's worth of dps there?


    Yes, yes he did.

    Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
    Mund Richard
    #819 - 2013-01-11 02:46:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Grath Telkin wrote:
    Mund Richard wrote:
    rep as well.Harbringer: Wait, did you just suggest 10 gun's worth of dps there?
    Yes, yes he did.
    I suppose it's not THAT outlandish, Cane has 10 as well, if I did the math right.


    If we are at "interesting" suggestions already:
    Decrease the bandwidth/bay of Gallente ships to accomodate one flight and a spare of the hull's normal drone kind, and adjust the drone damage bonus to keep the drone dps on the same level.
    [edited due to fail in math, correct version here]
    Gallente keeps the higher damage, Amarr keeps the larger bays.
    And it's a lot more "neat". Orderly. Satisfying my OCD.

    Let's face it.
    Half the people like the Myrm's bandwidth buff because they flew it with 5 hammerheads till now, and compared to that, 4 ogres are an awesome jump.
    Mix-matched flights with their different speed and tracking aren't fun, nor is trying to replace one that gets killed when you only have the other in bay. Heck, Vexor/Myrm needed to keep 3 different sizes in bay (now the Proph). It's a nightmare! No wonder folk didn't bother!
    "Oversized" drones on targets of your size also not fun, specially when with MWD they can just kite the poor drones, leading to no damage applied.

    If we can step away from the traditional 5% damage bonus for a turret or 7.5% armor rep (incursus) even on T1 hulls, so should we be able to accept the "heresy" of not sticking blindly to 10% drone damage/hitpoint.

    "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.
    Grath Telkin
    Amok.
    Goonswarm Federation
    #820 - 2013-01-11 03:06:21 UTC
    Mund Richard wrote:

    Half the people like the Myrm's bandwidth buff because they flew it with 5 hammerheads till now, and compared to that, 4 ogres are an awesome jump.


    I think you'll find that most people like it because at one point and time the Myrm could field 5 Heavies, and this brings it back closer to the old days when the Myrm used to be one of the most fearsome BC's on the field. Same with the Gallent CS, the drone bandwidth changes killed all of that for anything sub BS.

    Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.