These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Stanly Wigglignton
GaggyMcGee And The Uptown Dread Rockers
#921 - 2013-01-11 18:20:29 UTC
Hi, I know this is a selfish question, but I'm sure a lot of other people will be wondering this too:

What date (roughly) will the eventual changes go onto Buckinham, and live on Tranquility?
I know you can't give an exact ansdwer to the question, because good things are 'ready when they're ready', but will it be less than a month, 1-2 months or later in the spring?
Thanks
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#922 - 2013-01-11 18:41:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Adriel Malakai
Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things...
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#923 - 2013-01-11 18:45:12 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things...


I can't agree more, normalizing recharge rate between all of them just seems like a "balancing cop out". Incorporating cap recharge into the balance scheme of each ship is a far better idea. As an example, gallente and amarr should have have higher recharge rates in comparison to matari and caldari.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#924 - 2013-01-11 18:47:47 UTC
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things...

Standartized cap recharge rates are already implemented for frigates, destroyers and cruisers due to tiercide.
Mund Richard
#925 - 2013-01-11 18:48:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Standartized cap recharge rates are already implemented for frigates, destroyers and cruisers due to tiercide.

The things you learn.

"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.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#926 - 2013-01-11 18:54:16 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things...

Standartized cap recharge rates are already implemented for frigates, destroyers and cruisers due to tiercide.


By that logic, speed, mass, and agility should be normalized as well... Using the excuse of "tiericide" to side tracking the discussion of over normalization is not a great argument.

The reality is that certain ships use more cap than others and should have cap recharge that coincides with this... I'm not saying that cap recharge should "normalize" the cap usage between ships, however it should at the very least be a balancing/flavor factor.
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#927 - 2013-01-11 18:56:30 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things...

Standartized cap recharge rates are already implemented for frigates, destroyers and cruisers due to tiercide.


That doesn't even remotely make sense.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#928 - 2013-01-11 18:56:43 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things...


The average cap/second is the same but the nature of capacitor recharge (it's not flat but rather is a curve with the peak recharge around 25%, if I recall) means that they will work notably different in practice, since each ship has a larger or smaller capacitor capacity and recharge time.

Case in point: Compare a Brutix and a Cyclone, for example, both running nothing but an Experimental 10mn MWD. The cyclone can run that for around 17.5 minutes, the brutix for more like 23m, despite identical average cap/second. Of course, the brutix then goes and takes advantage of that by firing cap hungry guns and tackling gear and maybe running a repper (or probably not since active repping is sort of bad), while the Cyclone is running shield tank modules and possibly a point, and in the end they wind up with similar capacitor durations (~20 seconds apart or so depending on just how they're fit).

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#929 - 2013-01-11 19:00:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinigr Shadowsong
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

By that logic, speed, mass, and agility should be normalized as well... Using the excuse of "tiericide" to side tracking the discussion of over normalization is not a great argument.


I dont remember much complanes back then when it was first used for attack frigates. It was obvious from the beginning that same pattern will be used for other shiptypes and sizes as well. It is not the tendention that might rise but already a direction CCP follows. I'm not implying that it is good or bad, but it should be looken into more complexly than just BCs.

Inkarr Hashur wrote:

That doesn't even remotely make sense.


Where was you with your "not making sense" when it already happened half a year ago?
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#930 - 2013-01-11 19:04:32 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

By that logic, speed, mass, and agility should be normalized as well... Using the excuse of "tiericide" to side tracking the discussion of over normalization is not a great argument.


I dont remember much complanes back then when it was first used for attack frigates. It was obvious from the beginning that same pattern will be used for other shiptypes and sizes as well. It is not the tendention that might rise but already a direction CCP follows.

Inkarr Hashur wrote:

That doesn't even remotely make sense.


Where was you with your "not making sense" when it already happened half a year ago?


CCP has made mistakes, and will so again, most specifically in regards to ship balance. I'd be far more in favor of going back and changing cap recharge amounts on cruisers/frigs than to just let this overly mathematically simple "direction" continue to fruition.
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#931 - 2013-01-11 19:05:11 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Twisted


This. Drop rep bonus on Brutix for tracking?

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#932 - 2013-01-11 19:12:35 UTC
Wacktopia wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Twisted


This. Drop rep bonus on Brutix for tracking?


Negative, we already have the talos for that... Brutix needs to fallow the hype line, not the rax, talos, megathron line.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#933 - 2013-01-11 19:19:02 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Inkarr Hashur wrote:

Attacking the resistance buff won't cause people to start putting reps on ships with no defense bonus at all. They'll still go for buffer. People rarely even put reppers on the ships that have an active rep bonus, only doing so in special select circumstances.

Putting active rep on ship without rep bonus is a common thing in PvE. I can safely assume that absolute majority pilots use active reps in PvE.
Also I dont realy want to see lot of active tanking in PvP because it can often feel unfair when you just cant break target's tank. PvP in games with such mechanics (heavy relience on self-sustain) is usualy boring and tedious. Try to make a 3v3 with (Drake + 2 Basilisks) and (Drake + 2 Basilisks) and you will get the idea how bad it can be with abundance of active tank. Overall passive tanking is more healthy for PvP.
Another suggestion: how about a fast self-repairing module with long cooldown? Something that gives quickly gives you 30-70% of your armor/shield but then unusable for next few minutes. With such things active repair bonuses would be used both in PvE and PvP. If you fit 2-3 of such modules on your ship you will get more EHP than by passive tank but it will come at cost of higher skillcap, cap dependence and lower outside repair potential.
This is already in the game. They called it "ancillary shield booster."

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#934 - 2013-01-11 19:48:43 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
This is already in the game. They called it "ancillary shield booster."

ASB was implemented poorly being overpowered on some ships by using 2 oversized ones and useless with intended module size. No such thing for amor though.
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#935 - 2013-01-11 19:55:13 UTC
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:
God word about faction/pirate cruisers


What this man said. Pretty please?
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#936 - 2013-01-11 20:00:53 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
This is already in the game. They called it "ancillary shield booster."

ASB was implemented poorly being overpowered on some ships by using 2 oversized ones and useless with intended module size. No such thing for amor though.


ASB should never have been added, period. It was a dumb idea suggestion by baddies in a fail "new modules" sticky thread started by ccp.

The reality is that actual, active shield tanking is something more or less non existent now. With shield tanks prior to the advent of asb's being commonly recognized as "the best active tanks", them being "replaced" by the better asb is a clear sign of a broken module.
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#937 - 2013-01-11 20:17:04 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

By that logic, speed, mass, and agility should be normalized as well... Using the excuse of "tiericide" to side tracking the discussion of over normalization is not a great argument.


I dont remember much complanes back then when it was first used for attack frigates. It was obvious from the beginning that same pattern will be used for other shiptypes and sizes as well. It is not the tendention that might rise but already a direction CCP follows. I'm not implying that it is good or bad, but it should be looken into more complexly than just BCs.

Inkarr Hashur wrote:

That doesn't even remotely make sense.


Where was you with your "not making sense" when it already happened half a year ago?


Where was I? Not on the forums I'm sure.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#938 - 2013-01-11 20:18:03 UTC
ASBs was a super nice addition for the single ASB users, but the dual ASB's broke the pvp game and CCP crapped on their own ideas balancing dual use and ******* up single use...

But yes I was a spokesman for fixing real active tanking instead of ignoring the problems and inventing something new. The idea of the ASB however is good. It's just very poorly implemented and the last nerf didn't help gameplay at all :-(

Pinky
FishySquirrel
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#939 - 2013-01-11 20:18:43 UTC
Just what the harbinger needed, more damage and less hitpoints and even speed...It isn't like it already it the first (non-tier3) primary in every BC gang....oh wait, it is.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#940 - 2013-01-11 20:21:49 UTC
So whats this hint about buffing active armor tanking? Will all modules just get a straight buff you think? Will their be an armor ASB? Will they use less cap or something?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.